The URL can be used to link to this page

Staff Report with Attachments PREPARED BY: JENNIFER ARMER, AICP Senior Planner 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● 408-354-6832 www.losgatosca.gov MEETING DATE: 07/18/2019 ITEM: 2 TOWN OF LOS GATOS GENERAL PLAN UPDATE ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT REPORT DATE: July 12, 2019 TO: General Plan Update Advisory Committee FROM: Joel Paulson, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Continue discussion of Draft Land Use Alternatives. BACKGROUND: On June 20, 2019, General Plan Update Advisory Committee (GPAC) met to discuss and provide direction for draft land use alternatives. At that meeting the GPAC discussed the materials provided in the staff report and requested additional information prior to providing direction on the alternatives report. The information requested is provided below, either as an attachment, link to a location online, or content within this report: A. Existing or Proposed Wildfire Legislation and Plans • Pending Wildfire Legislation summary (Exhibit 4) • Santa Clara County (SCC) Community Wildfire Protection Plan (https://sccfiresafe.org/images/attachments/community-wildfire-protection- plans/Countywide_CWPP/countywide-cwpp-final-draft/Final-Santa-Clara-County- CWPP_08-29-16.pdf) • SCC Community Wildfire Protection Plan Annex 9: Town of Los Gatos (http://www.sccfd.org/images/documents/fire_prevention/CWPP/Annex_9_Town_of_L os_Gatos_2017.pdf) • American Planning Association (APA) Zoning Practice – Wildfire Adaptation (Exhibit 5) B. Form-Based Zoning At the June 20, 2019 GPAC meeting a committee member requested additional information about Form Based Zoning. The APA produced a Zoning Practice booklet on this topic, which is provided for your information (Attachment 6). Please note that consideration of Form- Based Zoning could be included at the Action Item level of the General Plan, and would not be part of an Alternatives Report. PAGE 2 OF 4 SUBJECT: Continue discussion of Draft Land Use Alternatives July 12, 2019 N:\DEV\GPAC\GPAC Staff Reports\2019\7-18-19\Staff Report.docx BACKGROUND (continued): C. Growth Statistics and Projections Attachment 3 provided for the June 20, 2019 GPAC meeting (attached to the Desk Item report), was information about Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA) Objectives and Factors. The Town’s last RHNA allocation was 619 units. As of the end of 2018 the Town has approved building permits for 96 new units. Once the 320 units in phase one of the North 40 are issued the remaining allocation will be 203 units. In 2018, the Town approved building permits for 18 new accessory dwelling units, which is a significant increase over previous years, and is a trend we expect to continue and will result in additional units during this housing element cycle. Two tables from the Background Report Table 2.1-1: Los Gatos Population and Housing Trend, 2010 to 2018, on Page 2-4 (Attachment 7), and Table 3.8-3: Development Capacity Summary, on Page 3-34 (Attachment 8), are provided, but additional discussion of demographic trends (Section 2.1), employment trends (Section 2.3) and development capacity (Section 3.8) can be found in the Background Report, available online here: http://losgatos2040.com/documents.html D. Existing Land Use Designations The description of existing Land Use designations, beginning on page LU-11 of the 2020 General Plan, are included as Attachment 9. These include regulations for density, floor area ratio, height, and lot coverage, depending on land use. In addition, Section 3.3 of the Background Report is provided as Attachment 10, summarizing the existing General Plan land use designations, and including a map of where those designations are throughout Town. The full General Plan Land Use map is available online at the following link: https://www.losgatosca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/13106/GeneralPlanLandUseMap . E. Example Alternatives Reports The Alternatives Reports listed below are from other jurisdictions and are provided for a better understanding of what an Alternatives Report contains. Please note that these are the result of this phase of the General Plan update process, and the result of work by the consultant after this evening’s high level land use discussion. • Town of Windsor: bit.ly/windsoralts • Union City: bit.ly/unioncityalts • City of Gilroy: bit.ly/gilroyalts • City of Campbell: bit.ly/campbellalts PAGE 3 OF 4 SUBJECT: Continue discussion of Draft Land Use Alternatives July 12, 2019 N:\DEV\GPAC\GPAC Staff Reports\2019\7-18-19\Staff Report.docx DISCUSSION: From the information above, we can see that the population growth has been very slow, and projections would likely show only minimal growth in the future. However, from previous GPAC discussions there is a general understanding that construction of new housing is something that new state regulations will likely require in coming years. In order to allow for that growth in a purposeful way, the alternatives in the Alternatives Report should include where that growth would be best situated. At the June 20, 2019, a consensus was reached that additional density in the hillsides was not desirable, both for the protection of the natural character of the hills ides and as a part of wildfire preparedness. The next step in this discussion is where additional housing density might be incorporated into our General Plan land use diagram. At its core, the question that we are asking is: Is there a desire to change the General Plan Land Use Map? If there is a consensus that one of the alternatives should plan for additional housing this could be done in many ways, including but not limited to: • Expanding the area covered by higher density housing designations ; • Specifying the density of housing allowed in commercial land use designations; or • Increasing the density, height, or floor area currently allowed in specific land use designations. If there is consensus that there is an interest in particular changes in commercial land use designations, then direction could be given in regards to what types of uses, and where they might be located, could be done in many ways, including but not limited to: • More neighborhood serving commercial along Los Gatos Boulevard, or within existing commercial centers in Town; • Development of an innovation center around the potential Vasona Light Rail Station location or off of Oka Road; or • Construction of new hotels on the remaining North 40 properties. These discussions can focus primarily on the map, looking at general areas (for example, Los Gatos Boulevard), or look at very specific areas (for example, the Union Avenue shopping center). Or the discussion could also include how we might change the current limitations, for example height, that is included in the description of the zones. PAGE 4 OF 4 SUBJECT: Continue discussion of Draft Land Use Alternatives July 12, 2019 N:\DEV\GPAC\GPAC Staff Reports\2019\7-18-19\Staff Report.docx NEXT STEPS: The next steps in the General Plan update process include: • Discuss policy choices; • Perform alternatives analysis and prepare the Alternatives Report; and • Provide the Alternatives Report to the GPAC for review prior to next community workshop. ATTACHMENTS: Attachments previously received with June 20, 2019 Staff Report: 1. Issues and Opportunities Report (38 pages) 2. Maps of Potential General Plan Focus Areas (11 pages) Attachment previously received with June 20, 2019 Desk Item Report: 3. RHNA Objectives and Factors (one page) Attachment received with this Staff Report: 4. Pending Wildfire Legislation Summary (five pages) 5. APA Zoning Practice – Wildfire Adaptation (eight pages) 6. APA Zoning Practice – Form-Based Zoning (eight pages) 7. Background Report Table 2.1-1: Los Gatos Population and Housing Trend (one page) 8. Background Report Table 3.8-3: Development Capacity Summary (one page) 9. 2020 General Plan Land Use Designations (seven pages) 10. Background Report Section 3.3: Existing General Plan Land Use Designations (five pages) SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES AND WATER Senator Henry Stern, Chair 2019 - 2020 Regular Bill No: AB 1516 Hearing Date: June 25, 2019 Author: Friedman Version: June 11, 2019 Urgency: No Fiscal: Yes Consultant: William Craven Subject: Fire prevention: wildfire risk: defensible space and fuels reduction management BACKGROUND AND EXISTING LAW 1)Requires the Board of Forestry and Fire Protection (Board) to classify all lands within the state for the purpose of determining areas in which the financial responsibility of preventing and suppressing fires is primarily the responsibility of the state [known as the State Responsibility Area (SRA)]. 2)Requires the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CalFire) to identify certain areas outside the SRA as very high fire hazard severity zones (VHFHSZ) based on consistent statewide criteria and based on the severity of fire hazard that is expected to prevail in those areas. 3)Requires a person who owns, leases, controls, operates, or maintains a building or structure on land that is covered with flammable material in the SRA or VHFHSZ to maintain defensible space of 100 feet around the structure. Requires the most intense fuels management to be within 30 feet of the structure. 4)Requires CalFire to develop and update a guidance document on fuels management that includes regionally appropriate vegetation management suggestions that preserve and restore native species that are fire resistant, or drought tolerant, or both, minimize erosion, minimize water consumption, and permit trees near homes for shade, aesthetics, and habitat. Requires the guidelines to include suggestions to minimize or eliminate the risk of flammability of non-vegetative sources of combustion, such as woodpiles, propane tanks, decks, and outdoor lawn furniture. 5)Authorizes a local agency enforcing defensible space requirements within a VHFHSZ to conduct defensible sp ace work on a property owner’s land if the owner fails to, and place a lien on the property for the expense of the work. 6)Authorizes CalFire to remove vegetation that is inconsistent with defensible space requirements and place a lien on the property for the expense of the work. 7)Establishes tiers of penalties for failure to maintain defensible space that include: a)A fine of not less than $100, nor more than $500 for a first violation. b)If a person is convicted of a second violation within five years a fine of not less than $250, nor more than $500. ATTACHMENT 4 AB 1516 (Friedman) Page 2 of 5 c) If a person is convicted of a third violation within five years, that person is guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be punished by a fine of not less than $500. d) If a person is convicted of a third violation within five years, CAL FIRE may perform or contract for the performance of work necessary to comply with the defensible space requirement and may bill the person convicted for the costs incurred instead of the fine. 8) Authorizes the court to reduce the fine impos ed for the violation of the defensible space requirement to $50 if the person produces proof that the work has been done. 9) Requires, except as specified, any person that owns, controls, operates, or maintains any electrical transmission or distribution line in the SRA to maintain around and adjacent to any pole or tower that supports a switch, fuse, transformer, lightning arrester, line junction, or dead end or corner pole, a firebreak that consists of a clearing of not less than 10 feet in each direction fr om the outer circumference of such pole or tower. 10) Requires any person that owns, controls, operates, or maintains any electrical transmission or distribution line in the SRA to maintain a clearance in all directions between all vegetation and all conducto rs as follows: a) For any line which is operating at 2,400 or more volts, but less than 72,000 volts, four feet; b) For any line which is operating at 72,000 or more volts, but less than 110,000 volts, six feet; and, c) For any line which is operating at 110,000 or more volts, 10 feet. 11) Requires dead trees, old decadent or rotten trees, trees weakened by decay or disease, and trees or portions thereof that are leaning toward the line that may contact the line from the side or may fall on the line to be felled, cut, or trimmed to remove the hazard. 11) Authorizes owners of any electrical transmission or distribution line to traverse land as necessary, regardless of land ownership or permission from the owner, after providing notice and an opportunity to be heard to the land owner, to prune trees to maintain and to abate, by pruning or removal, any hazardous, dead, rotten, diseased, or structurally defective live trees. 12) Declares the Legislature intends that the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) and CalFire encourage the use of the concept "right tree right place" to reduce the need for utility vegetation management. 13) Requires CalFire to assist local governments in preventing future high intensity wildland fire and vegetation management problems by making its wildland fire prevention and vegetation management expertise available to local governments to the extent possible within budgetary limitations. AB 1516 (Friedman) Page 3 of 5 PROPOSED LAW 1) Makes Resource Conservation Districts eligible within counties to receive loans from a county, as are many other special districts, to perform its functions and meet their obligations. 2) Requires a noncombustible zone within 5 feet of a structure located in the State Responsibility Area (SRA) or a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones (VHFHSZ). Requires CalFire to identify the types of vegetation or fuel that are to be excluded from a noncombustible zone based on the probability that vegetation and fuel will lead to ignition of a structure as part the their defensible space guidance documents. 3) Requires, on or before January 1, 2022, CalFire to update the guidance documents to include suggestions for creating a noncombustible zone within five feet of a structure. Specifies the noncombustible zone requirements do not take effect until CAL FIRE updates its guidelines. 4) Requires CalFire and each local agency within a VHFHSZ to make reasonable efforts to provide notice to residents required to maintain the noncombustible zone prior to imposition of any penalties for violations. 5) Requires each local agency enforcing defensible space requirements within the VHFHSZs to annually report to CalFire the number of inspections, enforcement actions, and estimated compliance rates within its jurisdiction. 6) Requires CalFire, where necessary and feasible, to use members of the California Conservation Corps, local conservation corps, RCDs, fires safe councils, or other entities deemed appropriate to remove vegetation that is inconsistent with defensible space requirements within the SRA. 7) Requires CalFire, commencing January 1 , 2021, to ensure the inspection of each known structure within the SRA at least once every three years. Requires CalFire to provide a biennial training at each of its units for applicable local officials on defensible space inspections. 8) Requires CalFire, by July 1, 2021, to develop a wildland -urban interface risk model to determine the risk for a community or a parcel within local or state responsibility areas, and guidelines for the proper use of the model as provided. CalFire is required to update the model whenever fire hazard severity zones are revised. The model would include defensible space compliance data, whether building standards are complied with, community fire prevention work, and other relevant data. Guidelines shall be developed by CalFire so that the risks determined by the model can be made available to CalFire, the Insurance Commissioner, and the residents in the community or the parcel owner for which the risk is being modeled. 9) Prohibits, on and after January 31, 2021, a landowner in a high fire treat district, as determined by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) or the SRA from planting vegetation or failing to remove volunteer vegetation, near electrical transmission and distribution lines and towers that can encr oach within 10 feet of overhead conductors at any time. 10) Requires CalFire and the CPUC, in consultation with owners of any electrical transmission or distribution line, to develop a guidebook of tree and shrub species that, if planted in the vicinity of ele ctrical transmission and distribution lines, would not encroach within 10 feet of overhead conductors at any time. These provisions relating to utility lines are called “right tree, right place.” AB 1516 (Friedman) Page 4 of 5 11) Requires CalFire to make its dedicated fuel reduction crews available to local governments, special districts, and utilities, to the extent possible within the department’s budgetary limitations. Authorizes CalFire to establish a cost-share or in-kind contribution requirement for any fuel reduction work conducted for those entities. ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT According to the author, last year the Legislature made important improvements to California’s fire prevention efforts. However, there are additional opportunities to improve the fire safety of California communities. Defensible space is vital for protecting homes and communities from wildfire. Homes complying with the newest building standards are ignition resistant only if defensible space requirements are being met. Last year on the first inspection over 24,000 homes in the SRA had not done their defensible space work. Hundreds of homes still had not done their defensible space work after three inspections. The state has no defensible space compliance or inspection data for VHFHSZs. In addition, many structures within the SRA are only inspected every four years while others are inspected every year. It is believed that homes in recent fires ignited because vegetation was in front of their windows and under their eves. Creating a noncombustible zone wit hin five feet of a structures for high fire hazard areas is recommended by fire professionals and was referenced in CalFire’s 45 day report to the Governor. AB 1516 will improve compliance for defensible space requirements and institute a noncombustible zone. AB 1516 also requires the use of “right tree right place” for future planting under electrical lines in high fire hazard areas. Landowners could consult a guidebook developed to provide options of vegetation that would never grow into energized conductors and cause fires. This will reduce vegetation management costs, conflict with landowners, and reduce vegetation contact with lines. Finally, the AB 1516 modernizes CalFire’s requirements to provide technical assistance to local governments on fire prevention and appropriate vegetation management. Although in support of the measure, the Personal Insurance Federation of California seeks creation of an advisory workgroup to participate in the development of the new wildfire risk model. This remains a matter in active discussion. ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION The California Farm Bureau Federation is opposed unless the bill is amended to exempt orchards (that it does not consider to be fire threats) that are plowed or cultivated from the prohibition regardi ng encroachment within 10 feet of overhead utility line conductors. This question is under discussion between the opposition and the author and will likely be resolved. COMMENTS The concern of the Farm Bureau is under active discussion with the author who has indicated it will be successfully resolved. AB 1516 (Friedman) Page 5 of 5 SUPPORT Allstate American Property Casualty Insurance Association – if amended CA Firesafe Council California Association of Resource Conservation Districts California Building Industry Association California State Association of Counties Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Personal Insurance Federation of California – if amended Resource Conservation District Greater San Diego County Rural County Representatives of California San Diego Gas & Electric Sierra Club of California The Nature Conservancy OPPOSITION California Farm Bureau Federation – unless amended -- END -- This Page Intentionally Left Blank 9 ISSUE NUMBER 9 PRACTICE WILDFIRE ADAPTATION ZONING PRACTICE SEPTEMBER 2018 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION ATTACHMENT 5 ZONINGPRACTICE 9.18 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION | page 2 Zoning and Land-Use Tools in the Wildland-Urban Interface By Anna Read, aicp, and Molly Mowery, aicp From wine country in California to suburban homes in Colorado to small towns in Tennessee, large wildfires threatening homes and communities are in the headlines more often than ever. As development increasingly spreads into areas that border or commingle with forests, grasslands, and other open spaces—an area known as the wildland- urban interface, or WUI—more communities are taking steps to proactively address the risks associated with wildfire. WUI regulations have traditionally been administered and enforced by local fire or building departments. As a result, many of these regulations focus on fire protection standards (such as access and water supply), structural vulnerabilities, and public and firefighter safety. These are critical issues that are essential for reducing loss of life and property. However, as concern about and awareness of the WUI grows, communities are also recognizing the need to look at a broader range of strategies to address and mitigate wildfire risk to the built and natural environments. This provides an opportunity for planners to play an active role in address- ing and mitigating wildfire risk through local land-use and development regulations. THE WILDLAND-URBAN INTERFACE The wildland-urban interface is defined as the area where human development meets or intermingles with wildlands, such as forests, grasslands, and shrub lands. The WUI is fur- ther defined in two primary typologies: • Intermix WUI—Development is inter- spersed with wildland vegetation, such as forested areas. • Interface WUI—Development borders but is not interspersed with wildland vegetation. This may appear as a clear edge between the wildlands and the WUI development. The WUI has expanded rapidly over the last several decades and WUI conditions exist in all 50 states. WUI growth can happen in two ways: the expansion of development into wildlands and the revegetation of wild- lands in proximity to homes (such as the reforestation of formerly agricultural lands). The former accounts for the vast majority of WUI growth (Radeloff et al., 2018). Recent research by the SILVIS Lab at the University of Wisconsin and the U.S. Depart- ment of Agriculture Forest Service (USFS) found that between 1990 and 2010, the WUI (as defined in terms of housing density and vegetation) increased in area by 33 percent (from 581,000 to 770,000 km2, an area larger than the state of Texas). Additionally, the number of housing units in the WUI grew by 41 percent (from 30.8 million to 43.4 million homes), with dwellings in the WUI account- ing for 43 percent of new home construction over this period. One-third of homes and nearly one-third of the U.S. population are located in the WUI, which accounts for just less than 10 percent of the land area in the conterminous U.S. (Radeloff et al., 2018). The WUI is often spatially defined in terms of the relationship of developed land to wildlands. However, the WUI can also be thought of as a set of conditions where the relationship between development and wildlands increases the risk of or exposure to wildfire. These include both natural condi- tions and conditions of the built environment. Natural conditions include topography, hydrology, and climate, while conditions of the built environment include lot size, road construction, the flammability of structures, the proximity of structures to other structures and vegetation, and the type and location of vegetation. Essentially, the WUI does not become a problem until these conditions com- bine to create heightened wildfire risk. Multiple trends have driven growth in the WUI. These include development expand- ing outward as people search for more affordable housing in suburban and exurban communities, the development of second homes in communities with scenic or recre - ational resources, and the desire to live in proximity to nature. WUI Challenges When human development comes into proximity with wildlands, it poses multiple challenges. These include habitat fragmenta- tion, spread of invasive species or diseases, and impacts on water quality (a significant concern given that National Forests are the drinking water source for 66 million Ameri- cans). Wildfire, however, is one of the primary concerns due to the scope of potential impacts it can have on communities, includ- ing local air and water quality issues, damage to property, threats to public safety, damage to critical infrastructure and interruptions in services, loss of views and aesthetic values, postfire erosion concerns, impacts to tourist- based economies, and more. Unlike other hazards, wildfires are often started by human activities. Wildfires ignited by humans, including those that spread from homes to surrounding wild- lands, account for 84 percent of all wildfires and add an estimated 40,000 wildfires per year. They have tripled the length of the fire season and expanded the geography of wildfire (Balch et al. 2017). The Rising Costs of Wildfire As the WUI has grown, so too have the costs associated with fighting wildland fire. The costs of fire suppression have been consuming an increasing share of the USFS budget, accounting for more than half of it in FY2015, compared to 16 percent in 1995. And in FY2017, the USFS fire suppression costs exceeded $2 billion. As more funds are directed to fighting fires, fewer resources are available for other activities, including those that reduce wildfire risk. The costs of fire suppression, which also impact state and local agency budgets, do not represent the full economic impacts of wildfire on WUI communities. Communities face a range of direct and indirect economic impacts from wildfire, including property loss and damage, loss of working lands (e.g., timber and agriculture), and disruptions to the tourism industry. The economic impacts ZONINGPRACTICE 9.18 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION | page 3 of the 2017 California wildfires are estimated to have been $10 billion (Cal Fire). Living with Wildfire In many landscapes, wildfire is a natural ecological process. It plays an important role in maintaining native plant species, control- ling pest populations, and providing habitat. However, following an intense fire season in 1910, which burned through millions of acres of forests and devastated frontier towns in Idaho and Montana, the recently formed U.S. Forest Service began to focus on rapid suppression of wildfires. This soon evolved into use of a “least-cost-plus-loss” model, which focused on suppression levels that accounted for the economic losses caused by wildfires. By 1935, response and suppression tactics had been codified into the so-called 10 a.m. policy, which called for fires to be contained by 10 a.m. on the day after they were reported (Donovan and Brown, 2005). While these policies were designed to protect towns and timber resources from wildfires, the active suppression or exclusion of wildfire from landscapes with natural fire regimes interrupted the natural ecosystems and led to an accumulation of understory, which provides additional fuel for fires and helps them move more quickly. These fire management practices coincided with the growth of development and population in the WUI. As the wildfire risk has grown—for reasons including both a changing climate and the long-term impacts of past fire man- agement practices—more people now live in areas that are at risk from wildfire. It’s also important to understand that response and suppression continues to serve an essential role in community pro- tection. Fire response agencies are 97 to 99 percent effective; although only a small percentage of wildfires escape initial attack, under the right conditions these escaped fires pose significant challenges to communi- ties when they burn into developed areas by overwhelming resources and leading to WUI disasters (Cohen, 2008). Communities there- fore should not rely on wildfire suppression alone and must plan for scenarios where structures and other assets are prepared for wildfires. Fire Adaptation Because wild- fire exclusion is increasingly rec- ognized as having contributed to the wildfire management challenge, and there is growing awareness that wildfire plays an important role in many ecosystems, communities are work- ing to adapt to living with wildfire. Becoming fire adapted—or acting to improve a com- munity’s ability to live with wildfire—is an ongoing process that involves multiple tools and strategies. Effective land-use and zoning regulations can be a key part of a commu- nity’s strategy for reducing risk and more effectively living with wildfire. LAND-USE AND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS FOR THE WILDLAND-URBAN INTERFACE Where and how development is located in the WUI plays an important role in mitigating wildfire risk. However, previous research by Headwaters Economics, Wildfire Planning International, and Clarion Associates found that while many communities have under- taken activities to reduce their wildfire risk, these rarely include a comprehensive appli- cation of land-use planning tools. This may be the case for multiple reasons, including lack of staff capacity, lack of political will, or because wildfire issues have traditionally been addressed by staff in other depart- ments (Rasker et al. 2015). As a result, land-use and development regulations are both important tools for com- munities to consider as part of their strategy for addressing and living with wildfire, and many communities have yet to realize the full potential of these tools for addressing wildfire risk. Planners should consider a number of factors of how and where development is located in the WUI, beyond whether or not development is sited in areas of high wild- fire hazard. Although the list below is not exhaustive, it does include considerations likely to be addressed through land-use and development regulations: • Spatial pattern and extent of development in the WUI, including whether the develop- ment is intermix or interface WUI, and the density of the development • Siting of structures on the lot, with considerations for topography, spacing between structures, and setbacks • Ingress/egress for fire-fighting equipment and evacuations, including standards for minimum width or maximum grade of roads and driveways, as well as requirements for secondary access for emergency response or evacuation • Hazardous materials or land uses, including the storage of hazardous or combustible materials, such as fuel stor- age facilities • Landscaping and vegetation mainte- nance, including creating and maintaining defensible space around homes and using native plants and drought- or fire- resistant landscaping, reducing aesthetic features such as vegetative buffers, as well as maintenance of community parks, trails, or open spaces • Water supply and water storage, includ- ing on-site storage • Land uses that allow for large congrega- tions of people, such as outdoor mass gatherings such as summer festivals, weddings, and concerts This infographic from the USDA helps to illustrate the national scale of the wildland-urban interface.U.S. Department of Agriculture ZONINGPRACTICE 9.18 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION | page 4 The factors outlined above can be addressed through a range of land-use and development regulations, from wildfire haz- ard overlay zones to landscape standards, which are further described in the section that follows. These tools apply to different scales, from the community or district scale to the site scale (where there is most likely to be overlap with issues addressed in the building or fire codes). These tools may be incorporated into zoning ordinances and land-use and development codes, or may be adopted as stand-alone ordinances, as is generally the case with a WUI code. Others, such as wildfire overlay zones, require that the community have a zoning ordinance. This may be a challenge in communities that do not have zoning authority. It’s important to note that land-use controls are not meant to eliminate the risk of wildfire, but to be a tool for communi- ties to locate and regulate development in ways that mitigate risk and help them more effectively live with wildfire. It’s also important to note that there are different considerations for existing development in the WUI, where structures are unlikely to be relocated and where nonconforming uses are likely to exist, than there are for new development that can be planned and built to current codes and standards. In practice, implementation of land-use and zoning regulations to reduce wildfire risk and moderate impacts to the natural environ- ment has taken a variety of forms. Douglas County, Colorado, located between Denver and Colorado Springs on Denver’s Front Range, adopted a Wildfire Hazard Overlay District in 1999. The overlay district applies to all areas that have been mapped and any areas that have been field-verified as potential hazard areas based on an adopted hazard rating system. Development and the various measures used to regulate develop- ment such as building permits, exemptions, rezoning, site improvement, and subdivi- sions, must mitigate hazards and comply with standards for road and street design, signage, and emergency water supply (Doug- las County). Flagstaff, Arizona, is located in the largest contiguous ponderosa pine forest in the world. The majority of the city is located within the WUI. In 2008, the city adopted the International Code Council’s International Wildland Urban Interface Code (IWUIC)—a model WUI code for local governments—as part of their International Fire Code update. The initiation of their WUI code followed the adoption of a Community Wildfire Protection Plan and extensive public outreach, which was incorporated into local amendments to the code (Summerfelt and Wheeler). Following the 2003 fire season, which included the Cedar Fire—California’s largest wildfire up to that time—San Diego County adopted a defensible space ordinance for the unincorporated areas of the county (San Diego County). The ordinance prohibits the accumulation of combustible materials or other vegetative waste, as well as flammable materials within 100 feet of the exterior perimeter of a property and within 30 feet of a property line. It further prohibits the accu- mulation of such materials within 10 feet on either side of driveways and private roads. It also allows the fire warden to determine if more extensive zones of clearance are neces- sary (SEC. 68.404. A-D). The regulatory interventions pursued by these three municipalities represent just a small subset of the potential paths that cities and counties may want to pursue. The following codes, mechanisms, standards, and practices provide a more complete menu of options that can be useful in addressing the challenges faced by munici- palities in the WUI. Wildfire Hazard Overlay Zones Overlay zones are a tool to apply a supple - mental designation to the base zoning provisions of a zoning district. Overlay zones, which are used for a broad range of purposes, can be an effective tool for com- munities in the WUI because they modify the base zoning provisions of the district, creating area-specific standards. Creating a wildfire hazard overlay zone can therefore be used to apply additional standards aimed at mitigating wildfire risk. A community may limit development of certain uses, such as critical facilities, within the wildfire overlay zone. Or it may require additional review for development, or spe- cific mitigation practices, such as defensible space or fire-resistant landscaping. Imple- mentation of a wildfire hazard overlay zone requires technical mapping of the wildfire hazard area. One important note in using overlay zones is that wildfire hazard areas can be extensive across communities and may not fit neatly within an easily defined area; in all This photo from Fort Walton Beach, Florida, illustrates the often sharp delineation between wildland and urban areas, and the risk of wildfire. No structures were damaged in this June 2011 fire. Eglin Air Force Base ZONINGPRACTICE 9.18 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION | page 5 cases, communities should tie the delinea- tion of hazard zone to a wildfire hazard map. Transfer of Development Rights Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) programs designate “sending areas” and “receiving areas.” The sending areas pre - serve and protect open space or other ecologically important areas in perpetuity in exchange for higher density development in the receiving areas, or areas of the com- munity where development is encouraged. Because TDR programs permanently protect open space and ecologically important areas, they can be designed to include designated areas of wildfire concern as sending areas or to prohibit the inclusion of areas of wildfire concern in the designated receiving areas. Designating areas of wild- fire concern as sending areas permanently conserves these areas as open space, which reduces development in higher hazard areas. Prohibiting the inclusion of areas of wildfire concern in receiving areas can limit additional growth in existing development in high-hazard areas or further expansion of development in the WUI. Both structures encourage development in areas of the com- munity with lower wildfire hazard. WUI Code A WUI code is designed to promote safer building and development within a wildland- urban interface area. WUI codes are often adopted as stand-alone codes that work in conjunction with the local fire and building codes. WUI codes address a broad range of considerations, including establishing minimum regulations related to the density and location of structures and defining allowable building materials and vegeta- tion management practices. WUI codes also address access for emergency vehicles and water supply. WUI codes may apply to all new construction, as well as modifications to existing structures or properties. The IWUIC provides a model for municipalities that are interested in pursuing a WUI code. Municipalities should also check with their state building councils to determine whether additional locally adopted WUI requirements within the building envelope do not conflict with state building code authority. Subdivision Regulations and Cluster Subdivisions Because subdivision regulations address a range of conditions on the parcel, they can be an effective tool for addressing a number of issues of concern for communities in the WUI. These include access (ingress/egress), roads, water supply, landscaping and veg- etation management, street signage, and areas of refuge. Subdivision regulations also define the allowable density of development and address siting of structures on the par- cel. They may also enumerate requirements for open space within the development. Subdivision regulations may address clustering of buildings on the site (cluster subdivisions), often in conjunction with the provision of open space. Los Angeles’s Sayre Fire of 2008 destroyed 489 residences, including 480 homes in the Oakridge Mobile Home Park pictured here. Damage to local infrastructure and utility services made even the surviving homes uninhabitable. Federal Emergency Management Agency ZONINGPRACTICE 9.18 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION | page 6 Cluster subdivision standards (also referred to as conservation subdivisions), can be a another tool for addressing develop- ment location to reduce wildfire risk in the WUI. These standards can be mandatory or optional and are generally included in and implemented through subdivision regula- tions. They cluster development on a site without increasing the overall density on that site. This can protect and preserve open space on the site and can also create fuel breaks or defensible space that help protect homes from wildfire (and wildlands from homes). These standards can be used to clus- ter development outside of high-risk areas. A University of Wyoming study exam- ined fire suppression expenditures across 291 wildfires in three western states and found that the cost of protecting a small number of homes in a dispersed develop- ment pattern exceeded the cost of protecting a larger number of homes in a clustered development pattern by up to $620,000 (Scofield et al. 2015). Cluster subdivision standards can be an important tool for man- dating or encouraging development outside of high-risk areas, creating fuel breaks between homes and wildlands, and reducing the costs of fire suppression. It is important to note that even in cluster subdivisions, minimum setbacks between homes should still be required in high-density areas where wildfire is a concern to allow for the manage - ment of vegetation surrounding homes and reduce the risk of home-to-home ignitions. Defensible Space Regulations Defensible space regulations are a common and important type of regulation in the WUI. Defensible space regulations define zones for the treatment, maintenance, and removal of vegetation and debris around the struc- ture. Defensible space is often defined in two zones—an inner zone where all combustible material must be removed, and an outer zone, where vegetation must be carefully spaced and maintained. These regulations serve three pur- poses. First, they protect homes from wildfire by creating a buffer between the home and the surrounding wildlands to reduce the likelihood of structural dam- age from flames or radiant heat; second, they reduce the risk that a structural fire will spread from the building to the sur- rounding wildlands; and third, they enable firefighters to more safely protect homes from wildfires. Landscape Standards Defensible space regulations may address landscaping; however, communities may also want to more comprehensively address landscaping in areas of wildfire risk through more specific landscape standards. These standards address the landscaping on a site, specifying the types of plants allowable, the amount and location of landscaping, and required maintenance. Landscape standards can be used to encourage or require the use of drought- tolerant and fire-resistant plants in areas of wildfire risk. They can also address the spacing and maintenance of trees and shrubs on a site to make it more difficult for fire to spread between landscape elements and to the home or other structures. Use-Specific Standards Use-specific standards apply a supplemental set of conditions or regulations applied to specific land uses. They can be applied to all zoning districts, or to specific subareas, such as a community’s mapped WUI or areas of high wildfire risk. They can address specific issues related to wildfire hazards, such as hazardous materials of fuel storage. Use-specific standards can be subject to dis- cretionary review to determine whether the proposed use complies with the standards. Code Enforcement WUI regulations cannot be effective without ongoing enforcement. This can be a chal- lenge in resource-limited communities or where multiple departments are involved and lines of responsibility are not clearly delineated. For example, a study by the National Fire Protection Association, high- lighted in the May 2012 issue of Zoning Practice, found that the foremost main- tenance challenge cited by 12 case study communities was ongoing maintenance of defensible space (Mowery and Anthony 2012). Regulations that are not implemented or enforced will not result in a reduction of wildfire risk to the community. As a result, it is important that communities clearly define the responsibility for enforcement and des- ignate the necessary staff and resources to enforce the adopted regulations. Understanding Existing WUI Regulations This article outlines multiple planning tools that communities can use to address chal- lenges in the WUI. However, the regulatory steps that communities have taken to address wildfire risk in the WUI are most often con- centrated in the fire and building codes. The building code can be used to address construc- tion and materials to mitigate wildfire risk, including use of ignition resistant materials for roofs, decks, and patios. The fire code may contain provisions related to water supply and on-site water storage, as well as standards related to fire equipment access to the site. It is important for planners working in the WUI to be aware of and understand wildfire and WUI-related provisions in other adopted codes and build relationships with their colleagues in other departments who have responsibility for enforcing these regulations. Addressing Conflict Between Regulations and WUI Management Goals Another consideration for communities in the WUI is potential conflict between existing regulations and WUI management goals. For example, if a community has landscaping standards that promote vegetative buffers, these could be at odds with defensible space requirements or fuel reduction goals. Sign code regulations that seek to minimize signage may be at odds with WUI code regulations that require signs to direct fire- fighters in rural or remote areas. And urban design guidelines may conflict with access measures for fire-fighting equipment. Planners can play an important role in identifying and addressing areas where there may be conflict between existing land-use and development regulations and goals or priorities for WUI management , and can facilitate conversations across departments to help resolve these conflicts. CONCLUSION The WUI has grown rapidly over the last several decades and, given current devel- opment trends, is expected to continue to expand over the next several decades. Past wildfire management practices combined with decades of rapid growth in the WUI and changing climate patterns have made wildfire a real and growing concern for com- munities across the country. Where and how development is located in the WUI has an impact on a community’s ZONINGPRACTICE 9.18 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION | page 7 VOL. 35, NO. 9 Zoning Practice (ISSN 1548–0135) is a monthly publication of the American Planning Association. James M. Drinan, jd, Chief Executive Officer; David Rouse, faicp, Managing Director of Research and Advisory Services; Joseph DeAngelis, aicp, and David Morley, aicp, Editors. Subscriptions are available for $95 (U.S.) and $120 (foreign). Missing and damaged print issues: Contact APA Customer Service (312- 431-9100 or subscriptions@planning.org) within 90 days of the publication date. ©2018 by the American Planning Association, which has offices at 205 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 1200, Chicago, IL 60601–5927, and 1030 15th St., NW, Suite 750 West, Washington, DC 20005–1503; planning.org. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means without permission in writing from APA. Printed on recycled paper, including 50-70% recycled fiber and 10% postconsumer waste. Cover: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, via Wikimedia Commons resilience to wildfire. As communities take steps to mitigate their wildfire risk and become more resilient to wildfire, land-use and development regulations, includ- ing wildfire overlay zones, subdivision regulations, landscaping standards, and defensible space regulations, are an impor- tant part of the toolbox. This creates a more active role for planners in WUI management, which has traditionally been the purview of the fire and building departments. It is important to consider land-use and development regulations as one part of a community’s strategy for addressing wildfire risk in the WUI. The regulations should be used in conjunction with other tools and strategies, such as community wildfire pro - tection plans, fuel treatments, and home owner outreach and education. Although many of the country’s largest and most destructive wildfires have recently occurred in the West, wildfire is not just a western issue. WUI conditions exist in all 50 states, and the challenges faced by commu- nities within the WUI are considerable. As WUI development continues and more people live in proximity to areas that are at risk for wildfire, planners can play an active role in working to address and miti- gate wildfire risk through their community’s land-use and development regulations. ABOUT THE AUTHORS Anna Read, aicp, is a coauthor of the forthcoming PAS Report, Planning the Wildland-Urban Interface. She is a former senior program development and research associate at the American Planning Association. Prior to joining APA, she worked on regional broadband planning efforts for the state of Missouri and as a project manager for the International City/ County Management Association’s Center for Sustainable Communities. She has a master’s degree in city and regional planning from Cornell University. Molly Mowery, aicp, is a coauthor of the forthcoming Planning the Wildland-Urban Interface. She manages Wildfire Planning International, a consulting practice dedicated to helping communities across the United States address the planning challenges and opportunities of living in the wildland-urban interface. She has a master’s degree in city planning from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. REFERENCES Balch, Jennifer, et al. 2017. “Human-started wildfires expand the fire niche across the United States.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 114 (11): 2946–2951. Available at https://bit.ly/2NCHxGV. Cal Fire. “Top 20 Largest California Wild- fires.” Available at https://bit.ly/2LiZwpd. City of Flagstaff, Arizona. “City Code.” Available at https://bit.ly/2uIS5NB. Cohen, Jack. 2008. “The Wildland Urban- Interface Fire Problem.” Forest History Today. Fall. Available at https://bit. ly/2JSJ49L. County of San Diego, California. “Code of Regulatory Ordinances.” Available at https://bit.ly/2Le4dAJ County of Douglas, Colorado. “Douglas County Zoning Resolution, Section 17— Wildfire Hazard Overlay District.” Available at https://bit.ly/2JMdF8T. Donovan, Geoffery, and Thomas Brown. 2005. “Wildfire Management in the U.S. Forest Service: A Brief History.” Natural Hazards Observer 29 (6). Available at https://bit.ly/2JJj9kJ. International Code Council. 2015 Inter- national Wildland-Urban Interface Code. Available at https://bit.ly/2hFzVoN. Mowery, Molly and Anthony, Paul. 2012. “Limiting Wildfire Risk Through Land Use Controls.” Zoning Practice, May. Available at https://bit.ly/2Lh1TJa. Radeloff, Volker, et al. 2018. “Rapid growth of the U.S. Wildland Urban Inter- face exacerbates wildfire problems.” Published ahead of print March 12. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Available at https://bit. ly/2NzLe02. Rasker, Ray, et al. 2015. “Integrating Wildfire into the Land Use Planning Process: A Case Study on Summit County, Colorado.” Available at https:// bit.ly/2uGaZFc. San Diego County Planning and Devel- opment Services. “Fire, Defensible Space, and You. . .” Available at https:// bit.ly/2JMGNg4. Scofield, Anna, et al. 2015. “Residential Development Effects on Firefighting Costs in the Wildland-Urban Interface.” Ruckelshaus Institute, University of Wyoming. Available at https://bit. ly/2uIRmME. Summerfelt, Paul, and Jim Wheeler. “Wildland-Urban Interface Code Adop- tion: How to Avoid the Agony.” Available at https://bit.ly/2uYt5RU. ZONING PRACTICEAMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION205 N. Michigan Ave.Suite 1200Chicago, IL 60601–59279 DOES YOUR CODE ENCOURAGE WILDFIRE ADAPTATION? ZONING PRACTICE APRIL 2018 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION ISSUE NUMBER 4 PRACTICE FORM-BASED ZONING ATTACHMENT 6 ZONINGPRACTICE 4.18 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION | page 2 Living with Your Form-Based Code By Nancy Stroud, aicp, and Elizabeth Garvin, aicp Form-based codes (FBCs) have been avail- able as a zoning approach in various incarnations for about 30 years. According to the Code Study, a collaborative effort to track the development and adoption of form-based codes, as of February 2017, there were 654 codes that met the criteria for form- based codes established by the Form-Based Codes Institute, 344 of which have been adopted. While the study lists codes from 48 states, more than one-third of all form-based codes in the U.S. are in just four states: Florida, California, Texas, and Virginia. So, depending on where you work as you read this, you may not have seen a form-based code in action in your part of the world yet. Like previous “new” approaches to zoning, such as planned unit development, perfor- mance zoning, and conditional zoning, this design-based method of regulation has moved along the zoning continuum from its outsider start to its current status as a fairly mainstream and well-recognized tool. Many in the planning and design commu- nity recognize the value of form-based codes in providing improved regulatory specificity about the built environment. A great deal of time and effort on the part of planners, devel- opers, architects, and the community goes into adopting a new form-based code. Waiting offstage and outside of the footlights, though, is the drama of implementing and using the new regulations. Most communities have the systems in place to implement an updated traditional code. Form-based codes, however, are more than a little different than traditional codes when it comes to project review. If a community’s current application review pro- cess is not already heavily design oriented, the process and the people involved in the process may need to change to accommodate the new review requirements. This article will focus on preparing for and living with the day-to-day administration of a form-based zoning code. After a brief description of the typical form-based code, we will discuss how to introduce the code to essential internal and external users, with a particular emphasis on training (for both staff and the development community), educa- tion of elected and appointed officials, and vigorous public outreach and communica- tion. Then we’ll explore a variety of situations where conflicts often arise during the devel- opment review process, and what practical methods may address and resolve them. Finally, we’ll discuss the process of adjusting the new code as necessary and appropriate. IMPLEMENTATION STARTS WITH DRAFTING The FBC implementation process starts with keeping track of the multiple changes from a traditional to a form-based regulatory approach that are made during the drafting process and that will be reflected in both how a site is designed and how it is reviewed. These changes can be generally categorized as changes that need to be highlighted and changes that need to be taught. For example, changing from a setback line to a build-to line may just need to be illustrated in the regula- tions and highlighted through the public outreach process. Changing from a setback line to a block-based contextual setback may need to be taught. Teaching should take place throughout the drafting process, should be the subject of focus in post-adoption training, and can best be supplemented with a user’s manual that is produced in conjunction with the new regulations. Components of Form-Based Codes A typical form-based code has three key component parts; the careful drafting of each is critical to ensuring a (more) smooth imple - mentation process. The Regulating Plan is comparable to an area plan or specific plan that establishes a very specific future development map. A regulating plan has characteristics similar to a detailed development plan or preliminary plat. The only difference is that creation of the regulating plan usually precedes develop- ment, whereas the development or plat are part of the approval process. The regulating plan pulls together both the building form standards and the public space standards described below and applies them to the com- munity, typically at the lot or block level. Unlike many site-layout regulations in a traditional zoning code, particularly an older zoning code, which are either generally applicable or mix-and-match depending on the use, form-based regulations are place specific. A clear regulating plan helps both staff and the applicant apply the correct regulations to the parcel. Where a commu- nity chooses not to adopt regulating plans, it is critical to identify how the various parts of the form regulations work together so an applicant understands, for example, that an urban form frontage cannot be mixed with a suburban form parking lot design. Building Form Standards are the regula- tory requirements for the various individual building types recognized in the commu- nity. Many of the standards contained in the building envelope standards are also included in traditional regulations, but the physical design focus of form-based codes elevates the importance of these standards. This illustration from Denver’s zoning code highlights select building form standards for shopfront buildings in an Urban Neighborhood Context.City and County of Denver Community Planning and Development ZONINGPRACTICE 4.18 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION | page 3 While traditional zoning identifies a regula- tory black box on a lot for the applicant to fill, form-based codes fill that box with a struc- ture that works in the community context. Changes to the way a community mea- sures building form can result in all kinds of questions from applicants, along with some creative interpretations of the code. For example, while height restrictions are standard in traditional regulations and usu- ally expressed in feet, in a form-based code building height is used to ensure that all structures in a specific area “fit” together, and may be expressed in stories rather than feet. Where the form-based code does not specify a measurement range for a story, an applicant may decide to extend the height of each story and ultimately the height of the structure, thus undermining the whole con- cept of “fit.” Finally, Public Space Standards regu- late streets and public spaces. Creating walkable communities is a core tenet of form-based coding, so the street standards are both pedestrian- and automobile- oriented. These standards include: (1) the design of individual street types (also called thoroughfares, but that’s always harder to spell) with travel lanes, bike lanes, parking areas, and sidewalks; (2) the design and con- nectivity of the overall street system; and (3) required streetscape standards. The active regulation of public spaces may be a new idea in communities with traditional zoning regulations; public space dedication is more typically a function of subdivision design. Explaining the function, size, and design requirements of the various types of public spaces will need to be part of the implemen- tation process. Drafting Tips for Form-Based Codes The best way to head off the angst of change when moving from a conventional code to a form-based code is to take care in the initial drafting of the new code. Code ambiguities resulting from poor drafting are often the subjects of the first code amendments after the initial code adoption. Head off difficulties by addressing the following before adopting the code: Statutorily Defined Terms. Some state and federal statutes use terms that attach specific meaning to land-use requirements. In these cases, it is very important to use those terms (accurately) and to not invent new ones. For example, state statutes typi- cally use the term “variance” to describe and enable a particular land-use approval that must meet specific statutory standards. In that case, the code should not create a new land-use approval process that does not adopt those same standards while refer- ring to it as a “variance.” The same can be true for statutory planning words such as “exceptions” or “consistent.” Furthermore, be aware of circumstances where the code language may have been the subject of court interpretation, as that interpretation must be respected if the same language is used. Plain English. While it is true that form-based codes have developed their own “terms of art,” the more that the code uses plain English, the more readable, understandable, and usable the new code will be. The reader should not have to take a secondary language course to understand how the code works. Use short declara- tory sentences, avoiding the passive voice. Write like Hemingway, not like Faulkner, when writing a code. Do not use two words when they have the same meaning; as one practitioner has stated: “To add is human, to delete is Divine.” Words that are used repeatedly throughout code must retain the same meaning in all contexts. Be very clear about when standards or procedures are mandatory (use the word “shall” or “must”), as opposed to when they are advisory (“are encouraged to” or in many jurisdictions “may”). We counsel clients that advisory lan- guage means that the regulation is optional and the applicant can choose to opt out. Statements of Intent. Statements of Intent, particularly in the introductory provi- sions of the form-based code, can be very helpful to explain the purpose of the form- based code and what it seeks to achieve. Because the new code will often dramatically change the regulatory framework, form- based codes may usefully contain a fuller description of intent than a conventional code. Once the visioning and educational process of community involvement leading up to code adoption is ended, the statement of intent articulates and carries forward this community vision for the future users of the code. For example, the Miami21 code includes an extensive description of purpose and intent, including “guiding principles” that describe goals for the city, the com- munity (including neighborhoods), and for blocks and building (see miami21.org). The Nashville Downtown Code (DTC) has an extensive introduction section that provides information about both why the code estab- lishes specific regulations and how those regulations will be applied to meet com- munity goals. For example, in support of the goal to “create and nurture urban neighbor- hoods,” the introduction explains: To create these distinctive urban neighbor- hoods, the DTC aligns the regulations of each subdistrict with the intended char- acter of the neighborhood. For instance, the South Gulch is envisioned to continue as a high-rise and midrise, mixed-use neighborhood. The DTC codifies mid-rise height in the general subdistrict and allows high-rise buildings on key intersections and along important streets. In contrast, the North Gulch is envisioned to be a low- rise neighborhood – to preserve Capitol views and transition into the Hope Gardens and John Henry Hale neighborhoods. The DTC codifies this vision by capping the overall height, allowing for less intense development such as two story houses and townhouses, and encouraging porch and stoop frontages. The form-based code for the Boulder Junction area in Boulder, Colorado, specifies required locations for different types of public space.City of Boulder ZONINGPRACTICE 4.18 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION | page 4 Definitions. Accurate definitions are critical to the code’s usability. All terms of art should be included in definitions. Definitions should not contain regula- tions or commentary. Regulations should appear in the relevant sections of the code; commentary should appear in state- ments of purpose or in supplementary, nonregulatory publications such as vision statements or guides. Graphics. Form-based codes rely heavily, and with great effect, on graphics. Tables, charts, and illustrations often can efficiently communicate standards more understandably than words. The code should be very clear about when graphics are explanatory and illustrative rather than regu- latory, and captions for the graphics are very helpful in providing this clarity. TESTING YOUR FORM-BASED CODE Prior to adopting the code, and throughout the process of drafting, the various provi- sions of the code should be put through testing scenarios. Testing will identify where the code is unclear or not effective. It will also highlight those types of reviews that may require additional staff training or com- munity education. Test the code for the types of standard and high-profile development applications that the community expects, or hopes, to be reviewed. Certainly, the administrative staff that will be responsible for implementing the code should be involved in applying the newly drafted code to various development application scenarios. Planners, zoning technicians, building permit officials, and code enforcement personnel are examples of people who need to understand the code before its adoption, so they can alert the drafters to potential administrative issues. Staff should be asked “what is the worst (and best) result that can be cre- ated with this process or standard?” as well as “how can we make it work better?” Testing by the end users of the code—the applicants and their professional con- sultants—will also alert the drafters of potential glitches in the code. We also sug- gest that laypersons should be involved in the testing, to learn how usable and understandable the code is to the general community, including residents and home owners who are likely to pay attention to potential future development. ADMINISTRATIVE PREPARATION The new regulations will need to be rolled out both internally and externally. There are several ways in which the rollout of the new code can be made more successful for both audiences through advance training of staff and advance preparation of guides and forms. Internal Administration The design-centric nature of the form-based code may require additional training for the existing staff, and additional expertise to supplement their skill sets. Administrators across departments may need to learn new concepts and must become familiar with new regulations and tools. Participation in the development and testing of the new code by existing staff—across departments—can identify where the gaps in expertise and experience lie. This early identification and planning for additional or different assis- tance will prepare the administration for budget impacts as well. The new code certainly will require new or revised application forms and review and comment sheets. It will be useful to create a review sheet for each project type, identifying relevant code provisions, provid- ing necessary interpretations (or changes to the draft), and flagging issues that may need special attention or items that need other departmental reviews. Charts that compare the old and new provisions can guide the transition for staff and other users. Implementation of the new code may also require new or updated computer software for intake, processing, and records retention. If a local government relies on its website to provide project submission and review infor- mation, this is the time they should update that information. Communities can use the creation of an application form and checklist as an inter- nal education tool to identify places where interpreting and applying the form-based regulations is straightforward and places where more education, better graphics, and perhaps code amendment will be helpful to staff. And where code changes are helpful to improve staff understanding, they are usually also helpful to the development community. A good application form and checklist go beyond requiring a generic site plan and instead provide guidance about navigat- ing the regulations. Creating a detailed checklist may seem like an unnecessary use of staff time when it is the applicant’s responsibility to follow the code. We dis- agree. A good application checklist directs the applicant to self-help and reduces the number of times that an applicant will call or stop by with questions. This frees staff to help with complex design issues or to work on other projects. The checklist should: (1) identify all of the required contents of the plan, preferably with short descriptions and references to relevant code sections so the applicant can refer back to the code if nec- essary; (2) distinguish requirements that may not be applicable to all developments (e.g., FAR is not measured on residential sites, or supplemental landscape standards are applicable along specific streets); and (3) provide the applicant with a guide to relevant choices, such as identifying spe- cifically applicable subarea regulations (while also asking the applicant to identify where they have made relevant choices; for example, identifying where the applicant has provided a sufficient amount of afford- able housing to opt into a square-footage bonus for a commercial structure). Some examples of detailed submis- sion checklists include Arlington County, Virginia’s Columbia Pike Form Based Code Development Application; Malta, New York’s FBC Project Application Checklist; and Colo- rado Springs, Colorado’s FBZ Development Plan Application Requirements. At this point in the process, it is also prudent to analyze whether the new code would be better implemented with restruc- tured review bodies, or whether board member qualifications need to be changed. Should new board members be appointed? Can those community members active in the development and adoption of the code become board members who help to ensure the success of the code? Putting these changes in place before or concurrent with the new code adoption helps to position the community for better outcomes. For everyone involved in the implemen- tation of the new code, including the staff, board members, and elected officials, a user’s guide to the code will be very helpful. Some communities adopt the code with a narrative supplement to the effect of “how to use this code.” This walks the reader, in layperson’s language, through the basic process of determining which regulations ZONINGPRACTICE 4.18 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION | page 5 apply to a project, including the applicable procedures and standards. A more extensive explanation, with illustrations and other helpful aids, can be provided in an admin- istrative manual. In abbreviated form, the code and the changes it incorporates can be explained also in a “frequently asked ques- tions” document available at the planning counter, the community website, or other pub- lic areas. Examples of a range of approaches to form-based code user guides are available online. Some approaches to providing users with a guide to the regulations: • South Padre Island, Texas, Padre Boule- vard and Entertainment District: The guide takes applicants on a step-by-step walk through the code to determine applicable regulations, along with illustrations and sample calculations. • Chapel Hill, North Carolina, Form- Based Code Guide: This guide offers a detailed preadoption community guide to form-based code basics, regional use, anticipated outcomes, and how form-based regulations could work in a specific area. • Miami, Miami21: The code preamble describes step-by-step instructions for how to navigate the various sections of the code, and the city’s webpage provides an abbreviated description (miami21.org/zoning_usingthecode.asp). • Nashville, Tennessee, Downtown Code: A “how-to” guide is included in the code introduction. It provides basic instruc- tions for using the regulations as well as an overview of procedural options for modifications to standards. • Boulder, Colorado, Form-Based Code: Instructions for the user are built in to the individual sections of the Boulder Junction Phase 1 Code Area, providing users with both graphics of design ele - ments as well as maps of where specific element types should be included in the site design. Finally, a critical area of discus- sion needs to be around the selection of administrative procedures. This will be most relevant for communities that stick to the basic review processes of rezoning and subdivision approval with the random conditional use approval thrown in for vari- ety. Form-based regulations require site plan review and, at a minimum, a method to modify design standards to meet site conditions. This is a different procedure than a variance; and, as we noted above, a variance is a specific procedure with legal requirements that should not be “adjusted” to change the form-based regulations. Many communities opt for at least two types of design modification: one that allows the administrative approval of changes to measurable regulations up to a specific percent of modification and one that creates a higher level of review— typically discretionary—for either a greater percentage of change or change to a more subjective regulation. For example, an administrative modification may be permit- ted for a change of 10 percent or less to a parking lot setback where the topography of the lot makes it a better choice to locate a space in the setback rather than perched over a steep grade. In the same code, there may be a provision that allows planning commission or elected official review and approval of a landscape plan that reduces the required private open space on a lot and replaces it with a public art installation. Another subject for form-based-specific procedures is creation of, and amendment to, regulating plans. Old-school form- based codes came with the regulating plan built in, but these days we are also observing more options to create a regulat- ing plan after the fact. As an example, see Cincinnati’s Form-Based Code (http://bit. ly/2GpInoc), which includes instructions for creating a regulating plan as part of the code. We would be remiss in our duty as attorneys to not tell you here that much of what is permitted in administrative proce- dures is regulated by state law, and your jurisdiction’s attorney should review pro- posed procedures prior to adoption. In 2013, Arlington County, Virginia, adopted the Columbia Pike Neighborhoods Form Based Code to facilitate the preservation of 6,200 affordable housing units.Arlington County, Virginia ZONINGPRACTICE 4.18 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION | page 6 Neighborhood Outreach A mantra of form-based codes proponents is “make the good easy.” In the form-based codes process, one way this is done is by front-loading the public involvement pro- cess. The regulating plan and conceptual design criteria are typically established through an on-site, open-invitation public charrette process. Members of the commu- nity are invited to provide feedback about preferred design options through visual preference surveys, design meetings, and workshops organized over a concentrated time frame, and then provide feedback on the draft regulating plan and form stan- dards. Then the governing body adopts the regulating plan and standards. In many com- munities that adopt form-based codes, this is the end of the public input process. Unless a proposed project is not in compliance with the regulations, the project is approved administratively, without any further notice to the neighbors. Neighbors, even though they may have participated in the charrettes and code- adoption process, understandably are the group most likely to react in unpleasant ways if they are not notified of new develop- ment. While the intention to limit additional input and comment for conforming projects is correct in terms of streamlining project approval, there is no legal requirement that the typically recommended, no-input form-based code procedures be adopted with the new form-based code. And indeed, as projects become more complicated and more code interpretation is required, there are more legal reasons to opt for a higher- level review process. Fort Worth, Texas, provides an example of how to maintain community involvement in both the FBC creation and application-review process. Fort Worth encourages the hands-on creation of new form-based regulations at the neigh- borhood level. When an application is submitted that is noncompliant with the specific FBC, the applicant is referred to community partners in the relevant neigh- borhood to discuss options for revising the application to address both the neigh- borhood’s and developer’s design and function requirements. Your community can decide to proceed in a variety of ways to allow public input in the development approval process. Maybe small or simple projects get administra- tive approval, but projects with community impact get a standard public hearing. Maybe general commercial development gets administrative approval, but down- town development gets a public hearing. Or maybe any project that includes significant changes to public infrastructure, such as street narrowing, requires a public hearing. The point of public involvement in any of these cases may not be to change the proj- ect design, but simply to inform the public of changes that will be taking place and gather input that may ultimately improve the process or the code—and possibly to also avoid a bitter referendum on the form- based code and the elected officials and staff who adopted it. TALKING ABOUT THE ADOPTED CODE Post-adoption is the time when the fun changes from “this new code is so excit- ing and will solve all of our problems” to “wait, this new code won’t let me build my postmodern one-story, with a rusted-metal exterior indoor/outdoor building for a cat cafe and vintage roller rink downtown. I’m calling my council member.” We need to talk up the code, talk about the code, and keep coming back to the code. At the outset we need to keep everybody moving forward with the code. At some point down the road, we can also start letting them know that the code is working. Dialogue is good; mono- logue may be necessary. It can be useful to liken a newly adopted form-based code to a smartphone. Most of us have heard of smartphones; many of us somehow decided that we needed a smartphone. And some of us, upon getting our smartphones, had no idea how to make it do all the things it could do. This is a recurring theme in discussions about form-based codes—not everybody who will be using the code really under- stands the code. If your community is considering preparing a form-based code, the very first step should be to make sure that people who are not experienced plan- ners, such as elected officials, development professionals, and residents, can get on board with this approach. And one conversation is most likely not enough. The new code must also be the subject of continuing education for the com- munity and its leaders and administrators. The basic understanding of the code needs to be maintained. The leadership involved in initial adoption and implementation will likely change over time. The materials and programs that explain the code and its operation need to be kept up to date and in the community’s awareness. Raleigh, North Carolina, is an example of a community that has undertaken an ongoing conversation about form-based regulations. Raleigh adopted a new form- centric code in February 2013 with a six-month window for applicants to submit projects under the old code. During that six- month window, Raleigh’s city planning staff provided external outreach about the new regulations through three to six in-person presentations per week to design profes- sionals, civic groups, neighborhoods, and anybody else with an interest in how the code would work. Internally, the city’s development ser- vices staff did formal training on the new code that still continues, as needed, to the current date. A structured approach, such as Raleigh’s, is key to providing both staff and the design community with a similar under- standing of how to use the new regulations. The adoption of the form-based code ideally brings at least a brief “honeymoon” for the community as it celebrates the promise of better community development and placemaking. Of course, “life hap- pens,” and the challenges of implementing the code will continue. Code implementers can maintain the momentum by looking for and helping to create success stories to share. One of the reasons that form-based codes have gained popularity is the prom- ise that development results will be better for the public, the process more predictable and less costly for the developer, and that projects will add sustainable economic value to the community. The development community can be an ally in delivering this promise if parties are willing to work together to create a success story. Those success stories need to be shared through various media, including both external and internal media sources. Arlington County, Virginia, keeps track of the projects built in the Columbia Pike form-based code area and shares on the project website details about the number of new residential units ZONINGPRACTICE 4.18 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION | page 7 VOL. 35, NO. 4 Zoning Practice (ISSN 1548–0135) is a monthly publication of the American Planning Association. James M. Drinan, jd, Chief Executive Officer; David Rouse, faicp, Managing Director of Research and Advisory Services; Joseph DeAngelis and David Morley, aicp, Editors. Subscriptions are available for $95 (U.S.) and $120 (foreign). Missing and damaged print issues: Contact APA Customer Service (312- 431-9100 or subscriptions@planning.org) within 90 days of the publication date. ©2018 by the American Planning Association, which has offices at 205 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 1200, Chicago, IL 60601–5927, and 1030 15th St., NW, Suite 750 West, Washington, DC 20005–1503; planning.org. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means without permission in writing from APA. Printed on recycled paper, including 50-70% recycled fiber and 10% postconsumer waste. Cover: City and County of Denver Community Planning and Development (including affordable units), overall square footage of new commercial space, and a brief list of new public amenities. AMENDING THE CODE A zoning code, regardless of the approach, is a living document. Planners should antici- pate that the code will need to be amended, to fix “glitches,” to adapt to changes in the planning and development environment, or simply to resolve policy conflicts. Plan- ners should embrace needed changes and address any difficulties head-on. What can the development community teach you about how the code is working or not work- ing? What feedback is the public and the administrators of the code providing? The first several years of implementation may demonstrate that definitions or rules of measurement need adjusting, or the internal inconsistencies need to be resolved. Later, more complex issues resulting from experience with development propos- als may become apparent, or larger policy changes may point to the need for new zon- ing districts or standards. Greater experience with the code may also lead to recognition of a need for administrative or staffing changes. If open communication between all the stakeholders can be nurtured, and an attitude of prob- lem solving be maintained, the necessary changes can improve the effectiveness of the form-based code. Denver’s form-oriented code has been in place long enough for staff to have recognized at least two distinct trends in amendments. During the first four or five years, many of the amendments related to clarifications, rules of measurement and definitions, and internal inconsistencies. After working to clarify and revise those aspects of the regulations, the second era of amendments started to address issues that come with experience with the code. These amendments have included con- sideration of the creation of new districts, new approaches to existing form regula- tions, refinement to regulations to address unanticipated outcomes, and balancing flexibility and clarity. To organize the amendment requests and determine what to consider and what to abandon, Denver holds a weekly technical team meeting to review change requests. The requests are grouped into four cat- egories: clerical error, clarification, minor policy or rule changes, and major policy or rule changes. The first three categories are bundled into annual amendments. The fourth category of changes are considered individually, fully vetted by staff, and may need case studies in support of the requested change. One recent area of change was in the regulation of slot homes or sideways- facing town homes. Residents felt that the layout of this housing form was detracting from neighborhood design, and city staff identified slot homes as noncompliant with neighborhood design objectives. The city undertook a detailed review process that resulted in zoning changes. GOOD CHANGE REQUIRES WORK The continuum of form-based code adoption and application can be both challenging and rewarding. Our goal with this article is to ensure that communities understand that the work doesn’t end with adoption. Anecdot- ally, we have heard of communities where the new form-based code is abandoned as unworkable or amended so as to lose its design effectiveness. We wonder whether those codes lost momentum after adoption because there was still more work to be done. As we see the continued success of form-based regu- lation where the codes have been in place long term, we want to encourage communi- ties with new codes to take these important steps toward structured implementation and acceptance of the form-based code. ABOUT THE AUTHORS Nancy Stroud, aicp, is a founding member of the law firm of Lewis, Stroud & Deutsch. Her practice focuses on land-use law for local governments. Prior to opening her own firm, she led the local government land-use department of a Fort Lauderdale firm that provided representation as municipal attorneys for 18 municipalities in the south Florida region. Stroud is a member and officer of the Form Based Codes Institute. She was the legal consultant for the Miami21 form based zoning code and associated comprehensive plan amendments, which received the 2011 APA National Planning Excellence Award for Best Practice and the 2010 Richard Driehaus Form-Based Code Award. Elizabeth Garvin, aicp, is planning director of SAFEbuilt Studio, where she works in the Denver office. Garvin’s practice focuses on planning and land-use law, regulatory drafting, sustainability, and planning processes for public-sector clients. She has prepared numerous “traditional” zoning codes and subdivision regulations for communities across the country and is currently an on-the-job student of form-based codes. Garvin writes the Rocky Mountain Land Use Institute legal column for Western Planner and is a frequent speaker on zoning topics. The authors thank Tina Axelrad, Denver’s zoning administrator, for her assistance with this article. ZONING PRACTICEAMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION205 N. Michigan Ave.Suite 1200Chicago, IL 60601–5927IS YOUR COMMUNITY READY TO ADMINISTER A FORM- BASED CODE? Page 2-4 Public Draft Background Report | March 2019 Table 2.1-1: Los Gatos Population and Housing Trend, 2010 to 2018 POPULATION HOUSING UNITS Year Total Household Group Quarters Total Single Detached Single Attached Two to Four Five Plus Mobile Homes Occupied Vacancy Rate Persons per Household 2010 29,413 29,063 350 13,050 7,552 1,774 1,218 2,442 64 12,355 5.3% 2.35 2011 29,531 29,181 350 13,067 7,567 1,776 1,218 2,442 64 12,298 5.9% 2.37 2012 29,659 29,309 350 13,091 7,591 1,776 1,218 2,442 64 12,273 6.2% 2.39 2013 30,053 29,703 350 13,135 7,633 1,776 1,220 2,442 64 12,303 6.3% 2.41 2014 30,242 29,892 350 13,185 7,690 1,776 1,217 2,438 64 12,339 6.4% 2.42 2015 30,229 29,879 350 13,228 7,733 1,776 1,217 2,438 64 12,335 6.8% 2.42 2016 30,271 29,921 350 13,251 7,749 1,779 1,221 2,438 64 12,333 6.9% 2.43 2017 30,448 30,098 350 13,289 7,783 1,779 1,225 2,438 64 12,400 6.7% 2.43 2018 30,601 30,251 350 13,299 7,795 1,779 1,223 2,438 64 12,441 6.5% 2.43 Source: California Department of Finance, 2018 E-5 Report. Notes: Household population includes people residing in an occupied housing unit as their primary residence. Group quarters include residents living in group living arrangements that are owned or managed by an entity or organization that provides housing and/or services to residents. Table 2.1-2: Santa Clara County Population and Housing Trend, 2010 to 2018 POPULATION HOUSING UNITS Year Total Household Group Quarters Total Single Detached Single Attached Two to Four Five Plus Mobile Homes Occupied Vacancy Rate Persons per Household 2010 1,781,642 1,751,292 30,350 631,920 344,586 61,517 48,831 157,948 19,038 604,204 4.4% 2.90 2011 1,803,329 1,773,734 29,595 633,143 345,035 61,677 48,828 158,559 19,044 606,573 4.2% 2.92 2012 1,828,843 1,798,711 30,132 636,748 345,429 61,900 48,850 161,520 19,049 611,036 4.0% 2.94 2013 1,857,211 1,826,713 30,498 639,446 346,145 62,201 48,923 163,124 19,053 613,806 4.0% 2.98 2014 1,880,197 1,849,219 30,978 644,691 347,100 62,420 48,977 167,140 19,054 619,048 4.0% 2.99 2015 1,905,156 1,874,189 30,967 652,007 348,232 62,587 49,069 173,068 19,051 627,132 3.8% 2.99 2016 1,924,582 1,894,125 30,457 657,360 348,976 63,014 49,129 177,196 19,045 632,841 3.7% 2.99 2017 1,937,473 1,907,033 30,440 661,875 349,729 63,322 49,131 180,719 18,974 636,786 3.8% 2.99 2018 1,956,598 1,925,824 30,774 667,970 350,279 63,788 49,209 185,774 18,920 642,093 3.9% 3.00 Source: California Department of Finance, 2018 E-5 Report. Notes: Household population includes people residing in an occupied housing unit as their primary residence. Group quarters include residents living in group living arrangements that are owned or managed by an entity or organization that provides housing and/or services to residentLabor Force Commute Patterns ATTACHMENT 7 Page 3-34 Public Draft Background Report | March 2019 Development Capacity Summary Table 3.8-3 summarizes potential housing unit, population, non -residential square footage, and employment capacity in Los Gatos per the existing Zoning Code of Ordinances. The table documents potential capacity accommodated by pending and approved projects as well as vacant land. Under the existing Zoning Code of Ordinances, Los Gatos has a capacity for 926 new residential units and 951,886 SF of non-residential floor area. Table 3.8-3: Development Capacity Summary Zoning Districts Expected Units Population1 Non-Residential Square Footage Employment2 Single-Family Multi-family Total Pending and Approved Projects 13 409 422 1,012 679,797 1,810 Vacant Land 265 239 504 1,204 272,089 673 Total 926 2,216 951,886 2,483 Source: Town of Los Gatos, 2018. Santa Clara County Assessor, 2018. Mintier Harnish, 2018. Regulatory Setting None. 3.9 Environmental Justice and Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities State law requires Los Gatos to determine if there are any disadvantaged unincorporated communities inside the Town’s SOI and outside the Town boundary. Once identified, the Town must provide analysis of water, wastewater, stormwater drainage, and structural fire protection needs or deficiencies for each of the identified communities. This section addresses the requirements of SB 244 and SB 1000. Major Findings ▪Although, the Town’s SOI extends beyond Town limits and includes unincorporated island and fringe communities, these are extremely low-density areas designated for open space, hillside residential (0-1 du/ac), and low-density residential (0-5 du/acre). ▪The median income for Santa Clara County ($101,173) is considerably higher than the low-income threshold set by SB244. ▪Los Gatos does not have any disadvantaged unincorporated communities. ▪CalEnviroScreen 3.0 indicates that there are no disadvantaged communities in the Town of Los Gatos. Existing Conditions A disadvantaged unincorporated community is a fringe, island, or legacy community with a specified minimum parcel density and a median household income of 80 percent or less than the statewide median household income. A fringe community is an inhabited, unincorporated territory within the SOI. An island community is any inhabited and unincorporated territory that is surrounded or substantially surrounded by one or more towns or cities, or by one or more towns or cities and a county boundary. A legacy community is a geographically-isolated community that is inhabited and has existed for at least 50 years. Although, the Town’s SOI extends beyond Town limits and includes unincorporated island and fringe communities, these are extremely low- density areas designated for open space, hillside residential (0-1 du/ac), ATTACHMENT 8 TOWN OF LOS GATOS 2020 GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT LU-11 playgrounds and neighborhood parks, country clubs, and natural open spaces. After Residential – Single Family land use, Open Space/Recreation comprises the second highest percentage of total land in Los Gatos. There are approxi- mately 1,624 acres of open space in the Town and approximately 2,218 acres in the SOI. Much of this acreage is contained in four large facilities: St. Jo- seph’s Hill and Sierra Azul Open Space to the south of Los Gatos, and Vasona Lake County Park and La Rinconada Country Club to the north. 10.Vacant Approximately 292 acres within the Town are vacant parcels of varying sizes that are scattered throughout the Town. Most of the vacant acreage in Los Gatos is located in the single-family residential area on the eastern side of the Town. Parcels here are generally larger than they are elsewhere in Los Gatos, and a number of significantly sized parcels are vacant. Generally, vacancies are more common in residential areas of Los Gatos than in commercial areas, although a few small, isolated commercial vacancies exist. Additionally, the SOI contains approximately 107 acres of vacant property. E.General Plan Land Use Designations The Land Use Element is the basis for physical development in Los Gatos. The land use map and designations identify the general location, density, and extent of land available for residential and non-residential uses. Land use des- ignations do not necessarily reflect the existing land use of each parcel. Figure LU-3 presents a map of the land use designations in Los Gatos. Each land use designation is listed and described below. 1.Residential Land Use Designations This section provides a brief description of each residential land use designa- tion and the desirable range of density for each designation. ATTACHMENT 9 UNION AVENUELOS GATOS BOULEVARDCURTNER AVENUE SHANNON ROAD LARK AVEN UE FOXWORTHY AVENUE MAIN STREET CAMDEN AVENUESAMARITAN DRIVE HARWOOD ROADW E S T M O N T A V E N U E L O S G A T O S-S A R A T O G A R O A D WINCHESTER BOULEVARDBLOSSOM HILL ROAD N. SANTA CRUZ BOULEVARDLOS GATOS-ALMADEN ROAD FIGURE LU-3 2020 GENERAL PLAN LAND USE City of Campbell City of San Jose City of Monte Sereno Source: Town of Los Gatos, 2008; Santa Clara County Office of the Assessor, 2008. Unincorporated Santa Clara County 0 0.5 1 Miles Lexington Reservoir Vasona Lake County Park R o s s C r e e kSmith CreekSan Thomas Aquino CreekA lm e n d ra C re e k City of Saratoga ·|}þ58 ·|}þ17 General Plan Land Use Hillside Residential Low Density Residential Medium Density Residential High Density Residential Mixed-Use Commercial Central Business District Neighborhood Commercial Service Commercial Office Professional Light Industrial Public Agriculture Open Space North Forty Specific Plan OverlayLos Gatos CreekTown Boundary Sphere of Influence Water Body Highway Creek G u a d alu p e C re e k TOWN OF LOS GATOS 2020 GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT TOWN OF LOS GATOS 2020 GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT LU-13 a. Hillside Residential: 0-1 dwelling units per net acre Up to 3.5 persons per acre The Hillside Residential designation provides for very low density, rural, large lot or cluster, single-family residential development. This designation allows for development that is compatible with the unique mountainous ter- rain and vegetation of parts of Los Gatos. b. Low Density Residential: 0-5 dwelling units per net acre Up to 17.5 persons per acre The Low Density Residential designation provides for single-family residen- tial properties located on generally level terrain. It encourages single-family residential development in either the standard development established by traditional zoning or by innovative forms obtained through planned devel- opment. c. Medium Density Residential: 5-12 dwelling units per net acre Up to 24 persons per acre The Medium Density Residential designation provides for multiple-family residential, duplex, and/or small single-family homes. d. High Density Residential: 12-20 dwellings per net acre Up to 40 persons per acre The High Density Residential designation provides for more intensive multi- family residential development. Its objective is to provide quality housing in close proximity to transit or a business area. e. Mobile Home Park: 5-12 dwellings per net acre Up to 24 persons per acre The Mobile Home Park designation provides for mobile home parks. The intent is to provide and preserve Mobile Home Parks as a source of affordable housing. This designation is described in this Element; however, it is not represented on the accompanying General Plan Land Use Map. T O W N O F L O S G A T O S 2 0 2 0 G E N E R A L P L A N L A N D U S E E L E M E N T LU-14 2. Non-Residential Land Use Designations For non-residential land uses, the specific uses mentioned are illustrative, and other compatible uses, including those authorized in any other Zoning Dis- trict within the Town, may be permitted where authorized by a Conditional Use Permit or Planned Development Overlay Zone. In a mixed-use project residential uses may be permitted in conjunction with other permitted uses in non-residential Zoning Districts with the exception of the Commercial Indus- trial and Controlled Manufacturing Zoning Districts. For non-residential land uses, building intensity limits are indicated by either allowable land coverage or floor area ratio(FAR) and a maximum height limit. Office Professional: Up to 50 percent land coverage with a 35-foot height limit The Office Professional designation provides for professional and general business offices. This designation applies to various locations throughout the Town, often in close proximity to neighborhood- or community-oriented commercial facilities, or as a buffer between commercial and residential uses. The intent of this designation is to satisfy the community’s need for general business and professional services and local employment. Central Business District: 0.6 FAR with a 45-foot height limit The Central Business District designation applies exclusively to the down- town and accomplishes the following: Encourages a mixture of community-oriented commercial goods, services and lodging unique in its accommodation of small-town style merchants and maintenance of small-town character. Maintains and expands landscaped open spaces and mature tree growth without increasing setbacks. Integrates new construction with existing structures of historical or archi- tectural significance and emphasizes the importance of the pedestrian. Mixed-Use Commercial: Up to 50 percent land coverage with a 35-foot height limit The Mixed-Use Commercial designation permits a mixture of retail, office, and residential in a mixed-use project, along with lodging, service, auto-related businesses, non-manufacturing industrial uses, recreational uses, and restau- TOWN OF LOS GATOS 2020 GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT LU-15 rants. Projects developed under this designation shall maintain the small- town, residential scale and natural environments of adjacent residential neighborhoods, as well as provide prime orientation to arterial street front- ages and proper transitions and buffers to adjacent residential properties. This designation should never be interpreted to allow development of inde- pendent commercial facilities with principal frontage on the side streets. d. Neighborhood Commercial: Up to 50 percent land coverage with a 35-foot height limit The Neighborhood Commercial designation provides for necessary day-to- day commercial goods and services required by the residents of the adjacent neighborhoods. This designation encourages concentrated and coordinated commercial development at easily accessible locations. e. Service Commercial: Up to 50 percent land coverage with a 35-foot height limit The Service Commercial designation provides for service businesses necessary for the conduct of households or businesses. These include auto repair, build- ing materials sales, paint suppliers, janitorial services, towing businesses, con- tractors offices and yards, launderers and dry cleaners, as well as wholesaling and warehousing activities. f. Light Industrial: Up to 50 percent land coverage with a 35-foot height limit The Light Industrial designation provides for large-scale office developments and well-controlled research and development, industrial-park-type and ser- vice-oriented uses subject to rigid development standards. These uses should respond to community or region-wide needs. g. Public The Public designation identifies public facilities in the Town such as the Civic Center, courthouse, schools, parks, libraries, hospitals, churches, and fire stations. TOWN OF LOS GATOS 2020 GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT LU-16 h. Agriculture The Agricultural designation identifies areas for commercial agricultural crop production. i. Open Space The Open Space designation identifies the location of public parks, open space preserves, private preserves, and stream corridors. F. Special Planning Areas Development in Los Gatos can be targeted to achieve a more specific outcome by designating specific overlay zones and special planning areas. These areas have more detailed development guidelines that remain consistent with exist- ing policies. Los Gatos has three overlay zones that implement land use poli- cies through the Town Code, five Historic Districts, three Specific Plans, and one Redevelopment Project Area. 1. Overlay Zones There are three overlay zones in the Town Code, the Landmark and Historic Preservation, Planned Development, and Public School Overlay Zones. ♦ Landmark and Historic Preservation (LHP) Overlay Zone. This zone is designated by Town Council and is applied to individual sites and struc- tures or small areas deemed of architectural and/or historical significance. The structure(s) in LHP overlays are subject to special standards regard- ing their appearance, use, and maintenance. ♦ Planned Development (PD) Overlay Zone. The PD overlay zone is in- tended to ensure orderly planning and quality design that will be in har- mony with the existing or potential development of the surrounding neighborhood. The Planned Development Overlay is a specially tailored development plan and ordinance which designates the zoning regulations for the accompanying project, sets specific development standards, and ensures that zoning and the General Plan are consistent. Commercial, TOWN OF LOS GATOS 2020 GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT LU-17 residential or industrial property or a mixture of these uses may be con- sidered for a Planned Development Overlay. ♦ Public School (PS) Overlay Zone. The PS overlay zone is intended to al- low school buildings to be used, without extensive exterior modifica- tions, in ways which will make it unnecessary to sell school facilities. The overlay permits a variety of community-related and education- related uses, including, but not limited to, museums, community centers, playgrounds, and nursery schools. Any land owned by a public school district (regardless of underlying zone) may be zoned PS. 2. Historic Districts The Town has established five historic districts to preserve neighborhoods deemed significant to the history of Los Gatos. ♦ Almond Grove Historic District. An approximately 40-acre area that constitutes the largest subdivision following incorporation of the Town of Los Gatos. This District was established by ordinance in 1980. ♦ Broadway Historic District. An approximately 100-acre area that is the site of the first residential subdivision and first residential street in the Town of Los Gatos. This District was established by ordinance in 1985. ♦ Los Gatos Historic Commercial District. Bounded by Elm Street to the north, Main Street to the south, Los Gatos Creek to the east, and North Santa Cruz Avenue to the west. The Town’s only concentration of in- tact historic commercial buildings. It was established by ordinance in 1991. ♦ Fairview Plaza Historic District. Limited to the cul-de-sac termination of Fairview Plaza, part of an historic subdivision originally surveyed in 1885 known as the “Fairview Addition.” The District retains the same con- figuration as originally mapped and contains a rare collection of Victo- rian and Craftsman homes, unique in their compact scale and proximity to one another. This District was established by ordinance in 1992. ♦ University/Edelen Historic District. Bounded by Saratoga Avenue to the north, Main Street to the south, Los Gatos Creek to the east, and the This Page Intentionally Left Blank Page 3-10 Public Draft Background Report | March 2019 3.3 Existing General Plan Land Use Designations The Los Gatos General Plan guides how land in the Town may be developed and used by designating each parcel of land for a particular use or combination of uses, as well as, by establishing broad development policies. Land use designations identify both the types of development (e.g., residential, commercial, industrial) that are permitted and the density or intensity of allowed development, such as the minimum or maximum number of housing units permitted on an acre of land, or the amount of building square footage allowed. This section identifies existing general plan land use designations, as outlined in the Town of Los Gatos 2020 General Plan. Major Findings ▪Hillside residential is the most common land use, accounting for approximately 40.0 percent (4257.1 acres) of the total land designated in the existing 2020 General Plan. ▪Open space represents 28.9 percent (3091.2 acres) of the current 2020 General Plan land use area. Four large tracts in the southern half of the SOI account for a majority of open space land. ▪Low-density residential is the third largest land use in the Town, accounting for 17.7 percent (1890.3 acres) of the total 2020 General Plan land use area. ▪Commercial uses (Office, Neighborhood Commercial, Mixed-Use Commercial, Service Commercial, Central Business District, and Light Industrial) make up 3.4 percent (36 2.2 acres) of the land use area designated in the 2020 General Plan. Existing Conditions The 2020 General Plan includes 15 land use designations, which are relatively broad and intended to indicate the general type of activity that may occur on a site. Figure 3.3-1 shows the land use designations throughout the Town. Table 3.3-1 shows the total acreage per land use designation. The 2020 General Plan designations, as described in the Land Use Element, are summarized below. Hillside Residential District The purpose of this designation is to allow for very-low density, rural, large lot, or cluster, single-family residential development that is compatible with the mountainous parts of the Town. Density/Intensity ▪Up to one dwelling unit per net acre ▪Up to 3.5 persons per acre Low-Density Residential The purpose of this designation is to allow for low-density single-family residential development formed through standard zoning or through planned development. Density/Intensity ▪Up to five dwelling units per net acre ▪Up to 17.5 persons per acre Medium-Density Residential The purpose of this designation is to allow for multi-family residential, duplex, and/or small single-family homes. Density/Intensity ▪Up to five to 12 dwelling units per net acre ▪Up to 24 persons per acre ATTACHMENT 10 3. Land Use Public Draft Background Report | March 2019 Page 3-11 High-Density Residential The purpose of this designation is to allow for intensive multi -family residential and to provide quality business and transit-oriented development. Density/Intensity ▪ Up to 12 to 20 units per net acre ▪ Up to 40 persons per acre Mobile Home Park The purpose of this designation is to allow for affordable housing within mobile home parks. This designation is not represented on the 2020 General Plan Land Use Map. Density/Intensity ▪ Five to 12 dwelling units per acre ▪ Up to 24 persons per acre Office Professional The purpose of this designation is to allow for professional and general business office uses. This designation applies to various locations throughout the Town. Locations are often near neighborhood or commercial-orientated facilities or serve as a buffer between commercial and residential uses. The intent of the designation is to meet community needs for general business and commercial services and provide local employment. Density/Intensity ▪ Up to 50 percent land coverage ▪ 35-foot height limit Neighborhood Commercial The purpose of this designation is to allow for necessary day-to-day goods and services within close proximity of neighborhoods. This designation encourages concentrated and coordinated commercial development at easily accessible locations. Density/Intensity ▪ 50 percent land coverage ▪ 35-foot height limit Mixed-Use Commercial The purpose of the Mixed-Use designation is to provide for a combination of residential, office, retail, commercial, non-manufacturing industrial, and recreation uses. This designation is for sites that are centrally located in Town and will not conflict with existing land uses. Density/Intensity ▪ 50 percent land coverage ▪ 35-foot height limit Service Commercial The purpose of this designation is to allow for service-oriented businesses. Types of businesses allowed include auto repair, building materials sales, paint suppliers, janitorial services, towing businesses, contractors offices and yards, launderers and dry cleaners, as well as wholesaling and warehousing activities. Density/Intensity ▪ 50 percent land coverage ▪ 35-foot height limit Page 3-12 Public Draft Background Report | March 2019 Central Business District The purpose of this designation is to encourage a mixture of community- orientated commercial goods and services within the downtown . This designation applies exclusively to the downtown, with the goal to accommodate and retain small-town merchants and preserve the Town’s character. The District shall maintain and expand open spaces and mature tree growth without increasing setbacks, as well as, integrate new construction with existing structures of archeological and historical significance. Density/Intensity ▪ 0.6 FAR ▪ 45-foot height limit Light Industrial The purpose of this designation is to allow for large-scale office developments, well-controlled research and development facilities, industrial parks and service-oriented uses subject to rigid development standards. These uses shall respond to the community and regional-wide needs. Density/Intensity ▪ Up to 50 percent land coverage ▪ 35-foot height limit. Public The purpose of this designation is to allow for public facilities within the Town such as the Civic Center, courthouse, schools, parks, libraries, hospitals, churches, and fire stations. Agriculture The purpose of this designation is to allow for commercial agricultural crop production. Open Space The purpose of this designation is to allow for public parks, open space preserves, private preserves, and stream corridors. Albright Specific Plan The purpose of this designation is to provide land for the Albright Specific Plan as described in Section 3.5. North 40 Specific Plan The purpose of this designation is to provide land for the North 40 Specific Plan as described in Section 3.5. 3. Land Use Public Draft Background Report | March 2019 Page 3-13 Figure 3.2-1: Existing Land Use Page 3-14 Public Draft Background Report | March 2019 Table 3.3-1 General Plan Land Use Designation Summary Land Use Designation Density/Intensity Acres Percent of Total HR Hillside Residential 0-1 du/ac 4257.07 39.91% LDR Low-Density Residential 0-5 du/ac 1890.35 17.72% MDR Medium-Density Residential 5-12 du/ac 514.45 4.82% HDR High-Density Residential 12-20 du/ac 60.29 0.57% MHP1 Mobile Home Park 5-12 du/ac 0.00 0.00% O Office Professional Up to 50 percent land coverage 35-foot height limit 65.05 0.61% NC Neighborhood Commercial Up to 50 percent land coverage 35-foot height limit 68.32 0.64% MUC Mixed-Use Commercial Up to 50 percent land coverage 35-foot height limit 100.11 0.94% SC Service Commercial Up to 50 percent land coverage 35-foot height limit 17.93 0.17% CBD Central Business District 0.6 FAR 45-foot height limit 48.50 0.45% LI Light Industrial Up to 50 percent land coverage 35-foot height limit 39.91 0.37% P Public N/A 135.40 1.27% A Agriculture N/A 311.88 2.92% OS Open Space N/A 3088.56 28.96% A SP Albright Specific Plan 24.99 0.23% NF SP North 40 Specific Plan 0-20 43.70 0.41% Total 10666.51 100.00% Source: Town of Los Gatos, 2018; Mintier Harnish, 2018. 1 The Town of Los Gatos has two mobile home parks that are designated Medium-Density Residential in the 2020 General Plan. The mobile home parks are currently not designed Mobile Home Park in the current General Plan as noted above in Table 3.1-1. The underlying zoning for both mobile home parks is Mobile Home Park Residential Zone (RMH) shown in Table 3.3.-2. This Page Intentionally Left Blank