AHOZ - Staff Report & Attachnents 1-14we F MEETING DATE: 10/15/2012
STUDY SESSION
WI
ios aASOa COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
DATE: October 10, 2012
TO: MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
FROM: GREG LARSON, TOWN MANAGER
SUBJECT: AFFORDABLE HOUSING OVERLAY ZONE STUDY SESSION
DISCUSS AND PROVIDE FEEDBACK REGARDING THE AFFORDABLE
HOUSING OVERLAY ZONE (AHOZ), INCLUDING DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS AND DESIGN AND SITE GUIDELINES FOR FIVE
PROPERTIES AT VARIOUS LOCATIONS IN LOS GATOS GENERALLY
LOCATED AT: THE CORNER OF CAPRI AND KNOWLES; ONE
PROPERTY EAST OF WINCHESTER AND KNOWLES; THE WEST SIDE
OF OKA ROAD; AND TWO ON THE EAST SIDE OF OKA ROAD, THE
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS ARE: 406 -28 -032, 424 -32 -069, 424 -08-
074, 424 -08 -057, and 424 -08 -021.
BACKGROUND:
State law requires local governments to adequately plan to meet their existing and projected
housing needs, including their share of the regional housing need, which is known as the
Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA). Housing law is the State's primary market -based
strategy to increase housing supply, affordability and choice. The law recognizes that in order
for the private sector to adequately address housing needs, local governments must adopt land -
use plans and regulatory programs, such as the AHOZ, that provide opportunities for housing
development.
While State law specifies the analyses, assessments, and programs required for Housing
Elements, it defers to the local government on how it meets its fair share of regional housing
needs. Often local governments will rezone residential, industrial or commercial lands to high
density residential to meet the fair share housing numbers.
As an alternative to large scale rezoning, the Town chose to develop an affordable housing
overlay zone (AHOZ), which is a relatively new concept that is gaining interest, particularly in
built -out communities. In March 2012, the Town Council adopted the 2007 — 2014 Housing
Element, which included Action Item HOU -2.1. HOU -2.1 requires the Town to amend the
PREPARED BY: Wendie R. Rooney, Strategic Project Director
Reviewed by: Assistant Town Manager Town Attorney Finance
NADMTC REPORTS\2012Wffordable Housing Overlay Zone Study Session 10- 15- 12.doe Refomnatted: 5130/02
PAGE 2
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: AFFORDABLE HOUSING OVERLAY ZONE
October 10, 2012
Town Code to include an Affordable Housing Overlay Zone consistent with the following action
item:
HOU -2.1: Affordable Housing Overlay Zone: Amend the Town Code to include an
Affordable Housing Overlay Zone (AHOZ), which will permit development of a property
with owner - occupied or rental units at densities of a minimum of 20 units per acre by
right, without discretionary review, and amend the zoning map to apply the AHOZ to
each site identified in the Housing Sites Inventory while leaving the existing zoning in
place as the base zone. The Town will develop new development standards specific to the
AHOZ that allow for a minimum of 20 dwelling units per acre. These development
standards will be similar to standards found under the RM zone such as:
Allowing for a building height of at least three stories;
Requiring no more than 1.5 parking spaces per unit; and
Ensuring that the project design is compatible with its surroundings.
A landowner may choose to develop a property consistent with either the base zoning or
the AHOZ. The Town will monitor the development of sites within the AHOZ. If sites
are developed without use of the overlay, the Town will designate additional AHOZ sites
as needed. The AHOZ will include the following incentives and requirements:
Require that a minimum of 50 percent of housing units be affordable to
households at the moderate income level and below for housing projects in the
AHOZ;
Allocate 20 percent of the Los Gatos Redevelopment Agency Housing Set -Aside
Funds and the Town's BMP funds for affordable housing projects in the AHOZ;
and (This is no longer applicable due to the dissolution of Redevelopment
Agencies and will be removed in the final Element).
Defer building plan check and inspection fees until units in an AHOZ project are
occupied.
The AHOZ does not result in rezoning the properties. The property owners have the right to
develop the properties under the existing zoning and General Plan designation or use the AHOZ
development standards, but not a combination of both. The AHOZ contains development
standards (setbacks, building heights, parking ratios, etc.), densities, affordability targets or
ratios, incentives, and architectural and site standards. The development standards, densities and
affordability ratios vary on each of the five AHOZ sites. The AHOZ is applied to the following
five properties (Attachment 1):
Property Location Assessor's Parcel No. Size acres
Former Courthouse and
County Office
Knowles Drive and Capri Drive 406 -28 -032 5.2
Southbay Development
rear parcel
Knowles Drive and Winchester 424 -32 -069 7.1
Oka Road Site A Oka Road next to JCC 424 -08 -074 6.4
PAGE
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: AFFORDABLE HOUSING OVERLAY ZONE
October 10, 2012
Oka Road — Site B Oka Road east of Site A 424 -08 -057 3
Oka Road — Site C Oka Road behind Site B 424 -08 -021 3
These five sites represent a 50 percent reduction in the amount of properties originally identified
to have the AHOZ applied to them. The 2007 -14 Housing Element was under General Plan
Committee (GPC) review when the 2020 General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was
certified in September 2010. The General Plan EIR identified and analyzed the impacts on ten
potential sites for AHOZ designation. Through the GPC's refinement of the AHOZ, five of the
10 properties were removed from the list of potential sites. These properties included Ditto's
Lane, two former South Bay Honda lots, the former Bentley Auto Dealership on Blossom Hill,
and the former Swanson Ford site.
It is important to recognize that State Planning and Zoning laws regarding Housing Elements
does not require each local government to guarantee construction of the number of units
allocated through the RHNA. However, local governments are required to provide adequate
opportunities for housing development on suitably zoned sites with available infrastructure. The
Town's adjusted 2007 -14 RHNA is 452 units in five income categories, including extremely
low, very low, low, moderate and above moderate.
Since November 2011, the GPC has been working with staff and the Town Architect on the
AHOZ development and design standards. The GPC finished its work in August 2012, with the
completion of the Draft "Affordable Housing Overlay Zone Design Guidelines" (Attachment
15). Implementation of the AHOZ requires Amendments to the General Plan, Town Code Text
and Zoning Map to incorporate the development standards. The Planning Commission and the
Town Council will consider these applications in December and January.
Finally, based on its review of the draft AHOZ general intent, development standards, and
proposed incentives, on September 20, 2012, the State Department of Housing and Community
Development certified the Town's Housing Element as fulfilling State Planning and "Zoning
law.
DISCUSSION:
This section will cover the following topics:
1. AHOZ Goals;
2. Application of the AHOZ;
3. AHOZ Development Standards and Affordability Ratios;
4. Incentives and Process for Securing Incentives;
5. Affordable Housing Overlay Zone Design Guidelines; and
6. GPC Review and Recommendation
PAGE
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: AFFORDABLE HOUSING OVERLAY ZONE
October 10, 2012
1. AHOZ Goals: There are four principal goals associated with the AHOZ. The first is to
ensure that the Town meets its state housing law RHNA obligation, while reserving other
potential AHOZ sites for the next RHNA allocation, which will occur in the 2014 to 2022
cycle. Consequently, the GPC recommended removing a number of the sites that were
previously considered for the AHOZ designations. These sites, as well as the remaining
recommended AHOZ sites that are not developed in the 2007 -14 RHNA Cycle, can be
used to meet the upcoming 2014 -22 RHNA allocation of 617 units.
The second goal is to create development standards and incentives that offer advantages
that are similar or slightly better than the State Density Bonus Program to effectively
preclude the use of it on the five AHOZ sites. While meeting the intent of the Housing
Element Action HOU -2.1, the GPC carefully considered the maximum density that each
of the AHOZ sites could accommodate while ensuring neighborhood compatibility,
maintaining consistency with the Town's high standards for new development, and
minimizing impacts, such as traffic and schools. The addition of up to a 35% density
bonus from the State Density Bonus Program could result in densities that would be
inconsistent with the Town's goals of neighborhood compatibility, quality development,
and minimizing impacts. The communities of Corte Madera and Tiburon successfully
used this same approach with their AHOZ, and as noted, the State Department of
Housing and Community Development has certified the Town's Housing Element which
clearly articulated this goal. If a developer were to request the State Density Bonus
Program, the density bonus would be based on the property's underlying density rather
than the AHOZ.
The third goal is to ensure that AHOZ development would have the same architecture and
site qualities of existing Town residential projects. Consequently, the Town Architect
prepared, for the GPC's review and consideration, Architectural and Site standards that
will be used to guide and evaluate new development. In addition to providing site
planning, parking, private open space, architecture and landscaping standards, the
Affordable Housing Overlay Zone Guidelines demonstrate that the each of the sites can
accommodate a variety of housing types at various densities.
Consistent with the Town's philosophy of creating mixed income housing developments,
the fourth goal is to require that each of the sites contain residential units that meet all
required RHNA income categories. Consequently, each site is required to provide units
for very low and below, low, moderate and above moderate income residents.
2. Application of the AHOZ: The AHOZ was specifically designed to not rezone the five
properties where the overlay is applied. By leaving the existing zoning intact, the
property owner is able to develop either under the existing zoning and applicable
development standards or under the AHOZ, but not a combination of both. In the case of
the five properties, the Courthouse is zoned Office, Southbay Development is zoned
Commercial Manufacturing, and the three Oka Road properties are zoned residential.
With the exception of the Courthouse property, the AHOZ also does not replace any of
the existing General Plan Designations. As a former public institutional use, the
PAGES
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: AFFORDABLE HOUSING OVERLAY ZONE
October 10, 2012
Courthouse property has a Public General Plan Designation. It is recommended that this
property be changed to an Office General Plan Designation concurrent with the General
Plan Amendment to incorporate the AHOZ into the Housing Element. The Office
designation is more consistent with the surrounding uses to the west and north and will
allow either office or residential development consistent with the Town Council's intent
for the property. The Council formally documented its intent for this property through
Resolution 2011 -063 (Attachment 2).
To further encourage the property owner to utilize the AHOZ, the Town is processing all
the necessary applications to implement the AHOZ, including the General Plan
Amendment to the Housing Element to establish the overlay, a text amendment to the
Town Code to incorporate the AHOZ development standards and affordability ratios, and
a Zoning Map amendment to incorporate the AHOZ overlay on the five properties. As
noted above, a General Plan Amendment to redesignate the former Courthouse and
County office building property is also proposed with the implementation actions.
Lastly, the Town has processed an Addendum to the General Plan Environmental Impact
Report (EIR) to assess whether the removal of five of the previously identified 10 sites
from the AHOZ and the potential additional units on two of the remaining five sites
through granting a density bonus and higher base density on the Southbay Development
site would create any additional impacts that were not anticipated in the General Plan
EIR. A traffic analysis was conducted and the removal of the five sites and the potential
additional units on the Southbay Development and Courthouse properties resulted in a
maximum of seven additional units over the number that was studied in the General Plan
EIR. No new impacts were identified, and accordingly the Town is processing an
Addendum to the EIR.
If the aforementioned actions are approved, an AHOZ site applicant would be responsible
for processing an Architecture and Site application and any applicable site - specific
environmental documentation.
3. AHOZ Development Standards and Affordability Ratios: Attachment 3 contains a
table of the proposed key development standards and affordability ratios. Using the
Town's existing Multi- family (RM) development standards as a starting point, the GPC
thoroughly analyzed each of the five sites and made adjustments to the development
standards as needed in response to the surrounding neighborhood character, transit
accessibility, site characteristics and AHOZ goals. The GPC recommended using the RM
standards for lot coverage and property setbacks. The GPC further suggested some minor
changes to the RM building height to allow extra height for garages that are integrated
into the structure (first floor of a 3 -story Townhome, subterranean, or podium) and to the
parking standard. As discussed further in the "Incentives Subsection," a potential
developer would be allowed to modify some of the development standards if it is selected
as one of the automatically granted incentives.
PAGE 6
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: AFFORDABLE HOUSING OVERLAY ZONE
October 10, 2012
The affordability ratios were determined based on the RHNA income allocation and the
Town's long standing policy of creating mixed income developments. The GPC
recognized that the subsidized units may be smaller and have less amenitized interiors,
but the exteriors would be consistent with the non - subsidized units in terms of quality of
materials and architectural style. The GPC recommended that the Town allow minor
adjustments to the affordability ratios for each of the sites if needed to help make a viable
project, as long as the overall RIINA income ratios allocated to the Town are achieved.
The GPC recommended two additional modifications to the development standards. As
noted in Attachment 3, the GPC recommended allowing flexibility in cases where
increased building height may be appropriate, such as the Southbay Development site,
which is adjacent to the taller Aventino Apartments and Netflix developments. The GPC
recommended deferring a decision on whether to grant additional height to the Planning
Commission during the Architecture and Site application process. In approving a higher
building, the Planning Commission would need to make the following findings:
1. The building massing and dimensional ratios of building components create a
harmonious visual balance and contribute to the architectural rhythm; and
2. The height increase is necessary to achieve excellence in architectural design and
cannot be accommodated through alternative means such as lowering the building
into the ground or reducing overall floor to ceiling heights.
The GPC also recommended deferring to the Planning Commission during the
Architecture and Site review process consideration of the plan for integrating the
subsidized units with the market -rate units. Although the Town typically requires
subsidized or affordable units to be integrated with the market rate units, the Committee
recognized that there may be cases where a developer proposes a stand -alone affordable
component, such as an affordable senior apartment development, adjacent to the market
rate multi - family or single - family units rather than integrating the two types of units.
This separation may be needed to ensure the financial feasibility of the plan.
Please see Attachments 4 - 14 for a thorough review of the GPC's discussions during the
drafting of the AHOZ.
4. Incentives and Process for Securing Incentives: As previously noted, one of the
Town's goals for the AHOZ is to provide development standards and incentives to ensure
the AHOZ sites offer similar or greater advantages than the State Density Bonus Law.
The overall intent is to provide sufficient incentives to a developer who is willing to meet
all the AHOZ requirements and to preclude the developer from using the State Density
Bonus program in combination with the AHOZ. If a developer wants to use the State
Density Bonus program, the density bonus would be based on the property's existing
zoning and General Plan designation. By precluding the use of the State Density Bonus
Program, the Town is able to better envision the type of development and ensure that it is
consistent with existing Town residential development and site and architecture
standards.
PAGE 7
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: AFFORDABLE HOUSING OVERLAY ZONE
October 10, 2012
The State Density Bonus Program requires an automatic granting of up to three
incentives. Pursuant to the State Density Bonus law, an incentive is a reduction or
waiver in development standards. The GPC is recommending automatically granting
four incentives for a development that meets all the stated intents of the AHOZ. The
incentives would be selected from the three following categories: (A) Development
Standards, (B) Processing Procedures, and (C) Financial. Each is explained in the
following and the applicant has full discretion on which incentives to select.
A. Development Standards
Parking Reduction: allow one space per unit for senior, persons with
disabilities and development within 1/4 mile to the proposed Vasona Light
Rail Station. Allow a reduction to 1.3 space per unit for the Southbay
Development Property due to its proximity to the planned Vasona Light Rail
Station.
Density: Allow up to a 20% density bonus on the Southbay Development and
Courthouse Properties.
Setback Reduction: Allow up to a 50% reduction on not more than two
property line setbacks.
Lot Coverage: Allow an increase in lot coverage up to 50% maximum.
B. Processing Procedures
Priority processing for Planning and Engineering Division's Architecture and
Site review.
Priority building plan check and inspections processing.
C. Financial Incentives
Waiver of Planning and Engineering Architecture and Site application fees.
This would apply to all fees except for those that are paid to the Town's
technical consultants.
Waiver of building plan check and inspection fees. This would apply to all
fees except for those that are paid to the Town's technical consultants.
The offering of financial incentives would be a change to current Town policy.
Historically, the Town has not offered financial incentives to encourage any types of land
uses. While this would be a change to current Town policy, offsetting financial costs is a
very common incentive that municipalities offer to affordable housing developers. The
Town could offset the waiver of permit fees with BMP funds or General Fund.
Alternatively, the Town could defer the fees until the units sell to reduce the upfront
development costs. In this latter case, municipalities generally require payment at the
close of escrow for the particular unit.
PAGE 8
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: AFFORDABLE HOUSING OVERLAY ZONE
October 10, 2012
The GPC further recommended the following processes and procedures to encourage
AHOZ development. These would be automatically provided to the applicant.
Pre - application Conference: The Town would allow (and encourage) pre - application
conferences. While this is currently allowed/encouraged, the Town has limitation of
how much time staff can spend in this capacity without compensation to the Town.
This concept would remove that time restriction for the five AHOZ sites if planned
for affordable housing.
Deferral of planning, engineering and building fees to final occupancy of the
residential units. Currently, these fees are due when the permit is issued.
5. Affordable Housing Overlay Zone Design Guidelines: The Guidelines were originally
created to demonstrate that a variety of quality residential products of varing densities
could be accommodated on each of the five AHOZ sites. The GPC felt that the
Guidelines provide a good example of the Town's expectations for the AHOZ. However,
the Committee wanted to allow flexibility and not constrain any potential AHOZ
developer by requiring that only these types of housing units could be built. The
Guidelines provide general sound site planning and architecture direction as well as site
specific Guidelines for each of the five properties. The site specific guidelines are in
response to each property's physical setting, the surrounding neighborhood, nearby uses,
and environmental constraints, such as traffic and schools. Finally, the Guidelines are
intended to help direct the applicant's architecture and site planning design process and
would be used by staff and the decision makers when reviewing an AHOZ Architecture
and Site application.
6. GPC Review and Recommendation: The GPC spent considerable time analyzing and
discussing the various concepts presented in this report. In all, the GPC held 11 meetings
between November 2011 and August 2012. All meetings were advertised and generally
did not have many public members attend. The Committee heard presentations from
affordable housing developers and potential AHOZ developers. The Committee spent
considerable time discussing and debating the various housing types presented in the
Guidelines and ultimately decided to not remove any of the examples, but instead
encourage potential developers to use the Guidelines as an illustration of the architecture
and site planning qualities that the Town will require for future development of these
sites.
As previously noted, the minutes from each of these meetings are contained in
Attachments 4 - 14. While not every detail was unanimously agreed upon, the
Committee found that the AHOZ development standards, incentives, and the architecture
and site guidelines meet the Town's goals for the program; the Housing Element Action
HOU -2.1; and could result in providing needed quality affordable housing for Town
residents. The GPC unanimously recommended approval of the AHOZ implementing
actions and the draft "Affordable Housing Overlay Zone Design Guidelines."
PAGE 9
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: AFFORDABLE HOUSING OVERLAY ZONE
October 10, 2012
CONCLUSION:
The AHOZ meets the Town's goals of the achieving compliance with the RHNA; could provide
quality mixed income residential development; and is consistent with the Town's recently
adopted and State Certified Housing Element. The GPC spent considerable time thoroughly
analyzing and discussing the development standards, affordability ratios, incentives, and
architecture and site guidelines. Based on its extensive review and modifications, the GPC
ultimately unanimously recommended approval to the Planning Commission and Town Council
of the AHOZ implementing actions and the draft "Affordable Housing Overlay Zone Design
Guidelines." The formal adoption process will begin in December with a Planning Commission
public hearing and Town Council public hearing in January. The implementation of the AHOZ
will establish a base from which to develop the next Housing Element that will commence in
2013/2014.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The AHOZ was developed primarily by Town staff with assistance from the Town Architect.
The General Plan Implementation Fund was used to finance the "Affordable Housing Overlay
Zone Design Guidelines."
Attachments:
1. Housing Element Housing Opportunity Sites (5 AHOZ Sites highlighted in blue)
2. Resolution 2011 -063 (Courthouse Property)
3. AHOZ Key Development Standards and Affordability Ratios
4. GPC Minutes November 9, 2011
5. GPC Minute January 25, 2012
6. GPC Minutes February 22, 2012
7. GPC Minutes March 14, 2012
8. GPC Minutes March 28, 2012
9. GPC Minutes April 11, 2012
10. GPC Minutes April 25, 2012
11. GPC Minutes May 9, 2012
12. GPC Minutes May 23, 2012
13. GPC Minutes June 13, 2012
14, GPC Minutes August 8, 2012
15. Draft "Affordable Housing Overlay Zone Design Guidelines"
WRR:ct
N:\DEVITC REPORTSV2012Wffordable Housing Overlay Zone Study Session 10- 15- 12.doo
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
Cityof
r
City of
Monte Sel
1
Site with Residential Development Potential
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
2007 -2014 HOUSING ELEMENT: TECHNICAL APPENDIX
City of
Campbell
Los_Gatos ...........
Courthouse
L• _I Town Boundary
Water Body
Illiil Highway
Creek
Southbay
Oka Road/ / q
Lark Avenue
y
Oo'
O"
LOS GATO
SLvasona Lake
NO
VA
City of
San Jose
W 0 015 0.5 Mile
FIGURE 6 -1
HOUSING OPPORTUNITY SITES
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
RESOLUTION 2011 -063
RESOLUTION AFFIRMING THE GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION AND ZONING OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY
SURPLUS PROPERTY AT 379 ]KNOWLES DRIVE, APN 406 -28 -032.
WHEREAS, the General Plan designation for the subject property is Public /Quasi - Public and permitted
uses include: schools, libraries, police and fire stations, faith communities, and bospitals; and
WHEREAS, the subject property is zoned O- office and permitted uses include: offices, administrative,
professional, medical, dental and optical laboratories associated with a professional use, real estate, insurance,
stocks and bonds; and other similar office characterized by absence of retail sales; and
WHEREAS, in 2010 the Town. Council approved a General Plan update that identified the site as a
potential affordable housing opportunity; and
WHEREAS, any proposed housingproject that did not meet the Town's affordable housing overlay
zone requirements, would not be a permitted use;
RESOLVED, by the Town Council of the Town of Los Gatos, County of Santa Clara, State of
California, that the Town of Los Gatos does hereby confirm permitted and preferred uses for future development
of Santa Clara County surplus property at 375 Knowles Drive:
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Toxin of Los Gatos,
California, held on the 191h day of September, 2011 by the following vote:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
AYES: Steven Leonardis, Diane McNutt, Stove Rice, Barbara Spector, Mayor Joe Pirzynald
NAYS:
ABSENT:
r:lrtv:t e
SIGNED:
MAYOR OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA
ATTEST: Aw"Aia-i
CLERKADMINISTRATOR OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA
STTAcFfWNT 2
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
GOO
ti
w
b
j
CV
OJ
Q
9
AR
N O ynY5ttCfJ+ yybDa0idbpO7OO
N O
O
o o
N p.
0 Cr
Cd
C •n
U 3.bl)
C q
Cd O bU
aid
N
NO
a.
00 q
Faj
0
N ,U
W N d
0tc! 0Nw0
p
F• 'Pj td W
O id W NUCCF
a LJ OCW
y d
O
O W
8
w Nto
0 x n 0
L =
U O 0R y
ti c
va0 w
y
to O d 00
0Cd
bD w O
YO
fl
y U O y
gw F
p H =•.0 w
o W d F y
U
cd
V1
N
II
0
O
O
U
roR
N
II
7
0
0O
OU
M
N
N
R
II
O0
v
Ill
ATTACH;`= 3
N y y ti h y00Op0O ..O O NAlHi° 7 b M 00 I I v CatlI Kr' G' Sa' b G7 G7 S'i i-i FOOOOO41
NO
b
N NO. y NP 21 0D y
Np O
b b
e N N N it U C Fr C 4a
0 3300°' 3300 33003300°330000
0 0 0 0 0 x 0 0 0 0 00 ro 0 00 0OOOOOO
o
O O O O O O O O O O0 d
O OMN O OMN
O Vl O V) O
cn N N N
O
V1 V1NN OM ON
O
4. V1 V) M O OMN O V1 V1M -- O OMN COCGd
dSa
ON OM qN ON ON
Cd A tmd Cd Cd
cqN
P= V V] Q i cad U7 'd cn cad V1
tw
O O 0 0
0 10
0
W y 0 b 4P Ob
d@
E
O
d o
Pi 0 O
Nm
N
o v eppCFN4iaiidid
Pa U Vl N ' d 9 d N ti W 3 N v N •v F.
d
d
M
p a
N LO R3 d Cd
e0g oo
C's
ono
MUD m cn ro CIO Oro
d
Skid o 0 0 0 0
d W U
d0 p d Cd0
p. U
N O ynY5ttCfJ+ yybDa0idbpO7OO
N O
O
o o
N p.
0 Cr
Cd
C •n
U 3.bl)
C q
Cd O bU
aid
N
NO
a.
00 q
Faj
0
N ,U
W N d
0tc! 0Nw0
p
F• 'Pj td W
O id W NUCCF
a LJ OCW
y d
O
O W
8
w Nto
0 x n 0
L =
U O 0R y
ti c
va0 w
y
to O d 00
0Cd
bD w O
YO
fl
y U O y
gw F
p H =•.0 w
o W d F y
U
cd
V1
N
II
0
O
O
U
roR
N
II
7
0
0O
OU
M
N
N
R
II
O0
v
Ill
ATTACH;`= 3
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
110 East Main Street, Los Gatos, CA 95030 (408) 354 -6872
SUMMARY MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE GENERAL PLAN
COMMITTEE OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS ON NOVEMBER 9, 2011, HELD AT THE
TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS LOBBY, 110 EAST MAIN STREET, LOS GATOS,
CALIFORNIA.
The meeting was called to order at 5 :30 p.m. by John Bourgeois.
ATTENDANCE:
Members present: Joe Pirzynski, Barbara Spector, John Bourgeois, Marcia Jensen, Barbara
Cardillo, Todd Jarvis, Matthew Hudes
Members absent: Marico Sayoc
Staff present: Wendie Rooney, Director of Community Development; Sandy Baily, Planning
Manager; Heather Bradley, Associate Planner
VERBAL COMMUNICATIONS:
Nick Ulleseit, member of the public, introduced himself.
ITEM 1 REVIEW PROPOSED PROCESS FOR DEVELOPMENT AND ADOPTION
OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING OVERLAY ZONE (AHOZ) STANDARDS AND
GUIDELINES.
Wendie Rooney gave an overview of what the Housing Element is, state law requirements of a
Housing Element, Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), consequences for not having a
Certified Housing Element, and what the Town has done.
The Town has identified four site areas for an AHOZ (Los Gatos Courthouse at Capri and
Knowles, Southbay Development an Knowles at Winchester Boulevard, three parcels on Oka
Road at Lark Avenue and Dittos Lane). To ratify the Housing Element, design guidelines and
development standards are required to be prepared for each of the AHOZ areas. The guidelines
will be reviewed by the Planning Commission and Town Council. To implement the AHOZ
areas, Town Code and General Plan amendments will be required.
It is anticipated that the guidelines and amendments will be completed by June of 2012.
Heather Bradley gave an overview of each of the four AHOZ areas.
Matthew Hudes questioned if Albright and Riviera Terrace could be counted towards the RHNA
numbers.
ATTACNWNiT dr
General Plan Committee
November 9, 2011
Page 2 of 4
Marcia Jensen asked if the Housing Element is still in flux, why Albright, Riviera Terrace, and
the North 40 couldn't be incorporated into the Housing Element as an AHOZ.
Wendie Rooney commented that housing for Albright cannot be counted at this time since
housing is not permitted at this site until 2016. Riviera Terrace may be possible, but cautioned
that the Housing Element may need to be recertified through the state, which is not an easy
process. Discussed the scenario of the State's certification of the Housing Element and the
Town's status with the Housing Element, and confirmed if no changes are made to the Housing
Element, would not need to go back to State.
Barbara Spector thought Council's concern was the 20 dwelling units per acre without
discretionary review.
Joe Pirzynski commented that in terms of why the Town Council stopped the process, Council
concerns were in regards to development standards regarding number of stories, parking, 20%
from redevelopment set aside funds, and number of affordable units, without discretionary
review. Want to assure the State that we will be in compliance and that we can carry over the
sites to the next Housing Element if not used.
Wendie Rooney commented that pursuant to today's rules, sites could be carried over. Clarified
that the Town and architectural consultant will look at the development standards noted in the
draft Housing Element.
Marcia Jensen questioned why we are doing this if we have a certified Housing Element.
Wendie Rooney clarified that the development standards is an action item to be done. As part of
this Housing Element the design standards do not need to be reviewed by the State. Council has
not adopted the Housing Element.
Matthew Hudes questioned what the ramifications of increasing the housing numbers are.
Wendie Rooney stated it was to the Town's benefit to use these units in the next Housing
Element cycle.
Barbara Cardillo questioned that 50% of the units must be affordable.
Wendie Rooney commented each site will be evaluated individually. Developer can develop
with the underlying zone or as an AHOZ. If a developer went with the underlying zone, the
Town's Below Market Price (BMP) program would be required. All income levels must be met.
Barbara Cardillo questioned if a maximum number of affordable units would be developed and
how senior housing would be part of this.
General Plan Committee
November 9, 2011
Page 3 of 4
Barbara Spector questioned how low income units needed for AHOZ sites would impact
developers wanting to develop the site.
Wendie Rooney commented this could be a challenge. Would need to be creative, buy down
units, Town support, RDA if still around.
Barbara Cardillo asked if seniors who had a low income, but other assets would qualify for
affordable housing.
Wendie Rooney stated that staff was unsure of whether assets are considered when qualifying
individuals for affordable housing. She indicated that staff would research and let the Committee
know at the next meeting.
Barbara Spector asked if RDA survives, or low income portion of RDA survives, can money be
used in these areas.
Wendie Rooney confirmed yes, but noted different operating principles.
Joe Pirzynski questioned directions and with all the unknowns, what if Town Architectural
Consultant Larry Cannon comes back with an analysis based on the Housing Element direction.
Wendie Rooney stated that Larry Cannon will study the character of each site, and the Committee
will be part of developing the design guidelines for each site.
Marcia Jensen expressed concern with being presented with guidelines that they needed to react
to.
Wendie Rooney commented the Committee will be able to review, pick, and choose what needs
to be in the guidelines.
Barbara Spector questioned why development standards were being developed. Was this to help
mitigate Council's concerns about the discretionary review?
Joe Pirzynski questioned if Larry Cannon says two stories is compatible for the courthouse site;
and design standards says two stories, can developer come in with three stories to meet the
housing need?
Wendie Rooney clarified that the developer would need to meet the guidelines, which, if using
Joe Pirzynski's scenario would be two stories. Housing units would need to be made up on other
sites (identified sites or other sites). Guidelines should give a level of comfort to be developed to
what the community wants.
Todd Jarvis confirmed the objective is to come up with the necessary units and that each site can
have its own development standards.
General Plan Committee
November 9, 2011
Page 4 of 4
John Bourgeois commented he does not believe that this can be done in one meeting for each
Axoz.
Wendie Rooney reviewed regular upcoming GPC dates. Meeting could start at 5 p.m. Extra
dates could be added if needed.
ITEM 2 APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Joe Pirzynski made a motion to approve the minutes of September 29, 2010. The motion was
seconded by Barbara Spector and passed unanimously.
ITEM 3 ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 6:45 p.m.
Prepared by:
Sandy Baily
Planning Manager
N 1DEV \GM2011 DRAFPminutes \GPC -11091 I.doc
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
110 East Main Street, Los Gatos, CA 95030 (408) 354 -6872
SUMMARY MINUTES OF A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE GENERAL PLAN
COMMITTEE OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS ON JANUARY 25, 2012, HELD AT THE
TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS LOBBY, 110 EAST MAIN STREET, LOS GATOS,
CALIFORNIA:
The meeting was called to order at 5:05 p.m. by John Bourgeois.
ATTENDANCE:
Members present Joe Pirzynski, Barbara Spector, John Bourgeois, Marcia Jensen, Barbara
Cardillo, Todd Jarvis, Matthew Hudes, Marico Sayoc
Members absent: None
Staff present Wendie Rooney, Director of Community Development; Sandy Baily, Planning
Manager; Heather Bradley, Associate Planmer
Guest Speaker: Jan Lindenthal, Vice President of Real Estate Development for Mid - Peninsula
Housing.
VERBAL COMMUNICATIONS: None
To allow for the guest speaker to arrive, Item 2 was heard prior to Item 1.
ITEM 2 REVIEW OF STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW AND TOWN HOUSING
ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.
Wendie Rooney gave an overview of the State Density Bonus Law, including history, key
provisions, affordability requirements, bonus calculation, incentives and concessions, waiver of
development standards, maximum parking ratios, land donation, and a comparison of the Town
Housing Assistance program.
John Bourgeois asked for clarification on granting concessions.
Wendie Rooney replied that a developer must prove that concession is necessary to make the
project feasible.
Todd.T7"is asked how a developer would demonstrate a need for concessions.
Wende Rooney replied that a developer must prove that without a certain concession, the project
would not be economically feasible.
ATTACHMENT 5
General Plan Committee
January 25, 2012
Page 2 of 4
Joe Pirzynski asked how a developer would demonstrate economic feasibility that is a vague
standard if a developer is able to make that determination.
Marcia Jensen commented that as she read the law, a concession is connected to the physical
preclusion of the project and a waiver is related to the economic.
Wendie Rooney commented that this matter has been discussed with the Town Attorney, and
from what has been determined so far, there is not a distinction between the definitions.
Marico Sayoc asked if there is a timeline when the concession requests must be asked for by the
developer.
Wendie Rooney responded that it would typically be at the application stage, but a developer
could come back and ask for subsequent request.
Barbara Spector asked if that would only be allowed with a new PD application.
Wendie Rooney responded that it would be the case with an amendment to an existing PD acid
Architecture and Site Application.
Matthew Hudes asks if Town policy was in place prior to recent State law.
Wendie Rooney commented that yes, the Town should have adopted a density bonus law in 2005.
Sandy Baily stated that in the past, the Town's BMP program required more affordable housing
units than the State law at that time.
Marico Sayoc asked for an explanation of Riviera Terrace.
Wendie Rooney commented that per the Town's density bonus policy, the affordable units were
not counted toward the density.
Marico Sayoc asked if there are any references in the General Plan or Housing Element that state
if State law is being used, then Town regulation cannot be used in addition.
P`endie Rooney responded no, and that the discussion of whether to continue exempting
affordable units from the overall density will be addressed within the density bonus ordinance.
She further stated that the Town has both inclusionary housing regulations and a density bonus
policy that are separate but intertwined, where the Town does not count affordable units in the
overall density.
Marcia Jensen asked if the Town can opt not to double count the units
General Plan Committee
January 25, 2012
Page 3 of 4
Joe Pirzynski commented that his recollection was that density bonuses per the General Plan
needed to be executed because State law mandated it was not an "either or" proposition. The
Town is bound to execute based on the current General Plan and Housing Element, inclusive of
mandatory bonuses to apply Town regulations first then apply State bonus.
Wendie Rooney responded that a local jurisdiction has the discretion to either use the State
standard solely or apply both the State standard and their own density bonus policies.
Marcia Jensen asked if going forward do we or do we not have an option that we're going to use
Town regulations.
Wendie Rooney commented that staff is expecting to get clarification from Council regarding this
matter.
Matthew Hudes commented that the Town muist create an ordinance that reflects the Housing
Element requirements. Is there any reason to have parts ,of the plan that differ from State law?
Wendie Rooney commented that this would be determined when the town adopted the ordinance.
She said the Town may opt to use some or all of its existing provisions such as current
allowances for greater bonuses on larger projects.
ITEM 1 PRESENTATION BY JAN LINDENTHAL OF MID - PENINSULA
HOUSING.
Jan Lindenthal presented an overview on the challenges of developing affordable housing in the
Bay Area and what jurisdictions can do to better facilitate the construction of affordable housing
through the Housing Element process.
Jan briefly discussed two Mid -Pen projects in Los Gatos including Open Boors on Parr Avenue
and a senior housing 4 -plex on Nicholson Avenue. She discussed Mid -Pen's property
management responsibilities and the extensive support services they offer residents of their
housing developments.
She provided details of the current challenges to constructing affordable housing including: legal
and political constraints, environmental constraints, the elimination of redevelopment funding,
and foreclosures, which result in a mismatch of housing stock to housing needs. She further
provided solutions including gaining local support for projects, educating the community on the
issues surrounding affordable housing and pre - zoning of affordable housing sites.
She explained the financial feasibility process and how Mid -Pen secures finding for
developments from various sources.
She discussed that higher densities make housing affordable, make the developments more
livable and vibrant, and are better for the environment.
General Plan Committee
January 25, 2012
Page 4 of 4
She shared several examples of Mid -Pen developments in Santa Clara, San Mateo, and Santa
Cruz Counties and discussed Mid -Pen's newest venture in acquisition and rehabilitation of aging
apartment complexes and townhome developments.
She explained that to facilitate affordable housing, communities can identify sites at the
neighborhood level where increased density makes sense, build coalitions to support appropriate
development, educate the community on who needs affordable housing, and support the State in
finding permanent sources for affordable housing construction.
Heather Bradley discussed items for the next meeting of February 8, 2012, regarding various
housing types and densities to get direction on types that should or should not be considered.
Joe Pirzynski commented that the GPC is already familiar with housing types and did not think it
would be worthwhile to have that discussion.
Wendie Rooney commented that if the GPC does not want to have that discussion, then the next
GPC meeting would have to be February 22, 2012, as Cannon Design Group will not have the
Courthouse site materials ready to go for the February 8 meeting.
ITEM 3 APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Joe Pirzynski made a motion to approve the minutes of November 9, 2011. The motion was
seconded by Barbara Spector and passed unanimously.
ITEMS ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 6:45 p.m.
Prepared by:
Heather Bradley
Associate Planner
NADVAGM2012minutes \GPC- 012512.doc
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
110 East Main Street, Los Gatos, CA 95030 (408) 354 -6872
SUMMARY MINUTES OF A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE GENERAL PLAN
COMMITTEE OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS ON FEBRUARY 22, 2012, HELD AT THE
TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS LOBBY, 110 EAST MAIN STREET, LOS GATOS,
CALIFORNIA.
The meeting was called to order at 5:00 p.m. by John Bourgeois.
ATTENDANCE:
Members present: Joe Pirzynski, Barbara Spector, John Bourgeois, Marcia Jensen, Barbara
Cardillo, Matthew Hudes, Marico Sayoe
Members absent: Todd Jarvis
Staff present: Wandie Rooney, Director of Community Development; Sandy Baily, Planning
Manager; Heather Bradley, Associate Planner; Greg Larson, Town Manager
VERBAL COMMUNICATIONS: Verbal Communications were taken out of order and heard
at the end of the meeting.
ITEM 1 REVIEW OF THE DRAFT HOUSING TYPES, SELECTED
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND AHOZ ORDINANCE COMPONENTS
FOR THE FORMER COUNTY COURTHOUSE AND OFFICE PROPERTY
AT 375 KNOWLES
Wendie Rooney gave an overview of the background of the Affordable Housing Overlay Zone
AHOZ) and the purpose of the meeting. She summarized the County Courthouse site, which is
one of the six AHOZ sites. Issues covered were the neighborhood context, site development
guidelines, and housing types.
Marico Sayoc questioned who owned the Courthouse property and the other AHOZ sites
Wendie Rooney stated the County currently owns the Courthouse property; however, it is
released a RFP to surplus the properties last fall and potential owners are going through the due
diligence process. Wendie stated that the other AHOZ sites were privately owned.
Barbara Spector questioned the process if someone wanted to apply for a Planned Development
PD).
Joe Pirzynski questioned if priority use of the Courthouse property was affordable housing and if
housing agencies were offered the property.
ATl°AChMENT 6
General Plan Committee
February 22, 2012
Page 2 of 6
Heather Bradley stated the property was offered to the Town as first right of refusal. Other
public agencies and affordable housing builders were notified of the upcoming sale of the
property.
Matthew Hudes questioned which school district the property was in,
Heather Bradley responded it was Campbell School District.
Barbara Cardillo questioned if allocations were going to be made per site,
Wendie Rooney stated GPC will look at each property and decide the appropriate allocation;
however, the focus for this meeting is the Courthouse property.
Greg Larson informed the GPC that per the County's website, it is public record that the highest
bidders for the Courthouse site are KT Properties for the two back parcels and El Camino
Hospital for the corner parcel.
Barbara Spector questioned what the cost of the units would be.
Wendie Rooney commented she could not say what they would be sell for, but could state what
the maximum income levels would be for qualified residents and noted that most likely there
would be market rate units within the development to help subsidize the cost of affordable
housing.
Marcia Jensen questioned how the housing types were thought out for this site.
Heather Bradley commented it was based on neighborhood compatibility. She described
housing types in relationship to the existing units.
Joe Pirzynski commented that the existing duplexes on the southern side of Knowles do not have
their entrances on Knowles Drive, which may have been in conflict with the comment that the
Courthouse site. should have its entrances facing the street, which is compatible with the
neighborhood.
Wendie Rooney responded to a question from Joe Pirzynsld that multi- family flats were not
included as one of the housing mixes, since it was determined to not be compatible with the
neighborhood. If GPC felt that product types should be considered, it could be included.
John Bourgeois questioned this as well and did not think it should be taken off the table, since
there were similar structures in the neighborhood.
Marcia Jensen stated from her perspective, small lot single - family did not seem viable for
affordable housing.
General Plan Committee
February 22,20I2
Page 3 of 6
Joe Pirzynski questioned how specific the Town should be to the developer as to the type of
housing.
Wendie Rooney commented the Town has the discretion at how it wants to use this information.
The Town could either use these guidelines to help inform the potential developer of acceptable
housing types or this analysis can be used for internal purposes to help the Town's decision
makers see how the properties could be developed with 20 units per acre, while maintaining
compatibility with the neighborhood.
Matthew Hudes commented that the type of housing would depend on whether or not market rate
units would be included in the affordable housing development. Mixed incomes would require
flexibility with developers.
Barbara Cardillo commented that she needs more guidance in criteria in deeming the type of
housing, At this moment, we have nothing to judge the housing type.
Marcia Jensen questioned if the GPC was going to develop ratios of incomes types.
Heather Bradley requested input and direction from the GPC for heights in regards to roof
pitches and wall plane heights for architectural character of the development, or should
development be consistent with current Town standards.
Marcia Jensen requested that the PowerPoint slides that staff wanted input from be forwarded to
the GPC for later review.
John Bourgeois commented that regulating wall plane heights could stifle an architect's
creativity.
Marico Sayoc questioned if the justification for looking at different heights was similar to the
potential developer of the North 40 discussion for height increase. She questioned if a more
appropriate approach would be to review height during the architecture and site process.
Wendie Rooney stated we could do that. However, she noted that the Town needs to create a
document with enough specificity that it meets the State's intent of the AHOZ.
Marico Sayoc questioned how detailed we needed to be. Does height include mechanical
equipment?
Joe Pirzynski felt that the Town should continue to use the existing height limitation.
Marcia Jensen concurred to maintain existing height limitations for the RM zone.
John Bourgeois summarized that the entire GPC felt that the existing height limitations should be
maintained.
General Plan Committee
February 22, 2012
Page 4 of 6
Heather Bradley summarized the parking standards of the Town, the State, and what the Town's
consulting architect recommended for each type of housing unit. Allowing tandem parking was
also recommended by the consulting architect. Input was requested by the GPC.
Marico Sayoc questioned if we could use the data from the parking analysis for the Ditto's Lane
project.
Staff commented we could provide that information to the Committee.
Joe Pirzynski questioned the basis for the Town's architect's parking methodology.
Marcia Jensen questioned if the Town is risking certification of the Housing EIement if it did not
modify the parking requirements.
Wendie Rooney explained the Town needs to demonstrate to the State that it is hying to achieve
the AHOZ goal's with supporting analysis to justify the regulations.
Marcia Jensen wanted clarification from the consulting architect.
Barbara Cardillo questioned if the GPC could keep parking regulations the way it is, except
when we have a four - bedroom unit, and then use State's requirement of 2.5 spaces.
Barbara Spector .mentioned it would be helpful to know what the State is requesting or
requiring; if we want something different and justify why. She commented that some
components of the discussion were missing.
John Bourgeois commented that although multi - family flats are not included in the Courthouse
analysis, it would still have been helpful to include in the chart for analysis purposes.
Marcia Jensen questioned where the recommendations are coming from and commented she did
not understand. She disagrees that the Town needs to include guest parking as part of the
standards.
Joe Bourgeois followed up on Marcia's comments and asked when the State Density Bonus
requirements and Town requirements would be applicable.
Wendie Rooney clarified that a developer could develop with the underlying zone using the State
Density Bonus or they could develop under the Town's AHOZ. If they developed under the
AHOZ, staff is recommending precluding use of the State Density Bonus. Consequently, the
Town should provide parking requirements that are similar to the State's.
Heather Bradley and Wendie Rooney discussed setbacks, density, affordable housing
requirements, and ordinance options and components.
General Plan Committee
February 22, 2012
Page 5 of 6
VERBAL COMMUNICATIONS:
MarkTersini introduced himself and ITT Properties as the potential buyer of part of the
Courthouse site. The type of affordable proj ect that they found would make sense for the site is
senior housing. They are looking at an affordable and market rate townhouse development.
They would need a density of 25 units per acre to make it work. He recommended that the GPC
provide as much flexibility as it can.
John Bourgeois questioned the next steps,
Wendie Rooney commented property characteristics and development standards for the Southbay
site would be discussed at the next meeting.
Marico Sayoc requested if reports could outline what specific decisions were being requested by
the -GPC.
Marcia Jensen wanted charts and bullet points in presentations, not pictures.
Wendie Rooney clarified that although the GPC will be discussing the Southbay site, no final
decisions (except for height) were made for the Courthouse site.
Joe Pirzynski thanked Mark Tetsini for his valuable input regarding the property. It would be
helpful to get input regarding the other AHOZ sites.
Barbara Cardillo commented to only show context of the neighborhoods if it is important for the
GPC to make decisions.
Barbara Spector commented she was surprised the Southbay's site was planned to be discussed
at the next meeting when the Courthouse site has not been resolved.
Wendie Rooney commented that the committee has a very limited time line.
John Bourgeois commented that once they got through the Courthouse site, the other sites should
go much more quickly.
Joe Pirzynski stated the need to concentrate on the Courthouse site and not box in all the sites.
Recommended to discuss Courthouse site first and be prepared to discuss Southbay site if there
is time.
ITEM 2 APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM JANUARY 25, 2012
Joe Pir2ynski made a motion to approve the minutes from January 25, 2012. The motion was
seconded by Marcia Jensen and passed unanimously.
General Plan Committee
February 22, 2012.
Page 6 of 6
ITEM 3 ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 6:55 p.m.
Prepared by:
Sandy Baily
anning Manager
N:1DEV %GPC12012minutm\GPC- 022212.doc
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
110 East Main Street, Los Gatos, CA 95030 (408) 354 -6872
SUMMARY MINUTES OF A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE GENERAL PLAN
COMMITTEE OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS ON MARCH 14, 2012, HELD AT THE
TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS LOBBY, 110 EAST MAIN STREET, LOS GATOS,
CALIFORNIA.
The meeting was called to order at 5:15 p.m. by John Bourgeois.
ATTENDANCE:
Members present: Joe Pirzynski, Barbara Spector, John Bourgeois, Marcia Jensen, Barbara
Cardillo, Todd Jarvis, Marico Sayoc
Members absent: Matthew Hudes
Staff present: Wendie Rooney, Director of Community Development; Sandy Baily, Planning
Manager; Heather Bradley, Associate Planner
VERBAL COMMUNICATIONS: Verbal Communications were taken out of order and heard
at the end of the meeting.
ITEM 1 CONTINUED REVIEW OF THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING OVERLAY
ZONE DESIGN GUIDELINES AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS:
COURTHOUSE AND SOUTHBAY SITES
Wendie Rooney stated that staff was recommending that the AHOZ review process be bifurcated
into two sections. Tonight's meetings will be to complete the review of the AHOZ development
standards, affordability ratios, concessions, and other site specific details for each of the five
properties. Once the AHOZ standards are completed, the Committee will review the general
architecture and site guidelines.
Wendie Rooney gave overview of the Town Council's recent action to ratify the Housing
Element with the elimination of the Dittos Lane AHOZ. The basis for the elimination of this site
was due to neighborhood concerns and that the Dittos Lane subcommittee did not define a
density that would be appropriate for the site.
Wendie Rooney presented the Excel decision matrix for the Courthouse AHOZ site and
explained that the General Plan Committee (GPC) recommendation for each of the topics would
be incorporated in the matrix.
Barbara Cardillo suggested that the matrix chart identify whether or not the standards meet
Town code.
Joe Pirzynski questioned how the concessions would work,
ATTAO 7
General Plan Committee
March 14, 2012
Page 2 of 3
Wendie Rooney explained that based on the need to create sufficient incentives for the AHOZ
sites to preclude the use of the State Density Bonus, staff is reconmrending four automatic
concessions, which is one more than the State Density Bonus Law. Staff is further
recommending that if mote than four are requested, the applicant would need to process a PD
Application, which pursuant to Town procedures, is the process to allow unlimited exceptions
from Town standards. Ms. Rooney summarized that the GPC would determine whether or not it
supported the concession topic presented in the matrix, and if they did agree, how would the
consensus be achieved.
The Committee agreed that each topic in the Courthouse Decision Matrix (dated March 14,
2012) would be discussed, and the Committee would make a determination by a raising- of-hand
consensus. Consensus summary:
Tonic Consensus
Property Setbacks 7 -0
Parking Ratio 6 -1
Density (excluding concession) 7 -0*
Lot Coverage 7 -0
Building Heights 7 -0 **
Courthouse Affordability Ratios Defer to next
meeting
No use of Below Market Price or State Density Bonus units.
Maximum height includes rooftop mechanical equipment screening. Units with an integrated
garage (stacked or subterranean) are allowed up to 35 feet otherwise maximum height is 30
feet. Height is measured per existing Town Code definition. Architectural projections are
permitted pursuant to Town Code Section 29.10.090. Any additional height increase request
is subject to Architecture and Site review and approval from the deciding body.
VERBAL COMMUNICATIONS:
Owen Lawler stated they could provide useful information about affordable housing if given an
opportunity. Questioned Town's status of its Housing Element.
Jan Hochhauser commented that so far, the State's Density Bonus Program sounds more doable
for a developer than what is being proposed. Recommended that a comparison of what the Town
is proposing and what the State would allow may be helpful to the GPC.
Mark Tersini of KT Properties commented they are still pursuing purchasing the Courthouse site
and will propose a development that is compatible to the neighborhood.
John Bourgeois requested the matrix be emalled to the Committee and requested the Committee
to fill in their recommendations prior to the next meeting.
General Plan Committee
March 14, 2012
Page 3 of3
ITEM 2 APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM FEBRUARY 22, 2012
Marcia Jensen made a motion to approve the minutes from February 22, 2012. The motion was
seconded by Joe Pirzynski and passed unanimously.
ITEM 3 ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 6:45 p.m.
Prepared by:
U
Sandy Baily
P alining Manager
N:\DEV \GPn2012minutm \GPC- 3- 14- 12,doo
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
110 East Main Street, Los Gatos, CA 95030 (408) 354 -6872
SUMMARY MINUTES OF A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE GENERAL PLAN
COMMITTEE OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS ON MARCH 28, 2012, HELD AT THE LOS
GATOS ADULT RECREATION CENTER, 208 E. MAIN STREET, ROOM 208, LOS
GATOS, CALIFORNIA.
The meeting was called to order at 5:05 p.m. by John Bourgeois,
ATTENDANCE:
Members present: Barbara Spector, Joe Pirzynski, John Bourgeois, Marcia Jensen, Marico
Sayoc, Todd Jarvis, Matthew Hudes
Members absent: Barbara Cardillo
Staff resent: Wendie Rooney, Director of Community Development; Sandy Baily, Planning
Manager; Heather Bradley, Associate Planner
VERBAL COMMUNICATIONS:
Mark Tersini discussed his meeting with nonprofit groups. Referenced the March 28, 2012,
letter he submitted to the Committee. Discussed his concern with the proposed affordability
ratios and density for the Courthouse site, and how it would not support a project. They are
recommending 50% market rate housing and 50% affordable housing. The senior housing
component of their proposal would need an increase in height.
Owen Lawlor discussed senior parking ratios and how the moderate category is difficult to
achieve. The options discussed could limit the development of the site.
Various Committee members requested clarification of the affordability ratio percentages and the
number of units they were using as an example.
Wendie Rooney stated that while the Town should develop standards that are realistic from a
financial prospective, it also needs to consider other factors such as RHNA numbers and
Housing Element goals and policies. Ms. Rooney reminded the Committee that the standards
under consideration for this AHOZ site are to meet Housing Element goals and not necessarily to
meet the project objectives for one potential developer.
ITEM 1 CONTINUED REVIEW OF THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING OVERLAY
ZONE DESIGN GUIDELINES AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS:
COURTHOUSE AND SOUTHBAY SITES
Wendie Rooney summarized the process and the time frame.
A,rTACt N°f 8
General Plan Committee
March 28, 2012
Page 2 of 3
Joe Pirzynski questioned if the Courthouse site could be bifurcated to expedite the process for
this site.
Wt ndle Rooney responded it was possible, but would slow the overall process down. She felt
that the applicant could run parallel with this process and could stay in the same timeline as this
process. She emphasized that a Conceptual Development Advisory Committee application is an
important step for the applicant to take.
The Committee commenced where it left off in the Courthouse Decision Matrix.
Consensus Summarv:
To is Consensus
Affordability Ratios 7 -0
Concessions
Building height increase 7 -0 — Remove as a concession; add staffs
language from the GPC memo for height
increases subject to A &S review
Parking 7 -0
Density, 7 -0
Setback reduction 7 -0
Lot coverage 7 -0
Density transfer Need more information on how it would work
Defer to future meeting
Concession Processing
Pre- application conference 7 -0
Priority application processing 7 -0
Priority plan check processing 7 -0
Concession Financial
Wavier or deferral of planning and 7 -0 — Agree with staff recommendation with
engineering application fees 3 no waiver of Town consultant fees.
Waiver or deferral of building plan 7 -0
check and inspection fees
Waiver or deferral of traffic impact fees 7 -0 — Remove as concession
Waiver or deferral of construction 7 -0
mitigation fee
Allow 20% density bonus with the same affordability ratios applied to the bonus units.
2Maximum of two property line setbacks
No waiver of Town consultant fees.
General Plan Committee
March 28, 2012
Page 3 of 3
Wendie Rooney summarized the Southbay site. Consensus summary:
Tonic Consensus
Property Setbacks 7 -0
Parking Ratio 7 -0
ITEM 2 APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM MARCH 14, 2012
Marico Sayoc made a motion to approve the minutes from March 14, 2012. The motion was
seconded by Marcia Jensen and passed unanimously.
ITEM 3 ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 6:45 p.m.
Prepared by:
Sandy Baily
Planning Mana r
N:\ DEV \GPQ2012minutm \GPC- 3- 23- 12.doe
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
110 East Main Street, Los Gatos, CA 45030 (408) 354 -6872
SUMMARY MINUTES OF A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE GENERAL PLAN
COMMITTEE OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS ON APRIL 11, 2012, HELD AT THE LOS
GATOS ADULT RECREATION CENTER, 208 E. MAIN STREET, ROOM 208, LOS
GATOS, CALIFORNIA.
The meeting was called to order at 5:00 p.m. by John Bourgeois.
ATTENDANCE:
Members esent: Barbara Spector, Joe Pirzynski, John Bourgeois, Marico Sayoc, Todd Jarvis,
Barbara Cardillo
Members absent: Marcia Jensen, Matthew Hudes
Staff present: Wendie Rooney, Director of Community Development; Sandy Baily, Planning
Manager; Heather Bradley, Associate Planner
VERBAL COMMUNICATIONS: None
ITEM 1 CONSIDERATION OF STAFF RECOMMENDED MODIFICATIONS TO
THE TOWN'S CODIFICATION OF THE STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW
Wendie Rooney summarized the background as to why this matter is before the Committee at this
time and the State requirements.
A. Waivers
Barbara Spector questioned the language for justifying how a project could be economically
unfeasible without a waiver. Wendie Rooney summarized Committee member Jensen's written
comments.
Joe Pirzynski questioned if there were model ordinances that could be used for evaluating what
is economically unfeasible and wouldn't the burden be on the applicant to justify.
John Bourgeois clarified what input staff wanted at this meeting.
Wendie Rooney commented that Marcia. Jensen submitted comments and she felt that
justification for allowing waivers should be allowed.
Marico Sayoc questioned what criteria are used to determine what is unfeasible,
Wendie Rooney noted that the ordinance could include submittal requirements for information
such as a pro forma that demonstrates the economic feasibility of a project. She agreed with
Committee Member Pirzynski that the burden is on the applicant to provide the need for certain
concessions to make the project economic feasible. She also stated that the ordinance could
A-R cww 9
General Plan Committee Minutes
April 11, 2012
Page 2 of 4
include findings that the Planning Commission and/or Council would need to make regarding the
feasibility based on the applicant's pro forma.
Consensus of Committee was to support staffs recommendation.
B. Density Bonus and Below Market Price (BMP) Program
Marico Sayoc requested a clarification on how the numbers work for the various programs.
Wendle Rooney commented that with the Council -interpretation that the Town's General Plan
Density Bonus policy does not apply to projects that also seek the State Density Bonus law
ordinance, these two programs would be separate and not combined on the same project.
Consensus of Committee was to support staff's recommendation.
C. Qualifying Proieets under SB1818
Wendle Rooney stated that staff is recommending that eligibility be broadened to include units
designed for physically handicapped persons.
Marico Sayoc questioned if the BMP Program point rating system would be used for the State
Bonus Program.
Joe Pirzynski requested farther clarification regarding how tenants are selected under the State's
program.
Wendle Rooney clarified that the BMP Program is a Town program and the Town maintains
discretion over the tenant selection process. She further commented that with the proposed State
Density Bonus Ordinance, the responsibility for qualifying tenants and monitoring compliance
would be the owner /developers responsibility and that they would need to submit periodic
documentation to the Town regarding their compliance.
Barbra Cardillo questioned what happens if someone qualifies under several categories.
Barbara Cardillo also questioned if criteria is set up regarding accommodation standards for the
unit.
Joe Pirzynski questioned what if someone protests how points were assigned.
Wendle Rooney discussed that staff is not recommending to develop a point system for the State
ordinance.
Barbara Cardillo commented that in response to Joe Pirzynski's question for the BMP Program,
she was only aware of one protest. Town staff and a Community Services Commissioner met
with .this person and mediated the issue.
Consensus of Committee was to support staff's recommendation.
1-w
General Plan Committee Minutes
April 11, 2012
Page 3 of4
D. Application Requirements
John Bourgeois questioned the counting of reduced parking standards as an incentive or
concession.
Barbara Spector requested further clarification on this matter.
Joe Pirzynski and John Bourgeois raised concerns about reducing parking.
Wendie Rooney clarified the matter and noted that the Town Attorney needs to further analyze
this matter.
Based on the clarification, the consensus of the Committee was to accept staff s recommendation
on this matter.
ITEM2 CONTINUED REVIEW OF THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING OVERLAY
ZONE DESIGN GUIDELINES AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS:
SOUTHBAY AND OKA ROAD SITES
Wendie Rooney gave a quick summary of the Committee's last meeting and continued with the
matrix where the Committee left off with the Southbay site.
Topic Consensus
Density 6 -0
Lot coverage 6 -0
Building heights 6 -0'
Concessions
Height 6 -0
Parking Defer to future meeting
Density 6 -0
Setback reduction 6 -0 — Delete as concession
Lot coverage 6 -0
Density transfer Defer to future meeting
Concession Processing
Pre - application conference 6 -0
Priority application processing 6 -0
Priority plan check processing 6 -0
Concession Financial
Wavier or deferral of planning and 6 -0
engineering application fees
Waiver or deferral of building plan 6 -0
check and inspection fees
Waiver or deferral of traffic impact fees Delete as concession
Waiver or deferral of construction 6 -0
mitigation fee
Committee commented that this matter be reviewed with the School District.
2TWi ty -five feet with podium parking — Architecture and Site to go higher.
General Plan Committee Minutes
April 11, 2012
Page 4 of 4
Oka Road Site A•
Topic Consensus
Setbacks 6 -0
Parking ratio 6 -0
Density 6 -0
Lot coverage 6 -0
Building heights 6 -0
Affordability ratios 6 -0
Concessions
Height 6 -0 — Delete as concession
Parking 6 -0
Density 6 -02 — Delete as concession
Setback reduction 6 -0 — Not on creekside; same as Courthouse
Lot coverage 6 -0
Density transfer Defer to future meeting
Twenty feet from rear property line or 20 feet from flood plain boundary, whichever is more
restrictive, provided environmental requirements are met.
2Deleted due to singular access and circulation concerns from Highway 17 off -ram
ITEM 3 APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM MARCH 28, 2012
Barbara Spector made a motion to approve the minutes fiom March 28, 2012, with correction to
footnotes in matrix for Courthouse site. The motion was seconded by Todd Jarvis and passed
unanimously.
ITEM 4 ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 6:40 p.m.
Prepared by:
2Smdy tBy
ner
N :1DEV1GPM012minutes\GPG4- 11 -12. doc
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
110 East Main Street, Los Gatos, CA 95030 (408) 354 -6872
SUMMARY MINUTES OF A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE GENERAL PLAN
COMMITTEE OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS ON APRIL 25, 2012, HELD AT THE LOS
GATOS ADULT RECREATION CENTER, 208 E. MAIN STREET, ROOM 208, LOS
GATOS, CALIFORNIA.
The meeting was called to order at 5:00 p.m. by Barbara Spector.
ATTENDANCE:
Members present: Barbara Spector, Joe Pirzynski, John Bourgeois (arrived at 5:20 p.m.), Marico
Sayoc, Todd Jarvis, Barbara Cardillo, Marcia Jensen, Matthew Hudes (arrived at 5:20 p.m.)
Members absent: None
Staff present: Wendie Rooney, Director of Community Development; Sandy Baily, Planning
Manager; Heather Bradley, Associate Planner
VERBAL COMMUNICATIONS:
Beverly Bryant, working for KT Properties, stated they have come up with good aspects for the
Courthouse site and have been talking to affordable housing groups. To successfully develop the
site, the parcel must be split into two parcels with affordable on one side and market rate on the
other. Also, for today's market, the developer would need to transfer the density.
Committee and staff both recommended that if KT Properties submitted anything in writing for
the next meeting, to include numbers as an example to justify its points, and to provide
information from other jurisdictions.
Mark Tersini spoke in regards to the Courthouse site, and stated that KT Properties is
anticipating a density of 20 units per acre. With a density bonus, the development would be 24
units per acre.
ITEM 1 CONTINUED REVIEW OF THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING OVERLAY
ZONE DESIGN GUIDELINES AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS: OKA
ROAD SITES B AND C
Wendie Rooney continued the matrix discussion where the Committee left off at its last meeting
with the Oka Road B and C sites.
ATT ACHWNT 1 0
General Plan Committee Minutes
April 25, 2012
Page 2 of 4
To is Consensus
Setbacks 6 -0
Parking 6 -0
Density 6 -0
Lot Coverage 6 -0
Height 6 -0
Affordability Ratio 6 -0
Concessions
Height 6 -0
Parking 6 -0
Density 6 -0 — Delete as concession
Setback 6 -0
Lot coverage 6 -0
Density transfer Defer,to future meetings
One topic for future discussion is if the property is going to be subdivided, should it be
reviewed as two separate parcels?
Oka Road Site B — Site Development Influences
The Committee members had questions /input on the following site development influence
comments:
Circulation: Questioned why the Town couldn't require entry drives. Wendie Rooney explained
the "if possible" term used. An example where it may not be possible is if there was an
engineering issue.
Creek Connection: Questioned why there is a creek connection for Site B, since the parcel is not
adjacent to the creek. Committee and staff discussed connection from Site B to parcel A for the
potential future trail.
Building Massing: Recommended to include language that this is based on housing types.
Providing Individual Unit Entries on the Street: Discussed if all housing types should have a
frontage presence on the street. There was concern that this could force people to park on the
street. Staff will wordsmith the language so it is more generic and does not require all entries to
be on the street.
Olca Road Site C — Site Development Influences
Noise: Concerned that noise issues could impact where houses are located.
Access Drive: The Committee discussed concerns regarding the limited access to the site and
the neighborhood. As a side note, concerns were addressed regarding the future development of
the parcel to the south of Site C, which may be a future AHOZ site. The GPC noted that the
General Plan Committee Minutes
April 25, 2012
Page 3 of 4
Town may want to reconsider if the parcel south of C should be included in the next Housing
Element update.
Does the Town have the ability to do a traffic analysis for the Oka parcels?
Can the Town prioritize the development of the three Oka sites?
Marcia Jensen went on record that she is uncomfortable with the development of this site due to
traffic and circulation concerns. It was questioned whether environmental review will be
required there when Site B and C are developed due to freeway, noise, and air quality. Staff
replied that an environmental review will most likely be required.
Concern was expressed about competing State law constraints of the site.
Discussion was held on the possibility of a second access.
Comprehensive planning between Sites B and C was encouraged.
Staff will bring back some language to address these comments.
The Committee made the following recommendations regarding the site influences:
Instead of gateway feature, revise language to note it is a neighborhood identification.
Make language clear where the front setback is. West property line should be, the front
setback.
Modify Caltrans note so that landscape buffer is on subject property. The landscaping shall
screen the wall along the highway.
ITEM 2 AFFORDABLE HOUSING OVERLAY ZONE DESIGN GUIDELINES:
PROGRESS DRAFT
Wendie Rooney summarized the proposed plan to review the draft guidelines for the next
meeting.
Committee members requested a copy of the matrix ahead of time to help expedite their review.
Committee members were encouraged to mark up their documents. Edits not changing the intent
should be submitted separately to staff,
ITEM 3 APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM APRIL 11, 2012
Marico Sayoc moved to approve the minutes from April 11, 2012. The motion was seconded by
Todd Jarvis and passed unanimously.
General Plan Committee Minutes
April 25, 2012
Page 4 of 4
ITEM 4 ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 6 :30 p,m.
Prepared by;
L.13aily, ng Manager
N:1DSVlGPG12o12minuleAGPC 4- -2.doc )
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
110 East Main Street, Los Gatos, CA 95030 (408) 354 -6872
SUMMARY MINUTES OF A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE GENERAL PLAN
COMMITTEE OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS ON MAY 9, 2012, HELD AT THE LOS
GATOS LIBRARY CONFERENCE ROOM, 100 VILLA AVENUE, LOS GATOS,
CALIFORNIA.
The meeting was called to order at 5:15 p.m. by John Bourgeois.
ATTENDANCE:
Members present: Barbara Spector, Joe Pirzynski, John Bourgeois, Marico Sayoc, Todd Jarvis,
Marcia Jensen, Matthew Hudes
Members absent: Barbara Cardillo
Staff present: Wendie Rooney, Director of Community Development; Sandy Baily, Planning
Manager; Heather Bradley, Associate Planner
VERBAL COMMUNICATIONS:
Mark Tersini, KT Properties, would like clarification on when this item will be heard at the
Town Council level so he can develop a timeline for his proposal. He also noted that they
provided comments to the Committee, which are included in the packet.
Wendie Rooney summarized the items to be discussed and the timeline. She noted that the with
additional density recommended for the AHOZ sites, staff is recommending conducting
environmental review since the Southbay site density is exceeding the 20 units per acre that was
not analyzed in the General Plan EIR,
Wendie Rooney discussed options for processing the Courthouse site which included bifurcating
this property from the other four AHOZ sites.
Marcia Jensen questioned if it was legal to group all properties under one EIR on the five sites.
Wendie Rooney commented that yes it is. She noted that a General Plan EIR covers an entire
community.
Barbara Spector requested clarification of the Town sponsored EIR and the AHOZ processes
and if the State would need to be involved in the process. She questioned if there would be an
issue if the Courthouse site was bifurcated and expedited through the process.
Wendie Rooney commented that KT Properties is aware of the risk.
ATTACMWNT 11
General Plan Committee Minutes
May 9, 2012
Page 2 of4
Barbara Spector questioned the cost of this process.
Marcia Jensen questioned the State's involvement with the Courthouse site and asked if there are
any benefits to the Town to bifurcate the Courthouse site from the other AHOZ sites.
Wendie Rooney clarified that the Courthouse site would still be part of the AHOZ and treated the
same as the other. sites. However, by bifurcating it from the other sites, KT Properties could
continue processing their application. She further noted that they would be responsible for
preparing the environmental review on the project as well as the AHOZ standards. She said that
Town staff would work with KT Properties on the GPA and Town Code Text amendments that
would be required to implement the AHOZ standards. Finally, she noted that by bifurcating this
site Horn the others, KT Properties could continue processing the applications and potentially the
Town would realize 50 units of affordable senior housing.
Matthew Hudes questioned if the Committee agreed upon bifurcating the Courthouse site and if
the Committee would have another opportunity to review in totality the AHOZ standards prior to
going to the Planning Commission.
Wendie Rooney clarified that the Committee has provided input on all components of the AHOZ,
except for the Architecture Guidelines. She commented that all the AHOZ. standards have been
incorporated into the Architecture Guidelines that were distributed to the Committee. Finally she
said that the next steps would be Planning Commission review and then Town Council review.
John Bourgeois questioned what action was being requested of the Committee.
Barbara Spector clarified that the bifurcating and expediting of the Courthouse site is one matter
and whether or not KT's proposal is consistent with the Design Guidelines is another matter.
She felt it should be a Council decision.
Wendie Rooney commented that Town Council would ultimately consider the KT Properties'
proposal, but she did not originally plan to schedule the bifurcation request for Town Council,
Joe Pirzynski felt the Courthouse site matter should be expedited. He further stated that the
Committee should make a recommendation and the matter should be scheduled with Town
Council.
Marcia Jensen raised concerns if the process was bifurcated, is this putting the cart before the
horse. Would the Courthouse site be an ordinance and would that trigger the other sites to have
an ordinance?
Barbara Spector commented that starting the process on this one is okay, but the applicant has to
clearly understand the risks of moving forward without the AHOZ review occurring first.
Marcia Jensen commented she does not see an advantage to the Town in duplicating the process
and splitting up EIRs.
General Plan Committee Minutes
May 9, 2012
Page 3 of 4
Todd Jarvis commented that affordable housing is needed and since the Town has an application
for one of the sites, it is good to move forward.
Marico Sayoc questioned permit streamlining, the options, and what counts towards R11NA
numbers. Since the applicant is aware of the risks, she was comfortable to move forward.
John Bourgeois confirmed that the Committee's consensus is to move forward.
ITEM 1 FOLLOW -UP ITEMS
a. Southbav Height Clarification
Barbara Spector commented that the Minutes stated 35 feet with podium parking and
Architecture and Site (A &S) to request to go higher, and her notes confirmed height
noted. Committee confirmed this.
b. Transit Oriented Development Parking Standard: This would allow a requested
concession of a reduction to 1.3 spaces per unit for the Southbay site due to its location
near the planned light rail station.
Consensus to apply this to the Southbay site, and it was confirmed by the Committee.
c. Density Consolidation (aka Density Transfer): Wendie Rooney summarized the
density transfer concept and noted that the Town has actually allowed this before on the
Aventine and Terreno de FIores developments. She also noted that many jurisdictions
calculated density for the property as a whole, but ultimately have different levels of
density on various portions of the property. She noted that this is quite common
particularly with mixed use and affordable housing developments.
Marcia Jensen commented she understood density transfers for mixed use
developments, but had a concern when the entire development was housing,
Barbara Spector raised a concern that the density transfer could create a bifurcated
development where one side is affordable (low income) and one side is market rate;
units are not intermixed.
Joe Pirzynski commented that analysis and control would occur during A &S; therefore,
he felt comfortable to allow it.
Marico ,Sayoc commented she understands the benefits. She questioned how the Town
can ensure that affordable housing is interspersed within the product type. She felt it
appears to go against the intent and principles of the BMP program, and she
understands that the AHOZ units are not BMP units.
General Plan Committee Minutes
May 9, 2012
Page 4 of 4
Barbara Spector questioned how the A &S process can regulate the dispersion of
affordable units within a development,
Wendie Rooney clarified that language would best be placed in the AHOZ ordinance.
John Bourgeois felt it was good to give the developer an opportunity to justify their
development.
The Committee recommended that this concept be allowed as a discretionary
architecture and site review item rather than a concession, as recommended by staff.
The consensus of the Committee was that the ordinance as well as the Housing Element
shall have a preamble which clarifies the objectives.
Wendie Rooney confirmed that the language will set the tone of the overall AHOZ
program.
Matthew Hudes commented he was supportive in that it will lead to the variety of
housing types we need. There are certain circumstances where development should be
separated, such as senior housing where senior amenities would only cater to seniors:
ITEM 2 CONTINUED REVIEW OF THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING OVERLAY
ZONE DESIGN GUIDELINES: PROGRESS DRAFT
This item was continued to the next meeting.
VERBAL COMMUNICATIONS (Continued)
Beverly Bryant, KT Properties, encouraged the Committee to review ]all Lindenthal's letter prior
to the next meeting. If their project is delayed, it may not happen.
ITEM 3 APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM APRIL 25, 2012
Joe Pirzynski moved to approve the minutes from April 25, 2012. The motion was seconded by
Marcia Jensen and passed unanimously.
ITEM 4 ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 6:30 p.m.
Prepared by:
Sandy L. Bay, Planning Mana er
N:W &V1GPC12U12 i rtes \oPC 5.9 -12f .1 doe
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
110 East Main Street, Los Gatos, CA 95030 (408) 354 -6872
SUMMARY MINUTES OF A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE GENERAL PLAN
COMMITTEE OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS ON MAY 23, 2012, HELD AT THE LOS
GATOS ADULT RECREATION CENTER, 208 E, MAIN STREET, ROOM 208, LOS
GATOS, CALIFORNIA.
The meeting was called to order at 5;05 p,m, by John Bourgeois,
ATTENDANCE:
Members present: Joe Pirzynski, John Bourgeois, Marico Sayoc, Todd Jarvis, Marcia Jensen,
Matthew Hudes, Barbara Cardillo
Members absent: Barbara Spector
Staff ruesent: Wendie Rooney, Director of Community Development; Sandy Baily, Planning
Manager
ITEM 1 DISCUSSION OF KT PROPERTIES, CORRESPONDENCE DATED MAY
1, 2012, WITH REGARDS TO THE COURTHOUSE AFFORDABILITY
RATIOS
Wendie Rooney introduced and briefly discussed this item and distributed the revised Affordable
Housing Overlay Zone (AHOZ) Affordability Ratio Chart.
Mark Tersini introduced Scott Johnson of MidPen and turned the discussion over to him.
Scott Johnson discussed the affordable development proposal MidPen is working on with KT
Properties. Scott Johnson further discussed issues of finding funding sources for affordable
moderate housing.
Matthew Eludes questioned if funding was available in the past and if any changes were foreseen
in the future.
Scott Johnson commented he was not expecting to see public funding levels to change. Past
programs have been mortgage assistance, which no longer exists. Moderate income level first-
time bomebuyer programs are still available.
John Bourgeois questioned how the Town would meet the RHNA numbers if it waived moderate
income level units.
Mark Tersini responded he is not aware how they could address that number; they are basing
their proposal on what will work financially.
ATTACHNEW 1 Z
General Plan Committee Minutes
May 23, 2012
Page 2of4
Wendie Rooney further responded that there may be some ability to regain those units elsewhere.
Ms. Rooney clarified that the Town is neutral on this request.
Marcia Jensen questioned if during the next Housing Element update, how will the State react if
the Town has not met its moderate income levels.
Wendie Rooney responded that the Town is only required to provide an opportunity to achieve
these rmits. The Town is not obligated to have the units constructed.
Joe Pirzynski commented that the Town wants to develop affordable units. There will be no
penalty if you cannot produce them. There will be a penalty if you cannot project and plan for
the units. There may be rewards for jurisdictions that can produce their units which would
probably be in transportation funding. We may never be able to get funding for moderate
housing.
Wendie Rooney commented there are better opportunities through the regular development
process to meet moderate housing needs as opposed to low and very low.
Barbara Cardillo questioned the numbers in the chart for moderate housing.
John Bourgeois asked if moderate housing would be easier to produce if Los Gatos was not a
high income community.
Scott Johnson stated it might be for ownership units.
Matthew Hudes questioned what the trade -offs may be.
Todd Jarvis suggested entertaining a time limit for allowing this. If the time limit is not met, it
reverts back. Questioned what would be a reasonable time limit.
Joe Pirzynski commented to not be too restrictive in time limits.
Marcia Jensen stated that it could be a request as part of the project application. Ordinances
should be policy based, not project based. Expressed concern about meeting needs and wants of
a developer prior to application of a development.
Marico Sayoc questioned if an exception would be a variance.
Wendie Rooney clarified it would not be a variance. She further commented that if the Town did
not support the change to the affordability ratios for the property, then the applicant would need
to process a planned development application to request the change.
Marcia Jensen questioned how it would be a planned development application. Could it be
included in the AHOZ ordinance?
General Plan Committee Minutes
May 23, 2012
Page 3 of4
Wendie Rooney cautioned to not weaken the AHOZ ordinance by including a clause that
applicants can request to deviate from the affordable levels without any findings or criteria.
The Committee discussed options and thought that criteria should be developed in the AHOZ
ordinance for the deciding body to determine if deviations would be acceptable,
Barbara Cardillo discussed another option that if the Town is exceeding its RHNA goals, could
the Town have flexibility in swapping the numbers? Once the housing number is reached for
that income level, no more flexibility is allowed.
Wendie Rooney commented that any of the options could be a possibility in developing an
ordinance.
Mark T'ersini commented that he liked- the -roncept of having flexibility with the numbers. The
process would be smoother going under the AHOZ zone as opposed to a planned development
application.
Wendie Rooney summarized: Build into all the overlay zones flexibility for affordability ratios
and develop criteria for reviewing and approving requests to modify ratios.
Barbara Cardillo further summarized that one property should not end up being completely
moderate.
Marico Sayoc commented that economic diversity still needs to be at each site.
Barbara Cardillo commented each property should have at least two of the categories.
Wendie Rooney commented staff will bring back wording to a future meeting.
Joe Pirzynski asked if the General Plan Committee's (GPC) comments will be forwarded to the
Planning Commission and Town Council. Wendie Rooney confirmed that they would be.
Marcia Jensen requested that the GPC get a copy of the Conceptual Development Advisory
Committee report for this item.
ITEIVI2 CONTINUED REVIEW OF THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING OVERLAP'
ZONE DESIGN GUIDELINES: PROGRESS DRAFT
The Committee began the review of the draft AHOZ Guidelines and completed the Introduction
and General Design Guidelines Sections. The Committee will discuss the Housing Types Design
Standards Guidelines at the next meeting.
Genera( Plan Committee Minutes
May 23, 2012
Page 4 of 4
ITEM 3 APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM MAY 9, 2012
Marcia Jensen moved to approve the minutes from May 9, 2012. The motion was seconded by
Todd Jarvis and passed unanimously.
ITEM 4 ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 6:20 p.m.
Prepared by:
SandkBaky nning Manage
GPC 2012min1 CPC 5- 23- 12.doc
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
110 East Main Street, Los Gatos, CA 95030 (408) 354 -6872
SUMMARY MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE GENERAL PLAN
COMMITTEE OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS ON JUNE 13, 2012, HELD AT THE LOS
GATOS ADULT RECREATION CENTER, 208 E. MAIN STREET, ROOM 208, LOS
GATOS, CALIFORNIA.
The meeting was called to order at 5:30 p.m. by John Bourgeois,
ATTENDANCE:
Members present: Barbara Spector, Joe Pirzynski, John Bourgeois, Marico Sayre, Marcia
Jensen, Barbara Cardillo
Members absent: Todd Jarvis, Matthew Hodes
Staff present; Wendie Rooney, Director of Community Development; Sandy Baily, Planning
Manager; Heather Bradley, Associate Planner
Guest rpesent: Justin Tahara
ITEM 1 CONTINUED REVIEW OF THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING OVERLAY
ZONE DESIGN GUIDELINES: PROGRESS DRAFT
Committee continued the review of the Design Guidelines and discussed unit type.
Committee questioned if small lot single family type of units are appropriate. Concern was.
raised that the potential large size of these units would not be typical for affordable housing and
could potentially impact schools.
Committee discussed whether or not this product type is appropriate to encourage affordable
housing. Committee decided to proceed with review of product types and to discuss the
appropriateness later.
Staff will check to verify if second units count towards RHNA numbers.
Committee requested definitions for condominium, townhouse, airspace coop, flat.
Committee completed review of unit type and retained the small lot single family type of units.
ATTACHWNT 1 3
Cenral Plan Committee Minutes
June 13, 2012
Page 2 of 2
ITEM 2 APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM MAY 23, 2012
Marcia Jensen moved to approve the minutes from May 23, 2012, with edits. The motion was
seconded by Marico Sayoc. Barbara Spector abstained. Motion passed.
ITEM 4 ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 6:50 p.m.
Prepared by:
jSandy L. Bai ,, Planng Mana er
GPC,2D12m
ni
WAGPC 6.13.12.doc
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
110 East Main Street, Los Gatos, CA 95030 (408) 354 -6872
SUMMARY MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE GENERAL PLAN
COMMITTEE OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS ON AUGUST 8, 2012, HELD AT THE LOS
GATOS ADULT RECREATION CENTER, 208 E. MAIN STREET, ROOM 208, LOS
GATOS, CALIFORNIA.
The meeting was called to order at 5:32 p.m, by Commissioner Bourgeois.
ATTENDANCE:
Members present: Barbara Spector, Joe Pirzynski, John Bourgeois, Marico Sayoc, Marcia
Jensen, Barbara Cardillo, Todd Jarvis, Matthew Hudes
Members absent: None
Staff present: Wendie Rooney, Director of Community Development; Erwin Ordoiiez, Senior
Planner; Suzanne Avila, Senior Planner
ITEM 1 BELOW MARKET PRICE HOUSING PROGRAM GUIDLEINES AND
ORDINANCE REVISIONS
Director Wendie Rooney briefly noted the 2009 update of the BMP Housing Ordinance and
Guidelines and introduced Erwin Ordofiez who summarized the changes and responded to
questions from the Committee.
The Committee reviewed proposed changes to the BMP Program guidelines, asked various
questions and made the following revisions to the prepared draft:
Reference to restrictions should be amended to read: "The Program further intends to
ensure, to the greatest extent possible, that rent and re -sale of these housing units will
remain affordable to median and low income levels for the longest feasible time as
approved by an authorized body."
Reference to mortgage financing should be amended to read: "All loans used to purchase
or refinance BMP units must be fixed rate and fixed term without balloon navments to
minimize homeowner exposure to increased risks of mortgage default.
Reference to First Time Homebuyer definition should be amended to read: "Exception is
made consistent with the Federal Housing and Urban Development (HUD) definitions
and for tenants residing in rental apartment proposed to be converted to a condominium
or other common interest ownership prior to a Notice of Intent to Convert the
development to an ownership residential unit."
Formatting for Initial Sales Prices examples should be improved for clarity.
ATTACHMENT 1 4
General Plan Committee Minutes
August 8, 2012
Page 2 of 3
Marcia Jensen made a motion to forward the draft BMP Guidelines to the Town Council with a
recommendation for approval. The motion was seconded by Joe Pirzynski and passed
tmammously.
ITEM 2 CONSIDERATION OF FINAL AFFORDABLE HOUSING OVERLAY
ZONE DESIGN GUIDELINES
Director Wendie Rooney discussed the progress in preparing the most recent draft of the
Affordable Housing Overlay Zone Design Guidelines since the last meeting.
The Committee reviewed "highlighted" revisions to the draft and discussed additional
refinements that should be made. After discussion, the Committee unanimously recommended
approval to the Planning`Comtnission and Town Council with the following additional changes
to the prepared draft (motion Pirzynski, Spector second):
Introductory paragraph should be revised to reflect the Committee's and Director
Rooney's revised text "The Town of Los Gatos has a rich heritage of varied homes
ranging from small cottages to larger homes..."
Second paragraph of Introduction should delete typo: "the" Los Gatos.
Housing Types, second paragraph, highlight should be revised to read "... density bonus
provision allowed by the AHOZ."
Design Guidelines parking section should include new bullet item: "6. In housing
developments without garage parking, bicycle parking will be required per VTA
standards.. ".
Small Lot Single- Family Detached Homes Characteristics should be revised from:
typical densities range from "15 -24 DU /acre" to: "15 -20 DU /acre" to reflect 2,500 81
lot minimum.
Cottage Cluster Housing Development Standards Building Placement section highlight
should read "Structures facing public streets must have similar articulated facades on
both-the street and courtyard facades."
Cottage Cluster Housing Development Standards Massing and Articulation section
highlight should read: "Pitched roofs are required, for all structures, and should include
the use of varied pitched roof styles, gables or dormers."
South Bay Development Site section should be revised to reflect the Flood Plain
Management Plan.
Oka Road/, Lark Avenue Sites A & B should be revised to reflect the Flood Plan
Management Plan.
Joe Pirzynski made a motion to forward a recommendation for approval of the Affordable
Housingbverlay Zone Design Guidelines to the Planning Commission and Town Council. The
motion was seconded by Barbara Spector and passed unanimously.
General Plan Committee Minutes
August 8, 2012
Page 3 of 3
ITEM 3 APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM JUNE 13, 2012
Barbara Spector made a motion to approve the minutes from June 13, 2012. The motion was
seconded by Marico Sayoc and passed unanimously.
ITEM 4 ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 6:25 p.m. The next regular meeting of the General Plan
Committee is scheduled for August 22, 2012.
Prepared by:
Erwin Ordonez, Senior Planner
N: 1DEVIGPC2012miuutuk0PC 8- 8- 12rev.doc
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank