Loading...
Attachment 8TOWN OF LOS GATOS I PLANNINTG COMMISSION STAFF REPORT 1p Meeting Date: September 14, 2011 PREPARED BY: Suzanne Davis, Senior Planner sdavisAlo s eatosca. aov APPLICATION NO: Planned development Application PD -10 -001 Negative Declaration ND -10 -001 ITEM NO: 2 LOCATION: 135 Riviera Drive (accessed from Milbrae and Rushmore Lanes, off Towne Terrace) APPLICANT: Tim Steele PROPERTY OWNER: Sobrato Interests IV CONTACT: Tim Steele, The Sobrato Organization APPLICATION SUMMARY: Requesting approval of a Plarmed Development for renovation and expansion of an existing apartment complex (Riviera Terrace) on property zoned RM:12 -20. APNs 529-13-016,529-09-031, and 034. DEEMED COMPLETE: June 7, 2011 FINAL DATE TO TAKE ACTION: a. Final action on the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) is required by CEQA Section 15107, within six months of the application being deemed complete (December 7, 2011). b. Rezoning applications are legislative acts and are therefore not governed by the Permit Streamlining Act. RECOMMENDATION: Forward a recommendation to the Town Council for approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMIP) and Planned Development (PD). PROJECT DATA: General Plan Designation: High Density Residential Zoning Designation: RM:12 -20 Applicable Plans & Standards: Zoning Ordinance General Plan Parcel Size: 5.89 acres Surrounding Area: Existing Land Use General Plan Zon North MF & SF residential _ High Density Res : RM 12 -20 East Los Gatos Creels & trail South Multi- family residential High Density Res. RM :12 -20 West Multi- family residential High Density Res RM:12 -20 Planning Conunission Staff Report - Page 2 135 Riviera Drive /PD -10 -001, ND -10 -001 September 14, 2011 CEQA: It has been determined that this project will not have a significant impact on the environment and a Mitigated Negative Declaration is recormmended. FINDINGS: ■ The Planning Commission must make a finding that the zone change is consistent with the General Plan if the recommendation is for approval. ■ The Planning Commission must make findings as required by the Town's Traffic Policy for community benefit. ACTION: a. Forward a recommendation to Town Council for approval of the MND and Mitigation Monitoring Program. b. Forward a recommendation to the Town Council for strong approval of the Planned Development. EXHIBITS: Previously Received Under Separate Cover: 1. Location map 2. Mitigated Negative Declaration 3. Errata Sheet to MND (3 pages) 4. Mitigation Monitoring Program (8 pages) 5. Response to SCVVdD cornnments (7 pages) 6. Required findings 7. January 13, 2010, CDAC Minutes (2 pages) 8. Consulting Architect's report (7 pages), received April 27, 2010 9. Parking comparison table 10. Applicant's letter (3 pages), received July 5, 2011 11. Traffic Impact Study dated May 10, 2010 (184 pages) 12. Draft Planned Development Ordinal } ce (27 pages) with Rezoning Exhibit and Conceptual Development Plans (36 sheets), received June 7, 2011 13. Applicant's letter, received July 13, 2011 14. Email correspondence from Lee Quintana (3 pages), received July 13, 2011 15. Letter from Lisa Moreno, submitted on behalf of residents of Riviera Terrace (5 pages plus excerpt from General Plan Background Report), received July 13, 2011 Plamiing Corn mission Staff Report - Page 3 135 Riviera Drive /PD -10 -001, ND -10 -001 September 14, 2011 Received with this Report: 16. Required Findings 17. Mitigation Monitoring Plan 18. July 13, 2011, Planning Commission Summary Minutes 19. Applicant's letter (3 pages), received September 7, 2011 20. Existing improvements exhibit (one page) 21. Riparian canopy exhibit 22. Proposed "green screen" exhibit 23. Computer models of existing and proposed buildings (3 pages) 24. Revised Draft Planned Development Ordinance (26 pages) with Rezoning Map (Exhibit A, one page) BACKGROUND On July 13, 2011, the Planning Commnission considered the subject application and continued the matter to August 10, 2011, directing the applicant to address concerns about proposed development within the riparian corridor. The Commission also discussed and expressed concern about the community benefit proposal and the lack of story poles on the project site. The application was again continued from August 10, 2011, to September 14, 2011, to allow additional time for staff and the applicant to address the Commission's concerns. ANALYSIS: The following comments and concerns were discussed by the Planning Commission at the July 13 meeting: A. Story Poles Pursuant to the adopted Height Pole and Netting Policy the Community Development Director may approve a waiver if exceptional circumstances exist. An exception to the Story Pole Policy was granted for this application because the site includes 123 occupied apartment units and the poles and guy wires would be potentially unsafe to tenants and guests. The locations of the four new buildings are within active recreation and parking areas. Staff revisited the site following the July 13th meeting to reevaluate the possibility of installing story poles and determined that poles could not be installed without interfering with drive aisles and parking spaces, water features, walkways, pool, and recreation areas. Unless the recreation area is temporarily closed and fenced off, there is a safety issue with installing height poles and necessary guy -wires or wood supports to keep the poles in place. Exhibit 20 shows the existing site improvements that are located within proposed building footprints (see Exhibit 20). Planning Commission Staff Report - Page 4 135 Riviera Drive /PD -10 -001, ND -10 -001 September 14, 2011 To provide a visual indication of the height of the new buildings relative to the existing buildings, balloons were installed at corners of proposed buildings 1 and 4. In addition, and based on Plaiming Commission request, computer photo simulations were created to show the existing and proposed building and how they would relate to one another (see Exhibit 23). B. Riparian Corridor As stated in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, there are tlu guidelines from the Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Near Streams that the project may be inconsistent with: • Provide a buffer between the new facilities and the riparian zone • Removal of native vegetation within the riparian canopy • New paved and active recreational areas within a riparian corridor The Town has the discretion to interpret the Guidelines and Standards for land us near streams, and to determine whether strict adherence is warranted given the circumstances and the merits of the project. The proposed project will not expand the pavement beyond the existing chain link fence that runs parallel to the creek, although it will expand the parking area northward. The parking area will be pulled back two feet to provide an area for planting between the parking lot and chain link fence. Vines will be planted to climb and cover the fence, providing a better aesthetic and a buffer between the parking lot and creek enviromnent. This "green screen" will also reduce light intrusion into the creek area. The applicant also investigated reducing the expanded section of the north parking lot. Up to four parking spaces on each side could be eliminated to reduce the impervious coverage within the riparian canopy. The expansion area cannot be reduced further due to the requirement for the emergency vehicle (fire truck) turnaround. The applicant would prefer to retain as many parking spaces as possible to support the apartment complex. The conceptual development plans have not been changed; however, the plans can be revised if the Commission directs the applicant to reduce the impervious coverage in this area. Construction is proposed within the area designated as the edge of the riparian canopy (see Exhibit 21), and there will be an increase in the amount of impervious surface in this area. While the proposed project will eliminate some of the buffer between the existing apartments and the creek, it will not expand facilities beyond the area that is already in active use (including recreation and parking). To offset the added impervious surface within the riparian canopy, the applicant will be installing permeable pavers in drive aisles. Pavers will also be used in areas with uncovered parking spaces. Approximately 7,000 square feet of permeable pavers have been added with the revised plan. Plain ing Commission Staff Report - Page 5 135 Riviera Drive/PD -10 -001, ND -10 -001 September 14, 2011 Four trees are being removed within the area that is designated as the edge of the riparian canopy. Three of these trees are non - native species that are growing under the higher canopy of larger Sycamore and Oak trees. The fourth tree that will be removed is a Sycamore that is in fair condition and leaning. The stretch of Los Gatos Creek that runs through the site currently has no shade. In addition to the invasive species eradication the applicant is proposing a planting program that will add native riparian trees, and a maintenance period to get the trees established. Restoring the tree canopy will help cool the water and provide a better habitat for fish and wildlife. The applicant is working with a biologist to develop an appropriate planting program to enhance the creek area. C. Community Benefit The proposed project generates additional traffic of five or more peak hour trips, and accordingly, the applicant is required to cite economic or housing benefits to the Town and /or specific sections of the General Plan that demonstrate the project's benefit to the community that outweighs the traffic impact. The deciding body_ must make specific findings that demonstrate that the benefit(s) of the project outweigh the impact in order to approve the project. In addition to site upgrades, the applicant is offering the following cormmunity benefits with the proposed project: • Provision of 25 affordable units (24 low income and 1 moderate income). • Replacing segments of parking lot with permeable pavers to improve filtration and drainage (8,000 square feet more than required for C -3 compliance). • Riparian restoration including removal of non - native and invasive species and planting of native trees and understory to reestablish canopy over Los Gatos Creek. On -site improvements including less obtrusive lighting and a new drainage system will also benefit the creek area. • Replacing on -site sidewalks and impermeable areas with new sidewalks and permeable landscape features • Preserving the mosaics on existing buildings D. Density Bonus State Density Bonus law requires a jurisdiction to grant a density bonus for residential projects that provide a specified minimum percentage of affordable units. The law requires the calculation of the density bonus to be based on the jurisdiction's General Plan and zoning district's "maximum allowable density" for the property. The current zoning allows up to 118 waits. General Plan Policy HOU -13 states that affordable units are not included or counted in the base density. For this project the maximum allowable density is 142 (118 per General Plan/zoning district + 24 affordable units). Under the Planning Conunission Staff Report - Page 6 135 Riviera Drive /PD -10 -001, ND -10 -001 September 14, 2011 State Density Bonus law the developer is entitled to a 35% density increase due to the commitment of 20% of the units for low income (118 x 35% ° 41.3 units or 42 when rounded up as allowed by State Density Bonus law). The potential number of units is 184 (142 + 42). The applicant is requesting a total of 173 units, and consequently is well within the units allotted through the State Density Bonus law. E. Parking The July 13, 2011 staff report incorrectly stated that the applicant was requesting a concession to Town development standards in regards to parking. Staff originally calculated the on -site parking requirement using the Torun Code rather than applying State Density Bonus law which requires one space for one bedroom units and two spaces for two bedroom units. Applying this formula to the proposal for 126 one bedroom units and 47 two bedroom units, a total of 220 parking spaces is required for the project. The applicant is proposing 261 parking spaces. Per the State Density Bonus law, -since the State parking standard is being met, a parking concession is not required. The parking space total would be reduced by up to eight spaces if the Commission directs the applicant to modify the parking area in the expanded section of the north parking lot. F. Building Height State Density Bonus law requires a jurisdiction to grant concessions for affordable housing projects. Based on the proposed percentage of affordable units the Town is required to grant up to two concessions to Town requirements. The proposed building height of 35 feet would be the concession for this project (the Town Code allows up to 30 feet for the RM zoning district). PUBLIC COMMENTS The Commission received public testimony from a number of Riviera Terrace residents at the July 13 public hearing. Surmnary minutes are attached as Exhibit 18. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION A. Conclusion The proposed project will provide 25 affordable units, 24 of which will be available to low income households. Although the proposed density would exceed the maximum allowable density of 20 units per acre, the addition of 50 units is considered consistent with the land use designation when the State Density Bonus Law is applied to the project as requested by the applicant. Planning Commission Staff Report - Page 7 135 Riviera Drive /PD -10 -001, ND -10 -001 September 14, 2011 The applicant has presented detailed plans to demonstrate the merits of the proposed project, including high quality architecture and construction, extensive landscaping, and addition of desirable amenities to provide a better quality of life for residents of the Riviera Terrace apartment complex. The project will provide quality rental housing to the Town's housing stock which is consistent with the goals of the 2007 -2014 Housing Element. The new buildings will step with the terrain and will be lower in height than the existing buildings. The upgrades to the site and quality of the design will enhance the property and retain compatibility with the neighborhood. Mitigation measures have been included to ensure that the project will not result in any significant environmental impacts. The applicant has offered a creek restoration plan in addition to required biological resources mitigation measures and has provided adequate evidence and support for allowing the parking lot expansion within the riparian canopy. The project will result in the restoration and enhancement of Los Gatos Creek as follows: • A new drainage and stormwater system will be installed so any runoff that flows into the creek will be'treated. • Pervious pavers will be used in drive aisles and for uncovered parking spaces to increase on -site water percolation. • Invasive species will be removed as reconnlended by the Town's Biological Consultant (through the enviromnental review). • Planting of native riparian species will be done to restore the canopy and enhance the creek area. The Planting Program is being developed by HT Harvey Ecological Consultants. • Vines will be planted along the existing chain link fence that parallels the creek to create a "green screen" and provide more protection from human activity and lighting. • Exterior and landscape lighting will be modified to reduce glare and light intrusion into the creek area. Existing flood lights on the carports that are directed toward the creek will be removed. Lone level, dovni directed fixtures will be installed. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a reconnnendation for approval to the Town Council as outlined in the following recommendation section. B. Recommendation The Plamaing Commission should take the following actions to forward the Planned Development application to the Town Council with a recommendation for approval: 1. Make the required findings (see Exhibit 16); 2. Reconnrnend that the Town Council make the Mitigated Negative Declaration and adopt the Mitigation Monitoring Plan (Exhibit 17); and Planning Commission Staff Report - Page 8 135 Riviera Drive /PD -10 -001, ND -10 -001 September 14, 2011 3. Reconunend that the Town Council adopt the Planned Development Ordinance (Exhibit 24) and approve the project as proposed. Prepared by: Suzarnie Davis, AICP Senior Planner pproved by: ndie R. Roone Director of Connnunity Development WRR:SD:ct cc: Tim Steele, The Sobrato Organization, 10600 N. DeAnza Blvd., Ste. 200, Cupertino, CA 95014 N9DEVIPC REPORT51201 MRiviera135- PD- 09141 1.doc PLANNING COMMISSION — SEPTEMBER 14, 2011 REQUIRED FINDINGS FOR: 135 Riviera Drive Planned Development Application PD -10 -001 Negative Declaration ND -10 -001 Requesting approval of a Planned Development for renovation and expansion of an existing apartment complex (Riviera Terrace) on property zoned RM:12 -20. No significant environmental impacts have been identified as a result of this project and a Mitigated Negative Declaration is recommended. APNs 529 -13 -016, 529 -09 -027, 031, and 034. PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT: Sobrato Interests IV FINDINGS: Required consistency with the Town's General Plan: The proposed Zone Change is internally consistent with the General Plan and its elements. As required by the Town's Traffic Impact Policy for community benefit: The project will contribute quality rental housing and 26 affordable units to the Town's housing stock. Upgrades to the complex, including a new pool and spa, leasing center and resident lounge, barbecue area, fitness center, and landscaped areas, will provide a better quality of life for residents of Riviera Terrace. Other project benefits are outlined in the community benefit section of the staff report for the July 13, 2011, Planning Commission Hearing (page 12). NMEVU• MGSMI 1\RIVIER 135 -FADOC Faji bit 16 This Page Intentionally Left Blank M' <l C 'I o 0 0 0 0 z Z 0 0 0 v O m j C 0 Z C J Q 6 O' W Z � a o�� z o O N � � w z O DWG ~ a � � o a '4c.zj in C ° u +lid 4 p Q M i C •. m E� C _ ? > W c 1 O — E W Q o E c '- = O U Ul co u in 0 a U vi N N W H h N a N O 00 W rr� CC m L m p O W W O Y O O - E ° vt O_ L t O W = " in > in CL 0 CL m L L L o a n v a W E m E L c ,� °> w n n �' m W n -O Y i n u p v� 3 E o L ,� s *' o u c v Q o m v° E = Y an c v Y 'c m ;o o �¢ o � o m a Q v o m W L 3 0 E u 6 Y m n m ON N x = u to - by a C O OJ n of a C E O M W •U Y = O a) N C tp N O i� L '� a 0 OJ .x m a � 3 ° — ° o a m a c m a w c 0 E o ° _° v a o O E °" a m °� = a "' W °° ro c c m C U O U b0 U 7 tl0 > U1 ' v� Y u Y 00 Q W i C t6 N C Q. > c L W O i L W= 3 0� E u m 3 o m U o c u L a a C . O F' O t Wa .Q p L fl. '= n N O YO a m E ti t10 vi Y lm Y Y L C m O d a -6 f0 ° c ° m L m �= ` W E UJ Q Q C i p_ CL '� v m v E eu °. °' m m v ' r o o v m c o m `m W e u a v c > L `� u m• °- u L ¢ 3 J L O O_ W j> n j a L m a Y .- n 7 C C �' Q- Y t W W ° L W r v> v> o v °J c v c v U a o Q E — n— > �— �'- L a— O W • - u - c�c W e m a E W E t Q u o m W c c W = E Q 6 H - o ai ° u n w 3 v v n. m v ° u r ° u , s ° u N Exhibit 17 p O M i u o¢` m E� L m 1 O a U vi N N W H h N a N O 00 W rr� CC m L m p O W W O Y O O - E ° vt O_ L t O W = " in > in CL 0 CL m L L L o a n v a W E m E L c ,� °> w n n �' m W n -O Y i n u p v� 3 E o L ,� s *' o u c v Q o m v° E = Y an c v Y 'c m ;o o �¢ o � o m a Q v o m W L 3 0 E u 6 Y m n m ON N x = u to - by a C O OJ n of a C E O M W •U Y = O a) N C tp N O i� L '� a 0 OJ .x m a � 3 ° — ° o a m a c m a w c 0 E o ° _° v a o O E °" a m °� = a "' W °° ro c c m C U O U b0 U 7 tl0 > U1 ' v� Y u Y 00 Q W i C t6 N C Q. > c L W O i L W= 3 0� E u m 3 o m U o c u L a a C . O F' O t Wa .Q p L fl. '= n N O YO a m E ti t10 vi Y lm Y Y L C m O d a -6 f0 ° c ° m L m �= ` W E UJ Q Q C i p_ CL '� v m v E eu °. °' m m v ' r o o v m c o m `m W e u a v c > L `� u m• °- u L ¢ 3 J L O O_ W j> n j a L m a Y .- n 7 C C �' Q- Y t W W ° L W r v> v> o v °J c v c v U a o Q E — n— > �— �'- L a— O W • - u - c�c W e m a E W E t Q u o m W c c W = E Q 6 H - o ai ° u n w 3 v v n. m v ° u r ° u , s ° u N Exhibit 17 N 0 0 ri Q Z ri ° o 0 0 a i 0 v N O Z � Q � a a l7 w z a, � U O � O N � �'I N o >� �wG ~ Q C � O d N 2;t C C Y Y C C O u u C fllC� Y Y C C Y � Y U H F'nm�'i U U b➢ UD u ��"� p p m m -= O a ❑ Ca. m ❑ 0 VI o y� p c • VI • L a Y o 'vl .0 � � m p p L a p❑ CL bD v C C 2 E C❑ c ❑ W -' .N L C❑ ❑ [ .2 . a 'ao au av m moaau u al �s N L L @ L L 16 „ CL Q Y VI LY Q � CC c 0 Q VI 2' Q VI a1 = N O E a C O y O C U.= L T N w 3 ^ p E O c O Q C LO t!1 Y w- u W O h m Y l U II -p E L Y U L h aJ aJ O L N L °- N Q) N O A Q N ai ❑ L N.. m -. _ b0 u c a U o 0 T U T@ d >° L 01 > C 'L 3 ire to v = N N C Ol 'O O E 4 QJ O ' U H 'c a C y L c C w L u O J tb L v m C .� `. O O O L 2 ++ U Y Y + ° a w 0 H L .Y Y L a) v N U YY Y p_ U C L w O C U° Q/ E '- u D! O u C 'in U C n rf- N v _ in t0 O vi IO L .O H L ro ` c N o v C Q) 0 t0 u L F- O Y Y N V Y aJ C O C N L VI (A L @ Q) G W O C 4- E O d' v W ? O E Y •^� h N Y O C J C Q1 cYis C c a c ° a E al pa O L .x w C C t0 N a Uua ° '�� =au c.nv =EEw� -- ovYv O w > ,,, a u° a > ° o U u v v O L a1 Q O O (O t0 O Y O O0 a1 N O w QJ O L t0 Q N N y L L 0 E C a1 �] Z N ri 0 0 O z 0 0 a O v m N c Z � ¢ c 2 2 � W Z w � V z � O N � � � m O > � Q�G w � o a c ba m z ^moo a u aj E Y a N , j� t'a`i{' G UJ N C n Y Y .. Q O v E � N 'Ej O a o 't c - v v m -0 a N v u w u o 's' m 'L O c p a) v •Y .O U Q u 0 ri 0 0 O z 0 0 a O v m N c Z � ¢ c 2 2 � W Z w � V z � O N � � � m O > � Q�G w � o a c ba m z ^moo a u M aj E Y a N u C u n m Y C Q O v E � N 'Ej O a o 't c - v v m a N M aj E Y a N u C T n Y C c N a E o v c p v •Y o '++ i N E U- C u O u 0 U [a aJ b4 t0 'L C Ql Q C L u N w L a c E c if ''4._. C L C D > ai .° Q [o W a E 41 Y N p L O p U m N Y w o C o l0 L O YJ C >' -O Yif U C ° ¢ N n3 0 v YO u _ a N v O E ° O O Y L i U °' a s .+ 3 u rCb w . o a Q W ° Y v o o; �° a c ° a v u N O n w Q W W s 'Q V + N m .N N N L c u C _ w al Y m U w m �!- C U U Y m W O a E v + E U C d N S m n O Q o U °' O L L p� 0 N O Y E -p K p 3 c 0 c a) T Q > OI p O C •� ::. u o rb t O Y a p L c m Y a N v Q> v O (a a c K al C O aJ U m C Y N p u L N L N O C= t U C> t u vi _ N ++ U (U Y C a '° r W N v o .° m au OC .0 d O �> O° O C N N 4= a1 O N Q v U w O N Q n = 0 p Y N O J [L Y_ — N O U N Y O . O aJ i n -° T a C C U N J M ba H Y N N W O tb Q C C t6 C N_ O Y O a N U v N v m v O C °- > v c m Y L o c v Y C. 0 x o a1 N >, a Y l . o c E 6" m= E E cc a � 'n w Y p � u u w O v L Q n u o s c m E ,� u cu °¢ N .a ¢ E Y E F ° a o c w¢ O v a bo c u n °- > u' o m �o ° U ° U m¢ Y f6 Y@-6 N � U@ •O C D al N � c tti 0 N J N M N 0 0 O Z 0 0 O 0 0 a i O N C O Z a d ° l7 W Z v � u m O F ti v O m O > � ( D w G P � Q a O W M '.t�- U C C C JAI L l i O in O in O W U L U v u a w- O O O ` *y"t O Y y Y Y Y O O C PR �y C O O O WD to bD r U a2.,s Sri @ N r L .� o a .� o a •� o a g t L Y N N✓ N N N N y P5'.fi 5 O. V1 K K d N d in Y N N bn w- L L ai p L U O L N V Y '� C >. O vi S Y O U L K 4- C C - U Q Y E N tlp of `. O U @ U' O- C !� Y C ` •k. O_ O O O W E Y p O U L i E .0 p U Q. S @ O N O o C Y U N a v@ L U W .fl 1A C E N m h E - - VI v Y V M W C @ o U= ,,. "O @ @ 3 Y @ L >..a L in m o a v C E U hD �.. O` m N "00- •- >, p L Y 0 C U p) U CL �, U D_ 0 L @ C O_ 0 @ y f1 O > C L_ E w v w E C O. L N L V) C Ol O N n v @ Y @ Q u > E L a o 0 a. a o t0 u. •� y a L v o 'Y°- a u @ c' a m @ -.4 �. m_5:. 0 10 @ C C .O a a > �, o U sn O w E S �_ cl L E N @ • L OJ O u v v @ ' N a @ VI _ y 0 U U U Ul G V E E tYl W o w w v v v 2 VI Y Y 3 E 0 0 a a w S c L p c� v 0@ w U o 0 U aS+ O L 0 U C Y@ N w- bA O o 0 +' O 'vs a a N Y @ �= o E L 0 E E •�- u C u w '3 ° m p N 3 y C v E o w c nn V @ u c a u v 0 QJ a .o c v °@ O .Y , N Cl �-' h Y U Y S@ v- vs +L.+ O'@ N 0> w u . @ Q U O E O o O 0@ c@ u@ n u Y v C Y Ln N E W U W O Y@ N. L O j U L.. O. W U C U L w E Q o. V L a. O Y N. • 7 OJ' Q R w E � N L' ._ @ H Oc C O :� C @ E U' N s+ w o- >„ C O 00 L u= @ C N �. L m U a •� w N '0 O Y 41 y +-' N r _ U v a o U/ w @ O p E L U y .. Y @ L -- C O. C w v@ C@ Lu 0- L _. L O @ Y. W > @ O O @ 0 O '^ 0@ � C. O O a Y O C N. Y Y Q v- L H Y @ E, v a Y O L a O J O L @ pl °U C N v p. L - '� C a E O C C U O v Y O 141, 'ZI >@ O C O v@ E c m a O cc: U@ Y C@ .@ Q a W O! V U Y a 0_ (U ._ D v Q v w a Y c v v E c n° @ on >@ Y h0 @ S Q 2 .O N 0 w C a 0 0 v m v v •- >> a s v v o ,� c p° v L w o c U 0 o c' c . -. U V N@ U o a- W V1 L a Y U .� U D. U U �F �� - ti 0 0 ti 0 Z O O O 'i N N 'i o_ Z 5 a n l7 w Z u 0 F ti - p � � O > N Q V w ~ a � � ❑ a V Y U ''�, U U p1 i'G1 u Fes• C $� IO 1A �k � VI yM bD U `3° "' U U , DA h �`;` G p� `. h0 pq c c za L L )$ s O` Q Q C C C O > � '�� •C m O C c WI INN p pa „' p p u m v �n U m v� v m Y M m., ,u �n u cz uk p Q v E v m 0 o' 't �� � - rr v v m cc Q V D. � � a � z a � a..e m v C w - 0 t '6 "6 ?� w m > = W CO C p C O Y vt Y Y C 'm C N 0 f6 1 i U Y Vf > w u - C 0 L m u Y _ E O ai c �n .Y a t 0 C O L C N L O '� N b0 CCO L m Y C` O in O) vi v> N 1^ u m Q E; O c O' on - o S a m L 0 U/ O O `= m 0 p Y N p tr CO U m D_ 3 1L0 N m COL C UJ E b0 , C 'Y m L O CO C CD Q C �' C C M CO Y v1 Q Y O C L Y .m w O In C u -. in O O d p '_O - c m. N 0 C 0. C X N w- Q N 0 C= Y L w `�- O w w L c O m E C C O m D O �' m C 0 L` N C v m 41 O L in v h vp i U r E U C 0. -p O ILO m 0 H p u a 3 L o 3 o v a 'O n N u m E O u o v v p C E D O - > C v OJ G Q L N m O Y m m in 41 C m m w U h N � L v0i C z E C C c CO O '� O .p 0 N N OU aCJ O C C UJ a N C) ate.+ C L C =� Y O C t6 ,E 0 0 O O a L c U C in C - O C N N a+ O O i E W C1 U N Y' C 0 N .0 L '0 h t6 N O Y m o U -0 Q N N -6 U V1 m N H 4! C N O m C Y 0 w w o = g p ai E v v u m Y C fC �C Q! u L O m 0 i Q E a o e _O y O m Y E c c N o O F m N L Y U' O 'O E Y D u �^ E 0 Y m O u v^ Y m v m m �, c p m c B s o E O a .E ° °0 E E 3 O ° c W L Lp O p :a c c O U m o n u o v U Q 'Fn 0 '0 .0 �J' H L7 Z H M w w w m I- m V 0 0 0 Z 0 O O N 0 v O v m 0 c m W Z Q l7 z 0 Z O c G Z 0 G F- N v N F. O � N •i > �G w a° � a Rn 4�� c O ` u r: c p sst c H � z c m z O c •tea v p O g„x in u c ¢ C a O t a c v va vL+ T �; v �a as v v vaa Y Y Y m L C Y Y � > O p IO C .O v@ Y w L o 3 m N L y C C v 1n m V t m Y in U C L !_' L L E 3 m L O L E L 4 m 0➢ O L v v O m .� o a ,� E m 0 in O vi E a m a v 0 . t m .Q ° x v m v F > E v m ° O c v 3° `o v� v v m 3> 'c Y • - 'x m a �i o o m v +; v c Q m m .� 3 v u= w- - o a z m Y Y 3 0 W b0 J O 0 0 9 Y a O T U r vi Ol C O/ O C O L a U i in v 16._ .- Y v 0 _ >- v- >. C L L... O U w v v O `�...a,_C. �, -.. L l0 O a _ 0 �- m h bD �- C- .D \ O L o � 'v �: � o i v a .° m `L m o o- x m e - Z v 'C O1 T m a C N O" L v J 0 0 3 O .E Y m -0 u Y p v E q u ° m L s GO v v o '^ E. E a a 3 > m m m a c Y m v '6 y , L Y b0 C a @ v O O O Y OO > p N C p L v N O =� L N ,O Q v u _ C • O - r> y 0 �, t O� m o �n v w m u a, _ u a c C bci E a C L L f0 a w 41 Y a O v O O' C N . E V Y .� � a C °- m - 6 o O " �- .,� L E ° c ° °�' E 0 a m ,ti m v o o N E C O 0 ' C ' C 9 O E O O a m S C m v L O Qj Ol m C -Ci W m Lb0 w C L > m C 'C w O v m E 'Fu O '� a H m 3� y T u 'U�J ' L w + L . 3 W m 6 E t o 'in v m a o ,�-• 3 v cuo `° m v N L O. � O L� p L C C O U of 0 0 +Y+ ,tio i' E O. Ol U - Q C- �t. u — �C vOi YO •� m N m Z w v v m U_ N t. >. .� D 0 0 v W C p C O v > a L u a^ °� a 'v o iw o E E S u E^ m E s a c do of O U O E L -E v C O m m L 6 • a w W m o O t' o c m o o 'u �L E E • a v c L c a> v v O - >= a- v .c b4 O u v u v ._ OJ Z 0 M �n L L L d0 C 3 E "3 4- = Y U .0 Y E a Y-a H m b0 Rn .y O 0 0 z ° o 0 'i a v 0 m N C O a a 0 �]' w z v 0 z " � p m � „ m z � p ? ¢ <WG ~a° � o a a u Y C O h 1 ' 7 4 eu Qj n .0 U m i SW' U O C w m t U m c O v m 0 m ==? m CL 0 C c � 'L m a .y O 0 0 z ° o 0 'i a v 0 m N C O a a 0 �]' w z v 0 z " � p m � „ m z � p ? ¢ <WG ~a° � o a a u Y C O h 1 ' 7 4 eu Qj n .0 U m r- i C w m 10 u m m c O v c. w m ==? m i N^ a+ m >� U C L ° r- a C w m 10 L - a m m m Ui c. w m ==? m i N^ a+ m >� U C L ° +� c U i m N O .Q o N Ep E ° v m v ° U w t e C O o L C o O E C U 3 r+ m I- •� -6 m Q o q a w o m c o m c v f O E -O v !_^ o c '3 c u c' E v u o v c c m ° o m 4= .°° <° m is o_ m u- E o c w > o y u Z w .3 N 0 .E u c° L x v ' O m o O 'D E u O- Y _W L.. N 0 C N L N N b9 .� N m 0 .? E S L m t _ C a+ t E a •- O Z O O m 0= ' O N C c N J N m 'u 'm 3 E° 3 ' 0> z p^ t m c i x E E 3 ^ p o m o v 3 v o t° o M E w m� v o ° n m -°° ° c ° - v v ° N N �0 ' - m m im' s m, a m E u nn v v v v p in c c a C a > a hn °- w Y c c �j �n m'•- O O m - Y N � m L O s GG L a m S E. S m (` " m L I� `n in w- L O v m O y m -O O^ C O � fl_ S? 0 DO N G U1 '6 N 0° UI C E w '�' 'u m° m o. 3° '3 a 0 0 o v 3 m 3 m ,� E •Q c w- F m -_ N - m N m m oN c -_ a m s wm- ti 3 m a r m bn a m c w s E p o o c c v E m� o a O _C O !E m y a m 0 0 � by O CO '� oG O m m L b0 u0 `� O 'OO c E c v t a m C v N C C o Y o C a m v > m Y 4,� N m = m m E m = o v p j m 0 -C Q O m C m 0_ m 01 00 m y — m i-+ C U IA a N> E '� a "' m L m v m E m c m OL C O L E E E v 0 ,� u a N 3 m n O is v . m' F> v w a n ti w m L r- 0 ° o 0 Z 0 O. O O d O v N C O Z c 3 m a a l7 w Z U 0 ` o Z � �N A . N N z � O > ¢ FaU' W G Q 0 � ° a E U C U O O Y pl u t iv=;. V U J t V U J C r� C L Y C +L+ N O OU OU W � ; C � M C m O L n L J L z ,'�..- m a m a a 4 1 O 4 •� N M � i Q Q u Q Q U U U C ` b m G - U m N m N p 0 N u N u m U v M v E M v E m m m m w w w w w +'' w Q w -> N m C ^'' w a a C w w > w E E y a _O Q C O m �? m J O J m C O J E W O o u E E Y N o w N L QL "- o c w y X 3 ° ° v Lm .o m a o o E 3 . w U v v E 'o L m v c o m� w O C > m w ° O u m Y o .Y C m o -° L O' E w> O u C O U w N. O E L Y ° 0 O c E .�. w m . Y a' w w N .B w w ° m N o N ° N 3 E c a m w 'o u N w E O w i4 C v o N C >> O C a C m t I � - O_ '^ w L U 4 w m. w w ,X w-_ a C J w N °-._>> v L 30_ '-' O- ° ``� L Q O _- N._ o., c O ._ h C.. N__�p_ - > N�''y'.w m .._ �_ -C.Q Y J6..3 u N. O m 0 "L C J ON' N ::�N C C U .._ w. C E- N m J . a +..� w E C 3 w Y N !' N m E w N. C C .3 a L Y 'L _ w ° w m N C C o .c w E Q o a +' E. 3 m v o. v v °° Yt E L o r •°- m J n w .- m= 0 C GO C Y> L *' C a -° c u L U o 0 s v 3 ° c ° r •° Q. `+ Q_ -a u >, m w C w ' Y E 'N '� p m Y N c w .O N m w m O J O o Y w L v c J w N E J U L pl c O a w a u w w a L Y o J Y m 3 w U - O � ° C Q Y •y Y m a C t N o u 7 ° H • m O .�" m a Y N U a bA J a N m O' O E .}, @ U m Q N m F. U w N' C O C J w m w C '3 L m O i w o v a w hn E 4- o O 'c °- o= -° o y c v m Y > m N w w Y C m a w 'Y u w E L �- O w w J = '� OV tO `"' v v 0 _a c ?' J w 0 Y Y L N C O C t U o C V m L CL > m a 6 YvLi _ m 'o N Q J =_ m U " w O w c'o o- w m C ( 'Y m C '+� E w a 3 n J °> m E o o J N C o C 3 s L m a o N C m a r u o U s .«� w L Y a ;° w o U c 'm m N �' v m E o w o v E c o Y m °" m o m° 3 Y m E =° °° o ° Y C C N V a a@ >� 'O O u . -° N p C rLa .� F a N c ° J + a 3 ° as w u 3 c a U E ° ' >> R w ° .O E a 3 LU o 0 .� N -° v s m w o Y 'N m .4 N L ,� . w w Q ;° a v L w o m w U C O 'vi O w 7 w 0 u C O ° w > c J o Y ° ^ .� w o 0 0 o -a r w > v C ° 3 E 2 n� � o o y:^� L � w m a c a 0- N E Vice Cha arcia Jensen reported that there was a desk item for Item #1 and two items for Item #2. REQUESTED CONT CES - - NONE SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS North 40 Specific Plan Advisory Committee - ommissioner John Bourgeois reported that the committee met for a background review edo aptly on the role that the Town and the project have regarding the im=(AUDIENCE and what c e done in the Specific Plan. VERBAL COMMUNICAT Diana Abbati, Su mtendent, Los Gatos Union School District • Comment . at she wanted to introduce herself, lend her support, and the to visit her school sites. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS 135 Riviera Drive Planned Development Application PD -10 -001, Negative Declaration ND -10 -001. Requesting approval of a Planned Development for renovation and expansion of an existing apartment complex (Riviera Terrace) on property zoned RM:12 -20. No significant environmental impacts have been identified as a result of this project and a Mitigated Negative Declaration is recommended. APNs 529 -13 -016, 529 -09 -027, 031, and 034. PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT: Sobrato Interests 1V. PROJECT PLANNER: Suzanne Davis. (Continued from 6/8 PC Mtg.) Vice Chair Marcia Jensen • Commented that the applicant had submitted a request to continue the matter to August 10 and asked the applicant for more information on why he wanted the continuance. Tim Steele, Applicant, The Sobrato Organization • Commented that he just became aware this morning that there would be several Commissioners absent at tonight's meeting. • Commented that a lot of the work they have done involved working with staff to address comments of the CDAC (Conceptual Development Advisory Committee) and he hoped that the Commissioners that serve on the CDAC would be present to hear the proposal and comment on the responsiveness to its comments. Vice Chair Marcia Jensen • Commented that the CDAC is made up of Planning Commissioners and Town Council members. Town Council would not normally be at a Planning Commission meeting and Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 July 13, 2011 Exhibit I8 some of the CDAC members that are Commissioners are not present tonight. Granting a continuance would not necessarily ensure that all of the Commissioners would be present at the August 10 meeting. Commissioner John Bourgeois ® Commented that he wanted to disclose that he lived at the subject property when Sobrato purchased it and he was part of a tenant -wide rental dispute. He no longer lives there, he has no conflicts and is confident that he can judge the issue without bias. He will not be recusing himself. Commissioner Charles Erekson Asked Mr. Steele if his application is complete and if any additional project information has come up that would require them to submit additional materials that could affect the outcome. Tim Steele • Commented that his application is complbte:as submitted: - Commissioner Thomas O'Donnell Commented that it would be most expeditious to hear the matter tonight and he does not see any disadvantage to the applicant with only four Commissioners present. He pointed out that this is a recommendation to the Town Council. Commissioner John Bourgeois • Commented that he appreciates Commissioner O'Donnell's comments, but he does not recall ever denying an applicant's request for a continuance. He noted that he would like to at least receive public comment since there are so many people in attendance, and then continue the hearing. Vice Chair Marcia - Jensen • Commented thafitis at the Commission's disoretion - on whether or not an�teiri�isconfinued. She is concerned that it is a major project and it could end up in a split vote or be denied or approved by three Commissioners which would not normally be a majority. • Commented that she feels it would be a disservice to the Commission, the public and to the applicant to have two hearings on this item when no action will come from tonight's hearing. Commissioner Charles Erekson ® Commented that he respects the applicant's ability to continue the item, but typically there is some reason for continuing an item that is material to the decision. The procedural rules say the Commission can meet and take full action of the Planning Commission with a quorum of four, so he sees no basis for continuing the item. Commissioner Thomas O'Donnell Commented that he agrees with Commissioner Erekson and that a continuance usually has a prejudice which does not exist tonight. The people are here that want to hear the item. He requested that it go forward. Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 July 13, 2011 Town Attorney Judith Propp • Commented that a motion would be necessary if someone moves to continue the matter. Absent that, the Commission can just continue to hear the matter. Commissioner Thomas O'Donnell • Confirmed that a motion with a vote of 2 -2 would fail. Motion by Vice Chair Marcia Jensen to continue Planned Development Application PD -10- 001 and Negative Declaration ND -10 -001 to August 10, 2011. Vice Chair Marcia Jensen reported that the motion failed due to a lack of a second and opened the public hearing. Senior Planner Suzanne Davis presented the staff report. Commissioner Thomas O'Donnell • Asked if the unpaved area is included in the parking... • Confirmed that this was the first application the Town has processed under the State Density Bonus Law and asked if the applicant can bring an action against the Town if it denies the permit without sufficient justification. This could result in the Town paying attorneys' fees and costs if the applicant is successful. • Asked if this proposal meets all parking requirements pursuant to Town regulations. • Asked if cumulative bonuses are being given. Senior Planner Suzanne Davis • Commented that she is not counting the unpaved area, but pavement is proposed. There are several rows of parking on the west side and a whole paved area on the extreme east side close to the creek. There is also parking along Riviera Drive. • Commented that the site is overparked pursuant to State Density Bonus Law relative to parking. It is underparked for guest parking under Town Code requirements. Commented that this is not a double bonus. Staff reviewed the information submitted by Ms. Quintana and it appears that she calculated differently and made different assumptions than staff did. Staff reviewed the state law numerous times and believes that it was calculated correctly. Town Attorney Judith Propp • Commented that the applicant could bring an action against the Town under State Density Bonus Law. • Commented that state law requires that once you meet the 20 percent of the 118 maximum allowed unit, over and above those units the applicant gets a 35 percent density bonus under state law. It is a two -part calculation. Once you meet the threshold for the 20 percent, then you do the calculation of the 35 percent of the 118 units. Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 July 13, 2011 Commissioner John Bourgeois • Asked how staff counted the parking spaces in the unpaved lot. • Asked if 25 of the one bedroom units would be converted to BMP (Below Market Price) units. • Asked what will happen to the existing tenants. Senior Planner Suzanne Davis • Commented that the unpaved area was not counted in existing parking. e Commented that not all of the BMP units are one - bedroom. There will be some two- bedroom units. Commented that the existing tenants will not be displaced. The units will be converted as vacancies occur. Staff will work with the applicant to prepare a plan for phasing to have all affordable units in place before they get occupancy permits for the new units. Commissioner Charles Erekson • Confirmed that the 261 proposed parking spaces exceed the 220 required spots. _ Vice Chair Marcia Jensen • Asked if it is correct that the Town does not have the discretion to disallow the proposed project based on a parking deficiency. • Asked what degree of discretion the Commission has once the project is in compliance with the State Density Bonus Law. • Commented that this is another project with no story poles. It appears that the larger the project is, the less likely there will be story poles and that is when they are really needed. It is difficult for the public to know that something is going on without story poles. Town Attorney Judith Propp • Commented that is correct that the Town cannot disallow the proposed project based on a parking deficiency, but the state law refers to parking spaces per bedroom in the units rather than a parking ratio. Staff recalculated'that and .the.Towri cannot require any more than the state requires. The amount of parking being provided is over the amount required by state law. • Commented that the Town has to grant the request for the density bonus under state law once the applicant meets the state law provisions. In some cases, the applicant has to make a showing that they are entitled to the concession that they are asking for and has to show that the concession is not required in order to provide for affordable housing or that it has an adverse impact, defined by the government code, upon public health and safety. In this case, they are only asking for the parking. Commissioner Charles Erekson • Asked if the Commission does have discretion regarding the Community Benefit. Planning Manager Sandy Bally • Confirmed that the Commission does have discretion regarding the Community Benefit. • Commented that staff felt that story poles would be a safety issue for the existing tenants. Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 July 13, 2011 • Commented that the Draft Planned Development Ordinance contains the word BMP units and it will be changed to read affordable housing units in this instance. Vice Chair Marcia Jensen Asked if the Town needs to comply with the language if the State Density Bonus Law calls them affordable housing units. Town Attorney Judith Propp • Commented that the applicant has requested affordable rental units under the State Density Bonus Law. BMP refers to Town Code which is a different calculation and staff interchanged the language. This proposal exceeds the Town Code requirement if this was not a State Density Bonus Law project. Tim Steele, Applicant, gave a presentation on the proposed project. Chris Trujillo • Commented that he lives on Riviera Drive, that he disagrees that this will be a benefit, and that he opposes the additional development due to the negative impact. • Commented that there is nothing wrong with the current project and that it adds charm to the Town. Commented that the leasing office is fine and the existing pool is spacious and is a communal place for the residents. Anne Lamborn Commented that she has lived on Monroe Court for 40 years and she is just a few hundred feet from the project. She was not very aware of the project nor washer neighbors. Commented that the Monroe Court residents are protective of the riparian corridor and are concerned about increased traffic. • Commented that the Town needs to protect the uniqueness of that environment. Elizabeth O'Kane " • Commented that she lives on Riviera Drive and that Sobrato does not care about the residents or history of Los Gatos. • Commented that an historic mosaic was destroyed without trying to save it. • Commented that the sign notifying the neighborhood about the project is only visible if you come right up to the sign. • Commented that the project looks more like Santana Row than Los Gatos. • Commented that four more buildings and 50 more units will bring density far beyond high. • Commented that this construction will cause 73 trees to be destroyed. If this project is approved, it would be an unrecoverable loss priceless historic beauty and space of Los Gatos. Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 July 13, 2011 Courtney Cooper • Commented that she was raised in the South where there is a respect for architecture and heritage. She lives on Riviera Drive and one of her problems with Northern California is that there is no respect for history or architecture. a Commented that she loves the sense of community and continuity in Los Gatos. • Commented that Riviera Terrace has history and encourages community. Her unit would be directly affected by the construction and her view of the mountains would be obstructed. • Commented that this new plan serves no benefit to Los Gatos and takes away from the beauty of the Town. Jeff Crichton • Commented that he lives behind the proposed project on Monroe Court. • Commented that he has found the Riviera tenants to be transitory and noisy with little or no regard for their neighbors. • Commented that Los Gatos should build affordable homes rather than apartments. • Commented that the project will exacerbate-the traffic problems on University Avenue. _. Max Wilkins • Commented that he is a resident of Riviera Terrace and would like to uphold the pristine environment that they currently enjoy. • Commented that many of the residents have pets and one of the benefits of living at Riviera is the ability to walk your pets among the trees and grass areas. Kim Wilder • Commented that she has lived at Riviera Terrace for 18 years and is a lifelong resident of Los Gatos. • Commented that when Sobrato bought the complex, the rents were raised causing some residents to move. • Commented that this project will add so much traffic and the beauty of the area will be demolished, - : -.- • Commented that this has been a beautiful place to live and she hopes that Sobrato can find another location to build affordable housing. Tim Steele • Commented that Sobrato gave a letter to residents regarding the BMR (Below Market Rate) units stating that they would give preference to early applications submitted to the Town. The program is not administered by Sobrato or the management company and they would be following the Town ordinances for program qualification. • Commented that Sobrato does not intend to touch the rent controlled units that are in place and that all residents under special programs would not change. Commissioner Thomas O'Donnell • Referred to the Cannon Group letter of 2010 and asked how many of issues have been addressed. Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 July 13, 2011 Tim Steele • Commented that he and the architect have met with Larry Cannon to talk about the points and have tried to incorporate those where possible and have committed to staff and to Larry to work with them before submitting for architectural site review. Commissioner John Bourgeois • Asked about the transition plan for residents. • Asked about neighborhood compatibility and architectural style. Tim Steele • Commented that they would come up with a transition plan, market it and submit it to staff for approval before pulling the building permit. It is anticipated that it is about a 12 -month program. There is about a 10 percent normal turnover and the construction may cause more vacancy. Commented that the units can take on different personalities. The existing project is very simple with a flat roof with a flat wall with no articulation on the windows. They wanted it to be complementary to the existing buildings. The ability of the buildings to terrace down to the creek allows respect to the terrain and preserves the views. Commissioner Thomas O'Donnell Asked about the landscaping and removal of trees. Asked how many replacement trees will be able to be put on the sight. Tim Steele • Commented that they identified first the highest value trees to try to accommodate them and then looked at the quality of the trees. There will be two to three replacement trees for every removed tree. The remainder will be put into the area along the creek, based on Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) approval. Janet Hittle, Landscape Architect • Commented about 136 trees are in the preliminary plan for on -site. A number of the trees being removed are Eucalyptus and are not in the best of health. They are trying to protect the Oak and Sycamore trees along the creek. Vice Chair Marcia Jensen Asked about the elimination of the landscape buffer and the buffer between the creek and asked if this area could be avoided in the development. Asked about the Community Benefit. Tim Steele • Commented that they are respecting the existing fenced line along the creek with the exception of the mitigation proposed for the vegetation that is non - native and is evasive. One of the mitigations proposed is to put a five -year program in place for removing non - native species in the creek if the SCV WD would accept that mitigation. Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 July 13, 2011 • Commented that the SCVWD also has an easement across the lower parking lot area that restricts it from having any structures. The new buildings are not in the setback from the creek. • Commented that two- thirds of the bottom area along the creek is already paved and within the fence line. The last 20 percent is still within the fence line but is currently used for activities around the pool. Commented that they are providing more BMR units than are required as a Community Benefit and the offer of BMR units within the new units is above and beyond the requirement of the State Density Bonus Law. They have also offered to the Town the ability to buy the affordability down further on the BMR units. Vice Chair Marcia Jensen closed the public input portion of the hearing and returned to the Commission for deliberations. Commissioner Thomas O'Donnell Commented that the Commission is proceeding under state law that tells the Town what it has to do. The purpose of the state law is to make communitiesIetter balanced and it is a good purpose. The Commission will do what is required under state law. Commented that the Community Benefit is unusual because there are so many affordable units. The Town has a very good offer here which he considers a strong Community Benefit. The applicant can ask for two concessions under state law and they are only asking for one; a parking concession. Commissioner Charles Erekson • Asked if the goals in the General Plan for affordable housing included these units. • Asked about the notification process. Senior Planner Suzanne Davis • Commented that these units would be in addition to those in the General Plan. • Commented that letters were sent to.;each resident of Riviera Terrace. Staff asked the applicant to post signs at both entries-in hopes that residents would'see them. The Town sent - out written notice to property owners and residents within 300 feet of the project site. Commissioner John Bourgeois • Commented that his biggest concern is that it will result in an increase in intensity in the area. He is having trouble with the added traffic. • Commented that the SCVWD states that the project does not meet its requirements and that the project is not in compliance with the standards for land use near streams. He could not recommend approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration. • Commented that he is in favor of upgrades to this facility and putting affordable housing there, but the way the units have been pushed all the way to the riparian corridor is unacceptable. • Commented that he believes that story poles could have been placed in at least one area. Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 July 13, 2011 Vice Chair Marcia Jensen • Commented that she shares the concerns regarding the riparian corridor. More thought could go into the site plan to get construction and pavement away from the creek. • Commented that affordable housing in Los Gatos is a good thing and this is a place that could absorb it better than some other areas. • Commented that she has concerns about the riparian corridor, the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Community Benefit. She may want the applicant to address those concerns specifically and come back to the Commission with a different site design or address how the riparian corridor concerns have been taken care of. Vice Chair Marcia Jensen reopened the public hearing so Mr. Steele could advise the Commission how much time he would need to address getting construction, pavement and impervious structures away from the creek, address the issues raised by Commissioner Bourgeois and the SCVWD, and to refine the Community Benefit, or to tell the Commission how they have already complied with the riparian corridor concerns with the current site plan. Tim Steele • Commented that he could only address the latter of the two options on August 10. Vice Chair Marcia Jensen closed the public hearing. Motion by Commissioner Charles Erekson and seconded by Vice Chair Marcia Jensen to continue Planned Development Application PD -10 -001 and Negative Declaration ND -10 -001 to August 10, 2011, to allow the applicant to address the concerns about site that have been expressed by the Commission tonight. Commissioner Thomas O'Donnell • Commented that Community Benefit is a difficult thing to figure out, but the motion does not include that. • Commented that he does not believe that the Commission is clear on what it wants regarding riparian corridor changes and asked staff to comment on the present setbacks as proposed. • Asked if the proposed plan is in violation of any rule, statute or ordinance of the Town. Senior Planner Suzanne Davis • Commented that SCVWD has not requested a specific setback. There is an existing maintenance easement that comes out beyond the existing fence over the paved area and the one request they had was that they not put any structures in there. The paved parking area is acceptable. • Commented that the SCVWD did state that there was not strict adherence to the guidelines but did not cite any specific guideline. Staff could go back and get more specific direction from SCVWD on what guidelines are not being complied with. Commissioner John Bourgeois • Commented that he will not support the motion because he has enough information to not be comfortable with the design the way it currently is. Planning Commission Minutes Page 10 July 13, 2011 • Commented that the Town's consultant stated that the proposal is not compliant with the Land Use Near Streams Guidelines and the SCV WD concurs. • Commented that the staff report is misleading when it states that the proposed development will not be located any closer to the creek than existing pavement. Motion carried 3 -1 with Commissioner John Bourgeois dissenting, Chair Marico Sayoc, Commissioner Jane Ogle and Commissioner Joanne Talesfore absent. Wullf D1 2. 1 101. and 109 W. Main Street. Conditional Use Permit U -11 -006. Requesting a roval to modify an existing delicatessen, wine bar, and special retail use (Los Gatos Goa et) to allow a restaurant (Pizza Simpatico) with indoor and outdoor seating, and beer a wine service on property zoned C- 2:LHP. APN 529 -01 -025. PROPERTI OWNER. ue Farwell. APPLICANT: Lisa Rhorer. PROJECT PLANNER: Je er Savage Vice Chair Marc%Je en opened the public hearing. Associate Planner Jennifer'Savage presented the staff report. Commissioner Thomas O'Donn e Con onfirmed with staff that the pro sal was to modify an exis ' g CUP (Conditional Use Permit) with a Dutch door between o different uses for e CUP, and that they could not have one CUP if there was an actual d r. Vice Chair Marcia Jensen • Asked if the Commission has to decide on wh the Community Benefit will be or identify a range of benefits to the Town Council. Plannmg,Manager Sandy Barly • Commented that the Commission es not have to identi a specific Community Benefit tonight. The applicant can spe to the Community Benefit d if there are several alternatives, the Comrnissio can forward its comments to Cou cil on each recommendation. Lisa Rhorer, Applicant,,96ve a presentation on the proposed project. Commissioner Joh ourgeois /Rhor wine bar vs. a stand alone bar where alcohol servi ce will occ that the current Los Gatos Gourmet space is a deli and a wine bar•, there ' no ine bar as a physical space. She is referring to having different wine opti the menu. It will be a food counter where people can come up and order o ine bar type items. Planning Commission Minutes Page 1 I July 13, 2011 H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES ECOLOGICAL CONSULTANTS 7 September 2011 RECEIVED Mr. Tim Steele SEP 7— 2011 Sobrato Development Company OS GAT O I- OF 1.S 10600 North DeAnza Boulevard PLANNING TOWN IiO S GAT 1v Cupertino, California 95014 -2075 SUBECT: Riviera Terrace Apartments, Riparian Corridor Dear Mr. Steele, Per your request, I've reviewed the various technical studies and proposed site development plans prepared for the Riviera Terrace Apartments Project. I've also conducted a field survey of the Los Gatos Creek riparian corridor, both on site and off site, and reviewed existing conditions relative to lighting and drainage. Below I've summarized a few key points regarding my thoughts on the comments received from the Town of Los Gatos Planning Commission. I've also listed several elements relative to biological resources both on site and off site along with the original and newly - proposed mitigation measures. Planning Commission Comments As identified in the report prepared for the town by Wood Biological Consulting, and as incorporated into the Town's Initial Study, the Project was described as being inconsistent with the Guidelines for Land Use Near Streams (Guidelines) in three different ways: 1. The proposed project would not provide a buffer between new facilities and the riparian zone. (citing as the authority the Guidelines, Chapter 3B- I.A.3, page 3.3). 2. The project would result in the removal of native vegetation within the riparian zone. (citing as the authority the Guidelines, Chapter 3B -I.B, page 33). 3. The project would place new paved and active recreational areas within the riparian corridor. (citing as the authority the Guidelines, Chapter 3B -LG, page 3.4). To determine if in fact there is an inconsistency between what is proposed and the Guidelines, I looked at the actual measures described in Chapter 3B. Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Near Streams. In order of the comments listed above, the Guidelines state: LA.3 Protection of the Riparian Zone. Adopt, as appropriate riparian corridor buffers consistent with onsite biotic conditions which may be determined by a qualified professional to protect existing riparian habitat. Sensitive habitat areas should be identified and assigned appropriate buffers. I.B. Native Plant Removal. Native riparian vegetation is not allowed to be removed unless there is a threat to public health and safety including an imminent danger of 983 University Avenue, Building D • Los Gatos, CA 95032 • Ph: 408.458.3200 - F: 408.458. `g Exhibit 19 induced flooding and /or a biologist/arborist confirms that it will improve the stream ecology or habitat. If vegetation is proposed for removal in conjunction with a development project, mitigation will be provided as defined through the CEQA process and as agreed to by the local agencies and appropriate regulatory agencies. I.G. Land Uses Next to Riparian Corridors /Streams. Avoid locating loading docks, trash enclosures, chemical storage areas and stationary noise producing mechanical equipment next to streams and riparian corridors. Refrain from locating new paved areas, active recreational areas agricultural growing areas and grazing activities within riparian corridors. Existing Conditions -On Site • Riparian corridor includes existing parking lot, maintained lawn, volleyball court and concrete bench. • Riparian corridor located off site.beyond the development footprint is.disconnected entirely from on site areas, due fo presence of existing retaining- wll,_bollard chain and &.' foot tall chain -link fence which precludes wildlife movement onto the site. • On site riparian corridor is of relatively low quality and is restricted to providing only "canopy riparian ". • Runoff derived from stormwater and excess irrigation currently discharges directly into the creek either through an existing culvert or as overland flow across the parking lot. • No screening exists between existing parking lot and adjacent off site riparian corridor to prevent headlights from entering the off site riparian habitat. • Direct lighting from pool security and parking lot lighting projects into off site riparian habitat. Existing Conditions -Off Site • Off site riparian (i.e. within the property.b6undaries) dominated by invasive groundcover. • There is presently little to no shrull and tree canopy along` riparian. • English ivy is very likely contributing to the recent death of several large trees in this area and is threatening numerous sycamore trees. Originally Proposed Mitigations • Remove asphalt around two large sycamores within the existing parking area. • Pretreatment of on and off site drainage. • Control of invasive species within the off site riparian corridor. Newly- Proposed Enhancements Plant two additional trees within proposed parking lot expansion area. Plant vines along back chain -link fence to prevent headlights from entering off site riparian habitat. Up to 10,000 square feet of riparian enhancement planting in off site riparian habitat. 2 H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES • Use of indirect lighting in areas adjacent to the off site riparian habitat. • Approximately 7,000 square feet of additional pavers to be used on site, above and beyond the C3 Stormwater Management Plan requirements. Summary In summary, after reviewing the existing conditions at the Project site and reading through the three applicable sections from the Guidelines I feel that the Guidelines provide a lot of flexibility in regards to the riparian corridor issue, that allow for a consideration of site - specific conditions, professional biological opinion and incorporation of mitigation. I feel that the proposed mitigations will substantially improve the condition of the off site riparian habitat and will more than off set any impacts that the Project will have on the on site riparian corridor. Under the current conditions, invasive species, untreated stormwater runoff and direct lighting are degrading the off site riparian habitat. The Project will remove approximately 2,000 square feet of existing riparian canopy to make room for a proposed building. - In its place, up to 10,000 square feet of additional native riparian canopy will be added to the existing off site riparian habitat, which is currently dominated by invasive ground cover. Overall, the Project will significantly improve biotic conditions, both in terms of providing off site riparian habitat and improving water quality of Los Gatos Creek; a condition that will not improve if the Project does not move forward as proposed. I look forward to presenting this information to the Planning Commission and discussing these topics with them. Sincerely, }n Patrick J. Boursier, Ph.D. Principal, Senior Plant Ecologist K T. HARVEY& ASS©MTES This Page Intentionally Left Blank