17 Staff Report - 347 Massol Avenue~oWH of MEETING DATE: 12/15/08
ITEM NO:
^1
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
DATE: December 5, 2008
TO: MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
FROM: GREG LARSON, TOWN MANAGER
ORRY P. KORB, TOWN ATTORNEY
SUBJECT: ADOPT PLANNED Dl VET 'LOPMENTT ORDINANCE MAKING A ZONE
CHANGE FROM RM:5-12 TO RUI:12-20:PD FOR A FIFTY-SIX LOT
RESIDENTIAL ,SUBDIVISION TO CONVERT THE EXISTING
APARTMENTS TO CONDOMINIUMS AT 347 MASSOL AVENUE (A111\1
510-14-004) (BAY TREE APAR".CIvIEN'.t'S)
P.ECOMMENDATI ON:
I. Adopt the ordinance introduced by Council on June 16, 2008; or
2. Continue action on adoption; or
3. .Direct the Town Attorney to re-introduce a revised ordinance.
BACKBROUND:
On June 16, 2008, Council approved the General Plan amendment and introduced the Planned
Development Ordinance (Attachment 1) approving a zone change to convert the existing Bay
Tree Apartments.to condominiums. COLt[leil had also requested that the applicant, Lyon Realty
Advisors, present revised parking and relocation assistance plans prior to Council taking final
action to adopt the approved Planned Development Ordinance.
On August 18, 2008, Council reviewed the revised parking and relocation assistance plans. At
the public hearing for the second reading to adopt the approved Planned Development Ordinance
questions were raised regarding these plans and Council requested that the applicant -provide
additional information.
Continued on page 2
PRIPARI?D BY: BUD N. LORTZJL_
- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMEN"I' DIRECTOR
N :1DP;V ICN C 1. R PTS1200 9\347 M asso 13. doe
Reviewed by. Tow.n \!Itinager /
Clerk Administrator _Finance ~~_Community Development
PAGE 2
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: 347 MASSOL AVENUE
December S, 2008
This report from the Town Manager and Town Attorney has been prepared for the second
reading of the Planned Development Ordinance approving a zone change to convert the existing
Bay Tree Apartments to condominiums. The Council approved the zone change because it
would provide a unique opportunity for first time homebuyers, seniors and empty nesters to
purchase multi-family housing in the downtown area, The Council was also concerned that the
approval could be interpreted as setting precedent. All Planned Development projects are
reviewed on their merits on a case by case basis so the approval does not set precedent.
Nonetheless, the Council directed staff to include analysis and discussion on condominium
conversion during the Housing Element update to determine the appropriate course of action and
whether a condominium conversion ordinance should be developed. A condominium conversion
ordinance has not been previously considered since the existing development standards and
market conditions had not resulted in viable conversion applications prior to this one.
If the majority of the Council determines that the Planned Development Ordinance should not be
adopted then the Ordinance would not move forward, the conversion would not be permitted,
and no further action would be necessary. However, if the majority of the Council determines
that the Planned Development Ordinance should be adopted then the conversion would be
permitted.
nr~rr r~~rnN~
Parking-,
The applicant has submitted a revised parking plan that includes 99 parking spaces (Attachment
6). This would allow the two bedroom units to be assigned two parking spaces and the one
bedroom units to be assigned one parking space. The spaces are functional but some of them
deviate from provisions of the Code in terms of depth, back-tip distance, and tandem
configuration. The applicant has provided a parking maneuverability study (Attachment 7) that
illustrates parking space functionality using currently accepted industry standards for vehicle size
and parking maneuverability.
Staff provided the latest parking plan to the Santa Clara County Fire Department. The Fire
Department reviewed the parking plan and determined that proposed parking plan is acceptable
(Attachment 12).
The applicant has also provided information regarding the number of vehicles that are owned by
the current tenants (Attachment 9). At the time of the survey they were unable to obtain
information for nine units. The total nuunber of vehicles for the forty-seven units they were able
to obtain information about is seventy vehicles. Therefore, given the proposed ninety-eight
parking spaces there would be twenty-eight spaces available for the remaining nine units.
Additionally, in an attempt to promote alternative means of transportation the applicant will
provide two secured indoor bike rack areas, has contacted Zip Car to get information and will
consider utilizing their service, and will consider installing charging capabilities for electric
vehicles.
PAGE 3
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: 347 MASSOL AVENUE
December 5, 2008
Additionally, the applicant provided information from other jurisdictions showing parking
requirements for multi-family developments (Attachment 8).
Staff has prepared the following options for Council consideration for parking restrictions:
The CCR's shall include language clearly stating that the owner(s) of two bedroom units are
permitted a maximum of two vehicles and owner(s) of the one bedroom units are permitted a
maximum of one vehicle; and/or
A Deed Restriction shall be required for all units clearly stating that owner(s) of two
bedroom units are permitted a maximum of two vehicles and owner(s) of one bedroom units
are permitted a maximum of one vehicle; and/or
Refer the concept of including the Bay Tree portion of Massol Avenue in the Almond Grove
Parking District to the Parlcing and Transportation Commission for discussion. Their
recommendation would be forwarded to the Council for consideration.
If a Council member does not find the parking plan acceptable with any of the staff options
suggested above, they should not vote to adopt the Planned Development Ordinance. Staff will
respond to other concepts or conditions suggested by Council if requested.
Relocation Assistance:
The applicant has submitted a revised Resident Assistance Program (Attachment 10) which
outlines the proposed assistance for existing tenants. The program now offers two levels of
assistance which are described in Attachment 10. The most critical components of the plan
involve five individuals/families that arc Special Circumstance Seniors (SCS) and revisions to
move persons who previously qualified for General Relocation Assistance into the Hardship
Assistance category.
The applicant's proposal for SCS requires Council to provide direction to staff because
ainendinents to the BMP Guidelines would be necessary. These units will provide the tenants of
the five units which fall into the SCS category options to allow them to remain on-site until they
voluntarily vacate their units. The Town Attorney has determined that an additional project
condition may be required to protect the Town's long-term interest, while making five 13MP
units temporarily available to the five SCS. The Town Attorney will provide this additional
condition language prior to the Council meeting, which may require a re-introduction of the PD
ordinance.
Staff has prepared the following option for Council consideration for SCS tenant(s) -who qualify
for the BMP program and are interested in purchasing their unit:
• Direct staff to prepare aunendments to the BMP Guidelines as outlined below that may allow
the five Lulus with SCS to continue to live at Bay Tree as owners:
PAGE4
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: 347 MASSOL AVENUE
December S, 2008
Grant SCS who reside in the project extra ranking points to help them qualify to purchase
Bay Tree BMP units (essentially create a first right of refusal opportunity).
Staff has prepared the following option for Council consideration for SCS tenant(s) who are
interested in continuing to rent their units:
• Direct staff to prepare amendments to the BMP Guidelines as outlined below that will allow
the five units with SCS to continue to live at Bay Tree as renters:
Require the applicant to delay the sale of any of the five units occupied by the SCS until
they voluntarily vacate their units. The rent will be fixed at the rate the tenant(s) is
currently paying with an annual increase consistent with cost of living (CPI). When the
units are voluntarily vacated they will become part of the BMP program and sold rn
accordance with the BMP Guidelines.
The following outlines the latest revisions to the Resident Assistance Program:
• All residents that lived on the property prior to the Notice of Intent to Convert have been
moved into the hardship Assistance Category;
• Senior Households at 70 years or older regardless of move-in date have been moved into
the Hardship Assistance Category;
• All single parents of children younger than eighteen at the time of relocation regardless of
move-in date have been moved into the Hardship Assistance Category;
• Lyon will double the state required 180 day Notice of Intent to Convert to 360 days; and
• Residents with children under 18 will only be required to vacate during the summer
months.
The applicant has also provided a timeline (Attachment 11) that estimates the earliest time frame
for relocation would be January 2011. If a Council member does not find the revised Resident
Assistance Program acceptable with any of the staff direction suggested above, they should not
vote to adopt the ordinance. Staff will respond to other concepts or conditions suggested by
Council if requested.
Title 24:
Staff also wanted to provide some additional background information regarding "Title 24
compliance requirements. Condition #12 of the Plaimed Development Ordinance requires
compliance with Title 24. The following is a list of typical Title 24 improvements:
• Exterior lighting (type and switching)
• Interior lighting (type and switching)
• Insulation upgrades
PAGE 5
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: 347 MASSOL AVENUE
December 12, 2008
• Double pane windows
• Water heater upgrades
• HVAC system upgrades
It should be noted that these improvements are only triggered if modifications to or replacement
of the proposed items above are proposed. Given the currently proposed modifications to the
existing buildings, only the first two improvements listed above may be required to be
completed. The applicant is willing to comply with the Title 24 requirements as required by
Condition 912 of the Planned Development Ordinance. Additionally, the applicant has stated
that they will install double pane windows in all the units. However, if the Council determines
that additional Title 24 measures should be required, Condition fl12 should be modified
accordingly.
Other items:
Also attached is correspondence from Wilfrid Houde (Attachment 2), Mary ]Alen Kaschub
(Attachments 3 and 13), William Kaschub (Attaclunents 4 and 14), Egon Jensen (Attachment
15), James and Nortrud Raymond (Attachment 16), and Martha McGraw (Attaclnrient 17)
expressing their concerns with the proposed conversion of the Bay Tree Apartments to
condominiums.
Additionally, aii ad was placed in the Los Gatos Weekly Times which reiterated concerns that
have been expressed during the processing of the proposed project. The following is a list of
some of those issues with staffs input in italics:
Condominium Conversion Ordinance should be adopted prior to final action The Council
directed staff to include analysis and discussion on condominium conversion during the
Housing Element update. As a result of the requested analysis and discussion the
appropriate course of action will be decided, ivhich may include adoption of a Condo in inhan
Conversion Ordinance.
Vacancy rate Questions have been raised regarding the existing vacancy rate and the
necessity for a vacancy rote trigger which may preclude condominium conversions. The
Town does not currently have a vacancy rate trigger for condominium conversions. The
most current Census fi°om 2000 showed a vacancy rate of 2.3% for rentals. The Toi,m also
cannot predict the vacancy rate for 2011 rilhen these units ivill be marketed. During the
discussion of condominium conversions during the housing Element update, staff 1-1411
research and provide direction on the best ivay to maintain up to date information regarding
vacancy rates.
Number of parking spaces and configuration - The proposed number of parking spaces does
not meet the current Town Code requirements. However, the Town Code allows the Council
to reduce the required number of parking spaces in a Planned Development. The proposed
tandem parking was also raised as a concern. The Tbivn Code also alloivs the Council to
PAGE 6
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: 347 MASSOL AVENUE
December 12, 2008
approve alternative barking configurations in a Planned Development and tandem parking
has been. approved by the Council in other Planned Developments and it has functioned
success sly.
Below Market Price Units The applicant is proposing to allow five Special Circumstance
Seniors to remain on-site until they voluntarily vacate their units. These units will become
BMP units ivhen they voluntarily vacate the units. This provision. will require the Council to
modify the BMP Guidelines to allois) this. At the previous Council meeting it was expressed
that this concept tivas acceptahle, pending fierther Council revievi, and action.
Pending condominium conversions This is the only application far condominium
conversion currently heing processed in Tmi~n.
Attaclunents:
1. Planned Development Ordinance (7 pages)
2. Correspondence dated September 5, 2008 from Wilfiid 1-loude (2 pages)
3. Correspondence dated October 6, 2008 fi•otn Mary Ellen Kaschub (3 pages)
4. Correspondence dated October 10, 2008 from William Kaschub (6 pages)
5. Post Hearing Follow Up from the applicant, received October 6, 2008 (8 pages)
6. Proposed Pcu-king Plan, received August 6, 2008 (1 page)
7. Parking Maneuverability Sturdy, received October 16, 2008 (4 pages)
8. Parking Requirements Matrix, received October 6, 2008 (1 page)
9. Vehicle Survey, received October 7, 2008 (2 pages)
10. Revised Resident Assistance Program, received October 6, 2008 (5 pages)
11. Timeline from applicant, received October 14, 2008 (1 page)
12. Letter from Santa Clara County Fire Department, dated November 13, 2008 (1 page)
13. Correspondence received December 11, 2008 from Mary Ellen Kaschub (2 pages)
14. Correspondence received December 11, 2008 from William Kaschub (2 pages)
15. Correspondence received December 9, 2008 from Egon Jensen (1 page)
16. Correspondence received December 11, 2008 from lames and Nortrud Raymond (4 pages)
17, Correspondence received December 11, 2008 from Martha McGraw (1 page)
Distribution:
Lyon Realty Advisors, Attn: Ron Cole, 4901 Birch St., Newport Beach, CA 92660
ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
AMENDING THE TOWN CODE EFFECTING A ZONE CHANGE
FROM RM:5-12 TO RM:12-20:PD FOR PROPERTY AT
347 MASSOL AVENUE (APN 510-14-004)
THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS DOES ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION I
The Town Code of the Town of Los Gatos is hereby amended to change the zoning on
property at 347 Massol Avenue (Santa Clara County Assessor Parcel Numbers 510-14-004) as
shown on the map attached hereto as Exhibit A, and is part of this Ordinance, from RM:5-12
(Medium Density Residential, 5-12 dwelling units per acre) to RM:12-20:PD (High Density
Residential, 12-20 dwelling units per acre, Planned Development).
SECTION H
The PD (Plarnied Development Overlay) zone established by this Ordinance authorizes the
following construction and use of improvements:
1. Conversion of the existing Fifty-six apartments to condominiums.
2. Parking lot modifications and other site improvements shown and required on the Official
Development Plan.
3. Exterior facade improvements to the existing buitdings.
4. Uses permitted are those specified in the underlying RM (Multiple Family Residential) zone
by Sections 29.40.6 10 (Permitted Uses) and 29.20.185 (Conditional Uses) of the Zoning
Ordinance, as those sections exist at the time of the adoption of this Ordinance, or as they
may be amended in the future, subject to any restrictions or other requirements specified
elsewhere in this ordinance including, but not limited to, the Official Development Plan.
However, no use listed in Section 29.20.185 is allowed unless specifically authorized by this
Ordinance, or by Conditional Use Permit.
Pagc 1 of 7
ATTACHMNT I
SECTION III
COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
All provisions of the Town Code apply, except when the Official Development Plan
specifically shows otherwise.
SECTION IV
A recorded final map and Architecture and Site approval are required before exterior
modification and site improvement construction work is performed, whether or not a permit is
required for the work and before any permit for construction is issued. Construction permits shall
only be in a manner complying with Section 29.80.130 of the Town Code_
SECTION V
Me attached Exhibit A (Map), and Exhibit B (Official Development Plans), are part of the
Official Development Plan. The following conditions must be complied with before issuance of any
grading, or construction permits:
TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT:
Planning Division
1. APPROVAL: This application shall be completed in accordance with all of the conditions of
approval listed below and in substantial compliance with the plans approved and noted as
Exhibit 8 of Attachrrient 2 of the report to the Town Council for the June 16, 2008 meeting and
Attaclurnent 7 (Revised Parking Plan) of the report to the "Down Council for the August 18, 2008
meeting. Any changes or modifications made to the approved plans shall be approved by the
Director of Community Development, Development Review Committee, Planning Commission
or the Town Council, depending on the scope of the change(s).
2. TOWN INDEMNITY: Applicants are notified that Town Code Section 1.10.115 requires that
any applicant who receives a permit or entitlement from the Town shall defend, indemnify, and
hold harmless the "Town and its officials in any action brought by a third party to overturn, set
aside, or void the permit or entitlement. This requirement is a condition of approval of all such
Page 2 of 7
permits and entitlements whether or not expressly set forth in the approval.
3. BELOW MARKET PRICE (BMP) UNITS: Eight (8) BMP units will be provided as part of the
approved development plan per Town Code Section 29.10.3025 and 29.10.3030. The applicant
shall meet with the Director of Cominunity Services prior to the issuance of any permits or the
recordation of the final subdivision map to commence the BMP process for the units. The BMP
units shall be renovated by Lyon, at no cost to the Town or ultimate owner(s) or tenant(s), with
the following upgrades: refinish the cabinets and counter tops; repaint the units; replace the
carpet; replace the door blobs, faucets and other hardware; and install a washer and dryer.
4. DEED RESTRICTION: Prior to issuance of a building permit or recordation of the final
subdivision map, a deed restriction shall be recorded by the applicant with the Santa Clara
County Recorder's office, stating that the required BMP units must be sold as below market
priced units pursuant to the To"rn's BMP Guidelines. The BMP Guidelines in effect at the time
of the sale of the market rate units shall be used unless the sales prices in the BMP Guidelines
have been reduced to a level lower than the prices in effect in 2008.
5. ARCHITECTURE AND SITE REQUIRED: An Architecture and Site application and approval
is required for the fagade improvements, parking lot improvements, and other site improvements.
The Planning Commission shall be the deciding body for the Architecture and Site application.
6. SUBDIVISION REQUIRED: A tentative map application shall be approved prior to the
submittal of building permits. The Development Review Committee may be the deciding body
for the tentative map.
7. BIKE RACKS: The property owner shall work with staff to explore the possibility of on-site
covered and/or uncovered bicycle parking.
8. COMPLIANCE MEMORANDUM: A memorandum shall be prepared and submitted with the
building permit and/or final subdivision map detailing how the Conditions ol'Approval will be
addressed.
8a. TENANT ]ZELOCATION SERVICES: Applicant shall prepare a Tenant Relocation Assistance
Services Program to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development.
8b. PARKING ALLOCATION: Applicant shall prepare a Residential Parking Allocation Plan to
the satisfaction of the Director of Conuinulity Development
Page 3 of 7
Building Division
9. PERMITS REQUIRED: A building permit shall be required for exterior facade improvements
and parking lot modifications. Separate building permits are required for site retaining walls,
water tames, and swimming pools; separate electrical, mechanical, and plumbing permits s11al l be
required as necessary.
10. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: The Conditions of Approval must be blue-lined iul full on the
cover sheet of the construction plans.
11. SIZE OF PLANS: Four sets of construction plans, maximum size 24" x3 )6.STREET NAMES &
HOUSE NUMBERS: Submit requests for new unit numbers from the Building Division prior to
the building permit application process.
12. TITLE 24 ENERGY COMPLIANCE: California Title 24 Energy Compliance forms CF-1 R and
MF-IR must be blue-lined on the plans.
13. SPECIAL INSPECTIONS: When a special inspection is required by UBC Section 1701, the
architect or engineer of record shall prepare an inspection program that shall be submitted to the
Building Official for approval prior to issuance of the building permit. The Town Special
Inspectionform must be completely filled-out, signed by all requested parties and be blue-
lined on the construction plans. Special Inspection forms are available fi•om the Building
Division Service Counter or online at www.losgatosca.gov.
14. NONPOINT SOURCE: POLLUTION STANDARDS: `I'he `town standard Santa Clara Valley
Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program shall be part of the plan submittal as the second
page. The specification sheet is available at the Building Division Service Counter for a fee of $2
or at San Jose Blue Print.
15. PLANS: The construction plans shall be prepared under the direct supervision of a licensed
architect or engineer. (Business and Professionals Code Section 5538)
16. APPROVALS REQUIRED; The project requires the following agencies approval before issuing
a building permit:
a. Community Development: Joel Paulson at 354-6879
b. Engineering Department: Fletcher Parsons at 395-3460
c. Santa Clara County Fire Department: (408) 378-4010
Page 4 of'7
d. West Valley Sanitation District: (408) 378-2407
e. Local School District: (Contact the Town Building Service Counter for the appropriate
school district and to obtain the school form.)
TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE DIRECTOR OF PARKS AND PUBLIC WORKS:
Engineering Division
17. FINAL MAP: A final map shall be recorded. Two copies of the final map shall be submitted to
the Engineering Division of the Parks & Public Works Department for review and approval.
Submittal shall include closure calculations, title reports and appropriate fee. The map shall be
recorded before any permits are issued.
18. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT: The Applicant shall enter an agreement to construct public
improvements in accordance with Town Code §24.40.020.
19. UTILITY COMPANY REVIEW: Letters from the electric, telephone, cable, and trash
companies indicating that the proposed improvements and easements are acceptable shall be
provided prior to recordation of the final map.
20. PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS: The following improvements shall be installed by the developer.
Plans for those improvements shall be prepared by a California registered civil engineer,
reviewed and approved by the Town, and guaranteed by contract, FaitlZul Performance Scciuity
and Labor & Materials Security before the issuance of a building permit or the recordation of a
map. The improvements must be completed and accepted by the Town before a Certificate of
Occupancy for any new building can be issued.
a. Massol Ave - Curb, gutter, sidewalk, street lights, tie-in paving, signing, striping, storm
drainage and sanitary sewers, as required.
21. GENERAL: All public improvements shall be made according to the latest adopted Town
Standard Drawings and the Town Standard Specifications. All work shall conform to the
applicable Town ordinances. The adjacent public right-of-way shall be kept clear of all job
related dirt and debris at the end of the day. Dirt and debris shall not be washed into storm
drainage facilities. The storing of goods and materials on the sidewalk and/or the street will not
be allowed unless a special permit is issued. The developer's representative in charge shall be at
Page 5 of 7
the job site during all working hours. Failure to maintain the public right-of-way according to
this condition may result in the Town performing the required maintenance at the developer's
expense.
22. ENCROACHMENT PERMIT: All work in the public right-of-way will require a Construction
Encroachment Permit All work over $5,000 will require construction security.
23. PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTIONS: The developer or his representative shall notify the
Engineering Inspector at least twenty-four (24) hours before starting any work pertaining to on-
site drainage facilities, grading or paving, and all work in the Town's right-of-way. Failure to do
so will result in rejection of work that went on without inspection.
24. RESTORATION OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS: The developer shall repair or replace all
existing improvements not designated for removal that are damaged or removed because of
developer's operations. Improvements such as, but not limited to: clubs, gutters, sidewalks;
driveways, signs, pavements, raised pavement markers, thermoplastic pavement markings, etc.
shall be repaired and replaced to a condition equal to or better than the original condition.
Existing improvement to be repaired or replaced shall be at the direction of the Engineering
Construction Inspector, and shall comply with all Title 24 Disabled Access provisions.
Developer shall request a walls-through with the Engineering Construction Inspector before the
start of construction to verify existing conditions.
25. CC&R'S: A copy of the CC&R's shall be submitted for review and approval by the Town
Attorney and Planning Division prior to map recordation. The CC&R's shall be consistent with
the Residential Parking Allocation Plan required in Condition #&b.
Page 6 of 7
SECTION VI
This Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Los
Gatos on June 16, 2008, and adopted by the following vote as an ordinance of the Town of Los
Gatos at a meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Los Gatos on , 2008 and
becomes effective 3 ) 0 days after it is adopted.
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
SIGNED:
MAYOR OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA
ATTEST:
CLERK ADMINISTRATOR OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
LOS GAhOS, CALIFORNIA
SDEVRURD SU47MAS SOL.DOC
Page 7 of 7
RECEIVED
SEP 0 8 2000
September 5, 2008
MAYOR & TOWN COUNCIL
TO: Mr Greg Larson, Los Gatos Town Manager
CC: Barbara Spector; Mike Wasserman; Diane McNutt; Joe Pirzynski
RE: Bay Tree Condo Conversion application
Thank you for the time spent with Bill Kaschub and myself on Thursday morning.
Your explanation of the process and how the system works was very enlightening.
We appreciate your candor and straight talk.
In view of the recommendation by the Planning Commission and general staff to deny
the General Plan amendment and zone change it is apparent that the Town Council has
to somehow explain why they should overturn their decision.
Our concerns and answers to these concerns still remain as follows:
How many rental units are available in Los Gatos? Without the rental versus ownership
numbers there is no way of knowing if we are in compliance with the general plan.
What is the true apartment vacancy rate .5% or 5% or some other number as Ms.De
Mos' submission concludes (.8%).
There seems to be a high desire for increasing low cost ownership via condos.
What is to assure that these condo units will not be bought and rented? Is there any
ratio of owner occupancy vs owner rental that can be applied to Bay Tree? If not, the
argument for low cost ownership in Los Gatos may disappear with own- to-rent units.
Parking continues to be an unanswered problem. Section 29.10.155 Development
Standards of the town code provide detail specifications for parking, spaces, aisles, and
turn-a- rounds. The latest parking plan submitted by Bay Tree falls short of meeting
many of the specifications. What specifications will be used at Bay Tree and why?
The adjacent hi-density 8 house unit on Bachman Court has 4 spaces allowed for visitor
parking. How many visitor spaces are planned for Bay Tree?
A recent check with the County Fire Marshall's office indicated that there was no record
of inspection for fire regulations since 2007. Is the latest parking plan submitted in
accordance with City Fire regulations?
Tittle 24 is an energy related code, and there is a question of what structural building
standards will be applied to Bay tree in view of the major changes in earthquake
standards that exist today? What guidance exist and what standards apply?
ATTACMWM 2
Bay Tree was built in an era when asbestos was in wide use. Is there any asbestos
mitigation required with the Bay Tree conversion?
How can the Council's desire to make this a "gold standard" for condo conversion be
applied if we do not even meet the the "best practices" of surrounding communities ?
In fact what practices will we be using?
Thanks again for use of your time in listening to our concerns.
Sincerely,
a
Wilfri, Houde
315 Massol Ave.
will 937@comcast.com
408-395-7952
RECEIVED
2008 DATE: OCTOBER 6,2)(08 TOWN OF LOS GATOS OCT 1 0 ZOOS
PLANNING DIVISION TO: TOWN COUNCIL, TOWN OF LOS GATOS W TOWN OF : r.T' GAT~r
~IF.Ir_ rz~ r:--
SUBJECT: BAY TREE CONDO CONVERSION: THE ISSUES RECAPPED
I submit a copy of the Letter to the Editor, published Sept. 30, 2008 in the Los Gatos
Weekly Times. It was written as a rebuttal to Michael Silva's Sept. 16 letter, "Plan for
condo conversion is well thought out. "
This letter recaps the situation as it has unfolded at the Bay Tree Apartments and the
issues that remain with the condo-conversion proposal.
"I take issue with Michael Silva's recent letter (Plan for Condo Conversion Well
Thought Out, LGWT of Sept 16), and his view that the Bay Tree condo-conversion
project has been well thought out by all concerned.
While the Lyon Development Company may have worked on their project for three
years, official neighborhood notification was not made until this spring. Lyon has
not worked with affected neighbors on the issues that impact us. They instead hired
local residents as "consultants" to help influence public opinion via petitions,
appearances before Town Council and general influence-peddling.
Issues important to neighbors and tenants were never heard until the first Planning
Commission hearing. That body voted against the project. Lyon has asked for
exemptions on many of the existing Town codes: parking; 360-degree architecture;
open-space, humane resident relocations and BMP provisions to name a few.
Condo conversion guidelines should have been developed by the Town in the three-
year window they had before this went before Town Council. Guidelines would
have addressed all the issues that confront members of our community, neighbors
and renters today. To name two: adequate on-site resident and guest parking that
doesn't dump cars on to the street; treatment of long-term and elderly tenants and
tenants with children in the public schools.
In addition, the project would never have proceeded if the town had threshold
vacancy rates below which no conversion application would ever be considered: as
it is, the vacancy rate is below one-percent and displaced tenants must leave town.
Yet another open issue involves the sale and ownership of condo units. Will they be
owner-occupied or simply bought as investment properties which in turn are rented
at higher monthly rates.
Mr. Silva is aligned with Lyon representative Ron Cole and is not a neutral,
objective party to this issue, nor does he reside in the neighborhood.. Quality-of-life
ATTACHMENT 3
is at issue in the Almond Grove historic district. This project needs thorough and
thoughtful dialogue, and these precedent-setting decisions must be made with care.
It is not enough to "make the rules" after the horse is out of the barn so to speak.
Having in place well-crafted condo-conversion guidelines for the Town of Los
Gatos that can be modeled on like guidelines currently in place in every one of our
surrounding communities are the only way for all parties involved to have the rules
to abide by."
Mary Ellen Kaschub
320 Massol Ave.
My hope is Town Council at the Oct. 20 meeting addresses the following:
Parking including a viable plan that protects the neighborhood from excess cars
and should the street be gifted to condo-parking overflow, a requirement that a
security firm be hired by the HOA to monitor and ticket offenders (this is
currently practiced in Southern California condo-complexes);
Renter protections for current renters who need them;
Owner-occupied provisions required for initial condo buyers incorporated into
HOA provisions. See attachment (July 14, 2008 letter. Subject: Covenants, 347
Massol Ave, Condo Conversion):
Respectfully ubmitted,
Mary lien Kaschu
320 assol Ave.
7/1 ylog
3 y7 !~'Jass~°
Dear Mr. Lortz,
Thank you for discussing with me the various "levels" available, in the event the Lyon
proposal is approved Town Council, to obtain a related Town Council vote that would
require owner occupancy of all units for a period of three {3} years from the initial sale of
each unit. A covenant would attach to each unit even if there are transfers of ownership
within the three-year period.
If in fact there is a demand backed-up for "empty-nesters" and "first-time buyers", this
provision would not be a burden. In absence of such a provision, all that would be
accomplished would be to substitute higher-priced rentals for current lower-priced rentals
as new owners buy-to-rent.
As I understood them, you gave three options to accomplish this limitation:
1. A required covenant in all Bay Tree deeds that would be mandatory in the first
sale and remain attached for three-years regardless of the number conveyances
within the three-year period.
2. A CC&R that would impose the same limitation.
3. A mandate to include the same limitation in the Bay Tree "owners' association -
rules when created.
You indicated that the Town would not want to become an "administrator." If that
remains the Planning Department's position, the best way would be covenants that "run
with the land" or in this instance, with each condominium. Each sold unit would have the
three-year restriction in the deed and would make all potential buyers aware of the
restriction. There would be no administration required even if a unit is sold one or more
times during the three-year period.
In short, I would prefer Option 1, a three-year covenant that runs with each unit and
would be required in any sale of all units.
Notwithstanding my preference and, again, if the conversion is approved, I believe some
three-year restriction is in order and remain open to further discussions as to how that
restriction is posed to the Town Council.
41a' ly rs
aschub
Cc: Greg Larson; Joel Paulson; Barbara Spector; Mike Wasserman; Diane McNutt; Joe
Pirzynski
RECEIVED
DATE: OCTOBER 10, 2008
OCT 1 0 2008
TOWN Or LOS GATOS
PLANNING DIVISION
TO: TOWN COUNCIL, TOWN OF LOS GATOS
SUBJECT: BAY TREE CONDO CONVERSION
347 MASSOL AVE.
OCT I 0 2005
TOINN OF LOS `AT',
Enclosed are two items submitted to be included in the record in the above-referenced
matter:
1) A copy of my letter to Mr. Larson., subject matter RE: Bay Tree - Applicable
Rules and Regulations. Although Wifi-id Houde and I met with Mr. Larson,
neither he nor I have received any of the information Uwe requested.
2) A document entitled LOS GATOS CITIZENS... PARTICULARLY TENANTS/
RENTERS. This will appear in the Oct. 14 edition of Los Gatos Weekly Times
and reiterates many of the points made in other earlier submissions.
illiam J. K feub
320 Massol ATTACHMENT 4
August 29, 2008
TO: Mr. Greg Larson, Manager, Town of Los Gatos
CC: Barbara Spector; Mike Wasserman; Diane McNutt; Joe Pirzynski
RE: Bay Tree - Applicable Rules and Regulations
I remain concerned as to what rules and regulations are being applied to the conversion of Bay
Tree Apartments to condominiums. This prompts many questions.
ACCESS
When I submitted an alternative parking plan to the Planning Department on July 7, 2008
(corrected copy July 14, 2008), I sat with Bud Lortz and Joel Paulson and asked to be included in
any meetings on parking and relocation in which the developer, Lyon, was present. It was my
understanding that both issues were assigned to other units within the Town that deal with those
issues and that those meeting would be open for input from interested citizens, particularly if the
developer and/or its representatives or other citizens of the Town were present.
I received no calls to attend any meetings. Rather, I received a call from Joel Paulson the day
before Lyon's proposals on parking and relocation were put online, Friday, August 15, 2008. By
that time I had the outlines of both proposals because they had been passed out by Lyon in the
tenant's meetings held on either August 12 or 13, 2008.
Question: Who did attend meetings with the Planning Department, the Parking Commission,
and/or Social Services when the proposals on parking and relocation were discussed and
finalized?
FLOATING NUMBERS
Key relevant numbers continue to be given to the Town Council by way of answers to questions
asked by members: There is no reason that they can't be pinned down so that all parties have
accurate numbers on which to base decisions:
I) I was told by Mr. Lortz in my July7, 2008 meeting that there were 4600 rental units in
Los Gatos. In the August 15 hearing, he said there were 3000.
Question: How many rental units are there in Los Gatos?
2} Ms. De Mos' vacancy rate is the only accurate number that is part of the record. Mr.
Lortz continues to use 5% as a vacancy rate: This number conflicts with Ms. De Mos'
and is counter-intuitive given the desirability of Los Gatos and the economic times. Once
you have the number of apartments, it's quite easy to order from PG&E the number of
"spinning meters" in those units This is the way towns with threshold vacancy rates get
theirs.
Question: What is the real vacancy rate in rental units in Los Gatos?
3) Mentioned often is the 30% goal for rental units in the total housing stock. It is now said
that there is 35% with the implication that Bay Tree is dispensable and won't hurt the
rental stock bogie. It is unclear to me whether Sobrato is in the current calculation.
Questions: What was the rental stock percentage for 2005-2007? If it went up, what
were/are the rental additions? When did/will Sobrato be added?
PARKING
Mr. Lortz left the Town Council with the impression that the parking plan was in accordance
with fire regulations. Fire inspections are performed by the County. There is no record of such
an inspection being either ordered or completed.
Additionally, Section 2910.155 Development standards of the Town code provide detail
specifications for parking spaces, aisles, turn-arounds, etc. The latest parking plan submitted by
Bay Tree falls short of meeting many of the specifications.
Question: Will the Town council follow the existing parking code?
TITLE 24
When the discussion turned to double-pane windows, air conditioning, and "noisy" walls, Mr.
Lortz cited Title 24 as taking care of all structural issues. Title 24 is an energy-related provision.
I think it's necessary to be much clearer as to what Title 24 will cover and what the Town will
require on other structural issues. I walked away with the impression that the Town Council
wants Bay Tree to conform as close as is possible to new condominiums and residential remodel
requirements. For certain, it does not want a minimally "redeveloped" Bay Tree that would be a
source of continuing consternation as to how it ever got approved, if that is the final result down
the road.
Questions: Does Lyon know exactly what is going to be required if Bay Tree is redeveloped for
condominiums? If so, what are the redevelopment guidelines that would be followed?
I have a call to your office for a meeting with Wil Houde and me. While I understand it may
take some time for you to gather data, we would hope to meet with you at the latest sometime
during the week of September 22, 2008.
William J. Kaschub
320 Massol Ave.
408-399-0153/wjkaschub@comcast.com
LOS GATOS CITIZENS...
PARTICULARLY TENANTSIRENTERS
1 am writing the citizens of Los Gatos on a matter that will signal whether the Town
Council wants to be 1) law-full or law-less or 2) caring or uncaring. These two items
will come into play Oct. 20, 2008, when the Town Council holds its third meeting on the
proposal to convert 56 Bay Tree apartments at 347 Massol Ave. into condominiums. The
result could be the eviction of all tenants, except perhaps five seniors.
Main sponsors of this proposal are a large developer, paid canvassers, real estate agents
and wealthy homeowners that say they want condos for "empty-nesters" and children
brought up in Los Gatos, termed "first-time-home-owners."
Opposed to the condo conversion are tenants, neighbors and other interested parties.
They are not opposed to condo conversions in principle but are interested in the passing
of an ordinance whereby ALL parties would know what rules will apply to ALL condo
conversions... not just Bay Tree.
AN ORDINANCE
Unlike most towns and cities in Silicon Valley, Los Gatos has no condo conversion
ordinance. From the start of public hearings, persons against the condo conversion have
been consistent in asking for a delay while the Town designs and approves an ordinance.
The Town has known about the developer's plans at least since 2006, ample time to have
completed an ordinance. Rather than doing this, the Town Council is picking-and-
choosing what will apply, or not apply, from existing building codes, and there are no
rules on tenant/renter protections (the Palo Alto ordinance is a model in this regard.) The
developer's proposal would be dismissed in Palo Alto, Saratoga, Cupertino, Campbell,
and San Jose. If approved, Los Gatos will be law-less in their shadows.
DISPUTED ISSUES
1) VACANCY RATE - An ordinance modeled after others in the Valley most
certainly would have a "vacancy rate trigger" between 3% and 5%. if the
vacancy rate for rentals is even at the low end of the range at 3% in Los Gatos, no
apartments could be converted to condos. The reason is quite understandable:
YOU SHOULD NOT EVICT TENANTS UNLESS THERE ARE OTHER
APARTMENTS TO MOVE TO.
The Town Council is poised to ignore the fact that the vacancy rate is less than
1% in Los Gatos, well below any "trigger" in the Valley. TENANTS COULD
BE ALL PACKED UP AND NO PLACE TO GO. A CARING TOWN
COUNCIL WOULD NOT LET THIS HAPPEN.
2) PARKING There are only two parking requirements applicable to residences in
Los Gatos: 3 spaces per unit for new condos and 2 per house for residential.
Tandem parking... front to back for two cars... is discouraged, if not illegal.
The Planning Commission staff report, Page 5, 347 Massol Ave., April 23, 2008
states the problem and presents a conclusion:
(D) Parking
The Town Code requires three parking spaces for condominiums which
equals 168 spaces for the project. The complex currently has 56 spaces.
The applicant proposed to provide 36 additional parking spaces, including
20 tandem spaces which are notpermitted by town Code (see Exhihit5).
The proposed total of 92 spaces will not comply with the Town Code
requirement.
The Town Council is prepared to count 20 tandem spaces and to permanently
"gift over" street parking to the developer to solve its parking problems. In the
process the Council would violate Town regulations to accommodate the
developer. While the developer claims to have added spaces since the April staff
report, they are "spaces" jammed into the same area: no real change and still non-
compliant.
In other towns and cities in the Valley, there is only one way around this type of
parking issue: The developer must decrease the density by changing the number
of units on the site to make the condominium complex self-sufficient for parking
of residents and guests. In this case, the developer should be required to remove
at least one or perhaps two of the seven buildings and turn it/them into parking
areas.
The Town Council should not grant parking exceptions to a developer that only
wants to maximize profit on the back of exceptions... again, with no ordinance; in
violation of the Town's own parking requirements; and with the parking burdens
squarely and permanently in the neighborhoods and on the streets near Bay Tree.
3) BMP
There are also issues surrounding BMP (Below Market Pricing) units, long a
requirement of development/redevelopment. The Town Council is poised to
allow the developer to "borrow" BMP units to accommodate tenants who are 65
years or older. Tenant protection for seniors and others would likely be a
requirement under an ordinance, and the developer should take the five units from
its stock, not "borrow" them from BMP stock.
There are many other issues surrounding this proposed condo conversion, many of which,
in absence of an ordinance, will involve picking-and-choosing on the part of the Planning
Commission and/or Town Council. This will continue to be unfair to all citizens with an
interest in the outcome of Bay Tree: none will know the rules.
FOR TENANTS/RENTERS, THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT
ACKNOWLEDGES THAT MANY LANDLORDS ARE "IN LINE" FOR CONDO
CONVERSIONS COVERING OVER 400 APARTMENTS IF BAY TREE IS
APPROVED. YOU ARE PARTICULARLY AT RISK OF EVICTION.
We have long-prided ourselves on being a "government of laws" at all levels of
government in this country. That keeps us law-full not law-less. Bay Tree cries out for
development of an ordinance...a law-not the "government of men and women" who
make it up as they go along and are susceptible to influence at every juncture. THE
DECISION ON BAY TREE SHOULD BE GOVERNED BY AN ORDINANCE.
The Town Council should dismiss the developer's application to convert Bay Tree to
condominiums.
PLEASE ATTEND THE MONDAY, OCT. 20, 2008, TOWN COUNCIL MEETING
AND CONSIDER SPEAKING AGAINST THE BAY TREE CONDO
CONVERSION.
Thank you for your attention.
William J. Kaschub
320 Massol Ave.
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Paid for by concerned citizens of Los Gatos
bjD
. V,1J
i
ATTACBMENT 5
r
G~
O
A-D
ct
b-O
r
r4
C
P- P4 P`
a~
E-{
U) ~:l
C
o
4-j
°
s~
o
-
Cd
O ,mo
(1)
p
co o
Cd
Q
O
~ ~
o
U G~1
Cd
O
i
O
~
O
4-j
Cd
Q0
0)
-d
Co
"d
N
9 Id
U
CD
CC3
CU -d
N
O
CU
O (D
a
o O
C~
-d
c)
-d
t
P~4
C~
(D
b-O
p
N
m
w
p
CL
N N Ct
>
Q
Cd g i
Cd
C)
O
c~
P
c~ c4
-d
0)
;-4
w
U
4
C) 41
.
5:Lq U
1
Cd
P-4
W bA
;j
w
0
C~
Cd Cd S~
S~
c
p Q 7
o
¢
Cd
~
U
O P4
4-j
j
O
Q C~
Q" Cd
(v
UJ
•
U
;~4
• ~ M
C~
s
Pi
r> ;--l
O
CCi
,-I
''Okk p
O ~1
Cd ;L4
~i C~
O d}
TTOE~
4
J
~O
+
r
Id
.
P
1
-
0
0
ai co
$:,4
O
O
cd
co
;-4
a
O
E'i
75
O
~
Cd
O-
m
td
by 51
r
0
cd
L4
by
bap
-4O-
,
Cll
Cd
O
(ll
c
U)
O 4~
Q
~
O
U
4-D
+
O -d Cd
O
~I
O
~
A-D
U
P-4
U]
~
bA
Pi
by
r,
P4
-
U
Cy
Cd
O
j +C~~
Q.
P4
FM4 . U)
O
W
4-D
1
N
U1
~
U
n~
W
4-D
4-m)
m
Cv
r-d
~
N
O
O
O
bi)
O
~-r
O
~
O
4--)
O
~
Cl}
p
Q~
~
~
CO
O
~
; ,
~
N
C17
O
Q
U)
-d
O
c
bjD
;--4
ct
00
Q)
o
O
U
n
U)
Cd
CU
p
~
+a
Cll
PH
r--q
C'd
N
4-D
~
O
U
~
~
U
U
0
C~
;~4
P-1
P,
~
~
CL)
9
Q}
9
~
N
~
~
•
W
U
ct
■
4!~~
^r
W
P-ld
^V1
W
9
C~
~l1
0
A-D
Cd
O
~A
QL)
Ct)
~U
O O
O
U O
.o~
env
v
OJ
~ O
r
i
O
NO
U
N
Cll
Cd
U
O
bl)
O O
N
CL) Lr,
Q)
sj N
ct
N ~ U
Ct
U
a~
Cd N iD
CU co
O '
Cfl 4J
O O
O
U~
OO )
N d
m
Q) O
c
O
~ O Cd
CU ~ N
O O
L7--
Cd ct
o ~ 'Z3
H
4-4
O
Q) O p
'Z3 4-D !^~yy
co C)
,o ct
C~ 0
It ~ • rl
as
O
4-D
OC)
.--q
Cd
biD
O
O
~ O
o ~
a~
C~C
N O
ti
~ U
o
S-4
ti
O
w
O
00
4J
CU
cd
Cll
U
O
"d
O
A-D
0
U
r~
T-i
O
o.~
cd >1
~ Q
tv
N
C~
O
00
r--I
O
Cd
O -a-~
O
(U ~
U b-O
4
4-0
Cl)~
N
O Cd
U
r11 ,y
O
cV
~i
O
GV
U)
4~
O
4.,
O O
U
U
O
N
~
n l
W
W)
r
•
-i-D
U1
ct
ct
Co
W
O
p
~
~ O
~
V
NO
cd
bJ) 4-~
O
N
D
N
-
O
O
O
O
N
bl)
L11J
-
O o
O
+
-7
~
.r
X
O
O
f
O
UD
-4
Ct
t
~
Ct
.
O
C
U
~
N
n
W
~
O 0
O
O
U
U
o
4
4-D
~-D
o
Z
to
cd
o -4-D -
O
V
0
Cd
r11 ~i O O
bA
4O
Cd LC Q~
rt~.~ O
O
Q
C9
N
O O O
U
t~
ct
u
O
Cd
ooQcd
D
4-D
O
U~
N
r
Q)
CD
-d
(L)
bjD
-d
P-4
•
O
N 0
Q)
C)
p
U)
O
O
co
NO
cd
r
N
C)
j p~
Gry
0
Q7
4
P, ;j
O
-d
O
P,
<D
NO
U
5-4
tI]
tzp cll
p
O
O
cd
n l
VJ
U
41
O
o' d
,
~
A-D
c~ N
~
a 3
m
O
o
N
c
v
o
U)
cq (:1
>Q)
-0
cd
r+
P
ct
o
(a)
Q
r-..( ;:14
a)
b.0
ct
`4--D
COO
cd
U)
>
0."
N c0 c v
bA
cq
d
Us I
a)
4-j
Cd
N
:2
d
'
O
CCU
c
UU
P.
O
co
q-Q
p!
0-4
T3
O cd
U) Q
~
°J
~4'
-d
j
(3) 4- (1)
N
v
O
;2
cti
bIJ~
I
~
~
4 ~
c~
~y~
~b,0
~
,
4-1
C)
• r"i
~
zi
v
Q
~
~
~4
g
o a3
~ ? ..Q
C)
U)
-d
cd
4-D
U
4-D
o
U
QL,
bb
bl)
~
O
Q)
O
71
(3)
~
O
-D
0
U
q1
Q+
Q
O
D
O
Pq
v
co
.4
4-D
r1
Q)
c~
U
-4-
4+-a
O
,
~
N
-d
~
Ct
~
O
O
O
O
U
CL)
~fJ
O
O
CCi
Ct
c~
U
, 4
4~
p
NO
Q)
Q)
P.,
-d
,
c
U
W
CO
co
0
i
(1)
>
4
O
A-D
cn
l
O
C~
'Z~
U
co
m
4-D
Q)
O
O
4~
4-~
r
0
p
0
. r
Cd
~i
o
o
O
o
'
4-j
-4-D
bi)
q
cd
Cd
C)
Q)
C)
(D
41
Cl)
~
~
CO
WO
~
;L4
bf)
, a~~
o
W)
Q
r4
r--j
'-t
a~
o
o
z
o
0
'
CD
o
Q)
(D
~
o
SITE PLAN-PARKING
FOR
CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES
TOWN OF LOS CfATOS, CALIFORNIA
DONIS VARN1
f
R _ 1 J 1 Uzi )
4 r- es , A r
Jf 1 y,
22 0
En 1.4
1 ~
l
~ l7
r
J -.~GI
,
117
O
C)
r
1n m ij i
510--5i3-'OO5
\
DENNIS
S FJZAUSL
t
`
i
I
00
I
O
kn
(f3}
r
b! L EO ~ -30. TREE
f
f
2, /
`~=.Y:.~ 6u'S ¢ 19
g I ze
22
24
c'a
1 7~ a 25
71 - I 26
na1 ] _2s it
31:
77
U Sir
POR
I
E
R
_
1
I
.57
~
D
I'
_
3 y
~f [JI
l// Sal `.Ydi ~IEVRY
4
~51
Lt)
as
a
i~
v
lp
Q
%0
?I STM
CaL
rc
,
MASGOL AVENUE
(a eueuc s'Ws1)
® Due to
slope at tandem parking a sign shall be installed disploying
: "Set Parking Brake"
TypicO Parking Dimensions:
90 Degree (A)
90 Degree (B)
Paraflel(C) 90 Degree (0)
Standard Passenger Car
T
'
1
W
taken from LLI
16' 8"
m 17' ( 17.
~ I i77'
,
6,1:.~
ATTACHMENT 6
FaE3F
CON$LJ'I-TINE
MEMORANDUM
To: Ron Cole JN 10-104647
Prom: Frederik Venter, Laura Worthington Forbes
Date: October 16, 2008
Subject: Bay Tree Parking
This memorandum includes our parking evaluation and updated information for the proposed
condominium conversion for your property located at 347 Massol Avenue, in Los Gatos.
Included is the parking layout with existing and proposed dimensions indicated for parking
spaces and significant dimensions shown for drive aisles. Turning templates for passenger
vehicles maneuvering in and out of the spaces are shown as well.
The vehicle dimensions used in the analysis was taken from the "all cars" vehicle classification
in the Urban Land Institute "Dimensions of Parking°, Fourth Edition, 2005. The design vehicle
for parking analysis is 16.8 x 6.1 feet. The large vehicle is 16.9 x 6.2 feet. Vehicles actually
parking on the site can be larger and smaller compared to the dimensions used to evaluate the
proposed parking layout. The turning templates follow the ASSHTO guidelines for vehicle
design and turning radii and incorpor ate safety factors between 2 and 5%.
All the parking spaces (existing and proposed) on the site are indicated on the drawing by
grouping at location. Typical drive aisle width, where vehicles park on both sides (double
loaded), is between 22 and 24 feet wide. These can be reduced w here there is a curb on one
side and vehicle overhang can protrude into landscaping, as is evident along parking spaces 84
through 97.
Along parking spaces 63 through 67 and 9 through 14, there is sufficient space for vehicle
maneuvers as indicated on the drawing, and along spaces 84 through 97, the critical dimension
is 20 feet.
Parking spaces 84 through 90 are already striped for tandem spaces. These spaces will be
restriped to be 17 feet long and retain the existing w idth with a 20 foot drive aisle.
The attached drawings indicate that passenger cars can m aneuver in and out of all the spaces.
Maneuvering out of space 96 would require the driver to back out and make a turn in-between
spaces 95 and 96 and th en back out again. Spaces 84 throug h 97 have a width between 9.2
and 9.7 feet and can accommodate a slightly wider turning radius.
ATTACHIENT 7
Inbound Maneuvers and Dimensions at Critical Parking Spaces
DENNIS VARNI
3 ;
es s ~
~1 + S
{i]
C>,'.
ti3 5
♦ DENNIS
STRA ML
t
i
Q j
ro
Fn
1
ict
"CU
CONC. k: brai
crrr COLOWN
MASSOL AVENUE
(P
f })ctc to s o,>.
W: tande^ oark
ir,, I ..icr h<11 ! he i
nstal -ed ._:s>>EOyEnc3:
.>et P-qrk r<< }r=_;kf,"
Yya;cc' rCr;siey
9n~ns a^s:
qC; [lirf}f f;C li5i
~K' 'f:'v'r f',C (:'i
'?r C7ila!£ ~i
~4) ~.2 af~8 iD.:
.~t (St~CC~Yt3 ~'~:~:~Cl7 CsCf Co.-
-
t9ken sro.
Outbound Maneuvers and Dimensions at Critical Parking Spaces
3 ~ hS
OZ
f
D
~
~
f
i
C) w
i
lri ~
51a~-5a-006
DENNIS
~rrz~usL
-ti
DEWS VARNI
0
8 EUC
f10,1- I I'
- 6N•3j r
} r.' 9
i 70
t
J - fP-1 71
f was 7.1
S ~
1.7" 76 >m
1 3 5
i
e
t ;
W TREE
ti pr I
I C~
I-
J 27
TC
1_F
S.
}
c`
,
11DI
W 5z
co
CB
J
\
f
°f ,8
°AD 4
.4f
ALI
11
1
°ae
,
-
n2
J
77)
~
fi3
I
EN'S,,
ss
_
g
}
MASSOL AVENUE
aueuc Met)
~b €A7e to s
lope at tandem par
king a sign shall be
installed displaying:
"$eL Parking Brake"
Typical Parking Dirnenstons:
90 Degree (A)
90 Dograe (B)
Parallel(G)
9D Degree (D)
Standard Possenger Car
aim
taken from LLC
17'
17' 1 17........-..~~
I aQ' I
3-=-I
510-
GAT f0 F
Outbound Maneuvers and Dimensions for Space #98
DcNNiS VARNI
s2 ~a
s' mac. t
Old
64
IT)
57 I s G ~f 'r 33 I ~.I~` f ( 30" TREE
Y
{ e S
i t d
s '
ILI GM, E;
Y` 1
AD -
t 2......
LID
Q , r 6a I IF 72
21 Y CL)
59 24
{ - - 2S
r~ 72 L 7.•
510--50--e06 f~
r> a I
` DENNJS , y ew TA
57RAUSL
` I f
f ~ 1T~ 1 :x171 r +S4I`n~ ~ ~ 3'I
,7 ~ 1.- - rµ3' ~ 9.•'.€V:.Nh.Y
96 f
3 5s - jl
94
-49
In #f ( L-='' j I Y 1510
4 1 4j fit} Ii .t W A6 ~p s C7~1J]Q
1 17
l ~ - - - 82
rz, '
( ja-1-
,Mt R. SIC=
/ rAir CIIL~o-;
MASSOL AVENUE
(A PVBUC 57REETl
Due to slope of tondem porking a sign sholl be instolled displaying: "Set Parking Brake"
Typical Parking M menslons:
90 Degree (A) 90 Degrec (B) Parollcl(C) 90 Degree (D) Standard Passenger Car
taken from lU
> m nim 4- m~~ Ifi•g•.
IT' n• w l 17 1T 61
IC'
1'T~
Bay Tree - Parking Requirement
Comparison Study
city
Zone
Resident Parking Spaces
Guest Parking Spaces
Spaces Required If
Developed in Other
Jurisdiction
Separate Cando
Requirements
RM 12 to 20, Planned Development
Proposed Project
1 Bedroom Units
1.00 per unit
14
N
(347 Masao] Avenue)'
2 Bedroom Units
2.00 per unit
84
ona
Subtotal
98
2
Residential Condominiums
2.00 per unit
1 per unit
168
n
N
Los Gato5
Multlple-Unit Dwellings in All Zones
1.50 per unit
1 per unit
140
o
e
ITE Standards (85th
Percentile)'
Residential - Multi Family
1.46 per unit
81
Downtown Residential
Gil
c 800 Square Feet'
1.00 per unit
1 per 6 units
16
N
roy
> 800 Square Feet
1.50 per unit
t per 4 units
74
one
Subtotal
Cupertino
Nigh Density Multiple-Story Condominium
2.00 per unit
40% of unitss
- 4 -
Yese
Mulfi-Family Dwellings
Mountain Yew
1 to 2 Bedroom Units
2.00 per unit
151A of required spaces (may increase to
2.3 per unit per zoning administrator)
None
Saratoga
Mule-Family Dwellings
2.50 per unit
-
None
R3-1.8 District
L
Alt
1 Bedroom Units
1.50 per unit
21
as
os
2 Bedroom Units
2.00 per unit
84
Yes
Subtotal
Multiple Family Residential
l
Al
1 Bedroom Units
1.50 per unit
1 space plus 10% of units, or 33% of
>
27
N
to
Pa
a
2 Bedroom UnRs
2,00 per unit
units it
1 space per unit is assigned or
secured
99
one
Subtotal
Santa Clara
R3-2513 District
2.00 per unit
None
Milpitas
R-3 Multi-Family High Density Dkitrict
2.00 per unit
20% of required spaces
None
Carmel-by-tile-Sea
Multl-Family Dwellings
1.00 per unit
None
Multiple Famil Residential
a
1 Bedroom Units
1.50 per unit
21
N
Sausalilo
2 Bedroom Units
2.00 per unit
84
ana
Subtotal
Downtown Residential
M
t
S
1 Bedroom Units
1.30 per unit
1
i
21
N
an
a
eo
2 Bedroom Units
1.50 per unit
per 5 un
ts
71
one
Subtotal
San Jose
Residential Multiple Dwelling - Downtown
1.00 per unit
None
Average
t bedroom
1.60 perunit
11% of units or spaces
7
(excluding Los Gatos and
Proposed Project)
2 bedroom
1.77 perurrlf
124. of units or spaces
105
i- Proposed projed Inctudes 14 one bedroom units and 42 two Bedroom units (total of 50 units). On-sRe parking supply recommended is 0a spaces.
2- Two ratagones indi®Wfor Lus Gs1c.
3- Source: Parking Generation 3rd Edition, 2004, Institute of Transportation Engineers
4- For the purposes ofthls analysis, one bedroom units are assumed to be < 800 square feet and two bedroom units are assumed to he > 800 square feat.
5- Code has 2 per unil plus 40% of unit. For the purposes of this analysis, the additional 40% is assumed lobe guest parking.
E- Cupertino Zoning Code, Section ig.88.040 (Parking)
A. Off-Street Parking. The project shall provide parking consistent with the multifamily zone and the owner shall demonstrate that additional spaces exist to reasonably accommodate guest panting.
7- Los Altos Zoning Code, Sec€icn 14.25.050 (Development standards)
A. Off-street parking. The uff-.1 at parking shall tpnfarm to the zoning dlstdct requirements of this chapter in affect at the time the final or pamel map is retarded.
8- Penang requiremeMS may be reduced to the Mated.-day cans( tent with section 10.40.t10.Gpf the zoning cede.
107!2008
ATTACHMENT 8
u
SG 6
Q (n
Q
ti'F
lJ I
C.
~ ~
~ ttt
c7
C
9
.i' ~ ~ r S ~ : . v; ~ v ? c - - r - . ;rs ~ d 3 o g ~ is c -
_ f+ -r o a L -
~ L
Y +ii S =J is. .D ,f
Z
r: P +
-J ~
l
V3
ppa~
m r
~
~
;
=
o
rn u
~ o
ry+ ~
n ~
a o - m
c~ ~
s
o ~ c o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
. W ~ s
a ~
L
y
'C
- - N iD
C
iY: W N N M
rt F~ ^ -0 N N
'
~
'
M M -
~
t~ iq - p 0 -1 {y +E'
"1
6 O
s G C1 c7 O
_
~ C9 O G YJ
o O C ~ (
s
b r?
C5
Y n G -1
L] 6 C 4 CY
~
'
^
~
a r, v^
r, a ~x
~
'
~
y
k fYY g
G ~ G
~ 'Yi
i
wf.
G f ~
'yL. ,h 6. ~ Y i Z J - ~
} ~ ~ ti
i
W a
,
.
l
rv
Ei l
~
~
l R
'
-
-
y-
~
Y
Y
_
i
~
G
"
-y,...,
-
,
E
l
~J
, -
s
.n
v. .r
-
,
U
.
: .r
.
rl c.>
IF
~
4'
~
I
_
:A a
C '
V: m
c
Q ~
N iE
m'
lmi iG
FL
v
_ n
tl c; _ ri S rA r
1 H B ~n tp n- - 0 f h-
o c, o n o o a o `c~ o a o n c~ o
n w ~f ~ m •n :n ~ ~ r-. r- r-O
~T
b y o
_3 N t`J ~ ~ Z 4 u ~ v
S ~ !
~f q :rs n W - - P 'W
Bay 'T'ree Condominiums
Resident Assistance Programs
Prepared by:
Ron W. Cole
(949) 838-1221
LYON
CAPITAL
VENTURES
10/6/2008
ATTACHMENT 10
Page 1 of 5
The revised Relocation and Homeowners Assistance Programs
constitutes the basis for an agreement with the Town of Los Gatos.
Qualified Residents are defined as residents who reside in a unit at the
time of receipt of the 180 Day Notice of Intent to Convert, pursuant to the
provisions of Section 66427.1 of the Government Code.
To facilitate in the resident assistance process for all Qualified Residents,
the Owner shall engage an individual or firm to act in the capacity of "Relocation
Coordinator." The Relocation Coordinator shall be the primary coordination and
referral point for all Qualified Residents during all phases of the relocation
process. The Relocation Coordinator will also work with the Owner to identify
those Residents who would like to pursue the purchase of their unit through the
Purchase Assistance Program outlined later in this document.
Relocation Program:
The Relocation Coordinator shall survey all Qualified Residents to
determine eligibility for Relocation Assistance as designated below.
1. Special Circumstance Senior Consideration:
This category is designed to address specific residents who meet the
following criteria:
A. Senior Households with residents 65 years and older as of the approval
of the Tentative Map application.
B. Senior Households with residents residing at the property prior to the
initial 60 Notice of Intent to Convert sent on October 27, 2005 via certified
mail.
C. Senior Households with residents meeting the above qualifications and
maintaining continuous residency at the property.
Considering the above qualifications, five residents qualify for long term
tenancy at the property.
Therefore, at the time individual condominium units are marketed for sale, the
five qualified residents will be allowed to remain in their units until they
voluntarily vacate their units.
11. Hardship Assistance:
The Relocation Coordinator shall develop an Individual Relocation Plan,
including any related recommendations for any household that meets one or
more criteria. All Hardship household's Relocation Plan findings and
recommendations shall be provided to the Town's Planning Staff within 45
days prior to the marketing of any unit(s).
10161200$ Page 2 of 5
A. At the Town Council's request, the Owner has agreed to include all
residents that have resided at the property prior to the 60 Day Notice of
Intent to Convert (10127106) in this category of relocation assistance.
During the initial survey/interviewing process, the Relocation Coordinator
shall determine whether Qualified Residents meet one or more of the
Hardship Criteria defined below:
o Disabled Households with a disabled household member, as
defined under the Social Security Act, and who cannot physically
prepare for a move
a Low-income Households determined by income limits as
determined by the State of California Housing Department, County
of Santa Clara, with tenancy prior to the Developer giving notice of
intent to convert the apartments to condominiums, and unable to
reasonably locate replacement housing.
o Senior Households at 70 years or older irregardless of move-in
date.
o All Residents who have lived at the property prior to the 60 Day
Notice of Intent to Convert was implemented.
o All Single Parents of children younger than 18 at the time of
relocation irregardless of move-in date
B. Moving expenses, to be paid by the Developer, for the Hardship
households shall include:
o Packing the residents valuables
o Actual cost of moving belongings to a location within 10 miles from
the Bay Tree Apartments
o Unpacking if so desired
C. Additional relocation assistance for those Hardship residents will be
provided, in the form of a monetary award within 10 business days after
the relocation has taken place, the sum of $3000 (three thousand dollars)
to assist with security deposits and all other related moving expenses.
Ill. Other Relocation Assistance:
A. The Developer shall provide notice to prospective residents w move to the
project that a condominium conversion is underway. This notice shall also
be provided to the residents, in writing, at the time a rental agreement or
lease is signed. Under Government Code Section 66462.8, any resident
that does not receive the notice at such time and who does not purchase
their unit, shall be entitled to an amount equal to the sum of the following:
10/6/2008 Page 3 of 5
o Actual moving expenses incurred when moving from the subject
site, not to exceed $1,100.
o A portion of the first month's rent on the tenant's new rental unit, if
any, immediately after moving from the subject property, but not to
exceed $1,100.
IV. Terms of Relocation Assistance:
A. Resident must be in good standing with the terms and conditions of the
lease agreement that they signed with Lyon Management Group, Inc.
B. The assistance outlined above is allocated on a per unit basis.
C. Residents must maintain continuous occupancy at the property to qualify
for any of the above mentioned assistance programs.
1016/2008 Page 4 of 5
Proposed Homeowners Assistance Program
For the purposes of this program, a Qualified Resident is defined as that
resident who resided in the Project unit at the time of receipt of a 180 Day Notice
of Intent to Convert prior to termination of tenancy, pursuant to the provisions of
Section 66427.1 of the Government Code.
90 Day Right of First Refusal to Purchase: Pursuant to Government
Code 66427.1 and for a period of 90 days from the issuance of a Final
Subdivision Public Report under Section 11018.2 of the Business and
Professions Code, Developer will provide all residents with a Right of First
Refusal to purchase their unit. All Qualified Residents shall be given notice
of receipt of the Final Subdivision Report: within ten (10) days of receipt of
such report, as provided by the relevant provisions of the cited code
sections. Every resident's right to purchase will be at the price units are
first offered for sale to the general public. Additionally, the provisions of
Government Code 66459 of the Subdivision Map Act shall also apply and
tenants occupying a rental unit following Final Map approval for the
condominium project shall receive notice and be given a Right of First
Refusal to purchase the unit as specified in Section 66459.
2. Qualified Resident Purchase Discount Program: All Qualified
Residents desiring to purchase their Project unit will receive a discount
equal to five percent (5%) of the price at which their unit is first offered for
sale to the general public. The price is established by the Developer for
each individual unit plus adjustments based on each unit's views, location
and amenities.
3. Reduced Escrow Costs: A single Title Company will be used by the
Developer for market rate units to provide reduced escrow fees to current
qualified residents purchasing units.
4. Reduced Loan Fees and Charges, The Homeownership Counselor
shall refer all pre-qualified residents to lenders that offer reduced loan
origination fees, reduced interest rates, mortgage credit certificates or
other special incentives for financing.
5. Phase One Pricing: Any Qualified Resident will have the right to
purchase a for sale Project unit at Phase One Pricing, regardless of the
phase in which the unit is located. Phase one pricing will be those List
Prices initially established and published by the Developer for each type of
market rate unit in the first phase of Project units to be released for sale at
the Project. This benefit will enable Qualified Residents currently living in
areas of the Project scheduled to be sold in later phases to avoid paying
higher prices due to demand driven inflation
10/612008 Page 5 of 5
,~missiot,
01,AIt q e
o~ FIRE DEPARTMENT
SANTA CLARA COUNTY
~ FIRE
14700 Winchester Blvd., Los Gatos, CA 95032-1818 htema~;o~y`
G6RRn'c3Yd9ERYME (408) 378-4010 • (408) 378-9342 (fax) • www.sccfd.org Internationally Accredited
Agency
November 13, 2008
Mr. Joel Paulson, Associate Planner
Town of Los Gatos Planning Department
110 E Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95031
Subject: 347 Massol Avenue, Baytree Apartments, PD-07-2
Dear Mr. Paulson
This letter will confirm the findings of the Santa Clara County Fire Department regarding
operational site access at the proposed Baytree Apartments/Condominium conversion
addressed in Town of Los Gatos application PD-07-2.
On 1011512008, crews from our operations and fire prevention divisions met at site to
review the most current, stacked parking proposal portion of the application as it relates
to site access and rescue abilities. Of note was the South-most access road inward from
Massol Aveune. Consideration was based upon the proposed dimensions, which were
outlined in the site diagram provided and evolutions performed. It is determined that the
current, proposed parking plan would be acceptable to this department.
Should you have further questions, please feel free to contact myself.
Sincerely,
Wayne A. Hokanson, Deputy Fire Marshal
Fire Prevention Division
Organized as the Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District
Serving Santa Clara County and the communities of Campbell, Cupertino, Los Altos, ATTACM4ENT 12
Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, and Saratoga
DATE: DECEMBER 11, 2008
TO: TOWN COUNCIL, TOWN OF LOS GATOS
SUBJECT: BAY TREE: PARKING ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATION
There remain many unresolved issues with the proposed conversion of Bay Tree
Apartments to condominiums: safety, construction quality, tenant protections, owner-
occupied units and parking. I will focus my comments on the Parking issue, both onsite
and street parking.
From day one, parking has been a contentious issue with the Bay Tree conversion
proposal. All parties acknowledge that there is not enough space on the property to
provide adequate parking for the all potential residents, no guest parking is provided and
street parking remains the fall-back position for overflow.
THE LYON PLAN
Lyon's consistent answer is a restriped parking plan that shoe-horns onto the site a total
of 98 spaces. And, according to their latest plan document, many of these spaces won't
be activated until condo units are finally marketed. (Why is that I may ask?).
There is not, nor has there ever been, a viable plan by the developer to ensure that
these designated spaces will be used by condominium owners. The current resident
parking program stickers Bay Tree resident vehicles, However, there is no process to
ensure that these cars actually park on the property and not on the street. In fact, many
ears of residents are currently parked on the street.
Testimony at a prior council meeting spoke to the safety issue of current parking slots
with some of the tandem spaces. Cars using these spaces must back up a small grade and
dodge a pole before turning in a tight space to get out. Damage to cars on two occasions
was reported by this resident. To support that problem, Lyon has a note at the bottom of
their most recent "Site-Plan Parking for Condominium Purposes" document. It states:
"Due to slope at tandem parking a sign will be installed displaying `Set Parking Brake.
Does Lyon really think that a sign will prevent further accidents in this very tight,
dangerous parking situation?
THESE ARE THE BIG ISSUES:
• Lyon's plan is not realistic for the property and as it stands, the
neighborhood and Town will pay the longer-term consequences.
• Does anyone care that this is a gateway into historic Almond Grove, a
neighborhood already plagued with traffic and parking problems?
• Why do my neighbors and I have to struggle to be heard and so far have
received absolutely no consideration for the parking and traffic issues
which concern and impact us?
ATTACHMENT 13
And finally,
• Why do some of you on the Council say, I've visited that area, and I
don't see a parking problem? That's easy to say but that cavalier attitude
belies the problems at hand and negates legitimate neighborhood
concerns.
What has been lost sight of, in this drive to condo-ize, is that this project impacts the
neighborhoods negatively as it is currently proposed. It is up to the developer to carry
responsibility to ensure their development doesn't negatively impact our historic
neighborhood. To date, nothing has been proposed to address this. Nor has there been
any dialogue with affected parties about the issues.
Therefore I make the following recommendations to both Lyon and the Town regarding
the parking situation:
LYON MUST ENSURE PARKING COMPLIANCE
To protect the neighborhood, Lyon must present a concrete, specific parking system
that ensures condominium owners cars are parked on the property. Currently that is
not the case. For many residents it is more convenient, if not safer to park on the street
than in their assigned tight, hard-to-get-into spaces.
Lyon must ensure it is the LEGAL obligation of the HOA to police parking
regularly on site with CC&Rs that mandate residents must park in their assigned
spaces. The current decal system used by Lyon does not work in this manner.
If the HOA is unable to effectively police their condo parking to ensure compliance, then
Lyon must be required to hire a contract patrol service to do the job. Condominium
complexes in Lyon's home turf of southern California regularly use patrol services,
such as Patrot Masters, to monitor parking of residents and visitors. Locally many of
our businesscs hire patrol services to monitor their parking lots such as Bank of America
and Wells Fargo. This is a common practice and should be used with the Bay Tree
property-
A parking system that ensures compliance will prevent the endless neighborhood disputes
that can result from the current Lyon parking plan. It is Lyon's responsibility to not
adversely impact the neighborhood. They must be required to proactively address the
parking impact that their project will have.
Like it or not, this project sets precedence. Is this the model, as it stands, that the Council
wishes to perpetuate as many other apartment houses line up to convert to condominiums
in Los Gatos? I wouldn't think so.
A
Men mi
ch b
320 Massol Ave.
TO: TOWN COUNCIL, TOWN OF LOS GATOS, DEC. 15, 2008
RE: 347 Massol Ave. (Bay Tree)
The Bay Tree ("347) matter has been slow and bumpy. What would have been
relatively simple matter under an ordinance/Housing Element, has turned into a law-
making process tipped heavily in favor of Lyon, the developer/applicant by "people of
influence." It began with both the Town Manager, Mr. Larson, and the then-Director-
Community Development, Mr. Lortz, being against the project because there was no
guiding statutory or administrative framework.
But there have been learnings along the way.
First, we know that 347 is an old complex with suspect mechanical and electrical systems
(no grounding). The walls are "noisy": that is, tenants can hear what's going on in
neighboring units. There are no sprinkler systems or air conditioning. And regardless of
the parking designs proffered, the property cannot come close to taking care of its own
parking needs. If approved, the owner's association will in perpetuity be called upon to
deal with expensive repairs, upgrades, and parking disputes... unless, of course, owners
default to parking on the street and that practice becomes acceptable because there are no
alternatives. Re: parking neither the developer nor the Town Council has even explored
removal of one or two buildings as a way to be self-contained or at least ameliorate the
terrible parking situation.
The Town Council wants a "best in class" result. It will not get that if this is approved.
What it will get is a "gussied up Motel 6", with fractured governance...all in the middle
of a neighborhood in the historic district composed of $1.5-3M homes. It will be a
reminder of what poor governance and influence can wrought, more like similar condo
conversions in Florida, Mississippi, or the Central Valley of California.
Second, we now know that renters have no rights in the Town of Los Gatos. When the
Beckwith Building at 31 E. Main Street changed owners recently, the new owner raised
rents in excess of 20% for all 10 apartments. Renters received no "bill of particulars" for
amounts over 5%; sought the help of Community Services; received no help from Project
Sentinel; and ultimately were forced to move.
Similarly, Lyon has passed on rent increase in excess of 5% to most renters and did not
tender the details justifying the increases. Again, they were not supported by either
Community Services or Project Sentinel. On one prior occasion, there was mediation,
arduously dragged out by Lyon so that no renter would or could ever take the time to
dispute future increases.
Third, we know when there is no ordinance/Housing Element, influence counts. It started
at the Planning Commission with a shrill advance that BMP shouldn't apply and that
there should be new concept called "practical affordability" to support the taking of rental
ATTAcm4NT 14
units so that lower cost housing would be available to "empty nesters" and returning
children of residents. Damn the renters: full speed ahead!
This was followed by the cynical submission to the Town Council that the Town should
either buy or "borrow" units to use to take care of persons over age 65. That proposal
could never have been designed without the influence and participation of a person in the
community that knew well how BMP could be used to satisfy obligations that would in
any other community be the obligations of the developer. To its credit, the Town Council
saw this as overreaching and sent the developer back to the drawing board.
In the meantime, the requests of the persons deemed "adversaries" by the developer were
ignored or rebuffed by the Planning Department and The Town Manager: We got almost
nothing regarding our questions and concerns.
Fourth, the Town Council leans on the "surplus"... over 30%...of rental units in Los Gatos
as a reason for justifying consideration of this condo conversion. But this isn't just any
rental complex: It is one of the only one left that is within walking distance of N. Santa
Cruz. This is not a Sobrato that resembles a high-priced housing "project." And 347 is
for all practical purposes within the Historic District. The influential sponsors say, "Take
it. They are only renters!"
The renters never did anything to deserve this from the Town. We, the neighbors, do not
deserve a change that does not benefit or improve the neighborhood. We get nothing
except the perpetuation of a terrible parking situation and the construction of a
development that will be a constant source of even more disputes, both within and
outside of the 347 plot.
For all the reasons previously submitted in written position statements, this condo
conversion should be denied. If approved, it could be a case study on bad government
and a Town Council subject to influence ...to the exclusion of the "adversaries."
Los Gatos Town Council
Los Caton, CA.
Ref: Bay Trees Appartrnent
Mr. Mayor and Council Members
E(15iEl W E
TQW ra i x.11 i3
CLERK DEPARTMENT
December 9, 2008
The application to convert The Bay Tree Apartment complex has been pending for some time
now. In spite of all the scrutiny by the staff and Town Council,[ feel we still have a number of unanswered
questions. Remember, the complex is almost 60 years old; how does it measure up to the present
budding code?
I have visited one of the units in the complex and found that the electrical wiring was not grounded.
During the time that the `The Bay Tree Apartment' complex was constructed the cities and towns In
California were growing at a very fast rate. Los Gatos in the same period as The Bay Tree was built,
several other projects were under construction such as Live Oak Manor, Paradise Valley, plus a number
of single family houses.
At this time, the Town of Los Gatos had just one Building Inspector, Bill Oaks. It seem doubtful
that one person could thoroughly inspect all the construction sites. Besides the lack of inspection the
Construction Industry faced a shortage- of skilled labor and anybody who could swing a hammer could
become a carpenter overnight. On top of that, the contractors were in a hurry to get their projects
completed as the next project, was wafting to get started. The end result was that a lot of poor
workmanship was performed during that unprecedented growth period throughout California.
When my home was built on Lester Larne I inspected the construction very closely, and several
times I found fault with the work done and insisted that it be corrected.
I hope the members of the Council will vote to deny the application in order to maintain the rental
residents' housing stock.
ll' on the other hand the Council does not agree with that suggestion; I will ask you to consider
adding the following conditions prior to the approval:
The buildings are to be inspected by a licensed StriLtural Engineer.
Report to be presented to the Town Council before final approval of
the project.
Buildings must conform to the present Building codes pertaining to
Earthquake Standards, and soundproof walls between units.
Lyons Company shall guarantee the roofs of the buildings five years
from the date of the first sale of a condominium unit.
Fire sprinkler to be installed.
Sincerely
ATTACHMENT 15
James and Nortrud Raymond
347 Massol Avenue, #105
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Town of Los Gatos
Town Council
110 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
a
-tc I
fD'snlis LQZti) GATOS
CLERK C. EPARTNIENT
December 10, 2008
Subject: Proposed Conversion of the Bay Tree Apartments to Condominiums
Dear Los Gatos Town Council,
As long-term residents of the Bay Tree, we would like to address some issues we feel
are important in considering Lyon Management's (Lyon's) proposal to convert the Bay
Tree into condominiums.
The issues we would like to address fall into the following major categories:
1. Legal Framework
2. Treatment of the Current Residents
3. Traffic and Parking
4. Conversion Project
5. Sales
Legal Framework
There are many different stakeholders involved, and all hope to maximize what they can
get from the conversion. Some of the stakeholders we have been able to identify are
listed as follows:
• Lyon
• Building contractors
• Real estate agents
• Investors
• Speculators ("flippers")
• Senior homeowners wishing to trade down
• Other Home Buyers
• The Town of Los Gatos
• Current Bay Tree renters
• Bay Tree neighbors
• Business owners
As President Lincoln once said, "You can please some of the people some of the time,
but you can't please all of the people all of the time." Obviously, some stakeholders will
not get everything they want, and some may even go away empty-handed. However, if
there is no orderly process in place, the conversion will most certainly provide fertile
0
ATTACHMENT 16
ground for lawsuits, accusations and recriminations, and bad blood among the
townspeople and Council members, not to mention the displaced tenants.
Before the Town Council votes on any conversion proposal, a legal framework governing
conversions needs to be in place. The Palo Alto Municipal Code is a good example of
what we mean. The framework should address all the issues surrounding the above
listed major categories. If the Town Council should approve a conversion without the
existence of such a legal framework, the entire process will be subject to attack and
legal challenges from all sides
The legal framework governing condo conversions must be enforceable, and must be
applied without deference to any special interest group.
In our opinion, it is not appropriate for Lyon to be defining Town policy as part of their
proposal. The Town should not try to evade their responsibility for setting the policy for
condo conversions.
Lyon has spent a lot of time and money on this proposal, but they are not our elected
representatives, and should not be classifying people into categories or setting policies
for the relocation of tenants. It is admirable that they are willing to offer certain residents
special consideration, but is that really their responsibility? We think the Town is
responsible for implementing and enforcing policy. The fox should not be in charge of
the hencoop.
Treatment of the Current Residents
This part of the legal framework should set the policy for dealing with the current
residents during a conversion. At a minimum, it should clearly define any special
categories, what each special category is entitled to, and how all other residents are to
be treated that don't fall into a special category. Contrary to popular belief, renters are
people who work, pay taxes, and contribute to the community in which they live. Most
renters are renters by circumstance, and not by choice. Therefore, they should be
treated just like any other resident of Los Gatos would expect to be treated.
People who decide to continue renting after the conversion is approved will need
protection from
• Being forced into a smaller and/or less desirable apartment
• Yearly maximum rent increases
• Denial or delay of maintenance services
• Denial or delay of external cleaning/pickup services
• The addition of questionable "pass-through" costs to the rent
• The costs of moving out, living in temporary housing, storage, and moving back
in after the constructionlrenovation
Policymakers should insure that all renters are treated equally, and that no one is worse
off after the conversion.
Rent increases for special category renters should be a matter for regulation by policy.
Many of the special category renters are on fixed incomes andlor depend on proceeds
from their investments.
Once the conversion is approved and the second renovation begins, Lyon should - at
their expense - provide temporary housing for those affected by the dirt and noise, until
the area becomes livable again. This should be a matter governed by policy. This is
especially important for renters working from a home office, because it is virtually
impossible to conduct business with heavy construction going on and music blaring
everywhere.
There is no mention how this is all going to take place. Looking at it from our
perspective, we would have to pack all our things, move out, put everything in temporary
storage, live in temporary housing, and move everything back in after the conversion is
complete. This involves a lot of time and expense. Is Lyon going to cover it?
Our apartment has not been renovated in more than 20 years, and we are not alone.
We would hope that Lyon would do this as part of the conversion, but this issue has not
been addressed yet.
Current residents who are given the opportunity to stay on after the conversion, but
decide not to continue on as renters or new owners should be able to move immediately
without penalty, once the conversion is approved. Policymakers should enforce this,
and insure that qualified residents electing this option be given financial assistance for
the move. To their credit, Lyon has already agreed to provide relocation assistance to
residents in certain categories. Some basic type of relocation assistance should be
offered to everyone.
Lyon has already offered a purchase plan for qualified current residents, which is
commendable.
Traffic and Parking
It is illegal to leave a car parked on the street for longer than 72 hours. Otherwise, the
car may be considered abandoned, and towed away. Policymakers need to insure that
the Bay Tree'provides adequate parking for the residents, whether or not they are
renters or owners. In the interim, policymakers should insure that spillover packers are
given a sticker in order to identify their cars out on the street, so they won't be cited.
Policymakers also need to insure that Lyon's proposal to pack 98 parking spaces into
the property is consistent with existing fire regulations. This is especially important
because many of the parking spaces are located in carports beneath the apartments.
Given the proposed increase in parking opportunities at the Bay Tree and the current
traffic situation on Massol Avenue, safeguards against speeders need to be put into
place. Traffic currently moves too fast, and there are no speed bumps, making it
sometimes dangerous to enter and leave the Bay Tree driveways during the morning
and evening hours.
Conversion Project
By this, we mean: what exactly will be done, where and when will it be done, who will
contract to do it, when will it be completed, and who is in charge of quality/oversight?
We assume that the Planning Commission has the ultimate oversight, but it would be
nice if the residents who elect to continue on at the Bay Tree were kept in the loop so
they can plan accordingly.
In our opinion, the following needs to be done in order to bring the Bay Tree into the 21st
Century, beyond what Lyon has already agreed to:
• Make sure the buildings are up to code (structure, properly insulated, etc.)
• Add solar panels to the roofs
• Fix all the gutters and drainpipes
• Insulate all the heating and hot water pipes
• Upgrade all the electrical wiring, with grounded outlets in each room
• Place cable and cat-516 connections in each room
• Upgrade the plumbing with quality materials (copper)
• Work with potential owners/renters during the design phase
• Provide handicap accessibility
The ultimate goal should be to reduce total maintenance costs while at the same time
providing a quality living experience.
Sales
Since the Bay Tree is a residential community, policymakers should insure that the
apartments don't become objects of real estate speculation. In our opinion, they should
be sold only to the people who will actually inhabit them, and should not be resold within
at least a year. Third party agents should not be involved in the initial sales. The Town
will need to enforce this.
Sincerely,
C CL
/111-1"-~ t
James Raymond
Page 1 of 1
Joel Paulson - Fwd: Bay Tree Condo Conversion TC meeting 12115
From: Patsy Garcia
To: Bud Lortz; Greg Larson; Marilyn Cosden; Pamela Jacobs
Date: 12111/2008 3:39 PM
Subject: Fwd: Bay Tree Condo Conversion TC meeting 12115
CC: Lynda Seastrom
To be added to 12115 Council report
Carla de Mos <carlademos@hotmail.com> 12/11/2008 3:28 PM
To: Los Gatos Town Cpnneil
Prom: Martha Me Graw
Subject: Regarding: Concerns regarding the treatment of "Special Circumstances Seniors" tenants if
the Bay Tree apartments are converted to condominiums
Date: December 11, 2008
Dear Los Gatos Town Council,
I was first relieved when I heard at the last Town Council meeting that ].,yon intends to allow myself and four other "Special
Circumstance Seniors" to remain indefinitely. Now I have concerns that have not been addressed by Lyon such as:
Will we be able to stay in our present homes or will we have to move to less desirable apartments?
When work begins and the communal washers and dryers located on my floor are incorporated into a converted apartment,
what arrangements will be taken to provide me with a washer and drier? Will 1 have to use machines in another building
which are not easily accessible and entail me to traverse stairs every time I need to do wash?
I am also concerned about rent increases. Some tenants have received 5% increases plus a pass through addition which
Lyon has not provided a justifiable reason.
Will all these concerns be spelled out for us in writing? Will the Town Council make sure that ].yon makes good their
promises?
Sincerely,
Martha Me Graw
347 Massol Avenue, Apt. 205
(408) 395-3617
Send e-mail anywhere. No Snap, no compass. Ge gttr Hotmall_ account now.
ATTACBMNT 17
iile:HC:1Documents and Sell] n.gsljpaulson.LOSGATOSCA1Local Settings\TemplXPgrpw... 12/11/2008
g
g
N.~
_
a
nllo~
FLL'
g~
~s
E a~~
~Ea ~s s
sae
gE~~
W
a
85'T
. 8
Y
S
a ~
$e 9,
r a
E
m
H
d