Staff Report & Attachment 1-4
PREPARED BY: SALLY ZARNOWITZ, AIA, LEED AP
Planning Manager
Reviewed by: Town Manager, Assistant Town Manager, Town Attorney, Community Development
Department Director, and Finance Director
110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● 408-354-6832
www.losgatosca.gov
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: 08/07/2018
ITEM NO: 13
DATE: AUGUST 2, 2018
TO: MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
FROM: LAUREL PREVETTI, TOWN MANAGER
SUBJECT: TOWN CODE AMENDMENT APPLICATION A-18-001. PROJECT LOCATION:
TOWN WIDE. APPLICANT: TOWN OF LOS GATOS.
CONSIDER AMENDMENTS TO ARTICLE VIII, DIVISION 5 OF CHAPTER 29
(ZONING REGULATIONS) OF THE TOWN CODE REGARDING AFFORDABLE
HOUSING OVERLAY ZONES.
RECOMMENDATION:
Introduce an Ordinance (Attachment 3) effecting amendments to Article VIII, Chapter 5 of
Chapter 29 (Zoning Regulations) of the Town Code regarding Affordable Housing Overlay Zones.
BACKGROUND:
On March 5, 2012, the Town Council adopted the 2007 -2014 Housing Element. The State
Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) subsequently certified the Housing
Element on September 20, 2012.
The key implementation program strategy for meeting the Town’s Regional Housing Needs
Allocation (RHNA) in the 2007-2014 Housing Element was Action HOU-2.1. Action HOU-2.1
required amendment of the Town Code to include an Affordable Housing Overlay Zone (AHOZ).
On November 11, 2013, the Town Council adopted Ordinance 2224 which amended the Town
Code to include AHOZ and included five properties that were designated as AH OZ sites. The
five properties were:
• Southbay Development, Knowles Drive east of Winchester Boulevard, APN 424-32-077
PAGE 2 OF 4
SUBJECT: AMENDMENTS TO THE TOWN CODE REGARDING AFFORDABLE HOUSING
OVERLAY ZONES. TOWN CODE AMENDMENT/A-18-001
AUGUST 2, 2018
S:\COUNCIL REPORTS\2018\08-07-18 Commission Interviews and Closed Session\Chapter 29 Amendments\13 Staff Report FINAL.docx
8/2/2018 4:32 PM
BACKGROUND (Continued):
• Los Gatos Lodge, 50 Los Gatos Saratoga Road, APN 529-24-032
• Los Gatos Lodge, 50 Los Gatos Saratoga Road, APN 529-24-001
• Higgins Business Park, 400 Blossom Hill Road, APN 529-16-071
• Los Gatos Oaks Apts., 517 Blossom Hill Road, APN 529-16-042
In the subsequent Housing Element cycle, HCD commented to the Town that the AHOZ Town
Code is too restrictive and that the affordability requirements would become a barrier to
housing production. On May 5, 2015, the Town Council adopted the 2015-2023 Housing
Element with an action item (HOU-2.1) to modify the Town Code relating to AHOZ. HCD
subsequently certified the Housing Element on May 20, 2015.
DISCUSSION:
A. Housing Element
The 2015-2023 Housing Element did not rely as heavily on the AHOZ sites to meet the
Town’s RHNA as the 2007-2014 Housing Element. The 2015-2023 Housing Element
identified other community strategies to meet the Town’s RHNA (Attachment 1, Exhibit 2).
The community strategies did not include four of the five properties that were previously
designated as AHOZ sites. The only AHOZ site to remain in the 2015 -2023 Housing Element
was the Southbay Development site.
The proposed amendments are required to make the Town Code consistent with the
Town’s Housing Element and implement other requirements of Housing Element Action
HOU-2.1.
The proposed amendments (Attachment 3) will:
• Remove the AHOZ overlay from the four properties that are no longer AHOZ sites ;
• Rescind Ordinances 2226, 2227, 2228, and 2229;
• Remove references to the four properties that are no longer AHOZ sites;
• Modify other Town Code language to make it consistent with the removal of the
four properties that are no longer AHOZ sites;
• Replace the required affordable unit provisions by individual income categories with
a minimum 40 percent affordable (defined as 40 percent affordable to households
of low and/or very low income) housing requirement for the Southbay AHOZ site
based on the total number of units in the project as required by Housing Element
Action Hou-2.1; and
PAGE 3 OF 4
SUBJECT: AMENDMENTS TO THE TOWN CODE REGARDING AFFORDABLE HOUSING
OVERLAY ZONES. TOWN CODE AMENDMENT/A-18-001
AUGUST 2, 2018
S:\COUNCIL REPORTS\2018\08-07-18 Commission Interviews and Closed Session\Chapter 29 Amendments\13 Staff Report FINAL.docx
8/2/2018 4:32 PM
DISCUSSION (Continued):
• Modify Section 29.80.515 to clarify that the State Density Bonus is available and
applicable to AHOZ sites as required by Housing Element Action HOU-2.1.
B. Public Outreach
Staff requested public input through the following media and social media resources:
• A half-page public notice in the newspaper;
• A poster posted at the Planning counter at Town Hall;
• On the Town’s website home page, What’s New;
• On the Town’s Facebook page;
• On the Town’s Twitter account;
• On the Town’s Instagram account; and
• On the Town’s NextDoor page.
C. Planning Commission
At the July 11, 2018 Planning Commission hearing, the Commission received the Staff
Report (Attachment 1), discussed the proposed draft Ordinance (see Verbatim Minutes,
Attachment 2), and forwarded a recommendation to the Town Council for approval of the
proposed amendments (Attachment 3).
CONCLUSION:
The draft Ordinance (Attachment 3) details the proposed amendments. The proposed draft
Ordinance amendments are shown in underlined font and all deletions are shown in
strikethrough font.
Staff recommends that the Town Council:
1. Make the finding that there is no possibility that this project will have a significant impact
on the environment; therefore, the project is not subject to the California Environmental
Quality Act [Section 15061(b)(3)] (Attachment 3);
2. Make the required finding that the amendments to the Town Code (Zoning Regulations) are
consistent with the General Plan (Attachment 3); and
PAGE 4 OF 4
SUBJECT: AMENDMENTS TO THE TOWN CODE REGARDING AFFORDABLE HOUSING
OVERLAY ZONES. TOWN CODE AMENDMENT/A-18-001
AUGUST 2, 2018
S:\COUNCIL REPORTS\2018\08-07-18 Commission Interviews and Closed Session\Chapter 29 Amendments\13 Staff Report FINAL.docx
8/2/2018 4:32 PM
CONCLUSION (Continued):
3. Introduce the Ordinance (Attachment 3) of the Town of Los Gatos affecting the
amendments to the Town Code regarding Affordable Housing Overlay Zones (A-18-001), by
title only, with any specific changes identified and agreed upon by a majority of the Town
Council.
ALTERNATIVES:
Alternatively, the Council may:
1. Continue this item to a date certain with specific direction to staff; or
2. Refer the item back to the Planning Commission with specific direction.
CEQA DETERMINATION:
There is no possibility that the project would have a significant impact on the environment;
therefore, the project is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act [Section
15061(b)(3)].
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Public Comments received by 11:00 a.m., Thursday, August 2, 2018 are included below in
Attachment 4.
Attachments received with this Staff Report:
1. July 11, 2018 Planning Commission Staff Report (with Exhibits 1-3)
2. July 11, 2018 Planning Commission Verbatim Minutes
3. Draft Ordinance Amending Town Code Chapter 29
4. Public comments received by 11:00 a.m., August 2, 2018
PREPARED BY: SALLY ZARNOWITZ, AIA, LEED AP
Planning Manager
Reviewed by: Community Development Director
110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● 408-354-6874
www.losgatosca.gov
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING COMMISSION
REPORT
MEETING DATE: 07/11/2018 ITEM NO: 2
DATE: JULY 6, 2018 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: JOEL PAULSON, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR SUBJECT: CONSIDER AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 29 (ZONING REGULATIONS) OF THE TOWN CODE REGARDING AFFORDABLE HOUSING OVERLAY ZONES. TOWN CODE AMENDMENT APPLICATION A-18-001. PROJECT LOCATION:
TOWN WIDE, APPLICANT: TOWN OF LOS GATOS.
RECOMMENDATION:
Forward a recommendation to the Town Council for approval of amendments to Chapter 29
(Zoning Regulations) of the Town Code regarding affordable housing overlay zones.
CEQA:
The project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to the adopted Guidelines for the Implementation
of the California Environmental Quality Act, Section 15061(b)(3), in that it can be seen with
certainty that there is no possibility that the proposed amendments to the Town Code will have
a significant effect on the environment.
FINDINGS:
As required, pursuant to the adopted Guidelines for the Implementation of the California
Environmental Quality Act, this project is Exempt, Section 15061(b)(3); and
That the Town Code amendments are consistent with the General Plan.
BACKGROUND:
On March 5, 2012, the Town Council adopted the 2007-2014 Housing Element. The State
Department of Housing Community Development (HCD) subsequently certified the Housing
Element on September 20, 2012.
ATTACHMENT 1
PAGE 2 OF 4 SUBJECT: CONSIDER AMENDMENTS THE TOWN CODE REGARDING AFFORDABLE HOUSING OVERLAY ZONES. TOWN CODE AMENDMENT/A-18-001 JULY 6, 2018
N:\DEV\PC REPORTS\2018\AHOZ Amendments\AHOZ Amendments 07-11-17Final.docx 7/6/2018 9:33 AM
BACKGROUND (Continued):
The key implementation program strategy for meeting the Town’s Regional Housing Needs
Allocation (RHNA) in the 2007-2014 Housing Element was Action HOU-2.1. Action HOU-2.1
required amendment of the Town Code to include an Affordable Housing Overlay Zone (AHOZ).
On November 11, 2013, the Town Council adopted Ordinance 2224 which amended the Town
Code to include AHOZ and included five properties that were designated as AHOZ sites. The
five properties were:
• Southbay Development, Knowles Drive east of Winchester Boulevard,
APN 424-32-077
• Los Gatos Lodge, 50 Los Gatos Saratoga Road, APN 529-24-032
• Los Gatos Lodge, 50 Los Gatos Saratoga Road, APN 529-24-001
• Higgins Business Park, 400 Blossom Hill Road, APN 529-16-071
• Los Gatos Oaks Apts., 517 Blossom Hill Road, APN 529-16-042
On May 5, 2015, the Town Council adopted the 2015-2023 Housing Element. HCD
subsequently certified the Housing Element on May 20, 2015.
DISCUSSION:
The 2015-2023 Housing Element did not rely as heavily on the AHOZ sites to meet the Town’s
RHNA as the 2007-2014 Housing Element. The 2015-2023 Housing Element identified other
community strategies to meet the Town’s RHNA (Exhibit 2). The community strategies did not
include four of the five properties that were previously designated as AHOZ sites. The only
AHOZ site to remain in the 2015-2023 Housing Element was the Southbay Development site.
The proposed amendments in Exhibit 3 are required to make the Town Code consistent with
the Town’s Housing Element and implement other requirements of Housing Element Action
HOU-2.1.
The proposed amendments (Exhibit 3) will:
• Remove references to the four properties that are no longer AHOZ sites;
• Modify other Town Code language to make it consistent with the removal of the four
properties that are no longer AHOZ sites;
• Replace the required affordable unit provisions by individual income categories with a
minimum 40 percent affordable (defined as 40 percent affordable to households of low
and/or very low income) housing requirement for the Southbay AHOZ site based on the
total number of units in the project as required by Housing Element Action Hou-2.1; and
PAGE 3 OF 4 SUBJECT: CONSIDER AMENDMENTS THE TOWN CODE REGARDING AFFORDABLE HOUSING OVERLAY ZONES. TOWN CODE AMENDMENT/A-18-001 JULY 6, 2018
N:\DEV\PC REPORTS\2018\AHOZ Amendments\AHOZ Amendments 07-11-17Final.docx 7/6/2018 9:33 AM
DISCUSSION (Continued):
• Modify Section 29.80.515 to clarify that the State Density Bonus is available and
applicable to AHOZ sites as required by Housing Element Action Hou-2.1.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
No written comments regarding the proposed amendments have been received.
CONCLUSION:
A. Summary
The proposed amendments are consistent with the General Plan, required to make the
Town Code consistent with the Town’s Housing Element, and implement other
requirements of Action HOU-2.1., as noted above.
B. Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward the draft Town Code
amendments to the Town Council with a recommendation for adoption. The Commission
should also include any comments or recommended changes to the draft Town Code
amendments in taking the following actions:
1. Make the finding that there is no possibility that this project will have a significant
impact on the environment; therefore, the project is not subject to the California
Environmental Quality Act [Section 15061 (b) (3).] (Exhibit 1);
2. Make the required finding that the proposed amendments to the Town Code (Zoning
Regulations) are consistent with the General Plan (Exhibit 1); and
3. Forward a recommendation to the Town Council for approval of the proposed
amendments to the Town Code (Exhibit 2).
C. Alternatives
Alternatively, the Commission can:
1. Forward a recommendation to the Town Council for approval of the proposed
amendments to the Town Code with modifications; or
2. Forward a recommendation to the Town Council for denial of the proposed
amendments to the Town Code; or
3. Continue the matter to a date certain with specific direction.
PAGE 4 OF 4 SUBJECT: CONSIDER AMENDMENTS THE TOWN CODE REGARDING AFFORDABLE HOUSING OVERLAY ZONES. TOWN CODE AMENDMENT/A-18-001 JULY 6, 2018
N:\DEV\PC REPORTS\2018\AHOZ Amendments\AHOZ Amendments 07-11-17Final.docx 7/6/2018 9:33 AM
EXHIBITS:
1. Findings
2. Summary of Community Strategies to Meet RHNA (Table 6-1)
3. Draft amendments to Chapter 29 of the Town Code
EXHIBIT 1
PLANNING COMMISSION – July 11, 2018
REQUIRED FINDINGS FOR:
Town Code Amendment Application A-18-001
Consider amendments to Chapter 29 (Zoning Regulations) of the Town Code regarding
affordable housing overlay zones.
FINDINGS:
Required Findings for CEQA:
• It has been determined that there is no possibility that this project will have a significant
impact on the environment; therefore, the project is not subject to the California
Environmental Quality Act, Section 15061 (b)(3): Review for exemption.
Required Findings for General Plan:
• The proposed amendments to Chapter 29 of the Town Code regarding affordable housing
overlay zones are consistent with the General Plan.
N:\DEV\FINDINGS\2018\AHOZ.DOCX
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
2020 GENERAL PLAN
2015-2023 HOUS I NG ELEMENT : TECHNICAL APPENDIX
HOUSING SITES INVENTORY
TABLE 6-1 SUMMARY OF COMMUNITY STRATEGIES TO MEET RHNA
Veiy Above
Low Low Mod. Mod. Total
RHNA-Total Units Needed 201 112 · 132 174 619 (2015-2023)
Approved Units 0 2 6 49 57
Southbay (AHOZ) 45 9 68 26 148
Second Units under the Town's 0 0 28 0 28 Existing Program
Proposed Enhanced Second Unit
Program: Non-Conforming Lots & 0 27 0 0 27
Hillside Lots
Proposed North 40 Specific Plan 156 84 30 0 270
Vacant Housing Element Sites (based 0 0 0 99 99 on existing zoning): Oka Road Sites
Total Units 201 128 132 174 629
Units Above RHNA 0 +10 0 0 +10
6-2
EXHIBIT 2
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
EXHIBIT 3
Draft Amendments to Chapter 29 – Affordable Housing Overlay Zone
DIVISION 5. - AFFORDABLE HOUSING OVERLAY ZONE
Sec. 29.80.505. - Intent.
The affordable housing overlay zone (AHOZ) ordinance in this division is intended to increase
the supply and the mix of housing types, tenure, and affordability within the Town of Los Gatos.
Through appropriate densities, concessions, and fee deferrals or waivers, the affordable
housing overlay zone encourages the development of housing affordable to all income levels on
fiveone (15) propertyies within the Town that isare deemed to be most appropriate for such
uses. The housing element lists the fiveone (15) propertyies within the Town of Los Gatos as a
key housing opportunityies sites for mixed income affordable housing projects. The designation
of theise sites will assist the Town in meeting its fair share of the regions housing needs
required by the State.
(Ord. No. 2224, § I, 11-18-13)
Sec. 29.80.510. - AHOZ and underlying zoning.
A property that has the AHOZ designation may be developed either in the manner provided
in this division or the manner provided in the underlying zone, but not both; use of the overlay
zone and the underlying zone are mutually exclusive alternatives. Once the land has developed
in the manner provided in the underlying zoning, the property owner shall relinquish the right
to redevelop the land using the AHOZ overlay.
(Ord. No. 2224, § I, 11-18-13)
Sec. 29.80.515. - Applicability of regulations.
(a) This division applies to the fiveone (15) propertyies listed on Table 6-1 of Chapter 6
(Housing Sites Inventory) of the 200715-2314 Housing Element Technical Appendix and as
identified below:
Affordable housing overlay zone (AHOZ) properties:
(1) Southbay Development, Knowles Drive east of Winchester Boulevard, APN 424-32-077
(2) Los Gatos Lodge, 50 Los Gatos Saratoga Road, APN 529-24-032
(3) Los Gatos Lodge, 50 Los Gatos Saratoga Road, APN 529-24-001
(4) Higgins Business Park, 400 Blossom Hill Road, APN 529-16-071
(5) Los Gatos Oaks Apts., 517 Blossom Hill Road, APN 529-16-042
(b) The provisions of this division shall not apply if an applicant requests to use the a state-
mandated density bonus, the Town's Density Bonus Program contained in section 29.10.405, or
General Plan Density Bonus Policy (HOU-1.3). If the applicant submits a development project
application utilizing one (1) of thesethis density bonus programs, the base density on which the
bonus is calculated shall be the density of the existing zoning of the property.
(Ord. No. 2224, § I, 11-18-13)
Sec. 29.80.520. - Qualification.
In order to qualify for the benefits of this overlay zone, residential development projects
shall comply with all of the following:
(a) Include the following minimum percentage of total units in the development with rents
or sales prices that are restricted to the area median income household affordability
levels noted below. The income limits shall be established based on the current year
area median income for Santa Clara County as set by the appropriate State or Federal
government housing agencies.
Required unit affordability levels
Site
Low and/or
Very Low and
Below
Low Moderate and/or Above
Moderate
Above
Moderate
Southbay Development
(APN 424-32-077) 35 40% 20% 25 60% 20%
Los Gatos Lodge
(APN 529-24-032) 35% 20% 25% 20%
Los Gatos Lodge
(APN 529-24-001) 35% 20% 25% 20%
Higgins Business Park
(APN 529-16-071) 35% 15% 30% 20%
Los Gatos Oaks Apt.
(APN 529-16-042) 25% 25% 30% 20%
(b) Based on a recommendation by the Planning Commission after its review of a project,
the Town Council may approve a modification to the affordability ratios in subsection (a)
if the applicant can demonstrate with actual project specific pro forma, financial and
local market data, that a specific ratio is not financially feasible. The Town Council may
only approve a modification to a ratio if the overall Regional Housing Needs Allocation
(RHNA) unit production for an individual income category (e.g. very low, low and
moderate income) has been achieved by the Town during the applicable housing
element period.
(c) Ensure that affordable units are deed-restricted for a period of not less than fifty-five
(55) years, or for the longest feasible time. An affordable housing agreement shall be
executed prior to recording any final map for the underlying property or prior to the
issuance of any building permit for the housing development, whichever comes first,
unless the Community Development Director approves an alternative phasing plan, at
which time the affordable housing agreement shall be executed no later than the
issuance of the certificate for the fifty-first percent of the market rate units. The
affordable housing agreement shall be binding on all future owners and successors of
interests of the housing development.
(Ord. No. 2224, § I, 11-18-13)
Sec. 29.80.525. - Permitted uses in the AHOZ.
(a) Multifamily dwellings;
(b) Two-family dwellings;
(c) Single-family dwellings.
(Ord. No. 2224, § I, 11-18-13)
Sec. 29.80.530. - Conditional uses permitted.
No conditional use permit shall be required for a housing development that meets the intent
and regulations contained in this division.
(Ord. No. 2224, § I, 11-18-13)
Sec. 29.80.535. - Application.
Residential developments using the AHOZ standards shall be required to submit applications
for architecture and site review. The application shall be subject to review by the Planning
Commission with a recommendation to Town Council and the review by Town Council shall be
final.
(Ord. No. 2224, § I, 11-18-13)
Sec. 29.80.540. - Affordable housing overlay zones general development standards.
Proposed development within the affordable housing overlay zones shall be designed and
constructed in conformity with the development standards in Table 1A (Overlay Zones
Development Standards) and Table 1B (Overlay Zones Development Setbacks).
Table 1A (Overlay Zones Development Standards)
Site
Maximum
Lot
Coverage
Maximum
Height Limit (ft) 1
Density
Units Per
Acre
Parking Ratio 2
Southbay
Development
(APN 424-32-077) 40%
30 feet w/
separate
garage;
35 feet w/
integrated garage
20
0—1 bedroom: 1 space
2—3 bedrooms: 2
spaces
4+ bedrooms: 2.5
spaces
Los Gatos Lodge
(APN 529-24-032) 40%
30 feet w/
separate
garage;
20
0—1 bedroom: 1 space
2—3 bedrooms: 2
spaces
35 feet w/
integrated garage
4+ bedrooms: 2.5
spaces
Los Gatos Lodge
(APN 529-24-001)
40%
30 feet w/
separate
garage;
35 feet w/
integrated garage
20
0—1 bedroom: 1 space
2—3 bedrooms: 2
spaces
4+ bedrooms: 2.5
spaces
Higgins Business Park
(APN 529-16-071)
40%
30 feet w/
separate
garage;
35 feet w/
integrated garage
20
0—1 bedroom: 1 space
2—3 bedrooms: 2
spaces
4+ bedrooms: 2.5
spaces
Los Gatos Oaks Apt.
(APN 529-16-042)
40%
30 feet w/
separate
garage;
35 feet w/
integrated garage
20
0—1 bedroom: 1 space
2—3 bedrooms: 2
spaces
4+ bedrooms: 2.5
spaces
1. Building height is increased to 35 feet for residential products that integrate the garage
on the first floor, underground or is constructed on a parking podium. Additional height
increase may be granted through the architecture and site review process.
2. Tandem parking is permitted.
Table 1B (Overlay Zones Development Setbacks)
Site Required Setbacks
Southbay Development
(APN 424-32-077)
25 ft. from Knowles Avenue property line;
40 ft. from Los Gatos Creek property line;
25 ft. from Southwest Property Line;
West and internal setbacks to be determined by architecture and site
review process
Los Gatos Lodge (APN
529-24-032)
25 ft. setback from Los Gatos-Saratoga Road property line;
20 ft. setback from Los Gatos High School property line;
East property line setback adjacent to Bella Vista Avenue maintained
at 360 ft. topographic contour line or 15 ft. whichever is greater;
20 ft. side and shared property line setbacks unless combined with
adjoining lodge parking lot parcel;
Internal setbacks to be determined by architecture and site review
process
Los Gatos Lodge (APN
529-24-001)
25 ft. setback from Los Gatos-Saratoga Road property line;
20 ft. setback from Los Gatos High School property line;
East property line setback adjacent to Bella Vista Avenue maintained
at 360 ft. topographic contour line or 15 ft. whichever is greater;
20 ft. side and shared property line setbacks unless combined with
adjoining lodge main complex parcel; internal setbacks to be
determined by architecture and site review process
Higgins Business Park
(APN 529-16-071)
15 ft. side and shared property line setback adjacent to Oak Rim site
(unless combined with adjacent parcel);
10 ft. setback from Highway 17 property line;
East property line setback to be based on future geologist's report.
East property line setbacks and internal setbacks to be determined by
architecture and site review process
Los Gatos Oaks Apt.
(APN 529-16-042)
15 ft. side and shared property line setback adjacent to Higgins site
(unless combined with adjacent parcel);
10 ft. setback from Highway 17 property line;
25 ft. front setback on Blossom Hill Road;
Internal slope setbacks based on future geologist's report;
Internal setbacks determined by architecture and site review process
(Ord. No. 2224, § I, 11-18-13)
Sec. 29.80.545. - Affordable housing overlay zones development incentives.
(a) Concessions and incentives. Applications meeting the intent of the AHOZ will be
automatically granted four (4) concessions at the applicant's sole discretion. The concessions
are reductions in the development standards specified in this section, and processing fee
waivers. The following development incentives are available to qualifying residential
developments within an AHOZ:
(1) Parking standards. Parking standards may be reduced if a parking reduction is requested
as one (1) of the four (4) concessions. Parking may be reduced as follows:
a. Reduction to one (1) space per unit for units reserved for seniors or persons with
disabilities.
b. Reduction to one (1) space per unit for developments within one-quarter (¼) mile to
the proposed Vasona Light Rail Station.
(2) Property setbacks. Any two (2) property setbacks may be reduced by up to fifty (50)
percent if an applicant selects the setback reduction as one (1) of the four (4)
concessions. The two (2) setback reductions are considered one (1) concession.
(3) Lot coverage. The lot coverage may be increased up to fifty (50) percent if the applicant
selects the lot coverage increase as one (1) of the four (4) concessions.
(4) Processing fees. The Town shall waive or defer planning, engineering, and building
processing fees, except those that are paid directly to Town consultants or for technical
studies.
The developer can select one (1) of the following types of fees to be waived as one (1) of
the four (4) available concessions:
a. Planning and engineering application fees (but not Town consultant fees).
b. Building plan check and inspection fees.
c. Construction mitigation fee.
The fees selected shall be waived if the applicant selects a fee waiver as one (1) of the
four (4) automatically granted concessions.
If the developer selects a deferral of all fees noted above rather than a waiver, the fees
shall be deferred to the time of issuance of the certificate of occupancy for each unit.
(5) Priority processing. The Town shall give qualifying projects the highest processing
priority for planning entitlements, building plan check and building inspection.
(Ord. No. 2224, § I, 11-18-13)
Sec. 29.80.550. - Architecture and site review process.
(a) Affordable housing overlay zone design guidelines. All projects shall comply with the
adopted affordable housing overlay zone design guidelines in effect at the time of entitlement
approval.
(b) Architecture and site approval. All projects shall require an architecture and site
application approval. The Planning Commission shall review each project and make a
recommendation to the Town Council. The Town Council is the final decision making authority
for AHOZ applications. The Town Council shall adopt a resolution that documents the
architecture and site application decision.
(1) Architectural design. Affordable units within a mixed affordable/market rate
development may be allowed to vary in interior and exterior design and square footage
from market rate units as long as the project remains architecturally harmonious as
determined by the approval body. Attached units, smaller (in square footage) units and
other design variations from market rate units may be permitted within reason to
reduce costs of providing affordable units subject to the required architecture and site
approval process.
(c) Environmental review. All projects shall be subject to the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act.
(d) Findings. In order to qualify for a height increase over the maximum stated in Table 1A,
the Planning Commission shall make a recommendation and the Town Council shall find that:
(1) The building massing and dimensional ratios of proposed building components create a
harmonious visual balance and contribute to the architectural character of the project
or its surroundings.
(2) The height increase is necessary to achieve excellence in architectural design and cannot
be accommodated through alternative means such as reducing overall floor to ceiling
heights.
(e) Timing of affordable unit construction. Affordable units must be constructed
concurrently with market-rate units. The affordable units shall be integrated into the market
rate component of the plan to the greatest extent feasible. If complete integration cannot be
achieved, the applicant shall provide justification for not meeting the intent of this section and
why such integration is not feasible. The applicant shall submit a plan of the affordable and
market rate unit distribution in the development to the Town. The Planning Commission shall
review and make a recommendation on the affordable and market rate unit distribution plan
and the Town Council shall review the final plan for approval.
(Ord. No. 2224, § I, 11-18-13)
N:\DEV\PC REPORTS\2018\AHOZ Amendments\Exhibit 3_Draft AHOZ Amendments.doc
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/13/2018
Item #2, 223 Massol Avenue
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A P P E A R A N C E S:
Los Gatos Planning
Commissioners:
D. Michael Kane, Chair
Matthew Hudes, Vice Chair
Mary Badame
Kendra Burch
Melanie Hanssen
Kathryn Janoff
Tom O'Donnell
Town Manager:Laurel Prevetti
Community Development
Director:
Joel Paulson
Town Attorney:Robert Schultz
Transcribed by: Vicki L. Blandin
(619) 541-3405
ATTACHMENT 2
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/13/2018
Item #2, 223 Massol Avenue
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
P R O C E E D I N G S:
CHAIR KANE: I move to the Public Hearings
portion of our agenda and consider Item 2 on tonight’s
agenda, which is 223 Massol Avenue. This concerns Minor
Residential Development in an Historic District
Applications, there are two, HS-18-018 and HS-18-031.
We are to consider an appeal of an Historic
Preservation Committee decision approving a request for
exterior alterations on a non-contributing, single-family
residence, HS-18-018; and an appeal of an Historic
Preservation Committee decision approving a request for an
addition to a residential accessory structure less than 450
square feet, which is visible from the street; this is HS-
18-031, on property located in the Almond Grove. It’s the
Historic District and it’s zoned R1-D:LHP, it is APN 510-
16-020. The property owner and Applicant is Vladimir
Kanevsky, and the Appellant is Tyler Atkinson.
May I have a show of hands from the commissioners
who have visited the property under consideration? Are
there any disclosures by any commissioners? Vice Chair
Hudes.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/13/2018
Item #2, 223 Massol Avenue
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
VICE CHAIR HUDES: Serving on the HPC after
consideration of the item was closed at the last meeting I
had a conversation with the architect before knowing this
matter would come before here. I did not discuss the
project, I simply provided some information about process
and referred the architect to Staff for questions, so I had
no consequential conversation.
CHAIR KANE: I appreciate the disclosure. Is
there any difficulty with tonight’s proceeding for you?
VICE CHAIR HUDES: No.
CHAIR KANE: Okay. Any other disclosures? I seek
a Staff Report. Mr. Mullin.
SEAN MULLIN: Thank you, Chair Kane.
Before you tonight is an appeal of an HPC
decision approving exterior alterations and an addition to
a residence, and an appeal of an HPC decision approving an
addition to an accessory structure located at 223 Massol
Avenue in the Almond Grove Historic District.
The subject property is located on the west side
of Massol Avenue and is developed with a two-story, single-
family residence with an attic and a detached nonconforming
garage.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/13/2018
Item #2, 223 Massol Avenue
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The Applicant proposes two projects: one for the
residence and one for the garage. Both applications were
approved by the Historic Preservation Committee.
The proposal for the residence includes exterior
modifications and a 99 square foot addition to the existing
residence located in the attic area. The proposal includes
a modified roof pitch, changes to window and door
locations, and additional massing.
The proposal for the detached garage includes a
350 square foot addition at the east and north elevations.
The existing nonconforming garage partially extends over
the property line to the south and the proposed additions
would be located on the subject property along the property
line.
A new exterior stairway and awning would provide
access to the residence, and a new deck would be located
above the garage. On April 25, 2018 the HPC approved the
applications with conditions requiring minor design
revisions. The Applicant has incorporated these revisions
into the plans before you tonight.
An appeal of these decisions was filed on May 7,
2018 on behalf of the property owners at 216 Glen Ridge
Avenue, located directly south of the subject property. The
Appellant included six points in their reasoning for the
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/13/2018
Item #2, 223 Massol Avenue
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
appeal, and Staff has included a detailed discussion on
each point on pages 8-11 of your Staff Report.
A Desk Item has been distributed to the
Commission, which includes photos taken by the Applicant of
the installed story poles from several locations near the
subject property.
Based on the analysis provided in the Staff
Report Staff recommends denial of the appeal, upholding the
decisions of the Historic Preservation Committee subject to
the recommended conditions of approval included as Exhibit
3.
This concludes Staff’s presentation and we are
happy to answer any questions.
CHAIR KANE: Thank you, Mr. Mullin. Any questions
for Staff?
Seeing none, I’ll open the public portion of the
public hearing. The way this works when we have an appeal
of the Historic Preservation Committee is that the
Appellant will have ten minutes to present, followed by the
Applicant having ten minutes to present. Then if any
members of the public wish to speak they will have up to
three minutes, followed by the Applicant having five
minutes, and the Appellant concluding remarks, also five
minutes. Who will be speaking for the Appellant?
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/13/2018
Item #2, 223 Massol Avenue
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
TYLER ATKINSON: Good evening, Tyler Atkinson on
behalf of Mr. Jim McManis and Sara Wigh. I understand I
have ten minutes to start; I don’t anticipate I’m going to
need to use all of that time.
Now, the Applicant is asking for you as planning
commissioners to approve construction on my client’s
property. On this basis alone we believe you must deny this
application; you cannot approve this application. We
respectfully disagree with the Staff Report on this point.
I’m not going to repeat the objections we’ve made
in our various letters, I’m not going to spend time on some
of the errors on the face of the report before you, and I’m
not going to address the emotional, and frankly, we believe
misleading, accusations that the Appellant has made against
my clients.
I submit to you that there are two things about
this application that should give you great concern.
Number one, the Applicant is asking you to
approve a project that encroaches on my client’s property.
You need only look at the proposed garage and garage roof
that extends over my client’s property. Staff told us at
the HPC meeting that encroachment is a “civil matter.”
Nothing could be farther from the truth, and adopting this
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/13/2018
Item #2, 223 Massol Avenue
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
view, respectfully, we believe would be abdicating your
roll.
Number two, and perhaps most troubling as far as
this application goes, is a pattern of what we believe is
deceit on the Applicant’s part, starting with the failure
to do what was strongly recommended, and that is community
outreach. We believe the Applicant has falsely claimed that
he tried to reach out to his neighbors about this
development, and neighbors appeared at the HPC who said
they had never heard from him.
In addition, the Applicant’s unapproved balcony,
which was only removed after it was brought to the
attention of the Town. The Applicant has accused my clients
of delaying this project. If the delay was caused by my
clients pointing out the unapproved balcony, so be it.
The angry and misleading emails that are now
exhibits before you, we believe this blaming of others is
for the Applicant’s own shortcomings.
We believe the Applicant has been working on his
property without a permit. He attempted to shroud what was
going on on his property by constructing a fence on another
neighbor’s lawn. The Applicant has made what we believe are
evasive responses to the Town. The Applicant has expressed
indifference about the encroachments on my client’s
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/13/2018
Item #2, 223 Massol Avenue
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
property, and the Applicant has refused to allow us to
inspect the property ourselves to verify the promises about
these various things.
In conclusion, we request the Commission deny the
garage application outright. Further, the Commission should
continue this resident’s application to a date certain with
specific direction that the Town’s Building Department
inspect the project to determine if there has been any
construction that was not authorized by the Foundation
Permit. Thank you.
CHAIR KANE: Thank you. Any questions for the
speaker? Seeing none, I’ll call up the Applicant. Who will
be speaking for the Applicant? And I will need a speaker
card, please. Okay, thank you. State your name and address
for the record, and you will have ten minutes.
VLADIMIR KANEVSKY: I’m Vladimir Kanevsky. I
currently reside in my house in Menlo Park while we’re
building this home; obviously not living in the 223 Massol
Avenue house. My address is 20 Sharon Court, Menlo Park,
California 94025.
So, obviously, thank you for making the time.
This has been a long time coming, I guess. I’m anxious to
get this project going and finished.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/13/2018
Item #2, 223 Massol Avenue
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
To address a couple of points here, we started
this project back… We bought the house last June. We’ve
gone through at least four meetings with the Historic
Preservation Committee to make sure that we’re building a
house that conforms to all their neighborhood codes and the
Building Code. Met with Sean and the team many, many times
to make sure that the original plan that we had that was
submitted back in February conforms.
As we submitted those plans Sean let us know that
hey, there’s a neighbor that probably is going to complain,
is not happy, he’s always inquiring about the property. I
knocked on all the doors and, frankly, met most of the
neighbors, and I knocked on Jim and Sara’s door many times
during the day when I’m there and I’m working on the house.
Frankly, nobody was home to answer the door. Nevertheless,
I actually instructed Sean, “Hey, whoever it is
complaining, give them my number and email and let them
call me,” because at that time Sean couldn’t tell me who
the complainer was, and I said, “Hey, it doesn’t matter.
Just give them my number and I’ll be happy to talk to them.
I’ve talked to everyone else; everybody is fine.”
I didn’t hear anything, and by chance I actually
saw Sara. I was down there all the time, obviously, or I
was there, and I saw Sara on the street. I didn’t know who
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/13/2018
Item #2, 223 Massol Avenue
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
she was. I just said, “Hello. Hey, I’m building this house.
This is my house. Nice to meet you,” kind of thing. She was
walking out of the house that’s next door to our neighbor;
I guess they bought the house on the Massol so nobody
builds in front of them either. But she was walking out of
that house; I thought she lived there.
In any case, she was like, “Okay, I guess you
know that we’re the ones complaining.” I said, “No, I
didn’t know, but it’s good to meet you. Let’s work it out.
What’s the complaint?” etcetera, etcetera, and she said,
“Well, it’s height, it’s privacy, it’s windows,” it’s this
and that and the other, and I said, “Well, tell me what you
want. I’ll reduce the massing, I’ll get rid of the windows,
I’ll make it smaller, just tell me what it is that you want
us to do.” And at the time it was us standing on the patio.
She’s all, “Well, I don’t think that will be enough.” At
that point it was okay, let’s just… And Jim came home and
he’s sort of, you know, so we left. Nevertheless, I didn’t
receive anything after that, but I said hey…
Oh, during that conversation they said they were
leaving for six weeks, they’re going away and they
unfortunately can’t help and can’t work on the property,
and I sent them an email right away, or at least tried to
encourage them to talk to me before they left, because
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/13/2018
Item #2, 223 Massol Avenue
11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
otherwise it would delay my project even more. Regardless,
I didn’t hear back.
In essence I’ve asked my architect since then to
revise the plans at least three or four times in order to
comply and get them to respond. Hey, does this work? I’ve
removed the windows, I’ve reduced the massing, I’ve lowered
the building, and I have not heard and/or had any
communication with Jim or Sara since that day. I’ve only
had emails either from Tyler, and in any case we did
everything that we thought we could, because we took their
complaint, hey, you know, this is privacy, this is your
life, I’ll do whatever I can, I want to be good neighbors.
I reduced my square footage in the house. I reduced the
original plans, because we have two kids, we have a six-
and a ten-year-old. I did everything I thought was the
right thing to do to make the neighbors happy. We did all
that, and nevertheless, they complained, and the complaints
are sent on the last possible day of every appeal period
without any communication in between.
As demonstrated, frankly, on this last appeal,
and the appeal was made after all the approvals, it was
made based on technicalities and process and none of those
complaints are actually about my house, about the design,
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/13/2018
Item #2, 223 Massol Avenue
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
about the privacy, none of those; it’s either notice or
drawings or whatnot, and none of them were required.
In fact, one of the first things that are on that
list was that we didn’t put any story poles up around the
second sort of approved plan that the HPC had provided. And
the week before the HPC meeting I put them up without
having been told to do so, and even sent a note to Jim and
Sara saying, “Hey, I put these up. Let me know if this
works. I’d love to go into the HPC with you at least
knowing what it is and approving that design.” I didn’t
hear back, obviously, and he had the HPC meeting, the
drawings were approved, I didn’t hear any back and they
appealed anyway, but they gave their reasons based on it’s
either I didn’t give them enough information or they didn’t
have enough notice.
So the first complaint that we received was that
I didn’t go around and tell all the neighbors as
recommended by the Town, and in fact I did, and in fact I
encouraged them to reach out to me. Nobody else complained,
frankly, so there was no other reason to, let’s just say,
create a wider circle or create a wider net, but I did do
everything that I think I was supposed to do
In fact, I took pictures of the latest story
poles—these are the ones that were approved—just to make
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/13/2018
Item #2, 223 Massol Avenue
13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
sure that you understand that I’m thoughtful from every
angle, that you can barely see my house literally from
behind us. This is our house; I zoomed in so people can
actually see the net. And this is the McManis’ house, by
the way, and this is my house. This is the McManis’ house,
which stands about 30’ taller than my house as it will be
finished.
So I just want to demonstrate if there are any
issues on me imposing on the neighborhood and not being
thoughtful of the neighborhood, I want to be very clear
that I’ve listened to every guidance, every suggestion, and
every direction from the Town, from the Building
Department, and the HPC to do this.
And if you can tell, my house is actually about
two’ shorter than my neighbor’s house. That is actually
based about 10’ lower than my house. So altogether, because
it looks like a two-story house, it’s actually on a slope
so the first floor is actually a cellar, and so if you look
from the back you can’t really see because it’s down, but
that’s really what was originally the first floor, and I’m
just trying to make livable space in the attic, because we
have room, I know it’s legal and zoned, and we did
everything to the building codes that allows us to do so.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/13/2018
Item #2, 223 Massol Avenue
14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Anyhow, obviously I’m nervous and I don’t do
this, but I think we’ve addressed and I’ve met all the
neighbors, everybody around us, thanks for coming. That’s
all I have I say. I think Sean put together a pretty
comprehensive report. I don’t think I need to say much more
than what’s in that report, but I’m very anxious to get the
project started.
We delayed taking our kids to Los Gatos School
District by a year already, because we figured this isn’t
going to happen. My wife isn’t here because she starts
crying every time we’re here. We met with HPC the last
couple of times. So it’s been a very stressful process, and
I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s an appeal to whatever
happens today, there will be an appeal, and it will be
posted on the last day possible, and who knows what will
happen.
And you saw my sort of opening paragraph to the
response. I truly hope that there is something that could
be done to prevent other families going through this,
because I think it was only done because they could, right?
Because everything they’re doing is sort of within their
legal grounds, and they’re exploiting every opportunity to
delay us, because they can, not because of anything that we
were doing.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/13/2018
Item #2, 223 Massol Avenue
15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Anyhow, I think that’s it. Thank you.
CHAIR KANE: Thank you, Mr. Kanevsky. Let’s see
if there are any questions? Any questions for the speaker?
No. Thank you very much. Do we have any cards from members
of the public? Seeing none, Mr. Kanevsky, you have five
minutes to rebut anything you heard. There may be questions
from the Commission. Are there?
I have one. The folks at home can’t hear you
unless you use that microphone.
VLADIMIR KANEVSKY: Fair enough to everybody
that’s watching now.
CHAIR KANE: And your architect may need to
assist on this. I’m interested in your letter received by
the Town on March 16, 2018 and it is 11 changes that you
made to the design. And Ms. Payne, we may need you for
this, because my question is of these 11 changes that you
elected to make, how many were required where you were out
of the code and had to do…
VLADIMIR KANEVSKY: None. We did only to appease
the neighbor.
CHAIR KANE: You chose to do these?
VLADIMIR KANEVSKY: We chose to do those.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/13/2018
Item #2, 223 Massol Avenue
16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CHAIR KANE: Okay, thank you. Any other
questions? Thank you very much. Mr. Atkinson, as the
Appellant you have five minutes.
TYLER ATKINSON: Thank you, Mr. Commissioner.
We heard the Applicant talk about that we was
anxious to get this project finished, and we also heard
some accusations about delay on my clients’ part, and it
sounded like on my part as well. This gentleman bought a
house in a historic district that was more than 100 years
old, with all of the problems that that entails, and I
believe the record shows that he tried to jam through these
various changes.
The narrative story of my client ignored him,
that’s simply not the case and I think the record also
reflects that.
And the idea that we wait until the last day to
assert our rights, frankly, I don’t even know how to
respond to that. It’s our right to look at these things
seriously. We’re talking about a house that will be there
for the future, and it’s very important to my client,
obviously.
But aside from that, these appeals to a motion
should not govern your decision. What were called
technicalities by the Applicant, this is the law. Building
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/13/2018
Item #2, 223 Massol Avenue
17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
on another person’s property, you can’t do that. Putting on
a roof that extends into the airspace above a person’s
property, you can’t do that. And the Commission cannot give
a blessing to such behavior.
The Applicant said that nobody else complained.
Well, the HPC members of this body can recall that at least
two neighbors, including Mr. Carlquist, appeared and did
voice complaints, so this isn’t a situation where there are
just two neighbors who have made a problem here.
I have no further comments. Thank you.
CHAIR KANE: Let’s see if there are any questions
from the Commission, Mr. Atkinson, just in case. Questions
for the speaker? I have a couple; I want to make sure I got
something right.
Earlier it was mentioned that the McManis house
was 30’ higher than the subject house.
TYLER ATKINSON: I don’t actually know if that’s
true or not, and ultimately to answer these types of
questions I think we need to be able to look at the
property, and if we’re not going to be allowed to, and if
that’s not something that we have a right to do, and I
understand that that’s not a right that we have, then the
Town needs to do that. So I cannot answer that question
standing here. I would submit to you however that
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/13/2018
Item #2, 223 Massol Avenue
18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ultimately that does not condone the approval of this
application, so that’s our position.
CHAIR KANE: I found it remarkable, because I
visited the site and I walked the property. I didn’t see
that, and I also didn’t see—maybe Staff can help me, or
maybe it hadn’t been constructed yet—a roof that extends
over into the Appellant’s property?
JOEL PAULSON: Staff will answer questions after
you’re done asking questions of the Appellant.
CHAIR KANE: Thank you. So it’s your position
that there’s a roof that comes over into your client’s
property?
TYLER ATKINSON: First of all, the garage
currently encroaches onto my client’s property, and that
is…
CHAIR KANE: I’m aware of that, and I think in
one of your letters it was said that it’s been that way for
50 or 100 years. I’m concerned about a new roof going over
into your client’s property.
TYLER ATKINSON: According to the plans as I read
them, the roof that is anticipated on that garage which has
been on my client’s property, that roof, that would be new
construction over my client’s property, and that roof would
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/13/2018
Item #2, 223 Massol Avenue
19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
extend over my client’s property. That roof did not exist
50 years ago; that’s a new roof.
CHAIR KANE: Okay, thank you. Any questions?
Thank you very much.
TYLER ATKINSON: Thank you.
CHAIR KANE: Hearing no questions, I’m going to
close the public portion of the public hearing and ask if
any Commissioners have questions of Staff, wish to comment
on the appeal, or wish to make a motion. Commissioner
Badame.
COMMISSIONER BADAME: I have two questions for
Staff.
First one, per the Appellant’s testimony, is
there an encroachment on the Appellant’s property with a
roof extension, and if so, is it a civil matter?
SEAN MULLIN: I can answer the first question.
There is an existing condition of a garage crossing over
the property boundary.
The proposed addition, I can call you attention
to Exhibit 17, and specifically Sheets A-3.0 and A-3.1. The
lower drawing on those pages marked East Elevation, on A-
3.0 what you’re looking at are the existing conditions. The
property line is a lightly dashed line just to the right of
the #1 that is circled. So that’s the property line showing
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/13/2018
Item #2, 223 Massol Avenue
20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the existing conditions of the gable-ended structure
crossing over onto the neighboring property. When you look
at Sheet A-3.1, that prop line is just to the right line
labeled #2 with a circle around it, and the roof continues
to encroach, the building continues to encroach. The
addition, which is in the foreground of that elevation
drawing, is built right up to the property line, including
the new roof and the trim detail around the roof section of
that building.
As far as it being a civil matter, I’ll defer
that to the Town Attorney.
ROBERT SCHULTZ: So yes, we consider it a civil
matter in that there could be, there may or may not be,
prescriptive rights from either party, so we don’t usually
get involved in that.
But if you do have concerns, I think you could
easily put in a condition that says there will be no new
construction that crosses over the property lines to do
that to make certain that that’s not happening. But I think
what Sean just said is there is no new construction, and
that was my understanding, there’s no new construction
extending onto the adjacent property; it all is occurring
on the property. But there certainly is currently an
encroachment, but we don’t get involved in determining
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/13/2018
Item #2, 223 Massol Avenue
21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
whether they have rights or do not have rights; that’s a
civil matter.
CHAIR KANE: Commissioner Badame, may I
hitchhike? What you just said, to keep it simple for me, as
I look at the drawings I don’t see any change.
SEAN MULLIN: There would be no increase in the
nonconformity, and without scaling these and asking the
designer for more details it looks like the roof
encroachment—just the roof—is being cut back a bit.
CHAIR KANE: That’s what I’m seeing. And was I
correct when I said there’s something in the package we
received that said it’s been like this for 50 or 100 years?
SEAN MULLIN: That’s what we believe to be the
case; it’s been there for a long time.
CHAIR KANE: I cut you off, Commissioner. I’m
sorry. Commissioner Badame.
COMMISSIONER BADAME: All right, on to my second
question. Exhibit 9 contains a letter from the Applicant
and it questions the legal basis for the appeal. Is there a
legal basis for overturning the decision of the Historic
Preservation Committee?
ROBERT SCHULTZ: There’s nothing in my review of
their letter. Normally when we receive letters, as you’ve
seen when there’s an appellant done, they cite either your
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/13/2018
Item #2, 223 Massol Avenue
22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
General Plan policies that you’re in violation of, your
Residential Guidelines, your Zoning Code that go into where
you disagree or agree with the underlying body.
In this case there’s no cites to any of our
Zoning Codes that are in violation, or General Plan. All
processes were filed correctly. We consider the
encroachment a private matter, and so from a legal
standpoint, no, I don’t believe there’s any legal basis for
denying it, but you heard your testimony and if you feel
that additional conditions, or there’s a reason why the
appeal needs to be granted, then we can certainly work with
the Commission to find those findings.
COMMISSIONER BADAME: Thank you.
CHAIR KANE: Commissioner O’Donnell, you had your
hand up earlier.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: I think the questions
have almost been completely answered, but just to be clear
on this. If I’m looking at the drawings that we’ve
referenced, it had been my understanding, and as you know
I’m on the Historic Preservation Committee, so I’ve heard
virtually all of this before, and it’s helpful to hear it
twice in my case. I knew that there was apparently an
encroachment that you said existed for a long time. The
allegation today, however, and I think at the HPC, was that
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/13/2018
Item #2, 223 Massol Avenue
23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the new construction would further aggravate or would
further encroach upon the property.
Now, when you look at the plans, you can’t really
tell that. It does look like it doesn’t, it does look like
it may be less, so unless somebody went out there and
surveyed it… At least I don't know, and maybe I could turn
this into a question. By looking at the drawings, and
assuming the drawings to be correct, which is another
issue, is it your reading of the drawings that there is no
additional encroachment as a result of the improvement?
SEAN MULLIN: That’s correct.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Okay.
CHAIR KANE: I have a question for you,
Commissioner, because you just brought it up. We have two
members of the Commission who have been on the HPC, and I’m
assuming…the note says this started in December of last
year and there were four meetings. I’m going to go out on a
limb and say I’m stupid, but what’s being asked for that
hasn’t been given? Assuming you’re closer to this than I
am.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: I would just as soon
stay away from saying what they’re asking for. I think I
understand what they’re asking for, but to go on the record
and give you my opinion of what they’re asking for would be
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/13/2018
Item #2, 223 Massol Avenue
24
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
unnecessary and might not be a good answer, so I don’t want
to do that.
CHAIR KANE: That’s legitimate. Commissioner
Hudes, do you have a comment?
VICE CHAIR HUDES: No, I really don’t. I’m
considering this as anew, as an item that’s before the
Planning Commission on appeal, and I don’t have anything
that I would remark on it on in that regard.
CHAIR KANE: Then I’ll turn to Staff. What are
they asking for that hasn’t been given? It seems to me that
letter I referenced earlier, a lot has been given that
wasn’t asked for. Why are we here?
SEAN MULLIN: I think the simple answer to why
we’re here is that somebody filed the timely appeal and the
appeal needs to go through its process and be heard.
CHAIR KANE: What do you say is the basis of the
appeal?
SEAN MULLIN: The six points in the Staff Report,
mostly relative…
CHAIR KANE: Right, I read them and I read your
responses.
SEAN MULLIN: They’re relative to process,
they’re relative to behavior or actions of the Applicant
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/13/2018
Item #2, 223 Massol Avenue
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
and the owner, and they’re relative to the building process
that’s ongoing for the foundation replacement.
CHAIR KANE: But to the Town Attorney, is any of
that… Is it purview?
ROBERT SCHULTZ: As I said, I think their primary
concern tonight was the fact that there’s an encroachment,
and want the project denied completely, not that they’re
asking for any changes, they want the project denied
completely because of the fact that that encroachment
exists.
CHAIR KANE: Other questions? Commissioner
O'Donnell.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: There are a number of
legal issues raised by the Appellant, such as notice and
various other things like that. The Staff has responded to
those, and I for one would adopt the Staff’s response, but
those are indeed different than a potential encroachment of
the new improvement, so in deciding this matter we must not
only decide the facts, but there are legal issues that are
raised, and we have a Staff Report that deals with those
legal issues. If any of us disagree with the Staff on that,
we should say so. I happen to agree with it.
CHAIR KANE: Commissioner Hudes, you had your
hand up.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/13/2018
Item #2, 223 Massol Avenue
26
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
VICE CHAIR HUDES: Yeah, I had a couple of
questions for Staff about process. What are the
requirements for community outreach, neighbor outreach, and
notification for a Minor Residential Development that comes
before the HPC?
SEAN MULLIN: If I may clarify the question, are
you speaking about the application process for a Minor
Residential Development, or a Minor Historic project in a
Historic District?
VICE CHAIR HUDES: No, Minor Residential
Development in a Historic District.
SEAN MULLIN: Thank you, I just want to be sure
to answer the question that you asked. The noticing
requirement is the neighbors that are sharing a property
line and any occupants, so it’s the owners and the
occupants sharing a property line, and then those
properties across the street.
JOEL PAULSON: And I think your question was
public outreach. We always recommend that they do public
outreach, but there’s no absolute requirement that public
outreach be done.
VICE CHAIR HUDES: And with regard to the notice,
was that notice followed for the matter before the HPC?
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/13/2018
Item #2, 223 Massol Avenue
27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
SEAN MULLIN: Yes, the original project followed
the notice, and Notice of Pending Approval per Town Code
was sent out.
VICE CHAIR HUDES: I have another question about
the story poles.
CHAIR KANE: Go ahead.
VICE CHAIR HUDES: What’s the requirement for
story poles for that type of application that comes before
the HPC?
SEAN MULLIN: For the Minor Residential
Development, the original application, story poles are
required for additions to second stories or upper floors;
they were installed and certified.
VICE CHAIR HUDES: Before the Planning Commission
or before the HPC?
SEAN MULLIN: Before the HPC, because a Minor
Residential Development is not heard by the Planning
Commission. Rather, if the director intends to approve the
project we send out a Notice of Pending Approval to those
neighbors that we just referenced, and then there is a ten-
day “objection period,” and if we receive an objection then
we try to work with the parties to work it out, and if it
can’t get worked out then it goes to the Planning
Commission; it never got to that point.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/13/2018
Item #2, 223 Massol Avenue
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
VICE CHAIR HUDES: Right, and were the story
poles installed properly?
SEAN MULLIN: Yes.
CHAIR KANE: I was under the impression that when
they were put up they didn’t have to be put up for some
reason. He chose to put them up.
SEAN MULLIN: After the original project the
Applicant chose to file two applications, which are the
ones you’re hearing tonight. Those are Minor Historic
projects; those do not require story poles and they do not
require neighbor noticing.
CHAIR KANE: All right, thank you. I’m sorry,
Commissioner Hanssen.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: I had two quick questions.
One, there was a statement made by the Appellant about
other neighbors being present at the April Historic
Preservation Committee, and I don’t think we saw the
minutes. I was just curious as to what comments… Do you
recall what comments they had? And then were there any
additional comments by any of those neighbors after the
decision was made?
SEAN MULLIN: The referenced neighbor up on Glen
Ridge, I believe his last name is Carlquist, attended the
meeting. I don’t recall the specifics of his questions. He
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/13/2018
Item #2, 223 Massol Avenue
29
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
did ask about the location of his property along the
property boundary of the Applicant, because there is a
little sliver along I think it’s the east side of Glen
Ridge, a little 5’ sliver of all those properties that are
owned by the folks on the west side of Glen Ridge, so he
asked about that. I think he mentioned some trees on that
strip of property, and mentioned some fencing on that strip
of property. I don’t recall him following up beyond that.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: So there wasn’t any
specific complaint about the actual development proposed by
the Applicant?
SEAN MULLIN: He may… I don’t want to speak out
of turn. I don’t fully recall. He may have discussed height
from his perspective on Glen Ridge, but I don’t recall the
specifics.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: But there was no
additional follow up after that?
SEAN MULLIN: No, no written comment that I’m
aware of.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: Then a related question I
had too that was about the availability of plans, because
there is outreach and showing people plans, but my
understanding is that when applicants submit plans they’re
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/13/2018
Item #2, 223 Massol Avenue
30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
available, and while it’s in the review process it’s
available to the public, is that a correct statement?
SEAN MULLIN: That’s correct. They’re posted on
the Town’s Pending Projects webpage, which is available on
the front page of our website, as well as Staff makes time
for anyone who wants to come in and view the plans and
answer questions and walk them through the plans if they’re
not familiar with how to read plans.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: So there really isn’t any
reason that someone who had an interest and was concerned
about what was being developed could not do that by looking
at the plans and talking with Staff?
SEAN MULLIN: I think we try to make sure that
the plans are available to any interested parties.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: Thank you.
CHAIR KANE: Commissioner Burch.
COMMISSIONER BIRCH: A bit of a comment, and then
a question for Mr. Schultz.
In reviewing all the documentation that we’ve
been provided, as Mr. O'Donnell stated it does feel like
the majority of these items are more procedural than policy
based, and I do agree with Staff that based on what I am
reading in all of this that policies, guidelines, and
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/13/2018
Item #2, 223 Massol Avenue
31
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
procedures that have been set in place by the Town Council
and Staff have been followed.
So then my second comment would be concerning the
easement and I would like to make sure my understanding of
this is clear. There is no new… We’ve already clarified
this already, but it’s not expanding or anything, this is
basically a roof replacement, which would be mostly
considered, I would think, a maintenance issue; roofs need
to be replaced.
So that being said, I want to be very clear how
we would move forward and how this gets framed if we agree
or disagree with Staff, and is this going to be do you want
us to go through all these points that are written in here
and make our statement, or is this just a one motion, one
point, as far as the Town is concerned?
ROBERT SCHULTZ: It’s just a one motion; the
motion is found on page 11, and no, you do not have to go
through point-by-point. I think Commissioner O'Donnell has
already put into the record that he’s reviewed the detailed
description from pages 8-11 that Staff has provided as to
each and every one of those procedural issues that the Town
has followed.
JOEL PAULSON: And then, as the Town Attorney
mentioned before, if you want to add an additional level of
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/13/2018
Item #2, 223 Massol Avenue
32
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
clarification you could add an additional condition that
the addition to the garage cannot cross over the property
line.
COMMISSIONER BIRCH: The existing garage that’s
on the…
JOEL PAULSON: The addition.
COMMISSIONER BIRCH: The addition, sorry, I
didn’t hear that. Were you going to ask a question, Mr.
O'Donnell?
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: I was going to make a
motion.
COMMISSIONER BIRCH: Oh, so was I.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER BIRCH: If everyone is comfortable,
I’m going to go ahead and make a motion. I make a motion to
deny the appeal, upholding the decision of the HPC. I find
the proposed project is categorically exempt pursuant to
the adopted guidelines for the implementation of the
California Environmental Quality Act, Section 15301, New
Existing Facilities, Exhibit 2; and Section 15331, Historic
Resource Restoration and Rehabilitation. I find that the
project complies with the Residential Design Guidelines,
Exhibit 2, and I make the required considerations as
required in Section 29.80.020 of the Town Code for granting
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/13/2018
Item #2, 223 Massol Avenue
33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
an approval of a Minor Development in a Historic
Application, also in Exhibit 2; and approve the Minor
Development in Historic District Applications HS-18-018 and
HS-18-031 with the conditions contained in Exhibit 3, and
development plans attached as Exhibits 16 and 17. I would
also like to add the condition that there is no further
increase in the size of the roof over the garage that
encroaches on the neighbor’s property.
CHAIR KANE: Do we have a second? Commissioner
Badame.
COMMISSIONER BADAME: So moved.
CHAIR KANE: Commissioner O'Donnell.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: I just want to ask a
question on the addition to the motion. We have drawings
which I think purport to show that the new construction
will not further encroach, so the motion says it shall not
encroach, and I guess I’m thinking well how do you do that?
You could do a survey. I’m not sure we want the Applicant
to have to do a survey at this point. That’s why the civil
matter comes up. If it would be the Appellant’s position
that notwithstanding the drawings, which do not show that,
if they believe for some reason that it does then they
could produce a survey or some other credible evidence, but
the way it’s phrased now, if I were the Applicant I don't
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/13/2018
Item #2, 223 Massol Avenue
34
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
know what I would do with that. Secondly, it seems to me it
opens it up to further argument about what they should do
and did they do it, and the other things that I personally
suggest we not do.
CHAIR KANE: I would say to the maker of the
motion what I just heard is would you be interested in
revising your motion to the four points that were given us,
and in deference to Counsel O'Donnell we let the extra
piece go? I want to hear from the maker of the motion.
COMMISSIONER BIRCH: Yes, I do agree with that
and I will remove that part of my motion.
COMMISSIONER BADAME: I agree as well.
CHAIR KANE: All right, Commissioner Hudes.
VICE CHAIR HUDES: Yeah, in that case I would be
prepared to support the motion. I was concerned about
adding conditions for which there is no evidence in the
drawings or in the documents, so I would be comfortable at
this point in supporting the motion.
CHAIR KANE: Other comments? I have a comment;
it’s just going to get me in trouble. I spent the weekend
going over this with a fine tooth comb, and we’re not
attorneys—well, one of us is—but we live in a narrow
corridor of rules and regulations on what we’re supposed to
do, and I couldn’t find any merit to any of this, and it’s
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/13/2018
Item #2, 223 Massol Avenue
35
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
been going on since December, and that just is kind of
outrageous, and that’s as much hot water as I’m going to
get myself in. I will support the motion.
Any other comments? I’m going to call the
question. All those in favor of the motion, say aye.
Opposed? Passes unanimously. Mr. Paulson, are there appeal
rights?
JOEL PAULSON: There are appeal right. Anyone who
is not satisfied with the decision of the Planning
Commission can appeal that decision to the Town Council.
The forms are available in the Clerk’s Office. The appeal
must be filed within ten days, and there is a fee for
filing the appeal.
CHAIR KANE: Thank you.
1
ORDINANCE
ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS RESCINDING
ORDINANCES 2226, 2227,2228, AND 2229, AND AMENDING
ARTICLE VIII, DIVISION 5 OF CHAPTER 29 (ZONING REGULATIONS)
OF THE TOWN CODE
REGARDING AFFORDABLE HOUSING OVERLAY ZONES
WHEREAS, the State of California requires each city and county to update their housing
elements on a regular cycle and plan for meeting their fair share of the RHNA for the State; and
WHEREAS, on March 5, 2012, the Town Council adopted, and on September 20, 2012
the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) certified, the 2007-2014
Housing Element; and
WHEREAS, the key implementation program for meeting the Town’s Regional Housing
Needs Allocation (RHNA) in the 2007-2014 Housing Element was Action HOU-2.1, which
required amendment of the Town Code to include and Affordable Housing Overlay Zone
(AHOZ); and
WHEREAS, on November 18, 2013, the Town Council adopted Ordinance 2224 which
amended the Town Code to include an AHOZ and five properties that were designated as AHOZ
sites, and Ordinances 2225, 2226, 2227, 2228, and 2229 which applied the AHOZ overlay to the
five properties; and
WHEREAS, on May 5, 2015, the Town Council adopted, and on May 20, 2015 HCD
certified, the 2015-2023 Housing Element; and
WHEREAS, the 2015-2023 Housing Element did not rely heavily on the AHOZ sites, but
identified other community strategies to meet the Town’s RHNA, such that the only AHOZ site
ATTACHMENT 3
Draft Ordinance: subject to
modification by Town Council
based on
deliberations and direction
2
to remain in the 2015-2023 Housing Element Action HOU-2.1 was the Southbay Development
site, located on Knowles Drive, East of Winchester Boulevard, APN 424-32-077; and
WHEREAS, on July 11, 2018, the required amendments to Chapter 29 (Zoning
Regulations) of the Town Code were considered by the Planning Commission, and the Planning
Commission forwarded a recommendation for approval to the Town Council; and
WHEREAS, this matter was regularly noticed in conformance with State and Town law
and came before the Town Council for public hearing on August 7, 2018;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS DOES ORDAIN
AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION I
Ordinances 2226, 2227, 2228, and 2229 are hereby rescinded and the AHOZ overlay
designation is removed from the following properties:
1. Los Gatos Lodge, 50 Los Gatos Saratoga Road, APN 529-24-032
2. Los Gatos Lodge, 50 Los Gatos Saratoga Road, APN 529-24-001
3. Higgins Business Park, 400 Blossom Hill Road, APN 529-16-071
4. Los Gatos Oaks Apts., 517 Blossom Hill Road, APN 529-16-042
SECTION II
Chapter 29 of the Town Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
ARTICLE VIII. DIVISION 5 – AFFORDABLE HOUSING OVERLAY ZONE
Sec. 29.80.505. - Intent.
The affordable housing overlay zone (AHOZ) ordinance in this division is intended to increase
the supply and the mix of housing types, tenure, and affordability within the Town of Los Gatos.
Through appropriate densities, concessions, and fee deferrals or waivers, the affordable housing
overlay zone encourages the development of housing affordable to all income levels on fiveone
(15) propertyies within the Town that isare deemed to be most appropriate for such uses. The
housing element lists the fiveone (15) propertyies within the Town of Los Gatos as a key housing
opportunityies sites for mixed income affordable housing projects. The designation of theise sites
will assist the Town in meeting its fair share of the region’s housing needs required by the State.
(Ord. No. 2224, § I, 11-18-13)
3
Sec. 29.80.510. - AHOZ and underlying zoning.
A property that has the AHOZ designation may be developed either in the manner provided in
this division or the manner provided in the underlying zone, but not both; use of the overlay zone
and the underlying zone are mutually exclusive alternatives. Once the land has developed in the
manner provided in the underlying zoning, the property owner shall relinquish the right to
redevelop the land using the AHOZ overlay.
(Ord. No. 2224, § I, 11-18-13)
Sec. 29.80.515. - Applicability of regulations.
(a) This division applies to the fiveone (15) propertyies listed on Table 6-1 of Chapter 6
(Housing Sites Inventory) of the 200715-2314 Housing Element Technical Appendix and as
identified below:
Affordable housing overlay zone (AHOZ) propertyies:
(1) Southbay Development, Knowles Drive east of Winchester Boulevard, APN 424-32-077
(2) Los Gatos Lodge, 50 Los Gatos Saratoga Road, APN 529-24-032
(3) Los Gatos Lodge, 50 Los Gatos Saratoga Road, APN 529-24-001
(4) Higgins Business Park, 400 Blossom Hill Road, APN 529-16-071
(5) Los Gatos Oaks Apts., 517 Blossom Hill Road, APN 529-16-042
(b) The provisions of this division shall not apply if an applicant requests to use the a state-
mandated density bonus, the Town's Density Bonus Program contained in section 29.10.405, or
General Plan Density Bonus Policy (HOU-1.3). If the applicant submits a development project
application utilizing one (1) of thesethis density bonus programs, the base density on which the
bonus is calculated shall be the density of the existing zoning of the property.
(Ord. No. 2224, § I, 11-18-13)
Sec. 29.80.520. - Qualification.
In order to qualify for the benefits of this overlay zone, residential development projects shall
comply with all of the following:
(a) Include the following minimum percentage of total units in the development with rents
or sales prices that are restricted to the area median income household affordability
levels noted below. The income limits shall be established based on the current year area
median income for Santa Clara County as set by the appropriate State or Federal
government housing agencies.
4
Required unit affordability levels
Site
Low and/or
Very Low and
Below
Low Moderate and/or Above
Moderate
Above
Moderate
Southbay Development
(APN 424-32-077) 35 40% 20% 25 60% 20%
Los Gatos Lodge
(APN 529-24-032) 35% 20% 25% 20%
Los Gatos Lodge
(APN 529-24-001) 35% 20% 25% 20%
Higgins Business Park
(APN 529-16-071) 35% 15% 30% 20%
Los Gatos Oaks Apt.
(APN 529-16-042) 25% 25% 30% 20%
(b) Based on a recommendation by the Planning Commission after its review of a project, the
Town Council may approve a modification to the affordability ratios in subsection (a) if
the applicant can demonstrate with actual project specific pro forma, financial and local
market data, that a specific ratio is not financially feasible. The Town Council may only
approve a modification to a ratio if the overall Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA)
unit production for an individual income category (e.g. very low, low and moderate
income) has been achieved by the Town during the applicable housing element period.
(c) Ensure that affordable units are deed-restricted for a period of not less than fifty-five (55)
years, or for the longest feasible time. An affordable housing agreement shall be executed
prior to recording any final map for the underlying property or prior to the issuance of
any building permit for the housing development, whichever comes first, unless the
Community Development Director approves an alternative phasing plan, at which time
the affordable housing agreement shall be executed no later than the issuance of the
certificate for the fifty-first percent of the market rate units. The affordable housing
agreement shall be binding on all future owners and successors of interests of the housing
development.
(Ord. No. 2224, § I, 11-18-13)
Sec. 29.80.525. - Permitted uses in the AHOZ.
(a) Multifamily dwellings;
(b) Two-family dwellings;
(c) Single-family dwellings.
(Ord. No. 2224, § I, 11-18-13)
5
Sec. 29.80.530. - Conditional uses permitted.
No conditional use permit shall be required for a housing development that meets the intent
and regulations contained in this division.
(Ord. No. 2224, § I, 11-18-13)
Sec. 29.80.535. - Application.
Residential developments using the AHOZ standards shall be required to submit applications
for architecture and site review. The application shall be subject to review by the Planning
Commission with a recommendation to Town Council and the review by Town Council shall be
final.
(Ord. No. 2224, § I, 11-18-13)
Sec. 29.80.540. - Affordable housing overlay zones general development standards.
Proposed development within the affordable housing overlay zones shall be designed and
constructed in conformity with the development standards in Table 1A (Overlay Zones
Development Standards) and Table 1B (Overlay Zones Development Setbacks).
Table 1A (Overlay Zones Development Standards)
Site
Maximum
Lot
Coverage
Maximum
Height Limit (ft) 1
Density
Units Per
Acre
Parking Ratio 2
Southbay
Development
(APN 424-32-077) 40%
30 feet w/
separate
garage;
35 feet w/
integrated garage
20
0—1 bedroom: 1 space
2—3 bedrooms: 2
spaces
4+ bedrooms: 2.5
spaces
Los Gatos Lodge
(APN 529-24-032)
40%
30 feet w/
separate
garage;
35 feet w/
integrated garage
20
0—1 bedroom: 1 space
2—3 bedrooms: 2
spaces
4+ bedrooms: 2.5
spaces
Los Gatos Lodge
(APN 529-24-001)
40%
30 feet w/
separate
garage;
35 feet w/
integrated garage
20
0—1 bedroom: 1 space
2—3 bedrooms: 2
spaces
4+ bedrooms: 2.5
spaces
Higgins Business Park
(APN 529-16-071)
40%
30 feet w/
separate
garage;
35 feet w/
integrated garage
20
0—1 bedroom: 1 space
2—3 bedrooms: 2
spaces
4+ bedrooms: 2.5
spaces
6
Los Gatos Oaks Apt.
(APN 529-16-042)
40%
30 feet w/
separate
garage;
35 feet w/
integrated garage
20
0—1 bedroom: 1 space
2—3 bedrooms: 2
spaces
4+ bedrooms: 2.5
spaces
1. Building height is increased to 35 feet for residential products that integrate the garage
on the first floor, underground or is constructed on a parking podium. Additional height
increase may be granted through the architecture and site review process.
2. Tandem parking is permitted.
Table 1B (Overlay Zones Development Setbacks)
Site Required Setbacks
Southbay
Development (APN
424-32-077)
25 ft. from Knowles Avenue property line;
40 ft. from Los Gatos Creek property line;
25 ft. from Southwest Property Line;
West and internal setbacks to be determined by architecture and site
review process
Los Gatos Lodge (APN
529-24-032)
25 ft. setback from Los Gatos-Saratoga Road property line;
20 ft. setback from Los Gatos High School property line;
East property line setback adjacent to Bella Vista Avenue maintained
at 360 ft. topographic contour line or 15 ft. whichever is greater;
20 ft. side and shared property line setbacks unless combined with
adjoining lodge parking lot parcel;
Internal setbacks to be determined by architecture and site review
process
Los Gatos Lodge (APN
529-24-001)
25 ft. setback from Los Gatos-Saratoga Road property line;
20 ft. setback from Los Gatos High School property line;
East property line setback adjacent to Bella Vista Avenue maintained
at 360 ft. topographic contour line or 15 ft. whichever is greater;
20 ft. side and shared property line setbacks unless combined with
adjoining lodge main complex parcel; internal setbacks to be
determined by architecture and site review process
Higgins Business Park
(APN 529-16-071)
15 ft. side and shared property line setback adjacent to Oak Rim site
(unless combined with adjacent parcel);
10 ft. setback from Highway 17 property line;
East property line setback to be based on future geologist's report.
East property line setbacks and internal setbacks to be determined by
architecture and site review process
7
Los Gatos Oaks Apt.
(APN 529-16-042)
15 ft. side and shared property line setback adjacent to Higgins site
(unless combined with adjacent parcel);
10 ft. setback from Highway 17 property line;
25 ft. front setback on Blossom Hill Road;
Internal slope setbacks based on future geologist's report;
Internal setbacks determined by architecture and site review process
(Ord. No. 2224, § I, 11-18-13)
Sec. 29.80.545. - Affordable housing overlay zones development incentives.
(a) Concessions and incentives. Applications meeting the intent of the AHOZ will be
automatically granted four (4) concessions at the applicant's sole discretion. The concessions are
reductions in the development standards specified in this section, and processing fee waiver s.
The following development incentives are available to qualifying residential developments within
an AHOZ:
(1) Parking standards. Parking standards may be reduced if a parking reduction is requested
as one (1) of the four (4) concessions. Parking may b e reduced as follows:
a. Reduction to one (1) space per unit for units reserved for seniors or persons with
disabilities.
b. Reduction to one (1) space per unit for developments within one-quarter (¼) mile to
the proposed Vasona Light Rail Station.
(2) Property setbacks. Any two (2) property setbacks may be reduced by up to fifty (50)
percent if an applicant selects the setback reduction as one (1) of the four (4) concessions.
The two (2) setback reductions are considered one (1) concession.
(3) Lot coverage. The lot coverage may be increased up to fifty (50) percent if the applicant
selects the lot coverage increase as one (1) of the four (4) concessions.
(4) Processing fees. The Town shall waive or defer planning, engineering, and building
processing fees, except those that are paid directly to Town consultants or for technical
studies.
The developer can select one (1) of the following types of fees to be waived as one (1) of
the four (4) available concessions:
a. Planning and engineering application fees (but not Town consultant fees).
b. Building plan check and inspection fees.
c. Construction mitigation fee.
The fees selected shall be waived if the applicant selects a fee waiver as one (1) of the
four (4) automatically granted concessions.
If the developer selects a deferral of all fees noted above rather than a waiver, the fees
shall be deferred to the time of issuance of the certificate of occupancy for each unit.
(5) Priority processing. The Town shall give qualifying projects the highest processing priority
for planning entitlements, building plan check and building inspection.
8
(Ord. No. 2224, § I, 11-18-13)
Sec. 29.80.550. - Architecture and site review process.
(a) Affordable housing overlay zone design guidelines. All projects shall comply with the
adopted affordable housing overlay zone design guidelines in effect at the time of entitlement
approval.
(b) Architecture and site approval. All projects shall require an architecture and site
application approval. The Planning Commission shall review each project and make a
recommendation to the Town Council. The Town Council is the final decisio n making authority
for AHOZ applications. The Town Council shall adopt a resolution that documents the
architecture and site application decision.
(1) Architectural design. Affordable units within a mixed affordable/market rate
development may be allowed to vary in interior and exterior design and square footage
from market rate units as long as the project remains architecturally harmonious as
determined by the approval body. Attached units, smaller (in square footage) units and
other design variations from market rate units may be permitted within reason to reduce
costs of providing affordable units subject to the required architecture and site approval
process.
(c) Environmental review. All projects shall be subject to the requirements of the Californ ia
Environmental Quality Act.
(d) Findings. In order to qualify for a height increase over the maximum stated in Table 1A,
the Planning Commission shall make a recommendation and the Town Council shall find that:
(1) The building massing and dimensional ratios of proposed building components create a
harmonious visual balance and contribute to the architectural character of the project or
its surroundings.
(2) The height increase is necessary to achieve excellence in architectural design and cannot
be accommodated through alternative means such as reducing overall floor to ceiling
heights.
(e) Timing of affordable unit construction. Affordable units must be constructed concurrently
with market-rate units. The affordable units shall be integrated into the market rate component
of the plan to the greatest extent feasible. If complete integration cannot be achieved, the
applicant shall provide justification for not meeting the intent of this section and why such
integration is not feasible. The applicant shall submit a plan of the affordable and market rate
unit distribution in the development to the Town. The Planning Commission shall review and
make a recommendation on the affordable and market rate unit distribution plan and the Town
Council shall review the final plan for approval.
(Ord. No. 2224, § I, 11-18-13)
SECTION III
The Town Council finds as follows:
A. This ordinance is not subject to review under CEQA pursuant to section
15061(b)(3), in that it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the proposed
9
amendment to the Town Code would have significant impact on the environment; and
B. The proposed Town Code amendments are consistent with the General Plan
and its Elements.
SECTION IV
If any provision of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or
circumstance is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions o r applications of
the ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this
end the provisions of this ordinance are severable. This Town Council hereby declares that it
would have adopted this ordinance irrespective of the invalidity of any particular portion
thereof and intends that the invalid portions should be severed and the balance of the
ordinance be enforced.
SECTION V
Except as expressly modified in this Ordinance, all other sections set forth in the Los
Gatos Town Code shall remain unchanged and shall be in full force and effect.
SECTION VI
This Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of
Los Gatos on August 7, 2018 and adopted by the following vote as an ordinance o f the Town of
Los Gatos at a motion of the Town Council on _____________ , and becomes effective 30 days
after it is adopted.
10
In lieu of publication of the full text of the ordinance within fifteen (15) days after its
passage a summary of the ordinance may be published at least five (5) days prior to and fifteen
(15) days after adoption by the Town Council and a certified copy shall be posted in the office
of the Town Clerk, pursuant to GC 36933(c)(1).
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 GATOS, CALIFORNIA
S:\COUNCIL REPORTS\2018\08-07-18 Commission Interviews and Closed Session\Chapter 29 Amendments\Attachment 3 - Draft Ordinance
Amending Town Code Chapter 29.docx
ATTACHMENT 4