2 - Town's In-Fill and Traffic Policies - Community BenefitMEETING DATE: 08/22/11
JOINT STUDY SESSION
ITEM NO. 2
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
DATE: August 18, 2011
TO: MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
FROM: GREG LARSON, TOWN MANAGER
SUBJECT: INFORMATION REPORT — TOWN COUNCIL/PLANNING
COMMISSION JOINT STUDY SESSION ON POTENTIAL AMEMDENTS
TO THE TOWN'S IN -FILL AND TRAFFIC POLICIES REGARDING
COMMUNITY BENEFIT.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Town Council and Planning Commission discuss the existing In -Fill,
Traffic and Planned Development Policies relative to community benefit contributions and direct
Town staff to make changes to the policies, draft new policies, and implement traffic mitigation
fee.
PURPOSE:
The purpose of the joint study session is to provide the decision makers with a description of the
issues relative to the Town's Community Benefit Program and to obtain direction in amending
the existing policies that require community benefit contributions.
BACKGROUND:
In 1991 and 1993, the Town Council approved Resolutions 1991-174 (Traffic Impact Policy) and
1993-62 (Development Policy for In -Fill Projects) (Attachments 1 and 2, respectively) requiring
community benefit offerings on projects that are deemed in -fill development and projects that
generate five (5) or more A.M. or P.M. peak trips. In both resolutions, the project is required to
demonstrate how it will "benefit the community."
In November 2002, the Town Council adopted Resolution 2002-175, which further clarified the
community benefit offerings required through General Plan Implementing Section L.I.1.8. This
section states, "Community Benefit: Amend the Town Code to include a definition of
`Community Benefit' that clearly differentiates from exactions." This Implementing Measure
tv
PREPARED BY: ` Vendie R. Rooney, Director of Community Development
Reviewed by: Y5 \ Assistant Town Manager ( (Town Attorney Finance
Reformatted: 5/30/02 Revised: 5/20/2011 11:44 AM
PAGE 2
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: COMMUNITY BENEFIT POLICY
August 18, 2011
was carried over into the 2020 General Plan as Action CD-18.1 Resolution 2002-175 provides
guidance for both in -fill and projects that generate more than five (5) A.M. or P.M. peak trips
(Attachment 3).
Resolution 2002-175 was intended to clarify the community benefit offering requirements by
developing an implementing policy. The overall intent of the policy is:
[T]o provide the Town a means to support projects that are beneficial and desirable to the
community, but may have certain negative impacts. These impacts are generally
unavoidable or unintended consequences of new development, such as traffic, that cannot
be entirely avoided through standard conditions of approval. Negative impacts may be
overridden by benefits offered to the Town by the applicant.
The policy further states that the community benefit offering must add to the merits of the
project, and it is not intended to be used to transform undesirable projects into projects that
appear to be desirable due to their offering. Most importantly, a community benefit offering
shall be something that otherwise would not have been required by law or a condition of
approval of the project, and the Town cannot compel a specific community benefit offering; it
must be proposed by the applicant in addition to the standard conditions of approval and any
required mitigation measures for the project. Mitigation measures such as fees, dedications, or
easements required by the Town do not quality as a community benefit.
The policy defines community benefit as,
An offering of benefit to the Town proposed by the applicant, in addition to the standard
mitigation measures required by the Town, that overrides certain negative impacts
resulting from an in -fill project or a project that generates more than five (5) peak hour
trips.
Finally, the policy includes a partial list of examples that an applicant can draw upon when
seeking to create a community benefit for a project. The list includes:
• Additional BMP units or equally affordable housing units
• Improved traffic circulation or reduction in traffic
• Street or neighborhood improvements
• Historic preservation or restoration
• Public art
• Open space, conservation, or scenic easements and other dedications
• Bike/walking trails
• Mitigation or elimination of an existing problem
• Restoration of a riparian habitat or water course
• A demonstrated unique or desirable use for the Town
PAGE 3
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: COMMUNITY BENEFIT POLICY
August 18, 2011
Attachment 4 contains the list of 31 approved projects that have made community benefit
offerings. This list is based on the staff's best knowledge of the projects and the contributions
since the program's inception.
ISSUES:
Based on communications with the Planning Commission, Town Council. and Town staff, the
following issues have been identified relative to the Town's use of community benefit:
1. The Town does not have clear or objective criteria that can be used to determine if a
community benefit offering provides an equivalent offset for impacts from in -fill projects and
projects that generate more than five (5) A.M. or P.M. peaks trips. Should the community
benefit requirement be replaced with impact fees that demonstrate a clear nexus between the
impact and the mitigation?
2. The terms "community benefit" or "benefit to the community" have been used
interchangeably in various contexts. The Town needs a better definition of community
benefit, and references that are related to describing an "overall benefit to the community" in
Town documents should be replaced with other language to avoid confusion. Pursuant to
Action CD-18.1 the Town Code will need to be amended to include a definition of
"community benefit" that clearly differentiates it from exactions.
3. Should community benefit requirements continue to apply to in -fill development? Many
communities require applicants that are seeking modifications to development, use or
dimensional standards, such as a PD, to provide internal (within the development) and/or
external amenities to offset the impact of the project. Should the Town adopt such a process
in place of the in -fill community benefit requirement?
Each of these issues is addressed in the following "Discussion Section" along with a variety of
alternatives for resolving the issues.
DISCUSSION:
1. The Town does not have clear or objective criteria that can be used to determine if a
community benefit offering provides an equivalent offset for impacts from in -fill projects and
projects that generate more than five (5) A.M. or P.M. peaks trips. Should the community
benefit requirement be replaced with impact fees that have demonstrated a clear nexus
between the impact and the mitigation?
The Traffic Impact Policy, which is attached to Resolution 1991-174, clearly outlines the
process for mitigating traffic impacts from new development. The level of mitigation
corresponds to the amount of trips generated. Throughout the policy, the phrases "establish
community benefits that would result" and "benefits of the project to the Town" are used to
PAGE 4
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: COMMUNITY BENEFIT POLICY
August 18, 2011
frame the requirements of development that would exceed prescribed peak hour trips. The
policy further states that:
Where benefits to the Town are required to be shown, applicants shall submit a letter of
justification which clearly states housing or economic benefits and/or specific sections of
the General Plan or any applicable Specific Plan which show that the type of project will
benefit the community (See Section 2.5.6 of the General Plan). The burden of proof of
community benefit is on the applicant.
Section 2.5.6 of the 1983 General Plan states:
If there is a traffic impact at all, the applicant shall cite specific sections of the General
Plan and demonstrate a benefit to the community which outweighs the traffic impact and
the deciding body must make findings of that benefit in order to approve the project.
Resolution 1991-174 further states that the intention of the Traffic Impact Policy is to require
projects that generate additional traffic to participate in the cost of constructing capacity -
enhancing and transit improvement projects to reduce traffic congestion through the
contribution of community benefit. In Section C, the policy states that, "traffic mitigation
shall be in the form of an in -lieu traffic impact mitigation fee. The mitigation for the projects
with major traffic impacts will be the required payment of a traffic impact mitigation fee and
a proportionate share or construction of intersection and/or roadway improvements within a
specified distance from the project."
It appears that the original intent of the Traffic Impact Policy was to mitigate the specific
impacts of the project through payment of an in -lieu fee or construction of capacity -
enhancing projects (i.e., signals, street widening, etc.). The policy states that the
improvements should be consistent with "the Capital Improvement Program and transit
improvement projects that are identified by the Town as a means of reducing traffic
congestion." Requiring impact fees, as well as validation of a project's consistency with
General Plan Goals and Policies, is consistent with the intent of a traffic mitigation fee and
how most jurisdictions that use impact fees address traffic mitigation from new development.
In 2002, with the adoption of Resolution 2002-175, which clarified the Town's Community
Benefit Policy, the type of mitigation shifted from imposing a fee or improvements to
requiring amenities that were beyond and not necessarily related to the mitigation of the
traffic impacts through the fee or constructing improvements. The General Policy states that:
1. The applicant shall propose the community benefit offering, and is responsible for
demonstrating that the community benefit being offered is appropriate to offset a
project's impacts.
PAGE 5
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: COMMUNITY BENEFIT POLICY
August 18, 2011
2. The community benefit shall be offered in addition to the standard mitigation
measures required in the conditions of approval and in excess of any Town's codes
and regulations.. .
3. The community benefit offering does not need to correlate directly with the project or
with the project impacts. The benefit may be off -site or unrelated to the project.
5. The deciding body shall weigh the value of the proposed community benefit based on
the desirability of the benefit at the time the project is being proposed based on
perceived future value or need.
The policy further cites examples of community benefit that an applicant may draw upon
when seeking to provide an offering (please see Background Section above for list).
Based on the review of the legislative history, it appears that the intent of traffic mitigation
shifted from a traditional fee- or improvement -based mitigation to one that requires project
amenities (either on- or off -site) that assist in providing support for the project. There are
some options that can address the concerns expressed with the present approach to traffic
impact mitigation -related community benefit.
The Town could develop a requirement that the community benefit contribution be based on
a percentage of the cost of the project or project improvements and use that as criterion for
evaluating a contribution. This concept would be similar to how the Town addresses the in -
lieu fee for BMPs. The BMP fee is based on 6% of the construction cost of the market rate
units. A similar formula could be developed for traffic impact mitigation -related community
benefit. If this option is considered, the Town would want to fully analyze an implementing
policy from a legal perspective.
Another option for the Town to secure some of the amenities included in the Community
Benefit Policy would be to develop new fee programs for amenities such as public art,
historic preservation, trails, etc. The fees would need to be based on a nexus analysis and
would be imposed on all new development that would meet the specified applicability. In
this case, staff would recommend that this apply to new commercial, industrial, and certain
sized residential development. When considering this option, the Town may need to consider
whether community support (votes) is necessary to pass new fees pursuant to Propositions 26
and/or 218.
A variation of a fee program would be to implement requirements for public art, historic
preservation, trails, open space, etc., in certain development projects. For example, the Town
of San Juan Capistrano requires that all new commercial, larger scale residential and
industrial projects integrate the city's "Historic Depiction Program" (HDP) within the
project. The HDP requires the construction of public art in the form of murals, fountains,
PAGE 6
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: COMMUNITY BENEFIT POLICY
August 18, 2011
interpretive displays, etc, that illustrates the community's history. Many jurisdictions have
also implemented requirements for public art to be incorporated into new development as
means for beautifying the community.
Alternatively, based on the fact that the original intent of the Traffic Impact Policy was to
require projects that generate additional traffic to participate in the cost of constructing
capacity -enhancing and transit improvement projects to reduce traffic congestion, staff would
recommend that the Town implement a traffic mitigation fee that is based on a nexus study
and would meet the cost of capacity -enhancing traffic and transit improvements that are
contained in the 2020 General Plan Transportation Element. Due to the fact that the Town
has not updated the fee since 1994, and, therefore, is considerably undervalued, staff would
recommend increasing the fee over the next five years until it is consistent with the cost of
improvements identified in the 2020 General Plan. A phased implementation would be less
impacting on new development, while over time meeting the General Plan Transportation
Element improvements. The fee study was completed in 2010 would meet the nexus
requirements for traffic mitigation impact fees. It is interesting to note that although the
original intent of the Traffic Mitigation Policy was to address traffic impacts, of the 31
projects that have made community benefit contributions, approximately 11 have provided
offerings that are directly related to traffic mitigation or improvements.
2. The terms "community benefit" or "benefit to the community" have been used
interchangeably in various contexts. The Town needs a better definition of community
benefit, and references that are related to describing an "overall benefit to the community" in
Town documents should be replaced with other language to avoid confusion.
As noted, in Resolution 2002-175, the Town has adopted a definition of community benefit
as follows:
An offering of benefit to the Town proposed by the applicant, in addition to the standard
mitigation measures required by the Town, that overrides certain negative impacts
resulting from an in -fill project or a project that generates more than five (5) peak hour
trips.
The definition of community benefit would be modified based on the Town Council's
direction on Issue No. 1. Regardless of the decision on whether to utilize impact fees or
other programs as an alternative to the current Community Benefit Policy, staff recommends
reviewing and modifying all adopted policies with revised language or removing the
reference to community benefit entirely. For example, the Alcoholic Beverage Policy
currently contains the phrase "the applicant must show a clear benefit to the community,"
and staff is recommending deleting this section. Based on direction and pursuant to Action
CD-18.1, staff will need to amend the Town Code to include a definition of "community
benefit" that clearly differentiates it from project required mitigation and impact fees.
PAGE 7
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: COMMUNITY BENEFIT POLICY
August 18, 2011
3. Should community benefit requirements continue to apply to in -fill development? Many
communities require applicants that are seeking modifications to development, use, or
dimensional standards, such as a PD, provide internal (within the development) and/or
external amenities to offset the impact of the project. Should the Town adopt a similar
process in place of the in -fill community benefit requirement?
The community benefit requirement for in -fill development originated with Resolution 1993-
62 (Development Policy for In -Fill Projects) and was later incorporated in full into
Resolution 2020-175. The In -Fill Policy contains six requirements that generally address
that new in -fill development should be compatible with surrounding development and
contribute to the overall neighborhood. Requirement No. 5 addresses community benefit and
states, "Approval of an in -fill project shall demonstrate a strong community benefit, and
findings of benefit shall be part of the record." Based on inclusion of in -fill development in
the Community Benefit Policy, the Town has required community benefit for properties that
are within an existing developed neighborhood and are either redeveloped or were vacant.
However, it is important to note that the community benefit contribution is generally based
on the trips that the use would generate rather than the fact that it is considered in -fill
development.
While staff agrees with ensuring that new development or redevelopment is compatible and
contributes to the neighborhood, the imposition of community benefit is rather
counterintuitive to that purpose, since one of the Town's land use goals should be to
complete neighborhoods and avoid unimproved or under improved sections that tend to occur
with vacant or underutilized properties. Under improved or underutilized properties
generally do not provide the necessary infrastructure such as sidewalks, full -width streets,
curbs and gutters, extension of utilities, fire hydrants, etc. Consequently, the Town may not
want to disincentivize the appropriate development or redevelopment of these properties by
imposing additional requirements that would be beyond what a "green field" developer
would be required to provide. Therefore, staff would recommend that the community benefit
requirement imposed on in -fill development be removed. Again, it is important to remember
that in the case of medium to larger in -fill development, community benefit would be
required based on traffic impacts.
Staff, however, recommends that the Town consider additional requirements on Planned
Development (PD) applications, which are often used for in -fill development projects.
Many communities that allow PDs require that the development provide amenities that offset
the advantages that the PD conveys in terms of reduction of various development or
dimensional standards, flexibility in uses, and modification to standards. Many communities
require that PDs provide a higher standard of amenities than projects that are required to
comply with all standards and base zone district requirements, and that the amenities
provided are proportional to the exceptions requested. Attachment 5 provides an example of
a Santa Clara County city's approach to requiring amenities beyond those that are required
through standard conditions of approval, fees, dedications, or easements, and any required
PAGE 8
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: COMMUNITY BENEFIT POLICY
August 18, 2011
mitigation measures for the project. Another Bay Area city that has an amenity program for
PDs requires the following examples of residential and commercial amenities:
Residential:
• Preservation of open space
• Parks, trails, or playgrounds
• Clustering to provide usable open space
• Affordable housing
• Public neighborhood amenities
• Diversification of building types and sizes
• Public features not generally available in the area
Commercial:
• Increased landscaping
• Increased landscaping setback
• Provision of open space
• Pedestrian areas, outdoor benches, fountains
• Extraordinary architecture
• Employee facilities, such as day care, locker rooms
The type of amenities that would be accepted would be consistent with Town priorities and the
General Plan, and, consequently, could change over time consistent with Town goals.
Staff is providing this list and exhibit for illustrative purposes only, and if the Town Council
agrees with the concept, staff would develop the amenities that are consistent with the Town's
development goals. Finally, for clarification purposes, please note that the term PUD referenced
in Attachment 5 is synonymous with PD.
While the imposition of an amenity program is permissible, staff would further recommend
implementing an additional requirement to secure the amenities through written agreements with
the PD applicant. While an amenity program can achieve the objectives of securing the
enhancements, an agreement could provide a greater level of specificity on timing, cost, etc. The
agreement can be a standard format and similar to a housing agreement or operational agreement
that Town requires for other types of projects.
CONCLUSION:
The goal of the Town Council/Planning Commission joint study session is to facilitate a
discussion that clearly articulates Town Council direction on modification or clarifications to the
Town's current Community Benefit Program and its implementation. Based on the analysis
provided in this report, Staff requests the Town Council provide direction regarding any
modification to the existing Community Benefit Program, scheduling further consideration of
new or increased impact fees, and scheduling further discussion of developing a PD Amenity
Program.
PAGE 9
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: COMMUNITY BENEFIT POLICY
August 18, 2011
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution 1991-174 (Traffic Impact Policy), includes Exhibit A
2. Resolution 1993-62 (Development Policy for In -Fill Projects)
3. Resolution 2002-175 (Community Benefit Policy)
4. List of Approved Community Benefit Offerings
5. Example of a PUD Amenity Policy
DISTRIBUTION:
Planning Commission
WR:ah
N:\DEV1TC REPORTS\2011\8 22 TC PC Study Session Community Benefit Report.doo
THIS PAGE
INTENTIONALLY
LEFT BLANK
RESOLUTION 1991-174
RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
CONCERNING THE IIAFFIC IMPACT POLICY
WHEREAS, it is the intention of the Town Council of the Town of Los Gatos to
amend the policy requiring developers whose projects are shown to generate additional
traffic in the Town of Los Gatos to establish the community benefits that would result from
the project and to participate in the cost of constructing capacity enhancing and transit
improvement projects to reduce traffic congestion.
RESOLVED, that the Town Council of the Town of Los Gatos does hereby adopt
the Policy Statement as shown -on the attached Exhibit "A" as the Town of Los Gatos
Triffic Impact Policy.
FURTHER RESOLVED, this Resolution rescinds Resolution No. 1990-147.
PASSED AND ADOFFED by the Town Council of the Town of Los Gatos at a
regular meeting held this 5th day of August :T991, by the following vote:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
AYES: Randy Attaway, Joanne Benjamin, Steven Blanton, Mayor Brent N.
Ventura
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Eric D. Carlson
ABSTAIN: None
SIGNED: /s/ Brent N. Ventura
MAYOR OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA
Al1'EST:
/s/ Marian V. Cosgrove.
CLERK OF .THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA
C9\RISC\TRAFFTC.4
Attachment 1
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
TRAFFIC IMPACT POLICY
A. POLICY STA 1 bMENT
1. The deciding body may approve a project with a minor traffic impact (one or
mare and less than five additional AM or PM peak hour trips) subject to
payment of a traffic mitigation fee
2. The deciding body may approve a project with a traffic impact of five to
nineteen additional A.M. or P.M. peak hour trips only if it is determined that
the benefits of the project to the Town outweigh the impact of increased
traffic and subject to payment of a traffic mitigation fee
3. The deciding body may approve a project with twenty or more additional
A.M. or P.M. peak hour trips only if it is determined that the benefits of the
project to the Town outweigh the impact of increased traffic and subject to:
a. preparation of a comprehensive traffic report.
b. Payment of a traffic mitigation fee
c. Payment of a proportionate share of the cost of the constriction of
circulation improvements in the immediate area.
4. Where benefits to the Town are required to be shown, applicants shall submit
a letter of justification which clearly states housing or economic benefits
and/or specific sections of the General Plan and any applicable Specific Plan
which show that the type of project will benefit the community (See Section
2.5.6 of the General Plan). The burden of proof of community benefit is on
the applicant.
5. In order to determine if a project will generate additional traffic, the Town
will use composite trip generation rates derived from the following sources
and updated from time to time:
• Institute of Transportation Engineers (1IE)
• San Diego Association of Governments (San DAG)
• California Department of Transportation (CalTrans)
• Other Municipalities such as the City of San Jose
TRAFFIC IMPACI POLICY
The specific mitigation measure(s) required would be based on the magnitude of the
project's traffic impact which would also establish the procedure for processing the
project as set forth below.
REVIEW PROCESS
1. Staff will initially determine whether a proposed project generates a net
increase in traffic. If the project does not generate a net increase in traffic,
the traffic policy does not apply. Therefore, the project will be recommended
for approval or denial based on the merits of the project.
2. If there is a net increase in traffic, staff will review the applicant's proposal
and determine if the project will.create minor traffic impacts or major traffic
impacts.
a. Minor traffic,impact is .defined as. one .or more and less than, twenty.._. ..
additional AM or PM peak hour trips.
b._ Major traffic impact is defined as twenty or more additional AM.or PM
peak hour trips. .
c. The determination of whether a project has a minor or major traffic
impact is based on a traffic analysis prepared by the Town Engineering
Department based on standardized trip generation rates.
3. If a project is determined to have a major traffic impact, a traffic report shall
be prepared by a private consultant, hired by the Town at the applicant's
expense. The report will include an analysis of generated trips and any linked
trips. If an applicant does not agree with the results of the Town's traffic
analysis. or the traffic report prepared by the Town's consultant, the applicant
may have an independent traffic report prepared at the applicant's expense.
4. Projects that generate additional traffic of five or more peak hour trips may
only be recommended for approval if the project's benefits to the community
override the traffic impacts as determined by specific sections of the General
Plan and/or any Specific Plan. If a project generates additional traffic of five
C9\MISC\TRAFFIc.4
2
1
TRAFFIC IMPAC I POLICY
or more peak hour trips the burden is on the applicant to cite economic or
housing benefits to the Town and/or specific sections of the General Plan and
any applicable Specific Plan that demonstrate the project's benefit to the
Community which outweighs the traffic impact. The deciding body must make
specific findings which demonstrate that the benefit(s) of the project outweigh
the impact in order to approve the project.
If a project is determined to have a major traffic impact, a traffic report shall
be prepared by a private consultant, hired by. the Town at the applicant's
expense. The report will include an analysis of generated trips and any linked
trips.
C. ivIIIIGATION OF 1'RMFIC IMPAL IS
If a project with a traffic impact is rec mmended for approval by staff and/or
subsequentlyapproved by the Planning Commission and/or Town Council, traffic
mitigation measures shall be imposed. The traffic mitigation shall be in the form
of an in -lieu traffic impact mitigation fee. The mitigation for projects with major
traffic impacts will be the required payment of a traffic impact mitigation fee and
a proportionate share or construction of intersection and/or roadway improvements
within a specified distance from the project.
D. FEES
Based on a traffic analysis required in A above, any project which is found to cause
a net increase in traffic shall pay a traffic impact mitigation fee, as established by
separate resolution.
The traffic impact mitigation fee. and any proportionate share of intersection
improvements shall be due prior to Final Map approval; issuance of a Building
Permit, or occupancy permit as applicable. The traffic impact mitigation fee shall
C9\RISC\TRAFIC.4
3
I
TRAFFIC IMPACT POLICY
be used to construct capacity enhancing projects (i.e., signals, street widening, etc.)
that are listed in the Capital ImprovementProgram and transit improvement projects
that are identified by the Town as a means of reducing traffic congestion.
RIGHT TO DEVELOP NOT GUARAN 1 EED
Compliance with the provisions of the Traffic Impact Policy is not to be construed
to be a right of development. The Town specifically retains the right of review and
approval (or denial) of each project based on its merits.
C2\AISC\TPAFFIC.4
4
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
RESOLUTION 1994-55
RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL •
OF THE TOWN ,OF LOS GATOS
AMENDING TRAFFIC IMPACT MITIGATION FEES AND
RESCINDING RESOLUTIONS 1990-144 AND 1993-134
RESOLVED, the Town Council hereby establishes a traffic impact fee payable
pursuant to. Chapter 37 of the Town 'Code as follows:
A. The fee for residential uses shall be calculated at $600 per Average Daily Trip
(ADT), except that a secondary dwelling unit with a Boor area of six hundred
(600) square feet or less shall be exempt from this fee.
B. The fee for medical office use shall be calculated at $600 per ADT for the
first ten (10) trips and $120 per ADT thereafter.
C. The fee for all other uses shall be calculated at $600 per ADT for the first
ten (10) trips and $60 per ADT thereafter.
The Town Council may exempt housing developments for very low, low and
moderate income residents. (as defined by Town Ordinance, General Plan, or
statute) from all or a portion of the traffic impact mitigation fee upon making
a finding that the development` provides a significant community benefit by
meeting current needs for affordable housing. The exempted fees will be
made up from other sources of revenue. Traffic mitigation fees paid by other
developers will not be used to subsidize the exempted projects. Each year the
Town will identify how .much money is to be allocated in the Capital
Improvement Program for traffic improvement projects. Additional revenue
sources will be identified to cover exempted fees.
E. Walk-in, impulse businesses, such as juice bars, yogurt shops and donut shops,
which do not serve meals, shall be considered Specialty Retail for purposes =
of traffic impacts only.
N:\Dev\Trish \Traffic.Rso
F. Traffic credit may be granted for an existing or former use. When applicable,
existing or former use traffic (ADT) shall be subtracted from the project
traffic prior to calculating the fee. The first ten trips of the difference will
be charged at the higher $600 per trip rate.
G. ADT is defined as the number of average daily trips associated with an
identified land use as determined or derived from the most recent edition of.
Trio Generation by the Institute of Transportation Engineers or a Town
sponsored traffic study - whichever is less. The Town approved traffic study
will be paid for by the applicant.
FURTHER RESOLVED, this Resolution .rescinds Resolution No.• 1990-144 and
Resolution No. 1993-134.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meetingof the Town Council of the Town
of Los Gatos, California, held on the 4«' day of April, 1994, by the following vote.
TOWN COUNCIL MEMBERS:
AYES: Joanne Benjamin, Steven Blanton, Linda Lubeck, Patrick O'Laughlin, and
Mayor Randy Attaway.
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
AESTAEN: None
SIGNED: /s/ Randy Attaway
MAYOR OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
A I'I EST:
/s/ Marian V. Cosgrove
CLERK OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
N: \ D ev\Trish \ T r arf i c. Rs o
7
RESOLUTION 1993-62
RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL
• OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
ADOPTING A DEVELOPMENT POLICY FOR IN -FILL PROJEC:IS
WHEREAS, the Town is primarily built out and the balance of undeveloped land
consists predominantly of in -fill parcels; and
WHEREAS, it is important that these in -fill parcels are development compatible with
surrounding neighborhoods.
RESOLVED: the Town Council hereby adopts 'a development policy for in -fill
projects attached to this resolution as Exhibit A.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council held on the
3rd day of May, 1993, by the following vote:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
AYES: Randy Attaway, Steven Blanton, Linda Lubeck, Patrick O'Laughlin,
Mayor Joanne Benjamin
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
SIGNED: /s/ Joanne Benjamin
MAYOR OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA
Al JEST:
/s/ Marian V. Cosgrove
• CLERK OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA
C3I\11E505\1N-FILL
Attachment 2
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
Al
DEVELOPMENT POLICY FOR IN -FILL PROJECTS
1. In -fill projects should contribute to the further development of the surrounding
neighborhood (Le. improve circulation, contribute to or provide neighborhood unity,
eliminate a blighted area, not detract from the existing quality of life),
An in -fill project should be designed in context with the neighborhood and
surrounding zoning with respect to the existing scale and character of surrounding
structures, provide comparable lot sizes and open space, consider garage
placement, setbacks, density, provide adequate circulation and on -street parking.
In -fill development should blend rather than compete with the established character
of the area.
3. Corridor lots may be considered if it decreases the amount of public street and is
cbnsistent with objects #1 and #2. It must be demonstrated that a benefit to
surrounding properties is being provided.
4. The Planned Development process should only be used to accomplish objects #1
and #2. The applicant shall demonstrate the benefit of a Planned Development
through excellence in design.
5. Approval of an in -fill project shall demonstrate a strong community benefit and
findings of benefit shall be part of the record.
6. Recommend that any new development proposal be reviewed by the Conceptual
Development Advisory Committee.
C32\MISC\IH-FILL
EXHIBIT
EXHIBIT A
OF ATTACHMENT 2
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
RESOLUTION 2002 -175
RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL
OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
ADOPTING THE TOWN'S COMMUNITY BENEFIT POLICY
WHEREAS, that the Town of Los Gatos Town Council has determined that a written policy
clarifying the requirement for a community benefit offering is necessary (General Plan Implementing
Section L.I.1.8); and
WHEREAS, the Town of Los Gatos does not currently have a written policy clarifying the
Town Resolution 1991-174 and Resolution 1993-62, requirements for a community benefit offering,
and
WHEREAS, the Resolution 1991-174 (Traffic Impact Policy) and Resolution 1993-62
(Development Policy for Infill Projects) require a community benefit offering for certain projects;
and
WHEREAS, adoption of such policies will help provide clear direction to developers
processing development applications (General Plan Implementing Section L I 1 8); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the draft Community
Benefit Policy on September 25, 2002; and
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: the Town Council of the TOWN OF LOS GATOS
does hereby adopt the Community Benefit Policy attached hereto as Exhibits A.
Attachment 3
PASSED AND ADOP 1'ED at a regular meeting of the Town Council held on the 4`h day
of November 2002, by the following vote:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
. AYES: Steven Blanton, Sandy Decker, Joe Pirzynski,
Mayor Randy Attaway
NAYS: Steve Glickman
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
ATTEST:
v
SIGNED:
CT,FRK OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA
2
MAYOR OF WB TOWN OF ILOS GATOS
LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA
TOWN COUNCIL POLICY
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
Subject: Community Benefit Policy
Page 1 of 3
Enabling Action:
2002- 175
Approved:
Recommended By Planning Commission
on 9/25/02
Effective
Date: November 4, 2002
PURPOSE:
The intent of the Community Benefit Policy is to provide the Town a means to support projects that
are beneficial and desirable to the community, but may have certain negative impacts. These impacts
are generally unavoidable or unintended consequences of new development, such as traffic, that
cannot be entirely avoided through standard conditions of approval. Negative impacts may be
overridden by benefits offered to the Town by an applicant.
A community benefit offering is intended to add to the merits of a project. It is not intended to create
a means for applicants to transform undesirable projects into projects that appear to be desirable due
to their community benefit. Rather, it is intended to provide applicants, who are already proposing
projects that are generally beneficial to the Town, a means of offsetting the negative impacts of these
projects.
A community benefit offering shall be something that otherwise would not have been required by
law or as a condition of approval for a project. A specific community benefit offering cannot be
compelled by the Town. It must be proposed by the applicant in addition to the standard conditions
of approval and any required mitigation measures for a project. Mitigation measures such as fees,
dedications, or easements required by the Town do not qualify as a community benefit.
The following policy shall be used by the deciding body when reviewing any application that: (1)
causes an increase of 5 pealc hour trips per Resolution 1991-174; or (2) is considered an infill project
per Resolution 1993-62.
GENERAL POLICY:
1. The applicant shall propose the community benefit offering, and is responsible for
demonstrating that the community benefit being offered is appropriate to offset a project's
impacts. The applicant shall submit a letter of justification and any other supporting
documentation necessary to clearly outline the proposed community benefit. .
(-\
Subject: Draft Community Benefit Policy
September 25, 2002
Page2 of 3
2. The community benefit shall be offered in addition to the standard mitigation measures
required in the conditions of approval and in excess of any Town's codes and regulations
including California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). However, a specific community
benefit cannot be compelled by the Town.
3. The community benefit offering does not need to correlate directly with the project or with
the project's impacts. The benefit may be off -site or unrelated to the project.
4. The deciding body shall determine whether or not the community benefit being offered
sufficiently outweighs the cumulative impacts caused by the project. Both tangible impacts
(quantitative) and the intangible impacts (non -quantitative) will be considered.
5. The deciding body shall weigh the value of' the proposed community benefit based on the
desirability of the benefit at the time the project is being proposed or based on perceived
future value or need.
b. The Town's values, economy, and character may change over time, therefore a previously
accepted community benefit does not set aprecedence or guarantee that the same community
benefit will be accepted in the future. A previously accepted benefit may be drawn upon as
an example, but might not be accepted as a benefit in the future if the Town determines that
the benefit is no longer necessary, valuable, or desirable. Applicants should refer to the
Town's official needs assessment list or to a list of previously accepted community benefits.
(Please see attached lists)
7. Tax revenue generation resulting from the proposed project cannot be used as the project's
sole community benefit. Tax revenue generation may be used as a community benefit in
addition to another proposed benefit. It may also be used in the context of increasing the
overall value of the project to the Town if it contributes to the Town's long term financial
stability.
SPECThIC POLICY:
The following is a partial list of examples that an applicant may draw upon when seeking to create
community benefit for a project:
• additional BMP units or equally affordable housing units
• improved traffic circulation or reduction of traffic
• street or neighborhood improvements
i • historic preservation or restoration
• public art
• open space, conservation, or scenic easements and other dedications
Subject: Draft Community Benefit Policy
September 25, 2002
Page3 of 3
• bike/walking trails
• mitigation or elimination of an existing problem
• restoration of a riparian habitat or water course
• a demonstrated unique or desirable use for the Town
DEFINITION:
Community Benefit: An offering of benefit to the Town proposed by an applicant, in addition to
the standard mitigation measures required by the Town, that overrides certain negative impacts
resulting from an infill project or a project that generates more than five (5) peak hour trips.
S:1PLN11402.pol.p22.wpd
/"1
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
8/16/2011-3:48 PM
1 Traffic Increase
1 PM Peak
1 9
COCA
CO
rn
N
N
N
N
(O
OJ
V
N
n
0
N
N
N
V
4I
Y.
to
4 I�
Q
N
Or
La
r
0.1
CO
24
l0
1p
36
CO
Tr
3I
O
F N
co
CO
N
N
CO
N
(0
0
OfN
(D
0)
O 0
0
1
—
(0
N
COh
a)N
N
N
0)
(y
01
N
O
Tr
M
CD
co
Community Benefit for Projects with Traffic Impacts
f 615,000.00 for traffic calming _
of landscaped open space
:e landscaping
cap ramps at intersection of Roxbury & Calle Marguerite
BMP unit (rather than pay in -lieu fee)
tonal rental units (4 affordable, 3 for teachers, 1 BMP)
improvments on Farley Rd.
*Dedicate 4 acres to SCVWD
*Dedicate 45 acres as open space reserves
*6,600 linear feet of trails
*Traffic fees for improvements
$25,000.00 for future gateway feature
*Two BMP unit beyond requirement
I*$20,000 to foundation for soccer fields --
$62,000 Landscaping contribution; parkstrip construction; construction of traffic calming measures; additonal $25,000
traffic calming contribution
*Qualitative benefits mentioned
*$5,000 transportation improvements in Chirco neighborhood
*Art display program
$4,202.70 for public benches
$5,000 for traffic calming in Alberto Way area
*6,000 towards general traffic improvement fund _
*low cost vacinations _
$15,000 for pedestrian crossing improvements on N. Santa Cruz Ave
"Qualitative benefits mentioned
Water access from property, and water supply for two years for Town installation of landscaping along Wedgewood Ave.
*Green Building techniques used
*Complete missing sidewalk link to bus stop on Roberts Road near Ohlone Court (57 feet)
*Bus shelter and bench in front of the site
*Sharing parking spaces with Town for special events @ Oak Meadow Park
*Modification to tall concrete wall on adjacent property that obstructs views of drivers (at Oak Meadow Park)
*Paid for $9000 for restoration of airplane at Oak Meadow Park
*Installation and maintainence of a bonsai garden on the site that will be available to the public.
The project itself has benefits (JCC)
The project itself has benefits (Hospital) _
*Removal of nuisances
*Sanitary sewer improvements
*Increase capacity of two fire hydrants
*Traffic control & safety measures
*Storm sewer installation
*$15,000 contribution to Blossom Hill sidewalk project
*Install 75 feet of sidewalk on Roberts.
*24/7 video surveillance of municipal parking lot number six
N
NJ
W
i
a
-0
Q
Placer Oaks
300 Call Margueria
17435 Farley Rd. West
17101 Hicks Rd.
114801 Los Gatos Blvd.
14880-90 Los Gatos Blvd.
14950-60 Terreno de Flores
Lane
115047 Los Gatos Blvd.
15400 Los Gatos Blvd
15466 Los Gatos Blvd.
15575 Los Gatos Blvd.
15780 Los Gatos Blvd.
55 Los Gatos -Saratoga
192 Los Gatos -Saratoga
325E G t S t
os a os- era oga
235 W M St
aln
227 Ain Cart C Awn
.
14595 D
earvlew r.
234 Oak Meadow Dr.
14855 Oka. Rd.
1815 Pollard Rd.
-d
CC
0
z
m
N
N
1Z
117005/17017 Roberts Rd.
15.5 N. Santa Cruz Ave.
oney\Documenls'Copy of CommBenefil.Aug 2011
Attachment 4
8/16I2011--3:48 PM
Traffic Increase
PM Peak
O
1-
N
N
N
N
CD
N
AM Peak
CD
Cr)CV
N
WI
a
N
e7,
O
Community Benefit for Projects with Traffic Impacts
*Qualitative benefits mentioned
*Provides pedestrian pathway from Edelen Ave.
*Northbound right turn lane addition an University Ave/Los Gatos -Saratoga Rd.
*Funds for storm drain improvements
*Tree plantings along Los Gatos Creek Trail
*Gate construction for potential linkage to pedestrian corridor from Miles Ave. to Los Gatos -Saratoga Rd.
*1.43 of 3.71 acres preserved as open space. _
*The merits of the project has benefits in that it will clean up the site, remove Ion standin use violations and the architectu
*LED tree lights or $40,000 for on -site or off -site access or other improvements for the adjacent ublic recreation facilit
*Express shuttle to Light Rail
*3 BMP units beyond requirement
*S9n nnn in imnrnvements fnr I ns Gatos Creek Trail _...—
*Preservation of Water Tower/Tank House
*$52,000 in -lieu fees for BMP housing fund
*Free bicycles for each homeowner
*Free VTA pass for first year
*Historic Farm House restored and converted to BMP
*Creek improvements
l*Storm drain improvements
Address
150 University Ave.
330 University Ave.
404 University Ave.
930 University Ave.
14300 Winchester Blvd
(Sobrato Project)
14561 Winchester Blvd.
(Vasona Project)
110 Monroe Ct.
1130 Nina Ct.
rooneyDocuments\Co
Draft September 15, 2008
Statement of Intent
Properly designed Planned Unit Development projects can benefit the City by allowing efficient land
development and creative project design. To ensure a good design, the Planned Unit Development
(PUD) Combining District Statement of Intent (Zoning Ordinance section 26.10) requires projects
within PUDs to provide a higher standard of amenities than projects outside of PUDs. The Zoning
Ordinance requires these amenities to off -set the flexibility with City standards —including reduced
lot sizes, private streets, and maximized density —that PUDs allow. This policy intends to set
standards to guide site design and the provision of on -site project amenities and off -site community
amenities. All residential projects located in Planned Unit Developments shall provide amenities in
accordance with this policy. Amenities provided must be proportional to exceptions requested.
Development of Residential PUDs
All PUD developments must provide the following three components to receive City approval:
minimum PUD design requirements; on -site project amenities; and community amenities. The City
will evaluate a project's compliance with these components as set forth below.
Component #l: Minimum PUD Design Requirements
All PUD projects must provide an appropriate mix of the following design elements. While an
individual project does not need to incorporate all of these elements, design elements provided must
be proportional to the zoning exceptions requested. Design elements not listed may also be
considered, subject to City approval. The following design elements are not necessarily equal;
therefore, the City will assess the value of the design element proposed based on the number of units
constructed, and the quantity and quality of the proposed design element.
Colored/Stamped concrete (100 square feet per unit minimum)
Decorative or permeable pavers/pavement (100 square feet per unit minimum)
Enhanced landscape (excluding front yard landscaping) or hardscape features/ statues/ murals/
artwork/ fountains
Picnic tables/ barbecue facilities/ Play Areas/ half sport court
Park/ Usable Open Space
Preservation of Mature Trees/Open Space
ATTACHMENT 5
PUD Amenity Policy
2 9/15/08
Component #2: Project Amenities Required
All PUD projects must provide an appropriate mix of the following project amenities. While an
individual project does not need to incorporate all of these amenities, project amenities provided must
be proportional to zoning exceptions requested. Amenities not listed may also be considered, subject
to City approval. The following project amenities are not necessarily equal; therefore, the City will
assess the value of the amenity proposed based on the number of units constructed, and the quantity
and quality of the proposed amenity.
y Special architectural features above and beyond those required by current planning practice
>- Energy -efficient Building Design/Designs that Use or Generate Alternative Energy
(must exceed Title 24 energy requirements by at least 10%)
• Tennis Court/ Full basketball Court/ other full sport court
Clubhouse/ indoor recreational facility
Pool
Affordable homes beyond minimum City requirements (affordable to households with
incomes up to 80% of Santa Clara County Median Income and subject to City resale
restrictions, in accordance with City policy).
• Increased parking (above and beyond the Zoning ordinance requirements). Tandem parking
stalls may be counted if the development already meets minimum parking requirements
without counting the tandem stalls.
D Developers that cannot provide "project amenities" on -site may provide additional off -site
"community amenities." However, developers must exhaust the possibility of placing
amenities on site before utilizing this option. If a developer utilizes this option, he or she will
be required to provide community amenities above and beyond those required below.
Component #3: Community Amenities Required
All PUD projects must provide an appropriate mix of the following community amenities. While an
individual project does not need to incorporate all of these amenities, community amenities provided
must be proportional to exceptions requested. Amenities not listed may also be considered, subject to
City approval. All PUD developers shall enter into a "Community Amenities Performance
Agreement" with the City to ensure implementation of the approved community amenity. The
following community amenities are not necessarily equal; therefore, the City will assess the value of
the amenity proposed based on the number of units constructed, and the quantity and quality of the
proposed amenity.
>- Equipment for City parks adequate to serve the recreational needs of the development (subject
to staff approval)
D Public art projects recommended by the Public Arts Committee
• Capital Improvements consistent with the General Plan and/or City master plans
PUD Amenity Policy
3 9/15/08
Notes
Capital Improvement Benefits consistent with implementation actions of the Parks &
Recreation Master Plan or the Trails Master Plan
D Construction of public benefit improvements identified in the Downtown Gilroy Specific Plan
Construction of capital improvements identified in the Sidewalk Repair Reserve Fund,
Pavement Management -Street Maintenance Fund
D Contribution to Community Block Grant Fund, Public Facilities Fund, Water Development
Fund, Traffic Impact Fund, and/or Sewer Development Fund
Preservation & Dedication of Open Space (may include preservation of agricultural or habitat
land)
Fire, EMS, and/or Police Improvements
D Monetary or in -kind assistance to Gilroy Unified School District to fund educational programs,
augmentation of employee compensation, landscaping costs, or other educational costs
unrelated to development of school facilities
D Any other Community Benefit proposed by the applicant and/or City which is both sufficient
and accepted by the City Council
1. PUD developments that request reduced lot sizes shall provide on -site recreational amenities,
unless the City fmds that provision of the recreational amenities is either: a. Infeasible; b.
Impractical; or c. Unnecessary due to close proximity to City recreational facilities. Close
proximity is defined as within 0.17 miles of a park, measured along public streets.
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank