Loading...
18 Staff Report - Update Housing ElementCOUNCIL AGENDA REPORT DATE: October 22, 2003 TO: MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL FROM: TOWN MANAGER SUBJECT: MEETING DATE: 11/03/03 ITEM NO. CONSIDER AMENDING TH GENERAL PLAN TO UPDATE THE HOUSING ELEMENT TO MEET STATE DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR CERTIFICATION. APPLICANT: TOWN OF LOS GATOS RECOMMENDATION: 1. Open and hold the public hearing and receive public testimony; 2. Close the public hearing; 3. Find that the Housing Element update is internally consistent with the General Plan; 4. Adopt the resolution amending the General Plan Housing Element and Technical Appendix BACKGROUND: On December 1, 2002, the Town Council adopted the Housing Element. Following that date staff continued to work with the State Department of Housing & Community Development (HCD) to have the Housing Element certified. In July 2003, staff reached agreement with HCD on the outstanding issues. The resulting minor amendments to the Housing Element and accompanying Technical Appendix are the subject of this report. If the amendments are ultimately approved by the Town Council, HCD has indicated that the Housing Element can be certified (see Exhibit B of Attachment 3). DISCUSSION: The proposed amendments to the Housing Element and Technical Appendix have been reviewed by the General Plan Committee and the Planning Commission. The General Plan Committee unanimously supported the amendments, and the Planning Commission supported the amendments on a 6-1 vote (see discussion in the following section). (Continued on Page 2) PREPARED BY: BUD N. LORTZ DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Reviewed by: SJ,,S Assistant Town Manager (0 Attorney Clerk Finance /14. Community Development Revised: 10/22/03 4:52 pm Reformatted: 5/23/02 PAGE 2 MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL SUBJECT: HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE October 22, 2003 There is only one change to a program in the Housing Element that was recommended by HCD (see page 9 of Exhibit A to Attachment 1). The change requires the Town to adopt a Reasonable Accommodations Regulation to aid in the encouragement of accessible housing for the disabled within residential developments. The remainder of the proposed amendments are text changes to the Technical Appendix that were needed to clarify the approval process and housing programs (see Exhibit B to Attachment 1). PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: On September 24, 2003, the Planning Commission considered the draft amendments. After a brief discussion, the Commission voted 6-1 to forward the amendments to the Town Council with a recommendation that they be adopted as written. Commissioner Quintana had a concern about some discretionary language about grading and wanted the section changed to a mandate. The Commission did not agree with the suggested change and Commissioner Quintana did not support the motion for that reason. Attachment 2 is the Planning Commission minutes. CONCLUSION: Staff recommends that the Council adopt the resolution (Attachment 1) revising the Housing Element and Technical Appendix. FISCAL IMPACT: None Attachments: I . Draft Resolution (two pages) 2. September 24, 2003 Planning Commission minutes (one page) 3. September 24, 2003 Planning Commission report with Exhibits A-E BNL:SD:mdc N:\DEV\SUZANNE1CounciAReports\FY2003-041Housing E ement.wpd RESOLUTION 2003- RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS AMENDING THE HOUSING ELEMENT WHEREAS, that the Town of Los Gatos has updated the General Plan Housing Element, in accordance with Section California State Code Section 65588(a); and WHEREAS, that Government Code (Sections 65580-65590), Article 10.6 requires that all California localities adopt housing elements (updates) as part of their general plans; to submit draft and adopted elements to the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for review with compliance with State Law, and, WHEREAS, upon review of the adopted Housing Element and Technical Appendix, HCD requested adjustments to language to better clarify intent and explain planning processes and to demonstrate that the housing allocation can be met; and WHEREAS, HCD has indicated that with the amendments certification of the Housing Element can be achieved; and WHEREAS, the General Plan Committee on August 27, 2003, and the Planning Commission on September 24, 2003, have reviewed the amendments and recommend approval; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the Town Council adopts the revised Housing Element (Exhibit "A") and Technical Appendix (Exhibit "B"). ATTACHMENT 1 PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council held on the day of , 2003, by the following vote: COUNCIL MEMBERS: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: SIGNED: ATTEST: CLERK OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA N:IDEV\RESOS\i-lousingElement-rev.wpd 2 MAYOR OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA 3.0 HOUSING The Housing Element is one of seven required General Plan elements. There are specific guidelines developed by the State of California for subjects that must be included in a Housing Element. These guidelines are identified in Article 10.6 of the State of California Government Code. The 2002 Housing Element was adopted by the Town Council in October 2002, and was certified by the State Department of Housing and Community Development in July 2003. 3.1 INTRODUCTION The intent of the Town of Los Gatos is to provide adequate housing for Town citizens, regardless of age, income, race, or ethnic background. The Town encourages conservation and construction of housing adequate for future populations and replacement needs, consistent with environmental limitations and in proper relationship to community facilities, open space and transportation and small-town character. The Housing Element establishes policies that will aid Town officials in daily decision -making and sets forth implementation measures that will assist the Town in realizing its housing goals. The Housing Element was developed based on the information contained in the Housing Element Technical Appendix, dated September 2002. "A decent home and suitable living environment for all" has been identified as a goal of the highest priority by the California State Legislature. Recognizing that local planning programs play a significant role in the pursuit of this statewide goal; and to assure that local planning effectively implements statewide housing policy, the Legislature has mandated that all local jurisdictions and counties include a housing element as part of their adopted General Plan. The State's General Plan law requires that the Housing Element be updated at least every five years. The following Housing Element reflects the 2001 regional housing needs determinations prepared by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) which were revised in 1995. The revised ABAG needs reflects the period from January 1, 1999 to June 30, 2006. The element establishes goals, policies and programs that provide incentives for the development of affordable housing in order for the Town to achieve its share of affordable housing. From 2001 to Spring 2002 the Town approved 283 additional housing units. During the 1999-2002 period, 72 units affordable units were built or approved. When evaluating the success of the Town's housing policies, it is important to recognize that the Town has been relatively successful in producing the Town's "fair share allocation" of low income housing even though the cost of land is approximately a million dollars per acre. The updated Housing Element was developed to be consistent with the other elements of Los Gatos' General Plan. The Town will continue to require that all residential development proposals, General Plan and Specific Plan amendments be consistent with the Town's Housing Element. The development of the Housing Element Technical Appendix involved numerous meetings of the Town's General Plan Committee over a one year period. These meetings were open to the public and the agendas were posted at Town Hall and the Public Library to encourage public participation. Exhibit A Los Gatos General Plan September 2002 Page H-1 Adequate sites for housing The review process and adoption of this element included a community meeting, and public hearings of the Planning Commission and Town Council, all of which were open to the public for their input. A 45 day public review period was a advertised in the local newspaper (Los Gatos Weekly -Times), as were the community meeting and Planning Commission and Town Council public hearings. All public meeting agendas were posted. Drafts of the Housing Element Technical Appendix were available at Town Hall, the public library and on the Town's web site. 3.2 GOALS, POLICIES, IMPLEMENTING STRATEGIES The following is a summary of the major housing issues identified for the Town of Los Gatos for the 2002-June 30, 2006 time frame. These issues are listed in order of priority with the initial issues being the most significant. ISSUE: 1 Adequate Sites for Housing. The Town needs to provide adequate sites for 125 dwelling units to meet its 2002-2006 Regional Housing Need. The 125 unit estimate includes 59 very low income units and 66 moderate income units. With opportunities to apply Mixed Use or a density bonus, there is sufficient land zoned at appropriate densities with infrastructure available to meet the projected need for very low and moderate income units. Goal: H.G.1.1 Expand the choice of housing opportunities for all economic segments of the community through a variety of housing types and sizes, including a mixture of ownership and rental housing. /;. Policies: H.P.1.1 Continue to designate sufficient residentially -zoned land at appropriate densities to provide adequate sites to meet Los Gatos' new construction need for 2002-2006. H.P.1.2 Maintain and/or adopt appropriate land use regulations and other development tools to encourage the development of affordable housing. Los Gatos General Plan September 2002 Page H-2 H.P.1.3 Develop and utilize all availbwie funding resources in order to provide the maximum amount of affordable housing as feasible. Implementing Strategies: H.I.1.1 Adequate Land Inventory: The Town will ensure that there is sufficient land available at appropriate zoning categories to meet its need for very low and moderate income households. In order to achieve this, the Town will assess the progress of the development community in providing very low income units during the latter part of 2003. If it appears that an insufficient number of very low, low and moderate income units are being produced, the Town will consider rezoning up to five acres of land within a half mile radius of the future Vasona light rail station to a higher density (refer to the target area map in the Housing Element Technical Appendix). Time Frame: Responsible Party: 2002-2006: Continue to maintain an adequate land inventory that meets 2002-2006 Regional Housing Needs goals. Late 2003: Evaluate need to rezone up to five acres of vacant or underutilized land to a higher density and/or apply affordable housing overlay zone(s). Community Development Department H.I.1.2 Density Bonus: Continue to provide up to a 100% density bonus for developments that include housing for elderly, handicapped and/or very low and low-income households. Eligibility requirements are as follows: A. All housing projects on Tots in excess of 40,000 square feet must be processed as Planned Developments in order to receive a density bonus. B. Housing restricted to elderly, handicapped and very low and low income residents shall be eligible for a density bonus up to 100% of the units permitted by the land use designation as shown on the land use plan or any specific plan and incentives based on the State Density Bonus law. C. Town density bonuses will also be granted for residential projects that actively facilitate and encourage use of transit or directly provide transit services to residents. D. Concessions to the Town's density, traffic and parking regulations may be granted for mixed -use projects that provide residential units in non-residential zones. E. BMP (Below Market Price) units are not included when calculating density bonuses for a property. The Town will develop marketing materials that will ensure that Town staff and developers are aware of the various features of the density bonus program. Time Frame: Responsible Party: 2002-2003: Develop marketing materials 2002-June 30, 2006: Implement program Community Development Department Los Gatos General Plan September 2002 Page H-3 H.I.1.3 Development Standards: 1.,,ntinue to review and, where feasible, reduce development standards (e.g. parking requirements, open space requirements, etc.) for housing developments that will guarantee affordable units on a long-term basis for low and moderate -income households. Time Frame: 2002-June 30, 2006 Responsible Party: Community Development Department H.I.1.4 Mixed Use Developments: Encourage mixed -use developments that provide affordable housing close to employment centers and/or transportation facilities. Time Frame: 2002-June 30, 2006 Responsible Party: Community Development Department H.I.1.5 Below Market Price (BMP) Program: Continue to implement the BMP Program in order to increase the number of affordable units in the community. Continue policy that BMP units are counted in addition to maximum density allowed on a site. Evaluate changing eligibility criteria to very low and low-income households. Time Frame: 2002-June 30, 2006 Responsible Party: Community Development Department H.I.1.6 Second Unit Program: Revise existing second unit program to encourage the production of more second units on residential parcels. Evaluate existing parking, square footage, transfer of credits, and other requirements to determine whether revisions would encourage the development of more second units. Time Frame: Responsible Party: 2002-2003: Evaluate and Revise Program 2002-June 30, 2006: Implement Program Community Development Department H.I.1.7 Consistency with Housing Element/Community Benefit: Continue policy that all approvals of residential developments of three or more units must include a finding that the proposed development is consistent with the Town's Housing Element, and addresses the Town's housing needs as identified in the Housing Element. Further, review of potential developments shall include a determination that affordable units provided beyond the minimum BMP requirements are to be considered as a significant community benefit. Time Frame: 2002-June 30, 2006 Responsible Party: Community Development Department Los Gatos General Plan September 2002 Page H-4 Development of a f f oraabf e housing for (tower and moderate income households Los Gatos General Plan H.I.1.8 Annual Housing Report: Pi,,pare an annual housing report for the review of the Town Council including information on progress made towards achieving new construction need, affordable housing conserved/developed, effectiveness of existing programs and recommendations for improvement. Consult with non-profit providers, special need providers, and other community resources in preparation and evaluation of the report. Time Frame: 2002-June 30, 2006 Responsible Party: Community Development Department H.I.1.9 Redevelopment Housing Set -Aside Funds/In-Lieu Fees: Develop a strategy for use of Redevelopment Housing Set -Aside funds and In - Lieu fees from the BMP Program. Consider the needs as identified in this Housing Element (e.g. Preservation of At Risk Units, Development of Units Affordable to Very Low and Low -Income Households, etc.) in the development of funding conditions and incentives. Time Frame: 2002-January 2003: Develop Funding Strategy 2002-June 30, 2006: Implement Strategy Responsible Party: Redevelopment Agency H.I.1.10 Mortgage Credit Certificate (MCC) Program: Continue to encourage Los Gatos households to participate in MCC and other financial assistance programs (e.g. Teacher Mortgage Assistance) provided in the County of Santa Clara. Time Frame: 2002-June 30, 2006 Responsible Party: County of Santa Clara Objective: Five households total assisted from 2002-2006 ISSUE: 2 Development of Affordable Housing for Lower and Moderate Income Households. The most significant new construction need is housing for very low, low and moderate - income households. Of the 125 projected units needed, all of these units are estimated to be needed to be affordable to very low and moderate -income households. Goal: H.G.2.1 Preserve existing residential opportunities and encourage additional residential use that is compatible with neighborhood and community. Policies: H.P.2.1 Encourage the maintenance and improvement of existing housing units. H.P.2.2 When evaluating new developments, evaluate the impact of development on the Town's jobs/housing ratio. H.P.2.3 Encourage residential construction that promotes energy conservation. September 2002 Page H-5 Implementing Strategies: Los Gatos General Plan H.I.2.1 Housing Conservation Program: Continue to provide Housing Conservation Program assistance to property owners to improve their housing units. Undertake the following actions to increase program productivity: A. Conduct a housing condition survey in neighborhoods with older housing stock. B. If needed, redesign program goals and objectives to respond to results of housing condition survey. C. Redesign marketing materials and aggressively market program to potential applicants. Time Frame: 2002-2003: Conduct housing condition survey 2002-June 30, 2006: Implement program Responsible Party: Community Services Department Funding Source: CDBG Funds/Redevelopment Funds Objective: 10-20 Units Total Rehabilitated from 2002-2006 H.I.2.2 Home Access Program: Continue to support countywide programs, such as the Home Access Program, that provide assistance with minor home repairs and accessibility improvements for lower -income households. Time Frame: 2002-June 30, 2003 Responsible Party: County of Santa Clara H.I.2.3 Jobs/Housing Balance: As part of the development review process, evaluate applications that have significant number of jobs or housing in regard to the potential impact on the Town's jobs/housing ratio. The objective is to maintain the Town's 2002 ratio of 1.5 jobs per household/housing unit. However, the jobs/housing balance shall not be used as a criteria for denying projects that include affordable housing opportunities. Time Frame: 2002-June 30, 2006 Responsible Party: Community Development Department Objective: Maintain 1.5 jobs to household/housing unit ratio H.I.2.4 Energy Conservation Opportunities: Continue to enforce Title 24 requirements for energy conservation and evaluate utilizing some of the other suggestions as identified in Chapter 9 of the Housing Element technical Appendix to encourage developers to exceed Title 24 requirements. Time Frame: 2002-June 30, 2006 Responsible Party: Community Development Department H.I.2.5 Weatherization Program: Support the weatherization program administered countywide by the county of Santa Clara. This program assists the very low-income homeowners with weatherization improvements to their home. Time Frame: 2002-June 30, 2006 Responsible Party: Community Development Department AMJ September 2002 Page H-6 • Preserve a f f oraab(e housing stock Los Gatos General Plan ISSUE: 3 Conservation of existing housing units. The Town's existing stock of mobile homes and rental units provides an important resource for affordable housing. These units need to be preserved. Further, rehabilitation assistance needs to continue to be made available to property owners of units occupied by lower income households. The Town also needs to conduct a housing condition survey in the older areas of the community in order to determine the extent of need for rehabilitation assistance. Goal: Policy: H.G.3.1 Preserve the existing affordable housing stock H.P.3.1 Support preservation and conservation of existing housing units that provide affordable housing opportunities for Town residents and workers and strive to ensure that at least 30% of the housing stock are rental units. Implementing Strategies: H.I.3.1 Mobile Home Preservation: Preserve mobile homes (150 total) and adopt mobile home park conversion policies to preserve existing housing opportunities and to ensure the provision of affordable units similar to the existing park's unit capacity. Time Frame: 2002-2006: Implement policies Responsible Party: Community Development Department Objective: Preserve existing 150 mobile home units H.I.3.2 Preserve "At Risk" Affordable Housing Units: Monitor the 220 publicly assisted, multi -family housing units in the Town to ensure that they retain their affordability status. These developments include Villa Vasona, The Terraces, Open Doors, Los Gatos Four Plex, 95 Fairview Plaza and the Los Gatos Creek Village Apartments. Develop a strategy to retain affordability of units at Villa Vasona, which is scheduled to have its Section 8 assistance expire in November 2004. A notification procedure for tenants that will be developed cooperatively between the Town and the property owner shall be included in the strategy. Time Frame: 2002-June 30, 2006: Monitor Affordability Status of Developments September 2003: Complete strategy to retain affordability status of Villa Vasona Funding Sources: Redevelopment Housing Set -Aside Funds, CDBG and/or HOME Funds, other Federal and State Funding Resources Responsible Party: Community Development Department and Redevelopment Agency September 2002 Page H-7 Housing Opportunities H.I.3.3 Rental Housing Conserv& Jui Program: The Town's existing multi- family, privately owned rental units provide housing opportunities for households of varied income levels. The Town will continue to implement Section 29.20.155 of the Zoning Ordinance that addresses conversions of residential use, Specifically, Section 29.20.155(a)(2) that requires that any proposed conversion satisfy the housing goals and policies as set forth in the General Plan. Time Frame: Responsible Party: 2002-June 30, 2006: Continue Implementation of Conversion Policies Community Development Department ISSUE: 4 Preservation of "At Risk" Affordable Units. A significant issue in the 2002-2006 time frame is the expiration of Section 8 subsidies for the Villa Vasona Development. This 107-unit development provides affordable housing to elderly and disabled households. The Town needs to monitor the potential expiration in 2004 of these subsidies and, if needed, develop a strategy to preserve the affordability of the units. Goal: H.G.4.1 Ensure that all persons have equal access to housing opportunities. Policies: H.P.4.1 Support housing programs that protect individuals' rights. H.P.4.2 Continue to provide assistance to service providers of special needs households such as seniors, disabled and homeless. Implementing Strategies: H.I.4.1 Rental Dispute Resolution Program: Continue the administration of the Rental Dispute Resolution Program and consider revisions as necessary to make the program as effective as possible in protecting both tenants and landlords. Time Frame: 2002-2006 Funding Source: Fees Responsible Party: Community Services Department H.I.4.2 Santa Clara County Fair Housing Consortium: Support the efforts of the Santa Clara County Fair Housing Consortium, which includes the Asian Law Alliance, Mid -Peninsula Citizens for Fair Housing, Project Fair Sentinel, and the Mental Health Advocate Program. These organizations provide resources for Los Gatos residents with tenant/landlord, housing discrimination and fair housing concerns. Time Frame: 2002-2006 Responsible Party: County of Santa Clara Urban County Funds Funding Source: Santa Clara County Fair Housing Consortium Los Gatos General Plan September 2002 Page H-8 Los Gatos General Plan H.I.4.3 Support for Non -Profit Affoi..able Housing Providers: Recognize and support the efforts of non-profit affordable housing organizations that provide housing services in Los Gatos. Encourage the participation of these providers in developing housing and meeting the affordable housing needs of Los Gatos households. Non-profit groups will be invited to work cooperatively with the Town in developing strategies and actions for affordable housing Time Frame: 2002-2006 Responsible Party: Community Development Department H.l.4.4 Homeless: Increased Range of Housing Opportunities: Continue to support the County of Santa Clara's "Continuum of Care" plan to provide housing opportunities for homeless households' including emergency shelter, transitional housing and permanent affordable housing opportunities. Time Frame: 2002-2006 Responsible Party: Community Development Department H.I.4.5 Disabled: Remove Constraints and Encourage Accessible Housing in Residential Developments: Continue to require "universal design" features in all new residential developments. Adopt Reasonable Accommodations Regulation that will identify those zoning/land use applications where reduced processing time and streamlined procedures would be allowed. Time Frame: Responsible Party: 2003-2004: Adopt Reasonable Accommodations Regulation Community Development Department ISSUE 5: Management of Housing Programs and Funds. In addition to implementing the identified goals, policies and programs in this element, the Town also has existing programs that need to be managed (e.g. Below Market Price Program) and a significant source of housing funds that needs to be expended (e.g. Redevelopment Housing Set -Aside funds and In -Lieu funds). The Town needs to ensure that there is adequate staff support to manage and implement the proposed 2002-2006 housing strategy. Goal: H.G.5.1 Provide adequate management and staffing of affordable housing funds and programs. Implementing Strategy: H.I.5.1 Housing Management: Consider additional staff support for the management and planning of housing programs and funding for the Town. September 2002 Time Frame: 2002-2003: Develop recommendation and plan for additional staff support for housing. Funding Source: Redevelopment Housing Set Aside Funds, Urban County funds Responsible Party: Community Development Department and Redevelopment Agency Page H-9 Amendments to Housing Element Technical Appendix (comments are from March 14, 2003 letter from HCD) A. Housing Needs, Resources and Constraints Comment # 1: Describe design and compatibility Issues the Town considers before approving a project and Permitting Requirements for M ulti-Family Projects that are not processed as Planned Developments Page 46 of September 2002 Housing Element Technical Appendix will be revised as follows: Existing language will be changed as follows: The residential development process goes through various stages, each of which requires some form of Town approval. According to Town staff, a typical single-family infill residential application takes less than 3 months to process. If the unit is proposed in a hillside residential zone, then the processing time usually is lengthened to 4-6 months total. In regard to mixed use, two mixed -use projects in 2002 (Sobrato Development and Terreno de Flores) were processed in 4-6 months, following establishment of zoning densities on the property. Typical processing steps for a multi -family housing project include: 1. Upon submittal of a PD (Planned Development) or subdivision application, the application is distributed to other Town departments (Planning, Engineering, Parks, Police) and other public agencies for review (e.g. utility districts, school districts, etc.). 2. Staff reviews/meets with applicant to resolve any concerns or plan deficiencies. Design issues are discussed. Arborist review and/or architectural review may be done concurrently. Geotechnical review,when required)may also be done at this time, 1 Exhibit B 3. Development Review Committee (DRC) meeting — once the DRC deems application is complete, it forwards its recommendation to the Planning Commission. 4. Environmental review and traffic impact analysis,.. completed as appropriate 5. Story poles placed on project site by applicant. ,6. Approval by the Appropriate Body: a. Planning Commission Approval (with appeal to the - Town Council) i. Projects that require no change in zoning or General Plan ii. Use Permits b. Town Council Approval i. Projects that require change in zoning or General Plan ii. Planned Developments The types of issues that usually prolong the processing time are design issues and neighborhood compatibility. The Town now uses an architectural consultant to review plans and provide recommendations. , The use of the consultant has, reduced processing time for most applications that are problematic in_ regard to design and neighborhood issues. The architectural review and arborist review have been incorporated into the design review process in order to expedite the overall development review process. The reviews are done concurrently with the review of a Planned Development or Architecture and Site application and do not add to the length of the processing time. Because the Town obtains information in the early stages of a project, delays that typically occur during the design process are significantly reduced and projects can be conditionally approved so that there are no surprises for the applicant. Architectural review has helped shorten the public hearing phase of a project, as the Planning Commission typically is not involved with the Deleted: (and occasionally geotechnical review) • Deleted: <#>Public hearings with Planning Commission and/or Town Council approval.11 Formatted: Bullets and Numbering I Formatted: Bullets and Numbering Deleted_I1 is anpated that t Deleted: t f Deleted: will { Deleted: those architectural details of a project. The Commission relies on staff andthe Town Architectural Consultant's recommendations unless compelling evidence is presented at a public hearing that requires a change due to a neighborhood impact. Likewise, the arborist and/or geotechnical review is conducted early in the process. Problems are minimized during public hearings since a qualified arborist or geotechnical consultant has evaluated the site and provided input for the Planning Commission's consideration. The Town encourages developers to retain viable trees. However, if a tree conflicts with proposed development, it can be considered for removal. If removal of a tree would preclude affordable housing units from being provided that situation may be an overriding factor in determining whether a tree can be removed. Following language will be added to the discussion on Page 46 Design and Development Standards a. Single Family and Two -Family Dwellings The Town has adopted Residential Development Standards with the intent that these standards be used during the Design Review Process. The factors evaluated during the design review process include: o Site development ■ Site planning ■ Solar orientation • Shadow Effect • Easements/Dedications o Building Design ■ Harmony/Compatibility with surrounding neighborhood ■ Scale and Mass consistent with neighboring structures ■ Exterior Materials and Colors • Building Components 3 ■ Energy Conservation • Privacy o Landscaping/Open Space • Conservation of existing trees, where possible • Private Open Space Historic properties and properties in the hillside areas typically have additional design review evaluations. b. Multi -Family Structures There are no specific design guidelines adopted by the Town for multi -family structures. The typical entitlement procedure for a multi -family structure is through the Planned Development (PD) process. During the process of obtaining a PD a royal the ro osed develo ment is evaluated in regard to its relationship to neighboring buildings and the streetscape. Typical items that are evaluated include building bulk and mass, solar orientation, parking, landscaping and open space. There have been very few multi -family developments processed in Los Gatos in recent years that have not been a Planned Development. However, for those developments the same types of design issues identified above were evaluated. B. Housing Programs Comment # l (a-d): Identify adequate sites to accommodate Los Gatos' share of regional housing need. Since the submittal of the September 2002 Housing Element (which was adopted in November 2002), there has been a change in the vacant land inventory in Los Gatos. Specifically, the developer of the Vasona Gateway mixed -use project has decided to revise the residential component so that the 3.5 acre residential parcel with a Planned Development entitlement should now be added back into 4 the Vacant Land Inventory. The exact density of the revised residential use has not yet been determined. This parcel is part of a mixed -use development that had been approved for a Planned Development including 3.5 acres of residential use with an underlying density at 20-30 units per acre. The original project had a residential density less than what could have been permitted. The developer (Sobrato Companies) is now planning to increase the number of units in the development. Due to the developer's decision to change the project, the Regional Housing Need adjustment must be changed so that the original 135 units are no longer counted . (See attached pages 29-32 from the September 2002 Housing Element with strike-throughs and additions made to reflect revised Regional Housing Need estimates.) Further, the 3.5 acre residential portion of the project must be added back into the Town's land inventory table (originally on page 49 of the September 2002 document). Specific Revisions to Vacant/Underutilized Land Inventory: 1. The 3.5-acre Vasona Gateway residential property has been included in the land inventory with a density range of 20-30 units per acre. 2. The RM 5-12 acreage has been increased by 2.5 acres due to the February 2003 rezoning of the Vasona Ranch property from R-1 to RM: 5-12. Likewise, the R-1 acreage in the table has been decreased by 2.5 acres. Revised Land Inventory and Adequate Sites The revised land inventory now includes 3.5 acres at 20-30 units per acre, 0.58 acre at 12-20 units per acre, 28.73 acres at 5-12 units per acre and 410 acres at densities of 5 units or less per acre. These parcels all have the appropriate land use designations and infrastructure availability. The revised 5 acreage and density levels are more than adequate to meet the Regional Housing Need estimates for 2002-2006. Illustration # 19: Projected Housing Needs and Land Availability (With no Infrastructure Constraints) Revised:Spring 2003 Page 49 of September 2002 Housing Element HOUSEHOLD INCOME CATEGORY REGIONAL HOUSING NEED 2002-LAND 2006 AVAILABLE VACANT AND UNDERUTILIZED DENSITY RANGE THAT COULD BE PROVIDED AT CURRENT ZONING/LAND USE DESIGNATION NUMBER OF POTENTIAL UNITS SUFFICIENT LAND ZONED To MEET REGIONAL HOUSING NEED? VERY Low INCOME Low INCOME MODERATE INCOME TOTAL 59 UNITS 13 UNITS 87 UNITS 3.5 ACRES OF MIXED USE (PD FOR RESIDENTIAL USE AT VASONA GATEWAY) 20-30 UNITS PER ACRE 70-105 UNITS YES 0.58 ACRES OF RM: 12-20 12-20 UNITS PER ACRE 3-10 UNITS 28.73 ACRES OF RM: 5-12 AND R 1-D 5-12 UNITS PER ACRE 125-345 UNITS 159 UNITS 32.81ACREs 198-460 ABOVE MODERATE INCOME 75 UNITS 410 ACRES OF HR AND R:1 ZONES 5 OR LESS UNITS PER ACRE 315 UNITS YES B. Housing Programs (continued) Comment # 1 (e): Additional information regarding homeless shelters and housing for disabled persons. Page 43 of the September 2002 Housing Element will be revised as follows: Constraints Regarding Housing for People with Disabilities and Homeless The Town's Zoning Code allows small group homes (limited to 6 or fewer persons) for day care or residential care in all residentially zoned districts without a use permit. Therefore, a 6 small group home that provided housing for homeless or persons with disabilities would be allowed without any discretionary permit approval. Residential care and day care facilities for 7 or more persons are allowed in all districts (except RMH) with a conditional use permit. There are no specific constraints imposed for developments that assist disabled or homeless households. The Town has no specific development standards for homeless shelters. Should there be an application for a homeless shelter of 7 or more persons, the Town would review the application similar to an application for any other use on the property (e.g. commercial, industrial, public facility, - etc.) and would evaluate the project in regard to adequacy of such issues as parking, lighting, design standards and safety concerns. Analysis of Constraints for Housing for Persons with Disabilities and Actions to Remove Identified Constraints Recent State legislation (Chapter 671, Statutes of 2001) requires communities to include an analysis of potential constraints to the development, maintenance and improvement of housing for persons with disabilities. Following then is an analysis of potential constraints for housing for persons with disabilities. 1. Land Use Controls/Permit Processing and Fees As noted earlier in this Chapter, the Town's Zoning Ordinance allows small group homes (limited to 6 or fewer persons) for day care or residential care in all residentially zoned districts without a use permit. Residential care and day care facilities for 7 or more persons are allowed in all districts jexcept RMH) with a use permit. There are no specific constraints or additional requirements/fees imposed for developments that assist disabled households. The Town follows the accessibility requirements of the California Title 24 Multi -Family Accessibility Regulations in regard to the development of accessible housing. Housing rehabilitation assistance and accessibility improvements are provided Deleted: The Town encourages accessibility improvements by requiring that certain "universal design" features be incorporated into all residential projects as a condition of approval (Town Resolution 1994-61). These requirements includel <#>Wooden backing (no smaller than 2 inches x 8 inches( shall be provided in all bathroom walls, at water closets, showers and bathtubs, located at 34 inches from the floor to the center of the backing, suitable for the installation of grab bars.11 <#> All passage doors shall be at least 32 inches wide on accessible floor.11 <#>Primary entrance shall have a 36-inch wide door including a 5- ' foot x 5-foot level landing, no more than one -inch out of plane 1 with the immediate interior floor level, with an 18-inch clearance.¶ 11 The Town will continue to evaluate any potential constraints to the development or improvement of housing for people with disabilities. See Program #23 in Chapter 8, which includes an evaluation of the City's Zoning and Development Standards during 2002-2003 to ensure that all constraints to the development or improvement of housing for people with disabilities are removed 11 through the Town's Community Services and Community Development departments. Many communities have adopted "Reasonable Accommodations" procedures which describes the process for zoning and land use requests from applicants with a disability. The Town of Los Gatos does not currently have a Reasonable Accommodations Regulation. Program #23 in Chapter 8 of this document includes program actions for the Town to adopt a Reasonable Accommodations Regulation. The Regulation shall identify those zoning/land use applications where reduced processing time and streamlined procedures would be allowed. Also, as part of the process of developing the Reasonable Accommodations Regulation, the Town's Zoning Ordinance shall be reviewed to eliminate any reference to terms that restrict residential occupancy only to persons who are related to each other. 2. Building Codes and Standards The Town has adopted the 1997 Edition of the Uniform Building Code with 2001 State and Town amendments. For multi -family developments of 3 or more units, the Town also implements Title 24 that regulates access and adaptability for persons with disabilities. No specific restrictions are in place for disabled housing, such as minimum distances, special conditions or other such regulations that could constrain the development, maintenance, or improvement of housing for persons with disabilities. In fact, the Town encourages accessibility improvements by requiring that certain "universal design" features be incorporated into all residential projects as a condition of approval (Town Resolution 1994-61). These requirements include 1. Wooden backing (no smaller than 2 inches x 8 inches) shall be provided in all bathroom walls, at water closets, showers and bathtubs, located at 34 inches from the floor to the 8 center of the backing, suitable for the installation of grab bars. 2. All passage doors shall be at least 32 inches wide on accessible floor. 3. Primary entrance shall have a 36-inch wide door including a 5- foot x 5-foot level landing, no more than one -inch out of plane with the immediate interior floor level, with an 18-inch clearance. Revised Program #23 in Chapter 8: 23 ® Disabled: Remove Constraints and Encourage Accessible Housing In Residential Developments Continue to require "universal design" features in all new residential developments. Adopt Reasonable Accommodations Regulation that will identify those zoning/land use applications where reduced processing time and streamlined procedures would be allowed. Time Frame: Responsible Party: 2003-2004: Adopt Reasonable Accommodations Regulation Community Development Department 9 Planning Commission Minutes September 24, 2003 CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: I'm going to, under New Public Hearings, go to item 2, General Plan amendment GP-04-1. Considering amendment to the General Plan to update the Housing Element to meet State Department of Housing & Community Development requirements for certification. Applicant, Town of Los Gatos. TOM WILLIAMS: Good evening Chairman DuBois and members of the Planning Commission. Tom Williams, Community Development Department. This is a General Plan Amendment to include the Housing Element, and we've as you know we have worked over the past couple of years to try and get certification of the Housing Element. With this requested change from Housing and Community Development from the state, as noted in the staff report, they have indicated to us that upon adoption they will certify the Housing Element. Its pretty straight forward and we've reviewed it and would be happy to answer any changes regarding the text changes. CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: OK, Commissioner Talesfore. COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: I have a question about, and maybe its something that I overlooked, but, the term universal design (inaudible). COMMISSIONER BURKE: I believe it's a comment, while Mr. Williams is looking for universal design, I believe it had something to do with access within a house for wheelchairs and things like that. COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: It does. Oh I see. I see it on page 9 of the revision we have in front of us. Its there under revised program number 23 in chapter 8 and I thought I saw it.. . CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: What is the question? COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: The question is what does the term universal design mean, it's the only time its used. TOM WILLIAMS: Well we take that under basically Title 24 and best practices for design for accessibility. Single family homes aren't as stringent under the UBC as say commercial properties are and so there's best practices related to disabled access and accessibility. CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Commissioner Quintana, you have a question.. COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: Not a question, I don't think, just a discussion, a suggestion. Two items on page 1 of Exhibit D (inaudible). I'm coming. CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: OK, while you're looking up your question is there another Commissioner who has a question? Commissioner Trevithick. ATTACHMENT 2 COMMISSIONER TREVITHICK: I have a question on page 6 and 7 where it talks about small group homes. The top of page 7. Can you tell me what it means by without any discretionary permit approval. I rather like the idea small group homes but I just wasn't sure of the technicality of that term. At the top of page 7. TOM WILLIAMS: Under out existing Town code you can have four rooms that don't require a conditional use permit. Above four requires a conditional use permit which is then the discretionary review. COMMISSIONER TREVITHICK: So this going to six or seven implies that there will be or won't be a discretionary review? TOM WILLIAMS: Over four rooms it will be. Four rooms or under it won't be. COMMISSIONER TREVITHICK: Thank you. CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Commissioner Quintana, is your question ready? COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: Yes, it is. On page 1 of Exhibit D, the last sentence says geotechnical review when required may also be done at this time which to me appears to conflict with the statement on page 3 that geotechnical review and the arborist review are conducted early in the process. I would suggest recommending that the language on page one be changed to read geotechnical review when required is also done at this time which the rest of the statement up there says its done at the same time. The other question I have is with regard to page 9, page 9 on Exhibit C, under H.I.4.5. I'd like some explanation about what that is referring to in terms of identifying zoning and use applications that would reduce the processing time and streamlined procedures that would be allowed. I understand that the intent of that is not to delete the requirement for a variance if it didn't meet the zoning setbacks, etc. Is that correct? TOM WILLIAMS: You mean would we forego the need for a variance to accommodate reasonable conditions for accessibility? COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: I'm asking what the added language is intended to mean. I guess I want clarification. TOM WILLIAMS: This is kind of the crux of what HCD wanted us to amend in here so we would in our review not hold up or have a process that would be slowed down or be inefficient according to HCD in the review of having a structure that would be accessible or having reasonable accommodations for disabled access. So if I understand your question, lets say that there was a setback issue and there was a ramp that protruded into the setback. Under our existing code right now it could, that ramp for example, similar to an accessory structure, could encroach into the setback. There's a three foot minimum setback from the property line. Anything above three feet then I would recommend it would have to come in for a variance. COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: I would like to recommend to the Council that they consider that for reasonable accommodations that a variance would not be considered. I think that was the intent of the ADA. Requiring a variance does not speed up the processing time so I would like to see that specifically indicated that a variance would not be required. ORRY KORB: I have a feeling that somebody may have already identified the point I was going to make, but I believe that, and though I understand your point, and I think it's one that probably does need to be debated, but in the context of the proposed regulation, the language change, the text change that has been discussed and agreed to between staff and HCD only says that the Town will adopt a regulation. Its doesn't set forth the terms of the regulation, it doesn't specify anything about the regulation other than what it's supposed to be for. So at this time its probably premature to discuss the terms of the regulation. My guess is that staff will be bringing that regulation through Planning Commission before it goes to Council for final adoption and you will have plenty of opportunity at that time to comment on its contours. COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: If that is the case I would say that the language is fine. I had asked questions of staff and was told that a variance would still be required and that's what I brought it up. Thank you. CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: I saw some other Commissioners waving their hands a minute ago. Commissioner Burke, Commissioner Drexel. Any other comments, questions from the Commission? We have no one from the public to talk to, so we'll close the public hearing and bring this back to the Commission for a motion, comments, questions of staff or something. Commissioner Drexel. COMMISSIONER DREXEL: I move that we forward the draft Housing Element and Technical Appendix amendments to the Town Council with a recommendation for adoption. COMMISSIONER BURKE: I'll second. CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: OK, Commissioner Quintana. COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: Will the maker of the motion consider amending it to include change on the language on page 1, to recommend a change in the language on page 1 of Exhibit D, the last sentence, to substitute.. . COMMISSIONER DREXEL: No. I won't accept that modification. CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Do you have some findings? COMMISSIONER DREXEL: Yes. We find that the Housing Element is consistent with the other elements of the General Plan and we wish to forward the Housing Element and Technical Appendix to the Town with a recommendation that the Council approve the General Plan amendment and adopt the Housing Element. CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: OK Commissioner Burke is seconding. Then I'm going to call the question. Commissioner Quintana, do you have a question before the question? COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: No, I don't have a question before the question, I have a comment before the question. And that is that while I am in agreement with the remainder of this document I find that that item on page 1, Exhibit D, is a contradiction of what's stated later and I. Am I a sense going to vote against this simply because I don't think we should have contradictions in our documents. CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Commissioner Burke. COMMISSIONER BURKE: I think far from it. I don't think that's a contradiction, I just think that's an explanatory of this may be a place you can do it. If we say this is when its done, that defines exactly when in the process it's done as opposed to giving flexibility. COMMISSIONER DREXEL: I agree with Commissioner Burke. CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: OK, there's a question before the Commission. All those in favor of the motion signify by saying aye (ayes). Opposed (nay). The motion carries five to one with Commissioner Quintana voting against it. N:1DE V\SUZANNEIPCIREPORTS\AdvancedP Ianning1PC-9-24-03.wpd Date: September 17, 2003 For Agenda Of: September 24, 2003 Agenda Item: 2 REPORT TO: The Planning Commission FROM: Director of Community Development SUBJECT: General Plan Amendment GP-04-1 Consider amending the General Plan to update the Housing Element to meet State Department of Housing & Community Development requirements for certification. APPLICANT: Town of Los Gatos ACTION: Recommendation to Town Council ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: It was determined that this project will not have a significant impact on the environment and a Negative Declaration was prepared in October 2002. The Town Council made the Negative Declaration on November 12, 2002 and a Notice of Determination was filed with the County Clerk. No additional environmental analysis is required for the proposed amendments. EXHIBITS: A. Draft Council Resolution B. Letter from HCD (two pages), received July 2, 2003 C. Amended Housing Element (nine pages) D. Housing Element Technical Appendix amendments (nine pages) E. General Plan Committee Minutes of August 27, 2003 (three pages) RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY: Forward the Draft Housing Element and Technical Appendix amendments to the Town Council with a recommendation for adoption. A. BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission considered the draft Housing Element on October 23, 2002, and forwarded the document to the Town Council for final consideration. On December 1, 2002,the Town Council adopted the Housing Element. Following that date staff continued to work with the State Department of Housing & Community Development (HCD) to have the Housing Element certified. In July 2003rstaff reached agreement with HCD on the outstanding issues. The resulting minor amendments to the Housing Element and accompanying Technical Appendix are the subject of this report. If the amendments are ultimately approved by the Town Council, HCD has indicated that the Housing Element can be certified (see Exhibit B). ATTACHMENT 3 The Planning Commission - Page 2 Housing Element- General Plan Amendment/GP-04-1 September 24, 2003 B. REMARKS: On August 27, 2003, the General Plan Committee discussed the proposed amendments to the Housing Element and Technical Appendix. There is only one change to a program in the Housing Element that was recommended by HCD (see page 9 of Exhibit C). The change requires the Town to adopt a Reasonable Accommodations Regulation to aid in the encouragement of accessible housing for the disabled within residential developments. The remainder of the proposed amendments are language changes to the Technical Appendix that were needed to clarify the approval process and housing programs (see Exhibit D). The General Plan Committee voted unanimously to forward the amendments to the Planning Commission and Town Council (see GPC minutes, Exhibit E). C. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission take the following actions: 1. Find that the Housing Element is consistent with the other elements of the General Plan; 2. Forward the draft Housing Element and Technical Appendix to the Town Council with a recommendation that the Council: a. approve the General Plan Amendment; and b. adopt the Housing Element. Y"3 N. Lfrtz, Drec or of Community Development Prepared by: Suzanne Davis, Associate Planner BNL:SD cc: Melanie Shaffer Freitas, Freitas + Freitas, 311 Laurent Street, Santa Cruz, CA 95060 N:1DEV\SUZANNEIPCIREPORTS AdvancedPlanning\HousingElement2 wpd DRAFT RESOLUTION 2003- RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS AMENDING THE HOUSING ELEMENT WHEREAS, that the Town of Los Gatos has updated the General Plan Housing Element, in accordance with Section California State Code Section 65588(a); and WHEREAS, that Government Code (Sections 65580-65590), Article 10.6 requires that all California localities adopt housing elements (updates) as part of their general plans; to submit draft and adopted elements to the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for review with compliance with State Law, and, WHEREAS, upon review of the adopted Housing Element and Technical Appendix, HCD requested adjustments to language to better clarify intent and explain planning processes and to demonstrate that the housing allocation can be met; and WHEREAS, HCD has indicated that with the amendments certification of the Housing Element can be achieved; and WHEREAS, the General Plan Committee on August 27, 2003, and the Planning Commission on September 24, 2003, have reviewed the amendments and recommend approval; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the Town Council adopts the revised Housing Element (Exhibit "A") and Technical Appendix (Exhibit "B"). Exhibit A PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council held on the day of , 2003, by the following vote: COUNCIL MEMBERS: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: SIGNED: ATTEST: CLERK OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA N:\DEV\RESOS\HousingElement-rev.wpd 2 MAYOR OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA .dLI (-1,1%1ITILI11 I, Vl 1lvvr.. a.- __...... _.-. �.� •�. r.a. Division of Housing Polic leve(opment t600 Third Street, Suite 430 O. Box 952053 Sacramento, CA 94252-2053 916) 323-31771 FAX (916) 327-2643 rrxw.hcd.ca.gov July 2, 2003 Ms. Debra Figone Town Manager Town of Los Gatos 110 East Main Street Los Gatos, California 95031 F VD .I''1 -. 7 2003 TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING DEPARTMENT Dear Ms:Figone: RE: Review of the Town of Los Gatos' Revised Draft Housing Element Thank you for submitting the draft revisions to Los Gatos' adopted housing element, received for our review on June 16, 2003. As you know, the Department of Housing and Community Development (Department) is required to review draft housing elements and report our findings to the locality pursuant to Government Code Section. 65585(b). Our review was facilitated by several telephone conversations with Ms. Melanie Schaffer Freitas, the Town's consultant. We are pleased to find the draft revisions to Los Gatos' housing element adequately addressed the statutory requirements described in the Department's March 14, 2003 review. The revisions include an expanded analysis of the Town's permitting process, a description of the expansion of the Vasona Gateway project, and commitment to rezone 2.5 acres from R-1 to RM:5-12. Once these revisions have been incorporated, adopted, and submitted to this Department pursuant to Government Code Section 65585(g), the element will be in full compliance with State law (Article 10.6 of the Government Code). We are pleased to report, as a result of the passage of Proposition 46, a historic increase in funds available, on a competitive basis, through the Depart« ent to assist Los Gatos in addressing housing and community development needs. Information about these programs, including Notices of Funding Availability (NOFA), will be posted on the Department's website. Please consult our homepage at www.hcd.ca.gov. We appreciate the cooperation and assistance provided by Ms. Schaffer Freitas, and Ms. Suzanne Davis and Mr. Tom Williams of the Town's Community Development Department and look forward to receiving Los Gatos' amended adopted housing element. If you have any questions, please contact Michelle Woods, of our staff, at (916) 327-8881. Exhibit B Ms. Debra Figone Page 2 In accordance with requests pursuant to the Public Records Act, we are forwarding copies of this letter to the persons and organizations listed below. Sincerely, '60t ( e( -Cath-y E,=Cr wve1l- Deputy DireMMor 1 cc: Melanie Schaffer Freitas, Freitas +Freitas, Engineering & Planning Suzanne Davis, Los Gatos Community Development Department Tom Williams, Los Gatos Community Development Department Mark Stivers, Senate Committee on Housing & Community Development Suzanne Ambrose, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, AG's Office Terry Roberts, Governor's Office of Planning and Research Nick Cammarota, California Building Industry Association Marcia Salkin, California Association of Realtors Marc Brown, California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation Rob Weiner, California Coalition for Rural Housing John Douglas, AICP, Civic Solutions Deanna Kitamura, Western Center on Law and Poverty S. Lynn Martinez, Western Center on Law and Poverty Alexander Abbe, Law Firm of Richards, Watson & Gershon Michael G. Colantuono, Colantuono, Levin & Rozell, APC Ilene J. Jacobs, California Rural Legal Assistance, Inc. Richard Marcantonio, Public Advocates Antonio Estremera, Community Legal Services Beverly Lawrence, Midpeninsula Citizens for Fair Housing Sue Hestor, Attorney -at -Law Julie Barreto, California Rural Legal Assistance David Booher, California Housing Council Paul Campos, Home Builders Assoc. of Northern California Shannon Dodge, Non -Profit Housing Association of Northern California Eve Bach, Arc Ecology William Litt, Bay Area Legal Aid Allison Brooks, Livable Communities Initiative Charlie Carson, Home Builders Association — Northern Division N ok .See chany, can pcicje9 Los Gatos General Plan 3.0 HOUSING DRAFT The Housing Element is one of seven required General Plan elements. There are specific guidelines developed by the State of California for subjects that must be included in a Housing Element. These guidelines are identified in Article 10.6 of the State of California Government Code. The 2002 Housing Element was adopted by the Town Council in October 2002, and was certified by the State Department of Housing and Community Development in July 2003. 3.1 INTRODUCTION The intent of the Town of Los Gatos is to provide adequate housing for Town citizens, regardless of age, income, race, or ethnic background. The Town encourages conservation and construction of housing adequate for future populations and replacement needs, consistent with environmental limitations and in proper relationship to community facilities, open space and transportation and small-town character. The Housing Element establishes policies that will aid Town officials in daily decision -making and sets forth implementation measures that will assist the Town in realizing its housing goals. The Housing Element was developed based on the information contained in the Housing Element Technical Appendix, dated September 2002. "A decent home and suitable living environment for all" has been identified as a goal of the highest priority by the California State Legislature. Recognizing that local planning programs play a significant role in the pursuit of this statewide goal; and to assure that local planning effectively implements statewide housing policy, the Legislature has mandated that all local jurisdictions and counties include a housing element as part of their adopted General Plan. The State's General Plan law requires that the Housing Element be updated at least every five years. The following Housing Element reflects the 2001 regional housing needs determinations prepared by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) which were revised in 1995. The revised ABAG needs reflects the period from January 1, 1999 to June 30, 2006. The element establishes goals, policies and programs that provide incentives for the development of affordable housing in order for the Town to achieve its share of affordable housing. From 2001 to Spring 2002 the Town approved 283 additional housing units. During the 1999-2002 period, 72 units affordable units were built or approved. When evaluating the success of the Town's housing policies, it is important to recognize that the Town has been relatively successful in producing the Town's "fair share allocation" of low income housing even though the cost of land is approximately a million dollars per acre. The updated Housing Element was developed to be consistent with the other elements of Los Gatos' General Plan. The Town will continue to require that all residential development proposals, General Plan and Specific Plan amendments be consistent with the Town's Housing Element. The development of the Housing Element Technical Appendix involved numerous meetings of the Town's General Plan Committee over a one year period. These meetings were open to the public and the agendas were posted at Town Hall and the Public Library to encourage public participation. September 2002 Page H-1 Exhibit C Adequate sites for housing The review process and adoption of this element included a community meeting, and public hearings of the Planning Commission and Town Council, all of which were open to the public for their input. A 45 day public review period was a advertised in the local newspaper (Los Gatos Weekly -Times), as were the community meeting and Planning Commission and Town Council public hearings. All public meeting agendas were posted. Drafts of the Housing Element Technical Appendix were available at Town Hall, the public library and on the Town's web site. 3.2 GOALS, POLICIES, IMPLEMENTING STRATEGIES The following is a summary of the major housing issues identified for the Town of Los Gatos for the 2002-June 30, 2006 time frame. These issues are listed in order of priority with the initial issues being the most significant. ISSUE: 1 Adequate Sites for Housing. The Town needs to provide adequate sites for 125 dwelling units to meet its 2002-2006 Regional Housing Need. The 125 unit estimate includes 59 very low income units and 66 moderate income units. With opportunities to apply Mixed Use or a density bonus, there is sufficient land zoned at appropriate densities with infrastructure available to meet the projected need for very low and moderate income units. r Goal: H.G.1.1 Expand the choice of housing opportunities for all economic segments of the community through a variety of housing types and sizes, including a mixture of ownership and rental housing. Policies: H.P.1.1 :Pdeei3{eav"4:::. Continue to designate sufficient residentially -zoned land at appropriate densities to provide adequate sites to meet Los Gatos' new construction need for 2002-2006. H.P.1.2 Maintain and/or adopt appropriate land use regulations and other development tools to encourage the development of affordable housing. Los Gatos General Plan September 2002 Page H-2 H.P.1.3 Develop and utilize all availaule funding resources in order to provide the maximum amount of affordable housing as feasible. Implementing Strategies: H.I.1.1 Adequate Land Inventory: The Town will ensure that there is sufficient land available at appropriate zoning categories to meet its need for very low and moderate income households. In order to achieve this, the Town will assess the progress of the development community in providing very low income units during the latter part of 2003. If it appears that an insufficient number of very low, low and moderate income units are being produced, the Town will consider rezoning up to five acres of land within a half mile radius of the future Vasona light rail station to a higher density (refer to the target area map in the Housing Element Technical Appendix). Time Frame: Responsible Party: 2002-2006: Continue to maintain an adequate land inventory that meets 2002-2006 Regional Housing Needs goals. Late 2003: Evaluate need to rezone up to five acres of vacant or underutilized land to a higher density and/or apply affordable housing overlay zone(s). Community Development Department H.I.1.2 Density Bonus: Continue to provide up to a 100% density bonus for developments that include housing for elderly, handicapped and/or very low and low-income households. Eligibility requirements are as follows: A. All housing projects on lots in excess of 40,000 square feet must be processed as Planned Developments in order to receive a density bonus. B. Housing restricted to elderly, handicapped and very low and low income residents shall be eligible for a density bonus up to 100% of the units permitted by the land use designation as shown on the land use plan or any specific plan and incentives based on the State Density Bonus law. C. Town density bonuses will also be granted for residential projects that actively facilitate and encourage use of transit or directly provide transit services to residents. D. Concessions to the Town's density, traffic and parking regulations may be granted for mixed -use projects that provide residential units in non-residential zones. E. BMP (Below Market Price) units are not included when calculating density bonuses for a property. The Town will develop marketing materials that will ensure that Town staff and developers are aware of the various features of the density bonus program. Time Frame: Responsible Party: 2002-2003: Develop marketing materials 2002-June 30, 2006: Implement program Community Development Department Los Gatos General Plan September 2002 Page H-3 Los Gatos General Plan H.I.1.3 Development Standards:.. itinue to review and, where feasible, reduce development standards (e.g. parking requirements, open space requirements, etc.) for housing developments that will guarantee affordable units on a Tong -term basis for low and moderate -income households. Time Frame: 2002-June 30, 2006 Responsible Party: Community Development Department H.I.1.4 Mixed Use Developments: Encourage mixed -use developments that provide affordable housing close to employment centers and/or transportation facilities. Time Frame: 2002-June 30, 2006 Responsible Party: Community Development Department H.I.1.5 Below Market Price (BMP) Program: Continue to implement the BMP Program in order to increase the number of affordable units in the community. Continue policy that BMP units are counted in addition to maximum density allowed on a site. Evaluate changing eligibility criteria to very low and low-income households. Time Frame: 2002-June 30, 2006 Responsible Party: Community Development Department H.I.1.6 Second Unit Program: Revise existing second unit program to encourage the production of more second units on residential parcels. Evaluate existing parking, square footage, transfer of credits, and other requirements to determine whether revisions would encourage the development of more second units. Time Frame: Responsible Party: 2002-2003: Evaluate and Revise Program 2002-June 30, 2006: Implement Program Community Development Department H.I.1.7 Consistency with Housing Element/Community Benefit: Continue policy that all approvals of residential developments of three or more units must include a finding that the proposed development is consistent with the Town's Housing Element, and addresses the Town's housing needs as identified in the Housing Element. Further, review of potential developments shall include a determination that affordable units provided beyond the minimum BMP requirements are to be considered as a significant community benefit. Time Frame: 2002-June 30, 2006 Responsible Party: Community Development Department September 2002 Page H-4 Development of a f f ordalile housing for lower and moderate income households Los Gatos General Plan H.I.1.8 Annual Housing Report: Prepare an annual housing report for the review of the Town Council including information on progress made towards achieving new construction need, affordable housing conserved/developed, effectiveness of existing programs and recommendations for improvement. Consult with non-profit providers, special need providers, and other community resources in preparation and evaluation of the report. Time Frame: 2002-June 30, 2006 Responsible Party: Community Development Department H.I.1.9 Redevelopment Housing Set -Aside Funds/In-Lieu Fees: Develop a strategy for use of Redevelopment Housing Set -Aside funds and In - Lieu fees from the BMP Program. Consider the needs as identified in this Housing Element (e.g. Preservation of At Risk Units, Development of Units Affordable to Very Low and Low -Income Households, etc.) in the development of funding conditions and incentives. Time Frame: Responsible Party: 2002-January 2003: Develop Funding Strategy 2002-June 30, 2006: Implement Strategy Redevelopment Agency H.I.1.10 Mortgage Credit Certificate (MCC) Program: Continue to encourage Los Gatos households to participate in MCC and other financial assistance programs (e.g. Teacher Mortgage Assistance) provided in the County of Santa Clara. Time Frame: 2002-June 30, 2006 Responsible Party: County of Santa Clara Objective: Five households total assisted from 2002-2006 ISSUE: 2 Development of Affordable Housing for Lower and Moderate Income Households. The most significant new construction need is housing for very low, low and moderate - income households. Of the 125 projected units needed, all of these units are estimated to be needed to be affordable to very low and moderate -income households. H.G.2.1 Preserve existing residential opportunities and encourage additional residential use that is compatible with neighborhood and community. Policies: H.P.2.1 Encourage the maintenance and improvement of existing housing units. H.P.2.2 When evaluating new developments, evaluate the impact of development on the Town's jobs/housing ratio. H.P.2.3 Encourage residential construction that promotes energy conservation. September 2002 Page H-5 Implementing Strategies: Los Gatos General Plan H.I.2.1 Housing Conservation Program: Continue to provide Housing Conservation Program assistance to property owners to improve their housing units. Undertake the following actions to increase program productivity: A. Conduct a housing condition survey in neighborhoods with older housing stock. B. If needed, redesign program goals and objectives to respond to results of housing condition survey. C. Redesign marketing materials and aggressively market program to potential applicants. Time Frame: 2002-2003: Conduct housing condition survey 2002-June 30, 2006: Implement program Responsible Party: Community Services Department Funding Source: CDBG Funds/Redevelopment Funds Objective: 10-20 Units Total Rehabilitated from 2002-2006 H.I.2.2 Home Access Program: Continue to support countywide programs, such as the Home Access Program, that provide assistance with minor home repairs and accessibility improvements for lower -income households. Time Frame: 2002-June 30, 2003 Responsible Party: County of Santa Clara H.I.2.3 Jobs/Housing Balance: As part of the development review process, evaluate applications that have significant number of jobs or housing in regard to the potential impact on the Town's jobs/housing ratio. The objective is to maintain the Town's 2002 ratio of 1.5 jobs per household/housing unit. However, the jobs/housing balance shall not be used as a criteria for denying projects that include affordable housing opportunities. Time Frame: 2002-June 30, 2006 Responsible Party: Community Development Department Objective: Maintain 1.5 jobs to household/housing unit ratio H.I.2.4 Energy Conservation Opportunities: Continue to enforce Title 24 requirements for energy conservation and evaluate utilizing some of the other suggestions as identified in Chapter 9 of the Housing Element technical Appendix to encourage developers to exceed Title 24 requirements. Time Frame: 2002-June 30, 2006 Responsible Party: Community Development Department H.l2.5 Weatherization Program: Support the weatherization program administered countywide by the county of Santa Clara. This program assists the very low-income homeowners with weatherization improvements to their home. Time Frame: 2002-June 30, 2006 Responsible Party: Community Development Department September 2002 Page H-6 Preserve a f f oraab[e housing stock Los Gatos General Plan ISSUE: 3 Conservation of existing housing units. The Town's existing stock of mobile homes and rental units provides an important resource for affordable housing. These units need to be preserved. Further, rehabilitation assistance needs to continue to be made available to property owners of units occupied by lower income households. The Town also needs to conduct a housing condition survey in the older areas of the community in order to determine the extent of need for rehabilitation assistance. (Goal: H.G.3.1 Preserve the existing affordable housing stock Policy: H.P.3.1 Support preservation and conservation of existing housing units that provide affordable housing opportunities for Town residents and workers and strive to ensure that at least 30% of the housing stock are rental units. Implementing Strategies: H.l.3.1 Mobile Home Preservation: Preserve mobile homes (150 total) and adopt mobile home park conversion policies to preserve existing housing opportunities and to ensure the provision of affordable units similar to the existing park's unit capacity. Time Frame: 2002-2006: Implement policies Responsible Party: Community Development Department Objective: Preserve existing 150 mobile home units H.I.3.2 Preserve "At Risk" Affordable Housing Units: Monitor the 220 publicly assisted, multi -family housing units in the Town to ensure that they retain their affordability status. These developments include Villa Vasona, The Terraces, Open Doors, Los Gatos Four Plex, 95 Fairview Plaza and the Los Gatos Creek Village Apartments. Develop a strategy to retain affordability of units at Villa Vasona, which is scheduled to have its Section 8 assistance expire in November 2004. A notification procedure for tenants that will be developed cooperatively between the Town and the property owner shall be included in the strategy. Time Frame: 2002-June 30, 2006: Monitor Affordability Status of Developments September 2003: Complete strategy to retain affordability status of Villa Vasona Funding Sources: Redevelopment Housing Set -Aside Funds, CDBG and/or HOME Funds, other Federal and State Funding Resources Responsible Party: Community Development Department and Redevelopment Agency September 2002 Page H-7 Housing Opportunities H.1.3.3 Rental Housing Conservation Program: The Town's existing multi- family, privately owned rental units provide housing opportunities for households of varied income levels. The Town will continue to implement Section 29.20.155 of the Zoning Ordinance that addresses conversions of residential use, Specifically, Section 29.20.155(a)(2) that requires that any proposed conversion satisfy the housing goals and policies as set forth in the General Plan. Time Frame: Responsible Party: 2002-June 30, 2006: Continue Implementation of Conversion Policies Community Development Department ISSUE: 4 Preservation of "At Risk" Affordable Units. A significant issue in the 2002-2006 time frame is the expiration of Section 8 subsidies for the Villa Vasona Development. This 107-unit development provides affordable housing to elderly and disabled households. The Town needs to monitor the potential expiration in 2004 of these subsidies and, if needed, develop a strategy to preserve the affordability of the units. H.G.4.1 Ensure that all persons have equal access to housing opportunities. �s- Policies: H.P.4.1 Support housing programs that protect individuals' rights. H.P.4.2 Continue to provide assistance to service providers of special needs households such as seniors, disabled and homeless. Implementing Strategies: H.I.4.1 Rental Dispute Resolution Program: Continue the administration of the Rental Dispute Resolution Program and consider revisions as necessary to make the program as effective as possible in protecting both tenants and landlords. Time Frame: 2002-2006 Funding Source: Fees Responsible Party: Community Services Department H.1.4.2 Santa Clara County Fair Housing Consortium: Support the efforts of the Santa Clara County Fair Housing Consortium, which includes the Asian Law Alliance, Mid -Peninsula Citizens for Fair Housing, Project Fair Sentinel, and the Mental Health Advocate Program. These organizations provide resources for Los Gatos residents with tenant/landlord, housing discrimination and fair housing concerns. Time Frame: 2002-2006 Responsible Party: County of Santa Clara Urban County Funds Funding Source: Santa Clara County Fair Housing Consortium Los Gatos General Plan September 2002 Page H-8 Los Gatos General Plan H.I.4.3 Support for Non -Profit AfforuuPle Housing Providers: Recognize and support the efforts of non-profit affordable housing organizations that provide housing services in Los Gatos. Encourage the participation of these providers in developing housing and meeting the affordable housing needs of Los Gatos households. Non-profit groups will be invited to work cooperativelywith the Town in developing strategies and actions for affordable housing Time Frame: 2002-2006 Responsible Party: Community Development Department H.1.4.4 Homeless: Increased Range of Housing Opportunities: Continue to support the County of Santa Clara's "Continuum of Care" plan to provide housing opportunities for homeless households' including emergency shelter, transitional housing and permanent affordable housing opportunities. Time Frame: 2002-2006 Responsible Party: Community Development Department H.I.4.5 Disabled: Remove Constraints and Encourage Accessible Housing in Residential Developments: Continue to require "universal design" features in all new residential developments. Adopt Reasonable Accommodations Regulation that will identify those zoning/land use applications where reduced processing time and streamlined procedures would be allowed. Time Frame: Responsible Party: 2003-2004: Adopt Reasonable Accommodations Regulation Community Development Department ISSUE 5: Management of Housing Programs and Funds. In addition to implementing the identified goals, policies and programs in this element, the Town also has existing programs that need to be managed (e.g. Below Market Price Program) and a significant source of housing funds that needs to be expended (e.g. Redevelopment Housing Set -Aside funds and In -Lieu funds). The Town needs to ensure that there is adequate staff support to manage and implement the proposed 2002-2006 housing strategy. Goal: H.G.5.1 Provide adequate management and staffing of affordable housing funds and programs. Implementing Strategy: H.I.5.1 Housing Management: Consider additional staff support for the management and planning of housing programs and funding for the Town. September 2002 Time Frame: 2002-2003: Develop recommendation and plan for additional staff support for housing. Funding Source: Redevelopment Housing Set Aside Funds, Urban County funds Responsible Party: Community Development Department and Redevelopment Agency Page H-9 Response to March 14, 2003 HCD Letter to Town (Housing Element & Technical Appendix amendments) A. Housing Needs, Resources and Constraints Comment # 1: Describe design and compatibility Issues the Town considers before approving a project and Permitting Requirements for Multi -Family Projects that are not processed as Planned Developments Page 46 of September 2002 Housing Element Technical Appendix will be revised as follows: Existing language will be changed as follows: The residential development process goes through various stages, each of which requires some form of Town approval. According to Town staff, a typical single-family infill residential application takes less than 3 months to process. If the unit is proposed in a hillside residential zone, then the processing time usually is lengthened to 4-6 months total. In regard to mixed use, two mixed -use projects in 2002 (Sobrato Development and Terreno de Flores) were processed in 4-6 months, following establishment of zoning densities on the property. Typical processing steps for a multi -family housing project include: 1. Upon submittal of a PD (Planned Development) or subdivision application, the application is distributed to other Town departments (Planning, Engineering, Parks, Police) and other public agencies for review (e.g. utility districts, school districts, etc.). 2. Staff reviews/meets with applicant to resolve any concerns or plan deficiencies. Design issues are discussed. Arborist review and/or architectural review may be done concurrently. Geotechnical review when required may also be done at this time; Exhibit D 3. Development Review Committee (DRC) meeting - once the DRC deems application is complete, it forwards its recommendation to the Planning Commission. 4. Environmental review and traffic impact analysis , completed as appropriate 5. Story poles placed on project site by applicant. ,b. Approval by the Appropriate Body: a. Planning Commission Approval (with appeal to the,.. Town Council) i. Projects that require no change in zoning or General Plan ii. Use Permits b. Town Council Approval 1. Projects that require change in zoning or General Plan i1. Planned Developments The types of issues that usually prolong the processing time are design issues and neighborhood compatibility. The Town now uses an architectural consultant to review plans and provide recommendations. The use of the consultant has, reduced processing time for most applications that are problematic in regard to design and neighborhood issues. The architectural review and arborist review have been incorporated into the design review process in order to expedite the overall development review process. The reviews are done concurrently with the review of a Planned Development or Architecture and Site application and do not add to the length of the processing time. Because the Town obtains information in the early stages of a project, delays that typically occur during the design process are significantly reduced and projects can be conditionally approved so that there are no surprises for the applicant. Architectural review has helped shorten the public hearing phase of a project, as the Planning Commission typically is not involved with the Deleted: (and occasionally geotechnicol review) Deleted: <#>Public hearings with Planning Commission and/or Town Council approval¶ Formatted: Bullets and Numbering Formatted: Bullets and Numbering Deleted: It is anticipated that Deleted: t Deleted: will Deleted: those architectural details of a project. The Commission relies on staff andthe Town Architectural Consultant's recommendations unless compelling evidence is presented at a public hearinq that requires a change due to a neighborhood impact. Likewise, the arborist and/or geotechnical review is conducted early in the process. Problems are minimized during public hearings since a qualified arborist or geotechnical consultant has evaluated the site and provided input for the Planning Commission's consideration. The Town encourages developers to retain viable trees. However, if a tree conflicts with proposed development, it can be considered for removal. If removal of a tree would preclude affordable housing units from being provided that situation may be an overriding factor in determining whether a tree can be removed. Following language will be added to the discussion on Page 46 Design and Development Standards a. Single Family and Two -Family Dwellings The Town has adopted Residential Development Standards with the intent that these standards be used during the Design Review Process. The factors evaluated during the design review process include: o Site development • Site planning • Solar orientation • Shadow Effect • Easements/Dedications o Building Design • Harmony/Compatibility with surrounding neighborhood • Scale and Mass consistent with neighboring structures • Exterior Materials and Colors • Building Components 3 ▪ Energy Conservation ▪ Privacy o Landscaping/Open Space • Conservation of existing trees, where possible • Private Open Space Historic properties and properties in the hillside areas typically have additional design review evaluations. b. Multi -Family Structures There are no specific design guidelines adopted by the Town for multi -family structures. The typical entitlement procedure for a multi -family structure is through the Planned Development (PD) process. During the process of obtaining a PD approval, the proposed development is evaluated in regard to its reiaiionship to neighboring buildings and the streetscape. Typical items that are evaluated include building bulk and mass, solar orientation, parking, landscaping and open space. There have been very few multi -family developments processed in Los Gatos in recent years that have not been a Planned Development. However, for those developments the same types of design issues identified above were evaluated. B. Housing Programs Comment # 1 (a-d): Identify adequate sites to accommodate Los Gatos' share of regional housing need. Since the submittal of the September 2002 Housing Element (which was adopted in November 2002), there has been a change in the vacant land inventory in Los Gatos. Specifically, the developer of the Vasona Gateway mixed -use project has decided to revise the residential component so that the 3.5 acre residential parcel with a Planned Development entitlement should now be added back into 4 the Vacant Land Inventory. The exact density of the revised residential use has not yet been determined. This parcel is part of a mixed -use development that had been approved for a Planned Development including 3.5 acres of residential use with an underlying density at 20-30 units per acre. The original project had a residential density less than what could have been permitted. The developer (Sobrato Companies) is now planning to increase the number of units in the development. Due to the developer's decision to change the project, the Regional Housing Need adjustment must be changed so that the original 135 units are no longer counted . (See attached pages 29-32 from the September 2002 Housing Element with strike-throughs and additions made to reflect revised Regional Housing Need estimates.) Further, the 3.5 acre residential portion of the project must be added back into the Town's land inventory table (originally on page 49 of the September 2002 document). Specific Revisions to Vacant/Underutilized Land Inventory: 1. The 3.5-acre Vasona Gateway residential property has been included in the land inventory with a density range of 20-30 units per acre. 2. The RM 5-12 acreage has been increased by 2.5 acres due to the February 2003 rezoning of the Vasona Ranch property from R-1 to RM: 5-12. Likewise, the R-1 acreage in the table has been decreased by 2.5 acres. Revised Land Inventory and Adequate Sites The revised land inventory now includes 3.5 acres at 20-30 units per acre, 0.58 acre at 12-20 units per acre, 28.73 acres at 5-12 units per acre and 410 acres at densities of 5 units or less per acre. These parcels all have the appropriate land use designations and infrastructure availability. The revised 5 acreage and density levels are more than adequate to meet the Regional Housing Need estimates for 2002-2006. Illustration # 19: Projected Housing Needs and Land Availability (With no Infrastructure Constraints) Revised:Spring 2003 Page 49 of September 2002 Housing Element HOUSEHOLD INCOME CATEGORY REGIONAL HOUSING NEED 2002-LAND 2006 AVAILABLE VACANT AND UNDERUTILIZED DENSITY RANGE THAT COULD BE PROVIDED AT CURRENT ZONING/LAND USE DESIGNATION NUMBER OF POTENTIAL UNITS SUFFICIENT LAND ZONED To MEET REGIONAL HOUSING NEED? VERY Low INCOME Low INCOME MODERATE INCOME TOTAL 59 UNITS 13 UNITS 87 UNITS 3.5 ACRES OF MIXED USE (PD FOR RESIDENTIAL USE AT VASONA GATEWAY) 20-30 UNITS PER ACRE 70-105 UNITS YES 0.58 ACRES OF RM: 12-20 12-20 UNITS PER ACRE 3-10 UNITS 28.73 ACRES OF RM: 5-12 AND R1-D 5-12 UNITS PER ACRE 125-345 UNITS 159 UNITS 32.81ACRES 198-460 ABOVE MODERATE INCOME 75 UNITS 410 ACRES OF HR AND R:1 ZONES 5 OR LESS UNITS PER ACRE 315 UNITS YES B. Housing Programs (continued) Comment #1 (e): Additional information regarding homeless shelters and housing for disabled persons. Page 43 of the September 2002 Housing Element will be revised as follows: Constraints Regarding Housing for People with Disabilities and Homeless The Town's Zoning Code allows small group homes (limited to 6 or fewer persons) for day care or residential care in all residentially zoned districts without a use permit. Therefore, a 6 small group home that provided housing for homeless or persons with disabilities would be allowed without any discretionary permit approval. Residential care and day care facilities for 7 or more persons are allowed in all districts (except RMH) with a conditional use permit. There are no specific constraints imposed for developments that assist disabled or homeless households. The Town has no specific development standards for homeless shelters. Should there be an application for a homeless shelter of 7 or more persons, the Town would review the application similar to an application for any other use on the property (e.g. commercial, industrial, public facility, etc.) and would evaluate the project in regard to adequacy of such issues as parking, lighting, design standards and safety concerns. Analysis of Constraints for Housing for Persons with Disabilities and Actions to Remove Identified Constraints Recent State legislation (Chapter 671, Statutes of 2001) requires communities to include an analysis of potential constraints to the development, maintenance and improvement of housing for persons with disabilities. Following then is an analysis of potential constraints for housing for persons with disabilities. 1. Land Use Controls/Permit Processing and Fees As noted earlier in this Chapter, the Town's Zoning Ordinance allows small group homes (limited to 6 or fewer persons) for day care or residential care in all residentially zoned districts without a use permit. Residential care and day care facilities for 7 or more persons are allowed in all districts (except RMH) with a use permit. There are no specific constraints or additional requirements/fees imposed for developments that assist disabled households. The Town follows the accessibility requirements of the California Title 24 Multi -Family Accessibility Regulations in regard to the development of accessible housing. Housing rehabilitation assistance and accessibility improvements are provided Deleted: The Town encourages accessibility improvements by requiring that certain "universal design" features be incorporated into ail residential projects as a condition of approval (Town Resolution 1994-61). These requirements include:11 11 <#>Wooden backing (no smaller than 2 inches x 8 inches) shall be provided in all bathroom walls. at water closets, showers and bathtubs, located at 34 inches from the floor to the center of the backing, suitable for the installation of grab bars.11 <#> All passage doors shall be at least 32 inches wide on accessible floor.11 <#>Primary entrance shall have a 36-inch wide door including a 5- foot x 5-foot level landing, no more than one -inch out of plane with the immediate interior floor level, with on 18-inch clearance.11 11 The Town will continue to evaluate any potential constraints to the development or improvement of housing for people with disabilities. See Program #23 in Chapter 8. which includes an evaluation of the City's Zoning and Development Standards during 2002-2003 to ensure that oil constraints to the development or improvement of housing for people with disabilities are removed.¶ through the Town's Community Services and Community Development departments. Many communities have adopted "Reasonable Accommodations" procedures which describes the process for zoning and land use requests from applicants with a disability. The Town of Los Gatos does not currently have a Reasonable Accommodations Regulation. Program #23 in Chapter 8 of this document includes program actions for the Town to adopt a Reasonable Accommodations Regulation. The Regulation shall identify those zoning/land use applications where reduced processing time and streamlined procedures would be allowed. Also, as part of the process of developing the Reasonable Accommodations Regulation, the Town's Zoning Ordinance shall be reviewed to eliminate any reference to terms that restrict residential occupancy only to persons who are related to each other. 2. Building Codes and Standards The Town has adopted the 1997 Edition of the Uniform Building Code with 2001 State and Town amendments. For multi -family developments of 3 or more units, the Town also implements Title 24 that regulates access and adaptability for persons with disabilities. No specific restrictions are in place for disabled housing, such as minimum distances, special conditions or other such regulations that could constrain the development, maintenance, or improvement of housing for persons with disabilities. In fact, the Town encourages accessibility improvements by requiring that certain "universal design" features be incorporated into all residential projects as a condition of approval (Town Resolution 1994-61). These requirements include 1. Wooden backing (no smaller than 2 inches x 8 inches) shall be provided in all bathroom walls, at water closets, showers and bathtubs, located at 34 inches from the floor to the 8 center of the backing, suitable for the installation of grab bars. 2. All passage doors shall be at least 32 inches wide on accessible floor. 3. Primary entrance shall have a 36-inch wide door including a 5- foot x 5-foot level landing, no more than one -inch out of plane with the immediate interior floor level, with an 18-inch clearance. Revised Program #23 in Chapter 8: 23 11 Disabled: Remove Constraints and Encourage Accessible Housing in Residential Developments Continue to require "universal design" features in all new residential developments. Adopt Reasonable Accommodations Regulation that will identify those zoning/land use applications where reduced processing time and streamlined procedures would be allowed. Time Frame: Responsible Party: 2003-2004: Adopt Reasonable Accommodations Regulation Community Development Department 9 TOWN OF LOS GATOS 110 East Main Street, Los Gatos, CA 95030 (408) 354-6872 SUMMARY MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE GENERAL PLAN COMMITTEE OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS, AUGUST 27, 2003 HELD IN THE TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CIVIC CENTER, 110 EAST MAIN STREET, LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA. The meeting was called to order at 5:35 pin by Chair Mike Burke. ATTENDANCE Members Present: Mike Burke, Sandy Decker, Phil Micciche, Joe Pirzynski, Mark Sgarlato, Mark Weiner, Jo Zientek. Members Absent: Josh Bacigalupi, Lee Quintana Staff Present: Bud Lortz, Director of Community Development; Suzanne Davis, Associate Planner VERBAL COMMUNICATIONS None ITEM 2: APPROVAL OF MINUTES The GPC minutes of May 14, 2003 were continued to the next meeting. Joe Pirzynski's comments need to be added, and his and Josh Bacigalupi's votes are not shown under the final vote (Joe Pirzynski voted in favor of the draft language). ITEM 1: HOUSING ELEMENT Bud Lortz explained that since the Council adopted the Housing Element staffhas been working with the State Department of Housing & Community Development(HCD) to get the element certified. It has been a long and somewhat frustrating process, but we have reached a point where with some minor changes to the Housing Element and Technical Appendix, the element can be certified. The Committee went through the draft language and had the following comments: Joe Pirzynski said that the Planning Commission does have review authority for architecture and that should be noted. Phil Micciche noted that the Consulting Architect was hired to provide input on architecture and the Commission relies on this and does not typically make changes unless there is a good reason. Exhibit E General Plan Committee Regular Meeting of August 27, 2003 Page 2 of 3 The Committee discussed the draft language and decided to change it to state that the Commission typically is not involved with the architectural details of a project. The Committee discussed the language regarding the Sobrato property on Winchester Blvd. and agreed that it is acceptable as written. The chart to be inserted (Illustration 19) was of concern to Sandy Decker. Bud Lortz explained that the chart was revised as the approved Sobrato project was taken out of the land inventory. Sandy Decker proposed to add language stating that the Town contributes money to support homeless shelters within the region. The Town has a very small homeless population. Joe Pirzynski said he would rather not add that language. Bud Lortz noted that we are simply explaining the process an applicant would have to go through to propose a homeless shelter. The Committee discussed this and agreed that the language is ok as written. Mike Burke asked about the Building Codes and standards. Bud Lortz explained that the language is to explain what codes and policies the Town follows, and that nothing new is being adopted in the way of policies or regulations. Joe Pirzynski asked about the proposal to adopt a Reasonable Accommodations Regulation. Bud Lortz said that the Town goes a little above and beyond Title 24 requirements. The intent is to look at the process and determine if there is a way to streamline it, and if there are any things that can be done to improve accessibility and/or to make better accommodation for disabled people. For example, the Town is working through a problem to provide reasonable accessibility from disabled parking to the new bandstand and to make the brick surface non-skid without making them unreadable (the bricks have the names of project sponsors on them). Sandy Decker made a motion to forward the amendments to the Planning Commission and Council with the one change to the language regarding the Planning Commission and architectural review. The motion was seconded by Mark Weiner and passed unanimously. Mike Burke commented that the Housing Consultant may not need to attend the public hearings. Based on the Committee's discussion this evening, it does not seen necessary. Bud Lortz noted that if any issues come up prior to the Planning Commission meeting, we will have the consultant attend. Otherwise, she does not need to be there. rTh General Plan Committee Regular Meeting of August 27, 2003 Page 3 of 3 Bud Lortz noted that staff is taking the advanced planning program to the Town Council for concurrence with the priorities that have been assigned by staff. There will be several projects coming forward to the Committee this fall. The meeting was adjourned at 6:20 pm by Chair Mike Burke. The next regular meeting of the General Plan Committee is scheduled for Wednesday, September 10, 2003. Prepared By: a(z)0. iDatgs Suzanne Davis, Associate Planner N:1 D E V 1S UZA NN E\GENP LAMGP C12003 M inutes\G PC-8-27-03. wpd Town Council Minutes November 3, 2003 Redevelopment Agency Los Gatos, California PUBLIC HEARINGS CONTINUED BLOSSOM HILL ROAD 615/FIRE ACCESS ROAD/CUPERTINO DEVELOPMENT/CONT. (16.15) Motion by Mr. Glickman, seconded by Mrs. Decker, that Council find that the zone change is consistent with the General Plan as shown in Attachment I of this evening's Council Report, and that Council introduce the modification to the Planned Development Ordinance (Attachment 2) entitled, ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS AMENDING ORDINANCE 2081 RELATING TO MODIFICATIONS TO A PERFORMANCE STANDARD AND SITE PLAN TO ELIMINATE AN EMERGENCY ACCESS FIRE ROAD EFFECTING A ZONE CHANGE FROM R-1:8 AND RM:5-12 TO RM:5-12 PD FOR PROPERTY AT 517 BLOSSOM HILL ROAD, 615 BLOSSOM HILL ROAD AND PARCELS BORDERING PLACER OAKS DRIVE. Carried unanimously. SANTA CRUZ AVENUE 217/BEER & WINE/RESTAURANT CUP MODIFICATION (17.15) Mayor Decker stated that this was the time and place duly noted for public hearing to consider recommendation of Planning Commission for approval to modify a conditional use permit to serve beer and wine with meals for an existing restaurant on property zoned C-2. APN 510-17-091. Conditional Use Permit U-04-2. Property Location: 217-A No. Santa Cruz Ave. Property Owner: Rugani Family Partnership. Applicant: Visit Taveethamcarden. The following people from the audience addressed this subject. Randy Reedy, Attorney for the Applicant, spoke of the quality restaurant that was to open in this location and asked that Council grant the request. No one else from the audience addressed this issue. Mayor Decker closed the public hearing. Motion by Ms McNutt, seconded by Mr. Glickman, to approve the request for the modification of the conditional use permit for a restaurant to sell beer and wine with meals with three changes to the conditions of approval as follows: 1) Section 1. The word "Thai" will be eliminated from this section; 2) Section 2. Six of the thirty two seats can be located outside at the discretion of the owner; 3) The hours of operation in Sections 3 & 4 shall coincide. (10:00 am to 10:00 pm Sunday through Thursday, and 10:00 am to 12:00 am Friday & Saturday.) Carried unanimously. HOUSING ELEMENT/GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT/RESOLUTION 2003-130 (18.38) Mayor Decker stated that this was the time and place duly noted for public hearing to consider recommendation of Planning Commission to amend the General Plan to update the Housing Element to meet State Department ofHousing & Community Development requirements for certification. General Plan Amendment GP-04-1. Applicant: Town of Los Gatos. Bud Lortz, Director of Community Development, spoke ofminor modifications to the General Plan and some changes to the technical appendix that satisfy the State's interest in the Town's housing program. The State has indicated that once the changes are made they will certify the Town's Housing Element. These amendments have been to both the Planning Commission and the General Plan Committee who have supported the changes. N:\CLK\Council Mmutes120031M 11-03.03.wpd 5 Town Council Minutes November 3, 2003 Redevelopment Agency Los Gatos, California PUBLIC HEARINGS CONTINUED HOUSING ELEMENT/GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT/RESOLUTION 2003-130/CONT. (18.38) There was no one from the audience to address this issue. Mayor Decker closed the public hearing. Motion by Mr. Pirzynski, seconded by Mr. Wasserman, that Council find that the Housing Element update is internally consistent with the General Plan. Carried unanimously. Motion by Mr. Pirzynski, seconded by Mrs. Decker, that Council adopt Resolution 2003-130 entitled, RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT AND THE TECHNICAL APPENDIX. Carried unanimously. SUPPLEMENTAL LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES (SLESF)/RESOLUTION 2003-131 (19.36) Motion by Mr. Pirzynski, seconded by Mr. Glickman, that Council adopt Resolution 2003-131 entitled, RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS AUTHORIZING THE CONTINUED USE OF SUPPLEMENTAL LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT FUNDS (SLESF) TO PROVIDE FUNDING FOR ONE (1) FULL-TIME POLICE OFFICER ASSIGNED AS A MOTORCYCLE TRAFFIC OFFICER AND ONE (1) FULL-TIME SCHOOL POLICE OFFICER ASSIGNED AS A SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICER. Carried unanimously. ANIMAL CONTROL/SVACA/JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT (20.36) Mayor Decker stated that this was the time and place duly noted to consider and accept the staff report and provide direction on alternative service delivery models for animal control. Alana Forrest, Police Captain, outlined some alternative service delivery models for Council's consideration. She spoke of three options: 1) Continued participation within the JPA for field services and shelter; 2) Enter into contract negotiation with the City of San Jose for field and shelter services; 3) Provide our own field services and contract with San Jose for shelter services. Stan Bogosian, Council Member from Saratoga, representing the Board of SVACA, spoke in support of the JPA and asked for Council's continued help and commitment to this project. Jane Kennedy, Council Member from Campbell, spoke in support of the SVACA activities and the work and planning that has gone into this proposal. She spoke of continued commitment from the participating cities needed to keep the costs down as the program develops. She spoke of the ongoing work that has been accomplished so far. Aldyth Parle, Council Member from Santa Clara, spoke in support of continued success for the Animal Shelter. She asked for Council's ongoing support and continued participation. Jon Cicirelli, Deputy Director for the City of San Jose, clarified the animal services offered by the City and the various costs for those services. He noted that Los Gatos could purchase from several assorted options according to its needs and resources and also have the ability to augment or down grade those services according to contract and current budget concerns. He spoke strongly of their commitment to customer service and their ability to provide the custom service requested by the Town. Deborah Biggs, Executive Director of SVACA, thanked the Town for all its efforts with the JPA over the last 2'/2 years as the field services were implemented. N:\CLK'Council Minutes\20031M I I -03-03. wpd 6 RESOLUTION 2003-103 RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS AMENDING THE HOUSING ELEMENT WHEREAS, that the Town of Los Gatos has updated the General Plan Housing Element, in accordance with Section California State Code Section 65588(a); and WHEREAS, that Government Code (Sections 6580-65590), Article 10.6 requires that all California localities adopt housing elements (updates) as part of their general plans; to submit draft and adopted elements to the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for review with compliance with State Law, and, WHEREAS, upon review of the adopted Housing Element and Technical Appendix, HCD requested adjustments to language to better clarify intent and explain planning processes and to demonstrate that the housing allocation can be met; and WHEREAS, HCD has indicated that with the amendments certification of the Housing Element can be achieved; and WHEREAS, the General Plan Committee on August 27, 2003, and the Planning Commission on September 24, 2003, have reviewed the amendments and recommend approval; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the Town Council adopts the revised Housing Element (Exhibit "A") and Technical Appendix (Exhibit "B"). PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council held on the 3rd day of November, 2003, by the following vote: COUNCIL MEMBERS: AYES: Steve Glickman, Diane McNutt, Joe Pirzynski, Mike Wasserman, Mayor Sandy Decker. NAYS: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None SIGNED: ATTEST: /s/ Marian V. Cosgrove CLERK OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA 2 /s/ Sandy Decker MAYOR OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA