Item 1 - Memo and Attachments 1-2GPC 11117/16
ITEM 1
MEMORANDUM
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
To: General Plan Committee
From: Joel Paulson, Community Development Director ·11
North 40 Specific Plan Amendments Subject:
Date: November 11 , 2016
At the November 17 , 2016 General Plan Committee (GPC) meeting the GPC will continue their
review the Town Counci l's suggestions for amendments to the North 40 Specific Plan and
provide recommendations regarding the suggestions to the Planning Commission.
Attachment 1 consists of public comments received between October 27 , 2016 and
November 11, 2016. Attachment 2 contains a copy of the Conditional Use Permit Table from the
Town Code. The highlighted uses on Attachment 2 are uses that are not accounted for in the
North 40 Specific Plan. Additionally, the following uses are permitted in the North 40 Specific
Plan, but require a Conditional Use Permit in Downtown and/or other commercial areas in Town:
• Formula Retail
• Market Hall/Specialty Market
• Restaurant with or without alcohol service
• Super Drugstore
• Supermarket
• Personal Service
• Hotel
• Financial Institution
• Park, Plaza, Playground
• Public Building
• Public Transportation and Parking Facilities
• Alternating Use/Shared Parking of Off-Street Parking Spaces
• Botanical Nursery
Attachments:
1. Public comments received between October 27 ,2016 and November 11 ,2016
2. Conditional Use Permit Table
' I )J ·\ · oJ'( \of'< \hn1 ~ ~,!It• vl' \1''\m,!ldll 17.1 :
~
EDEN
HOUSING
SUMMER HI LL HOMES -
GROSV ENOR COM MUNITIES Or DISTINCTIO N
November 11 , 2016
Mayor Spector, Vice Mayor Sayoc, and General Plan Committee Members
c/o Mr. Joel Paulson , Community Development Director
Town of Los Gatos Planning Department
110 E. Main St.
Los Gatos, California 95031
Dear Mr. Paulson :
On September 1, 2016, the Town Council denied the application of Grosvenor, SummerHill and
Eden Housing, Inc. (the "Applicants") to develop approximately 20.7 acres ("Phase 1") of the
44-acre North 40 Specific Plan Area with 320 market and senior/affordable residential units and
neighborhood-serving retail stores and restaurants (the "Project"). On October 6, 2016, the
Applicants commenced proceedings in Santa Clara County requesting the court to direct the
Town to comply with the Town's Housing Element, the Housing Accountability Act and State
Density Bonus Law and compel the Town to approve the Project based on its consistency with the
objective requirements of the existing Specific Plan . Therefore, any subsequent amendment to
the Specific Plan will be invalidated and/or superseded to the extent it is in any way inconsistent
with the anticipated court ruling, directing the Town to approve the Project based on the objective
requirements of the existing Specific Plan. The Town therefore shou ld refrain from consider ing or
adopting any amendment to the Specific Plan until the pending litigation regarding the Proj ect is
finally resolved. If, however, the Town insists on prematurely pursuing its consideration of the
proposed amendments to the Specific Plan, Grosvenor, SummerHill, and Eden Housing submit
the following comments:
The Town of Los Gatos General Plan Committee is currently discussing potential mod ificat ions to
the adopted North 40 Specific Plan. Town representatives have stated that the desire is to modify
the Plan withou t triggering the reopening or changing of the existing Ca lifornia Environmental
Quality Act ("CEQA") approval : the Specific Plan's Environmental Impact Report ("EIR"). In
reviewing the Town Council Meeting from September, 2016 and the first General Plan Committee
meeting on October 26, 2016, we bel ieve it is prudent to remind the Committee of the specific
reasons that certain planning decisions were made during the extensive pub lic Specific Plan
approval process. In that effort, we have the following comments for your consideration .
1) Modification of the land uses within the Specific Plan, which is being contemplated by the
General Plan Committee, could significantly impact the Traffic Impact Ana lysis ("TIA")
completed fo r the Specific Plan EIR and require reopening or changing of the existing
CEQA approvals . Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15163, these
changes will trigger the need for either a subsequent EIR or a supplemental EIR due to the
potential substantial increase in severity of environmental impacts and/or the need f or new
or additional m itigations . In particu lar:
.ATTACHMENT 1
a . The impacts of an additional ingress and egress driveway for commercial use
access between the existing gas station and existing commercial structures on Los
Gatos Boulevard was never studied, including the trip distribution that such a
change would cause. Figure 26 of the TIA is attached which reflects the ingress
and egress locations that the Specific Plan studied. This is attached as Exhibit A.
b. The TIA explains that the baseline for establishing all future intersection "grades"
or impacts were based on the trip distribution that was assigned based on the
existing Specific Plan uses per district, with the majority of the housing (a lower
traffic generating land use) to be located in the Lark District and Transition
Districts. Please see Exhibit B.
Modifying the land uses in the Lark, Transition, and Northern districts changes the
very backbone that the TIA is based on, thereby potentially changing impact
results of each intersection . Most notably, a decrease of housing and increase in
commercial in the Lark and Transition Districts will change the trip distribution and
will have a significant impact on the intersection of Highland Oaks Drive and Lark
Avenue. Therefore, additional traffic analysis would need to be completed that
reflects any proposed land use changes and their resulting impact.
2) In reference to the GPC deliberation on requiring age-restricted (senior) housing, we
submitted comment on February 13, 2015 regarding the legality of any mandatory
requirement for any amount of senior housing. We have included this letter as Exhibit C .
In summary, while senior housing can be incentivized, due to Fair Housing laws, both
State and Federal law dictate that it cannot be a mandatory requirement. In brief:
"Federal and state statutes forbid the Town from enacting or enforcing land-use laws that
operate to make housing "unavailable" based on "familial status.". "Familial status" is
generally defined as a household containing a person under 18 years of age residing with
a parent or guardian. (Gov't Code § 12955. 2.)
In particular:
• The federal Fair Housing Act ("FHA'1 (42 U.S. C.§ 3604(a)) forbids actions
by cities that operate to make housing "unavailable" based on familial
status [and other listed factors].
• The California Fair Employment and Housing Act ("FEHA ") (Gov't Code §
12955(1)) prohibits discrimination through land use practices that make
housing opportunities "unavailable" because of familial status.
• Planning and Zoning Law (Gov't Code § 65008(a)(1)) invalidates any
planning action if it denies the enjoyment of residence to any persons
because of familial status, age, [or other factors]. Section 65008(b)(1)
forbids cities from prohibiting or discriminating against any residential
development because of familial status or age."
3) As noted in our letter dated August 9 , 2016, the Town does not have any legal nexus for
requiring any percentage of open space. We have attached extended comments on this
issue as Exhibit D, but in summary:
2
"A requirement for provision of public access to open space (including on the 30 percent
already required by the Specific Plan) cannot be justified unless it is needed to mitigate the
impacts of private development. The standard of the Nollan, Dolan, and Ehrlich cases
requires that there be an essential nexus to the impacts of the Project, and that the
requirement be roughly proportional to those impacts .
However, this nexus requirement is not satisfied in the North Forty Specific Plan . There is
no impact on public open space due to the passage of the North Forty Specific Plan or the
planned development of the Plan Area. The EIR for the Specific Plan identifies no such
impact, and the Town has no ordinance consistent with the Quimby Act requiring public
open space in new developments, since there is already abundant public open space in
the Town , including open space close to the Plan Area. The EIR concluded that there is
adequate public open space nearby to serve the Project."
We have dedicated years to the evaluation of the North 40 Specific Plan and are in a unique
position to comment on its details and that of its supporting documents. If the discussion on
amendments to the North 40 Specific Plan are to continue, we hope that these comments are
considered . We also request that this correspondence be distributed to all members of the Town
Council and Planning Commission. Thank you.
Sincerely,
a~-
A. Don Capobres
Principal
Harmon ie Park Development
Representing Grosvenor Americas
cc: Los Gatos Town Council
Mayor Barbara Specter
Vice Mayor Marico Sayoc
Linda Mandolini
President
Eden Housing
Council Member Marcia Jensen
Council Member Steven Leonardis
Council Member Rob Rennie
Town of Los Gatos Planning Commission
Chair Mary Badame
Vice Chair Michael Kane
Commissioner Melanie Hanssen
Commissioner Matthew Hudes
Commissioner Tom O 'Donnell
Commissioner Kendra Burch
Commissioner Charles Erekson
\
--~
Wendi Baker
Vice President of Development
SummerHill Homes
3
Exhibit A
North 40 Specific Plan TIA
March 2014
11. PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION
This chapter describes site access and internal circulation for vehicles, pedestrians, bicycles, and transit
vehicles based on the conceptual site plan presented on Figure 26. It also provides general
recommendations for parking. The discussion in this chapter is conceptual. A detailed site circulation
evaluation should be conducted when parcel-level development proposals are submitted .
PROJECT PHASING
The North 40 Specific Plan is anticipated to be implemented over time and in several phases. Figure 26
presents the three Specific Plan districts. From south to north, those districts are:
Lark District: Residential uses, which will be developed first. Access via Los Gatos
Boulevard/Neighborhood Street and Lark Avenue/A Street-Highland Oaks .
Transition District: A mix of uses , some of which will be developed at the same time as Lark
District. Access via Los Gatos Boulevard/Neighborhood Street, Los Gatos Boulevard/Noddin Lane
and Los Gatos Boulevard/Samaritan Drive-Burton Road .
Northern District: Mix of uses, including retail , entertainment, hotel and office (under Project
Alternative B). This district will be developed last. Access via Los Gatos Boulevard/Noddin Lane
and Los Gatos Boulevard/Samaritan Drive-Burton Road.
Fehr & Peers anticipates that improvements will be made to Los Gatos Boulevard/Neighborhood Street
and Lark Avenue/A Street-Highland Oaks when the Lark and Transition Districts are developed. We
anticipate that project-related mitigations and improvements at Los Gatos Boulevard/Samaritan Drive -
Burton Road will be made in conjunction with construction in the Northern District. Permanent medians
and bicycle facilities should be installed on Los Gatos Boulevard at project build-out. In the interim, the
center median will be somewhat temporary but still provide the access control (limiting left turns out at
side streets). This study presents an analysis of the transportation impacts from full development of all
three districts described in the Specific Plan.
VEHICLE SITE ACCESS AND CIRCULATION
Access to the North 40 project site and its internal street network will be provided via three access points
on Los Gatos Boulevard (Burton Road-Samaritan Drive, Noddin Avenue, and Neighborhood Street) and
one access point on Lark Avenue (at Highland Oaks Drive-South A Street). Burton Road/A Street,
Neighborhood Street, and Noddin Avenue provide access to parking and minor streets within the
development. The access points are described as follows and shown on Figure 26:
Los Gatos Boulevard /B urton Road -S amaritan Drive: Signalized access point that provides access
to the northern portion of the North 40 site.
Los Gatos Boulevard/Noddin Avenue: Unsignalized access p oint that is restricted to right-in, right-
out only.
169
North 40 Specific Plan TIA
March 2014
Los Gatos Boulevard/Neighborhood Street: Signalized access point that provides access to the
central portion of the North 40 site. A traffic signal, pedestrian signal heads and crosswalks will be
installed at this location . To reduce the potential for delays along Los Gatos Boulevard , we
recommend that separate lanes be provided for left turning and right turning vehicles exiting the
project site .
Lark Avenue/Highland Oaks-South A Street: Unsignalized access point that provides right-in, left-
in, and right-out access to the project site. An eastbound left-turn lane will be added to the
existing intersection at Highland Oaks .
Except at Noddin Avenue, left turn lanes are provided on Los Gatos Boulevard and Lark Avenue at the site
entrances to accommodate entering traffic and prevent queues . The added left turn lane at Los Gatos
Blvd/Neighborhood Street would coincide with the existing two-way left turn lane at this location. To
minimize delays and conflicts due to left-turning vehicles, no left turns are permitted out of the project
site at the Noddin Avenue-Terreno De Flores/Los Gatos Boulevard intersection. Our analysis assumes that
no left turns would be permitted into Noddin Avenue .and Terreno De Flores at this intersection; however,
it is possible to install median diverters to allow inbound left turns while preventing outbound left turns. A
median island could be provided at Bennett Avenue to preserve existing access for the businesses located
on the west side of Los Gatos Boulevard.For all project driveways, we recommend keeping the area in
front of the stop bar free of visually obstructive landscaping to provide adequate sight distance. Service
vehicles have access to the project site via the access points on Los Gatos Boulevard and Lark Avenue.
These vehicles will circulate through the internal street network to the various trash enclosures, loading
docks and service entrances .
The circulation for the proposed internal and adjacent street network was reviewed for issues related to
queuing, safety, and dead-end aisles. All internal and adjacent streets accommodate two-way travel.
170
0 100 200 300 400 Feet ~
--District Boundary
.......
STOO'
+
Proposed Road
Existing Traffic Signal
Proposed Traffic Signal
Side Street Stop Sign
Permitted Veh icl e
Turning Movements
Figure 26 .
Conceptual Site Plan
N :1Projects\SJ09 _ 11 30 Nor1h _Forty_ Specific_Pia n\Graphics\AOOBE\Fig_26_ Conceptual_ Site _Pian.ai
February, 20 14
I
I
\
__ \
1
I
\ \~
\
North Forty Specific Plan
FEHR-I"PE::v
Exhibit B
North 40 Spectfic Plan TIA
March 2014
3. PROJECT TRAFFIC ESTIMATES
Development within the North 40 Specific Plan Area ("the project") will add vehicle traffic to the
surrounding roadways from residents traveling to and from thei r homes and customers traveling to and
from retail and entertainment uses on the project site. Under the Project A alternative, some project traffic
will also be generated by employees traveling to and from office space within the Plan Area .
The processes used to estimate the amount of traffic and how the traffic will approach and depart the site
are described in this chapter. The amount of traffic produced by the proposed project is called "trip
generation," and the directions of approach and departure are called "trip distribution." The se two steps
are combined and the project traffic is added to individual roadway segments and intersection turning
movements in the "trip assignment" step .
TRIP GENERATION
Trip generation for the site was determined using rates developed by the Institute of Transportation
Engineers (ITE) and published in Trip Generation Efh Edition . Trip generation was developed separa tely for
the two project alternatives.
Based on the Specific Plan , residential uses for both project alternatives were assumed to include 73
cottage cluster units, 73 apartments and 218 townhouses. The majority of these residences would be
located in the Lark District in the southernmost portion of the site, although some apartments and
condominiums would be located in the Tran sition District as well. Since tenants have not yet been
determined for the retail components, retail was analyzed u sing the ITE rate for shopping centers (ITE Rate
820). Office uses , which replace some retail uses under Project Alternative A, were assumed to be split
evenly between general office and medical office uses .
The area surrounding the project site is largely built out, so it is appropriate to assume that some trips to
and from the project will be taken by people passing by the site (pass-by trips) or diverted from nearby
routes (diverted trips). These trips are assumed to be reflected in existing intersection counts and can
therefore be removed from trip gene ra tion estimates for the project.
Pass-by trip reduct ions were taken for retail uses . The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA)
publishes guidance for diverted and pass-by trip reductions in its Transportation Impact Analysis
Guidelines (2009). ITE studies report that pass-by and diverted linked trip reduction rates average 34
percent for retail uses (Trip Generation, 2004). VTA guidelines list slightly lower trip reduction rates. To
present a conservative analysis and comply with VTA guidelines, we reduced retail trips by 25 percent. All
pass-by trips are included in the level of service analysis at the project driveways.
The Specific Plan locates residential and retail uses within walking distance of each other, making it likely
that residents will walk or bicycle to retail and entertainment uses . Thi s will reduce trips to and from both
retail and residential land uses . Based on VTA guidelines, a reduction equivalent to 30 percent of
residential trips was applied to reflect a 15 percent reduction of residential trips plus an equal number of
matching trips generated by retail uses . This re sulted in a total mixed-use redu ction of 784 dail y trips, 60
AM peak trips and 76 PM peak trips, or 30 percent of all residential trips for both project alternatives.
40
North 40 Specific Plan TIA
March 2014
Table 11 summarizes trip generation for Project Alternative A; Table 12 summarizes t rip generation fo r
Project Alternative B. The trip generation was approved by Town of Los Gatos staff before analysis was
conducted.
41
North 40 Specific Plan TIA
March 2014
TABLE 11-NORTH 40 TRIP GENERATION TABLE-PROJECT ALTERNATIVE A
Jl
Weekday AM Peak
ITE# Land Use Type Method Size Type -
Daily In Out Total In Out
Commercial Development
820 Shopping Center Best Fit 269 ksf 12,920 6,460 6,460 276 168 108
Pass-by Reduction1 25% (3,230) (1 ,615) (1 ,615) (69) (42) (27)
Retail Subtotal 9,690 4,845 4,845 207 126 81
310 Hotel Best Fit I
Linear Rate2 150 rm 970 485 485 68 41 27
720 Medical-Dental Office Best Fit I 62.5 ksf 2,341 1,171 1,170 144 114 30 Building Linear Rate3
710 General Office Best Fit 62.5 ksf 929 465 464 129 114 15 Building
Residential Development
Cottage Cluster Units
210 (Sing le-Fami ly Best Fit 73 Units 778 389 389 61 15 46
Detached Rate)4
220 Apartment Best Fit 73 Units 566 283 283 40 8 32
230 Residential Best Fit 218 Units 1,267 634 633 96 16 80 Condominium
Residential Subtotal 2,611 1,306 1,305 197 39 158
Project Subtotal 16,541 8,272 8,269 745 434 311
Mixed Used Trip Reduction5 (784) (392) (392) (60) (12) (48)
Project Total 15,757 7,880 7,877 685 422 263
Notes:
·' PM Peak
Total In Out
1,235 605 630
(309) (151) (158)
926 454 472
89 47 42
187 so 137
149 25 124
79 50 29
58 38 20
114 76 38
251 164 87
1,602 740 862
(76) (50) (26)
1,526 690 836
1. Based on VTA guidelines, a pass-by reduction of 25 percent was taken from shopping center trip generati on. Pass-by tri ps were removed from throug h movements and added
to in/out movements at project driveways. 2. Regression equation used for Weekday and AM, average rate used for PM (no equation available). Assumed 600 sq ft/rm and 20 ksf
common space.
3. Regression Equation used for Weekday and PM , average rate used for AM (no equation available).
4. Trips for Cottage Cluster Units were developed using the JTE Single Family Detached uni t rate. This rate is higher than other residential rate s and pro duces higher trip
generation number. It was used to present a conservative (higher) trip g eneration.
5. Based on VT A guid el ines, a reducti on equivalent to 30 percent of residential trips was appl ied to reflect a 15 percent reduction of res idential trips plus an equal number of
match ing trips generated by retail uses. Source: Institute of Transportation Eng i neers, Trip Generation If" Edit i on, 2008; Fehr & Peers , 2013.
i 42
North 40 Specific Plan TIA
March2014
TABLE 12-NORTH 40 TRIP GENERATION TABLE-PROJECT ALTERNATIVE B
Weekday AM Peak rru Land Use Type Method Size Type
Daily In Out Total In Out -
Commercial Development
820 Shopping Center Best Fit 400 ksf 16,938 8,469 8,469 353 215 138
Pass-by Reduction1 25% (4,235) (2,117) (2,117) (88) (54) (35)
Retail Subtotal 12,703 6,352 6,352 265 161 103
Best Fit I
310 Hotel Linear 150 rm 970 485 485 68 41 27
Rate2
Residential Development
Cottage Cluster Units
210 (ITE Single-Family Best Fit 73 units 778 389 389 61 15 46
Detached Ratd
220 Apartment Best Fit 73 units S66 283 283 40 8 32
230
Residential
Best Fit 218 units 1,267 634 633 96 16 80 Condominium
Residential Subtotal 2,611 1,306 1,305 197 39 158
Project Subtotal 16,284 8,143 8,142 530 241 288
Mixed Used Trip Reduction4 (784) (392) (392) (60) (12) (48)
Project Total 15,500 7,751 7,750 470 229 240
Notes:
PM Peak
Total In Out
1,632 800 832
(408) (200) (208)
1,224 600 642
89 47 42
79 50 29
58 38 20
114 76 38
251 164 87
1,564 811 753
(76) (50) (26)
1,488 761 727
1. Based on VTA guidelines, a pass-by reduction of 25 percent was taken from shopping center trip generation . Pass -by trips were re moved from through movements and added
to i n/out movements at project driveways .. 2. Regression equation used for Weekday and AM , average rate used for PM (no equation available). As sumed 600 sq ft/rm and 20 ksf
non-living space for total of 110 ksf.
3. Tr ips for Cottage Clu ster Units were developed using the ITE Single Family Detached unit rate. This rate is higher than other residential rates and produces higher trip
generation number. It was used to present a conserva tive (higher) trip generation.
4. Based on VTA guidelines, a r eduction equivalent to 30 percent of re sid entia l trips was applied to reflect a 15 percent reduction of r esidential trips plus an equal number of
matching trips generated by retail uses. So urce : Institute of Transportat ion Eng i neers, Trip Generation Ff' Edition, 2008; Fehr & Peers, 2013
[• D 43
TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT
The directions of approach and departure for project trips were estimated using the existing street and
h ighway network, the Albright Transportation Impact Analysis (2012) and local knowledge. Retail uses are
assumed to attract more trips from the immediate vicinity than office and residential land uses; therefore,
two trip distributions were developed : one for retail land uses and another for office and residential land
uses. Trip distribution was approved by staff at the Town of Los Gatos before analysis was conducted. The
resulting major directions of approach and departure are shown on Figure 7 .
Project trips were assigned to the roadway system based on the directions of approach and departure
described above, with existing street geometries taken into account. Pass-by trips for project retail outlets
were assigned to project driveways using the same trip distribution and assignment assumptions as other
project-generated trips.
To provide adequate access to the project site, the analys i s assumed the following changes to intersection
geometry:
Highland Oaks/Lark Avenue:
o Add one eastbound left-turn lane on Lark Avenue allowing left-in access to the project
site;
o Remove the existing westbound left onto Highland Oaks Drive (retaining access for fire
vehicles);
o Add right-out stop-controlled project driveway out of the project site;
o Permit westbound veh icles on Lark to turn right into project site;
o Restrict northbound movement from Highland Oaks Drive to right turn only.
Los Gatos Boulevard at Noddin Avenue -Terrene De Flores Lane 1:
o Allow only right-in and right-out access to project site;
o Allow only right-in and right-out access to residential neighborhood on Terrano De Flores
Lane;
o Remove left-turn lanes onto Noddin Avenue and Terreno De Flores Lane.
Los Gatos Boulevard and Neighborhood Street (new intersection proposed between Noddin
Avenue and Bennett Way):
o Construct new signalized intersection at Los Gato s Boulevard and Neighborhood Street;
o Add northbound left -turn lane;
o Add signal -controlled project driveway permitting eastbound left and right turns .
AM and PM peak hour trip assignments at the study intersections for Existing plu s Project A Conditions
are shown on Figure 8. Trip assignments for Existing plus Project B Conditions are shown on Figure 9.
Existing and proposed project access points are presented on Figure 26 in Chapter 11.
1 Our analysi s assumes that no left turns would be permitted into Noddin Avenue and Terreno De Flores; however, it is possible to
inst all median diverters to allow inbound left turns while prevent i ng outbound left turns at this inter sect ion.
44
Exhibit C
~
GROSV E NOR EDEN
HOUSING
February 13, 2015
Town of Los Gatos
Honorable Mayor Jensen and Council Members
Housing Element Advisory Board
SUMMERHILL HOMEs ·
COMMUNIT I~S Or DISTINCT I ON
c/o Laurel Prevetti , Assistant Town Manager and Community Development D irector
110 E. Main St.
Los Gatos , California 95031
Honorable Mayor Jensen, Council Members, and Housing Element Advisory Board Members:
At the February 3rd, 2015 Town Council Meeting, Council sought direction from Staff and the
Town Attorney to determine what the legal limitations may be for requiring developers on the
North 40 to provide for either an age 55-plus or 62-plus affordable or market rate component
through the North 40 Specific Plan .
This question has arisen on numerous occasions during the Specific Plan process. For our own
clarity, we requested a legal analysis from Goldfarb & Lipman. We have attached their
conclusions for your reference. In brief, while senior housing can be incentivized by a Specific
Plan, requiring such housing types would violate state and federal fair housing laws ..
Although the Town's Specific Plan is still in process, after years of observation and discussion
with the Town , we respect that the Specific Plan emphasizes resident ial design towards the
Town 's unmet housing needs, including places for senior to live. We embrace the Town's vision
in the Specific Plan which allows for the provision of a multi-generational and mixed income
neighborhood. We are anxious to continue working with the Town to implement this vision.
We appreciate your consideration of the attached letter, and are available for any questions
regarding this matter.
Sincerely,
A. Don Capobres
Senior Vice President
Grosvenor
Attac hment: Fair Housing Issues Memo
Linda Mandolini
President
Eden Housing
Wendi Baker
Vice President of Development
SummerHill Homes
9 0 I d far b 1300 Clo y Stre et , Eleventh f lo or
I i p m a n Oakland, Cal ifornia 9 46 12
attorneys 5 1o 83 6 -6 336
M David Kroot February 12 ,2015
Lynn Hu tchi ns
Ko re n M . Tiedema nn
Thomas H. W ebber
Dionne Jac kson Mclean
Mic he lle D. Brewer
Jenn ife r K. Bell
Rober t C. Mills
Is abel L. Brown
James T. Diamond , Jr.
Margaret f . Jung
Hea ther J. G ould
Jul iet E. Cox
William f . DiCamillo
Amy DeVoudreuil
Barba ro E. Kautz
Eri ca Williams Orc hor ton
Lu i s A. Rodriguez
Xoch itl Ca rrion
Rafael Yoq uion
Cel io W . Lee
Vi ncent L. Brown
Hono A . Ha rd y
Coraline Nose llo
Eri c S. Phillips
El iza bet h Kl ue ck
Son f ran cisco
4 15 788 -6336
Los Ange les
2 13 62 7-633 6
Son D iego
6 19 23 9 -6 336
Go l d/orb & Lipma n LL P
To
Don Capobres, Grosvenor Americas
Wendi Baker, SummerHill Homes
From
Barbara E. Kautz
Fair Housing Issues Regarding Planning and Families with Children
Summary
During hearings on the North Forty Specific Plan, public comments have been
made opposing the Town of Los Gatos' (the "Town") approval of housing that
may attract families with school-age children because of school overcrowding. In
particular, proposals have been made that development on the site be limited to
senior housing or to other housing that will not accommodate families with
school-age children.
Both federal and state law prohibit the Town from using its planning and zoning
powers to deny residency to , or make housing unavailable to, or discriminate
against, families with children. Planning or zoning restrictions that are adopted to
discourage families with children from living in the Town , or that prevent
families with children from li v ing in the Town , such as zoning sites to permit
only senior housing or limiting the number of bedrooms in residences , would
deny residency to , make housing unavailable to , and discriminate against
families with children.
Further, a property owner or manager may not select indiv idual tenants or bu yers
on the basis of age unless the housing is des igned as senior housing and the
property is operated consistent with federal and state requirements for senior
housing .
Analysis
A. Zoning for Senior Housin g
Federal and state statute s forbid the Town from enacti ng or enforcing land-use
laws that operate to make housing "unavailable" based on "familial status .".
1 58 8 \03 \1 565758 .4
February 12 , 2015
Page 2
"Familial status" is generally defmed as a household containing a person under
18 years of age residing with a parent or guardian . (Gov't Code§ 12955 .2 .)
In particular:
• The federal Fair Housing Act ("FHA") (42 U .S.C. § 3604(a)) forbids
actions by cities that operate to make housing "unavailable" based on
familial status [and other listed factors].
• The California Fair Employment and Housing Act ("FEHA'') (Gov't Code
§ 12955(/)) prohibits discrimination through land use practices that make
housing opportunities "unavailable" because of familial status.
• Planning and Zoning Law (Gov't Code § 65008(a)(1)) invalidates any
planning action if it denies the enjoyment of residence to any persons
because of familial status, age, [or other factors]. Section 65008(b)(l)
forbids cities from prohibiting or discriminating against any residential
development because of familial status or age.
Town zoning and planning actions taken for the purpose of discouraging the
construction of housing for families with children would violate these federal and
state fair housing laws. Similarly, planning and zoning actions that on their face
prevent occupancy of housing by families with children -even if done without
the intent to exclude families with children -would violate federal and state fair
housing laws . Examples could include allowing only senior housing to be built
on designated sites or limiting the number of bedrooms in homes.
The Senior Housing Exception.
All of the fair housing statutes contain exceptions for senior housing constructed
and designed in conformance with Civ. Code §§ 51.2 -51.4 and similar
provisions of federal law. These sections allow discrimination based on age and
familial status by a "business establishment" if the housing is built and designed
to serve seniors. The California Legislature made some of the requirements for
senior housing in California more stringent than those imposed by the Fair
Housing Act "in recognition of the acute shortage of housing for families with
children in California." (Civ. Code§ 51.4(a).) A developer may propose, and the
Town may approve, a development proposed by a developer for senior housing
but the Town cannot require senior housing to be constructed or designate a site
for senior housing when there is no proposal or intent by a "business
establishment" to construct such housing. There is no exception to this rule for
affordable senior housing.
1 588 \0 3 \1 56575 8 .4
February 12, 2015
Page 3
As discussed further in the next section, senior housing in compliance with these
provisions must either require all residents to be 62 years of age or older; or
comply with more stringent design standards and require at least one member of
each household to be 55 years of age or older. Housing otherwise cannot have
age limits or be limited to 'adults only,' and managers and brokers cannot
consider age or familial status in selecting tenants and buyers.
Zoning for Senior Housing. Local agency efforts to require housing to be built or
even maintained for seniors have usually been overturned by the courts. For
example:
• Despite an exemption in State law to allow Riverside County to maintain
long-standing senior housing zones , these were found to violate the Fair
Housing Act because the County did not ensure that the housing within
these zones actually complied with the statutory requirements. (Gibson v.
County of Riverside, 181 F. Supp. 2d 1057 (C.D. CaL 2002).) Note also
that the specific exemption in State law for Riverside County's zoning
suggests that similar zoning by other cities and counties would violate
state fair housing laws.
• An ordinance adopted by American Canyon to require a mobilehome
park approved as a senior park to maintain its senior status, rather than
convert to an all-age park, was found to violate the Fair Housing Act
because the park had never, in fact, actually been operated as a senior
park in compliance with state and federal law. (Waterhouse v. Town of
American Canyon, 2011 U .S . Dist. Lexis 60065 (N.D. CaL 2011).)
• A mobilehome park owner who alleged that the City of Fillmore adopted
invalid subdivision conditions for the purpose of preventing the park
from converting from a senior park to an all-age park was found to have
standing to sue the City under the Fair Housing Act. (ElDorado Estates
v. City of Fillmore, 765 F.3d 1118 (9th Cir. 2014).
One ordinance was upheld . The Town of Yucaipa was found to be in compliance
with the Fair Housing Act when it adopted zoning prohibiting existing senior
mobilehome parks, which in fact were being operated as senior parks, from
converting to all-age parks . (Putnam Family Partnership v. Town of Yucaipa,
673 F.3d 920 (9th Cir. 2012).)
The decision was confined to the situation where the parks were already
operating as senior housing. The Court specifically declined to determine if its
decision would be the same if the housing was not already serving seniors . (/d. at
927 n.3) The decision was also based on federal law alone and did not consider
possible violations of State Planning and Zoning law or FEHA. State law does
1 588\03\1 565758.4
February 12,2015
Page4
not have the same language which was relied upon by the Court to uphold
Yucaipa 's ordinance.
The Court also noted that the federal statute included a policy of "preserving"
senior housing and that Yucaipa 's intent appeared to be to preserve existing
senior housing "rather than animus against families with children." (!d. at 931.)
By contrast, in Los Gatos, there has been extensive public comment, testimony
from the School District, and statements by decision-makers indicating that the
Town wishes to discourage families with children from residing in the North
Forty because of school overcrowding. An early draft of the North Forty Specific
Plan stated specifically that, "Residential product types (market rate and
affordable) shall be limited to product types that respond to emerging demands of
the seniors, empt( nesters, and young adult demographics" -all groups unlikely
to have children . If the Town of Los Gatos were to require senior housing on the
North Forty or to adopt other Specific Plan provisions to prevent or discourage
households with children from moving to the North Forty, the record contains
substantial evidence of "animus" against households with children.
Incentives for Senior Housing. State and federal laws recognize that there is a
need for senior housing and provide funding and incentives to encourage senior
housing. For instance, State density bonus law permits all senior housing to
receive a 20 percent density bonus whether or not it is affordable. (Gov't Code§
65915(b)(l)(C), (f)(3).) There does not appear to be a violation of fair housing
laws if zoning incentives are provided for senior housing, in recognition of its
unique characteristics : lower automobile use, less traffic , smaller household size
(rarely more than two persons/household). Other incentives typically provided
may be lower parking requirements and reduced traffic impact fees . A recent
case recognized that there is a statewide priority to develop senior housing, and,
when a developer proposed a senior project, the city's zoning of the site for
higher density was not illegal spot zoning. (Foothill Communities Coalition v.
County of Orange (2014) 222 Cal. App. 4th 1302.)
However, if there is evidence that these incentives were adopted with the intent
of excluding housing for families with children, the zoning may be found to be
invalid . (Cf Pacific Shores Properties LLC v. City of Newport Beach, 746 F.3d
936 (9 1h Cir. 2014; writ of certiorari denied, 135 S. Ct. 436 (2014)) (holding that
facially neutral ordinance invalid where adopted with discriminatory intent).
1 HUD's Fair Hou sing newsletter featured a case filed against the Villa ge of Bronx vill e , N .Y . challenging
a Village ordinance that requires developers to demo nstrate th at th e de sign o f residences is intended to
appeal primarily to singles and to couples without children-a provision similar to the ori ginal provis ions
proposed in the Sp ecific Plan .. (Westchester R esidential Opp orlllnilies In c. v. Village of Bronxville
(S.D.N.Y. Case No . 15 CV 002 80) (filed January 15 , 2015 ).
1 588 \03\1565 7 58 .4
February 12 , 2015
Page 5
Conclusion.
Los Gatos cannot adopt Specific Plan provisions for the North Forty that exclude
or discourage families with children, such as by requiring the development of
senior housing or by zoning a portion of the site for senior housing onl y. While
the Town can provide incentives for senior housing in view of its unique
development characteristics, the incentives could be found to be invalid if they
are adopted with the intent to exclude families with children.
B. Selection of Buyers and Renters Based on Age
The Town has asked if the Specific Plan could require developers to reserve
some portion of the residences on the North Forty for seniors . Only housing that
qualifies as a senior development under both state and federal law may
discriminate based on age and familial status (42 USC § 3607(b)(l)-(3); Civ.
Code § 51.2(a)). Developers cannot choose to reserve a portion of the units in a
non-senior project for seniors , nor can local government require them to do so
Both the federal Fair Housing Act and California's Unruh Act contain standards
specifying whether a development qualifies as "housing for older persons" and
may discriminate based on age and familial status. Reading the two Acts
together, they allow the following types of senior housing :
• Housing provided under a state or federal program that HUD recognizes
as intended for elderly persons (42 USC § 3607(b)(2)(A)); Civ. Code §
51.2(e));
• Housing with fewer than 35 units occupied solely by persons 62 years of
age or older (42 USC§ 3607(b)(2)(B); Civ. Code§ 51.2); and
• Housing with 35 units or more either occupied solely by persons 62 years
of age or more ; or occupied by households where at least one occupant is
55 years or older (42 USC§ 3607(b)(2)(C); Civ. Code§ 51.2-51.3).
All new senior housing must include certain design features and have rules and
covenants clearly restricting occupancy consistent with the federal and state
occupancy requirements . Further, the policies, procedures , and marketing must
demonstrate that the project as a whole is intended for seniors . (54 Fed. Reg.
3255 (Jan. 23 , 1989).) Mixed-income developments are only pos sible if separate
buildings are constructed for each income group.
If a development is not des igned as senior housing , the owner or manager cannot
use age or familial status as a criterion in deciding whether to sell or rent a home .
1588\03\1565758.4
February 12 , 2015
Page6
Conclusion
Requiring developers of non-senior housing to reserve a percentage of the units
for seniors would violate state and federal housing laws .
1 588\03\1 565758 .4
Exhibit D
A
EDEN SUMMERHILL HOMES -
GROSVENOR HOUSI NG C OMMUNITIES Of DI STINCTION
August 9, 2016
Hon . Barbara Spector and Members of the Town Council
Town of Los Gatos
110 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
RE : North Forty Phase 1 ("Project")
Architecture and Site Application S-13-090
Vesting Tentative Map Application M-13-014
Special Town Council Meeting August 9, 2016
Dear Mayor Spector, Vice Mayor Sayoc and Members of Los Gatos Town Council :
We have reviewed the Staff Report dated August 4, 2016 and wish to respond to certain
statements and analyses contained in that Report and expressed by some members of the public
in letters attached to the Staff Report . Preliminarily, we note that although the official
recommendation on page one of the Staff Report is to deny the Project, the rest of the Staff
Report contains no support for denial. Thus we assume that the official recommendation is in
line with Town practice that the staff recommendation will be to uphold the Planning
Commission's action, but that this recommendation does not reflect staff's professional
judgment which in all prior staff reports to has been to approve the Project.
The Staff Report (page 14) suggests that the Council can consider whether the "number and
distribution of units" are consistent with the Specific Plan and possibly suggest changes. A desire
to decrease the number and change the distribution of units is also expressed by some members
of the public in letters attached to the Staff Report. We disagree that this is an option . The
proposed Project is fully consistent with the objective standards of the Specific Plan, as the Staff
Report confirms. There is no other application in front of the Town, so any idea that some units
could be redistributed elsewhere in the North Forty Plan Area is pure speculation at this time.
The density proposed in our application is based on rights afforded to us by state law.
More particularly:
1
i~J 't:-.;"/
GROSVENOR
~
EDE N
H OUSI N G
SUMMERHILL HOMEs ·
COM~IU N ITI ES O F D IST I NCT IO N
1. The Density Bonus Law entitles the Project to 320 units. If there is a development standard
that precludes the Project from achieving the 320 units, it must be waived by the Town pursuant
to the Density Bonus Law .
2. Under the Housing Accountability Act, the Project cannot be denied and the density cannot
be reduced unless the Project does not conform to some objective standard; and/or there is a
"specific health or safety impact." However, the state Density Bonus Law also provides that the
Town must waive any development standard that precludes 320 units.
These rights provided by state law are in addition to rights afforded to us by Town policy. More
particularly:
1. Under the Town's Housing Element and the Housing Element statute, the approval is "by
right" and must achieve development at a minimum of 20 units per acre.
2 . The Town's own North Forty EIR stated that the Project has no impact on parks or open space,
and the Town has not adopted a state Quimby Act-compliant subdivision ordinance, so no
additional open space can be required to be dedicated to the Town or for public access .
Nonetheless, the Project exceeds all the standards for private open space in the Specific Plan and
voluntarily offers to allow public access to the vast majority of the open space in the Project.
Town of Los Gatos General Plan
Not only is the right to build at this density (or higher) afforded to us by State and local law but
we believe this density or intensity is what is, in fact, envisioned by Town policy.
The Housing Element of the General Plan was adopted following the certification of the
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the North Forty Specific Plan. The Housing Element was
approved by this Town Council on May 5, 2015 . At that time, the minimum density of 20 units
per acre to be required on the North Forty was made clear as was the required 'by-right' nature
of approvals for housing. 'By-right' is defined as "not requiring a conditional use permit or other
discretionary approval; however, design review according to the objective standards contained
in the Specific Plan can occur (see Action HOU-2.4)." In addition, the Housing Element states
that "it is anticipated that by-right, multiple-family development at a minimum of 20 units to the
acre will occur as a single use development as permitted by the zoning." The Project is consistent
with this and other applicable policies and actions specified in the General Plan and Housing
Element as shown in attached Tables A and B.
The Specific Plan reference to "lower intensity residential" in the Lark District is a statement that
the planned uses in the Lark District are lower intensity uses than those in the Transition and
2
~
EDEN
HOUSING
SUMMERHILL HOMES .
GROSVENOR COMMUNiliES OF DISTINCTION
Northern Districts due to its primarily residential character versus the other districts (which
include higher intensity mixed -use, commercial, hosp itality and entertainment uses). Section
2.3.2 of the Specific Plan makes this distinction vis-a-vis the Transition District as it states :
"Located in the central portion of the Specific Plan Area, the Transition District provides a
transition and buffer between the lower intensity, primarily residential, character of the Lark
District and the active reta il and entertainment emphasis of the Northern District. The Transit ion
District w i ll accommodate a range of uses including ne ighborhood-serving stores, specialty
market and mixed-use housing with residential un its above comme rcial. A hotel or hospitality
use could also be part of the land use mix."
In alignment with the Town's Housing Element policies, the North Forty Specific Plan makes it
more difficult for lower density residential to be approved by making multifamily housing its
focus (Section 2.4 page 2-6) and making the non-multifamily residential type, cottage clusters,
only allowable with a Conditional Use Permit (Table 2-1). Thus, the Specific Plan is in
conformance with the General Plan Housing Element Policy HOU 2.4 and the intensity of housing
proposed is in l ine with these policies.
The Housing Element
Related to this, members of the public have expressed concern that the Town will be required to
find another site to meet its RHNA requirements if the Project is built as proposed. The Project
proposes 50 units of affordable, income-restricted housing and 270 units of market-rate housing
(with a density bonus), all at a density of 20 units per ac re. This more than meets the Town's
obligation to allow development of 270 units on the North Forty at 20 units per acre, and no
add it ional rezoning will be needed to meet the Town's Housing Element obligations . If a Project
application, such as the one before you, is approved at a density of less than 20 units per acre or
denied, additional rezon ing would be required to meet the Town's obligations under state
Housing Element law. Please see attached e-mail correspondence from Glen Campora, Assistant
Deputy Director, Housing Policy Divi sion, California Depa rtment of Housing and Community
Development, which is attached as Exhib it A.
Open Space and Quimby Act
Finally, reducing or redistributing un its from the area covered by the Project application is being
suggested in order to create more open space. As has been already noted, the Specific Plan
requires 30 percent open space (more than any other Project in Los Gatos that we have observed
in the eight years we have been active on the North Forty), and our application exceeds this
3
~) ~
GROSVENOR
~
EDEN
H OUSI N G
SUMMERHILL HOMES -
COMMUN I TIES Of D ISTINCTION
requirement by providing 39 percent open space, of which at least 85 percent is open to the
public.
A requirement for provision of public access to open space (including on the 30 percent already
required by the Specific Plan) cannot be justified unless it is needed to mitigate the impacts of
private development. The standard of the Nollan, Dolan, and Ehrlich cases requires that there
be an essential nexus to the impacts of the Project, and that the requirement be roughly
proportional to those impacts.
However, this nexus requirement is not satisfied in the North Forty Specific Plan . There is no
impact on public open space due to the passage of the North Forty Specific Plan or the planned
development of the Plan Area. The EIR for the Specific Plan identifies no such impact, and the
Town has no ordinance consistent with the Quimby Act requiring public open space in new
developments, since there is already abundant public open space in the Town, including open
space close to the Plan Area. The EIR concluded that there is adequate public open space nearby
to serve the Project.
Despite this finding, we have designed an open space program that is the centerpiece of a
modern agrarian neighborhood . The open space program will feature 2.7 acres devoted to
agricultural uses which will produce an estimated 14.5 tons of fruits and vegetables per year.
These will be grown in community gardens, commercial gardens and on producing (not
ornamental) orchard trees. We also feature eight public parks and plazas that are connected by
25' to 35' wide landscaped paseos, shaded sidewalks and a multi -modal pathway system. These
parks include a community park that is comparable in size and scale to Town Plaza Park and two
passive use neighborhood parks that are similar in size and scale to other neighborhood parks in
Los Gatos. Finally, buoyed by the Town's aspiration for amenities for pedestrians and bicycles
and in addition to the multi-modal pathway system, we are voluntarily proposing to connect the
North Forty to the Los Gatos Creek Trail via dedicated bicycle lanes on both sides of Lark Avenue.
Reduction of Unit Sizes
In addition to the desire to reduce or redistribute units in order to create more open space,
another common complaint is that the units are too large and should be reduced in size. We
would emphasize that there is absolutely no objective standard in the Specific Plan that would
support any such reduction. The only specification of unit sizes contained in the Specific Plan is
on page 6-14, and the sizes listed there are on average considerably larger than those proposed.
In fact, if one takes the maximum residential square footage allowed {700,000 sf) and divides by
the 270 baseline {365 density bonus) allowable units, the resulting maximum si ze per unit is 2,592
4
~
EDEN
HOUSI NG
SUMMERHILL HOMEs ·
GROSV E NOR COMMlJN I T I [S OF DISTINCTION
square feet (1,917 square feet if density bonus is used) which is approximately 1,199 (524) square
feet larger than proposed .
Any requirement to reduce unit size would in effect be a denial of this Project, since it would
require complete redesign of the buildings and site layout, in violation of the Housing Element
"by right" requirement, the Density Bonus Law, and the Housing Accountability Act. In addition,
it renders the Project infeasible economically.
After the Planning Commission's request to consider smaller unit sizes, we commissioned John
Burns Real Estate Consultants to determine the feasibility of this from a marketability
perspective. Their consumer analysis summarizes how the reduction of the average market rate
for-sale housing square footage by over 33% (from 1567 to 1000 square feet) is not supported
by the market. Based on their research, the size of units proposed is far smaller than the existing
newer multi-family for-sale housing stock in the Town . The report states : "Of newer town homes
in Los Gatos, the median unit size is over 1,900 SF, including three bedrooms and 2 Yz bathrooms.
When assessing only townhomes built in the last 10 years, the median unit size is even larger, at
+/-2,100 SF. At a weighted average size of 1,561 SF, the current product array at the Subject
Property is substantially smaller than the recently constructed housing inventory of Los Gatos."
This report is attached as Exhibit B to this letter.
Finally, the Staff Report references that the Planning Commission statement that "(t)he project
does not incorporate views adequately in the layouts as called out in Open Space Policy 01 View
Preservation and does not comply with Design Guideline 3.2.1.d Site Planning and Design, and
Section 3 .2 .6.e.i. Building Elements and Articulation which states "Special care shall be taken to
avoid obstructing views to the surrounding hills ."" However, Section 3.2.6.e.i. more specifically
states in section e) that "Projects located on corner parcels at signalized intersections along Lark
Avenue and Los Gatos Boulevard should incorporate major design features on the intersection
corner," and in section I) that "Buildings located at these corner locations are strongly
encouraged to frame and front onto intersections. Special care shall be taken to avoid to avoid
obstructing views to the surrounding hills."
This portion of the Specific Plan only relates to the corner buildings at signalized intersections.
For this application, this applies only to Lark and Los Gatos Boulevard and Los Gatos Boulevard
and the new Neighborhood Street. The application does not include the land area located at the
corner of Lark Avenue and Los Gatos Boulevard (gas station location). At Los Gatos Boulevard
and the new Neighborhood Street entrance, the two buildings proposed both frame and front
onto this intersection. The Specific Plan requirement for a 30' orchard setback along Los Gatos
Boulevard and a 25' height restriction from Los Gatos Boulevard for the first 50' from the
5
~
EDEN
H OUSI N G
SUMMERHIL L HOMES -
GRO SVE NOR COMMUN I TI ES or D IS TI NCTI O N
property line have been also been satisfied. Therefore, the reference to this portion of the
Specifi c Plan as a broader policy is not appropriate, and the application in fact satisfies the
objective standards for this portion of the site plan .
6
GROSVE NOR
~
EDEN
HOUSING
SUMMERHILL HOMEs ·
COMMUN I TIES OF DISTINCTION
TABLE A : Conformance with General Plan
Policy or Action Project Conformance
Goal LU-4 To provide for well-planned, careful growth that
reflects the Town's existing character and infrastructure.
Goal LU-11 To Plan for development of a variety of uses in
the North Forty area in a coordinated and comprehensive
way.
Policy LU -11.1 Zoning shall be changed as part of the On June 17, 2015 the Town Council adopted
development applications to provide consistency with the Resolutions Nos. 2015-055 and 2015-056
Vasona Light Rail Element and other elements of this adopting the North Forty Specific Plan and
General Plan and w ith any future specific plan prepared for adopting amendments to the Land Use Element
this area . of the Los Gatos Gene ral Plan for the North Forty
Specific Plan area . Those resolutions found that
the Specific Plan was consistent with the General
Plan and amended the Land Use Element to
incorporate the major policies of the Specific
Plan . In particular, the Land Use Element was
modified to incorporate the Vision Statement
contained on page 1-1 of the Spec ific Plan, the
general guidelines contained on pages 1-6 and 1-
7 of the Specific Plan, and the ma ximum
development capacity contained in Table 2-2 of
the Specific Plan. The Spec ific Plan also
determined that its policies, standards, and
gu idelines were con sistent with the overa rching
goals of the General Plan.
Therefore, given t hat the vision, guidelines, and
development capacity contained in the General
Plan ar e identical to those in t he Spe cific Plan,
and that the Specific Plan was adopted to
determine those development standards
consistent with the vision , gu idelines, and
development capacity contained in both the
General Plan and the Specific Plan, the
determi nation that the Project is consi stent with
the Specific Plan conclu sively determines that
the Project is also con sistent w ith those
provisions of the General Plan applicable to the
North Forty.
Policy LU-11 .2 The Town shall encou rage uses that serve The North Forty Specific Plan requires a
Town residents. These include, but are not lim ited to open mi nimum of 30% open space. The Project
space, playfields, office, retail, and other commercial uses. application proposes 39 % open space. The
Res idential uses may be permitted as part of m ixed-use Project appl ication al so proposes 66,000 square
development and only with acceptable mitigation of feet of neighborhood serving commerci al spa ce
adverse noise, air quality, and other en vironmental hazards. as part of a mixed-u se development that al so
7
~
EDEN
HOUSING
SUMMERHILL HOMEs ·
GROSVENOR C O MMUNI TI[S Or D I ST I NCTI O N
Policy or Action Project Conformance
includes residential housing that meet the
objective criteria of the North Forty Specific Plan
which were established to respond to unmet
residential needs of the Town of Los Gatos.
Impacts of noise, air quality, and other
environmental hazards were studied in the
Environmental I mpact Report (EIR) for the North
Forty Specific Plan . Th is EIR was certified by the
Town Council on January 20, 2015 by Resolution
No. 2015-002. In evaluating the environmental
impacts of the Specific Plan, the EIR
comprehensively reviewed all of the policies of
the General Plan applicable in any way to the
North Forty and found that the North Forty
Specific Plan was consistent with the applicable
General Plan policies. The conclusions of the EIR
regarding the Project's conformance with the
General Plan are hereby incorporated by
reference into these findings.
Policy LU -11.3 Provide coordinated infrastructure in the The North Forty Specific Plan requires that all
North Forty area . infrastructure necessary to support the
development shall be constructed in capacity
that allows for current and future phases, subject
to approval of the town engineer. All
infrastructures stubbed for future use, including
utilities and roadways, shall be constructed so as
not to appear
unfinished. The Project application complies.
The infrastructure in the Project application is
designed to stand alone and not be dependent
on improvement required in future phases . See
Tentative Map Sheet 1.3
Dimensional Plan, Grading Plans Sheet 1.6-1.14
and Preliminary Utility Plan sheet 1 .16 for future
site connection edge conditions .
The infrastructure in the Project application sizes
utilities for future site connection and edge
conditions. See Preliminary Utility Plan sheet
1 .16.
Policy LU-11.4 Include a variety of commercial uses The North Forty Specific Plan states in Section
reflective of Town Council's Vision and Guiding Principles 2.4 "In general, lower intensity shops, offices,
for the North Forty. Land uses shall follow a logical land use and residential land uses are envisioned in the
southern portion of the Specific Plan Area.
8
~
EDEN
HOUSI NG
SUMMER HIL L HOMES -
GROSV E NOR COMMUNITIES Of DISTINCTION
Policy or Action Project Conformance
pattern that takes advantage of the site opportunities while Moving northward, potential land uses transition
protecting adjacent uses. 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
northern portion of the Specific Plan Ar ea ."
The Project application conforms to the Specific
Plan as non-vertical-mixed use residential is
planned in the southern Lark District and reta i l
and mixed-use residential is proposed in the
Transition District (which is north of the Lark
District). The residential use in the Lark District is
compatible with the Highland Oaks residential
neighborhood which is located directly south of
the Lark District.
Policy LU -11.5 Avoid negative effects on the long-term The infrastructure in the Project application is
development potential of the area surrounding the North designed to stand alone and not be dependent
Forty area . on improvement required in future phases . It
also, however, sizes utilities for future site
connection and edge conditions.
Proposed roadway and traffic improvements for
this Project application are also designed to
mitigate impacts of automobile trips caused by
potential future development in the North Forty
Specific Plan Area that are not a part of the
Project application . Internal roadways are also
designed for future connections and edge
conditions.
Policy LU-11 .6 Incorporate multimodallinks from the North Section 4.9, 4.10, 4.11 and 4 .12 outline
Forty area to the Vasona Light Rail station into the North multimodallinks from the North Forty Specific
Forty Specific Plan. Plan Area to other parts of the Town and region.
On bicycle travel, the Project application
complies with the Specific Plan and also
voluntarily proposes to connect its internal multi-
modal path to the Los Gatos Creek Trail system
by providing dedicated b ike lands from the
Project area west along Lark Avenue .
As part of the draft Conditions of Approval, The
Applicant shall prepare a Transportation Demand
Management {TOM) Plan for Town of Los Gatos
approval prior to the issuance of a bu ilding
9
~
EDEN
H OUSI NG
SUMMER HILL HOMES .
GROSVENOR COMMUNI TI £S OF D I STI 'C T I O N
Policy or Action Project Conformance
permit. The TOM shall include a minimum of
those measures identified in the Specific Plan
such as:
a. Bicycle facility provisions
b. Transit passes and subsidies
c. carpool incentive
d . Reserved car share parking
e. Electrical car charging stations
f. Coordination with the Santa Clara Valley
Transportation Authority (VTA) to decrease
headway times to connect to r egional
destinations, etc. The TOM shall include a TOM
coordinator who will submit a TOM effectiveness
report to the Town annually.
In addition, the applicants have been actively
working with the Valley Transit Authority,
CaiTrans, Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition, Town
Staff, the school districts and Town commissions
including Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory
Commission on specific congestion management
programs.
Goal VLR-3 To encourage mixed-use developments that
coordinate housing in proximity to either neighborhood
commercial uses or employment centers.
Policy VLR-3 .4 Encourage mixed-use development of Section 2.4 of the Specific Plan states that "the
commercial , office, and medium-high residential uses in the Specific Plan land uses help to create a
North Forty area and along East Los Gatos Boulevard, north pedestrian-oriented and interactive
of Lark Avenue . environment that is compatible with surrounding
neighborhoods as well as
provides for on-site uses that are compatible
with each other. The Specific Plan specifies the
desired mix, as well as the location of land uses.
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 potential hospita lity
uses to
provide a buffer between pri marily residential
uses in the southern portion of
the Specific. Plan Area and the entertainment,
restaurant, and shopping uses"
10
r~) t:-;1
GROSVENOR
~
EDEN
HOUSI NG
SUMMERHILL HOMES -
COMMUNITIES OF DISTINCTION
Policy or Action Project Conformance
The Project application proposes residential uses
that are consistent with this General Plan Policy
in addition the Town's Housing Element.
Goal VLR-9 To reduce traffic impacts of residential
development within the Vasona Ught Rail area by taking
advantage of mass transit opportunities.
Policy VLR-9 .5 Promote the development of mass transit As a condition of approval , the applicant is
links between Los Gatos Boulevard, particularly any required to coordinate with the Santa Clara
development on the North Forty site, and the planned Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), plan for,
Vasona Light Rail station. and provide an enhanced bus stop at the
location of the existing stop along southbound
Los Gatos Boulevard between Neighborhood
Street and Bennett Way. The improvements shall
be in compliance with VTA standards and must
be completed and accepted by the Town of Los
Gatos before a Certificate of Occupancy for any
new building can be issued.
Goal C0-1 Preserve and enhance Los Gatos' character
through exceptional community design.
Policy CD-1 .6 Town staff shall review properties next to The Project application has been reviewed by
community entry points when they are developed or Town Staff and the Town's consulting architect
redeveloped to reflect the gateway concept. and has met the requirements of the Town's
consulting architect.
11
~) ~;I
GROSVENOR
~
EDEN
HOUSI NG
SUMMERHILL HOMES -
COMMUNI TI £5 Of D IS T I NCTION
TABLE 8 : Conformance with Housing Element
Policy or Action Project Conformance
Action HOU-1.1: Below Market Price (BMP} Program: The Project provides over 20% very low income
Continue to implement the BMP Program in order to units, exceeding the BMP program requirement
increase the number of affordable units in the community. for 20% moderate-income units. See Exhibit 19
of Attachment 1 to staff report.
Action HOU-1.7: North Forty Specific Plan Area Rezoning: The Town completed the rezoning of the North
the Town will rezone 13.5 acres within the North Forty Forty to permit housing at 20 units per acre on a
Specific Plan area within three years of Housing Element mini mum of 13.5 acres with in the North Forty
adoption at minimum a density of 20 dwelling units per Specific Plan area . The zon i ng permits housing by
acre to facilitate affordable housing production . After right as defined in State Law, with design review
rezoning, owner occupied or multiple family development permitted based on the objective standards in
will be by-right as defined by not requiring a conditional use the Specific Plan . The senior affordable housing
permit or other discretionary approval; however, design occupies at least 50 percent of the floor area of
review according to the objective standards contained in the mixed use building it occupies.
the Specific Plan can occur (see Action HOU-2.4). In
addition, it is anticipated that by-right, multiple-family
development at a minimum of 20 units to the acre will
occur as a single use development as permitted by the
zoning. If housing affordable to very low and low income
households is part of a mixed use development, it will
occupy at least 50 percent of the total floor area of a mixed
use Project.
Action HOU-2.4: By Right Findings : For multiple fam ily Although the Town has not adopted these
residential development within the North Forty and the provisions to the Town code, the Town is
South bay AHOZ site subject to by right development, the reviewing the Project application based on
Town will amend the objective review criteria contained in the North
Town Code to add by right development findings that, Forty Specific Plan design guidelines.
among other items, state that if a Proj ect meets the
objective review criteria contained in the AHOZ Design
Guidelines or North Forty Specific Plan design guidelines
(available on the Town's website) the deciding body will
approve the affordable housing proposal.
Goal HOU-5: Retain and expand affordable housing The Project includes 49 units of housing
opportunities for seniors . affordable to very low income seniors.
12
Sally Zarnowitz
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Hiten Thakkar < hthakkar@ucsc.edu >
Sunday, November 06, 2016 5:09PM
Sally Zarnowitz
North 40 plan
This should NOT be considered because of the exacerbated Traffic and congestion on Los Gatos Blvd. Inability
for any emergency vehicles or personnel to be dispatched. Also the increased population will overwhelm the ·
class size and will diminish the quality of education for which the Los Gatos is a sought after town. Kindly bear
the above before voting on the resolution.
Thanks and regards,
Hiten J. Thakkar.
1
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
Pocket Parks
Alison Blake
Pocket parks , also k nown as mi nip ark or vest-pocket parks, a re u rb an open space at
the very small scale. Usua ll y on ly a few house lots in size or sma ll er, pocket parks ca n
be tucked into and sca tte red throughout th e urban fab ric w he re th ey serve the immedi-
a te ly local population.
These diminutive park s te nd to act as sca led -down neighborhood parks , but still often
try to meet a va riety of needs. Functions can include small event space, play areas for
c hildren , spaces fo r relaxing or meeting friends, ta king lunch breaks . etc. They can be
a re fu ge from the bustl e of surrounding urban li fe a nd offer oppo rtuniti es for rest a nd
re laxation . However, be ca u se space is restricted and user needs are both diverse and
vary throughout th e day, confli cts can sometimes arise betwee n diffe re nt gro ups. Thus,
in organ izing pocket parks, designers mu st often work ou t a delicate b alancing act so
that all groups can use the space in peaceful co -existence.
One of th e unique a nd exciting characteri stics of pocke t parks is that th ey may be cre-
ated out of vacan t lots or otherwise forgotten spaces. Many po cket pa rks are the result
of community groups, priva te e ntiti es or foundations reclaimin g th ese spaces for the
benefit of the local neighborhood. Unfortunately, they are sometimes easier to create
than to maintain beca use w ith out functional design , co mmunity supp ort , use and main -
tenance, they may fall into disrepa ir.
The ecolog ica l functio ns of pocket parks are p robab ly limited as th ey are typically de-
signed fo r heavy use by people and because they are typically located in dense urban
areas. However, they d o present opportunities for increasin g th e amount of permeable
surfaces throughout th e c ity and cou ld also functio n as patches for some an im a ls,
particularly birds.
Urban Parks
Greenacre Park, New York City.
NY
photo credit:
psu9j m851 00, webshots .com
We must provide facilities
for recreation, reset and
relaxation that are available
to all citizens in every walk
of life. We must consider
the urban citizen who wants
his recreation Mthin the
city. We must, in particular,
consider the pressin gneed
of the /ow-income families
living amid the congestion.
noise, drabness, and un-
broken monotony of asphalt
and brick characteristic of
the deprived areas of our
cities. Here. obviously, we
have the greatest deficit of
green space and recreation-
al facilities.
Robert C. Weaver "Rec-
reational Needs in Urban
Areas· {From Whitney North
Seymour Jr. An Introduction
to Small Urban Spaces p3)
1IPOCKET PARKS
The midtown park may be defined as a small park-yet big enough in es-
sence to reaffirm the dignity of the human being. Robert L. Zion
For such parks to c ontribute
effectively to city life, they
must be readily available.
Further, they should not be
looked upon as mere ame-
nities. They have become
nece ssities, and necessities
must. by definition, be close
at hand, easily come by.
The ir presence mv st be felt
everywhere thoughout the
area-on the way to work,
on the way home, as well
as during the lunch hour. If
such a system of parks is
to succeed, there must be
proximity as well as profu-
sion-one such p a rk for each
square block.
New Parks for New Yo rk
Exhibit, 1963 (From Whit-
ney North Seymour Jr. An
Introd uction to Small Urban
Spaces p3)
Contexts
Ideally , pocket parks are close ly tied into the neighborhoods they serve. By nature, they
tend to be scattered and disconnected because they are usually c reated opportunisti -
cally. With some planning, they can be connected if they a re placed along greenways
or bike paths as long as they would still be visible to a su fficient number of pedestrians
who are also potential users.
From an ecological standpoint, pocket parks , at best, act as very small patches.
Because they need be sited in areas of heavy pedestrian traffic so they themselves
remain safe and functi on ing, potential use by many other animal species is negligable.
However, greenery within pocket parks can help regul ate microclimates and act as the
"lungs" of the city , while permeable surfaces increase infiltration.
The establishment of pocket parks throughout the urban environment also has the po-
tential to benefit the overall ecology of cities because communities who have parks that
meet their needs within walking distance are less likely to drive far away for the same
resources , thereby reducing pollution , traffic and the consuption of resources such as
oil. Along these same lines, pocket parks could relieve pressure on the same larger,
more distant parks. These large parks would conceivably see fewer demands for play
areas (and the other needs that pocket parks can meet), allowing them more fle xibility
to devote larger park areas to habitat and ecological function.
Philadelphia's Pocket Parks :
Location : Philadelphi a, Pennsy lvan ia
Dates created: 1961-1967
Number of Parks created: 60
Sizes: 900 sq . ft. to 9,000 sq ft. (average size, around 3 ,000 sq. ft.)
Overseen by: Philadelphia's Neighborhood Park Program
Uses: Play, sitting (focusing on children and the elderly)
Features: Climbing structures, areas for explo rati on , bright colors, community involve-
ment, basketball courts, flower or vegetable gardens , "tot lots ," etc.
Philadelphia was one of the first cities to begin developing pocket parks within its
neighborhoods. These were constructed on the site of vacant or abandoned lots that
had become eyesores and were located in low-income areas that needed local open
space in addition to the limited facilities already available. These parks involved th e
community in their design and construction and had a specific focus on childrens play
Three Phi ladelphia Lots Transformed
photo cre dit: City of Philadelphia & Ph iladelphia Neighborhood Park
Progam
2 I POCKET PARKS
Essential Elements
Small Size:
Pocket parks tend to between 1-3 lots in size, with a tendency to be larger
on the west coast than on the east (M arcus , 150)
Local Community:
These parks rely on a local population for their use and often for their
upkeep (to at least make sure they are maintained)
Uses/Functions
Small Events , especially neighborhood events
rest , relaxation
lunch breaks
Play, both individual and group
Elements (Not all elements can neceesarily be accomodated within any
one park)
plantings, trees, often water
natural e lements are a common feature of pocket pa rks
Play areas
Areas to Sit
Gatherin g places
Greenacre Park :
Size : 6 ,360 square feet
Location : New York City, New York
Date opened : 1971
Developed by : Greenacre Foundatio n
Designers: Hideo Sasaki & Harmon Goldstone
Purpose:"some moments of serenity in th is busy world ."
Features : Visible fr om the street, moveable chairs , overhead trees , greenery, a water-
fall , concessions, heat lamps for cool weathe r
P roject for P ublic Spaces describes th e waterfa ll at the back o f Greenacre Pa rk by say-
ing that it "provides a foca l point an d a d ramati c reaso n to visit the park and its noise
creates a sense of qu ie t and privacy " and that "there is shade in the summer from the
trees yet th eir thin structure allows a beautiful dappled light to pass through."
That this level of relief from the urban environment can occur in a s lot of space only .14
acres in size speaks to the amazing potential of the pocket park and why it should not
be quick ly dismissed as an open space typology.
Gr eenacre P ark is a privately endowed New York park that ca ters mainly to p rofes-
sionals, tourists and shoppers. It has now been a successful open space for over thirty
yea rs , which is a testament to the quality of the design , which has all the qualities of a
successful small urban space, inclu ding visibility, flexible seating , things to eat, climac-
tic comfort (shade or heat lamps , depending on the weather). and a key locat ion with
many potential users.
Urban Pa rks
Pocket Parks
Views of Greenacre Park, New
York City
photo cred it: Project for Public
Space
3 I POCKET PARKS
It is the redevelopment of the smaller parks, reserves and street closures
that makes a difference to the local community. -Roger Jasprizza
ews
photo credit: Project for Publ ic
Space
4 I POCKET PARKS
Aquisition /Implementation Mechanisms
Community Activisim
Many pocket parks have been crea ted as a resu lt of comm unity groups organizing and
rally ing for more open space and identifying spaces for parks w ith in the urban environ-
ment.
Vacant Lots and Parking Lots
Leftover spaces, othen eyesore present opportun iti es to become pocket parks and im-
portant amenities to communities. These are often purchased and owned by cities , with
the agreement that they wi ll be run and maintained by a found ation or other organiza-
tion if the city is unable to maintain the park itself.
Foundation Owned and Run
City Organized
Land for Philadelphia 's pocket parks was acquired at Sheriff's sales ''at no cost other
than the write-off of municipal liens , which often are unrecoverable"
Public-Private Partnerships
Downtown Squares, Savannah, GA
Size: .46 acres to 1.38 acres
Total Number of squares: 22
Location: Savannah, Georgia
Dates crea ted: 18th & 19th century
Features : Variab le by squa re , but range from seating , fountains , statues, mature trees ,
shade, monuments , gazebos , recreation areas , gardens , etc.
Although the la rgest of Savannah 's downtown squares are somewhat larger than a
traditi onal pocket park , the squares are notable as a comprehensive system of small
parks th at are an incredible asset by serving many functions and shaping the cha ra cter
and image of the city itself. Unlike other cities' pocket parks , which are oftern squeezed
into leftover spaces, the Downtown Squares were designed wi th the city grid , placing
them at the heart of the neighborhoods . The centra l location of these parks encour-
age heavy use and exploration by residents and visi tors alike. The connectivity of this
system also encou ra ges pedestrians to walk throughout the neighborhood , rather than
drive.
4-Biock Radius User Group
People Places states that "few minipark users will walk more than four blocks, and
most will come from a one-to-two-block radius. Thus, the design of a pocket park
should attempt to serve the needs of thts immediately local community.
Frequ ency:
Ideally, there will be one small park sited within every city block in order to meet the
range of user group needs without causing conflict between groups.
Microclimates:
Pocket parks should be appropriately sited and arranged so as to respond to the fo-
cal microclimate. thereby encouraging use.
User Needs:
Acco mmodate as many d ifferent users as possible. according to neighborhood
needs; howeve r be careful not to pack too many uses into such a small sp ace t hat
conflic ts are inevitable.
Vi sibility
Pocket parks should be visible from the street
L ocation:
Parks should be sited in areas of heavy pedestrian traffic so that they are convenient
to get to and pass through. They can be sited on block comers, mid block, or may
even transect a whole block to create a pedestrian corridor.
A Midtown Pocket Pa rk: Paley Park
Size : 4 ,200 squar e feet .1 a c re
Loc ation : Midtown Manhattan, New York City, New Yo rk
Date created: 1967
De signed by: Zion and B reene Associates
Funded by: William P aley, for mer Chairman of CBS
(the W i ll iam S. Paley Foundation)
Us es: Rest & re laxa t ion , lunc h ar ea, sight-seeing , meeting spot, etc.
Features : 17 honey lo c ust t rees , 20-foot wate rfall on back wall , moveable c hairs,
co ncession stand , ivy-covered walls.
Paley Pa rk is o ne of the most wide ly known and most succe ss f ul of all pocket park s.
It is designed as an oasis away f ro m the bustle of Manha ttan while sti ll main tai ning
clear sight lines and a connection with the street. U nl ik e some pocket parks , Pa ley
P ark does not a ttempt to be multi-fun cti o nal. It is primarily a pl ace for sitting and
relaxing a nd , des pite ca tering to a limited user group , is extremely busy and popu la r
because of the high density of workers , shoppers, and tou rists in the area.
The midtown park is for adults -o ffice wor kers , shoppers, tourists, and passer by Its
purpose is for rest-for the office worker who has finished lunch, a place to spend the
remainder of the lunc h hour; for the shopper, an opportunity to put down parcels, re-
cli ne in a c omfortable c hair, and perh aps s ip a c offee before continuing ; for the tourist
or pas serby an oppourtunity to be refre shed vis ually by the scale o f the place, by the
de nse green growth and, hopefully, by the quiet of the tiny space . Zion , p.7 5
Urban Parks
Pocket Parks
Views o f P aley Park
photo cred it: Project for P u blic
Space
5 I POCKET PARKS
Possible area for text/quote, photo. establishes mood and continuity of
layout
6 I POCKET PARKS
Resources
Jasprizza, Roger. "Small Spaces Make a Difference" Landscape Australia
1999 Nov.-2000 Jan., v.21 , n.4 (84), p.292-294
Marcus, Clare Cooper and Carolyn Francis, People Places, 2nd Edition.
John Wiley and Sons Inc. New York 1998
Projects for Public Spaces; www.pps.org
Seymour Jr., Whitney North. Small Urban Spaces: The Philosophy, De-
sign, Sociology and Politics of Vest-Pocket Parks and Other Small Urban
Spaces. New York University Press, New York. 1969.
GREENSWARD FOUNDATION, www.greenswardparks.org
r ··-·· ZONING REGULATIONS § 29.20.185
• r.
TABLE OF CONDITIONAL
USES RC HR RJ RD R-M R·JD RMH 0 C-1 C-2 CH LM CM
(1) Commercial
a. Banks X X X
b. Savings and Joan of-X X X
fice
e. Drive-up window for X X X
any bus:inesa
d Supennarket X X X
e. Super drugstore X X X
f. Department .tore X X X
g. Shopping center X X X
h. Motel X X
i. Hotel X X
j. Reotaurantineluding X X X X X
thoae with outdoor
dining areas or tok&-
out food
lt. EetabliBhment eell-
ing alcoholic hover-
qee for consumption
on premises
1 . In eol\iunetion X X X X
with a reetau-
rant
2 . Without food eor-X r vice (bar)
I. EetabliBhment eell-X X X
ing alcoholic hover-
agee for eonrumption
off-premiaos (this
provisiao aoly applioo
to establishments
commencing or U ·
pandingoff-premi108
aalee after April 23,
1981)
m. Convenience muket X X X
n . Formula retail buai-X
nesa
0. Formula retail buai-X X ,X
noaa Jreator than
6,000 a!.
p . Pereonal aemce X
bueineases <•• eet
forth in section
29.60.820)
q. New olliee building X X X
approved or con·
etrueted after May 1,
2006
r. N-ntaiJ eale1 of X
flnarma, ammuni-
tion and lor deetrue-
ttve devices u eet
forth in eeetion
29.?0.100
(2 ) Recreation
a . Commercial recre· X X X X
ation and amuse·
mont establishment
.,
Supp. No. 61 2045 ATTACHMENT 2
·r ~ § 29.20.185 LOS GATOS TOWN CODE
TABLE OF CONDITIONAL
USES RC HR Rl RD R·M R-W RMH 0 C-1 C-2 CH LM CM
b. 'Ibeater X
c. Outdoor entertain-X
ment
d. SwimmlDc pool for X X X X X X X X X X X X
non-incidental uae
e. Private 11p0rle :recre-X X X X X X X X X X
ation club
f. Golf c:ourae X X X X X
(3) Community Services
a . Public building; J»-X X X X X X X X X X X X
lice, fire, community
center, library, art
callery, Jlluaeum
b . Club,lodp, hall, fra. X X X X X X X X X X
tarnal orpniution
c. Church, monastery, X X X X X X X X X X X
oonvent, and other
institntiona for reli-
(ious obeervance
d. Mortuary, X X X X
oolumbarium, mau-
10leum
e . Public tranoportation X X X X X X X X X X X X
and parking fac:ili-
ties
t f. Park, piasa, play-X X X X X X X X X X X X
,_ pound ,. Nonprofit youth X
lfO\IPII
(4) Schools
a. Public ochoolB or col-X X X X X X X X X X X
Ieee not otharwise
opeci1ied
b. Private achool or col· X X X X X X X X X X X
101" not otharwise
opeci1ied; including a
new private achool or
oollece to be located
on poundo or within
buildinp formerly
occupied by a public
achool
c. Nunery achooVday X X X X X X X X X X X
care center, pi'OYi ded
that each aball be on
a aite not lea• than
20,000 oquare feet in
area and in a build-
inc not less than
2,000 square feet in
lioor area
d. Small fiuoily day care X X X X
home
e. Large fiuoily day care X X X X
home
f. Vocational or trade X X X
achool
g. Business or profes-X X X X X
oional achool or col-
lege
Supp. No. 61 2046
ZONING REGULATIONS § 29.20.185
TABLE OF CONDITIONAL
USES RC HR RJ RD R ·M R -ID RMH 0 C-I C-2 CH LM CM
b . Art, cran, music, X X X X X
d:mciDg school
(5) Health Services
a. Hospital X
b . Convaleoeent hoopi· X X X X X X X
tal
e. lleeiclenllal cue fa· X X X X
cility-amall family
home
d . lleeiclenQal cue fa. X X X X X X X X X X
cility·laJie family
home
e. lleeidenQal cue fa. X X X X X X X X X X
cility-grcup home
(6) Tranmnission Facilitie&'
Utilities
a . Public utility oervice X X X X X X X X X X X X
yard, atatiOD, trADB·
miNion linea, ator-
age tank, drainage or
commUJ).ication_ faciJ.
itiea
b. Antennafacilities op-X X X X X X X X X X X X
erated by a public or
private utility for
I tranomittin& and re-l ceiving cellular tele-
phone and other
wireleaa communica-
tiona
e. Radio and/or broad-X X X X X X
caatatudioa
(7) Automotive (Veb;cle &ales,
service and related activ-
itiea)
a. New vehicle sales X X X
and rental
b . Used vehicle aales X X X
only incidental to
new vehicle sales and
rental
e. Vehicle tlrlll and ..,_ X X
-..riee, aalet, ......
'ricing, recapinc
d. Vehicle body repair X X
and paintin(
e . Vehicle repair and X X
oervioe (prop)
f. Service atatl.on X X X X
•· Parkin& Iota or .tor-X X
ace prapa, not..,.
eeeaory to another ......
h. Car wash X
i. Ttuek terminal X X
j. Alte;.,ating uae of X X X X X X X X X X X
ofl'otreet parking
spacea
Supp. No. 64 2047
\
\
\
\
§ 29.20.185 LOS GATOS TOWN CODE \
I .
TABLE OF CONDITIONAL
USES RC HR Rl RD R-M R ·lD RMH 0 C·l C-2 CH LM CM
k. Reeraationol vehicle X X X
and equipment 1tor·
apyud
I. 'll!mporary a uto otor-X X X X X X X X X X X X
qe for automobile
dwen
m. Parking lots that X
aerve a nearby oom -
merciaJ 11M located
on a previoualy UD·
improved proJ>erty in
the R.-1 :12 1000 on
an arterial a-t
n. SU.,-.ioe,aDdre-X X X
pair of electric vohi·
c:lea .. aet JOrth in
Sec:tioD 29.10.020
(8) Raidentiol UBe&
a. One-family dwelling X X X X X
b. 'IW<>-family dwelling X X X X X .. Multiple-family X X X X X
dwelling
d . Boardingbouae X X X X
•.. .,._t hotel ---· -----------X X X
f. Mobile home park X -----··-
I· Re•ident.ial condo-X X X X X X
minium
h . Caretaker reaidenee X X
i. Reserved
j . Converlion of a m<>-X X
bile home park to
oondomlnium....,.....
lhip
k. Live/work units X X X X X
(9) Agriculture and Animal
Services
a. BotaniooJ DUrBOJY X X X X X X X X X X X X
b. DaiJYing X X .. Veterinary boapitol X X X X
(without kennel)
d . Kennel X X X
e. Commen:ial and pri-X X ·x X X
...te otablel and rid·
ing aoademiee
f . Wmeriee that have X
been J.cally and eon-
tinUOUI)y operatina
for at leaat 60 yean
or ia operat.d in eon-
junetion with a vine-
yard
I· A'fiarieo and other X X X
wholaaaling uima).
ralaing facilitiee
b. Vmeyuda, on:barda, X X X
and apioultural or
farming aetivitiea
graater than S,OOO
•. r.
Supp. No . 64 2048
( ..
TABLE OF CONDITIONAL
USES RC HR
(10) Light Indu.strial
a . Large reeyclin( ool -
leetion fac:iliti01
b. Large reeyclinf col· X
lection facilit.ie• op-
erated by a public
agency
c. Equipment rental
yard
d. Cona1nlction materi·
ala yard
e. Bulkfuelatoraaeand
aalu
f. Dry cleaning plante
g. Hu.ud0114 wute
management facility
(ll)Other
a. Outdoor .toraae
b. Changing the activ-X
ity in a noneonform-
int building
c. 24 hour businesses
or businesses open
between the hours of
2:00 a.m. and 6:00
a.m.
X
X
ZONING REGULATIONS
Rl RD R·M R-m RMH 0
X X X X X X
X X X X X
X
§ 29 .20.190
C-1 C-2 CH LM CM
X X
X X X X X
X X X
X X
X X
X X X
X
X X X
X X X X X
X X X X X
(Ord. No. 1316, § 5.20.205, 6-7-76; Ord. No. 1363, 8-1-77; Ord. No. 1367, 9-19-77; Ord. No .
1369, 10-3-77; Ord. No. 1375, 11-21~77 ; Ord. No. 1405, 9-5-78; Ord. No. 1417, 2-20-79; Ord. No.
1476, 9-15-80; Ord. No. 1483, 12-2-80; Ord. No. 1493, 3-17-81; Ord. No. 1506, 7-6-81; Ord. No.
1531, 4 -20-82; Ord. No. 1546, 8-16-82 ; Ord. No . 1555, 10-25-82; Ord. No.1571, 3-7-83; Ord. No.
1596, 10-24-83; Ord. No. 1654, 4-22-85; Ord. No. 1667, 12-2-85; Ord. No. 1701, 12-15-86; Ord.
No. 1724, 5-18-87; Ord. No. 1725, 6-1-87; Ord. No. 1729, 6-15-87; Ord. No.1732, 7-20-87; Ord.
No. 1737, § V, 11-2-87; Ord. No. 1746, 3-21-88; Ord. No. 1835, §III, 7-16-90; Ord. No.1842, §II,
4-1-91; Ord. No. 1896, §I, 4-6-92 ; Ord. No. 1961, §I, 11-15-93; Ord. No. 1993, §I, 1-3 -95 ; Ord.
No . 2006, § IIA, 11-6 -95; Ord. No. 2011 , ~I, 3-4-96; Ord. No. 2107, §II, 11-4-02; Ord. No . 2115,
§III, 9 -15-03; Ord. No . 2131 , §I, 5 -3-04; Ord. No. 2132, §II, 5-17-04; Ord. No. 2149, §I, 5-1-06;
Ord. No. 2220, § I(Exh. A), 10-7-13; Ord. No . 2222, §I(Exh.A), 10-21-13; Ord. No. 2233, § I (Exh.
A), 8-5-14)
Sec. 29.20.190. Findings and decision.
(a) The deciding body, on the basis of the evidence submitted at the hearing, may grant a
conditional use permit when specifically authorized by the provisio ns of this chapter ifit_finds
that:
(1) The proposed use s of the property are e ssential or desirable to t h e publi~ convenience
or welfare;
(2) The proposed u ses w ill not impair the integrity and character of the zon e;
Supp. No. 64 2048.1