Loading...
Item 02 - N40 SP Amendments - Staff Report Exh.5~ EDEN HOUSING SUMMER HI LL HOMES - GROSV ENOR COM MUNITIES Or DISTINCTIO N November 11 , 2016 Mayor Spector, Vice Mayor Sayoc, and General Plan Committee Members c/o Mr. Joel Paulson , Community Development Director Town of Los Gatos Planning Department 110 E. Main St. Los Gatos, California 95031 Dear Mr. Paulson : On September 1, 2016, the Town Council denied the application of Grosvenor, SummerHill and Eden Housing, Inc. (the "Applicants") to develop approximately 20.7 acres ("Phase 1") of the 44-acre North 40 Specific Plan Area with 320 market and senior/affordable residential units and neighborhood-serving retail stores and restaurants (the "Project"). On October 6, 2016, the Applicants commenced proceedings in Santa Clara County requesting the court to direct the Town to comply with the Town's Housing Element, the Housing Accountability Act and State Density Bonus Law and compel the Town to approve the Project based on its consistency with the objective requirements of the existing Specific Plan . Therefore, any subsequent amendment to the Specific Plan will be invalidated and/or superseded to the extent it is in any way inconsistent with the anticipated court ruling, directing the Town to approve the Project based on the objective requirements of the existing Specific Plan. The Town therefore shou ld refrain from consider ing or adopting any amendment to the Specific Plan until the pending litigation regarding the Proj ect is finally resolved. If, however, the Town insists on prematurely pursuing its consideration of the proposed amendments to the Specific Plan, Grosvenor, SummerHill, and Eden Housing submit the following comments: The Town of Los Gatos General Plan Committee is currently discussing potential mod ificat ions to the adopted North 40 Specific Plan. Town representatives have stated that the desire is to modify the Plan withou t triggering the reopening or changing of the existing Ca lifornia Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") approval : the Specific Plan's Environmental Impact Report ("EIR"). In reviewing the Town Council Meeting from September, 2016 and the first General Plan Committee meeting on October 26, 2016, we bel ieve it is prudent to remind the Committee of the specific reasons that certain planning decisions were made during the extensive pub lic Specific Plan approval process. In that effort, we have the following comments for your consideration . 1) Modification of the land uses within the Specific Plan, which is being contemplated by the General Plan Committee, could significantly impact the Traffic Impact Ana lysis ("TIA") completed fo r the Specific Plan EIR and require reopening or changing of the existing CEQA approvals . Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15163, these changes will trigger the need for either a subsequent EIR or a supplemental EIR due to the potential substantial increase in severity of environmental impacts and/or the need f or new or additional m itigations . In particu lar: .ATTACHMENT 1 a . The impacts of an additional ingress and egress driveway for commercial use access between the existing gas station and existing commercial structures on Los Gatos Boulevard was never studied, including the trip distribution that such a change would cause. Figure 26 of the TIA is attached which reflects the ingress and egress locations that the Specific Plan studied. This is attached as Exhibit A. b. The TIA explains that the baseline for establishing all future intersection "grades" or impacts were based on the trip distribution that was assigned based on the existing Specific Plan uses per district, with the majority of the housing (a lower traffic generating land use) to be located in the Lark District and Transition Districts. Please see Exhibit B. Modifying the land uses in the Lark, Transition, and Northern districts changes the very backbone that the TIA is based on, thereby potentially changing impact results of each intersection . Most notably, a decrease of housing and increase in commercial in the Lark and Transition Districts will change the trip distribution and will have a significant impact on the intersection of Highland Oaks Drive and Lark Avenue. Therefore, additional traffic analysis would need to be completed that reflects any proposed land use changes and their resulting impact. 2) In reference to the GPC deliberation on requiring age-restricted (senior) housing, we submitted comment on February 13, 2015 regarding the legality of any mandatory requirement for any amount of senior housing. We have included this letter as Exhibit C . In summary, while senior housing can be incentivized, due to Fair Housing laws, both State and Federal law dictate that it cannot be a mandatory requirement. In brief: "Federal and state statutes forbid the Town from enacting or enforcing land-use laws that operate to make housing "unavailable" based on "familial status.". "Familial status" is generally defined as a household containing a person under 18 years of age residing with a parent or guardian. (Gov't Code § 12955. 2.) In particular: • The federal Fair Housing Act ("FHA'1 (42 U.S. C.§ 3604(a)) forbids actions by cities that operate to make housing "unavailable" based on familial status [and other listed factors]. • The California Fair Employment and Housing Act ("FEHA ") (Gov't Code § 12955(1)) prohibits discrimination through land use practices that make housing opportunities "unavailable" because of familial status. • Planning and Zoning Law (Gov't Code § 65008(a)(1)) invalidates any planning action if it denies the enjoyment of residence to any persons because of familial status, age, [or other factors]. Section 65008(b)(1) forbids cities from prohibiting or discriminating against any residential development because of familial status or age." 3) As noted in our letter dated August 9 , 2016, the Town does not have any legal nexus for requiring any percentage of open space. We have attached extended comments on this issue as Exhibit D, but in summary: 2 Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C ~ GROSV E NOR EDEN HOUSING February 13, 2015 Town of Los Gatos Honorable Mayor Jensen and Council Members Housing Element Advisory Board SUMMERHILL HOMEs · COMMUNIT I~S Or DISTINCT I ON c/o Laurel Prevetti , Assistant Town Manager and Community Development D irector 110 E. Main St. Los Gatos , California 95031 Honorable Mayor Jensen, Council Members, and Housing Element Advisory Board Members: At the February 3rd, 2015 Town Council Meeting, Council sought direction from Staff and the Town Attorney to determine what the legal limitations may be for requiring developers on the North 40 to provide for either an age 55-plus or 62-plus affordable or market rate component through the North 40 Specific Plan . This question has arisen on numerous occasions during the Specific Plan process. For our own clarity, we requested a legal analysis from Goldfarb & Lipman. We have attached their conclusions for your reference. In brief, while senior housing can be incentivized by a Specific Plan, requiring such housing types would violate state and federal fair housing laws .. Although the Town's Specific Plan is still in process, after years of observation and discussion with the Town , we respect that the Specific Plan emphasizes resident ial design towards the Town 's unmet housing needs, including places for senior to live. We embrace the Town's vision in the Specific Plan which allows for the provision of a multi-generational and mixed income neighborhood. We are anxious to continue working with the Town to implement this vision. We appreciate your consideration of the attached letter, and are available for any questions regarding this matter. Sincerely, A. Don Capobres Senior Vice President Grosvenor Attac hment: Fair Housing Issues Memo Linda Mandolini President Eden Housing Wendi Baker Vice President of Development SummerHill Homes 9 0 I d far b 1300 Clo y Stre et , Eleventh f lo or I i p m a n Oakland, Cal ifornia 9 46 12 attorneys 5 1o 83 6 -6 336 M David Kroot February 12 ,2015 Lynn Hu tchi ns Ko re n M . Tiedema nn Thomas H. W ebber Dionne Jac kson Mclean Mic he lle D. Brewer Jenn ife r K. Bell Rober t C. Mills Is abel L. Brown James T. Diamond , Jr. Margaret f . Jung Hea ther J. G ould Jul iet E. Cox William f . DiCamillo Amy DeVoudreuil Barba ro E. Kautz Eri ca Williams Orc hor ton Lu i s A. Rodriguez Xoch itl Ca rrion Rafael Yoq uion Cel io W . Lee Vi ncent L. Brown Hono A . Ha rd y Coraline Nose llo Eri c S. Phillips El iza bet h Kl ue ck Son f ran cisco 4 15 788 -6336 Los Ange les 2 13 62 7-633 6 Son D iego 6 19 23 9 -6 336 Go l d/orb & Lipma n LL P To Don Capobres, Grosvenor Americas Wendi Baker, SummerHill Homes From Barbara E. Kautz Fair Housing Issues Regarding Planning and Families with Children Summary During hearings on the North Forty Specific Plan, public comments have been made opposing the Town of Los Gatos' (the "Town") approval of housing that may attract families with school-age children because of school overcrowding. In particular, proposals have been made that development on the site be limited to senior housing or to other housing that will not accommodate families with school-age children. Both federal and state law prohibit the Town from using its planning and zoning powers to deny residency to , or make housing unavailable to, or discriminate against, families with children. Planning or zoning restrictions that are adopted to discourage families with children from living in the Town , or that prevent families with children from li v ing in the Town , such as zoning sites to permit only senior housing or limiting the number of bedrooms in residences , would deny residency to , make housing unavailable to , and discriminate against families with children. Further, a property owner or manager may not select indiv idual tenants or bu yers on the basis of age unless the housing is des igned as senior housing and the property is operated consistent with federal and state requirements for senior housing . Analysis A. Zoning for Senior Housin g Federal and state statute s forbid the Town from enacti ng or enforcing land-use laws that operate to make housing "unavailable" based on "familial status .". 1 58 8 \03 \1 565758 .4 February 12 , 2015 Page 2 "Familial status" is generally defmed as a household containing a person under 18 years of age residing with a parent or guardian . (Gov't Code§ 12955 .2 .) In particular: • The federal Fair Housing Act ("FHA") (42 U .S.C. § 3604(a)) forbids actions by cities that operate to make housing "unavailable" based on familial status [and other listed factors]. • The California Fair Employment and Housing Act ("FEHA'') (Gov't Code § 12955(/)) prohibits discrimination through land use practices that make housing opportunities "unavailable" because of familial status. • Planning and Zoning Law (Gov't Code § 65008(a)(1)) invalidates any planning action if it denies the enjoyment of residence to any persons because of familial status, age, [or other factors]. Section 65008(b)(l) forbids cities from prohibiting or discriminating against any residential development because of familial status or age. Town zoning and planning actions taken for the purpose of discouraging the construction of housing for families with children would violate these federal and state fair housing laws. Similarly, planning and zoning actions that on their face prevent occupancy of housing by families with children -even if done without the intent to exclude families with children -would violate federal and state fair housing laws . Examples could include allowing only senior housing to be built on designated sites or limiting the number of bedrooms in homes. The Senior Housing Exception. All of the fair housing statutes contain exceptions for senior housing constructed and designed in conformance with Civ. Code §§ 51.2 -51.4 and similar provisions of federal law. These sections allow discrimination based on age and familial status by a "business establishment" if the housing is built and designed to serve seniors. The California Legislature made some of the requirements for senior housing in California more stringent than those imposed by the Fair Housing Act "in recognition of the acute shortage of housing for families with children in California." (Civ. Code§ 51.4(a).) A developer may propose, and the Town may approve, a development proposed by a developer for senior housing but the Town cannot require senior housing to be constructed or designate a site for senior housing when there is no proposal or intent by a "business establishment" to construct such housing. There is no exception to this rule for affordable senior housing. 1 588 \0 3 \1 56575 8 .4 February 12, 2015 Page 3 As discussed further in the next section, senior housing in compliance with these provisions must either require all residents to be 62 years of age or older; or comply with more stringent design standards and require at least one member of each household to be 55 years of age or older. Housing otherwise cannot have age limits or be limited to 'adults only,' and managers and brokers cannot consider age or familial status in selecting tenants and buyers. Zoning for Senior Housing. Local agency efforts to require housing to be built or even maintained for seniors have usually been overturned by the courts. For example: • Despite an exemption in State law to allow Riverside County to maintain long-standing senior housing zones , these were found to violate the Fair Housing Act because the County did not ensure that the housing within these zones actually complied with the statutory requirements. (Gibson v. County of Riverside, 181 F. Supp. 2d 1057 (C.D. CaL 2002).) Note also that the specific exemption in State law for Riverside County's zoning suggests that similar zoning by other cities and counties would violate state fair housing laws. • An ordinance adopted by American Canyon to require a mobilehome park approved as a senior park to maintain its senior status, rather than convert to an all-age park, was found to violate the Fair Housing Act because the park had never, in fact, actually been operated as a senior park in compliance with state and federal law. (Waterhouse v. Town of American Canyon, 2011 U .S . Dist. Lexis 60065 (N.D. CaL 2011).) • A mobilehome park owner who alleged that the City of Fillmore adopted invalid subdivision conditions for the purpose of preventing the park from converting from a senior park to an all-age park was found to have standing to sue the City under the Fair Housing Act. (ElDorado Estates v. City of Fillmore, 765 F.3d 1118 (9th Cir. 2014). One ordinance was upheld . The Town of Yucaipa was found to be in compliance with the Fair Housing Act when it adopted zoning prohibiting existing senior mobilehome parks, which in fact were being operated as senior parks, from converting to all-age parks . (Putnam Family Partnership v. Town of Yucaipa, 673 F.3d 920 (9th Cir. 2012).) The decision was confined to the situation where the parks were already operating as senior housing. The Court specifically declined to determine if its decision would be the same if the housing was not already serving seniors . (/d. at 927 n.3) The decision was also based on federal law alone and did not consider possible violations of State Planning and Zoning law or FEHA. State law does 1 588\03\1 565758.4 February 12,2015 Page4 not have the same language which was relied upon by the Court to uphold Yucaipa 's ordinance. The Court also noted that the federal statute included a policy of "preserving" senior housing and that Yucaipa 's intent appeared to be to preserve existing senior housing "rather than animus against families with children." (!d. at 931.) By contrast, in Los Gatos, there has been extensive public comment, testimony from the School District, and statements by decision-makers indicating that the Town wishes to discourage families with children from residing in the North Forty because of school overcrowding. An early draft of the North Forty Specific Plan stated specifically that, "Residential product types (market rate and affordable) shall be limited to product types that respond to emerging demands of the seniors, empt( nesters, and young adult demographics" -all groups unlikely to have children . If the Town of Los Gatos were to require senior housing on the North Forty or to adopt other Specific Plan provisions to prevent or discourage households with children from moving to the North Forty, the record contains substantial evidence of "animus" against households with children. Incentives for Senior Housing. State and federal laws recognize that there is a need for senior housing and provide funding and incentives to encourage senior housing. For instance, State density bonus law permits all senior housing to receive a 20 percent density bonus whether or not it is affordable. (Gov't Code§ 65915(b)(l)(C), (f)(3).) There does not appear to be a violation of fair housing laws if zoning incentives are provided for senior housing, in recognition of its unique characteristics : lower automobile use, less traffic , smaller household size (rarely more than two persons/household). Other incentives typically provided may be lower parking requirements and reduced traffic impact fees . A recent case recognized that there is a statewide priority to develop senior housing, and, when a developer proposed a senior project, the city's zoning of the site for higher density was not illegal spot zoning. (Foothill Communities Coalition v. County of Orange (2014) 222 Cal. App. 4th 1302.) However, if there is evidence that these incentives were adopted with the intent of excluding housing for families with children, the zoning may be found to be invalid . (Cf Pacific Shores Properties LLC v. City of Newport Beach, 746 F.3d 936 (9 1h Cir. 2014; writ of certiorari denied, 135 S. Ct. 436 (2014)) (holding that facially neutral ordinance invalid where adopted with discriminatory intent). 1 HUD's Fair Hou sing newsletter featured a case filed against the Villa ge of Bronx vill e , N .Y . challenging a Village ordinance that requires developers to demo nstrate th at th e de sign o f residences is intended to appeal primarily to singles and to couples without children-a provision similar to the ori ginal provis ions proposed in the Sp ecific Plan .. (Westchester R esidential Opp orlllnilies In c. v. Village of Bronxville (S.D.N.Y. Case No . 15 CV 002 80) (filed January 15 , 2015 ). 1 588 \03\1565 7 58 .4 February 12 , 2015 Page 5 Conclusion. Los Gatos cannot adopt Specific Plan provisions for the North Forty that exclude or discourage families with children, such as by requiring the development of senior housing or by zoning a portion of the site for senior housing onl y. While the Town can provide incentives for senior housing in view of its unique development characteristics, the incentives could be found to be invalid if they are adopted with the intent to exclude families with children. B. Selection of Buyers and Renters Based on Age The Town has asked if the Specific Plan could require developers to reserve some portion of the residences on the North Forty for seniors . Only housing that qualifies as a senior development under both state and federal law may discriminate based on age and familial status (42 USC § 3607(b)(l)-(3); Civ. Code § 51.2(a)). Developers cannot choose to reserve a portion of the units in a non-senior project for seniors , nor can local government require them to do so Both the federal Fair Housing Act and California's Unruh Act contain standards specifying whether a development qualifies as "housing for older persons" and may discriminate based on age and familial status. Reading the two Acts together, they allow the following types of senior housing : • Housing provided under a state or federal program that HUD recognizes as intended for elderly persons (42 USC § 3607(b)(2)(A)); Civ. Code § 51.2(e)); • Housing with fewer than 35 units occupied solely by persons 62 years of age or older (42 USC§ 3607(b)(2)(B); Civ. Code§ 51.2); and • Housing with 35 units or more either occupied solely by persons 62 years of age or more ; or occupied by households where at least one occupant is 55 years or older (42 USC§ 3607(b)(2)(C); Civ. Code§ 51.2-51.3). All new senior housing must include certain design features and have rules and covenants clearly restricting occupancy consistent with the federal and state occupancy requirements . Further, the policies, procedures , and marketing must demonstrate that the project as a whole is intended for seniors . (54 Fed. Reg. 3255 (Jan. 23 , 1989).) Mixed-income developments are only pos sible if separate buildings are constructed for each income group. If a development is not des igned as senior housing , the owner or manager cannot use age or familial status as a criterion in deciding whether to sell or rent a home . 1588\03\1565758.4 February 12 , 2015 Page6 Conclusion Requiring developers of non-senior housing to reserve a percentage of the units for seniors would violate state and federal housing laws . 1 588\03\1 565758 .4 Exhibit D A EDEN SUMMERHILL HOMES - GROSVENOR HOUSI NG C OMMUNITIES Of DI STINCTION August 9, 2016 Hon . Barbara Spector and Members of the Town Council Town of Los Gatos 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 RE : North Forty Phase 1 ("Project") Architecture and Site Application S-13-090 Vesting Tentative Map Application M-13-014 Special Town Council Meeting August 9, 2016 Dear Mayor Spector, Vice Mayor Sayoc and Members of Los Gatos Town Council : We have reviewed the Staff Report dated August 4, 2016 and wish to respond to certain statements and analyses contained in that Report and expressed by some members of the public in letters attached to the Staff Report . Preliminarily, we note that although the official recommendation on page one of the Staff Report is to deny the Project, the rest of the Staff Report contains no support for denial. Thus we assume that the official recommendation is in line with Town practice that the staff recommendation will be to uphold the Planning Commission's action, but that this recommendation does not reflect staff's professional judgment which in all prior staff reports to has been to approve the Project. The Staff Report (page 14) suggests that the Council can consider whether the "number and distribution of units" are consistent with the Specific Plan and possibly suggest changes. A desire to decrease the number and change the distribution of units is also expressed by some members of the public in letters attached to the Staff Report. We disagree that this is an option . The proposed Project is fully consistent with the objective standards of the Specific Plan, as the Staff Report confirms. There is no other application in front of the Town, so any idea that some units could be redistributed elsewhere in the North Forty Plan Area is pure speculation at this time. The density proposed in our application is based on rights afforded to us by state law. More particularly: 1 i~J 't:-.;"/ GROSVENOR ~ EDE N H OUSI N G SUMMERHILL HOMEs · COM~IU N ITI ES O F D IST I NCT IO N 1. The Density Bonus Law entitles the Project to 320 units. If there is a development standard that precludes the Project from achieving the 320 units, it must be waived by the Town pursuant to the Density Bonus Law . 2. Under the Housing Accountability Act, the Project cannot be denied and the density cannot be reduced unless the Project does not conform to some objective standard; and/or there is a "specific health or safety impact." However, the state Density Bonus Law also provides that the Town must waive any development standard that precludes 320 units. These rights provided by state law are in addition to rights afforded to us by Town policy. More particularly: 1. Under the Town's Housing Element and the Housing Element statute, the approval is "by right" and must achieve development at a minimum of 20 units per acre. 2 . The Town's own North Forty EIR stated that the Project has no impact on parks or open space, and the Town has not adopted a state Quimby Act-compliant subdivision ordinance, so no additional open space can be required to be dedicated to the Town or for public access . Nonetheless, the Project exceeds all the standards for private open space in the Specific Plan and voluntarily offers to allow public access to the vast majority of the open space in the Project. Town of Los Gatos General Plan Not only is the right to build at this density (or higher) afforded to us by State and local law but we believe this density or intensity is what is, in fact, envisioned by Town policy. The Housing Element of the General Plan was adopted following the certification of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the North Forty Specific Plan. The Housing Element was approved by this Town Council on May 5, 2015 . At that time, the minimum density of 20 units per acre to be required on the North Forty was made clear as was the required 'by-right' nature of approvals for housing. 'By-right' is defined as "not requiring a conditional use permit or other discretionary approval; however, design review according to the objective standards contained in the Specific Plan can occur (see Action HOU-2.4)." In addition, the Housing Element states that "it is anticipated that by-right, multiple-family development at a minimum of 20 units to the acre will occur as a single use development as permitted by the zoning." The Project is consistent with this and other applicable policies and actions specified in the General Plan and Housing Element as shown in attached Tables A and B. The Specific Plan reference to "lower intensity residential" in the Lark District is a statement that the planned uses in the Lark District are lower intensity uses than those in the Transition and 2 ~) ~ GROSVENOR ~ EDEN H OUSI N G SUMMERHILL HOMES - COMMUN I TIES Of D ISTINCTION requirement by providing 39 percent open space, of which at least 85 percent is open to the public. A requirement for provision of public access to open space (including on the 30 percent already required by the Specific Plan) cannot be justified unless it is needed to mitigate the impacts of private development. The standard of the Nollan, Dolan, and Ehrlich cases requires that there be an essential nexus to the impacts of the Project, and that the requirement be roughly proportional to those impacts. However, this nexus requirement is not satisfied in the North Forty Specific Plan . There is no impact on public open space due to the passage of the North Forty Specific Plan or the planned development of the Plan Area. The EIR for the Specific Plan identifies no such impact, and the Town has no ordinance consistent with the Quimby Act requiring public open space in new developments, since there is already abundant public open space in the Town, including open space close to the Plan Area. The EIR concluded that there is adequate public open space nearby to serve the Project. Despite this finding, we have designed an open space program that is the centerpiece of a modern agrarian neighborhood . The open space program will feature 2.7 acres devoted to agricultural uses which will produce an estimated 14.5 tons of fruits and vegetables per year. These will be grown in community gardens, commercial gardens and on producing (not ornamental) orchard trees. We also feature eight public parks and plazas that are connected by 25' to 35' wide landscaped paseos, shaded sidewalks and a multi -modal pathway system. These parks include a community park that is comparable in size and scale to Town Plaza Park and two passive use neighborhood parks that are similar in size and scale to other neighborhood parks in Los Gatos. Finally, buoyed by the Town's aspiration for amenities for pedestrians and bicycles and in addition to the multi-modal pathway system, we are voluntarily proposing to connect the North Forty to the Los Gatos Creek Trail via dedicated bicycle lanes on both sides of Lark Avenue. Reduction of Unit Sizes In addition to the desire to reduce or redistribute units in order to create more open space, another common complaint is that the units are too large and should be reduced in size. We would emphasize that there is absolutely no objective standard in the Specific Plan that would support any such reduction. The only specification of unit sizes contained in the Specific Plan is on page 6-14, and the sizes listed there are on average considerably larger than those proposed. In fact, if one takes the maximum residential square footage allowed {700,000 sf) and divides by the 270 baseline {365 density bonus) allowable units, the resulting maximum si ze per unit is 2,592 4 ~ EDEN HOUSI NG SUMMERHILL HOMEs · GROSV E NOR COMMlJN I T I [S OF DISTINCTION square feet (1,917 square feet if density bonus is used) which is approximately 1,199 (524) square feet larger than proposed . Any requirement to reduce unit size would in effect be a denial of this Project, since it would require complete redesign of the buildings and site layout, in violation of the Housing Element "by right" requirement, the Density Bonus Law, and the Housing Accountability Act. In addition, it renders the Project infeasible economically. After the Planning Commission's request to consider smaller unit sizes, we commissioned John Burns Real Estate Consultants to determine the feasibility of this from a marketability perspective. Their consumer analysis summarizes how the reduction of the average market rate for-sale housing square footage by over 33% (from 1567 to 1000 square feet) is not supported by the market. Based on their research, the size of units proposed is far smaller than the existing newer multi-family for-sale housing stock in the Town . The report states : "Of newer town homes in Los Gatos, the median unit size is over 1,900 SF, including three bedrooms and 2 Yz bathrooms. When assessing only townhomes built in the last 10 years, the median unit size is even larger, at +/-2,100 SF. At a weighted average size of 1,561 SF, the current product array at the Subject Property is substantially smaller than the recently constructed housing inventory of Los Gatos." This report is attached as Exhibit B to this letter. Finally, the Staff Report references that the Planning Commission statement that "(t)he project does not incorporate views adequately in the layouts as called out in Open Space Policy 01 View Preservation and does not comply with Design Guideline 3.2.1.d Site Planning and Design, and Section 3 .2 .6.e.i. Building Elements and Articulation which states "Special care shall be taken to avoid obstructing views to the surrounding hills ."" However, Section 3.2.6.e.i. more specifically states in section e) that "Projects located on corner parcels at signalized intersections along Lark Avenue and Los Gatos Boulevard should incorporate major design features on the intersection corner," and in section I) that "Buildings located at these corner locations are strongly encouraged to frame and front onto intersections. Special care shall be taken to avoid to avoid obstructing views to the surrounding hills." This portion of the Specific Plan only relates to the corner buildings at signalized intersections. For this application, this applies only to Lark and Los Gatos Boulevard and Los Gatos Boulevard and the new Neighborhood Street. The application does not include the land area located at the corner of Lark Avenue and Los Gatos Boulevard (gas station location). At Los Gatos Boulevard and the new Neighborhood Street entrance, the two buildings proposed both frame and front onto this intersection. The Specific Plan requirement for a 30' orchard setback along Los Gatos Boulevard and a 25' height restriction from Los Gatos Boulevard for the first 50' from the 5 ~ EDEN H OUSI N G SUMMERHIL L HOMES - GRO SVE NOR COMMUN I TI ES or D IS TI NCTI O N property line have been also been satisfied. Therefore, the reference to this portion of the Specifi c Plan as a broader policy is not appropriate, and the application in fact satisfies the objective standards for this portion of the site plan . 6 GROSVE NOR ~ EDEN HOUSING SUMMERHILL HOMEs · COMMUN I TIES OF DISTINCTION TABLE A : Conformance with General Plan Policy or Action Project Conformance Goal LU-4 To provide for well-planned, careful growth that reflects the Town's existing character and infrastructure. Goal LU-11 To Plan for development of a variety of uses in the North Forty area in a coordinated and comprehensive way. Policy LU -11.1 Zoning shall be changed as part of the On June 17, 2015 the Town Council adopted development applications to provide consistency with the Resolutions Nos. 2015-055 and 2015-056 Vasona Light Rail Element and other elements of this adopting the North Forty Specific Plan and General Plan and w ith any future specific plan prepared for adopting amendments to the Land Use Element this area . of the Los Gatos Gene ral Plan for the North Forty Specific Plan area . Those resolutions found that the Specific Plan was consistent with the General Plan and amended the Land Use Element to incorporate the major policies of the Specific Plan . In particular, the Land Use Element was modified to incorporate the Vision Statement contained on page 1-1 of the Spec ific Plan, the general guidelines contained on pages 1-6 and 1- 7 of the Specific Plan, and the ma ximum development capacity contained in Table 2-2 of the Specific Plan. The Spec ific Plan also determined that its policies, standards, and gu idelines were con sistent with the overa rching goals of the General Plan. Therefore, given t hat the vision, guidelines, and development capacity contained in the General Plan ar e identical to those in t he Spe cific Plan, and that the Specific Plan was adopted to determine those development standards consistent with the vision , gu idelines, and development capacity contained in both the General Plan and the Specific Plan, the determi nation that the Project is consi stent with the Specific Plan conclu sively determines that the Project is also con sistent w ith those provisions of the General Plan applicable to the North Forty. Policy LU-11 .2 The Town shall encou rage uses that serve The North Forty Specific Plan requires a Town residents. These include, but are not lim ited to open mi nimum of 30% open space. The Project space, playfields, office, retail, and other commercial uses. application proposes 39 % open space. The Res idential uses may be permitted as part of m ixed-use Project appl ication al so proposes 66,000 square development and only with acceptable mitigation of feet of neighborhood serving commerci al spa ce adverse noise, air quality, and other en vironmental hazards. as part of a mixed-u se development that al so 7 r~) t:-;1 GROSVENOR ~ EDEN HOUSI NG SUMMERHILL HOMES - COMMUNITIES OF DISTINCTION Policy or Action Project Conformance The Project application proposes residential uses that are consistent with this General Plan Policy in addition the Town's Housing Element. Goal VLR-9 To reduce traffic impacts of residential development within the Vasona Ught Rail area by taking advantage of mass transit opportunities. Policy VLR-9 .5 Promote the development of mass transit As a condition of approval , the applicant is links between Los Gatos Boulevard, particularly any required to coordinate with the Santa Clara development on the North Forty site, and the planned Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), plan for, Vasona Light Rail station. and provide an enhanced bus stop at the location of the existing stop along southbound Los Gatos Boulevard between Neighborhood Street and Bennett Way. The improvements shall be in compliance with VTA standards and must be completed and accepted by the Town of Los Gatos before a Certificate of Occupancy for any new building can be issued. Goal C0-1 Preserve and enhance Los Gatos' character through exceptional community design. Policy CD-1 .6 Town staff shall review properties next to The Project application has been reviewed by community entry points when they are developed or Town Staff and the Town's consulting architect redeveloped to reflect the gateway concept. and has met the requirements of the Town's consulting architect. 11 ~) ~;I GROSVENOR ~ EDEN HOUSI NG SUMMERHILL HOMES - COMMUNI TI £5 Of D IS T I NCTION TABLE 8 : Conformance with Housing Element Policy or Action Project Conformance Action HOU-1.1: Below Market Price (BMP} Program: The Project provides over 20% very low income Continue to implement the BMP Program in order to units, exceeding the BMP program requirement increase the number of affordable units in the community. for 20% moderate-income units. See Exhibit 19 of Attachment 1 to staff report. Action HOU-1.7: North Forty Specific Plan Area Rezoning: The Town completed the rezoning of the North the Town will rezone 13.5 acres within the North Forty Forty to permit housing at 20 units per acre on a Specific Plan area within three years of Housing Element mini mum of 13.5 acres with in the North Forty adoption at minimum a density of 20 dwelling units per Specific Plan area . The zon i ng permits housing by acre to facilitate affordable housing production . After right as defined in State Law, with design review rezoning, owner occupied or multiple family development permitted based on the objective standards in will be by-right as defined by not requiring a conditional use the Specific Plan . The senior affordable housing permit or other discretionary approval; however, design occupies at least 50 percent of the floor area of review according to the objective standards contained in the mixed use building it occupies. the Specific Plan can occur (see Action HOU-2.4). In addition, it is anticipated that by-right, multiple-family development at a minimum of 20 units to the acre will occur as a single use development as permitted by the zoning. If housing affordable to very low and low income households is part of a mixed use development, it will occupy at least 50 percent of the total floor area of a mixed use Project. Action HOU-2.4: By Right Findings : For multiple fam ily Although the Town has not adopted these residential development within the North Forty and the provisions to the Town code, the Town is South bay AHOZ site subject to by right development, the reviewing the Project application based on Town will amend the objective review criteria contained in the North Town Code to add by right development findings that, Forty Specific Plan design guidelines. among other items, state that if a Proj ect meets the objective review criteria contained in the AHOZ Design Guidelines or North Forty Specific Plan design guidelines (available on the Town's website) the deciding body will approve the affordable housing proposal. Goal HOU-5: Retain and expand affordable housing The Project includes 49 units of housing opportunities for seniors . affordable to very low income seniors. 12 Sally Zarnowitz From: Sent: To: Subject: Hiten Thakkar < hthakkar@ucsc.edu > Sunday, November 06, 2016 5:09PM Sally Zarnowitz North 40 plan This should NOT be considered because of the exacerbated Traffic and congestion on Los Gatos Blvd. Inability for any emergency vehicles or personnel to be dispatched. Also the increased population will overwhelm the · class size and will diminish the quality of education for which the Los Gatos is a sought after town. Kindly bear the above before voting on the resolution. Thanks and regards, Hiten J. Thakkar. 1 This Page Intentionally Left Blank The midtown park may be defined as a small park-yet big enough in es- sence to reaffirm the dignity of the human being. Robert L. Zion For such parks to c ontribute effectively to city life, they must be readily available. Further, they should not be looked upon as mere ame- nities. They have become nece ssities, and necessities must. by definition, be close at hand, easily come by. The ir presence mv st be felt everywhere thoughout the area-on the way to work, on the way home, as well as during the lunch hour. If such a system of parks is to succeed, there must be proximity as well as profu- sion-one such p a rk for each square block. New Parks for New Yo rk Exhibit, 1963 (From Whit- ney North Seymour Jr. An Introd uction to Small Urban Spaces p3) Contexts Ideally , pocket parks are close ly tied into the neighborhoods they serve. By nature, they tend to be scattered and disconnected because they are usually c reated opportunisti - cally. With some planning, they can be connected if they a re placed along greenways or bike paths as long as they would still be visible to a su fficient number of pedestrians who are also potential users. From an ecological standpoint, pocket parks , at best, act as very small patches. Because they need be sited in areas of heavy pedestrian traffic so they themselves remain safe and functi on ing, potential use by many other animal species is negligable. However, greenery within pocket parks can help regul ate microclimates and act as the "lungs" of the city , while permeable surfaces increase infiltration. The establishment of pocket parks throughout the urban environment also has the po- tential to benefit the overall ecology of cities because communities who have parks that meet their needs within walking distance are less likely to drive far away for the same resources , thereby reducing pollution , traffic and the consuption of resources such as oil. Along these same lines, pocket parks could relieve pressure on the same larger, more distant parks. These large parks would conceivably see fewer demands for play areas (and the other needs that pocket parks can meet), allowing them more fle xibility to devote larger park areas to habitat and ecological function. Philadelphia's Pocket Parks : Location : Philadelphi a, Pennsy lvan ia Dates created: 1961-1967 Number of Parks created: 60 Sizes: 900 sq . ft. to 9,000 sq ft. (average size, around 3 ,000 sq. ft.) Overseen by: Philadelphia's Neighborhood Park Program Uses: Play, sitting (focusing on children and the elderly) Features: Climbing structures, areas for explo rati on , bright colors, community involve- ment, basketball courts, flower or vegetable gardens , "tot lots ," etc. Philadelphia was one of the first cities to begin developing pocket parks within its neighborhoods. These were constructed on the site of vacant or abandoned lots that had become eyesores and were located in low-income areas that needed local open space in addition to the limited facilities already available. These parks involved th e community in their design and construction and had a specific focus on childrens play Three Phi ladelphia Lots Transformed photo cre dit: City of Philadelphia & Ph iladelphia Neighborhood Park Progam 2 I POCKET PARKS Essential Elements Small Size: Pocket parks tend to between 1-3 lots in size, with a tendency to be larger on the west coast than on the east (M arcus , 150) Local Community: These parks rely on a local population for their use and often for their upkeep (to at least make sure they are maintained) Uses/Functions Small Events , especially neighborhood events rest , relaxation lunch breaks Play, both individual and group Elements (Not all elements can neceesarily be accomodated within any one park) plantings, trees, often water natural e lements are a common feature of pocket pa rks Play areas Areas to Sit Gatherin g places Greenacre Park : Size : 6 ,360 square feet Location : New York City, New York Date opened : 1971 Developed by : Greenacre Foundatio n Designers: Hideo Sasaki & Harmon Goldstone Purpose:"some moments of serenity in th is busy world ." Features : Visible fr om the street, moveable chairs , overhead trees , greenery, a water- fall , concessions, heat lamps for cool weathe r P roject for P ublic Spaces describes th e waterfa ll at the back o f Greenacre Pa rk by say- ing that it "provides a foca l point an d a d ramati c reaso n to visit the park and its noise creates a sense of qu ie t and privacy " and that "there is shade in the summer from the trees yet th eir thin structure allows a beautiful dappled light to pass through." That this level of relief from the urban environment can occur in a s lot of space only .14 acres in size speaks to the amazing potential of the pocket park and why it should not be quick ly dismissed as an open space typology. Gr eenacre P ark is a privately endowed New York park that ca ters mainly to p rofes- sionals, tourists and shoppers. It has now been a successful open space for over thirty yea rs , which is a testament to the quality of the design , which has all the qualities of a successful small urban space, inclu ding visibility, flexible seating , things to eat, climac- tic comfort (shade or heat lamps , depending on the weather). and a key locat ion with many potential users. Urban Pa rks Pocket Parks Views of Greenacre Park, New York City photo cred it: Project for Public Space 3 I POCKET PARKS It is the redevelopment of the smaller parks, reserves and street closures that makes a difference to the local community. -Roger Jasprizza ews photo credit: Project for Publ ic Space 4 I POCKET PARKS Aquisition /Implementation Mechanisms Community Activisim Many pocket parks have been crea ted as a resu lt of comm unity groups organizing and rally ing for more open space and identifying spaces for parks w ith in the urban environ- ment. Vacant Lots and Parking Lots Leftover spaces, othen eyesore present opportun iti es to become pocket parks and im- portant amenities to communities. These are often purchased and owned by cities , with the agreement that they wi ll be run and maintained by a found ation or other organiza- tion if the city is unable to maintain the park itself. Foundation Owned and Run City Organized Land for Philadelphia 's pocket parks was acquired at Sheriff's sales ''at no cost other than the write-off of municipal liens , which often are unrecoverable" Public-Private Partnerships Downtown Squares, Savannah, GA Size: .46 acres to 1.38 acres Total Number of squares: 22 Location: Savannah, Georgia Dates crea ted: 18th & 19th century Features : Variab le by squa re , but range from seating , fountains , statues, mature trees , shade, monuments , gazebos , recreation areas , gardens , etc. Although the la rgest of Savannah 's downtown squares are somewhat larger than a traditi onal pocket park , the squares are notable as a comprehensive system of small parks th at are an incredible asset by serving many functions and shaping the cha ra cter and image of the city itself. Unlike other cities' pocket parks , which are oftern squeezed into leftover spaces, the Downtown Squares were designed wi th the city grid , placing them at the heart of the neighborhoods . The centra l location of these parks encour- age heavy use and exploration by residents and visi tors alike. The connectivity of this system also encou ra ges pedestrians to walk throughout the neighborhood , rather than drive. Possible area for text/quote, photo. establishes mood and continuity of layout 6 I POCKET PARKS Resources Jasprizza, Roger. "Small Spaces Make a Difference" Landscape Australia 1999 Nov.-2000 Jan., v.21 , n.4 (84), p.292-294 Marcus, Clare Cooper and Carolyn Francis, People Places, 2nd Edition. John Wiley and Sons Inc. New York 1998 Projects for Public Spaces; www.pps.org Seymour Jr., Whitney North. Small Urban Spaces: The Philosophy, De- sign, Sociology and Politics of Vest-Pocket Parks and Other Small Urban Spaces. New York University Press, New York. 1969. GREENSWARD FOUNDATION, www.greenswardparks.org r ··-·· ZONING REGULATIONS § 29.20.185 • r. TABLE OF CONDITIONAL USES RC HR RJ RD R-M R·JD RMH 0 C-1 C-2 CH LM CM (1) Commercial a. Banks X X X b. Savings and Joan of-X X X fice e. Drive-up window for X X X any bus:inesa d Supennarket X X X e. Super drugstore X X X f. Department .tore X X X g. Shopping center X X X h. Motel X X i. Hotel X X j. Reotaurantineluding X X X X X thoae with outdoor dining areas or tok&- out food lt. EetabliBhment eell- ing alcoholic hover- qee for consumption on premises 1 . In eol\iunetion X X X X with a reetau- rant 2 . Without food eor-X r vice (bar) I. EetabliBhment eell-X X X ing alcoholic hover- agee for eonrumption off-premiaos (this provisiao aoly applioo to establishments commencing or U · pandingoff-premi108 aalee after April 23, 1981) m. Convenience muket X X X n . Formula retail buai-X nesa 0. Formula retail buai-X X ,X noaa Jreator than 6,000 a!. p . Pereonal aemce X bueineases <•• eet forth in section 29.60.820) q. New olliee building X X X approved or con· etrueted after May 1, 2006 r. N-ntaiJ eale1 of X flnarma, ammuni- tion and lor deetrue- ttve devices u eet forth in eeetion 29.?0.100 (2 ) Recreation a . Commercial recre· X X X X ation and amuse· mont establishment ., Supp. No. 61 2045 ATTACHMENT 2 ·r ~ § 29.20.185 LOS GATOS TOWN CODE TABLE OF CONDITIONAL USES RC HR Rl RD R·M R-W RMH 0 C-1 C-2 CH LM CM b. 'Ibeater X c. Outdoor entertain-X ment d. SwimmlDc pool for X X X X X X X X X X X X non-incidental uae e. Private 11p0rle :recre-X X X X X X X X X X ation club f. Golf c:ourae X X X X X (3) Community Services a . Public building; J»-X X X X X X X X X X X X lice, fire, community center, library, art callery, Jlluaeum b . Club,lodp, hall, fra. X X X X X X X X X X tarnal orpniution c. Church, monastery, X X X X X X X X X X X oonvent, and other institntiona for reli- (ious obeervance d. Mortuary, X X X X oolumbarium, mau- 10leum e . Public tranoportation X X X X X X X X X X X X and parking fac:ili- ties t f. Park, piasa, play-X X X X X X X X X X X X ,_ pound ,. Nonprofit youth X lfO\IPII (4) Schools a. Public ochoolB or col-X X X X X X X X X X X Ieee not otharwise opeci1ied b. Private achool or col· X X X X X X X X X X X 101" not otharwise opeci1ied; including a new private achool or oollece to be located on poundo or within buildinp formerly occupied by a public achool c. Nunery achooVday X X X X X X X X X X X care center, pi'OYi ded that each aball be on a aite not lea• than 20,000 oquare feet in area and in a build- inc not less than 2,000 square feet in lioor area d. Small fiuoily day care X X X X home e. Large fiuoily day care X X X X home f. Vocational or trade X X X achool g. Business or profes-X X X X X oional achool or col- lege Supp. No. 61 2046 \ \ \ \ § 29.20.185 LOS GATOS TOWN CODE \ I . TABLE OF CONDITIONAL USES RC HR Rl RD R-M R ·lD RMH 0 C·l C-2 CH LM CM k. Reeraationol vehicle X X X and equipment 1tor· apyud I. 'll!mporary a uto otor-X X X X X X X X X X X X qe for automobile dwen m. Parking lots that X aerve a nearby oom - merciaJ 11M located on a previoualy UD· improved proJ>erty in the R.-1 :12 1000 on an arterial a-t n. SU.,-.ioe,aDdre-X X X pair of electric vohi· c:lea .. aet JOrth in Sec:tioD 29.10.020 (8) Raidentiol UBe& a. One-family dwelling X X X X X b. 'IW<>-family dwelling X X X X X .. Multiple-family X X X X X dwelling d . Boardingbouae X X X X •.. .,._t hotel ---· -----------X X X f. Mobile home park X -----··- I· Re•ident.ial condo-X X X X X X minium h . Caretaker reaidenee X X i. Reserved j . Converlion of a m<>-X X bile home park to oondomlnium....,..... lhip k. Live/work units X X X X X (9) Agriculture and Animal Services a. BotaniooJ DUrBOJY X X X X X X X X X X X X b. DaiJYing X X .. Veterinary boapitol X X X X (without kennel) d . Kennel X X X e. Commen:ial and pri-X X ·x X X ...te otablel and rid· ing aoademiee f . Wmeriee that have X been J.cally and eon- tinUOUI)y operatina for at leaat 60 yean or ia operat.d in eon- junetion with a vine- yard I· A'fiarieo and other X X X wholaaaling uima). ralaing facilitiee b. Vmeyuda, on:barda, X X X and apioultural or farming aetivitiea graater than S,OOO •. r. Supp. No . 64 2048 ( .. TABLE OF CONDITIONAL USES RC HR (10) Light Indu.strial a . Large reeyclin( ool - leetion fac:iliti01 b. Large reeyclinf col· X lection facilit.ie• op- erated by a public agency c. Equipment rental yard d. Cona1nlction materi· ala yard e. Bulkfuelatoraaeand aalu f. Dry cleaning plante g. Hu.ud0114 wute management facility (ll)Other a. Outdoor .toraae b. Changing the activ-X ity in a noneonform- int building c. 24 hour businesses or businesses open between the hours of 2:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. X X ZONING REGULATIONS Rl RD R·M R-m RMH 0 X X X X X X X X X X X X § 29 .20.190 C-1 C-2 CH LM CM X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X (Ord. No. 1316, § 5.20.205, 6-7-76; Ord. No. 1363, 8-1-77; Ord. No. 1367, 9-19-77; Ord. No . 1369, 10-3-77; Ord. No. 1375, 11-21~77 ; Ord. No. 1405, 9-5-78; Ord. No. 1417, 2-20-79; Ord. No. 1476, 9-15-80; Ord. No. 1483, 12-2-80; Ord. No. 1493, 3-17-81; Ord. No. 1506, 7-6-81; Ord. No. 1531, 4 -20-82; Ord. No. 1546, 8-16-82 ; Ord. No . 1555, 10-25-82; Ord. No.1571, 3-7-83; Ord. No. 1596, 10-24-83; Ord. No. 1654, 4-22-85; Ord. No. 1667, 12-2-85; Ord. No. 1701, 12-15-86; Ord. No. 1724, 5-18-87; Ord. No. 1725, 6-1-87; Ord. No. 1729, 6-15-87; Ord. No.1732, 7-20-87; Ord. No. 1737, § V, 11-2-87; Ord. No. 1746, 3-21-88; Ord. No. 1835, §III, 7-16-90; Ord. No.1842, §II, 4-1-91; Ord. No. 1896, §I, 4-6-92 ; Ord. No. 1961, §I, 11-15-93; Ord. No. 1993, §I, 1-3 -95 ; Ord. No . 2006, § IIA, 11-6 -95; Ord. No. 2011 , ~I, 3-4-96; Ord. No. 2107, §II, 11-4-02; Ord. No . 2115, §III, 9 -15-03; Ord. No . 2131 , §I, 5 -3-04; Ord. No. 2132, §II, 5-17-04; Ord. No. 2149, §I, 5-1-06; Ord. No. 2220, § I(Exh. A), 10-7-13; Ord. No . 2222, §I(Exh.A), 10-21-13; Ord. No. 2233, § I (Exh. A), 8-5-14) Sec. 29.20.190. Findings and decision. (a) The deciding body, on the basis of the evidence submitted at the hearing, may grant a conditional use permit when specifically authorized by the provisio ns of this chapter ifit_finds that: (1) The proposed use s of the property are e ssential or desirable to t h e publi~ convenience or welfare; (2) The proposed u ses w ill not impair the integrity and character of the zon e; Supp. No. 64 2048.1 From: Mohammad Javanbakht [mailto :mj@avestadev.com] Sent: Friday, November 11, 2016 3:14PM To: Sally Zarnowitz Cc: Joel Paulson; Erin M. Walters; Mason, Brian (SJC); Walewski, Andre' (SJC) Subject: Re: Burton Rd. and Los Gatos Blvd. Hi Sally, Following ou r conversation the other day, I would like to formally request that the General Plan Committee of the City of Los Gatos con sider inclusion of the Senior Housing use, specifically, Senior Apartments, Independent Living, Assisted Living and Memory Care, in the Specific Plan amendment for the North Forty District. In particular we would like to be able to develop a senior housing development on a 2.5 acre property at the corner of Burton Rd . and Los Gatos Blvd . Senior housing communities offer a fully amenities, service enriched, and much needed housing option to our senior citizens, while providing a complementary and low impact housing addition to the neighborhood. These communities provide a high-quality, culturally rich, and social living environment for aging residents to be able to remain active and able to stay in their neighborhood, among their family and friends. The communities also offer a low-impact economic engine; while facilitating new investment in aging homes as well as creating many direct and indirect local lobs, they are a low impact housing option in the neighborhood. The senior communities will have extremely low traffic, due to the fact that most residents do not operate vehicles. The communities also have a minimal use of city resources/infrastructure, due to the fact that the buildings include many amenities needed for the residents' daily lifestyle. Furthermore, the senior apartments, independent living and sometimes even assisted living residents are considered doweling units, due to the fact that they include kitchenettes or full kitchens, bathrooms and living areas, and therefore, will satisfy the City's housing requirements . Below is a description of various types of residences: Senior Apartments and Independent living Residences: Each senior residence would constitute an individual"dwelling unit". Specifically, each residence would constitute individual living quarters that include areas for living, eating, and sleeping, plus a kitchen and at least one bathroom . The residences would be "high end," with top-quality fixtures and surfaces, and designed to appeal to sophisticated and discerning individuals. The occupants of the residences would be offered a menu of services as part of their monthly rent such as meals, housekeeping, laundry, transportation, social and recreational activities as well as observation of the resident for changes in condition. Residents will also be offered personal care services such as assistance with dressing, bathing, grooming, toileting and medication management on an as -needed, a Ia carte basis . From a practical perspective, the senior residences within the Project would function in exactly the same manner as residences within any other multi-family building, with additional support for the occupants on an "as-needed" basis. Assisted living Residences: Assisted Living residences are similar to independent living re sidences with a higher degree of service s and care provided . It is anticipated that these residents may require assi stance with activities of daily living such as ambulation, toileting, bathing, dressing and grooming . .ATTACHMENT 3 Memory Care Residences: The memory care residences would be individual private or shared residences that would house seniors who have been diagnosed with Alzheimer's or some other form of memory impairment. Memory Care Residents would be offered meals , housekeeping, laundry, transportation, social and recreational act ivities as part of their monthly rent as well as assistance with services such as dressing, bathing, grooming, toileting and medication management as needed. Memory Care residents would also receive specialized personal care tailored to people with memory impairments provided by trained staff members. Assisted Living and Memory Care residences can be also considered a commercial use due to the intensity of services that are provided. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions . Best Regards, Moha m mad Java nbak ht Ma n aging Partn er • lO w. li<T T : 9 2 5-899 -89 81 I F: 41 5-80 0-6063 I E: mj@avestadev.co m 1 3922 Qui t o Rd., Sa r atoga, CA 95070 I w_\N.\1\,',g'!g?J:~<:I~Y.~Qm Sally Zarnowitz From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Susan Freiman <srfreiman@gmail.com > Wednesday, November 16, 2016 9:11 AM Sally Zarnowitz; Joel Paulson Marsh North 40 comments Hello and Thank You for all your hard work, We have been actively attending and speaking out at Town mtgs since the first Town Not City protest in 2014. A s 20 year residents of High St, we feel that we must add our voice to pres erve the character of our town. Specific comments : 1) The obvious "Gaming the s ystem" of the developer to put 100% ofthe homes in the LG s chool di strict was alarming to us . If it i s at all1egal, the future plan should do its best to prevent the next application from abusing our rules to maximi ze their profit. 2) As a family that is hoping to demo and build a new home some day, we drew up plans that include significant underground excavation to minimiz e our impact on our neighborhood while giving us more room in which to live. Plea se seek to, at a minimum, place all of the new development's parking underground to minimize the impact of these new structures on our lovely views . A lowered guideline on maximum height would also be most desirable. My children and I are looking forward to attending tomorrow night's meeting. Thank you again, -Susan & Marshall Freiman High Street 1 This Page Intentionally Left Blank November 17, 2016 General Plan Committee Meeting To: Meeting: Re: From : General Plan Committee November 17, 2016 Potential Amendments to the Specific Plan Lee Quintana I would like to submit the following comments for the Committee's consideration. I have followed the suggestion made by Commissioner Erekson at your last meeting by identifying a problem and following the problem with a potential solution(s) (amendment) to address the problem. Problem 1: Specific Plan , as adopted , is not consistent with the revised Housing Element of the General Plan • The Specific Plan was adopted subsequent to the adoption of the revised Housing Element. However, the Plan was not modified to reflect the changes in the Housing Element specifically applicable to the North 40 Specific Plan. For example : -The Housing Element requires a minimum of 13.5 acres at a density of 20 units/ acre to be zoned within the Specific Plan area. -The Housing Element includes by-right development and -The Housing Element limits A&S review to objective design criteria. • The Plan also lacks a discussion of applicable portions of state and federal laws relating to housing, such as the State Density Bonus. · These are major deficiencies . Without the context of the Specific Plan in relationship to the Housing Element it is impossible to understand the Plan, nor is it possible to assess whether a proposed application is in conformance with the Specific Plan, the Housing Element, the General Plan and/or applicable state laws . Solution 1: Amend the SP to include the following : • Requirement to zone 13.5 acres at a density of 20 units/acre • Discussion of the relationship between the Specific Plan, the Housing Element and other applicable State and Federal Laws • Discussion of by-right development and objective design criteria • Discussion of the State Density Bonus Law including accommodations and waivers . • Add a list of applicable goals and policies from the Housing Element Problem 2: There appears to be a disconnect between the Plan 's stated maximum allowed development capacity for both non-residential and what is actual possible based on requirements of the plan . Solution 2 : Do a reality check and reduce the maximum development capacity of the Plan accordingly. 1 November 17, 2016 General Plan Committee Meeting Problem 3: It is not always clear when a standard or guideline is mandatory or is not mandatory. In addition, the Plan includes a limited number of "objective design criteria" Solu tion 3: • Amend the Plan to expand the definition of mandatory to include terms other then "shall". • Amend the Plan to expand the definition of not mandatory to include terms other than "should ". • Amend the Pan to add additional objective design criteria that provide some flexibility. Thank you for considering these comments. Lee Quintana 5 Palm Ave. 2