The URL can be used to link to this page

Attachment 1Boa fiX, a TOWN OF LOS GATOS ITEM NO: 3 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Meeting Date: November 14, 2012 PREPARED BY: Wendie Rooney, Community Development Director wrooney@losgatosca.gov APPLICATION NO: General Plan Amendment GP -12 -004 Zoning Code Amendment A -12 -003 LOCATION: Town -wide APPLICANT: Town of Los Gatos CONTACT: Wendie Rooney, Strategic Projects Director APPLICATION SUMMARY: Requesting to amend the Town Code to incorporate the Affordable Housing Overlay into Division 5, to Article VIII Overlay Zones and Historic Preservation; change the General Plan designation of the property located on the northwest corner of Knowles Drive and Capri Drive (APN 406 -28 -032) from Public to Office; adoption of AHOZ Design Guidelines and application of an Affordable Housing Overlay to five properties generally located at: 1. Northwest corner of Knowles Drive and Capri Drive. APN 4.06 -28- 032 2. Knowles Drive east of Winchester Boulevard. APN 424 -32 -077, 3. West side of Oka Road, north of the Jewish Community Center. APN 424 -08 -074 4. East side of Oka Road, south of the Los Gatos Swim and Racquet Club. APN 424 -08 -057 5. East side of Oka Road, east of the Landmark and Los Gatos Gardens Apartments. APN 424 -08 -021 RECOMMENDATION: Forward a recommendation to the Town Council for approval of: ® Resolution amending the General Plan by re- designating property. at 375 Knowles and 14205 Capri Drives from Public -Quasi Public to Office Professional. ® Ordinance amending Chapter 29 of the Town Code by Adding Division 5 to Article VIII codifying the Affordable Housing Overlay Zone. ® Five ordinances applying the AHOZ designation to five properties listed in this report ® Resolution approving the Affordable Housing Overlay Zone Design Guidelines. ® The Addendum to the General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Planning Commission Staff Report - Page 2 Amendments /A -12 -003, GP -12 -004 November 14, 2012 CEQA: An Addendum to the General Plan EIR has been prepared that describes the revised Affordable Housing Overlay Zone and evaluates the changes to the project that have occurred since the General Plan EIR was certified in September 2010. Based on studies, including an updated traffic study, the Addendum determines that the revised Affordable Housing Overlay would not create any new or significant environmental impacts that were not already evaluated in the General Plan EIR, and would not increase the severity of any previously identified significant impacts. FINDINGS: As required by CEQA. That the proposed General Plan Amendment is internally consistent with the General Plan. That the proposed Town Code Amendment is consistent with the General Plan. ACTION: Forward a recommendation to the Town Council for approval of General Plan Amendment GP -12 -004, Zoning Code Amendment A- 12 -003, the five ordinances applying the AHOZ to five sites listed in this report, the resolution approving the Affordable Housing Overlay Zone Design Guideline, and the Addendum to the General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR). EXHIBITS: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14, 15. Zoning Ordinance Amendment A -12 -003 General Plan Amendment GP -12 -004 Ordinance Applying the AHOZ Designation to APN: 406 -28 -032 Ordinance Applying the AHOZ Designation to APN: 424 -32 -077 Ordinance Applying the AHOZ Designation to APN: 424 -08 -074 Ordinance Applying the AHOZ Designation to APN: 424 -08 -057 Ordinance Applying the AHOZ Designation to APN: 424 -08 -021 Draft Resolution Approving Affordable Housing Overlay Zone Design Guidelines Required Findings Addendum EIR (Excluding Appendix) October 15, 2012, Town Council and Planning Commission AHOZ Study Session Report and Exhibits October 15, 2012, Town Council and Planning Commission Study Session Summary Minutes Student Generation Rate Assumptions Area Median Income Limits Public Comments (4 emails) Planning Commission Staff Report - Page 3 Amendments /A -12 -003, GP -12 -004 November 14, 2012 BACKGROUND: The Town Council recently adopted the 2007 -14 Housing Element. California state law requires local governments include programs in the Housing Element to meet existing and projected housing, including their share of the regional housing need, which is known as the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). The RHNA, which is mandated by State Housing Element Law, is the projected regional need for housing (over an eight -year planning period) expressed as the number of dwelling units that are allocated among four income categories required to meet that need. While each jurisdiction within the state is required to plan for affordable housing, it is not required to guarantee that the housing will be built. The jurisdiction's responsibility is to plan for and ensure 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. Please see Exhibit 14, Santa Clara County 2012 Area Median Income, for the income limits for the categories included in the AHOZ. The key implementation program for meeting the RHNA in the 2007 -14 Housing Element is Action HOU -2.1. Action HOU -2.1 requires amendment of the Town Code to include an Affordable Housing Overlay Zone (AHOZ). For the past year, the General Plan Committee (GPC) has overseen the drafting of the AHOZ. The GPC completed its work on the program in August 2012, and unanimously recommended approval of the AHOZ for the five specific sites and the AHOZ Design Guidelines. Lastly, with the recent sale of the former county property at 375 Knowles and 14205 Capri Drives and the termination of the public uses at the site, it is recommended that the General Plan designation of the property be changed from Public /Quasi Public to Office Professional. The Public /Quasi Public designation is intended for public uses, such as schools, libraries, police and fire stations and faith communities. The re- designation is consistent with General Plan designations to the north and west of the subject site and would accommodate office uses and the AHOZ would allow residential uses. The Town Council held a joint study session with the Planning Commission on the AHOZ components and the Design Guidelines on October 15, 2012. Please see Exhibit 11, the study session staff report, for a thorough discussion of the AHOZ goals and components, and Exhibit 12 for the meeting minutes. This staff report addresses the questions raised at the October 15th study session, analysis of the recommended re- designation of the 375 Knowles and 14205 Capri Drives, summarizes the Addendum EIR analysis, and responds to public inquiries raised regarding the AHOZ site selection and consequences of not approving the AHOZ. Planning Commission Staff Report - Page 4 Amendments/A-12-003, GP -12 -004 November 14, 2012 ANALYSIS: October 15, 2012, Study Session Questions/Responses: Additional Public Outreach: Both Council and Commission members raised concerns for public outreach on the AHOZ. As one of the key implementation measures of the recently adopted 2007 -14 Housing Element, the proposed AHOZ has been subject to public review during both the Housing Element outreach in 2009 and 2010 (including one Council and Planning Commission Study Session, a Planning Commission public hearing and a Council public hearing) and during the recent AHOZ development process. Two additional Council public hearings were held on the Housing Element, with the most recent occurring in March 2012. Additionally, 11 publically noticed GPC meetings and one Council and Planning Commission study session were held specifically on the AHOZ. Quarter -page public hearing notices were in the Weekly Newspaper for each of the Planning Commission and Town Council public hearings and study sessions. In order to further encourage public awareness, the standard and legal public noticing distance from each of the subject sites was expanded and public hearing notices were sent to all properties within 500 feet of each AHOZ site. Also, an eighth -page public hearing notice was placed in the Weekly and advertised on November 6, 2012. In all, 891 notices were mailed to surrounding property owners and renters. The Town also developed and posted Frequently Asked Questions on the Town Web site in preparation of the Planning Commission and Town Council hearings. Finally, considerable community outreach occurred when the property owner of 3.1 acres of the former Courthouse property held a neighborhood meeting to discuss a potential residential project that may be submitted to the Town in the near future. Relationship of State Density Bonus to AHOZ: As noted in the Study Session report, one of the overriding goals of the AHOZ is to create development standards and incentives that offer advantages that are similar to the State Density Bonus Program to effectively prohibit the use of it on the five AHOZ sites. While meeting the intent of 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. Section 29.80.515(b) of the draft AHOZ Ordinance states that the ordinance shall not apply if an applicant requests the state - mandated density bonus (Exhibit 1). 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. This same requirement would apply if an applicant requested the use of the Town's recently Planning Commission Staff Report - Page 5 Amendments /A -12 -003, GP -12 -004 November 14, 2012 adopted Density Bonus Program that is based on the mandatory state program or the Town's General Plan Density Bonus policy (HOU -13). Town Council Decision - making Authority for AHOZ Applications: Section 29.80.550(b) of the draft AHOZ Ordinance vests the decision- making authority on the Architecture and Site application and any applicable environmental document with the Town Council, with a recommendation from the Planning Commission (Exhibit 1). The Town will process additional Town Code amendments to Sections 29.20.750 (Duties of the Planning Commission) and 29.20.755 (Duties of the Town Council) following final Council consideration of this ordinance. Whether Density Bonus should apply to the Oka Road Sites: The General Plan Committee considered whether to include a density bonus as one of the incentives for the three Oka Road properties. Ultimately, the Committee decided that, due to the fact that Oka Road is accessed from only one street (Lark Avenue) and consequently functions as a cul -de -sac, increased density on this roadway was not appropriate and density bonus was not a suitable concession. School Generation Rates: The adopted General Plan EIR analyzed the potential impacts of new residential growth, including the AHOZ sites, on the schools during the 2010 to 2020 General Plan time period. During the General Plan and Housing Element update processes, the Town met with all affected school districts. The four districts that serve the five AHOZ sites are the Los Gatos Union School District, Los Gatos- Saratoga Union Joint High School District, Campbell Union School District and Campbell Union High School District. Earlier this year, the Town met with both of the Los Gatos School District superintendents to further discuss the AHOZ sites. The Los Gatos Union School District also included the three Oka Road properties in its recently prepared Student Generation and Projections report. Although contacted, the two Campbell School Districts did not offer to meet with the Town during the most recent outreach. Pursuant to the General Plan Student Generation Rates, if developed under the AHOZ, it is estimated that the five properties would generate the following students. It is important to note that these numbers are based on specific product types, and the AHOZ does not direct any particular residential product types. Consequently, the following is an approximation and assumes the number of students based on complete build -out at the proposed densities for affordable apartments and attached residential product types. Please see Exhibit 13 for generation rate calculations. Plamzing Commission Staff Report - Page 6 Amendments /A -12' -003 , GP -12 -004 November 14, 2012 AHOZ Site Projected Students Southbay Development 54 Courthouse Property 26 Oka Road Site A 32 Oka Road Site B 13 Oka Road Site C 13 Reduction to One Parking Space for Senior or Housing for Persons with Disabilities: A question was raised regarding the appropriateness for allowing a reduction in parking as an incentive for housing dedicated to senior and persons with disabilities. The one stall per senior unit is a commonly applied standard. In a survey of 21 primarily suburban jurisdictions, the senior parking standards ranged from .25 to 1.5 stalls per unit, with the average number of stalls at 0.95 per unit. Moreover, senior housing is typically comprised of studio and one bedroom apartments, and rarely two bedrooms. For example, the senior affordable Villa Vasona on West Parr Avenue has 81 studio and 26 one - bedroom units, and 41 on -site parking spaces and an additional 20 through an agreement with the adjacent Open Doors apartments. The parking standard recommended for the AHOZ sites is one stall for 0 -1 bedroom units; consequently, the reduction for housing for seniors or persons with disabilities is generally consistent with the recommended parking standard. Re- designation of the 375 Knowles and 14205 Capri Drives: Although not required to implement the AHOZ for these sites, staff is recommending re- designating the former Courthouse and county office property from the current Public /Quasi Public General Plan designation to Office Professional, which is consistent with the current office zoning. The Public /Quasi Public designation is specifically intended for public uses such as schools, libraries, hospitals, police and fire stations, and faith communities. This designation would be inconsistent with the Town Council's intended uses for the property, as formalized in Resolution 2011 -063 (Exhibit 11, Attachment 2). Recognizing the county was intending to sell the property, in 2011 the Town Council adopted a resolution that endorsed redevelopment of the property for offices purposes, consistent with uses to the north and west, or for housing based on the AHOZ goals and standards. A residential use would be consistent with uses to the south. The Professional Office General Plan Designation would also allow residential development through the AHOZ. If residential uses inconsistent with the AHOZ ordinance were requested, the applicant would need to secure approval of a Conditional Use Permit pursuant to Town Code. Pursuant, to the General Plan: The Office Professional designation provides for professional and general business offices. This designation applies to various locations throughout the Town, often in close proximity to neighborhood- or community- oriented commercial facilities, or as a buffer Planning Commission Staff Report - Page 7 Amendments /A -12 -003, GP -12 -004 November 14, 2012 between commercial and residential uses. The intent of this designation is to satisfy the community's need for general business and professional services and local employment. Due to its location along an arterial road, in close proximity to community and commercial services on Winchester Boulevard, and serving as a buffer to the residential uses to the south and further north on Capri Drive, the proposed Office Professional designation, with the allowance for residential consistent with the AHOZ, is consistent with all relevant Elements of the General Plan, specifically the Land Use, Housing, Human Services, and Community Design. The following provides a sample of General Plan Goals that support the re- designation of this property. An analysis of this proposal's consistency with applicable General Plan goals is contained in italics following each goal. Goal LU -4: To provide for well - planned, careful growth that reflects the Town's existing character and infrastructure. The General Plan Committee carefully considered each neighborhood character when developing the AI-IOZ standards and site and architecture guidelines. The standards and design guidelines will ensure that any new AHOZ residential project will be compatible with the existing neighborhood and will provide opportunities for both ownership and rental housing. If developed under the Professional Office designation, the Town's existing design guidelines, standards and policies will provide consistency with contemporary offices uses in the Town. Goal LU -8: To uphold and enforce adopted land use regulations. As noted above, the AHOZ standards and guidelines were carefully crafted to ensure compatibility with the surrounding neighborhoods, and the Town's existing policies, design guidelines and review procedures would appropriately guide the design of any future office development. Goal HS -10: To encourage a wide variety of types of senior housing, including independent living, residential care facilities and affordable housing within the Town. The AHOZ affordable requirements would help ensure a supply of housing that could accommodate the needs of the senior populations, which is a fastest growing population in the community. Goal HOU -2.1: Maintain and /or adopt the appropriate land use regulations and other development tools to encourage the development of affordable housing that is compatible with the neighborhood and the community. The development of the AHOZ is an action item listed under this goal. The re- designation of the property and the adoption of the AHOZ will meet the overall intent of this goal. Goal HOU -1: Expand the choice of housing opportunities for all economic segments of the community by supporting the development of affordable housing in a variety of types and sizes, including a mixture of ownership and rental housing. As noted above, the re- designation of the property and the adoption of the AHOZ will meet the intent of this overall goal and provide the Planning Commission Staff Report - Page S Amendments /A -12 -003, GP -12 -004 November 14, 2012 opportunity to create high quality mixed income residential developments that contribute to the Toi,m's diverse population and unique character. Addendum EIR Analysis: In 2010, the Los Gatos Town Council certified the EIR for the Los Gatos General Plan 2020 (General Plan), which guides all development within the Town. The certified EIR analyzed the potential impacts that could result from residential development allowed under the General Plan, including the identification of sites with capacity for affordable housing in the Housing Element. To ensure that each potential housing site is allowed to develop at the development capacity anticipated in the Housing Element and that the Town is able to accommodate its projected need for affordable housing units, the Housing Element includes Action HOU -2.1, to amend the Town Code to include an Affordable Housing Overlay Zone (AHOZ). The Draft EIR, published March 10, 2010, analyzed the potential impacts of applying the AHOZ to ten parcels on seven sites, with capacity to accommodate 673 units. These sites were: ® Los Gatos Courthouse 375 Knowles /14205 Capri Drives (single parcel) ® Southbay Development 110, 120, 130, 140 and 150 Knowles Drive (single parcel) ® Oka Road /Lark Avenue (three parcels) ® Former Swanson Ford 16005 Los Gatos Blvd (single parcel) ® Bentley Dealership 620 Blossom Hill (single parcel) ® Former South Bay Honda 16151 Los Gatos Boulevard (two parcels) ® Dittos Lane (single parcel) After publication of the Draft EIR, and prior to the publication of the Final EIR on June 16, 2010, the single parcel on the former Bentley dealership property on Blossom Hill was removed from consideration as an AHOZ site since a dealership was proposing to continue its existing use. Therefore, the Final EIR, as certified by the Town Council, analyzed the application of the AHOZ to nine parcels on six sites, with capacity to accommodate a total of 621 units. Since the Final EIR was certified in 2010, Town staff and the General Plan Committee have been working to respond to comments from the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) on the Housing Element and to craft the AHOZ to implement the adopted Housing Element. In the process of creating the AHOZ, the Town has updated the list of potential housing sites to which the AHOZ would be applied, as well as the density allowed under the AHOZ. The following Table shows the four parcels, on three sites, that have been removed from consideration as potential AHOZ sites since the General Plan Final EIR was certified. Planning Commission Staff Report - Page 9 Amendments /A -12 -003, GP -12 -004 November 14, 2012 Under the proposed modified project, these parcels would not receive the AHOZ and their current base General Plan land use designation and zoning designations would remain unchanged. In addition to removing some parcels from AHOZ consideration, the Town is proposing an increase in the allowed density on two of the remaining AHOZ parcels. The AHOZ designation on the Los Gatos Courthouse site would allow 20 units per acre, as evaluated in the General Plan EIR. However, a density bonus of 20 percent would be allowed on the Los Gatos Courthouse site. The density bonus would not automatically be applied, but would be allowed by right based on compliance with AHOZ intent. The AHOZ designation on the Southbay Development site would allow 30 units per acre. In addition, a density bonus of 20 percent would be applied to the Southbay Development site. No changes would be made to the three parcels on the Oka Road /Lark Avenue site. These three parcels would maintain the AHOZ designation as evaluated in the General Plan EIR. No density bonus would be allowed on the Oka Road /Lark Avenue parcels. In summary, the proposed modifications to the approved project that would be necessary to implement the AHOZ would allow a total of seven more affordable housing units 'Town -wide, from 621 potential units to 628 potential units. As determined through the detailed analysis of the Initial Study checklist in Chapter II of Exhibit 10, the approval of the AHOZ would not involve new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects beyond those already identified in the 2010 Certified EIR. AHOZ Allowed AHOZ Decrease Acreage Density Allowed From GP Site Name (Acres) (units /acre) Units Final EIR Swanson Ford Single Parcel 4.5 12.7 57 -57 South Bay Honda Parcel A 1.0 20 20 -20 South Bay Honda Parcel B 0.9 20 18 -18 Dittos Lane Single Parcel 1.6 20 32 -32 Total 127 _127 Under the proposed modified project, these parcels would not receive the AHOZ and their current base General Plan land use designation and zoning designations would remain unchanged. In addition to removing some parcels from AHOZ consideration, the Town is proposing an increase in the allowed density on two of the remaining AHOZ parcels. The AHOZ designation on the Los Gatos Courthouse site would allow 20 units per acre, as evaluated in the General Plan EIR. However, a density bonus of 20 percent would be allowed on the Los Gatos Courthouse site. The density bonus would not automatically be applied, but would be allowed by right based on compliance with AHOZ intent. The AHOZ designation on the Southbay Development site would allow 30 units per acre. In addition, a density bonus of 20 percent would be applied to the Southbay Development site. No changes would be made to the three parcels on the Oka Road /Lark Avenue site. These three parcels would maintain the AHOZ designation as evaluated in the General Plan EIR. No density bonus would be allowed on the Oka Road /Lark Avenue parcels. In summary, the proposed modifications to the approved project that would be necessary to implement the AHOZ would allow a total of seven more affordable housing units 'Town -wide, from 621 potential units to 628 potential units. As determined through the detailed analysis of the Initial Study checklist in Chapter II of Exhibit 10, the approval of the AHOZ would not involve new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects beyond those already identified in the 2010 Certified EIR. Planning Commission Staff Report - Page 10 Amendments /A -12 -003, GP -12 -004 November 14, 2012 AHOZ Site Selection Criteria: The Town has received inquiries from community members regarding the AHOZ site selection criteria. During the Housing Element development, the Town developed a list of 41 properties that were considered for the AHOZ designation. The list contained both developed and vacant properties, with residential, commercial, open space and office zoning. The Town reviewed the list with the criteria in the state housing law that directs communities to prepare housing elements and plan for regional housing needs. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65583(a)(3), local governments are required to prepare an inventory of land suitable for residential development, including vacant sites and sites having the potential for redevelopment, and an analysis of the relationship of zoning and public facilities and services to these sites. The inventory of land suitable for residential development shall be used to identify sites that can be developed for housing within the planning period. Further, pursuant to state housing law, the purpose of the land inventory is to identify specific sites suitable for residential development in order to compare the local government's regional housing need allocation with its residential development capacity. The inventory will assist in determining whether there are sufficient sites to accommodate the regional housing need in total, and by income category. A thorough sites inventory and analysis will help the community determine whether program actions must be adopted to "make sites available" with appropriate zoning, development standards, and infrastructure capacity to accommodate the new construction need. The housing element must identify specific sites or parcels that are available for residential development. Land suitable for residential development must have characteristics that make the sites appropriate and available for residential use in the planning period. Other characteristics to consider when evaluating the appropriateness of sites include physical features (e.g. susceptibility to flooding, slope instability or erosion, or environmental considerations) and location (proximity to transit, job centers, and public or community services). Land suitable for residential development should include all of the following: ® Vacant residentially zoned sites; 6 Vacant non - residentially zoned sites that allow residential development; ® Underutilized residentially zoned sites capable of being developed at a higher density or with greater intensity; and a Non - residentially zoned sites that can be redeveloped for, and /or rezoned for, residential use (via program actions). Using these criteria, Town staff and the GPC refined the list to the five properties that were most closely aligned with these principles. The Southbay Development site was chosen due to its proximity to bus transit, future potential light rail transit, existing commercial services, health care and access to jobs. The appropriate infrastructure to accommodate residential uses are in Planning Commission Staff Report - Page 11 Amendments /A -12 -003, GP -12 -004 November 14, 2012 place, and the property is adjacent to a similar residential development, the Aventino Apartments. Many of the same factors apply to the Courthouse property. It has similar access and accessibility to services. Moreover the county had terminated the current public use, was planning to sell the property, and redevelopment was inevitable. The three Oka Road properties also have access to services along Los Gatos Boulevard, have a residential zoning and General Plan designation, and are vacant and suitable for residential development. Collectively, these five properties were of appropriate size to accommodate the remaining RHNA for the 2007 -14 Housing Element cycle and possess the characteristics outlined in state housing law for suitable residential housing sites. Consequences of Not Approving the AHOZ: Inquiries have also been received from community members questioning why the Town is proposing to adopt the AHOZ. As the Planning Commission is well aware through numerous study sessions and public hearings on the Housing Element, state housing law requires that the Town have a Housing Element that includes programs for meeting the Town's RHNA. The RHNA is mandated by state housing law and quantifies the need for housing within each jurisdiction during specified planning periods. Municipalities use the RHNA in land use planning, prioritizing local resource allocation, and in deciding how to address identified existing and future housing needs resulting from population, employment and household growth. The RHNA does not necessarily encourage or promote growth, but rather allows municipalities to anticipate growth, so that collectively the region can grow in ways that enhance quality of life, improve access to jobs, promotes transportation mobility, and addresses social equity, fair share housing needs. While state law specifies the analyses, assessments, and programs required for Housing Elements, it defers to the local govermnent 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, which does not result in rezoning and allows a property owner to develop the property under the existing zoning or the AHOZ. If the Town were to use a traditional approach to meeting the RHNA, between 50 to 120 acres of medium density (5 to 12 units per acre) land would need to be allocated for affordable housing purposes. State law would require rezoning of these lands if they were not zoned for medium or high density residential and would require that housing be allowed as a use by right rather than through the Town's current discretionary Conditional Use Permit process. As noted in the Study Session report (Exhibit 11), the state certified the Town's Housing Element as meeting state law based on its review of the draft AHOZ ordinance. If this key implementation program was not approved, the state would require the Town to reassess how to address the RHNA requirements, which would most likely result in significant rezoning and possibility decertifying of the Town's Housing Element. Without a valid Housing Element, the Planning Commission Staff Report - Page 12 Amendments /A -12 -003, GP -12 -004 November 14, 2012 Town remains limited in its ability to fully evaluate future development proposals and maintain the authority to make land use decisions or approve development applications. In one recent case, a Bay Area community lost its ability to approve any new commercial development until its Housing Element was brought into compliance with state law. The certified Housing Element also preserves the presumption that the Element complies with state law. This last point is most notable since noncompliant Housing Elements make attractive legal targets for parties who seek to invalidate local land use or redevelopment decisions. Lastly, the certified Housing Element will allow the Town to remain eligible for housing grants and transportation funds. CEOA DETERMINATION: No significant environmental impacts have been identified as a result of this project and an Addendum to the 2020 General Plan EIR was prepared (Exhibit 10). The Technical Appendix of the Addendum was not included in this report due to its extensive volume, and is available for review upon request. The proposed AHOZ is considered changes or additions to the project analyzed in the 2020 General Plan EIR. However, the adoption of AHOZ and modification to the AHOZ sites and densities would not result in new potentially significant impacts beyond those identified in the 2020 General Plan EIR that was certified by the Town Council (see full analysis in the EIR Addendum). Therefore, pursuant to CEQA, an Addendum to the EIR was prepared. The deciding body should determine that: (1) a Final EIR for the Los Gatos General Plan 2020 was certified and adopted by Town Council on September 20, 2010; and, (2) based on the analysis in the Appendix G Checklist in the Addendum, adoption and implementation of the AHOZ would not create any new or significant environmental impacts studied in the Los Gatos. General Plan 2020 EIR; and, (3) since the time that Council certified the FEIR in 2010, some changes or additions are necessary, but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 requiring preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Staff has had a number of conversations with community members regarding the AHOZ and received four emails (Exhibit 15). The points raised include criteria for site selection, whether affordable housing is needed, and the reason for removing Dittos Lane from the AHOZ. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION: A. 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 Planning Commission Staff Report - Page 13 Amendments /A -12 -003, GP -12 -004 November 14, 2012 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 implementation of the AHOZ will establish a base from which to develop the next Housing Element that will commence in 2013/2014. The Town was recently issued 617 RHNA units for the upcoming 2014 — 22 Housing Element cycle. If approved, the five AHOZ sites that are not developed prior to 2014 will help fulfill this forthcoming RHNA requirement. The Town would need to designate land that would accommodate a minimum of 52 additional units for the 2014 — 22 Housing Element cycle. As noted in this report, the Town has met and corresponded with a number of community members regarding the AHOZ. While these members have expressed concern with the concept, many of the questions staff received were relative to the potential project on the Courthouse property rather than the AHOZ program. B. Recommendation Staff recommends the following actions: 1. Make the required findings (Exhibit 9), 2. Forward a recommendation to the Town Council for approval of General Plan Amendment GP- 12.004 (Exhibit 2), 3. Forward a recommendation to the Town Council for approval of Zoning Code Amendment A -12 -003 (Exhibit 1), 4. Forward a recommendation to the Town Council for approval of the five ordinances applying the AHOZ to five sites listed in this report (Exhibits 3 through 7), 5. Forward a recommendation to the Town Council for approval of the resolution approving the Affordable Housing Overlay Zone Design Guidelines (Exhibit 8), 6. Forward a recommendation to the Town Council for approval of the Addendum to the General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (Exhibit 10). Prepared by. Wendie R. Rooney Strategic Projects Director WRR: ah z�A C 1 9-c4� tdadCapurso proved by: 0 Acting Director of Community Development NADEV\PC REPORTS\2012\AHOZ Code & GP Amend. I 1-14-12.doc This Page Intentionally .deft dank ORDINANCE ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS AMENDING CHAPTER 29 OF THE TOWN CODE BY ADDING DIVISION 5 TO ARTICLE VIII OF THE LOS GATOS TOWN CODE ENTITLED "AFFORDABLE HOUSING OVERLAY ZONE" AND DESIGNATING FIVE SITES TO WHICH THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING OVERLAY SHALL BE APPLIED AND ADOPTING IMPLEMENTING REGULATIONS WHEREAS, the State of California requires each city and county to update their housing elements on a regular cycle and plan for meeting their fair share of the regional housing needs for the state; WHEREAS, the Town's oversight committee, the General Plan Committee, developed the Housing Element over a two year period from 2009 to 2010; WHEREAS, the Town Council of the Town of Los Gatos adopted the 2007 - 2014 Housing Element by Resolution 2012 -008; WHEREAS, the State Department of Housing and Community Development has certified the Town of Los Gatos 2007 — 14 Housing Element as meeting state housing law; WHEREAS, the Housing Element Action Item HOU -2.1 calls for the establishment of an Affordable Housing Overlay Zone (AHOZ) as the principal means for meeting the Town's regional share of housing needs allocation (RHNA) for persons and families of low and moderate income; WHEREAS, five key properties were identified for the AHOZ designation. The five sites are contained in the Town's Housing Element Technical Appendix Table 6 -1, Chapter 6 and are adopted by separated ordinances; WHEREAS, the AHOZ encourages the development of affordable housing through development standard adjustments, fee deferrals or waivers, concessions, appropriate densities, priority permit processing, and in some cases density bonuses; EXHIBIT 1 WHEREAS, in order to be eligible for the benefits of the AHOZ, the application must meet the intent of the AHOZ and the affordability ratios contained in this ordinance; WHEREAS, for each of the five properties where the AHOZ will be applied, the property owner may develop consistent with the AHOZ standards and regulations contained in this ordinance or in the manner provided by the underlying zoning, but not both. WHEREAS, the Town's General Plan Committee considered the AHOZ goal, development standards, and concessions during 11 publically noticed meetings that occurred between November 2011 and August 2012 and ultimately recommended approval to the Planning Commission and Town Council; and WHEREAS, on October 15, 2012, the Town Council held a joint study session with the Planning Commission on the AHOZ, and all additional direction from the meeting has been incorporated into the proposed program. SECTION I Chapter 29, Article VIII, Division 5, entitled "Affordable Housing Overlay Zone" is hereby added to the Los Gatos Town Code, and shall read as follows: CHAPTER 29 ARTICLE 8. In General Division 5. Affordable Housing Overlay Zone 29.80.505 Intent. The Affordable Housing Overlay Zone (AHOZ) Ordinance in this chapter is intended to increase the supply and the mix of housing types, tenure and affordability with the Town of Los Gatos. Through appropriate densities, concessions and fee deferrals or waivers, the Affordable Housing Overlay Zone encourages the development of housing affordable to all income levels on five properties within the Town that ate deemed to be most appropriate for such uses. The Housing Element lists the five properties within the Town of Los Gatos as key housing opportunities sites for mixed income affordable housing projects. The designation of these sites will assist the Town in meeting its fair share of the regions housing needs required by the State. 29.80.510. AHOZ and Underlying Zoning: A property that has the AHOZ designation may be developed either in the manner provided in this ordinance or the manner provided in the underlying zone, but not both; use of the overlay zone and the underlying zone are mutually exclusive alternatives. Once the land has developed in the manner provided in the underlying zoning, the property owner shall relinquish the right to redevelop the land using the AHOZ overlay. 29.80.515. Applicability of Regulations. (a) This ordinance applies to the five properties listed on Table 6 -1 of Chapter 6 (Housing Site Inventory) of the 2007 -14 Housing Element Technical Appendix and as identified below: Affordable Housing Overlay Properties (November 2012) (1) Northwest corner of Knowles Drive and Capri Drive. APN 406 -28 -032. (2) Knowles Drive, east of Winchester Boulevard. APN 424- 32 -077. (3) West side of Oka Road, north of the Jewish Community Center. APN 424 -08 -074. (4) East side of Oka Road, south of the Los Gatos Swim and Racquet Club. APN 424 -08 -057. (5) East side of Oka Road, east of the Los Gatos Gardens Apartments. APN 424 -08 -021. (b) The provisions of this ordinance shall not apply if an applicant requests a state - mandated density bonus, the Town's Density Bonus Program contained in Section 29.10.405, and General Plan Density Bonus Policy (HOU -1.3). If the applicant submits a project utilizing one of these density bonus programs, the base density on which the bonus is calculated shall be the density of the existing zoning of the property. 29.80.520. Qualification. In order to qualify for the benefits of this overlay zone, residential development project shall comply with all of the following: (a) Include the following minimum percentage of affordable units. The income limits shall be established based on the current year Area Median Income for Santa Clara County. Site Very Low and Below Low 1Vloderate Above Moderate Los Gatos Courthouse 30% 20% 30% 20% Southbay Development 35% 20% 25% 20% Oka Road Site A 25% 25 % 30% 20% Oka Road Sites B 35% 15% 300X 20% Oka Road Sites C 35% 15 %. 1.30 %; 20% (b) Based on a recommendation by the Planning Commission, the Town Council may approve a modification to the affordability ratios in subsection (a), if the applicant can demonstrate that the ratio is not financially feasible. The Town Council may approve modifications to the ratios as long as the adjusted RHNA-units for very low, low and moderate income ranges are achieved. (c) Ensure that affordable units are deed - restricted for a period of not less than fifty -five years, or for the longest feasible time. An Affordable Housing Agreement shall be executed prior to recording any final map for the underlying property or prior to the issuance of any building permit for the housing development, whichever comes first, unless the Community Development Director approves an alternative phasing plan. The Affordable Housing Agreement shall be binding on all future owners and successors of interests of the housing development. 29.10.525. Permitted uses in the AHOZ (a) Multifamily dwellings; (b) Two- family dwellings; (c) Single- family dwellings; 29.50.530. Conditional Uses Permitted. No Conditional Use Permit shall be required for a housing development that meets the intent and regulations contained in this ordinance. 29.80.535. Application. Residential developments using the AHOZ standards shall be required to submit applications for Architecture and .Site review. The application shall be subject to review by the Planning Commission with a recommendation to Town Council and the review by Town Council shall be final. 29.80.540. Affordable Housing Overlay.Zones General Development Standards. Proposed development within the affordable housing overlay zones shall be designed and constructed in conformity with the development standards in Table 1 (Overlay Zones Development Standards). TABLE 1 OVERLAY ZONES DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS : °� � - �Y�S s'€�`� -_ P a�+�y,�_y .ui l��" TN4•`so-Y di �'j -`� i � J��S'�g�� S3 Yi 5. �_- 'fE,�j y,.n �� S ,�aTt�' `i ?> wfi'ronSicesear5.._ t Courthouse 40% 25 20 20 30 to 35 20 0 -1 bedroom. 1 space 2 -3 bedrooms: 2 spaces 4+ bedrooms: 2.5 spaces Southbay 40% Determined through 30 to 35 30 0 -1 bedroom: 1 space Architecture and Site 2 -3 bedrooms: 2 spaces Review 4+ bedrooms: 2.5 spaces Oka Road 40% 20 10 20 30 to 35 20 0 -1 bedroom: 1 space Site A 2 -3 bedrooms: 2 spaces 4+ bedrooms: 2.5 spaces Oka Road 40% 20 10 20 30 to 35 20 0 -1 bedroom: 1 space Site B 2 -3 bedrooms: 2 spaces 4+ bedrooms: 2.5 spaces Oka Road 40% 20 10 20 30 to 35 20 0 -1 bedroom: 1 space Site C 2 -3 bedrooms: 2 spaces 4+ bedrooms: 2.5 spaces 1. Property line setbacks. Internal setbacks are determined through the Architecture and Site Review Process. 2. Building height is increased to 35 feet for residential products that integrate the garage on the first floor, underground or is constructed on a parking podium. Additional height increase may be granted through the Architecture and Site Review Process. 3. Tandem parking is allowed automatically. 29.80.545. Affordable Mousing Overlay Zones Development Incentives (a) Concessions and Incentives. Applications meeting the intent of the AHOZ will be automatically granted four concessions at the applicant's sole discretion. The concessions are reductions in the development standards specified in this section, processing fee waivers, and in certain cases, a density bonus. The following development incentives are available to qualifying residential developments in the AHOZ: (1) Density Bonus. A 20% density bonus is automatically granted to developments on the Courthouse and Southbay sites if a density bonus is one of the four automatically granted concessions requested. (2) Parlung standards. Parking standards may be automatically reduced if a parking reduction is requested as one of the four concessions. Parking may be reduced as follows: a. Reduction to 1 space per unit for senior or persons with disabilities. b. Courthouse site: Reduction to 1.3 space due to proximity to the planned Vasona Light Rail Station. (3) Property setbacks. Any two property setbacks can be automatically reduced by up to 50% if applicant selects the setback reduction as a concession if a setback reduction is requested as one of the four concessions. The two setback reductions are considered on concession. (4) ]Lot Coverage. The lot coverage may automatically be increased to 50% if the applicant selects the lot coverage increase as one of the four concessions. (5) Processing Fees. The Town shall waive or defer planning, engineering, and building processing fees, except those that are paid directly to Town consultants or for technical studies. The fees shall be waived if the applicant selects a fee waiver as one of the four automatically granted concessions. The fees shall be deferred to the time of issuance certificate of occupancy for each unit if the fee waiver is not one of the four automatically granted concessions. (6) Priority processing. The Town shall give qualifying projects the highest processing priority for planning entitlements, building plan check and building inspection. 29.80.550. Architecture and Site Review Process. , (a) Affordable Housing Design Guidelines. All projects shall comply with the Adopted Affordable Housing Design Guidelines in effect at the time of the approval. (b) Architecture and Site Approval. All projects shall require an Architecture and Site application approval. The Planning Commission shall review each project and make a recommendation to the Town Council. The Town Council is the final decision making authority for AHOZ applications. The Town Council shall adopt a resolution that documents the Architecture and Site application decision. (1) Architectural design. Affordable units within a mixed affordable /lnaiket rate development shall be allowed to vary in interior and exterior design and square footage from non - affordable units as long as the project remains architecturally harmonious. Attached units, smaller (in square footage) units and other design variations from market rate units shall be permitted within reason to reduce costs of providing affordable units and subject to Architecture and Site approval. (c) Environmental Review. All projects shall be subject to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. (d) Findings. In order to qualify for a height increase over the maximum stated in Table 1, the Planning Commission shall make a recommendation and the Town Council shall find that: (1) The building massing and dimensional ratios of building components create a harmonious visual balance and contribute to the architectural rhythm. (2) The height increase is necessary to achieve excellence in architectural design and cannot be accommodated through alternative means such as reducing overall floor to ceiling heights. (e) Timing of Affordable Unit Construction. Affordable Units must be constructed concurrently with market -rate units. The Affordable Units shall be integrated into the market rate component of the plan to the greatest extent feasible. If complete integration cannot be achieved, the applicant shall provide justification for not meeting the intent of this section. The Planning Commission shall make a recommendation on the affordable and market rate unit dispersion plan and the Town Council shall approve the final plan. SECTION II In the event that any part of this ordinance is held to be invalid, the invalid part or parts shall be severed from the remaining portions which shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION III This Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Los Gatos on , and adopted by the following vote as an ordinance of the Town of Los Gatos at a meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Los Gatos on . This ordinance takes effect 30 days after it is adopted. COUNCIL MEMBERS: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: SIGNED: MAYOR OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA ATTEST: CLERK ADMINISTRATOR OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA N:\DEV \ORDS\AHOZ Code Amend.Ord.11- 14- 12.doc RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN TO CHANGE THE DESIGNATION FROM PUBLIC /QUASI - PUBLIC TO OFFICE PROFESSIONAL AT 375 KNOWLES DRIVE AND 14205 CAPRI DRIVE (APN: 406 -28 -032) WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code Section 65353, the Town Council conducted a public hearing for consideration of amendments to the General Plan on , 2012. WHEREAS, during this hearing, the Town Council considered the General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from Public /Quasi - Public to Office Professional for property at 375 Knowles Drive and 14205 Capri Drive (APN: 406 -28- 032). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Town Council finds that (a) the proposed General Plan amendment is internally consistent with the existing goals and policies of the General Plan and its corresponding elements and (b) that all proceedings have been conducted in compliance with the provisions of Government Code Section 65350 et seq. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Town Council hereby changes the land use designation of the General Plan as shown on Exhibit A from Public /Quasi- Public to Office Professional, EXRIBIT 2 PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Los Gatos, California, held on the day of , 2012 by the following vote: COUNCIL MEMBERS AYES: NAYES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: SIGNED: MAYOR OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA ATTEST: CLERK ADMINISTRATOR OF THE TOWN OF _LOS GATOS LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA NA1DEVMS0S\2012 \GPA Resolution Courthourse Property.doc Forwarded by Planning Commission Date: Approved by Town Council Date: Ord: Clerk Administrator Mayor EXHIBIT A Of Exhibit 2 III is Page Intentionally Left Blank ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS APPLYING THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING OVERLAY TO THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 375 KNOWLES DRIVE AND 14205 CAPRI DRIVE (LOS GATOS COURTHOUSE) (APN: 406 -28 -032) WHEREAS, the State of California requires each city and county to update their housing elements on a regular cycle and plan for meeting their fair share of the regional housing needs for the state; WHEREAS, as a principal component of the housing element, Government Code Section 65583(a)(3) requires local governments to prepare an inventory of land suitable for residential development, including vacant sites and sites having the potential for redevelopment, and an analysis of the relationship of zoning and public facilities and services to these sites; WHEREAS, pursuant to state housing law, in developing the inventory of suitable lands, the housing element shall include specific sites or parcels that are available and appropriate for residential uses. Factors to consider include physical features (e.g, susceptibility to flooding, slope instability or erosion, or environmental considerations) and location (proximity to transit, job centers, and public or community services). Land suitable for residential development includes all of the following; ® vacant residentially zoned sites; ® vacant non - residentially zoned sites that allow residential development; ® underutilized residentially zoned sites capable of being developed at a higher density or with greater intensity; and non- residentially zoned sites that can be redeveloped for, and /or rezoned for, residential use (via program actions). WHEREAS, during the housing element update in 2010, the Town identified approximately 40 parcels, and through extensive review with the General Plan Committee, narrowed the list to five properties that possessed the physical and location character that most closely aligned with state housing law suitable land criteria; and EXHIBIT 3 WHEREAS, the former Courthouse and County office property was selected as one of the AHOZ sites due to its location to services and transit, its size, property owners intent to sell for redevelopment purposes, and suitability for residential development. THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS ORDAINS: SECTION I The Zoning Map of the Town is hereby amended to apply the AHOZ designation to the property shown on Exhibit A. SECTION II This Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Los Gatos on , and adopted by the following vote as an ordinance of the Town of Los Gatos at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Los Gatos on . This ordinance takes effect 30 days after it is adopted. COUNCIL MEMBERS: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: SIGNED: MAYOR OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA ATTEST: CLERK ADMINISTRATOR OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA N:\DEV\ORDS \375 Knowles-14205 Capri AHOZ Ord,doc Forwarded by Planning Commission Date: Approved by Town Council Date: Ord: Clerk Administrator Mayor EXHIBIT A Of Exhibit 3 This Page Intentionally ,Left Blank ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS APPLYING THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING OVERLAY TO THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 110,120, 130, 140, AND 150 KNOWLES DRIVE (SOUTHBAY DEVELOPMENT) (APN: 424 -32 -077) WHEREAS, the State of California requires each city and county to update their housing elements on a regular cycle and plan for meeting their fair share of the regional housing needs for the state; WHEREAS, as a principal component of the housing element, Government Code Section 65583(a)(3) requires local governments to prepare an inventory of land suitable for residential development, including vacant sites and sites having the potential for redevelopment, and an analysis of the relationship of zoning and public facilities and services to these sites; WHEREAS, pursuant to state housing law, in developing the inventory of suitable lands, the housing element shall include specific sites or parcels that are available and appropriate for residential uses. Factors to consider include physical features (e.g. susceptibility to flooding, slope instability or erosion, or environmental considerations) and location (proximity to transit, job centers, and public or community services). Land suitable for residential development includes all of the following: ® vacant residentially zoned sites; ® vacant non - residentially zoned sites that allow residential development; ® underutilized residentially zoned sites capable of being developed at a higher density or with greater intensity; and ® non- residentially zoned sites that can be redeveloped for, and /or rezoned for, residential use (via program actions). WHEREAS, during the housing element update in 2010, the Town identified approximately 40 parcels, and through extensive review with the General Plan Committee, narrowed the list to five properties that possessed the physical and location character that most closely aligned with state housing law suitable land criteria; and MIBIT 4 WHEREAS, the Southbay Development property was selected as one of the AHOZ sites due to its location to services and transit, its size, property owner's intent to, redevelop with high density residential uses, and suitability for residential development. THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS ORDAINS: SECTION I The Zoning Map of the Town is hereby amended to apply the AHOZ designation to the property shown on Exhibit A. SECTION II This Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Los Gatos on , and adopted by the following vote as an ordinance of the Town of Los Gatos at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Los Gatos on . This ordinance takes effect 30 days after it is adopted. COUNCIL MEMBERS: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: SIGNED: MAYOR OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA ATTEST: CLERK ADMINISTRATOR OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA NADMORDSTnowles Dr. AHOZ Ordinance.doc Forwarded by Planning Commission Date: Approved by Town Council Date: Ord: Clerk Administrator Mayor EXHIBIT A Of Exhibit 4 7'Izis Page Intentionally Left Blank ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS APPLYING THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING OVERLAY TO THE PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF OKA ROAD (SITE A) JUST NORTH OF THE JEWISH COMMUNTY CENTER (APN: 424 -08 -074) WHEREAS, the State of California requires each city and county to update their housing elements on a regular cycle and plan for meeting their fair share of the regional housing needs for the state; WHEREAS, as aprincipal component of the housing element, Government Code Section 65583(a)(3) requires local govermnents to prepare an inventory of land suitable for residential development, including vacant sites and sites having the potential for redevelopment, and an analysis of the relationship of zoning and public facilities and services to these sites; WHEREAS, pursuant to state housing law, in developing the inventory of suitable lands, the housing element shall include specific sites or parcels that are available and appropriate for residential uses. Factors to consider include physical features (e.g. susceptibility to flooding, slope instability or erosion, or environmental considerations) and location (proximity to transit, job centers, and public or community services). Land suitable for residential development includes all of the following: ® vacant residentially zoned sites; ® vacant non - residentially zoned sites that allow residential development; 6 underutilized residentially zoned sites capable of being developed at a higher density or with greater intensity; and ® non- residentially zoned sites that can be redeveloped for, and /or rezoned for, . residential use (via program actions). WHEREAS, during the housing element update in 2010, the Town identified approximately 40 parcels, and through extensive review with the General Plan Committee, narrowed the list to five properties that possessed the physical and location character that most closely aligned with state housing law suitable land criteria; and EXHIBIT 5 WHEREAS, Oka Road Site A was selected as one of the AHOZ sites due to its location to services and transit, its size, consistency with existing residential zoning and General Plan residential designation, and suitability for residential development. THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS ORDAINS: SECTION I The Zoning Map of the Town is hereby amended to apply the AHOZ designation to the property shown on Exhibit A, SECTION II This Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Los Gatos on and adopted by the following vote as an ordinance of the Town of Los Gatos at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Los Gatos on , This ordinance takes effect 30 days after it is adopted. COUNCIL MEMBERS: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: SIGNED: MAYOR OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA ATTEST: CLERK ADMINISTRATOR OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA N:\DEV \ORDS \Oka Road Site A AHOZ Ordinance.doc Forwarded by Planning Commission Date: Approved by Town Council Date: Clerk Administrator Mayor R. EXHIBIT A Of Exhibit 5 This Page Intentionally Left Plank ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS APPLYING THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING OVERLAY TO THE PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF OKA ROAD (SITE B) SOUTH OF THE LOS GATOS SWIM AND RACQUET CLUB (APN: 424 -08 -057) WHEREAS, the State of California requires each city and county to update their housing elements on a regular cycle and plan for meeting their fair share of the regional housing needs for the state; WHEREAS, as a principal component of the housing element, Government Code Section 65583(a)(3) requires local governments to prepare an inventory of land suitable for residential development, including vacant sites and sites having the potential for redevelopment, and an analysis of the relationship of zoning and public facilities and services to these sites; WHEREAS, pursuant to state housing law, in developing the inventory of suitable lands, the housing element shall include specific sites or parcels that are available and appropriate for residential uses. Factors to consider include physical features (e.g. susceptibility to flooding, slope instability or erosion, or environmental considerations) and location (proximity to transit, job centers, and public or community services). Land suitable for residential development includes all of the following: ® vacant residentially zoned sites; ® vacant non - residentially zoned sites that allow residential development; ® underutilized residentially zoned sites capable of being developed at a higher density or with greater intensity; and ® non- residentially zoned sites that can be redeveloped for, and /or rezoned for, residential use (via program actions). WHEREAS, during the housing element update in 2010, the Town identified approximately 40 parcels, and through extensive review with the General Plan Committee, narrowed the list to five properties that possessed the physical and location character that most closely aligned with state housing law suitable land criteria; and EXHIBIT 6 WHEREAS, Oka Road Site B was selected as one of the AHOZ sites due to its location to services and transit, its size, consistency with existing residential zoning and General Plan residential designation, and suitability for residential development. THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS ORDAINS: SECTION I The Zoning Map of the Town is hereby amended to apply the AHOZ designation to the property shown on Exhibit A. SECTION II This Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Los Gatos on , and adopted by the following vote as an ordinance of the Town of Los Gatos at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Los Gatos on . This ordinance takes effect 30 days after it is adopted. COUNCIL MEMBERS: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: SIGNED: MAYOR OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA ATTEST: CLERK ADMINISTRATOR OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA N:\DEV\ORDS \Oka Road Site B AHOZ Ordinance.doc I E% I EXHIBIT A Of Exhibit 6 This Page intentionally Left Blank ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS APPLYING THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING OVERLAY TO THE PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF OKA ROAD (SITE C) EAST OF THE LANDMARK AND LOS GATOS GARDEN APARTMENTS (APN: 424 -08 -021) WHEREAS, the State of California requires each city and county to update their housing elements on a regular cycle and plan for meeting their fair share of the regional housing needs for the state; WHEREAS, as a principal component of the housing element, Government Code Section 65583(a)(3) requires local governments to prepare an inventory of land suitable for residential development, including vacant sites and sites having the potential for redevelopment, and an analysis of the relationship of zoning and public facilities and services to these sites; WHEREAS, pursuant to state housing law, in developing the inventory of suitable lands, the housing element shall include specific sites or parcels that are available and appropriate for residential uses. Factors to consider include physical features (e.g. susceptibility to flooding, slope instability or erosion, or environmental considerations) and location (proximity to transit, job centers, and public or community services). Land suitable for residential development includes all of the following: a vacant residentially zoned sites; a vacant non - residentially zoned sites that allow residential development; a underutilized residentially zoned sites capable of being developed at a higher density or with greater intensity; and a non- residentially zoned sites that can be redeveloped for, and /or rezoned for, residential use (via program actions). WHEREAS, during the housing element update in 2010, the Town identified approximately 40 parcels, and through extensive review with the General Plan Committee, narrowed the list to five properties that possessed the physical and location character that most closely aligned with state housing law suitable land criteria; and EXHIBIT 7 WHEREAS, Oka Road Site C was selected as one of the AHOZ sites due to its location to services and transit, its size, consistency with existing residential zoning and General Plan residential designation, and suitability for residential development. THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS ORDAINS: SECTION I The Zoning Map of the Town is hereby amended to apply the AHOZ designation to the property shown on Exhibit A. SECTION II This Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town. of Los Gatos on , and adopted by the following vote as an ordinance of the Town of Los Gatos at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Los Gatos on This ordinance takes effect 30 days after it is adopted. COUNCIL MEMBERS: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: SIGNED: MAYOR OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA ATTEST: CLERK ADMINISTRATOR OF THE TOV,J--N OF LOS GATOS LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA N:OEV\ORDS \Oka Road Site C AHOZ Ordinance.doc Forwarded by Planning Commission [date: Approved by Town Council Cate: Ord: Clerk Administrator Mayor EXHIBIT A Of Exhibit 7 117 Page Intentionally Left Blank RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS ADOPTING THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING OVERLAY ZONE DESIGN GUIDELINES WHEREAS, the Town Council of the Town of Los Gatos adopted the 2007 - 2014 Housing Element by Resolution 2012 -008; WHEREAS, Housing Element Action Item HOU -2.1 calls for the establishment of an Affordable Housing Overlay Zone (AHOZ) as the principal means for meeting the Town's regional share of housing needs allocation (RHNA) for persons and families of low and moderate income; WHEREAS, in developing the Affordable Housing Overlay Zone program, the Town Council expressed the desire to ensure that, if developed, the AHOZ projects will possess the same high quality and standards found in residential development throughout the Town; WHEREAS, the Town presently does not have multifamily design guidelines; WHEREAS, the Affordable Housing Overlay Zone Design Guidelines provide both site specific and general site planning, parking, public open space, private open space, landscaping and architecture guidelines for multi- family residential products that may be developed on the AHOZ sites; WHEREAS, the Town's General Plan Committee considered the AHOZ goals, development standards, and site and design standards during 11 publically noticed meetings that occurred between November 2011 and August 2012 and ultimately recommended approval of the 1 EXHIBIT 8 AHOZ development standards and Design Guidelines to the Planning Commission and Town Council; and WHEREAS, adoption of these design guidelines will help provide clear direction to Town staff, developers, Planning Commission and Town Council. THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: the Town Council of the Town of Los Gatos adopts the Affordable Housing Overlay Zone Design Guidelines, attached hereto as Exhibit A. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council held on the 2012, by the following vote: COUNCIL MEMBERS: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: SIGNED: ATTEST: MAYOR OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA CLERK ADMINISTRATOR OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA NADEV \RES0S\2012\Adoption of the AHOZ Design Guidelines,docx 2 iVL 1 la LI IL 7 4 `f '< °._ ell F e Affordable Housing Overlay Zone F Design Guidelines Town of Los Gatos a' .. �Al1N�lll "sue..,:... ..._ -. ..'. Adopted by the Los Gatos Town Council ACKNOWLEDGMENTS TOWN COUNCIL Steve Rice Mayor Barbara Spector Vice -Mayor Steve Leonardis Diane McNutt Joe Pirzynski PLANNING COMMISSION Marcia Jensen Chair Charles Erekson Vice Chair John Bourgeois Thomas O'Donnell Marico Sayoc Margaret Smith Joanne Talesfore GENERAL PLAN COMMITTEE John Bourgeois Planning Commission Marcia Jensen Marico Sayoc Joe Pirzynski Barbara Spector Barbara Cardillo Mathew Hudes (Vacant) Todd Jarvis TOWN STAFF Greg Larson Pamela Jacobs Judith Propp Wendie Rooney Sandy Baily Heather Bradley Larry Cannon Planning Commission Planning Commission Town Council Town Council Community Services Commission Public Representative Public Representative Business Representative Town Manager Assistant Town Manager Town Attorney Community Development Director Planning Manager Associate Planner Town Architect / Cannon Design Group Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department 110 East Main Street P.O. Box 949 Los Gatos, CA 95031 (408) 354 -6872 (408) 354 -7593 fax www.losgatosca.gov Town of Los Gatos CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION Introduction .......... ..............................1 Applicability .......... ..............................1 Community Expectat ions ..............................1 Housing Types ........ ..............................2 2 HOUSING TYPES GUIDELINES General Design Guidelines ............................. 3 Housing Types Design Guidelines 33 Small Lot Single Family Detached Homes ............... 5 Cottage Cluster Housing ............................ 9 Multiplexes ........ .............................13 38 Townhouses ....... .............................17 Rowhouses ...... ............................... 21 Multifamily Flats .. ............................... 25 Housing Type /Site Suitability .......................... 29 3 SITE GUIDELINES Sites Overview ...... ............................... 31 Los Gatos Courthouse Site ............................ 33 Southbay Development Site ...........................36 Oka Road/Lark Avenue Sites A & B ..................... 37 Oka Road/Lark Avenue Site C ......................... 38 GLOSSARY Affordable Housing Design Guidelines This Page Intentionally Left Blank Irk, I "I Tel 00011 fW The Town of Los Gatos has a rich heritage and variety of homes, ranging from small cottages to larger homes which add to its desirability as a place to live. The variety and richness of the Town's visual environment has added to its desirability as a place to live, work, and raise a family. It has also led to high residential land values, making it an unaffordable place to live for many who may not have been lucky enough to put down roots some years ago. Recognizing the need for a broad range of residential accommodations to allow younger residents and seniors to remain in their community, house the workers who provide local goods and services, and contribute to the economic and social diversity of Los Gatos, the Town has established policies and programs to encourage affordable housing. They are complementary to and reinforce those established by the State to assist in the creation of afford- able housing in all communities. These design guidelines have been established as a part of the Town's Affordable Housing Overlay Zone (AHOZ) to assist in defining and integrating affordable housing types into the special character, scale and ambi- ence of Los Gatos. APPLICABILITY These design guidelines will be used by the Town staff, Development Review Committee, Planning Commis- sion, and Town Council in evaluating new residential developments with a significant component of affordable housing in the Town. They are applicable only to the development of the five identified affordable housing sites listed below and shown in Figure 1.1. All other sites will be subject to the Town's normal Architecture and Site review process. • Los Gatos Courthouse Site • Southbay Development Site • Oka Road /Lark Avenue Site A • Oka Road /Lark Avenue Site B • Oka Road /Lark Avenue Site C Affordable Housing Design Guidelines I10111:1iU11Iy-IiCiT. 1 pot \atd Rd -8 - -•- � _ Oka RoaN'• Bicknell carbon Ave ,.'J -"li T'�^L F vyoana Lake :County Park 05 Gates Almaden Rd b� _ 3 aaioy Rd A r° 9n Blossom Hill Rd G10 Idonta Sereno yJ �m Lt' Sh2nnon Q ` 17 dd 0 Figure 1.1: Affordable Housing Sites Locations COMMUNITY EXPECTATIONS The Town of Los Gatos expects a high level of experience and commitment in the development of the identified affordable housing sites. The following is a summary of specific expectations that will need to be satisfied for the successful review and approval of projects covered by these design guidelines: 1. Site plans, landscaping, and structures will be de- veloped with a character that is consistent with the quality of the Town's existing neighborhoods. 2. Site development plans will be outward directed and compatible with their surrounding neighborhoods. 3. Homes will maintain a compatible presence on the street. 4. Structures will be designed to ensure architectural integrity with design, details, and material consis- tency on all facades. 5. Structures will be constructed with high quality materials and craftsmanship. INTRODUCTION 1 6. In mined affordability developments, market rate HOUSING TYPES and affordable units will be architecturally harmo- nious. 7. Attention will be given to architectural details con- sistent with the individual architectural style. 8. Mature landscaping will be preserved whenever possible. 9. Structures will be designed to be energy and water efficient, constructed using building materials that reduce resource consumption, and take advantage of renewable resources where appropriate. 10. Developments will create a sense of place and com- munity within the site and neighborhood. Town of Los Gatos While the General Plan land use designations for the identified AHOZ sites allow residential development for a range of 0 to 5 (Oka Road) to 12 -20 (Southbay) units per acre for a majority of the sites, the AHOZ overlay zone will allow higher densities based upon compliance with the Town's Housing Element. The number of additional units that may occur on each site will vary according to several factors including the density bonus provision allowed by the AHOZ, the amount of affordable housing proposed, and the ratios of income groups to be served. In general, the Town has established a target density of 20 units per acre, but ac- tual densities may vary within a range of 15 to 36 units per acre. The housing types included in these design guidelines are ones that can reasonably accommodate this density range. They can be utilized exclusively on a site or different types may be utilized in combination on the same site for a mix of affordable levels or household types (e.g., seniors and families). They include the housing types listed below. All of the sites and housing types will be subject to the General Design Guidelines contained in Chapter 2 as well as the specific development standards and housing types guidelines which address the special features and characteristics of each housing type. Chapter 3 contains guidelines specific to the unique characteristics of each designated AHOZ site. • Small Lot Single Family Detached Homes • Cottage Cluster Housing • Multiplexes • Townhouses • Rowhouses • Multifamily Flats Affordable Housing Design Guidelines Town of Los Gatos DESIGN GUIDELINES GENERAL DESIGN GUIDELINES Each housing type has its own unique opportunities and limits, and each site offers unique conditions affecting the site layout and unit designs. However, the guidelines for the individual housing types and sites are based upon the general design guidelines below. SITE PLANNING 1. Relate buildings to the street and locate them on the site so that they reinforce street frontages. 2. Relate buildings to existing and planned adjacent uses. 3. Provide as many private, ground level entries to in- dividual units as possible. 4. Ensure that all buildings have well designed and visible entries. 5. Provide each unit with its own visual identity and individual address whenever possible. 6. Provide pedestrian accessibility to adjacent uses with paseos, gates, pedestrian walkways, crossings, etc. 7. Locate common facilities —such as community rooms and laundries — centrally and link them to common outdoor space. 8. Locate buildings and landscaping to maximize solar access during cooler months and to control it dur- ing warmer months. Maximize natural ventilation, sunlight and views for each unit. DESIGN GUIDELINES 2 6. Place parking lot in proximity to dwelling units to allow for casual surveillance. 7. Two spaces provided for one unit may be accom- modated in tandem spaces. 8. Separate bicycle and pedestrian paths from vehicular traffic. 9. Designate "vehicle free areas" for bicycle and pedes- trian safety and enjoyment. 10. In developments without garage parking, bicycle parking will be required per Santa Clara ValleyTrans- portation Authority (VTA) standards. PUBLIC OPEN SPACE 1. Design outdoor open space to define individual use areas as appropriate to the site. 2. Provide public open space which can be used for play, recreation, social or cultural activities. 3. Locate public open spaces so that they can be viewed from individual units, preferably from the kitchen, living room or dining room. 4. Locate play area(s) centrally to allow for adult su- pervision from dwelling units and/or from a central facility such as a laundry. 5. Provide lighting from a variety ofsources at appropri- ate intensities and qualities for safety. 9. Enhance access to bus or light rail transit stops G Provide energy - efficient lighting. whenever possible. PRIVATE OPEN SPACE PARKING 1. Provide each household with some form of useful 1. Place parking lots at rear or non -street side of the site to allow a majority of dwelling units to front on the street. 2. Build multiple small parking lots in lieu of large lots. 3. Plant trees and shrubs to soften the overall impact of parking areas and to provide shade and noise reduction. 4. Avoid blank walls facing the street on buildings with parking garages. 5. If blank walls are unavoidable, decorate with artwork, vines, and good quality durable materials. Affordable Housing Design Guidelines private open space, such as a patio, porch, deck, balcony, yard, or shared entry porches or balconies. 2. Private open space should be easily accessible—physi- cally and visually — from individual units. 3. Design balconies for privacy without compromising views from the residential units to the outside. 4. Provide fencing to insure privacy and to help define boundaries between public and private open space. Town of Los Gatos DESIGN GUIDELINES 2 LANDSCAPING ARCHITECTURE 1. Provide common open space for the use of all residents. 1. Design buildings for the site; don't use stock plans. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Design landscaping to enhance the architecture and create and define useful public and private spaces. Use hardy, native plant species — trees, shrubs, groundcover — that are easy to water and maintain, and conform to water efficiency standards. Shade paved areas, especially parking lots. Provide avariety of seating in landscaped areas, where appropriate. Include paths to accommodate children, adults, bicycles, skate boards, shopping carts, walkers, pets, furniture moving, etc. Provide appropriate lighting to insure that paths are safe at night. 2. Relate first floor to the street. If close to the street, raise level of first floor slightly to maintain privacy.) 3. Relate size and bulk of project so that it is consistent with buildings in the immediate neighborhood. 4. Eliminate box -like forms with large, unvaried roofs by using a variety of building forms and roof shapes with clusters of units, and variations in height, set- back, and roof shape. 5. Make the building visually and architecturally pleas- ing by varying the height, color, setback, materials, texture, landscaping, trim and roof shapes and ridge orientation for all elevations. 6. Enhance views and make spaces feel larger by maxi- mizing the number of windows. 7. Break up the fagade of horizontal buildings into smaller components by utilizing vertical adjacent building masses. 8. Provide door and window openings with sizes and proportions that are appropriate to traditional ar- chitectural styles. 9. Use porches, stairs, railings, fascia boards, and trim to enhance buildings' character. 10. Select building materials and colors that are comple- mentary to the surrounding area and have high levels of recycled content whenever possible. 11. Design buildings to take advantage of solar oppor- tunities. HOUSING TYPES DESIGN STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES Design standards and guidelines for each individual housing type are summarized on the following pages.The housing types covered are: • Small Lot Single Family Detached Homes • Cottage Cluster Housing • Multiplexes • Townhouses • Rowhouses • Multifamily Flats 4 Affordable Housing Design Guidelines l Town of Los Gatos Small lot single family detached with secondary units over rear lane garages (top) combined with rowhouses (below) DESIGN GUIDELINES SMALL LOT SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED HOMES Characteristics Small lot single family housing fea- tures lots with parcel sizes of 2,500 to 4,500 square feet. Additional density is achieved by adding smaller Secondary Dwelling Units (SDUs) with separate entries at the rear of the site, typically over garages served by rear lane access. Typical Densities • 15 - 20 DU /acre 2 Small lot single family detached units with parking in rear lanes Small lot units with parking in the rear Carriage house units along rear lane with special pedestrian entry gates Affordable Housing Design Guidelines Carriage house units along rear lane Town of Los Gatos DESIGN GUIDELINES 2 SMALL LOT SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED HOMES C DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS DESIGN OSJFCrfM I. Enhance the livability of small lot homes. 2. Enhance affordability by allowing secondary units to be integrated into the main structure or as car- riage houses over garages. 3. Enhance the appearance and unity of residential streetscapes. 4. Integrate small lot neighborhoods comfortably into the overall community fabric. Lot Size • 2,500 sq. ft. minimum • Minimum parcel width: 30 ft. for interior lots & 35 ft. for corner lots Unit Size • Subject to Architecture and Site Review. Lot Coverage • 40% maximum. Building Placement • Setbacks and lot coverage standards to conform to the Towds RM standards except as specified below. • Front yard setback on public or interior streets: 15 ft. or as noted in the site development guidelines. • Garage setbacks: 18 ft. with front - loaded garages on public or interior streets to avoid encroachment onto public sidewalks. • Front yard encroachments for open porches: 8 ft. max. • Front yard encroachments for habitable space: 5 ft. max. over a maximum of 50% of the house frontage - only for homes with rear lane garage access. • Side yard encroachments into minimum setbacks: 6 ft. over a maximum of 25% of the facade. The minimum projection required is 3 ft. Open Space • Subject to the following Town of Los Gatos Zoning Code sections: • Sec. 29.10.065 Recreational open space for resi- dential condominiums. • Sec. 29.40.660 Recreational open space for mul- tifamily dwellings. Height • Maximum Height. 30 ft. with allowance up to 35 ft. for units with parking integrated into or located below the units' living space. Entries • Porches are encouraged, and may encroach into front setbacks up to a maximum of 8 feet. Porches most have a minimum six foot depth. Parking • 0 - 1 bedroom units: I spaces per unit. • 2 - 3 bedroom units: 2 spaces per unit. • 4+ bedroom units: 2 16 spaces per unit. • Tandem spaces are allowed. Front setback encroachments example Affordable Housing Design Guidelines G Town of Los Gatos DESIGN GUIDELINES SMALL LOT SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED HOMES 2 Maximum Height Limit: 30 ft. with allowance up to 35 h. for units with parking Integrated Into or located below the units' living space _.._.._.._.._.._. ._.._.._.._.._.._..- .._.._.._.. hoof slopes to match Il main house structure Maximum Height Limit: i 15 ft, for accessory structure without living space above I ProJacting balconies �-1 pn' bay windows are strongly encouraged Setback for garage 3 ft. or no less than 18 ft. Inset garage doors 12" min. Small Lot Single Family Detached rear garage and secondary unit frontage standards 30 a. with allowance up to 35 ft. for units with parking _ Integrated Into or located below the units' living space Figure 2.x) DESIGN GUIDELINES Site Development 1. Orient unit entries to streets and common open spaces. 2. Avoid fences over three feet tall along public street frontages. 3. Use a mix of narrow and wide lots to add variety to streetscapes as appropriate. 4. Link internal unit entries to adjacent streets with clear open space and pedestrian circulation net- works (See site layout example at top of page 8). 5. Rear lane access to parking garages or carports is strongly encouraged to enhance street front facades . Massing and Articulation 1. Pitched roofs are strongly encouraged for all struc- tures. 2. Architectural features (e.g., bay windows, chimneys, canopies, cornices, awnings) are encouraged. 3. Projecting roof eaves of at least 18" are strongly encouraged. 4. Wrapping porches around to side elevations is strongly encouraged on corner lots. 5. Varied side wall plane setbacks between adjacent units are preferred over uniform setbacks to provide less visual rigidity and to allow access to more light and air. These setbacks should be a minimum of 3 feet. 6. Limit the width of garages accessed from visible street frontages and lanes to a maximum of 50% 1 encroach of the home's front facade, and recess the garage a Setback minimum of 3 feet. Tandem parking is encouraged to limit the width of garage doors. For two -car wide garages, provide delineation between doors or ad- ditional architectural detail at the door opening. Small Lot Single Family Detached street frontage standards Affordable Housing Design Guidelines DESIGN GUIDELINES 2 SMALL LOT SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED HOMES On Site Parking 1. Garage aprons for street - facing garages: 18 h. mini- mum depth 2. Rear entry garages: 3 h. minimum setback accept- able; larger aprons must be at least 18 ft. (no aprons shall be allowed between 3 h. and 18 ft. to prevent cars blocking streets and sidewalks) 3. Provide guest parking along interior streets. 4. For dimensional standards not referenced, refer to the Town Code. Architectural Details 1. Substantial architectural details are expected on all elevations. The following are some elements that may be used to add visual interest and a sense of hu- man scale to the homes: • Horizontal and vertical wall plane changes • Varied roof forms and orientations • Bay windows • Roof Dormers • Material and color changes • Applied decorative features. • Roof segments over windows • Pot rails • Metal or wood balcony railings • Planter boxes and plant rings Town of Los Gatos Special design for corner unit Units with porches Arbriai StMt r;'e i 8 t i Site layout example Small Lot Single Family Detached examples Affordable Housing Design Guidelines Town of Los Gatos Cottages around a central courtyard with three carriage DESIGN GUIDELINES COTTAGE CLUSTER HOUSING Characteristics Cottage Cluster Housing is a collec- tion ofsmall houses arranged around one or more common open spaces or courtyards. Units are smaller than typical single family homes with floor areas of 1,200 square feet or less. Parking is provided in consoli- dated parking lots and/or in garages served by alley access. Typical Densities 15 - 25 DU /acre Cottages around a central courtyard with a commons structure Cottages around a central courtyard Street facade of the 9 -unit cottage cluster shown in the aerial photo above Affordable Housing Design Guidelines Cottage housing site plan example m s a� L � 0 3m Nm l0 q O^� y, m m� u� `mm am cE w� u- m 9 Q DESIGN GUIDELINES 2 COTTAGE CLUSTER HOUSING DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS DESIGN OBJECTIVES 1. Provide a housing type that responds to chang- ing household sizes and ages (e.g., retirees, small families, single person households). 2. Mitigate increased density by ensuring that the overall size, bulk and mass of cottage structures remains smaller and creates less visual impact than an equal number of standard sized single - family dwellings. 3. Provide centrally located and functional common open space that fosters a sense of community and a sense of openness. 4. Provide private area around the individual dwell- ings to enable diversity in landscape design and foster a sense of ownership. 5. Ensure minimal visual impact from vehicular use and storage areas for residents. 6. Maintain a single- family character along public streets. 7. Provide well designed forms, facade articulation, materials use, and architectural details around all sides of the structures. Lot Size • Minimum lot area per dwelling unit: 1,600 sq. ft. Unit Size • Subject to Architecture and Site Review. • Maximum Second Floor Area: 50% of the area of the main level. • Attached garages shall be included in the calculation of total floor area. • Attached roofed porches and architectural projec- tions (e.g., bay windows, fireplaces) not greater than 18" in depth and 6 ft. wide are not included in the total floor area. Lot Coverage 40% maximum.. Town of Los Gatos Building Placement • Setbacks and lot coverage standards to conform to the Town's RM standards except as specified below. • Front yard setback on public or interior streets: 15 ft. or as noted in the site development guidelines. • Cottages shall be oriented around and have their main entry from a Common Open Space. Structures facing public streets must have similarly articulated facades on both the street and courtyard facades. • Cottages shall be within 60 feet walking distance of a Common Open Space. Open Space • Subject to the following Town of Los Gatos Zoning Code sections: * Sec. 29.10.065 Recreational open space for resi- dential condominiums. * Sec. 29.40.660 Recreational open space for mul- tifamily dwellings. • A minimum of 125 sq. ft. of the required private use open space shall be adjacent and oriented to the common use open space, and shall have no dimen- sion less than 5 ft. on any one side. Height • Wall Plate Height: 18 ft. strongly encouraged • All parts of the roof above 18 feet should be pitched. Entries • Porches are required with a minimum area of 60 sq. ft. and depth of 6 h. Parking • 0 - 1 bedroom units: 1 spaces per unit. • 2 - 3 bedroom units: 2 spaces per unit. • 4+ bedroom units: 2 t/z spaces per unit. • Tandem spaces are allowed. • Parking may not be located between cottages. G 10 Affordable Housing Design Guidelines Town of Los Gatos Maximum Haight Limit: 30 h. for garage structure with carriage house living unit over .._.._.._.._.._.._. ._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.. .1 Roof slopes to match II main house structure i i i i I Precting balconies !; t' �an ot ba7 windows are I strong y encouraged ! Rear Access Lane Setback for garage or I 3 R, or no less than 18 h. i I ^terlor Driveway i i t ' ! Inset garage doors 12" min. i Cottage Cluster Carriage House guidelines Maximum Height Limit for 6:12 sloped roots: 28 ft. Maximum Height Limit _ for 4:12 sloped roofs_23 ft _ Sloped roofs are required Variety in roof orientations is encouraged Front Setback ! I orcnes are m may encroach > front setback a= m mAl 3- i I �J E an I �s Cottage Cluster frontage guidelines Affordable Housing Design Guidelines DESIGN GUIDELINES COTTAGE CLUSTER HOUSING 2 Cottage Cluster Housing example DESIGN GUIDELINES 2 COTTAGE CLUSTER HOUSING DESIGN GUIDELINES Site Development 1. Orient unit entries to common open spaces. 2. Limit carriage units over garages to one unit for each four regular cottage units. 3. Avoid fences over three feet tall along public street frontages. 4. Link internal unit entries to adjacent streets with clear open space and pedestrian circulation networks. 5. Limit all fences on the interior of the parcel to 3 ft. in height. 6. Provide landscape screening, which may include a fence up to 6 k. in height, as a visual buffer along property, lines of any adjacent residentially zoned lots. Massing and Articulation 1. Pitched roofs are required for all structures, and should include the use of varied pitched roof styles, gables or dormers. 2. Architectural features (e.g., bay windows, chimneys, canopies, cornices, awnings) are encouraged. 3. Projecting roof eaves of at least 18" are required 4. Wrapping porches around to side elevations is strongly encouraged on corner lots. 5. Structures should be varied in height, size, propor- tions, orientation and roof lines. 6. For every eight units, at least two basic floor plans should be used. 7. Facades facing street frontages and common open spaces should have windows and doors that comprise at least 25% of the facade area. 8. Carry wall materials, window types and architectural details around all sides of the house. Avoid side and rear elevations that are markedly different from the front elevation. Town of Los Gatos On Site Parking 1. Locate parking to the rear of the parcel or on a non- street side. 2. Parking may be provided in small groupings of surface lots, carports, garages or a combination of the above. 3. Garage doors should feature windows, recesses, and/ or moldings to help blend the garages with the char- acter of the house 4. For dimensional standards not referenced, refer to the Town Code. Architectural Details 1. Structures must include building articulation, changes in materials or textures, or other architec- tural features as summarized below. • Horizontal and vertical wall plane changes • Varied roof forms and orientations • Bay windows • Roof Dormers • Material and color changes • Applied decorative features. • Roof segments over windows • Pot rails • Metal or wood balcony railings • Planter boxes and plant rings G 12 Affordable Housing Design Guidelines Town of Los Gatos Open Door development in Los Gatos 09 units per acre) DESIGN GUIDELINES MULTIPLEXES Characteristics Multiplexes are structures contain- ing two or more dwelling units (e.g., duplexes) with individual entries designed to resemble de- tached single family homes. Units may be side -by -side or stacked one above the other or a combination of both. Typical Densities • 15 - 20 DU /acre 2 Multiplexes combined with apartment structures Open Door project in Los Gatos (19 units per acre) luhiplexes in the project shown in the air photo above Multiplex with an individual homes appearance, and second floor unit entries on the side of the structure Affordable Housing Design Guidelines 13 Town of Los Gatos DESIGN GUIDELINES 2 MULTIPLEXES r\ DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS DESIGN OBJECTIVES • Maintain a single - family character along public streets, and compatibihry between new multiplex housing and the Town's existing single family neigh- borhoods. • Minimize the visual mass and bulk of the structures. • Maintain a high - quality streetscape appearance. • Provide a sense of neighborhood and community within the development. Lot Size • Minimum lot area per dwelling unit: 2,000 sq. ft. Unit Size • Subject to Architecture and Site review. Lot Coverage • 40% maximum. Building Placement • Setbacks and lot coverage standards to conform to the Town's RM standards except as specified below. • Front yard setback on public or interior streets: 15 ft. or as noted in the site development guidelines. Open Space • Subject to the following Town of Los Gatos Zoning Code sections: • Sec. 29.10.065 Recreational open space for resi- dential condominiums. • Sec. 29.40.660 Recreational open space for mul- tifamily dwellings. Height • Maximum Height: 30 ft. with allowance up to 35 ft. for units with parking integrated into or located below the units' living space. • Wall Plate Height: 18 ft. strongly encouraged • Pitched roofs are strongly encouraged. Entries • Distinctive projecting or recessed entries shall be provided for each living unit. Parking • 0 - 1 bedroom units: 1 spaces per unit. • 2 - 3 bedroom units: 2 spaces per unit. • 4+ bedroom units: 2'h spaces per unit. • Tandem spaces are allowed. Iourplexes around auto courts G 14 Affordable Housing Design Guidelines Town of Los Gatos Maximum Height Limit: 30 h. with allowance up to 35 ft for units with parking integrated into or located below the units_ living space_ .. roots are required. In roof orientations rent Setback ack N x ilding: 15 h. I el rag: Wsssspeclafiedofh se E the sde guideiines I Multiplex second floor guidelines Sloped roofs are required Variety in roof orientations is encouraged Open entry perches are encouragged and may encroach up to 6 fL Into front setback Multiplex frontage guidelines DESIGN GUIDELINES MULTIPLEXES 2 DESIGN GUIDELINES Site Development 1. Strongly consider some one -story and two -story detached units mixed with the multiplex units. 2. Utilize public and private streets, rather than driveways, to provide access to units. 3. Orient unit entries to streets rather than parking courtyards to the maximum extent possible. 4. Minimize the number of curb cuts and street - facing garages. Messing and Articulation I. Pitched roofs are required for all structures, and should include the use of varied pitched roof styles, gables or dormers. 2. Architectural features (e.g., bay windows, chimneys, canopies, cornices, awnings) are encouraged. 3. Projecting roof eaves of at least 18" are strongly encouraged. 4. Structures should be varied in height, size, propor- tions, orientation and roof lines. 5. Emphasize the individuality of units along street fronts. G. Provide a mix of one- and two-story masses (e.g., one story garages) or set the second floor back from the first floor walls by a minimum of 5 feet for at least 50 percent of the facade of the structure. 7. Emphasize entries by adding projecting porches or other entry elements. Affordable Housing Design Guidelines 15 DESIGN GUIDELINES 2 MULTIPLEXES Multiplex cluster example with street oriented entries and minimized visual parking impacts Mulriplex example with strong residential form, individualized entries, and private outdoor space Example of grouped multiplex garages with design and details related to the housing structures Town of Los Gatos On Site Parking 1. Parking may be provided in garages, carports or a series of small parking lots separated by landscaped islands. 2. Recess garages from unit fronts along streets. Re- cesses from the building face of 18 feet or more are desirable to minimize the prominence of the garages and to allow guest parking on driveway aprons. 3. Use high - quality decorative garage doors with win- dows. 4. Where there are adjacent garages, provide a land- scaped area to separate them and reduce the amount of driveway paving. 5. Textured decorative paving in driveways visible from the street is strongly encouraged. Architectural Details 1. Structures must include building articulation, changes in materials or textures, or other architec- tural features as summarized below: • Horizontal and vertical wall plane changes • Varied roof forms and orientations • Bay windows • Roof Dormers • Material and color changes • Applied decorative features. • Roof segments over windows • Pot rails • Metal or wood balcony railings • Planter boxes and plant rings 16 Affordable Housing Design Guidelines Town of Los Gatos Townhouses with separated carports DESIGN GUIDELINES TOWNHOUSES Characteristics Townhomes are single - family at- tached dwelling units constructed in clusters within an overall master de- velopment plan. Parking is typically in garages or parking lots adjacent to the dwelling unit clusters, but may be integrated into the dwelling's ground floor if limited in width. Typical Densities • 15 - 25 DU /acre C Townhouses with one -car and tandem parking under Townhouses with parking in surface parking lots Townhouses with a mix of one and two-car garages on the ground floor of the units Townhouses with one -car and/or tandem parking under Affordable Housing Design Guidelines 17 Town of Los Gatos DESIGN GUIDELINES 2 TOWNHOUSES r DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS DESIGN OBJECTIVES • Minimize the visual mass and bulk of the structures. • Encourage site development that enhances unit entries and open spaces. • Enhance the appearance of common parking areas and relate carport design to the townhomes. • Integrate outdoor private open space areas into the overall design. Lot Size • Minimum lot area per dwelling unit: 1,800 sq. ft. Unit Size • Subject to Architecture and Site review. Lot Coverage • 40% maximum. Building Placement • Setbacks and lot coverage standards to conform to the Towds RM standards except as specified below. • Front yard setback on public or interior streets: 15 &. or as noted in the site development guidelines. Open Space • Subject to the following Town of Los Gatos Zoning Code sections: • Sec. 29.10.065 Recreational open space for resi- dential condominiums. • Sec. 29.40.660 Recreational open space for mul- tifamily dwellings. Height • Maximum Height: 30 ft. with allowance up to 35 ft. for units with parking integrated into or located below the units' living space. • Pitched roofs are strongly encouraged. Entries- - • Distinctive projecting or recessed entries shall be provided for each living unit. Parking • 0 - 1 bedroom units: 1 spaces per unit. • 2 - 3 bedroom units: 2 spaces per unit. • 4+ bedroom units: 2'/z spaces per unit. • Tandem spaces are allowed. Garages may occupy no more than 50% of a unit width fronting on a street, common open space or other pedestrian area. Townhouse example with wall offsets and details used to break up tall building form 18 Affordable Housing Design Guidelines G Town of Los Gatos Sloped roofs are required Maximum Height Limit: 30 ft. with allowance up to 35 h. for units with parking integrated Into or located below the units' living space Horizontal antl verliwl wall plane onsets antl rich architectural detail is expected e width to Front Limit garag loaded than 50"> of garage the front townhouse facade Inset I porehos m entries are up to required. garage POrchesmay encroach up to6R. doors Info front setback. 2 -min t -- '; Deep messed entries are acceptable Townhouse with ground floor garage guidelines Maximum Height Limit: 30 ft. with allowance up to 35 n. for units with parking integrated Into or located below the units' living space roofs are required In roof orientations is encouraged Building: 15 h. i Garage: Is It j u less apeoa. ney i orherwlae b tae i sire guidelis o Open entry orehes are eneouraggedfand may encroach up to 6 ft. into front setback Townhouse frontage guidelines DESIGN GUIDELINES TOWNHOUSES 2 DESIGN GUIDELINES Site Development 1. Orient unit entries to streets and common open spaces rather than parking courtyards to the maxi - mum extent possible. 2. Avoid turning unit back elevations and patio walls to public streets. 3. Minimize the number of curb cuts and street - facing garages. 4. Orient living space windows to overlook streets and common open spaces. 5. If parking is not attached to the units, utilize small parking areas reasonably close to the living units. Break large parking areas and aisles into smaller segments with substantial landscaping. Massing and Articulation 1. Construct a maximum of 6 attached units in a row. Approval of more than 6 attached units may be considered, but will only be granted for projects with extraordinarily high design quality. 2. Emphasize the individuality of each townhouse unit with well defined limits and individual entries and details. 3. Elevations should be mixed within a development to avoid repetition of identical facades and roof lines. 4. Houses on corner lots will be required to provide one or more 1 -story elements and/or projecting second story bay windows or other decorative archi- tectural features to avoid tall exterior walls without design articulation facing streets, open spaces and pedestrian ways. 5. Design front elevations to emphasize entries, porches or other living areas and de- emphasize garages. No more that 50 percent of the front elevation of a house should consist of garage area. 6. Front - facing garages should be recessed a minimum of 12 inches from the front facade of the living space. 7. Carports and garages separated from the townhouse units should be substantial in appearance, and should match the residential units in terms of roof pitches, materials and construction. 8. A minimum of 50% of all rwo -story houses should have a minimum 3 -foot horizontal offset in plan. 9. Add variety to second floors with varied eave heights, windows and ridge line variations. Affordable Housing Design Guidelines 19 DESIGN GUIDELINES 2 TOWNHOUSES Townhouse development common amenity area example Townhouse individual unit identity example Townhouse example with projecting porch and hay window used to reduce prominence of the garage Town of Los Gatos On Site Parking 1. Parking may be provided in garages, carports or a series of small parking lots separated by landscaped islands. 2. Townhouses with garages sharing a facade with the unit's entry is discouraged unless other options are feasible. 3. Use high- quality decorative garage doors with win- dows. 4. Where there are adjacent garages, provide a land- scaped area to separate them and reduce the amount of driveway paving. 5. Garage aprons should either be 3 feet or less or 18 feet or more in depth. Architectural Details 1. Structures must include building articulation, changes in materials or textures, or other architec- rural features as summarized below: • Horizontal and vertical wall plane changes • Varied roof forms and orientations • Bay windows • Roof Dormers • Material and color changes • Applied decorative features. • Roof segments over windows • Pot rails • Metal or wood balcony railings • Planter boxes and plant rings 20 Affordable Housing Design Guidelines Los Gatos Rowhouses combined with small lot single family detached homes DESIGN GUIDELINES ROWHOUSES Characteristics Rowhouses are single - family, at- tached dwelling units constructed in rows along common streets. Unit entries are oriented to the fronting streets, and garages are integrated into the individual units at the rear. Private open space is typically provided as a porch, entry garden or deck rather than as at- grade patios. Typical Densities • 15 - 25 DU /acre Rowhouses with entries oriented to the street Rowhouses with entries oriented to a pedestrian court 2 Rowhouse rear alley garages Affordable Housing Design Guidelines Rowhouse rear alley garages 21 Town of Los Gatos DESIGN GUIDELINES 2 ROWHOUSES r DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS DESIGN OBJECITM • Minimize the visual mass and bulk of the structures. • Maximize the pedestrian scale and character of streetscapes. • Enhance the individual identity of each unit. • Integrate outdoor private open space areas into the overall design. Lot Size • Minimum lot area per dwelling unit: 1,800 sq. &. Unit Sim • Subject to Architecture and Site review. Lot Coverage • 40% maximum. Building Placement • Setbacks and lot coverage standards to conform to the Town's RM standards except as specified below. • Front yard setback on public or interior streets: 15 h. or as noted in the site development guidelines. • Minimum rear setback none Open Space • Subject to the following Town of Los Gatos Zoning Code sections: • Sec. 29.10.065 Recreational open space for resi- dential condominiums. • Sec. 29.40.660 Recreational open space for mul- tifamily dwellings. Active Common Open Space example Height • Maximum Height: 30 ft. with allowance up to 35 ft. for units with parking integrated into or located below the units' living space. • Pitched roofs are strongly encouraged. Entries • Distinctive projecting or recessed entries shall be provided for each living unit. Parking • 0 - 1 bedroom units: 1 spaces per unit. • 2 - 3 bedroom units: 2 spaces per unit. • 4+ bedroom units: 2'h spaces per unit. • Tandem spaces are allowed. • Garages shall be located on rear lanes or auto courts. Passive Common Open Space example Rowhouse site plan example 22 Affordable Housing Design Guidelines Town of Los Gatos Maximum Height Limit: 30 ft. with allowance up to 35 ft for units with parking integrated into or located below the units' living space ,—i Sloped roofs are required Bedrooms Y Level Balconies are encouraged a Horizontal and vertical - I wall plane offsets and I� rich architectural detail i I Is expected i Maximum 4 H. Main ! encroachments Living ! allowed Letmin.� J are trellises rare encouraged Gar Landscappingg required between an d garages `3 iL minimum depth) Sto,l Decorative paving in the / l auto court is encouraged j1 Auto Court Rowhouse garage facade guidelines ................... Maximum Height Limit: 30 ft. with allowance up to 35 ft. far units with parking integrated into or located below the units' living space roofs are required ■ - Maximum 4 ff. T encroachments �� allowed Bedrooms I; Level Balconies are i encouraged i Horizontal and vertical wall plane offsets and rich architectural detail Is expected Main Living Level Garage and Storage Distinctive entries are required. I 4 f Porches nmj encmach up to a fL IInto front as back Deep recessed entries am acceptable �_ _ Alternatives � �1rY lei �I� Rowhouse frontage guidelines DESIGN GUIDELINES ROWHOUSES 2 DESIGN GUIDELINES Site Development 1. Orient unit entries to streets and common open spaces. 2. Avoid garages facing public streets. 3. Minimize the length of auto courts, and utilize landscape features (e.g., roundabouts) to provide visually attractive street frontages. 4. Orient living space windows to overlook streets and common open spaces. 5. Place 3 -story units sharing a common garage access driveway with 2 -story units or small lot detached units where possible. 6. Internal streets should be designed for a high degree of walkability. Parkstrips, sidewalks, and pedestrian scale street lights should be provided on both sides of the street. Elevated entry commons example Distinctive rowhouse entry example Affordable Housing Design Guidelines 23 DESIGN GUIDELINES 2 ROWHOUSES Massing and Articulation 1. Rear driveways may be constructed at grade level or slightly depressed below grade level to reduce overall building height and the height of the first floor above grade. 2. Emphasize the individuality of each rowhouse unit with well defined limits and individual entries and details. 3. Elevations should be mixed within a development to avoid repetition of identical facades and roof lines. 4. Houses on corner lots will be required to provide one or more 1 -story elements and/or projecting second story bay windows or other decorative archi- tectural features to avoid tall exterior walls without design articulation facing streets, open spaces and pedestrian ways. 5. Garages doors should be recessed a minimum of 12 inches from the main facade of the garage. G. Provide facade articulation and architectural de- tails along rear facades at driveways. Projecting bay windows are one successful way of breaking up tall facades. 7. Add variety to second floors with varied eave heights, windows and ridge line variations. Town of Los Gatos On Site Parking 1. Guest parking should be distributed throughout the development. 2. Use high - quality decorative garage doors with windows. 3. Where there are adjacent garages, provide a land- scaped area to separate them and reduce the amount of driveway paving. 4. Garage aprons should either be 3 feet or less or 18 feet or more in depth. Architectural Details 1. Structures must include building articulation, changes in materials or textures, or other architec- tural features as summarized below. • Horizontal and vertical wall plane changes • Varied roof forms and orientations • Bay windows • Roof Dormers • Material and color changes • Applied decorative features. • Roof segments over windows • Pot rails • Metal or wood balcony railings • Planter boxes and plant rings 2. Trellises with flowering vine landscaping are encour- aged above garage doors. Example of facade articulation, architectural details, and recessed garage doors used to soften the auto court Active Common Open Space example 24 Affordable Housing Design Guidelines C\ i Town of Los Gatos Flats above partially submerged podium parking DESIGN GUIDELINES MULTIFAMILY FLATS Characteristics Multifamily Flats are typically stacked one above another with access by way of common building entries and corridors. Parking is usually accommodated in common areas composed of surface parking with carports or individual garages, separate parking structures, or in a parking level located beneath the residential complex. Typical Densities • 25 - 35 DU/acre 2 Flats above partially submerged podium parking Flats above underground parking Apartment flats above partially submerged podium parking Apartment flats with partially submerged podium parking under individual buildings Affordable Housing Design Guidelines 25 DESIGN GUIDELINES 2 MULTIFAMILY FLATS DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS DESIGN OBJECTIVES • Minimize the visual mass and bulk of the structures. • Enhance the ground floor pedestrian scale and char- acter of structures. • Minimize the visual impact of parking structures. • Integrate outdoor private open space areas into the overall design. Lot Size • NA Unit Sim • Subject to Architecture and Site review. Lot Coverage • 40% maximum. Building Placement • Setbacks and lot coverage standards to conform to the Town's RM standards except as specified below. • Front yard setback on public or interior streets: 15 ft. or as noted in the site development guidelines. Town of Los Gatos Open Space • Subject to the following Town of Los Gatos Zoning Code sections: • Sec. 29.10.065 Recreational open space for resi- dential condominiums. • Sec. 29.40.660 Recreational open space for mul- tifamily dwellings. Height • Maximum Height: 30 ft. with allowance up to 35 ft. for units with parking integrated into or located below the units' living space. • Pitched roofs are strongly encouraged. Entries • Distinctive projecting or recessed entries shall be provided for each ground floor unit. Parking • 0 - 1 bedroom units: I spaces per unit. • 2 - 3 bedroom units: 2 spaces per unit. • 4+ bedroom units: 2'h spaces per unit. • Tandem spaces are allowed. A maximum of 50% of units are allowed to have a tandem parking space. Individual entries to ground Floor units are required 26 Affordable Housing Design Guidelines C Town of Los Gatos Maximum Height Limit: 30 n. with allowance up to 35 tL for units with parking Integrated Into or located below the units' living space Sloped roofs are required ! ' Maximum 4 a. ' encroachments allowed Living Unit i Bayy windows and i �bafcomes are encouraged Horizontal and vertical wall plane offsets and rich architectural detail is expected Living j Front Setback: 15 it ! Unit unless epeoaktl Olhen_U i by raewla guklelxw. i Distinctive entries are required for ground floor units. Porches may encroach up to 6 R Into front setback Living Unit Entry Courtyard Multifamily Flats at -grade guidelines vith allowance up to 35 ft. for units with parking start Into or located below the units' living space I i Bay windows and Living 4 1 balconies are encouraged Unit Maximum 4 ft. encroachments allowed Living ! Horizontal and vertical Unit wall lane off sets and rich architectural detail is expected Living Unit Garage Podium Multifamily Flats podium facade guidelines DESIGN GUIDELINES MULTIFAMILY FLATS 2 DESIGN GUIDELINES Site Development 1. Orient unit entries to streets and common open spaces. 2. Podium parking below individual buildings is strongly encouraged to allow large scale tree land- scaping around the buildings. One large podium parking structure for several buildings is discour- aged. 3. Avoid garages and parking lots facing public streets. 4. Internal streets should be designed for a high degree of walkabiliry. Parkstrips, sidewalks, and pedestrian scale street lights should be provided on both sides of the street. 5. Entry driveways should have strong landscaped edges with terminus views focused on landscaped areas or building entries, not the rear end of parked cars. G. The edges of any garage structure and vents into the garage visible above grade should be screened with evergreen plant materials. Earth berms and other techniques to tie the top of the garage structure into the surrounding grade level should be utilized. Example of landscape screening of podium parking Affordable Housing Design Guidelines 27 DESIGN GUIDELINES 2 MULTIFAMILY FLATS IMassing and Articulation 1. Provide horizontal and vertical wall plane offsets to break up the building mass. Avoid building forms that appear to be large boxes with elements attached to them. 2. Provide buildings with a well defined base, a middle, and a top to reduce the apparent building height and bulk. Significant projecting roof overhangs are strongly encouraged. 3. Integrating the upper floor units into the roof form, stepping back of upper floors from those below, or the use of a different material on the top floor walls is encouraged. 4. Adding horizontal projecting molding at some floor lines (e.g., top floors) is encouraged to mitigate the feeling of tall unbroken walls. 5. Step down the building mass at corners. 6. Stepping back portions of upper floors is encouraged to reduce the visual bulk of structures. 7. Provide pedestrian oriented elements and details on facades facing public sidewalks. Elements such as projecting balconies and awnings can add visual interest and richness to the street environment. 8. Provide a varied building silhouette when viewed against the sky. "Ibis may be achieved with variations in roof height, the addition of building elements projecting above the roof cave, and other similar means. 9. Provide well defined common entries related to the sidewalk facing the public streets, common open spaces and pedestrian walkways. Example of facade articulation and subordinate underground parking Town of Los Gatos On Site Parking 1. Below grade parking is encouraged with entries placed at the rear or sides of the structures whenever possible. They should be recessed as much as possible from the building facade - especially where security gates are used at the garage entry. 2. Guest parking should be distributed throughout the development. 3. Podium garages should not extend more than 5 ft. above grade along street frontages, common open spaces or pedestrian walkways unless fully screened by building walls with decorative treatment and detail. Architectural Details 1. Structures most include building articulation, changes in materials or textures, or other architec- tural features as summarized below. • Horizontal and vertical wall plane changes • Varied roof forms and orientations • Bay windows • Roof Dormers • Material and color changes • Applied decorative features. • Roof segments over windows • Pot rails • Metal or wood balcony railings • Planter boxes and plant rings 2. Projects constructed on top of parking podiums should take special care to provide design elements to minimize the hard edge of the parking podium. Decks extending beyond the podium edge and varied setbacks for the residential units are just two ways of approaching this issue. �— I ' t Example of larger building subdivided into smaller building forms 28 Affordable Housing Design Guidelines ,_ G Town of Los Gatos DESIGN GUIDELINES K HOUSING TYPESISITES SUITABILITY In general, most of the housing types are suitable to all of the sites subject to the unique opportunities and limits related to the individual site size, configuration, and in- terfaces with their adjacent environments. However, based on the large size of the Southbay Development site, its adjacency to the Aventino Apartments, and its proximity to future light rail transit service on Winchester Blvd., the Town feels that the lower intensity Small Lot Single Family and Cottage Housing types are not suitable for the Southbay site. Prior to starting detailed planning and design on any one of these sites, it is suggested that applicants confer with Town staff on the appropriate housing types for their site. Affordable Housing Design Guidelines 29 Town of Los Gatos This page has been intentionally left blank. 30 Affordable Housing Design Guidelines Town of Los Gatos SITE GUIDELINES Fj SITE GUIDELINES SITES OVERVIEW The identified AHOZ sites vary in size, configuration and neighborhood context. Each has its own special opportuni- ties and constraints which will affect the selected housing types, resident mix, and site layout. This chapter sets forth guidelines that are applicable to housing type selection and site layout. The six sites covered by these design guidelines are summarized in the table below, and shown at a common graphic scale (see page 1 for site locations within the Town of Los Gatos). Table 3 -1: AFFORDABLE HOUSING SITES SUMMARY All.bleB. Realistic SITE APN AHOZ 7ndng Dwiry (Units/" Patcd AQeage Developable Aueage Development Capaaty' Developmrnt Demiry I. Gatos Connhoom 40628032 O /AHOZ - 5.2 5.2 104anin Capan76mdvn 20 uninpnaen Southbay Devdopment 42432077 CM/AHOZ 12 -20 7.5 7.1 213 vnin Capadgbamdvn 30 unia pn. Ole. Read/IaticA.. Sit.A 42408074 R- 1:8 /AHOZ 0-5 6.4 6.4 128 unity CaPan4 bmedvn 20aniapn. Ohs RoadnrthAvenue. Site B 42408057 R- 1:8 1AHOZ 0-5 3.0 3.0 60 in Cqp ,ybardvn 20umnper. Ole. RoadtL kA... SiteC 424 08 021 RM- 5:ILAHOZ 5 -12 4.3 3.0 60unia C° IybxedOP 10umnpe,. '76eanepmb4de lo p..,,ap. ty., Ubeda. in edbyt/ xappdmdanefd.,tybonmpmvi,iau,&r 1gpmen1murniau, atdanepmble rim plan andbui/b'ngdnigm. Figure 4 -1: Los Gatos Courthouse Site Figure 4 -2: Southbay Development Site Ne Rear v a. a v rn rn Front Figure 4 -3: Site setbacks definition Affordable Housing Design Guidelines 31 Town of Los Gatos SITE GUIDELINES 3 C, Figure 4 -4: Oka RoadlLark Avenue Sites A & 8 = m Figure 4 -5: Oka RoadlLark Avenue Site 32 Affordable Housing Design Guidelines Town of Los Gatos SITE GUIDELINES LOS GATOS COURTHOUSE SITE 3 SITE SUMMARY AHOZ ARomble B., Density P=Cl Realistic DG opmcm D Zoning (Wu/A.) Auragc Deselopablc Ac,.p pautyj Dcmpment uy O /AHOZ - 5.2 5.2 104 vnib Cpnmy bmed an 20unit/M. 'The "r ble devdopmm s mpodr will be deucmined by the appGmdvn ofdmdty banmpmtda(am, demlapmenr ronrrvi•m, andarrepmbledmplenadbuiblhgd SITE DEVELOPMENT INFLUENCES 1. Site Features • Site is relatively flat. • Two building complexes, now vacant, located on the site. • Substantial mature landscaping around the build- ings, and along the two main street frontages. 2. Nearby Uses • Existing multifamily residential uses immediately to the north and the northwest of the site. They include a mix of multiplex, townhouse, row house and units built over a common structured parking garage. • A Community Hospital and Medical Office Plaza immediately to the west of this site within the larger street block • Small office complex immediately to the north of the site. • Single family neighborhoods to the north, south, and west. • Small shopping center is located immediately across Capri Drive. • Other mixed office and light industrial uses to the east and west. 3. Other Influences • Traffic on Knowles Drive. • Service loading areas for the shopping center across Capri Drive. • Irregular shaped site at the southwest corner on Knowles Drive. • Future nearby light rail transit service on Win- chester Blvd. • Adjacent multistory residential structure adjacent to the west property line. • Substantial street tree landscaping along the east side of Capri Drive. Affordable Housing Design Guidelines 33 Town of Los Gatos SITE GUIDELINES 3 LOS GATOS COURTHOUSE SITE SITE DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES CIRCULATION LANDSCAPING G 34 Affordable Housing Design Guidelines Town of Los Gatos SITE GUIDELINES LOS GATOS COURTHOUSE SITE 3 BUILDING MASSING Affordable Housing Design Guidelines 35 Town of Los Gatos SITE GUIDELINES 3 SOUTHBAY DEVELOPMENT SITE SITE SUMMARY AHOZ AB.blc Base Density Pd ,, lisdc Daelapmcnt Devdopmeot Zoning (UsutdA.) A-mp Dcvlopable Ameage Gtpanty Devvty CM/AHOZ W 7.5 7.1 113anio Qpa ^7 bared on 30 unity pee am '7he CM ne hay m bme Awdtyjar midennal development ' fir arrepmble d~kpment mpa ,y will be demmined by the d ity devebpment ronrmivm, and acreptable s,w plan and bwldi.gdcign. SITE DEVELOPMENT INFLUENCES 1. Site Features • Site is relatively flat, and elevated slightly above Knowles Drive and the Los Gatos Creek Trail. • Three existing office buildings complexes located on the site. • Substantial mature landscaping along Knowles Drive and the Los Gatos Creek Trail frontages. 2. Nearby Uses • Light industrial uses to the north of the site. • Two -story El Gatos Business Park structure im- mediately adjacent to the west. • City of Campbell to north - office and light in- dustrial. • Aventino Apartments development immediately adjacent to the south. • Netflix office building to the southwest. • Los Gatos CreekandTrailimmediatelyadJ 'acentto the east with single family homes across the creek. • Small shopping center and professional offices to the west across Winchester Blvd. 3. Other Influences • Shared entry drive easement from Knowles Drive for this site and the adjacent El Gato Business Park to the north. • Three utility easements. • Los Gatos Creek 100 year flood plain. Any con- struction shall be consistent with the Town's Flood - plain Management Ordinance. • Irregular shaped site. • Future nearby light rail transit service on Win- chester Blvd. • Adjacent medium density multifamily residential structures adjacent to the south property line. • Applicable Guidelines and Standards for Land Uses near streams. G 36 Affordable Housing Design Guidelines Town of Los Gatos SITE GUIDELINES SOUTHBAY DEVELOPMENT SITE 3 EASEMENTS CIRCULATION Affordable Housing Design Guidelines 31- Town of Los Gatos SITE GUIDELINES 3 SOUTHBAY DEVELOPMENT SITE LANDSCAPING BUILDING MASSING 38 Affordable Housing Design Guidelines Town of Los SITE GUIDELINES OKA ROAD /LARK AVENUE SITES A & B 3 SITE SUMMARY AHOZ AHILble Baae Demlry Pawl Inlivtic Dcvd•pment Development Z•ui•g IDn:n /Aae) Aav 6c Devcly able P A°`y8c fapaatyl Dcmiry SITE A R- 1:8 /AHOZ 0-5 12s... (apariq bmrdon 20 vniuprr am WE B R- 1:8 1AHOZ M 3.0 3.0 60unly GVmlgbmedm 20uninprrarrr. ' 7/x arropubG&wlepmmtrapa ty WUbe &,r nedbydm d.,,y d l p., ronrmiom, and a,epwbL; rltr plan and buik ingderi SITES A & B DEVELOPMENT INFLUENCES 1. Site Features • Sites are relatively flat, and currently contain or- chard uses. • Landscaping in addition to the orchard trees is very limited. 2. Nearby Uses • A mix of one and two -story houses along with a mobile home park to the north. • Sports Club with extensive pool and tennis court facilities immediately north of Site B. • A single family home on an elevated site to the immediate east of Site B. • Jewish Community Center and Day School to the immediate south of Site A. • Two -story, two and three bedroom apartments im- mediately adjacent to the south of Site B. • Los Gatos Creek immediately west of Site A. 3. Other Influences • Vehicular access drive to Oka Road Site C is im- mediately south of Site B. • Los Gatos Creek 100 year flood plain. Any con- struction shall be consistentwith the Town's Flood - plain Management Ordinance. • No nearby transit service (1 mile to future Vasona Light Rail). • Special events at the nearby sports club and the Jewish Community Center can create a short term on- street parking shortage in the area. • Applicable Guidelines and Standards for Land Uses near streams. • Vehicular access and circulation from Highway 17 off -ramp. • Limited connections to the Town's street network. Affordable Housing Design Guidelines 39 Town of Los Gatos SITE GUIDELINES 3 OKA ROAD /LARK AVENUE SITES A & B FLOOD PLAIN CIRCULATION 40 Affordable Housing Design Guidelines Town of Los Gatos SITE GUIDELINES OKA ROAD /LARK AVENUE SITES A & B 3 LANDSCAPING MASSING Affordable Housing Design Guidelines 41 Town of Los Gatos SITE GUIDELINES 3 OKA ROADAARK AVENUE SITE C SITE SUMMARY AHOZ ABowablc Bast D. ILsed Darted asse c Devclo c Zossing (Unla/Aa•) &--p Dc dupabl<Aa W Gpaziry' DcnPiry sm c RM- 5:12/AHOZ 5 -12 4.3 3.0 60 unity C*p ,y 6medon 20uniupnans ' 7kaaepmb4dem6pmenteapaely wig be det mieedby the dem /q dmdopment eenmmiem and aempubb rim plan and buildigdaigm. SITE C DEVELOPMENT INFLUENCES 1. Site Features • Site gently slopes from a low point on the western edge of the site to a high point on the east. • Site is currently utilized as an orchard. • A dense row of pine trees separates the site from the adjacent two -story apartment buildings. • A steep bank with spotty tree landscaping separates the site from the adjacent State Highway 17. 2. Nearby Uses • A single family home sits on an elevated site to the immediate east of Site B, north of Site C. • State Highway 17 borders the site along its eastern boundary. • An agricultural parcel with an orchard and a resi- dential structure are located immediately adjacent on the south of the site. Access to that parcel is cur- rently from the Lark Avenue Highway 17 off -ramp. • Two -story, two and three bedroom apartments immediately adjacent to the west of Site C. • Oka Road AHOZ Site B is immediately adjacent to the entry road for Site C. 3. Other Influences • Vehicular access to the site is limited to one location adjacent to Site B. • No nearby transit service (I mile to future Vasona light rail). • Special events at the nearby sports facility and Jewish Community Center can create a short term on- street parking shortage in the area. • Adjacent Highway 17 traffic noise may require mitigation measures. • Vehicular access and circulation from Highway 17 off -ramp. • Limited connections to the Town's street network. 42 Affordable Housing Design Guidelines rd U Town of SITE GUIDELINES OKA ROAD /LARK AVENUE SITE C 3 CIRCULATION LANDSCAPING Affordable Housing Design Guidelines 43 SITE GUIDELINES 3 OKA ROAD /LARK AVENUE SITE C Town of Los Gatos MASSING G 44 Affordable Housing Design Guidelines of Los Gatos ALLEY (REAR LANE) A narrow street located at the rear of residential parcels, and providing access to garages and surface parking areas serving residences whose entries face nearby public or internal streets. ARTICULATION The visible expression of architectural elements which through their form, structure, or materials break up the scale of buildings and spaces to achieve a human scale. AUTO COURTS A paved open space surrounded on three sides by residen- tial structures, and serving as access to garages for those dwelling units. It may also provide access to residence entries. BALCONY An exterior platform that projects from or into the facade of a building, and is surrounded by a railing, balustrade, or parapet. BAY WINDOW A large window or grouping of windows projecting from the outer facade of a building and forming an alcove in the interior of the building. CARRIAGE UNIT A complete dwelling unit with separate entrance, sleeping, bath and kitchen facilities that is located above a ground level garage structure. CONDOMINIUM Condominium, residential means a residential develop- ment, a condominium project, a community apartment project or a stock cooperative as defined in title 6 Com- mon Interest Developments, section 1351 of the Civil Code. (Condominiums are a form of ownership rather than a housing type) COTTAGE CLUSTER HOUSING A collection of small houses arranged around and fronting one or more common open spaces or courtyards. Units are usually smaller than typical single family homes with floor areas of 1,200 square feet or less. Parking is provided in consolidated parking lots and/or in garages served by alley access. EVA Emergency Vehicle Access is a secondary means of access to a parcel of land for fire fighting apparatus and other public service vehicles. GLOSSARY GARAGE APRON A portion of driveway serving an individual garage, and separating the garage from the adjacent street, auto court or other vehicular access way. Garage aprons between 3 feet and 18 feet shall be prohibited to prevent vehicles from encroaching into the sidewalk, street, or alley. MULTIFAMILY FLATS Dwelling units typically stacked one above another with access by way of common building entries and corridors. Parking is usually accommodated in common areas composed of surface parking with carports or individual garages, separate parking structures, or in a parking level located beneath the residential complex (also referred to as Podium Parking defined below). Typical densities are 25 to 35 units per acre. MULTIPLEXES Structures containing two or more dwelling units (e.g., duplex, triplex, 4 -plex, 6 -plex) with individual entries designed to resemble detached single family homes. Units may be side -by -side or stacked one above the other or a combination of both. Typical densities are 15 to 20 units per acre. PODIUM PARKING A parking structure configured with the parking partially located below grade (but not hilly underground), and with dwelling units or other uses above. POT RAILS Shelves attached to and projecting from the exterior facade of structure for the purpose ofsupporting potted plants. PARK STRIPS A strip of land located between the rear of the curb and the front of a sidewalk, usually used for planting low ground cover and/or street trees - also known as a "planter strip" or "parkway strip"- ROOF DORMER WINDOWS A window set vertically in a structure projecting through a sloping roof. ROWHOUSES Single- family, attached dwelling units constructed in rows along common streets. Unit entries are oriented to the fronting streets, and garages are integrated into the individual units at the rear. Private open space is typically provided as a porch, entry garden or deck rather than as at -grade patios. Units occupy all floors, without other units above or below. Typical densities are 15 to 25 units per acre. Affordable Housing Design Guidelines 45 GLOSSARY Town of Los Gatos r SMALL LOT SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED HOMES Individual houses on their own individual lots with parcel sizes generally in the range of 2,500 to 4,500 square feet. SECONDARY DWELLING UNIT (SDU) A detached or attached dwelling unit which provides complete independent living facilities for one or more persons, and is accessory to and generally smaller than a primary dwelling unit. A secondary dwelling unit is located in a permanent structure with separate entrance, sleeping, bath and kitchen facilities. TANDEM PARKING A parking configuration wherein two spaces are located end to end in such a manner that one of the spaces is not directly accessible to the street without traveling over the other space. TOWNHOUSES Single- family attached dwelling units constructed in clus- ters within an overall master development plan. Parking is typically in garages or parking lots adjacent to the dwelling unit clusters, but may be integrated into the dwelling's ground floor. Typical densities are 15 to 25 units per acre. Typical densities are 15 to 24 units per acre. U 46 Affordable Housing Design Guidelines REQUIRED FINDINGS FOR: General Plan Amendment GP -12 -004 Zoning Code Amendment A -12 -003 Requesting to amend the Town Code to incorporate the Affordable Housing Overlay into Division 5, to Article VIII Overlay Zones and Historic Preservation; change the General Plan designation of the property located on the northwest corner of Knowles Drive and Capri Drive (APN 406 -28 -032) from Public to Office; adoption of AHOZ Design Guidelines and application of an Affordable Housing Overlay to five properties generally located at: 1. Northwest corner of Knowles Drive and Capri Drive. APN 406 -28 -032. 2. Knowles Drive east of Winchester Boulevard. APN 4.24 -32 -077. 3. West side of Oka Road, north of the Jewish Community Center. APN 424 -08 -074. 4. East side of Oka Road, south of the Los Gatos Swim and Racquet Chub. APN 424 -08 -057. 5. East side of Oka Road, east of the Los Gatos Gardens Apartments. APN 424 -08 -021 APPLICANT: Town of Los Gatos FINDINGS: Required finding for CEQA: m The Addendum to the Certified General Plan EIR determined that the revised Affordable Housing Overlay would not create any new or significant environmental impacts that were not already evaluated in the General Plan EIR, and would not increase the severity of any previously identified significant impacts. Required finding for the General Plan Amendment: w The proposed amendment is internally consistent with the General Plan. Required findings for Town Code Amendment: n The proposed amendment is consistent with the General Plan. NADEW-IND1NGS\2012\Findings A -12.003 and GP- 12.004.doc EXHIBIT 9 Ais Page Intentionally Leff Blank F° o -A '% nS3Arxi s E too s St a ;�i ?(„>S�hrs .i �L5 sf t`'i �r i i�v f•3 r s Gi �' "#� ii )4 sib 3 t rfY Sul 2 six Y�i r } LINE , H a ` E A zll a I This Page Intentionally Left Blank November 2072 Affordable Housing Overlay Zone TOWN OF L S GATUS GENERAL PLAN 2020 FEIR ADDENDUM J. "rvperoel ;!or t nu Orange County • Northern California s Los Angeles/ Downtown o Los Angeles/West • Inland Empire • San Dlego 1625 Shattuck Avenue, Suite 300 1 Berkeley, California 94709 1 510,848.3815 1 510,848.4315(f) www,pianningcenter,com 'his Rage Intentionally Left Blank TABLE OF CONTENTS 1, INTRODUCTION ................................................ ............................... 2. ANALYSIS ............................................................ ............................... 13 T O W N OF L O S G A T O S G E N E R A L P L A N 2 0 2 0 F E I R A D D E N D U M TABLE OF CONTENTS List ofF'igures Figure 1 Affordable Housing Overlay Zone ............... ............................... 6 Figure 2 Project Location and Study Intersections ... ............................... 49 Figure 3 Existing Condition - Lane Geometry and Traffic Control........................................................ ............................... 50 Figure 4 Existing Conditions - AM /PM Peak Hour Turning MovementVolumes .................................... ............................... 51 Figure 5 2020 Condition - Lane Geometry and Traffic Control ............ 55 Figure 6 Cumulative 2020 Condition - AM /PM Peak Hour Turning Movement Volumes ...................... ............................... 59 Figure 7 Cumulative 2020 Plus Project Condition - AM /PM Peak Hour Turning Movement Volumes ... ............................... 60 List of Tables Table 1 Parcels Removed from AHOZ since Certification ofthe Final EIR .............. ............................... 4 Table 2 Allowed Density on Remaining AHOZ Parcels ......................... 7 Table 3 -1 Draft Housing Element Sites ......................... ............................... 8 Table 4 Existing Level of Service Summary ............. ............................... 48 Table 5 Change in Trips Generated by Site since Draft General Plan EIR ............................... 57 Table 6 2020 Level of Service Summary, Adopted GeneralPlan 2020 ....................................... ............................... 61 Table 7 2020 Level of Service Summary with Proposed AHOZ............ 62 INTRODUCTION This chapter discusses the purpose and content of this Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Addendum, and describes the proposed modifications to the Town of Los Gatos's adopted 2007 -2014 Housing Element and to the Town Code necessary to adopt the proposed Affordable Housing Overlay Zone (AHOZ) that will implement the Town's adopted Housing Element. A. Purpose and Content The Town of Los Gatos proposes to adopt the proposed AHOZ and to amend the adopted Housing Element and Town Code to reflect the proposed AHOZ. Specifically; ® The 2007 -2014 Housing Element, adopted by the Town in March 2012 and certified by the California Housing and Community Development Department in August 2012, would be amended to revise the list of fu- ture housing sites in the Available Land Inventory (Table 6 -1 of the Housing Element, Technical Appendix) to accurately reflect the final set of five parcels selected for designation with the AHOZ and the total amount of development allowed on each by the AHOZ, ® The Town Code would be amended to incorporate the proposed AHOZ, and the zoning map would be revised to illustrate on which parcels the AHOZ is applied. An individual AHOZ would be adopted for each of the five identified parcels, with specific allowances and criteria for each site. The AHOZ provides incentives and sets requirements for affordable housing development on designated parcels. The AHOZ is an overlay zone, and as such, the AHOZ would not change the base zoning designa- tions on the AHOZ sites. Property owners would retain all development rights associated with the base zoning designation. Prior to amending the General Plan, Housing Element and Town Code to reflect the proposed AHOZ, the Town of Los Gatos, as the Lead Agency, is required to review the modifications to these documents and determine whether or not the modifications would change the conclusions of the certi- fied 2010 General Plan EIR, which also evaluated the Housing Element. The TOWN OF L O S G A T O S G E N E R A L P L A N 2 0 2 0 F E I R A D D E N D U M I N T R O D U C T I O N purpose of this EIR Addendum is to present an Initial Study analysis of the modifications of the Housing Element of the Los Gatos General Plan 2020, Chapter I presents an introduction and description of the modifications to the approved General Plan and Housing Element that would be required to im- plement the proposed AHOZ. Chapter II presents a discussion of relevant CEQA statutes in Sections 15162 and 15164, as well as the Initial Study check- list analysis of potential environmental impacts associated with implementa- tion of the AHOZ. Since the modified project was found to cause no new significant impacts, no summary table of impacts has been included. B. Approved Project In 2010, the Los Gatos Town Council certified the Environmental Impact Report (EIR, State Clearinghouse No. 2009032078) for the Los Gatos General Plan 2020 (General Plan), which guides all. development within the Town. The certified EIR analyzed the potential impacts that could result from resi- dential development allowed under. the General Plan, including the identifica- tion of sites with capacity for affordable housing in the Housing Element. To ensure that each potential housing site is allowed to develop at the develop- ment capacity anticipated in the Housing Element and that the Town is able to accommodate its projected need for affordable housing units, the Housing Element includes Action HOU -2.1, to- amend- -the Town Code to include an Affordable Housing Overlay Zone (AHOZ). The Draft EIR, published March 10, 2010, analyzed the potential impacts of applying the AHOZ to ten parcels on seven sites; with capacity to accommo- date 673 units, These sites were: o Los Gatos Courthouse (single parcel) ® Southbay Development (single parcel) o Oka Road /Lark Avenue (three parcels) 4 Swahson Ford (single parcel) © Bentley (single parcel) 2 TOWN O F L O S G A T O S G E N E R A L P L A N 2 0 2 0 F E I R AD DE N DU M I N T R O D U C T I O N m South Bay Honda (two parcels) o Dittos Lane (single parcel) After publication of the Draft EIR, and prior to the publication of the Final EIR on June 16, 2010, the single parcel on the Bentley site was removed from consideration as an AHOZ site. Therefore, the Final EIR, as certified by the Town Council, analyzed the application of the AHOZ to nine parcels on six sites, with capacity to. accommodate a total of 621 units. C. Proposed Modified Project Since the Final EIR was certified in 2010, Town staff and the General Plan Committee have been working to respond to comments from the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) on the Hous- ing Element and to craft the AHOZ to implement the adopted Housing Ele- ment. In the process of creating the AHOZ, the Town has updated the list of potential housing sites to which the AHOZ would be applied, as well as the density allowed under the AHOZ. Table 1, Parcels Removed from AHOZ since Certification of the Final EIR, shows the four parcels, on three sites, that have been removed from consideration as potential AHOZ sites since the General Plan Final EIR was certified. Under the proposed modified project, these parcels would not receive the AHOZ and their current base General Plan land use designation and zoning designations would remain unchanged. The existing land use and zoning des- ignations are: ® Swanson Ford: Mixed Use Commercial land use designation, Highway Commercial zone (CH) ® South Bay Honda: Mixed Use Commercial land use designation, High- way Commercial zone (CH) ® Dittos Lane: Mixed Use Commercial land use designation, Downtown Residential zone (R -1:D) 3 T O W N OF L O S G A T O S G E N E R A L P L A N 2 0 2 0 F E I R A D D E N D U M I N T R O D U C T I O N TABLE 1 PARCELS REMOVED FROM AHOZ SINCE CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL EIR AHOZ In addition to removing some parcels from AHOZ consideration, the Town would also increase the allowed density on the remaining AHOZ parcels. The certified General Plan EIR already considered the potential impacts of designating these parcels to allow the development of affordable housing. Of the remaining AHOZ parcels; 0 No changes would be made to the three parcels on the Oka Road /Lark Avenue site. These three parcels would maintain the AHOZ designation as evaluated in the General Plan EIR. No density bonus would be al- lowed on the Oka Road /Lark Avenue parcels, 0 The AHOZ designation on the single - parcel Los Gatos Courthouse site would allow 20 units per acre, as evaluated in the General Plan EIR. However, a density bonus of 20 percent would be applied to the Los Ga- tos Courthouse site, The density bonus would not automatically be ap- plied, but would be allowed by right based on compliance with AHOZ intent. 4 Allowed AHOZ Decrease Acreage Density Allowed From GP Site Name (Acres) (units /acre) Units Final EIR Swanson Ford 4.5 12,7 57 -57 Single Parcel South Bay Honda 1.0 20 20 -20 Parcel A South Bay Honda 0.9 20 18 -18 Parcel B Dittos Lane 1,6 20 32 -32 Sin lei Parcel Total 127 -127 In addition to removing some parcels from AHOZ consideration, the Town would also increase the allowed density on the remaining AHOZ parcels. The certified General Plan EIR already considered the potential impacts of designating these parcels to allow the development of affordable housing. Of the remaining AHOZ parcels; 0 No changes would be made to the three parcels on the Oka Road /Lark Avenue site. These three parcels would maintain the AHOZ designation as evaluated in the General Plan EIR. No density bonus would be al- lowed on the Oka Road /Lark Avenue parcels, 0 The AHOZ designation on the single - parcel Los Gatos Courthouse site would allow 20 units per acre, as evaluated in the General Plan EIR. However, a density bonus of 20 percent would be applied to the Los Ga- tos Courthouse site, The density bonus would not automatically be ap- plied, but would be allowed by right based on compliance with AHOZ intent. 4 TOWN OF LOS G A T O S G E N E R A L P L A N 2 0 2 0 F E I R A D D E N D U M I N T R O D U C T 1 O N ♦ The AHOZ designation on the single - parcel Southbay Development site would allow 30 units per acre. In addition, a density bonus of 20 percent would be applied to the Southbay Development site. Table 2, Allowed Density on Remaining AHOZParcels, quantifies the effects of the proposed modifications. This Addendum considers the maximum possi- ble development on each site for purposes of environmental evaluation. Fig- ure 1, Affordable Housing Overlay Zone Sites, shows the locations of the elim- inated and remaining AHOZ sites listed in Tables 1 and 2. In summary, the proposed modifications to the approved project that would be necessary to implement the AHOZ would allow a total of seven more af- fordable housing units Town -wide, from 621 potential units to 628 potential units. Based on these modifications, Table 3 -1, Draft Housing Element Sites, of the certified 2010 General Plan EIR has been updated. A revised Table 3 -1 is in- cluded on page 8 of this chapter. Changes made to the table are identified in str-lkeeut text to indicate deletions and in underlined text to signify additions. D. Environmental Setting This EIR Addendum addresses potential environmental impacts of amending the Town's General Plan and Town Code to adopt the AHOZ and imple- ment the adopted Housing Element. These amendments represent a modifi- cation of the General Plan and Housing Element (the "Approved Project ") that were analyzed in the 2010 General Plan EIR. As described above, the modified project includes both removing some parcels from consideration as AHOZ sites, and increasing allowed densities on two of the remaining three AHOZ sites. In the interest of full disclosure, this section describes existing land uses and current land use designations on both the eliminated and re- maining AHOZ sites. L [A City of Saratogaf TOWN OF LOS GATOS GENERAL PLAN 2020 FEIR ADDENDUM INTRODUCTION City of Campbell Los?Gatos._, _ Courthouses :_ ' ._.S� <' LarkAvenu •e..a L 1 i ;.t < City.ofI��G ✓� _- .s,r'*a,j-:1 Monte Sereno �� 3r ,. sona cy�o �l Town Boundary Water Body := Highway Creek F' Southbay Development kip \ Swanson Ford Soutli' Bay ,Honda: City of San Jose �j �.i�' ' s{ 7 j�i`C e9� cr,'{t�, ;2t�r�� I�pf j,;'- y 'i\�.' ^fir < j� Ir.,�.,�, 1 _ r 4 1`•J ,tt 1y .rte t �``r`^ Dittos Lane ,:��' ;77(1 C\ `�� ✓ \ f ,n. f ... a' �Y ti . ;,. r✓ F- -��c -t rr .> l i 1 t ` 0.25 O.S Mile Source: Town of Los Gatos, DC &E. 2009. Site with Affordable Housing Overlay Zone: 20 Unitslacre Allowed ® Site with Affordable Housing Overlay Zone: 30 Units/acre Allowed ON 20% Density Bonus Allowed FIGURE 1 Site Removed from Affordable Housing Overlay Zone AFFORDABLE HOUSING OVERLAY ZONE I Itz �.. ._.S� <' LarkAvenu •e..a L 1 i ;.t < City.ofI��G ✓� _- .s,r'*a,j-:1 Monte Sereno �� 3r ,. sona cy�o �l Town Boundary Water Body := Highway Creek F' Southbay Development kip \ Swanson Ford Soutli' Bay ,Honda: City of San Jose �j �.i�' ' s{ 7 j�i`C e9� cr,'{t�, ;2t�r�� I�pf j,;'- y 'i\�.' ^fir < j� Ir.,�.,�, 1 _ r 4 1`•J ,tt 1y .rte t �``r`^ Dittos Lane ,:��' ;77(1 C\ `�� ✓ \ f ,n. f ... a' �Y ti . ;,. r✓ F- -��c -t rr .> l i 1 t ` 0.25 O.S Mile Source: Town of Los Gatos, DC &E. 2009. Site with Affordable Housing Overlay Zone: 20 Unitslacre Allowed ® Site with Affordable Housing Overlay Zone: 30 Units/acre Allowed ON 20% Density Bonus Allowed FIGURE 1 Site Removed from Affordable Housing Overlay Zone AFFORDABLE HOUSING OVERLAY ZONE TOWN OF L O S G A T O S G E N E R A L P L A N 2 0 2 0 F E I R A D D E N D U M INTRODUCTION TABLE ALLOWED DENSITY ON REMAINING AHOZ PARCELS TOTAL _ 629 +135 ° Density bonus is not automatically applied, but would be allowed by right based on compliance with AHOZ intent. This Addendum considers the maximum possible development on each site for purposes of environmental evaluation. 7 AHOZ Maximum Site Name Acreage (Acres) Allowed Density (units /acre) AHOZ Allowed Units Allowed Density Bonus, Maximum Allowed Units Increase From GP Final EIR Los Gatos Courthouse Single Parcel 5.2 20 104 20% 125 +21 Southbay Development Single Parcel 7.1 30 213 20% 256 +114 Oka Road /Lark Avenue Parcel A 6.4 20 128 0% 128 0 Oka Road /Lark Avenue Parcel B 3.0 20 60 0% 60 0 Oka Road /Lark Avenue Parcel C 3,0 20 60 0% 60 0 TOTAL _ 629 +135 ° Density bonus is not automatically applied, but would be allowed by right based on compliance with AHOZ intent. This Addendum considers the maximum possible development on each site for purposes of environmental evaluation. 7 TOWN O F L O S G A T O S G E N E R A L P L A N 2 0 2 0 F E I R A D D E N D U M INTRODUCTION TABLE 3.1 DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT SITES — Site General Plan Land Use Designation Proposed Zoning Designation' Proposed Density (Units /Acre) Developable Acreage' Assumed Development Capacity (Units) Density Bonus for AHOZ Sites Total Allowed Units I.os Gatos Courthouse Single Parcel Public op�`'p— Office/AHOZ 20 5.2 104 20% 104 125 Southbay Development Single Parcel High Density Residential CM /AHOZ a 30 7.1 442 213 20% 442 255 Oka Road /Lark Avenue Parcel A Low Density Residential R- 1:8 /AHOZ 20 6.4 128 0% 128 ^Parcel B Low Density Residential R- 1:8 /AHOZ 20 3.0 60 0% 60 Parcel C Medium Density Residential RM- 5:12 /AHOZ 20 3.0 — 60 0% 60 syansert -Rare' — F-aeeel--AlB M e-Ge Felal` GGH 4.2-4 4:6 Per�el A �41xed i�s� Gex3rnereiel 6H �A1 I92 20 4A 30 30 ParctbB 1.41ited�Jse Semtnerelal b�AI193 20 0 8 4-8 _ a Dittes Lase ° M4xed43s '— �al R 1; 20 4-:6 lu 32 Notes: Future drafts of the 2007-2014 Housing Element may assume fewer housing units for each site, In compliance with HCD requirements. Additionally, some of the housing in the North Forty Specific Plan area may also be included In future drafts of the 2007 -2014 Housing Element and is analyzed separately within this EIR. It is described under Section EA, Draft 2020 General Plan North Forty Specific. Plan Area Overlay of this chapter. ' Zoning would be amended as needed to accommodate new Affordable Housing Overlay Zone (AHOZ), Base zoning designations would be left unchanged and parcels could develop according to either the base zone or the AHOZ. b Lot consolidation is suggested for parcels that are less than I acre to increase feasibility of development. ` Project currently proposed. The Mixed Use Commercial zoning designation allows for residential uses and does not have an upper limit on allowable residential densities. Source: The Planning Center I DC &E, 2009. 8 TOWN OF L O S G A T O S GENERAL P L A N 2 0 2 0 F E I R A D D E N D U M I N T R O D U C T IO N 1. Project Location The Town of Los Gatos is in Santa Clara County, It is part of the Bay Area region and lies approximately 8 miles to the southwest of San Jose, the re- gion's largest city. It is nestled against the foothills of California's Coast Range and is located on the Bay Area's southwestern urban edge. For a more detailed description of the Town of Las Gatos and its setting, see Chapter 1 of the Los Gatos General Plan 2020, as well as Chapters 1 and 3 of the General Plan 2020 EIR. Figure 1 illustrates the location of the project area within the regional and local contexts, 2, Existing and Surrounding Land Use The predominant developed land uses in the Town of Los Gatos are residen- tial, commercial, retail, office, medical, civic, and institutional. The following are narrative descriptions of existing General Plan land use designations and existing land uses in each project area. a. Los Gatos Courthouse (Single Parcel) The Los Gatos Courthouse site is a single 5,2 -acre parcel located in the north- ern portion of Town. The site is developed and hosts the former Los Gatos Courthouse and clinic, both of which are currently vacant, The Los Gatos General Plan 2020 land use designation for this site is Public, while the exist- ing Town Code zoning design is Office (0). b, Southbay Development (Single Parcel) The Southbay Development site is a single parcel near Highway 17, Highway 85, and the site of the future Vasona Light Rail Station. The parcel is 7.5 acres and contains aging office buildings. The General Plan designates the property for High Density Residential development. The existing Town Code zoning designation is Controlled Manufacturing (CM). c, Oka Road /Lark Avenue (Three Parcels) The Oka Road /Lark Avenue site consists of three parcels located in the northern half of Town, north of Lark Avenue and south of Highway 85, us TOW N OF L O S G A T O S GENERAL P L A N 2 0 2 0 F E I R A D D E N D U M I N T R O D U C T I O N ® Parcel A is 6.4 acres and contains an orchard. Its General Plan land use designation is Low Density Residential, and it is zoned Residential (R -1;8, requiring a minimum 8,000- square -foot lot size). o Parcel B is 3.0 acres and contains an orchard. Its General Plan land use designation is Low Density Residential, and it is zoned Residential (R -1:8). ® Parcel C is 3.0 acres and contains an orchard and small farm structure. Its General Plan land use designation is Medium Density Residential, and it is zoned Multi- Family Residential (RM -5:12, allowing 5 to 12 dwelling units per net acre), d. South Bay Honda (Two Parcels) The South Bay Honda site has been removed from the list of potential afford- able housing sites. o Parcel A, at the corner of Los Gatos Boulevard and Roberts Road, is 1.0 acres. When the General Plan EIR was written, this site contained part of the former South Bay Honda car dealership. As of fall 2012, it is cur- rently is being developed with 22 single- family residential units, The General Plan designation is Mixed Use Commercial and the zoning is Re- stricted Highway Commercial: Planned Development (CHID). This zoning district allows multifamily uses with a conditional use permit or approval of a Planned Development. ® Parcel -B, immediately to the south at the corner of Los Gatos Boulevard and Mitchell Avenue, is 0.9 acres. It was also formerly part of the South Bay Honda car dealership. Its General Plan designation is Mixed Use Commercial and the zoning is Highway Commercial (CH), e. Dittos Lane (Single Parcel) The Dittos Lane site consists of a single 1.6 -acre parcel located on Dittos Lane, just south of Main Street and east of Highway 17. It has been removed from the list of potential affordable housing sites, Prior improvements have been demolished and the site is presently vacant. The land use designation is NO TOWN OF L O S G A T O S GENERAL PLAN 2020 FEIR ADDENDUM I N T R O D U C T I O N Medium Density Residential and the zoning is Downtown Residential (R -1:D), f. Swanson Ford (Single Parcel) The Swanson Ford site has been removed from the list of potential affordable housing sites. This site is a single 12,7 -acre parcel at the northwest corner of Blossom Hill Road and Los Gatos Boulevard, It was also the former location of Akeena Solar photovoltaic panel sales and installation company. The Gen- eral Plan land use designation for the property is Mixed Use Commercial, and the underlying zoning is CH, which allows multifamily uses with a condi- tional use permit. The parcel has been rezoned to CHID. A Planned De- velopment application for a mixed use development consisting of 25 dwelling units (9 townhomes, 14 single - family detached, and a duplex) and 30,775 square feet of commercial space was recently approved for the site, E. Decision to Prepare an Addendum Pursuant to Section 21166 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, after an EIR has been certified for a project, if some minor technical changes to the previously certified EIR are necessary, preparation of an Addendum to the EIR is appropriate, A supplemental EIR is not required unless there is sub- stantial evidence that modifications to the project would substantially in- crease the severity of the impacts identified in the previous EIR. Under CEQA, "substantial evidence" includes facts, reasonable assumptions predi- cated upon facts, and expert opinion supported by facts. As determined through the detailed analysis of the Initial Study checklist in Chapter II of this document, the approval of the AHOZ would not involve new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects beyond those already identified in the 2010 Certified EIR. Given this finding, an Addendum to the existing EIR has been prepared in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. Therefore, this addendum to the Los Gatos General Plan 2020 EIR is suffi- 11 TOWN OF L O S G A T O S GENERAL P L A N 2 0 2 0 F E I R A D D E N D U M I N T R O D U C T I O N cient. Chapter II of this Addendum contains additional explanation regarding the decision to prepare an Addendum. 12 II ANALYSIS This chapter considers the provisions of Sections 15162 and 15164 of the CEQA statutes and discusses how an addendum to the Los Gatos General Plan 2020 EIR is appropriate for the modified project. This chapter also ap- plies the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G checklist to provide evidence to sub- stantiate the conclusions set forth in the Environmental Checklist. A discus- sion will be provided to determine whether or not the modified project is consistent with the findings contained in the General Plan EIR. A. CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164 in the CEQA statutes provide, respectively, detailed information on when subsequent EIRs must be prepared, and direction on when and how to instead issue an addendum to an EIR. This section address- es the stated requirements and instructions for the preparation of such docu- ments, and demonstrates why the preparation of an addendum to the Los Gatos General Plan 2020 EIR is appropriate for the proposed project changes. 1. 15162. Subsequent EIRs and Negative Declarations The most applicable CEQA Guideline regarding analysis of the modified pro- ject and the appropriate level of review is from Section 15162, which pro- vides: (a) When an EIR has been certified or a negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency. deter- mines, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, one or more of the following, (a)(1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major re- visions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity ofprevi- ouslyidentified significant effects,' The proposed changes to the location of the housing sites and number of dwelling units included in the Los Gatos General Plan 2020 and Housing El- 13 TOW N OF LOS G AT OS G E N E R A L P L A N 2 0 2 0 F E I R A D D E N D U M A N A L Y S I S ement are a result of the creation of the Affordable Housing Overlay Zone (AHOZ). The AHOZ was anticipated in the General Plan, Specifically, Ac- tion HOU -2.1 in the Housing Element stipulates the need to amend the Town Code to include the AHOZ, The AHOZ would result in the removal of the AHOZ designation from parcels on three sites and increase the allowed density on two remaining single- parcel sites. It would result in a net increase of eight dwelling units above what was analyzed in the General Plan EIR and an increase in the .total development capacity from 621 units to 629 units dur- ing the 2007 -2014 planning period. The proposed change does not require major revisions of the 2010 General Plan EIR, and as substantiated in this document, the modified project would not result in new significant environ- mental effects or significantly increase the magnitude of previously identified significant effects whereby new mitigation measures would be required. (a)(2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects,' or No substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which General Plan 2020 was crafted and adopted, and as mention above, the creation of the AHOZ was anticipated as a part of the implementation of the Housing Element. As substantiated in this document, the proposed project changes will not require major revisions of the General Plan EIR, (a)(3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise ofreasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the Negative Declaration was adopted, shows any of the following,' 14 (a)(3)(A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration; (a)(3)(23) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more se- vere than shown in the previous EIR,' TOWN OF L O S G A T O S GENERAL PLAN 2020 FEIR ADDENDUM ANALYSIS (a)(3)(C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasi- ble would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one br more sig- nificant effects of the project but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or (a)(3)(D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents de- cline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. Since the certification of the General Plan EIR, no new, previously - unknown information of substantial importance to the General Plan 2020 has come to light that will affect the mitigation measures that were adopted and the alterna- tives that were considered as a part of the decision - malting process for the 2010 General Plan EIR. The proposed project modifications will not create new significant effects that were not previously analyzed, nor will the magnitude of impacts exceed the established thresholds of significance. No new mitigation measures are proposed, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program adopted as a part of the certified EIR remains adequate to mitigate impacts caused by the modified project. The alternatives that were analyzed also re- main applicable to the project and do not need to be reconsidered; the modi- fied project does not create new impacts that would require new analysis of project alternatives. (b) If changes to a project- or -Iis7ircumstances occur or new information becomes available after adoption of a negative declaration, the lead agency shall prepare a subsequent EIR if required under subdivision (a). Otherwise the lead agency shall determine whether to prepare a subsequent negative declaration, an addendum, or no further documentation, Since the findings under Section 15162 subdivision (a) indicate that it is not necessary to prepare a subsequent EIR, the lead agency has determined that it is appropriate to prepare an addendum to the Los Gatos General Plan 2020 EIR. 15 TOWN OF L O S G A T O S G E N E R A L P L A N 2 0 2 0 F E I R A D D E N D U M A N A L Y S I S (c) Once a project has been approved, the lead agency's role in project approval is completed, unless further discretionary approval on that project is required. In- formation appearing after an approval does not require reopening of that approv- al. If after the project is approved, any of the conditions described in subdivision (a) occurs, a subsequent EIR or negative declaration shall only be prepared by the public agency which grants the next discretionary approval for the project, If any, In this situation no other responsible agency shall grant an approval for the project until the subsequent EIR has been certified or subsequent negative declaration adopted, The Town of Los Gatos will be seeking discretionary approval for the modi- fied project associated with and to amend the zoning map in order to apply a parcel- specific AHOZ to five individual parcels. As substantiated in this doc- ument, the modified project does not create new significant impacts that would require the preparation of a subsequent EIR, and an addendum to the 2010 General Plan EIR would be appropriate to satisfy CEQA. The Califor- nia Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) is a re- sponsible agency that will be required to approve the proposed changes to the Housing Element caused by the AHOZ. The Town Council will consider the addendum to the 2010 General Plan EIR, in addition to the certified Final EIR in its decision - making process. (d) A subsequent EIR or subsequent negative declaration shall be given the same notice and public review as required under Section 15087 or Section 15072, A subsequent EIR or negative declaration shall state where the previous document is available and can be reviewed, Since the proposed modified project would require no subsequent EIR, it is not necessary to provide the notice or provide for the public review refer- enced in subdivision-(d). 2. 15164. Addendum to an EIR or Negative Declaration (a) The lead agency or responsible agency shall prepare an addendum to a previous- ly certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the condi- 16 TOWN OF L O S G A T O S GENERAL PLAN 2020 FEIR ADDENDUM A N A L Y S I S tions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. The AHOZ represents an anticipated implementing action called for in the Housing Element; this EIR addendum provides additional information specif- ically relevant to the changes to the certified General Plan EIR caused by the AHOZ. As discussed above and substantiated below, none of the conditions from Section 15162 which would require a subsequent EIR are present. (b) An addendum to an adopted negative declaration may be prepared if only mi- nor technical changes or additions are necessary or none of the conditions de- scribed in Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR or nega- tive declaration have occurred. The Los Gatos General Plan 2020 was the subject of a full EIR, not a negative declaration; therefore subsection (b) does not apply. (c) An addendum need not be circulated for public review but can be included in or attached to the final EIR or adopted negative declaration. Acknowledged. (d) The decision making body shall consider the addendum with the final EIR or .adopted negative declaration prior to making a decision on the project. Acknowledged. The Town Council is currently scheduled to meet to consid- er the addendum to the General Plan EIR and act on the AHOZ on Monday, December 3, 2012, (e) A brief explanation of the decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR pursuant to Section 15162 should be included in an addendum to an EIR, the lead agency s findings on the project, or elsewhere in the record. The explanation must be sup- ported bysubstantial evidence, 17 T O W N O f LO S G A T O S G E N E R A L P L A N 2 0 2 0 F E I R A D D E N D U M A N A L Y S I S The preceding discussion and the analysis below serve to explain the decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR and to demonstrate, with substantial evi- dence from the CEQA Appendix G checklist, why a subsequent EIR is not required, B. Appendix G Checklist The following analysis uses the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G Environmen- tal Checklist to demonstrate using substantial evidence, that the proposed changes caused by the AHOZ would not create new environmental impacts, or otherwise exacerbate those discussed in the Los Gatos General Plan 2020 EIR. It should be noted that the proposed project would be to apply a: parcel - specific AHOZ to each one of five parcels on three potential housing sites. The proposed project does not include construction of any units, but rather, would allow construction of new housing units. 1. Aesthetics No Additional Subsequent or Environmental Supplemental EIR Required Analysis _ Required 18 Substantial New Change in New Mitigation Project or Information or Circumstances Showing Alternative Minor Resulting in Greater to Reduce Technical No New Significant Significant Changes Change/ Significant Effects than Effect is or No Issues Effects Previous EIR Declined Additions Impact AESTHETICS: Would the project: a. Have a substantial adverse X effect on a scenic vista? b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock X outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? 18 TOWN OF L O S G A T O S G E N E R A L P L A N 2 0 2 0 F E I R A D D E N D U M ANALYSIS Development of the modified project would result in the removal of the AHOZ designation from four parcels on three potential housing sites and a slight increase in the density and total number of dwelling units on five par- cels at three remaining potential housing sites. Future development of the five parcels would be subject to the oversight and review processes envisioned by the goals and policies stipulated in the General Plan 2020 and established within the Town Code. They would be consistent with the Town's numer- ous policies to promote - - high- quality, compatible design in order- to* preserve the small -town visual quality and character, existing scenic vistas and re- sources, ridgelines, viewsheds, and the natural environment, as well as to min- imize potential light and glare pollution, Similar to the analysis in the Gen- eral Plan EIR, adherence to existing laws and regulations would minimize potential aesthetic impacts that would be created by the proposed modified project. Therefore, the modified project would not create new aesthetic im- pacts that have not been previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR, and no new mitigation measures are required. m K X., r..,,. ,.. ,. No Additional Subsequent or Environmental Supplemental EIR Required Analysis Required Substantial New Change In New Mitigation Project or Information or Circumstances Showing Alternative Minor Resulting in Greater to Reduce Technical No New Significant Significant Changes Change/ Significant Effects than Effect is or No Issues Effects Previous EIR Declined Additions Impact c. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its X surroundings? d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect X day or nighttime views in the area? Development of the modified project would result in the removal of the AHOZ designation from four parcels on three potential housing sites and a slight increase in the density and total number of dwelling units on five par- cels at three remaining potential housing sites. Future development of the five parcels would be subject to the oversight and review processes envisioned by the goals and policies stipulated in the General Plan 2020 and established within the Town Code. They would be consistent with the Town's numer- ous policies to promote - - high- quality, compatible design in order- to* preserve the small -town visual quality and character, existing scenic vistas and re- sources, ridgelines, viewsheds, and the natural environment, as well as to min- imize potential light and glare pollution, Similar to the analysis in the Gen- eral Plan EIR, adherence to existing laws and regulations would minimize potential aesthetic impacts that would be created by the proposed modified project. Therefore, the modified project would not create new aesthetic im- pacts that have not been previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR, and no new mitigation measures are required. m K X., r..,,. ,.. ,. TOWN OF L O S G A T O S G E N E R A L P L A N 2 0 2 0 F E I R A D D E N D U M A N A L Y S I S 7.. Agriculture and Forestry Resources b. Conflict with existing zon- ing for agricultural use, or a X Williamson Act contract? c. Conflict with existing zon- ing for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code sec - tion 12220(8)), timberland (as defined by Public Re- X sources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Tim- berland Production (as de- fined by Government Code section 51104(g))? d. Result in the loss of forest land'or conversion of forest X land to non - forest use? 20 No Additional Subsequent or Environmental Supplemental EIR Required Analysis Required Substantial New Change in New Mitigation Project or Information or Circumstances Showing Alternative Minor Resulting in Greater to Reduce Technical No New Significant Significant Changes Change/ Significant Effects than Effect is or No Issues _ Effects Previous EIR Declined Additions Impact AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES: Would the project: a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farm- land of Statewide Im- portance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared X pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? b. Conflict with existing zon- ing for agricultural use, or a X Williamson Act contract? c. Conflict with existing zon- ing for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code sec - tion 12220(8)), timberland (as defined by Public Re- X sources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Tim- berland Production (as de- fined by Government Code section 51104(g))? d. Result in the loss of forest land'or conversion of forest X land to non - forest use? 20 TOWN OF L O S G A T O S G E N E R A L P L A N 2 0 2 0 F E I R A D D E N D U M A N A L Y S I S Impacts to forest resources were not analyzed in the General Plan EIR as the requirement to analyze forest resources in environmental documents did not become effective until the adoption of the Senate Bill 97 amendments (adopt- ed December 31, 2009, effective March 18, 2010) to the CEQA Guidelines, which occurred after the commencement of the General Plan 2020 Update and General Plan EIR. Prior to the adoption of SB 97, forest resources had not yet been generally recognized as an environmental issue. Therefore, the analysis to impacts on forest resources is new in this addendum, Since little agricultural land remains in Los Gatos, the General Plan EIR ad- dressed agricultural impacts under the Land Use and Planning environmental topic. The EIR found one significant impact related to agricultural resources. It was determined that the conversion of Unique Farmland to other uses in the North Forty Specific Plan Area would constitute a Significant and Una- voidable impact and that no feasible mitigation measure existed. None of the parcels associated with the modified project are within the North Forty Spe- cific Plan Area. Additionally, none of them are properties designated as Prime, Unique, or Farmland of Statewide Importance; agriculturally- zoned; Williamson Act land; forest land; timberland; or timberland -zoned Timber- land Production. The parcels are disturbed and have been either developed 21 No Additional Subsequent or Environmental ® Supplemental EIR Required Analysis Required Substantial New Change in New Mitigation Project or Information or Circumstances Showing Alternative Minor Resulting in Greater to Reduce Technical No New Significant Significant Changes Change/ Significant Effects than Effect is or No Issues Effects Previous EIR Declined Additions e, Involve other changes in the _.Impact existing environment which, due to their location or na- ture, could result in conver- sion of Farmland, to non- X agricultural use or conver- sion of forest land to non - forest use? Impacts to forest resources were not analyzed in the General Plan EIR as the requirement to analyze forest resources in environmental documents did not become effective until the adoption of the Senate Bill 97 amendments (adopt- ed December 31, 2009, effective March 18, 2010) to the CEQA Guidelines, which occurred after the commencement of the General Plan 2020 Update and General Plan EIR. Prior to the adoption of SB 97, forest resources had not yet been generally recognized as an environmental issue. Therefore, the analysis to impacts on forest resources is new in this addendum, Since little agricultural land remains in Los Gatos, the General Plan EIR ad- dressed agricultural impacts under the Land Use and Planning environmental topic. The EIR found one significant impact related to agricultural resources. It was determined that the conversion of Unique Farmland to other uses in the North Forty Specific Plan Area would constitute a Significant and Una- voidable impact and that no feasible mitigation measure existed. None of the parcels associated with the modified project are within the North Forty Spe- cific Plan Area. Additionally, none of them are properties designated as Prime, Unique, or Farmland of Statewide Importance; agriculturally- zoned; Williamson Act land; forest land; timberland; or timberland -zoned Timber- land Production. The parcels are disturbed and have been either developed 21 TOWN OF L O S G A T O S G E N E R A L P L A N 2 0 2 0 F E I R A D D E N D U M A N A L Y S 1 S with urban or, in the case of the Oka Road /Lark Avenue site, agricultural uses. Note, the Oka Road /Lark Avenue site contributes to the -)verall num- ber of future dwelling units in the Town; however the modified project does not propose any development changes to this site, Development of the modified project would continue to be subject to the oversight and review processes envisioned by the General Plan and estab- lished within the Town Code. Its implementation would not alter or sub- stantially worsen the significant impact to agricultural resources specified in the EIR or any other agricultural and forestry resource impact. The modified project would not result in new impacts to agricultural and forestry resources, No new significant impact would occur, and no new mitigation measures are required. 3. Air Quality AIR QUALITY: Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations, Would the a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the appli- X cable -air Suahty plan? 22 No Additional Environmental Subsequent or Supplemental EIR Required Analysis Required Substantial New Change in New Mitigation Project or Information or Circumstances Showing Alternative Minor Resulting in Greater to Reduce Technical No New Significant Significant Changes Change/ Significant Effects than Effect is or No Issues Effects Previous EIR Declined Additions Impact _ AIR QUALITY: Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations, Would the a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the appli- X cable -air Suahty plan? 22 TOWN OF L O S G A T O S G E N E R A L P L A N 2 0 2 0 F E I R A D D E N D U M A N A L Y S I S e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial num- ber of people? Implementation of the modified project could generate new short -term (con- struction- related) emissions, as well as long -term (operation - related) emissions. The individual developments would be required to be consistent with federal, state, and regional policies, goals and actions, including those set by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). They would also be required to comply with the goals, policies, and actions of the General Plan. Through the environmental review process for the individual projects, addi- tional mitigation may be required to further reduce emissions and potential project -level impacts. However, at this level of analysis, the impacts associat- 23 No Additional Subsequent or Environmental Supplemental EIR Required Analysis Required Substantial New Change in New Mitigation Project or Information or Circumstances Showing Alternative Minor Resulting in Greater to Reduce Technical No New Significant Significant Changes Change/ Significant Effects than Effect is or No Issues Effects Previous EIR Declined Additions Impact b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute sub- stantially to an existing or X projected air quality viola- tion? c, Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an ap- plicable federal or state am- X bient air quality standard (including releasing emis- sions which exceed quantita- tive thresholds for ozone precursors)? d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concen- X trations? e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial num- ber of people? Implementation of the modified project could generate new short -term (con- struction- related) emissions, as well as long -term (operation - related) emissions. The individual developments would be required to be consistent with federal, state, and regional policies, goals and actions, including those set by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). They would also be required to comply with the goals, policies, and actions of the General Plan. Through the environmental review process for the individual projects, addi- tional mitigation may be required to further reduce emissions and potential project -level impacts. However, at this level of analysis, the impacts associat- 23 TOW N O F L O S G A T O S G E N E R A L P L A N 2 0 2 0 F E I R A D D E N D U M A N A L Y S I S ed with the modified project would be similar to that analyzed in the General Plan EIR. The General Plan EIR found that implementation of General Plan 2020 would have a significant and unavoidable impact under air quality threshold a. Though the General Plan itself would contain a variety of provisions to re- duce vehicle miles traveled, these provisions would be insufficient to reduce the impact to less than significant. It was further determined that there were no feasible mitigation measures for this significant impact, Implementation of the proposed modifications would not substantially worsen this or any other air quality impact, nor would it result in new significant impacts to air quality. Therefore, technical changes to the air quality analysis in the General Plan EIR are not required, and no new mitigation measures are necessary. 4. Biological Resources 24 No Additional Subsequent or Environmental Supplemental EIR Required Analysis Required Substantial New Change in New Mitigation Project or Information or Circumstances Showing Alternative Minor Resulting in Greater to Reduce Technical No New Significant Significant Changes Change/ Significant Effects than Effect is or No Issues Effects Previous EIR Declined Additions Impact BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project: a, Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat-modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or X regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the Califorrila Department of Fish and Game or U.S, Fish and Wildlife Service? 24 TOWN O F L O S G A T O S G E N E R A L P L A N 2 0 2 0 F E I R A D D E N D U M A N A L Y S I S c. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected No Additional Subsequent or Environmental Supplemental EIR Required Analysis Required etc.) through direct removal, Substantial filling, hydrological New interruption, or other means? Change in New Mitigation resident or migratory fish or Project or Information or established native resident or X Circumstances Showing Alternative Minor wildlife nursery sites? Resulting in Greater to Reduce Technical No New Significant Significant Changes Change/ ordinance? Significant Effects than Effect is or No Issues Effects Previous EIR Declined _ Additions Impact b. Have a substantial adverse regional, or state habitat _ effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, X regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Came or U.S. Fish and Wildlife c. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or X migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a X tree preservation policy or ordinance? f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation j{ Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? 25 TOWN OF L O S G A T O S G E N E R A L P L A N 2 0 2 0 F E I R A D D E N D U M A N A L Y S I S The parcels are disturbed and have been either developed with urban or agri- cultural uses. They are not within areas identified with special - status plant and wildlife species, wetlands, or wildlife movement corridors and nursery sites. Development of each parcel would be subject to the oversight and re- view processes, and regulations that are envisioned by the General Plan; estab- lished within the Town Code (including the Tree Protection Ordinance); and /or otherwise required by state and federal statutes, including those for endangered species protection. Implementation of the modified project would therefore neither cause new impacts to biological resources nor exac- erbate any existing impacts. Technical changes to the biological resources analysis in the General Plan EIR are not required, and no new mitigation measures are required. 5, Cultural Resources 26 No Additional Subsequent or Environmental Supplemental EIR Required Analysis Required Substantial New Change in New Mitigation Project or Information or Circumstances Showing Alternative Resulting In Greater to Reduce Minor No New Significant Significant Technical Change/ Significant Effects than Effect is Changes or No Issues Effects Previous EIR Declined Additions Impact CULTURAL RESOURCES; Would the project; a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of X a historical resource as de- fined in § 15064.5? b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of X an archaeological resource pursuant to § 1506 c. Directly or indirectly de- stroy a unique paleontologi- X cal resource or site or unique geologic feature? d, Disturb any human remains, including those interred out- X side of formal cemeteries? 26 TOWN OF L O S G A T O S GENERAL P L A N 2 0 2 0 F E I R A D D E N D U M A N A L Y S I S The parcels are not in any historic districts and have been disturbed with ei- ther urban or agricultural uses. Implementation of the modified project would not contravene any aspects of the General Plan, including historic preservation, pre - construction review, and /or land -use that could cause in- creased potential to impact cultural resources. Development allowed by the AHOZ on the five parcels would be subject to the oversight and review pro- cesses envisioned by the General Plan and established within the Town Code. Additionally, development would be required to cease construction or other ground- disturbing activities, and report any discovery of potentially signifi- cant cultural, paleontological; or Native American resources. Such discover- ies would also continue to be subject to the jurisdiction of anthropological or tribal experts, who would be responsible for inspection and potential reloca- tion of discovered cultural resources. Implementation of the modified project would therefore neither cause new impacts to cultural resources, nor exacer- bate any existing impacts. Technical changes to the cultural resources analysis in the General Plan EIR are not required, and no new mitigation measures are required. 6. Geology and Soils a. Expose people or structures to potential substantial ad- verse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death 27 No Additional Subsequent or Environmental Supplemental EIR Required Analysis Required Substantial New Change in New Mitigation Project or Information or Circumstances Showing Alternative Resulting in Greater to Reduce Minor No New Significant Significant Technical Change/ Significant Effects than Effect Is Changes or No _ ___ _ _ Issues _Effects Previous EIR Declined Additions Impact GEOLOGY & SOILS: Mould the project: a. Expose people or structures to potential substantial ad- verse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death 27 TOWN OF LOS GATOS G E N E R A L P L A N 2 0 2 0 F E I R A D D E N D U M A N A L Y S I S No Additional Subsequent or Environmental Supplemental EIR Required Analysis Required _ iii. Seismic - related ground failure, including,lique X faction? iv, Landslides? X b. Result in substantial soil X erosion or the loss of topsoil? c. Be located on a.geologic.unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and X potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, lique- faction or collapse? d, Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18 -1 -B of the Uniform Building Code X (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? _ 11 Substantial New Change in New Mitigation Project or Information or Circumstances Showing Alternative Resulting in Greater to Reduce Minor No New Significant Significant Technical Change/ Significant Effects than Effect is Changes or No Issues Effects Previous EIR Declined Additions Impact 1. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as de- lineated on the most re- cent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zon- ing Map, issued by the State Geologist for the X area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publica- tion 42. ii, Strong seismic ground X iii. Seismic - related ground failure, including,lique X faction? iv, Landslides? X b. Result in substantial soil X erosion or the loss of topsoil? c. Be located on a.geologic.unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and X potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, lique- faction or collapse? d, Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18 -1 -B of the Uniform Building Code X (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? _ 11 TOWN OF L O S G A T O S GENERAL PLAN 2020 FEIR ADDENDUM ANALYSIS The parcels are disturbed with either urban or agricultural uses, and are in areas with other urban uses. Implementation of individual projects would be subject to the oversight and review processes, and standards that are envi- sioned by the General Plan, established within the Town Code, and /or oth- erwise required by the California Building Code, They would not contravene any aspects of the General Plan, including land -use designations, allowed uses, or pre - construction review that address geology- and soils- related impacts. Therefore, implementation of the modified project would neither cause new geological and soils impacts nor exacerbate any existing ones, Technical changes to the geology and soils analysis in the General Plan EIR are not re- quired, and no new mitigation measures are required. 29 No Additional Subsequent or Environmental Supplemental EIR Required Analysis Required Substantial New Change in New Mitigation Project or Information or Circumstances Showing Alternative Resulting in Greater to Reduce Minor No New Significant Significant Technical Change/ Significant Effects than Effect is Changes or No Issues Effects Previous EIR Declined Additions Impact e, Have soils incapable of ade- quately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems X where sewers are not availa- ble for the disposal of waste water? The parcels are disturbed with either urban or agricultural uses, and are in areas with other urban uses. Implementation of individual projects would be subject to the oversight and review processes, and standards that are envi- sioned by the General Plan, established within the Town Code, and /or oth- erwise required by the California Building Code, They would not contravene any aspects of the General Plan, including land -use designations, allowed uses, or pre - construction review that address geology- and soils- related impacts. Therefore, implementation of the modified project would neither cause new geological and soils impacts nor exacerbate any existing ones, Technical changes to the geology and soils analysis in the General Plan EIR are not re- quired, and no new mitigation measures are required. 29 T O W N OF L O S G A T O S G E N E R A L P L A N 2 0 2 0 F E I R A D D E N D U M A N A L Y S 1 5 7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS: Would the a, Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a X significant impact on the environment? b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of X reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Global climate change is not confined to a particular project area and is gen- erally accepted as the consequence of global industrialization over the last 200 years, Development of the AHOZ parcels would not generate enough GHG emissions on its own to influence global climate change significantly; hence, the issue of global climate change is by definition a cumulative environmental impact. The General Plan EIR found that implementation of General Plan 2020 would have a significant and unavoidable impact to GHG emissions until a climate action plan is prepared. The Town has adopted a Sustainability Plan to mitigate impacts to GHG emissions, The Sustainability Plan will actively serve to reduce GHG emissions to below levels set by adopted State legislation and would therefore mitigate GHG emissions within the Town limits, Any development allowed under the AHOZ would be required to be consistent with the measures in the adopted Sustainability Plan. 93 No Additional Subsequent or Environmental Supplemental EIR Required Analysis Required New Substantial New Mitigation Change in Information or Project or Showing Alternative Minor Circumstances Greater to Reduce Technical No Resulting in Significant Significant Changes Change/ New Significant Effects than Effect is or No Issues Effects Previous EIR Declined Additions Impact GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS: Would the a, Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a X significant impact on the environment? b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of X reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Global climate change is not confined to a particular project area and is gen- erally accepted as the consequence of global industrialization over the last 200 years, Development of the AHOZ parcels would not generate enough GHG emissions on its own to influence global climate change significantly; hence, the issue of global climate change is by definition a cumulative environmental impact. The General Plan EIR found that implementation of General Plan 2020 would have a significant and unavoidable impact to GHG emissions until a climate action plan is prepared. The Town has adopted a Sustainability Plan to mitigate impacts to GHG emissions, The Sustainability Plan will actively serve to reduce GHG emissions to below levels set by adopted State legislation and would therefore mitigate GHG emissions within the Town limits, Any development allowed under the AHOZ would be required to be consistent with the measures in the adopted Sustainability Plan. 93 TOWN OF L O S G A T O S G E N E R A L P L A N 2 0 2 0 F E I R A D D E N D U M A N A L Y S I S Adherence to the Sustainability Plan, the General Plan, and statewide measures including the Building and Energy Efficiency Standards (part of the California Building Code) and the California Green Building Code (CALGreen) adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions would en- sure that the modified project would neither cause significant new GHG emissions impacts nor exacerbate any existing impacts. Technical changes to the General Plan EIR are not required, and no new mitigation measures are required. g. Hazards and Hazardous Materials 31 No Additional Subsequent or Environmental Supplemental EIR Required Analysis Required Substantial New Change In New Mitigation Project or Information or Circumstances Showing Alternative Resulting In Greater to Reduce Minor No New Significant Significant Technical Change/ Significant Effects than Effect is Changes or No Issues _ Effects_ Previous EIR Declined _ Additions Impact HAZARDS & HAZARD- OUS MATERIALS: Would the project: a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environ- ment through the routine X transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b. zeateasignificarn-hazard to the public or the environ- ment through reasonably foreseeable upset and acci- X, dent conditions involving the release of hazardous ma- terials into the environment? c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, sub- stances, or waste within one- X quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? 31 TOWN OF L O S G A T O S G E N E R A L P L A N 2 0 2 0 F E I R A D D E N D U M A N A L Y S 1 S 32 No Additional Subsequent or Environmental Supplemental EIR Required Analysis Required Substantial New Change In New Mitigation Project or Information or Circumstances Showing Alternative Resulting in Greater to Reduce Minor No New Significant Significant Technical Change/ Significant Effects than Effect is Changes or No Issues Effects Previous EIR Declined Additions Impact d, Be located on a site which is _ included on a list of hazard- ous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government X Code Section 65962,5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the pub- lic or the environment? _ e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or X public use airport, would the project result in a safety haz- ard for people residing or working in the project area? f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a X safety hazard for people re- siding or working in the pro- ject area? g, Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response X plan or emergency evacua- tion plan? h. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss; injury or death involving wildland fires, including X where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? 32 TOWN OF L O S G A T O S G E N E R A L P L A N 2 0 2 0 F E I R A D D E N D U M A N A L Y S I S The parcels are disturbed and have been developed with either urban or agri- cultural uses. They are not on wildland /urban areas and are not near any airports or private airstrips, Compliance with existing federal, state, and re- gional laws and regulations, as well as goals and policies proposed in the Gen- eral Plan 2020 would reduce potential risks and impacts associated with haz- ardous materials. Project implementation would not contravene any aspects of the General Plan, including land -use designations, allowed uses, or over- sight procedures that address hazards and hazardous materials. Additionally, each project would be subject to the oversight and review processes, and standards that are envisioned by the General Plan, established within the Town Code, and /or otherwise required by the federal and state regulations. Implementation of the modified project would therefore neither cause new hazards and hazardous materials impacts nor exacerbate any existing ones. Technical changes to the hazards and hazardous materials analysis in the General Plan EIR are not required, and no new mitigation measures are re- quired. 9. Hydrology and Water Quality HYDROLOGY & WATER QUALITY; Would the a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge X requirements? b, Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or in- terfere substantially with groundwater recharge such X that there would be a net def- icit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local 33 No Additional Subsequent or Environmental Supplemental EIR Required Analysis Re uired Substantial New Change in New Mitigation Project or Information or Circumstances Showing Alternative Minor Resulting in Greater to Reduce Technical No Now Significant Significant Changes Change/ Significant Effects than Effect is or No Issues Effects Previous EIR Declined Additions Imnact HYDROLOGY & WATER QUALITY; Would the a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge X requirements? b, Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or in- terfere substantially with groundwater recharge such X that there would be a net def- icit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local 33 TOWN OF L O S G A T O S G E N E R A L P L A N 2 0 2 0 F E I R A D D E N D U M A N A L Y S I S No Additional Subsequent or Environmental Supplemental EIR Required _Analysis Required 34 Substantial New Change in New Mitigation Project or Information or Circumstances Showing Alternative Minor Resulting in Greater to Reduce Technical No New Significant Significant Changes Change/ Significant Effects than Effect is or No Issues Effects Previous EIR Declined Additions Impact groundwater table level (e,g., the production rate of pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land us- es or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? _ c. Substantially alter the exist- ing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the X course of a stream or river, in a manner which would re- sult in a substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site d, Substantially alter the exist - ing drainage pattern of the slte .or. area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, X or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff -in -a-manner which would result in flooding on- or-off-site? e, Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drain- X age systems or provide sub- stantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f. Otherwise substantially X degrade water quality? 34 TOWN OF L O S G A T O S G E N E R A L P L A N 2 0 2 0 F E I R A D D E N D U M A N A L Y S I S h, Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect X flood flows? 1. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding X as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? J, Inundation by seiche, tsu- nami, or mudflow? X Compliance with existing federal, state, and local water quality regulations, including those specified in the General Plan 2020, would minimize potential water quality violations associated with construction and operation of the modified project. Additionally, although none of the parcels are within a 100 -year flood hazard area, all of the parcels are within the inundation areas of the Lenihan and /or Vasona Dams, Therefore, allowing development on these parcels has the potential to expose structures and occupants to flood hazards in the event of dam failure. Each of these projects would be subject to the oversight and review processes, and standards that are envisioned by the General Plan, established within the Town Code, and /or otherwise re- quired by the state and federal regulations. Through the environmental re- 35 No Additional Subsequent or Environmental Supplemental EIR Required Analysis Required Substantial New Change in New Mitigation Project or Information or Circumstances Showing Alternative Minor Resulting in Greater to Reduce Technical No New Significant Significant Changes Change/ Significant Effects than Effect is or No Issues Effects Previous EIR Declined Additions Impact. g, Place housing within a 100 - year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood X Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation h, Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect X flood flows? 1. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding X as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? J, Inundation by seiche, tsu- nami, or mudflow? X Compliance with existing federal, state, and local water quality regulations, including those specified in the General Plan 2020, would minimize potential water quality violations associated with construction and operation of the modified project. Additionally, although none of the parcels are within a 100 -year flood hazard area, all of the parcels are within the inundation areas of the Lenihan and /or Vasona Dams, Therefore, allowing development on these parcels has the potential to expose structures and occupants to flood hazards in the event of dam failure. Each of these projects would be subject to the oversight and review processes, and standards that are envisioned by the General Plan, established within the Town Code, and /or otherwise re- quired by the state and federal regulations. Through the environmental re- 35 T O W N OF L O S G A T O S GE N E R A L P L A N 2 0 2 0 F E I R AD DE No U M A N A L Y S I S view process for the individual projects, additional mitigation may be re- quired to further reduce impacts and risks associated with placing the subject housing developments within dam inundation areas. Additionally, the pro- posed project modifications would not contravene any aspects of the General Plan, including land -use designations, allowed uses, or oversight procedures that address hydrology and water quality. Implementation of the modified project would therefore neither cause new hydrology or water quality im- pacts, nor exacerbate any existing ones. Technical changes to the hydrology and water quality analysis in the General Plan EIR are not required, and no new mitigation measures are required. 10. Land Use and Planning No Additional Subsequent or Environmental r Supplemental EIR Required Analysis Required 36 Substantial New Change in New Mitigation Project or Information or Circumstances Showing Alternative Minor Resulting in Greater to Reduce Technical No New Significant Significant Changes Change/ Significant Effects than Effect Is or No Issues Effects Previous EIR Declined Additions Impact _ LAND USE & PLANNING: Would the project: _ a. Physically divide an estab- X lished community? b. Conflict with any applicable land'use plan, policy, or reg- ulation of an agency with ju- risdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific X plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopt- ed for the purpose of avoid- ing or mitigating an envi- ronmental effect? c. Conflict wlill any applicable habitat conservation plan or X natural community conser- vation plan? 36 TOWN O F L O S G A T O S GENERAL P L A N 2 0 2 0 F E I R A D D E N D U M ANALYSIS The General Plan EIR found that implementation of General Plan 2020 would have a significant and unavoidable impact in regard to the conversion of unique farmland in the North Forty Specific Plan Area to urban use and that no feasible mitigation measure existed. None of the parcels are within this Specific Plan area. The modified project would not contravene any as- pects of the General Plan or of other adopted plans, including land -use desig- nations, allowed uses, or oversight procedures. Individual projects would be subject to the oversight and review processes, and standards that are envi- sioned or established by the General Plan, other applicable plans, or the Town Code. Implementation of the modified project would therefore not lead to new impacts or substantially worsen existing impacts that divide an established community, conflict with any land use plans, or conflict with any habitat plans. Technical changes to the land use and planning analysis in the General Plan EIR are not required, and no new mitigation measures are re- quired. 11. Mineral Resources b, Result in the loss of availabil- ity of a locally important mineral resource recovery X site delineated on a local gen- eral plan, specific plan or other land use plan? 37 No Additional Subsequent or Enviromnental Supplemental EIR Required Analysis Required Substantial Change in New Project or New Mitigation Circumstan Information or ces Showing Alternative Resulting Greater to Reduce Minor No in New Significant Significant Technical Change/ Significant Effects than Effect is Changes or No Issues Effects Previous EIR Declined Additions Impact MINERAL RESOURCES: Would the project: a, Result in the loss of availabil- ity of a known mineral re- source that would be a value X to the region and the resi- dents of the state? b, Result in the loss of availabil- ity of a locally important mineral resource recovery X site delineated on a local gen- eral plan, specific plan or other land use plan? 37 T O W N O F L O S G A T O S G E N E R A L P L A N 2 0 2 0 F E I R A D D E N D U M A N A L Y S I S Analysis on mineral resources was scoped out of the General Plan EIR be- cause.-it was determined that it is not significant in Los Gatos. Nonetheless, the parcels are developed with either urban or agricultural uses. These sites are not mineral extraction or recovery sites. Additionally, extraction would not be compatible with the surrounding uses of the sites. Therefore, imple- mentation of the modified project would not create a loss in availability of mineral resources. Additionally, individual projects would be subject to the oversight and - review processes, and standards that are envisioned by the Gen- eral Plan, established within the Town Code, and /or otherwise required by the federal and state regulations. Implementation of the proposed modifica- tions would therefore neither cause new mineral resource impacts, nor.exac- erbate any existing ones. No new mitigation measures are required. 12. Noise No Additional Subsequent or Environmental Supplemental EIR Required Analysis Required Substantial New Change in New Mitigation Project or Information or Circumstances Showing Alternative Minor Resulting in Greater to Reduce Technical No New Significant Significant Changes Change/ Significant Effects than Effect is or No Issues Effects Previous EIR Declined Additions Impact NOISE: Would the project: a. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards estab- lished in the local general X plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b, Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive X groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity X above levels existing without the protect? 38 TOWN O F L O S G A T O S G E N E R A L P L A N 2 0 2 0 F E I R A D D E N D U M A N A L Y S I S Construction and operation of the modified project would generate both temporary and permanent noise and vibration impacts. Compliance with the goals, policies, and actions of the General Plan, the Town's Noise Ordinance and California Noise Insulation Standards would control these impacts. Indi- vidual projects would be subject to the oversight and review processes, and standards that are envisioned by the General Plan, established within the Town Code, and /or otherwise required by the federal and state regulations. Additionally, the modified project would not contravene any aspects of the General Plan, including land -use designations, allowed site uses, noise limits, or other restrictions that address noise and vibration impacts. Implementa- 39 No Additional Subsequent or Environmental Supplemental EIR Required Analysis Required Substantial New Change in New Mitigation Project or Information or Circumstances Showing Alternative Minor Resulting in Greater to Reduce Technical No New Significant Significant Changes Change/ Significant Effects than Effect is or No Issues Effects Previous EIR Declined Additions Impact d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vi- X cinity above levels existing without the project? e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the X project expose people resid- ing or working in the pro- ject area to excessive noise levels? f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working X in the project area to exces- sive noise levels? Construction and operation of the modified project would generate both temporary and permanent noise and vibration impacts. Compliance with the goals, policies, and actions of the General Plan, the Town's Noise Ordinance and California Noise Insulation Standards would control these impacts. Indi- vidual projects would be subject to the oversight and review processes, and standards that are envisioned by the General Plan, established within the Town Code, and /or otherwise required by the federal and state regulations. Additionally, the modified project would not contravene any aspects of the General Plan, including land -use designations, allowed site uses, noise limits, or other restrictions that address noise and vibration impacts. Implementa- 39 T O W N OF L O S G A T O S GENERAL P L A N 2 0 2 0 F E I R A D D E N D U M A N A L Y S I S tion of the modified project would therefore neither cause new noise impacts, nor exacerbate any existing ones, Technical changes to the noise and vibra- tion analysis in the General Plan EIR are not required, and no new mitigation measures are required. 13, Population and Housing No Additional Subsequent or Environmental Supplemental EIR Required Analysis Required b. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessi- tating the construction of re- X placement housing else- where?. c, Displace substantial numbers of people; necessitating the X construction of replacement housing elsewhere? The modified project would result in an increase of 8 dwelling units and ap- proximately 19 persons above what was previously analyzed in the General 40 Substantial New Change in New Mitigation Project or Information or Circumstances Showing Alternative Minor Resulting in Greater to Reduce Technical No New Significant Significant Changes Change / Significant Effects than Effect is or No Issues Effects Previous EIR Declined Additions Impact _ POPULATION & HOUSING: Would the ro ect: _ e __ a. Induce substantial popula- tion growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and X businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastruc- b. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessi- tating the construction of re- X placement housing else- where?. c, Displace substantial numbers of people; necessitating the X construction of replacement housing elsewhere? The modified project would result in an increase of 8 dwelling units and ap- proximately 19 persons above what was previously analyzed in the General 40 TOWN O F L O S G A T O S G E N E R A L P L A N 2 0 2 0 F E I R A D D E N D U M ANALYSIS Plan EIR.' These eight units would not induce population growth in Los Gatos, Rather, they would provide additional housing needs to meet the de- mands associated with the Town's projected job growth. Additionally, as none of the parcels on which the AHOZ would allow residential develop- ment contains existing housing, implementation of the modified project would not displace any existing houses or people. The modified project would not contravene any aspects of the General Plan, including land -use designations and allowed building intensities that could impact population and housing, Implementation of the modified project would therefore nei- ther cause new population and housing impacts, nor exacerbate any existing ones. Technical changes to the population and housing analysis in the Gen- eral Plan EIR are not required, and no new mitigation measures are required, 14. Public Services 1 Assuming 2.37 persons per household, based on State of California, Department of Finance, E -5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties and the State, 2009. 41 No Additional Subsequent or Environmental Supplemental EIR Required Analysis Required Substantial New Change in New Mitigation Project or Information or Circumstances Showing Alternative Minor Resulting In Greater to Reduce Technical No New Significant Significant Changes Change/ Significant Effects than Effect is or No Issues Effects Previous EIR Declined Additions Impact PUBLIC SERVICES; Would the project result in substan- tial adverse- physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmen- tal impacts, in order to main- tain acceptable service ratios, response times or other peer- 1 Assuming 2.37 persons per household, based on State of California, Department of Finance, E -5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties and the State, 2009. 41 TOWN OF L O S G A T O S G E N E R A L P L A N 2 0 2 0 F E I R A D D E N D U M A N A L Y S I S b. Police protection? X c, Schools? X d. Parks? X e, Other public facilities? X The modified project would incrementally increase the need for fire and law enforcement services in the northern portion of Town, However, as fire and police services operate on mutual aid agreements and the modified project would slightly increase the number of dwelling units by eight, both the Santa Clara Fire Department and Los Gatos /Monte Sereno Police Department would be able to continue providing fire and law enforcement protection services. Costs associated with the increased demand would be offset by rev- enue from additional property taxes from new developments. Additionally, the General Plan 2020 includes goals, policies, and actions that improve re- sponse times and support the activities of the fire and police departments, Adherence to the General Plan would reduce potential impacts to fire and law enforcement services to levels below significance. With the removal of the AHCZ designation from the Swanson Ford, South Bay Honda, and Dittos Lane sites, which are in the Los Gatos Union School District and Los Gatos - Saratoga Joint Union High School District bounda- 42 No Additional Subsequent or Environmental Supplemental EIR Required Analysis Required Substantial New Change in New Mitigation Project or Information or Circumstances Showing Alternative Minor Resulting in Greater to Reduce Technical No New Significant Significant Changes Change/ Significant Effects than Effect Is or No Issues Effects Previous EIR Declined Additions Impact formance objectives for any of the public services: a. Fire protection? X b. Police protection? X c, Schools? X d. Parks? X e, Other public facilities? X The modified project would incrementally increase the need for fire and law enforcement services in the northern portion of Town, However, as fire and police services operate on mutual aid agreements and the modified project would slightly increase the number of dwelling units by eight, both the Santa Clara Fire Department and Los Gatos /Monte Sereno Police Department would be able to continue providing fire and law enforcement protection services. Costs associated with the increased demand would be offset by rev- enue from additional property taxes from new developments. Additionally, the General Plan 2020 includes goals, policies, and actions that improve re- sponse times and support the activities of the fire and police departments, Adherence to the General Plan would reduce potential impacts to fire and law enforcement services to levels below significance. With the removal of the AHCZ designation from the Swanson Ford, South Bay Honda, and Dittos Lane sites, which are in the Los Gatos Union School District and Los Gatos - Saratoga Joint Union High School District bounda- 42 TOWN OF L O S G A T O S G E N E R A L P L A N 2 0 2 0 F E I R A D D E N D U M ANALYSIS ries, the number of students previously projected to attend these districts would be reduced. Similarly, with the net increase of 135 AHOZ designated units at the Los Gatos Courthouse and Southbay Development sites, which are in the Campbell Union School District and Campbell Union High School District, 41 additional students above that projected in the General Plan EIR are expected to attend these districts.Z The additional students would further exacerbate existing conditions at both CUSD and CUHSD, as both districts are already operating at or in excess of their capacity. The proposed project modifications may require new facilities to house the projected students, The need for additional school services is addressed by compliance with school impact assessment fees per Senate Bill 50. Pursuant to Section 65996(3)(h) of the California Government Code, Payment of these fees is considered full and complete mitigation that would offset impacts from the increased demand for school facilities, Development of the additional eight dwelling units would also incrementally increase the need for additional park space and library facilities. The General Plan contains goals, policies, and actions that ensure adequate and accessible park and open space and trail systems are provided and that Los Gatos resi- dents have sufficient access to library services and facilities. Compliance with these regulations would reduce impacts associated with the modified project to less than significant levels. Implementation of the modified project would not contravene any aspects of the General Plan, including land -use designations and allowed building inten- sities that could impact demand for Town services. Therefore, project im- plementation would neither cause new impacts in regard to provision of Town services, nor exacerbate any existing ones. Technical changes to the public services analysis in the General Plan EIR are not required, and no new mitigation measures are required. a Based on a 0,305 student generation rate for affordable apartments included in Draft 2010 Student Generation Rates Study, March 2010, prepared by Jeanette C. Justus Associates. 43 TOW N O F L O S G A T O S G E N E R A L P LA N 2 0 2 0 F E I R AD DE N D UM A N A L Y S I S 15, Recreation RECREATION: a. Would the project increase the use of existing neighbor- hood and regional parks or other recreational facilities X such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerat- ed? b. Does the project include recreational facilities or re- quire the construction or expansion of recreational fa- X cilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? The net eight additional dwelling units that would be created from the modi- fied project would generate 19 additional residents that would require access to park and open space and recreational facilities. As discussed above, the General Plan contains goals, policies, and actions that ensures adequate and accessible park and open space and trail systems are provided. Expansion of park and recreational facilities would have the potential to result in environ- mental impacts. However, as concluded in the General Plan EIR, with ad- herence to existing regulations and policies of the General Plan 2020, impacts would be less than significant. Implementation of the modified project would therefore neither cause new impacts in regard to recreational opportuni- ties /facilities, nor exacerbate any existing ones, Technical changes to the rec- 44 No Additional Subsequent or Environmental Supplemental EIR Required Analysis Required Substantial New Change in New Mitigation Project or Information or Circumstances Showing Alternative Minor Resulting in Greater to Reduce Technical No New Significant Significant Changes Change/ Significant Effects than Effect is or No Issues Effects Previous EIR Declined Additions Impact RECREATION: a. Would the project increase the use of existing neighbor- hood and regional parks or other recreational facilities X such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerat- ed? b. Does the project include recreational facilities or re- quire the construction or expansion of recreational fa- X cilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? The net eight additional dwelling units that would be created from the modi- fied project would generate 19 additional residents that would require access to park and open space and recreational facilities. As discussed above, the General Plan contains goals, policies, and actions that ensures adequate and accessible park and open space and trail systems are provided. Expansion of park and recreational facilities would have the potential to result in environ- mental impacts. However, as concluded in the General Plan EIR, with ad- herence to existing regulations and policies of the General Plan 2020, impacts would be less than significant. Implementation of the modified project would therefore neither cause new impacts in regard to recreational opportuni- ties /facilities, nor exacerbate any existing ones, Technical changes to the rec- 44 TOWN OF L O S G A T O S GENERAL PLAN 2020 FEIR ADDENDUM A N A L Y S I S reation analysis in the General Plan EIR are not required, and no new mitiga- tion measures are required, 16. Traffic 45 No Additional Subsequent or Environmental Supplemental EIR Required Analysis Required_ Substantial New Change in New Mitigation Project or Information or Circumstances Showing Alternative Resulting Greater to Reduce Minor No in New Significant Significant Technical Change/ Significant Effects than Effect is Changes or No Issues Effects Previous EIR Declined Additions Impact TRAFFIC: Would the project: a. Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy es- tablishing measures of effec- tiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation in- cluding mass transit and X non - motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersec- tions, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bi- cycle paths, and mass transit? b. Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards X established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including ei- ther an increase in traffic levels or a change in location X that results in substantial safety risks? 45 TOWN OF L O S G A T O S GENERAL P L A N 2 0 2 0 F E I R A D D E N D U M A N A L Y S I S Kimley -Horn Associates, traffic engineers for the 2020 General Plan and EIR, were retained to update the traffic impact analysis since the modified project would intensify the amount of development allowed in the northern portion of the Town on the five parcels that comprise the Los Gatos Courthouse, Southbay Development and Oka Road sites. a, Existing Conditions Traffic operations, under current 2012 traffic conditions, were evaluated at 25 signalized and unsignalized intersections selected by Town staff. These intersections were selected based on their location primarily in the northern part of the Town since the two parcels on which allowed density would be increased, Southbay Development and Los Gatos Courthouse, are located in this area of town, Some of the intersections evaluated in the 2008 Housing Element update that are located in the southern part of Town were not 46 No Additional Subsequent or Environmental Supplemental EIR Required Analysis Required Substantial New Change in New Mitigation Project or Information or Circumstances Showing Alternative Resulting Greater to Reduce Minor No In New Significant Significant Technical Change/ Significant Effects than Effect is Changes or No Issues Effects Previous EIR Declined Additions Impact d, Substantially increase haz- ards due to a design feature (e.g„ sharp curves or dan- X gerous intersections) or in- compatible uses (e,g„ farm equipment)? e. Result in inadequate emer- X gency access? f. Conflict with adopted poli- cies, plans, or programs re- garding public transit, bicy- cle, or pedestrian facilities, X or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? _ Kimley -Horn Associates, traffic engineers for the 2020 General Plan and EIR, were retained to update the traffic impact analysis since the modified project would intensify the amount of development allowed in the northern portion of the Town on the five parcels that comprise the Los Gatos Courthouse, Southbay Development and Oka Road sites. a, Existing Conditions Traffic operations, under current 2012 traffic conditions, were evaluated at 25 signalized and unsignalized intersections selected by Town staff. These intersections were selected based on their location primarily in the northern part of the Town since the two parcels on which allowed density would be increased, Southbay Development and Los Gatos Courthouse, are located in this area of town, Some of the intersections evaluated in the 2008 Housing Element update that are located in the southern part of Town were not 46 TOWN O F L O S G A T O S G E N E R A L P L A N 2 0 2 0 F E I R A D D E N D U M A N A L Y S I S selected for evaluation by Town staff since they did not meet the Valley Transportation Authority threshold of significance for traffic impact analysis. The intersections evaluated for this Addendum are shown on Figure 2, Study Intersections, Existing intersection lane configurations and traffic controls are illustrated in Figure 3, Existing Lane Geometry and Traffic Control. Traffic signals in the study area are located at all study intersections. Weekday intersection turning movement volumes were collected at project study area intersections in Spring and Fall of 2012. Volumes were collected during weekday AM and PM peak periods when local schools were in session. The turning movement volumes mainly utilized counts that were conducted in Spring 2012 for recent traffic impact studies within the Town that occurred during weekday periods when local schools were in session. Existing 2012 turning movement volumes are shown in Figure 4, Existing Peak Hour Turning Movement Volumes, Results of the updated LOS analysis for 2012 existing conditions are presented in Table 4, Existing Level of Service Summary, along with the minimum jurisdictional standard for acceptable levels of service and current traffic control at each intersection. b. Circulation System Capacity Evaluation Methodology Consistent with the evaluation methodology of the 2008 Housing Element in the 2020 General Plan EIR, the long range travel demand model (the "model ") maintained by VTA was utilized to complete this analysis of the traffic im- pacts of the AHOZ. Since the previous update utilized the 2005 (baseline) and 2030 horizon years, these analysis years and their output was retained for use in this 2012 analysis. A summary of the updates completed in 2008 of the VTA model and future traffic generators for use in the 2020 General Plan EIR is included below: 47 T O W N OF L O S G A T O S G E N E R A L P L A N 2 0 2 0 F E I R A D D E N D U M A N A L Y S I S TABLE 4 EXISTING LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY W. Existing AM PM Int. Existing Town Delay Delay Critical # Intersection Control Criteria LOS (Seconds) LOS (Seconds) Approach(es) 1 Winchester Blvd. & Knowles Dr, Signal D C 29,8 D+ 35.4 NB, SB 2 Winchester Blvd. & Hwy 85 NB Signal D B+ 11,3 B 16.3 SB On -Ramp 3 Winchester Blvd. & Hwy 85 NB Signal D B 15,9 B 12.2 NB Off -Ramp 4 Winchester Blvd, & Lark Ave, Signal D C+ 21.0 C+ 21.6 WB, SB 5 Lark Ave. & Oka Rd. Signal D B- 19.3 B- 18.4 WB 6 Lark Ave. & Hwy 17 SB Ramps - Signal D C 23,3 C 26,3 WB, EB Garden Hill Dr, 7 Lark Ave. & Hwy 17 NB Ramps Signal D B 16.5 D 49,1 WB 8 Los Gatos Blvd, & Samaritan Dr. Signal D C 30,5 C- 34,5 NB, WB 9 Los Gatos Blvd, & Lark Ave, Signal D D+ 35.8 C 31,7 NB, EB 10 Los Gatos Blvd. & Blossom Hill Rd, Signal D D+ 35.1 C- 34.4 WB 11 Los Gatos Blvd. & Roberts Rd, - Signal D C 30,1 C+ 22.5 SB, NB Shannon Rd, 19 _ Santa Cruz - Winchester Blvd, & Signal D C 30.1 C 27.9 WB, NB Blossom Hill - Mariposa Ave. v 20 Blossom Hill Rd. & E. Roberts Rd, Signal D C+ 20,3 B 13,8 EB 24 Winchester Blvd. & Daves Ave. Signal D C+ 20.5 B 14,8 SB 25 Lark Ave, & University Ave. Signal D C+ 20,0 C 25,9 NB 26 Pollard Rd, & More Ave, Signal D C+ 20.8 C 25,0 WB, EB 27 Knowles Dr. & Dardanelli Lane Signal D B+ 10,3 B 17.6 WB, EB 28 Winchester Blvd, & WimbledonDs. Signal D B- 19,9 ..B 14.7 NB, SB 29 Los Gatos Blvd. & Hwy 85 SB Ramps Signal D B+ 11.0 C 23,9 NB 30 Los Gatos Blvd. & Garden Gateway Signal D B- 18,2 B- 18.1 NB, SB 31 Los Gatos Blvd, & Los Gatos Village Signal D A 6,4 B 14,6 NB, SB Square _ 32 Los Gatos Blvd, & Almaden Rd. - Signal D C 24,6 C 24.1 NB Chirco Dr. 34 Blossom Hill Rd, & University Ave, Signal D C+ 22,1 C 25.2 WB, EB 35 Blossom Hill Rd, & W. Roberts Rd. Signal D B+ 11.8. B 12,3 WB, EB 4U Winchester Boulevard & Albright Way Side Street Stop D A 0.5 A 0,5 WB, EB Worst Approach Control C 17.7 B 13.6 W. AFB BiIRIINfi /0 PLIHi5EOM8 PIIOR'Ot1pt6M fitR TOWN OP L06 -.T ON NERAL PLAN 1- 11- ADPItA'O- ANALY515 FIGURE 1 PROJECT LOCATION AN. STUDY INTERSEC'CtONS —N, .1, I.GS GAT., GIINERA I. I'I.AN i0i° I'1.IR AV II R ND V°I AN A I. 1511 Seu:ce:7Simlry -Ham .nd A+iuv+b, Inc., 2Gtx. FIGURE ) EXISTING CONDITION - LANE GROMETRY AND TRAFFIC CONTROL r— me_mo,4 r and7d' ,c. rAdsaabR.^_. 11 1111 r, °a a •~—. Ia4AW T— qqq _ ,. %' � F•. !J A.iil.$ / � 115 b I b g s�.�,`, � •�B5• �UkAw_ J. ll..l.` 9 �:xsa 9e¢anMReO ir% ti�iir �,. /' +l: `�l, 1 i,•� � �� W�., � �., Nsa3i y,.• ...1� , , }�, ' ! `� .. g " ,eMkm_ .%11 `� 9 T°Y m+a,n Mi liir .%11 i� 9 '' W4Aeu us-. 11tY x F �~tr ear € s PIN r HiF— s=•s titY �-� ,sr� �r �" -��tt ° °'1 �Yr p� o ,,1,, �� ,zs �i,�'.. I �°Y rrc,rmw.,: sl l �.�, 9 E'Jr` j,. '.f b°.. .� ,, i.7 �" >., f �� a.m„n�nt l.✓ I � r / I a � 1 . ` re.ewnoM 1i1 ✓� 11 �i 9 'J.' maul.. 1ti y/ Ti �iy / '• ... 7 8EF b � 11 4 SI '� bQ'oYl4ith 8 % 111 �• 9� _._ ._ :: �:R � .% 14. - M1nm Mhm �xla B +M_Pai ' Y� 1, y. � .� ;/ �`•'` "t '' ® sae 2/1 ..� "aazcrxxsso NINE J •, y/ r....J ��`. :' /� ( (,� h... ` \\ f , 1WFila°IX4 ,e � �!L-. v� i nm Seu:ce:7Simlry -Ham .nd A+iuv+b, Inc., 2Gtx. FIGURE ) EXISTING CONDITION - LANE GROMETRY AND TRAFFIC CONTROL T010N OF LOI GATOP GIS h'E RA I, PLAN 3010 FAIR ARPItNO UAI 85< e! onJ! .vC ` �`.. / / � g4h0kb �� u / '...f... _•.. 111 ..t J 4 ,q ✓ A ' �ul'w t r J 14 BiU�BORUp r r 61*6 U1mP �1� KIM 11 r,aet�n bi/10 J 4 a N n �( , �� 1 1 r t r ,,, tlnJ J ••'l..y..! ,�' 1 1> °�€i ,n.;�w�..,,,...;...' � , i ``*,., f ...�Q£ f: . �. �� >... ...,� ! , ; �•.� .� .�,..... ?..... :- S '% y` •4 ....I ® F`I�Sb% f 1 6 �i�lt rXUI �A,a,. 6XWj✓ 4 �',0616T81 °"t�Pi 6 �A,.". YbSi'P,Ilidx j • �°- 514F2I� �gy+• � e— Stllal J 1 4 9 ,r•,cqur, LP�R.1 /QMI -� x`+ 8 .— J 1119 ��, pi ✓ a L• �^ � w Iam J � 4 s � J pig qtr FMM r 1 �, S ., � �t.,H�� t j'Ar.rv. / 17 �c .-•ell J 14 s �-+�m 1 a nnm +-- ,ala�l 1' 1 r+raro m wro Yff mn xs� 101 SSl r A ,_...,...:' ...T (. � `(```.� •, n.mr' 1 %`91 �=� I mF%-�l tit .� VV 1 Hii Po.a `� �j /"°"law" r PAN, L } j •.'� s E¢ i d. SS `"o� / �� ,�-, M il g� N- uKii J14 w..G,m, JJ xua,mllb. . B! 14s � y4) Jlls �w,ot •�C,/ �r j G i...?, �; .,. 'y...Y_r�1•• n + 1, � a,� w(l3s), E ,I-, rg 4v1' tit r a . � 4�' ` `J: /fib, ,,��) �.,oP�,E /+ �•onvw. \``7••• /,( /�/ i/� �yy� ,�'�.•,, ✓ `�.._...� d-yl7 < ✓y/"- 7.1*1- Nrz�e ma7,zPPf10EOf101ffiiE A14H1FFACfOl1, ��(sj• � � —v7(IW) � T 1- '�HG � a p6 F ww,a FIGURE 4 EXISTING CONDITION - AM /PM PEAK HOUR TURNING MOVEMENT VOLUMES TOWN OF L O S G A T O S G E N E R A L PLAN 2 0 2 0 F E I R A D D E N D U M ANALYSIS ® In order to accurately analyze the potential traffic impacts of the pro- posed Draft 2020 General Plan, multiple Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZs) in the VTA model were modified. These changes include an increase in residential dwelling units /density, as well as the addition of commercial uses, in order to reflect proposed new uses on the potential housing sites and the North Forty site. VTA was able to incorporate these changes and rerun the 2030 model for use in the evaluation of the Draft General Plan 2020. ® Since there is not a VTA model run available for the year 2020, the hori- zon year of the proposed Draft General Plan 2020, specific adjustments were made to the VTA model to forecast traffic conditions in 2020 in- stead of 2030. The VTA model growth between 2005 and 2030 is pre- sumed to occur in a generally linear pattern, with a uniform, incremental growth rate added each year. From the two model runs for 2005 and 2030, annual growth rates were calculated for the model roadway seg- ments (links), The following planned developments were not included in the VTA model and were therefore manually added to the adjusted 2020 intersec- tion turning movement volumes to reflect the planned condition: o 14881 National Avenue and 14830 Los Gatos Boulevard: 20,600- square -foot medical office building 15400 Los Gatos Boulevard: 30,000 square feet of medical office and 10,000 square feet of high turn -over sit down restaurant, Albright Way Development: 300,000 square feet of general office was added to the VTA model TAZ that includes this project. Some amount of general office use was already included in this TAZ, but not at the intensity proposed by the Albright Way Development. It is not anticipated that the overall amount of general office uses will increase throughout the Town. Therefore, in order to evaluate the potential traffic impacts, 300,000 square feet of general office was relocated from two nearby TAZs into the Albright Way TAZ to better understand potential localized traffic issues resulting from the new office devel- opment. 53 T O W N OF L O S G A T O S G E N E R A L P L A N 2 0 2 0 F E I R A D D E N D U M A N A L Y S I S Eight years of growth were added to existing 2012 conditions to obtain 2020 link volumes during the AM and PM peak hours, and future, balanced peak - hour intersection turning movement volumes were projected based on existing trip patterns and existing and future link volumes, Then, the year 2020 link volumes were converted to year 2020 peak -hour intersection turning movement volumes, as shown in Figure 4, in order to allow direct comparison to the existing condition turning movement volumes. Planned 2020 intersection lane configurations and traffic controls are illustrated in Figure 5, 2020 Lane Geometry and Traffic Control: c. Project Impacts This analysis evaluates the turning movement volumes that would result from the potential land use changes that would be allowed under the implementation of the proposed AHOZ, as compared to the approved project analyzed in the 2020 General Plan Draft EIR. It is based on the VTA model traffic forecasts adjusted to year 2020. Trip generation for the project sites was calculated using trip generation rates from the industry standard reference, the Institute of Transportation Engineer's Trip Generation, 8th Edition. For each site, an apartment land use was used for determining rates. Table 5, Change in Trips Generated by Site since Draft General Plan EIR, shows the change in the number of trips generated for each site in the AM and PM peak hours as a result of the modified project. Table 5 includes the single - .parcel Bentley site, which was listed as a potential housing site in the Draft EIR on the 2020 General Plan but was removed from consideration prior to the certification of the Final EIR. This is because the change in trip generation that would have resulted from removal of the Bentley site was not significant enough to change the impact findings of the traffic analysis in the Draft EIR, It should be noted that the parcels where allowed density would be increased through the AHOZ are in the northern part of town and the parcels that would be removed from consideration as AHOZ sites are in the southern part of town. 54 iD T OE I.DS I,- OI:N6RA 1. PLAN i0.i0 I; F.IR AR O RN•D VAI FIGURE 5 2U20 CONDITION . LANE GLOMETRY AND T'RAFF IO CONTROL I � I Ipp N } } J, I.II ................. latkna..�.. Y.?�L'x;!x.y, 1R' il•bl:iLvi y.. yy �� 7!M. s i .... .. ., r P -\ .y . A � ... $ .. ...... .. .7- birof} ff}nttMn .......... ... ... ......... ®42Nns. �WW7 ;?fRvt hr . r, , : _ 0M A Vy i k i�l7i^ 6 7J I t - tsS l3• Tsx S4, j - L''..l ......�.W..L93�4 qy r r ��r •ce,r� r{ ., C n�� I i ri i 1 i r 6 .( ..., .«n + . r,.� yal._. m� or: � ..... _. n n, i� '�S � �r ........ .s , l ' w a, Or- .. ��.. y ..'.I s+?+ � i ® . ............. '� ':+ � !' ..;% is •� .� � +r ,. � eroaA �. : � � ... 1 � i � !a: 4 ` %' 4 � I I r GOTE:ShIA0E01NTERGEGTI0N5 REFLECT UNGHAMGEO �/. CONDRIONSFROMEXISIINGCONDMONS 9 z PE FIGURE 5 2U20 CONDITION . LANE GLOMETRY AND T'RAFF IO CONTROL TOWN Or L O S G A T O S G E N E R A L P L A N 2 0 2 0 F E I R A D D E N D U M A N A L Y S I S TABLE 5 CHANGE IN DRIPS GENERATED BY SITE SINCE DRAFT GENERAL FLAN EIR All traffic evaluations were completed utilizing the Traffix software package, similar to the 2020 GP update, Traffix is the prescribed software evaluation tool in the VTA Traffic Level of Service Analysis Guidelines, which set forth variables for model setup and the evaluation methodology of the Highway Capacity Manual 2000. Results of this analysis at each of the study intersections can be seen in Figures 6 and 7, which illustrate peak hour turning movement volumes under cumulative conditions in the year 2020, both with and without the implementation of the proposed AHOZ. Results of the LOS analysis are presented in Table 7 along with the minimum standard for acceptable LOS and the planned 2020 traffic control at each 57 Trips ITE Land Use AM Peak PM Peak Site Name Category Units In Out Total In Out Total Proposed AHOZ Sites Los Gatos Courthouse Apartment 21 2 9 11 8 5 13 (single parcel) Southbay Development Apartment 114 12 46 58 46 25 71 (single parcel) Oka Road (three parcels) Apartment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sites Removed from Consideration Swanson Ford (single parcel) Apartment -57 -6 -23 -29 -23 -12 -35 Bentley (single parcel) Apartment -52 -5 -22 -27 -21 -11 -32 South Bay Honda (two parcels) Apartment -38 -4 -15 -19 -16 -8 -24 Dittos Lane (single parcel) Apartment -32 -3 -13 -16 -13 -7 -20 Total -4 -18 -22 -19 -8 -27 All traffic evaluations were completed utilizing the Traffix software package, similar to the 2020 GP update, Traffix is the prescribed software evaluation tool in the VTA Traffic Level of Service Analysis Guidelines, which set forth variables for model setup and the evaluation methodology of the Highway Capacity Manual 2000. Results of this analysis at each of the study intersections can be seen in Figures 6 and 7, which illustrate peak hour turning movement volumes under cumulative conditions in the year 2020, both with and without the implementation of the proposed AHOZ. Results of the LOS analysis are presented in Table 7 along with the minimum standard for acceptable LOS and the planned 2020 traffic control at each 57 TOW N OF LOS GATOS G E N E R A L P L A N 2 0 2 0 F E I R A D D E N D U M A N A L Y S I S intersection, As shown in Table 6, 2020 Level of Service Summary, Adopted General Plan 2020, and Table 7, 2020 Level of Service Summary with Proposed AHOZ, all study intersections operate acceptably (at LOS D or better) under General Plan 2020 and General Plan 2020 plus AHOZ conditions, The adopted General Plan 2020 includes a number of policies to address future impacts to the capacity of the roadway system, as described on pages 4.13 -29 and 4.13 -30 of the General Plan 2020 Draft EIR, All structures, programs, and projects pursued under the proposed AHOZ would continue to be subject to the oversight and review processes, and standards that are envisioned or established by the General Plan, other applicable plans, or the Town Code, Additionally, all road projects would continue to be subject to Caltrans standards and Caltrans would maintain its current jurisdiction over particular roadways, Implementation of the proposed AHOZ would therefore not create or exacerbate conflicts with any adopted plans policies or programs, including congestion management plans, nor would it result in altered flight patterns, reduced emergency access, or increased hazards. As discussed above, the Albright Way Development is currently completing a project - specific EIR, which will identify the need for a the installation of a traffic signal along Winchester Boulevard in order to mitigate traffic impacts of that project. This mitigation measure would be required as a condition of approval of the project, The traffic evaluation in this Addendum is based on the assumption that the Albright Way Development is approved and that the traffic signal at Winchester Boulevard is installed as required. With the addition of the new traffic signal, the intersection would operate acceptably, and no impact would occur. If the Albright Way Development is not approved, the existing side - street stop control at the Winchester Boulevard/ Albright Way intersection would operate, acceptably with the addition of traffic from the AHOZ parcels, never exceeding LOS C with 22,0 seconds of delay, The General Plan EIR found that implementation of General Plan 2020 would have a significant and unavoidable impact in regard to traffic and 58 TOWN ➢P L➢d DAiD6 DIiNYRAI, PLAN ]4]a PYIP A ➢DPND VAI 4�..��s '• tl� Rfmwmmn re _IPAAa� • n`erm➢suy •� w,�iw �.�k•.. 4. , ......,,.... it( mrf% °°.,, 6,,,� r 5 ,,,, �� j � Via. ♦ � 1..��: ,,yn� � l� any , �° B r § a 1� -• I r r Fri tit r r rr . 1' ",N, r• � `� °' %i ��jr7,� � , r w (Y:: � l °, IL�,R>m It( �.�. a I ti r r �,,re� @;_. - tvm"r�➢, w�. / �� F, oa qtr 'I,nO{� -,rir� 5T uapA� -,rtp a+ _ tigtr ••, E��' \ •t` � f Y< Ply d M1 nW 6e m % a ,(r, r ( ., ��., j( /./ a c, ��' -• S a �� ti § r•+aw 1 t r E J 14 rxw � 14 s B J 1 � "�nj Fill J 14 s �' �� j `, .t ; 6��+� „ � � t r ti r ,n �; t r z MUM ', i r..�.._,.....� ✓,• J% 1 49 rtV, b°m'= a�1°4°r of f 1 U r°rnt°ial AVmftm va_l J 1 L Ifs K , rarb% ,/� . 7fC � D °I101➢Gp i t r Ip �,� a� In i 1 r 760m0)': 5 t f r r FIGURE 6 CUMULATIVE 2020 CONDITION • AM /YM PEAK HOUR TURNING MOVEMENT VULUMEY I N . 11 1. . . AT .1 )I NE R A I. KLAN T PEI. AD I'll ND VII ", LY515 5_1 FIGURE 7 CUMULATIVE 202U PLUS PROJECT CONDIl ION • AM /PM PEAK HOUR TURNING MOVEMENT VOLUMES FN E A. ffffj 7 ( � Mom) M5: logo*— N i IM K 3 1 R E axl_ 9q t r A tit r: r ajH! t r 204 awl T, f ig 7L ilk jig Q42 4 (43)~ tr 5_1 FIGURE 7 CUMULATIVE 202U PLUS PROJECT CONDIl ION • AM /PM PEAK HOUR TURNING MOVEMENT VOLUMES TOWN OF L O S G A T O S GENERAL PLAN 2020 FE IR ADDENDUM ANALYSIS TABLE 6 2020 LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY: ADOPTED GENERAL {ALAN 2020 General Plan 2020 Int. 0 1 2 Intersection Winchester Blvd. & Knowles Dr, Winchester Blvd, & Hwy 85 NB On- Ramp Future Control Signal Signal Town Criteria LOS D C D B AM Delay 31,4 16.6 LOS D+ C+ PM Delay 37.1 21.9 Critical Approach(es) SB, EB SB 3 Winchester Blvd, & Hwy 85 NB Off -Ramp Signal D B 18.4 B 14.1 NB, SB 4 Winchester. Blvd, & Lark Ave. Signal D C 24.1 C 24,9 WB, SB 5 Lark Ave. & Oka Rd. Signal D C+ 21.2 B 16.8 WB 6 Lark Ave, & Hwy 17 SB Ramps - Garden Hill Dr. Signal D D+ 36.7 D 48.5 WB, EB 7 Lark Ave. & Hwy 17 NB Ramps Signal D B 16.1 B 14.9 WB 8 Los Gatos Blvd. & Samaritan Dr. Signal D C 28.9 C 31.9 NB, SB, WB 9 Los Gatos Blvd. & Lark Ave. Signal D D 41.0 D 42.1 NB, SB 10 Los Gatos Blvd. & Blossom Hill Rd, Signal D D+ 36.3 D+ 35.5 NB, SB 11 Los Gatos Blvd, & Roberts Rd. - Shannon Rd, Signal D C- 33.3 C 23.7 NB 19�Santa I Cruz - Winchester Blvd, & Blossom Hill - Mariposa Ave. Signal D C- 32.2 C 30.4 WB, NB 20 Blossom Hill Rd. & E. Roberts Rd, Signal D C+ 21.0 B 16.1 EB 24 Winchester Blvd. & Daves Ave, Signal D C+ 20.1 B 17.0 SB 25 26 Lark Ave. & University Ave. Pollard Rd. & More Ave. Signal Signal D D C+ C+ 21.4 20.7 C C 26.4 25,6 WB, EB WB e 27 Knowles Dr. & Dardanelli Lane Signal D B 12.2 B 13.3 WB 28 Winchester Blvd. & Wimbledon Dr. Signal D C 24.5 B 15.1 NB, SB 29 Los Gatos Blvd. & Hwy 85 SB Ramps Signal D B+ 11.0 C 30,3 NB, EB 30 Los Gatos Blvd, & Garden Gateway Signal D C+ 20.4 B 17.4 NB, SB 31 Los Gatos Blvd. & Los Gatos Village Square Signal D B+ 11.6 B 14.8 NB 32 Los Gatos Blvd. & Almaden Rd. - Chirco Dr, Signal D C 25.2 C 24.4 SB 34 Blossom Hill Rd. & University Ave. Signal D C+ 22.4 C 24.8 WB, EB 35 Blossom Hill Rd. & W Roberts Rd. Signal D B 14.7 B- 19.3 WB, EB 40 Winchester Boulevard & Albright Way Signal D A 7.4 C 23.2 WB Note: The Albright Way Development is currently completing a project specific EIR. That independent EIR, proposes a traffic signal as project mitigation for transportation impacts at Winchester Boulevard /Albright Way intersection ant #40) • This mitigation measure would be required as a condition of project approval. Therefore, the traffic analysis for this Addendum assumes the future traffic signal as a completed improvement. If the Albright Way Development is not approved, the current side - street stop control at the intersection would operate sufficiently to meet the Town's acceptable LOS threshold, and no impact would occur, 61 TOWN OF L O S G A T O S G E N E R A L P L A N 2 0 2 0 F E I R A D D E N D U M A N A L Y S I S TABLE 7 2020 LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY WITH PROPOSED / HOZ Int, Intersection Future Control Town Criteria General Plan 2020 + 2012 Proposed AHOZ Adjustments AM PM LOS Delay LOS Delay Critical Approach(es) _# 1 Winchester Blvd, & Knowles Dr, Signal D C 31.7 D+ 37,6 SB, EB 2 Winchester Blvd, & Hwy 85 NB On -Ramp Signal D B 16.8 C+ 21.8 SB 3 Winchester Blvd, & Hwy 85 NB Off -Ramp Signal D B- 18.3 B 14,1 NB, SB 4 Winchester Blvd, &.Lark Ave. Signal D C 24,0 C 24.8 WB, SB 5 Lark Ave, & Oka Rd, Signal D C+ 21,1 B 16.8 WB 6 Lark Ave. & Hwy 17 SB Ramps - Garden Hill Dr. Signal D D+ 36,5 D 48.5 WB, EB 7 Lark Ave, & Hwy 17 NB Ramps Signal D B 16,2 B 15,0 WB 8 Los Gatos Blvd. & Samaritan Dr, Signal D C 28.1 C 31.7 NB, SB, WB 9 Los Gatos Blvd. & Lark Ave. Signal D D+ 38,7 D 41.6 NB; SB 10 Los Gatos Blvd, & Blossom Hill Rd. Signal D D+ 35.6 D+ 35.1 NB, SB 11 Los Gatos Blvd, & Roberts Rd, - Shannon Rd, Signal D C- 33,1 C 23,6 NB 19 Santa Cruz - Winchester Blvd. & Blossom Hill - Mariposa Ave. Signal D C- 32,2 C 30,3 WB, NB 20 Blossom Hill Rd. & E, Roberts Rd. Signal D C+ ' 20.9 B 16,0 EB 24 Winchester Blvd. & Daves Ave. Signal D C+ 20,1 B 16.9 SB 25 Lark Ave. & University Ave. Signal D C+ 21.5 C 26,4 WB, EB 26 Pollard Rd, & More Ave, Signal D C+ 20.8 C 25.7 WB 27 Knowles Dr. & Dardanelli Lane Signal D B 12.2 B 13.3 WB 28 Winchester Blvd. & Wimbledon Dr. Signal D C 24,7 B 14.8 NB, SB 29 Los Gatos Blvd. & Hwy 85 SB Ramps Signal D B+ 11.0 C 28.7 NB, EB 30 Los Gatos Blvd. & Garden Gateway Signal D C+ 20,2 B 17,3 NB, SB 31 Los Gatos Blvd. & Los Gatos Village Square Signal D B+ 11.7 B 16,5 NB 32 Los Gatos Blvd. & Almaden Rd. - Chirco Dr. Signal D C 25.1 C 24,2 SB 34 Blossom Hill Rd, & University Ave. Signal D C+ 22.4 C 24,8 WB, EB 35 Blossom Hill Rd. & W. Roberts Rd. Signal D B 14;8 B- 19.2 WB, EB 40 Winchester Boulevard & Albright Way Signal D A 14 C 23:2 WB Note; The Albright Way Development is currently completing a project specific EIR, That independent EIR, proposes a traffic signal as project mitigation for transportation impacts at: Winchester Boulevard /Albright Way intersection..(Int #40)r This mitigation measure would be required as a condition of project approval. Therefore, the traffic analysis for this Addendum assumes the, future traffic signal as a.completed improvement. If the Albright Way Development is not approved, the current side -street stop control at the intersection would operate sufficiently to meet the Town's acceptable LOS threshold, and no impact would occur, 62 TOWN OF L O S G A T O S G E N E R A L P L A N 2 0 2 0 F E I R A D D E N D U M ANALYSIS transportation. The General Plan EIR identified a set of roadway improve- ments that were necessary to mitigate potentially significant traffic impacts; however, at the time of the EIR, there were insufficient funds to undertake those projects. Since these modifications were not certain to take place, the impact remained significant and unavoidable, as of the time of General Plan adoption. Adoption and implementation of the proposed AHOZ is not anticipated to substantially worsen this or any other traffic or transit related impacts. In fact, because the AHOZ may enable people who work in Los Gatos to live in Los Gatos, implementation of the AHOZ could serve to decrease traffic and transportation impacts. Besides the Albright Way Development project discussed above, no new or previously - unknown information has come to light which would undermine the analysis or conclusions of the General Plan EIR 'in regard to transportation and traffic, and thus necessitate a new environmental analysis. For these reasons, this addendum to the General Plan EIR satisfies the requirements of CEQA, and no supplemental EIR is needed. 17. Utilities and Service Systems 63 No Additional Subsequent or Environmental _ Supplemental EIR Required Analysis Required Substantial New Change in New Mitigation Project or Information or Circumstances Showing Alternative Minor Resulting in Greater to Reduce Technical No New Significant Significant Changes Change/ Significant Effects than Effect is or No Issues _ Effects Previous EIR Declined Additions Im act UTILITIES & SERVICE SYSTEMS; Would the rP oject; a. Exceed waste water treat- ment requirements of the applicable Regional Water X Quality Control Board? 63 T O W N O F LO S G A T O S G E N E R A L P L A N 2 0 2 0 F E I R A D D E N D U M ANALYSIS No Additional Subsequent or Enviromnental Supplemental EIR Required Analysis Required ired c. Require or result in the Substantial construction of new storm New water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facili- Change in New Mitigation which could cause significant environmental effects? Project or Information or plies available to serve the project from existing entf- Circumstances Showing Alternative Minor rnents'needed? Resulting in Greater to Reduce Technical No provider, whit_ h serves or New Significant Significant Changes Change/ serve the project's projected Significant Effects than Effect is or No Issues Effects Previous EIR Declined Additions Impact b. Require or result in the X ject's solid waste disposal construction of new water or waste water treatment fa- cilities or expansion of exist- X ing facilities, the construc- tion of which could cause significant environmental ef- c. Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facili- X ties, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? _ d. Have sufficient water sup- plies available to serve the project from existing entf- X tleme.nts and resources or are new or expanded entitle - rnents'needed? e. Result in a determination by the -waste -water treatment provider, whit_ h serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to X serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commit- ments? f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the pro- X ject's solid waste disposal g. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regula- X tions related to solid waste? 64 TOWN OF L O S G A T O S G E N E R A L P L A N 2 0 2 0 F E I R A D D E N D U M A N A L Y S I S As mentioned in Section 9, Hydrology and Water Quality, the modified pro- ject would comply with existing federal, state, and local water quality re- quirements and regulations, including those specified in the General Plan 2020 in order to minimize impacts to water quality. The modified project would result in an increased water demand of 1,750 gallons per day, above what was analyzed in the General Plan EIR, This incremental increase in water demand and consequently in wastewater generation is negligible com- pared to the overall demand analyzed in the EIR. The Sail Jose Water Com- pany and San Jose /Santa Clara Water Pollution Control Plant would contin- ue to have sufficient capacity to accommodate the additional water needs and adequate wastewater treatment capacity to serve the additional demand. The General Plan also includes goals, policies, and actions to reduce water con- sumption and ensure water and wastewater facilities are expanded and /or constructed, as needed to meet the projected demand. The General Plan also addresses planned growth to ensure that the projected demand on utilities and infrastructure, including storm drain facilities, landfills and energy consump- tion, are met. As the modified project would adhere to the vision by the General Plan and all subsequent land use and zoning designations, it would therefore neither cause new impacts in regard to provision of utility services, nor exacerbate any existing ones. Technical changes to the utilities and infra- structure analysis in the General Plan EIR are not required, and no new miti- gation measures are required. 18, Mandatory Findings of Significance. a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the qual- X Hit No Additional Subsequent or Environmental Supplemental EIR Required Analysis Required Substantial New Change in New Mitigation Project or Information or Circumstances Showing Alternative Resulting in Greater to Reduce Minor No New Significant Significant Technical Change/ Significant Effects than Effect is Changes or No Issues Effects _ Previous EIR Declined Additions Impact MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE; a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the qual- X Hit TOW N O F L O S G A T O S G E N E R A L P L A N 2 0 2 0 F E I R A D D E N D U M A N A L Y S I S Based on the substantiation .provided in the General Plan EIR and with im- plementation of the mitigation measures identified therein -the General Plan 2020, as amended with the September 2012 Addendum for the Sustainability No Additional Subsequent or Environmental Supplemental EIR Required Analysis Required Substantial New Change In New Mitigation Project or. Information or Circumstances Showing Alternative Resulting in Greater to Reduce Minor No New Significant Significant Technical Change/ Significant Effects than Effect is Changes or No Issues Effects Previous EIR Declined Additions Impact ity of the environment, sub- stantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife popu- lation to drop below self - sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate im- portant examples of the ma- jor periods of California his- tory or prehistory? b. Does the project have im- pacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ( "Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a pro- X ject are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects) c, :Does the'prbject have envi- ronmental effects which will cause substantial adverse ef- X fects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Based on the substantiation .provided in the General Plan EIR and with im- plementation of the mitigation measures identified therein -the General Plan 2020, as amended with the September 2012 Addendum for the Sustainability TOWN OF L O S G A T O S G E N E R A L P L A N 2 0 2 0 F E I R A D D E N D U M ANALYSIS Plan, would have a significant adverse effect on the environment, either indi- vidually or cumulatively, directly or indirectly with regards to Air Quality, Land Use and Planning and Transportation /Traffic. The proposed modified project would result in additional residential devel- opment on sites that have been previously disturbed with either urban or agricultural uses. As with development anticipated under the General Plan 2020, future devel- opment associated with the modified project would not reduce the habitat of fish and wildlife species; cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self - sustaining levels; threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community; reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal; or eliminate examples of major periods of California history or prehistory. Additionally, as with development anticipated under the General Plan 2020, future development associated with the modified project would be consistent with the long -term goals of developing affordable housing in accordance with the Town's General Plan, Therefore, the modified project would not weight short -term goals above long -term environmental goals of the Town. Addi- tionally, the issues relevant to the modified project are very localized and con- fined to the immediate project area. Implementation of the proposed AHOZ by incorporating it into the Town Code would not result in impacts that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable. Cumulative impacts of the modified project would not be greater than those determined by the Gen- eral Plan EIR. This addendum reviewed the modified project's potential impacts to all of the environmental topics included in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, The mitigation measures contained in the General Plan EIR would remain suffi- cient to ensure that potential impacts remain less than significant and no new significant impacts would occur from implementation of the modified pro- ject. Therefore, the modified project's impacts to human beings, either direct- 67 TOWN OF L O S G A T O S G E N E R A L P L A N 2 0 2 0 F E I R A D D E N D U M A N A L Y S I S ly or indirectly, would not be greater than those determined by the General Plan ETR, IN " MEETING DATE: 10/15/2012 STUDS' SESSION t °S,GN � 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 Toten 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 N PREPARED BY: � Wendie R. Rooney, Strategic Project Director Reviewed by: Assistant Town Manager Town Attorney _Finance N:\DEV \TC REPORTS\2012\Affordable Housing Overlay Zone Study Session 10- 15- 12.doc Pei EXHIBIT 11 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 followiti 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 t1 e •H6iikng -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- lie 8iirillaa to stanndards found under the RM zone such as; ® Allowing for a building height of at least three stories; ® Requiring no more-than T-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: 0 Require that a minimum of 50 percent of housing units be affordable to 4y" households at the moderate income level and below for housing projects in the AHOZ; 0 Qllocafe.20 percent of the Los Gatos Redevelopment Agency Housing het -Aside F�ncls and .Jhe. 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). 0 Defer wilding plan check and inspection fees until units in an AHOZ project are occupied. The AHOZ does not result sin 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 coniains deYeloprnent standards (setbacks, building heights, parking ratios, etc,), densities, affordability targets or ratios, incentive ; and.,arcluteetural arid, site, standards. The. development, standards, densities and ai affordability, ratios Vary? on each of the five AHOZ sites. The AHOZ :is applied to the following five properties (Attadhrnent 1),., Pro' erty 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 paroel Knowles Drive and Winchester 424 -32 -069 7.1 Oka Road Site A Oka R60,hexf`toJCC 424 =08 -074 6.4 �_ PAGE 3 MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL SUBJECT: AFFORDABLE HOUSING OVERLAY ZONE October 10, 2012 Oka Road — Site B Oka Road east of Site A 424 -08 -05 7 Oka Road — Site C Oka Road behind Site B 424 -08 -021 EEE 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 4 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 -GP_C %recommended..-removing a `numb.er of the;'-sites that were .previously considered ..for :the AHOZ designations. These sites, as well as the remaining recomrrm &d;l A140Z 8rte8-ithat are `not developed: in `the 2007- 14r,R.F1NA Cycle,,.: Can be used to -.meetthe =upcoming 2014 -22 .R N'A allocation-of 617 units. The: second 'goal` is -to create development standards and incentives that-.offer advantages that pare similar or slightly better than the. State Density Bonus Prbgram 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 A .0Z sites could accommodate while ensuring neighborhood compatibility, m:aintaining.- 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 Co=.. unity 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 arid 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 site's 'contain'residential units that meet -all required RI-INA 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 ispecifically..designed to riot rezone the five properties where the overlay is, applfed, By leavmg` :the existing': zoning -intact, the property owner is able tb developi either under , -the- ex-isti#g zonih,'g 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 PAGE 5 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 Towfi's . long" standing, policy -of creating mixed income... developments,- The GPC recogruzetthat .the":siibsidized units may be ;smaller and have less. :amonitized interiors, blut'the ekteriots would:'be consistent-- th the..non� subs dined units in-tterins. of quality of materials and architectural style, The ?GPC recommended that the Town allow minor adjustmentgito the affordability ratios.for. each of the: sites ifneeded .to, help snake a viable project, as long as the overall RFINA income ratios allocated to the Town are achieved, The GPC recornmended.two additional modifications to thetdevel.opment standards, As noted in Attachment 3, the GPC recommended allowing flexibility in oases where increased building height such _as..the Southbay D '6velopment site, Which is adjacent to the tall'ei Aventine Apartzinents.and N�etfi x developments, The GPC recommended deferring a decision on whether to grant additional height-to the Planning Corn rnission.during the Architecture and Site application process, In approving a higher building, the Planning Commission would need to make the following'fndings, 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 necessaiT 'to.. achieve excellence in architectural design and cannot be accotninodated tht ugh alternative means such as `lowering the building into the ground or reducing overall floor to ceiling heights, The GPC also- recornniended 'deferring to the Planning Coirunission during the Architecture and Site `review process consideration of the plan for integrating the subsidized units with the market -rate units. Although'Aho 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 standalone affordable oornponentq such as an affordable senior apartment development, ,adjacent:to the market rate multi- 'family or 'single - family units rather than integrating the . tw.o. types of units. This separation may be needed to ensure the financial feasibility of the plan-. Please' see Attachments 4 - 14 fora thorough review of the- GPO's discussions , during the drafting of the" AHOZ, 4, 1ii6n6'v' 0 kn-d Pr666s fot° Socuring Incentives; As previously noted, one of the Town''s goals_for the$AHQ rs to provide devel'opnient stand -6lds and.incentives to ensure tl e'AHOG site -s ofFei' srrnilar on greater advantages 'than tYie. State Dens y Bonus Law. The o.. rall.,,intent is to provide sufficient incentives to a developer who. is willing to meet all the' AHOZ equliemetita and to ipi6cluid the developer from using thy: State Density Bonus program m� coinli'inatrori W it h the AHOZ If: a' developer :wants :io "iise the State Density Bemis progiarn, the density bonus would .be based on.. the property.'s existing zdning' and' iefreral'l?:lan°-desi�giiation. 'By.precluding the t'se of the State Density Bonus Prograin, 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, 0 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 o Priority processing for Planning and Engineering Division's Architecture and Site review. a 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 sp6hd; 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 Deign Guidelines: The,Guidelines were originally created to 'demonstrate that a variety of quality °residential products of varing densities could be' accommodated -on--each. -of fie -: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. _ ecom.endation; 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 acid. 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 far the program; tine _Housing Element Action HOU 2 1 and.. could. result in..providing needed, quality ;affordable housmg_ for Town residents. The GP_C unanimously recormended :approval of no AHOZ implementing actions and the draft "Affordable Housing Qverlay'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 Ivey 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 & 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" N;\DEV \TC REPORTS\2012\AfPordable Housing OverlayZone Study Session 10.15- 12.doe is Pie Intentionally Left Blank f TOWN OF LOS GATOS 2007 -2014 HOUSING ELEMENT: TECHNICAL APPENDIX FIGURE o -1 HOUSING OPPORTUNITY SITES A7 AsHMENT 1 I 'his Page In tention ally Lejl Blank RESOLUTION 2011063 RESOLUTION AFFIMY]INGTEE GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION AND ZONING OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY SURPLUS PROPERTY AT 375 RNOWLES DRIVE, APN 406 - 28.032, REAS, 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 hospitals; and WHEREAS, the subjeot property is zoned O•offiice and permitted uses inolude: 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 V41EREAS" in 2010 the Town douncil approved a General Plan update that identified tho site as a potential- affordablehousing opportunity; anrl- , VYMiRREA19, 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 Knowlos Drive: PASSE, D AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of Cho Town Council of the Town of Los Gatos, California, hold on the 19th day of September, 2011 by the following vote: COUNCIL MBMMBRS: AYES; Steven Leonardis, Diane McNutt, Steve Rice, Barbara Spector, Mayor Joe Pirzynski NAYS: A13SENT: ABSTAIN: SIGNED: MAYOR OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA ATTBST; )kW0JWAieU. CLERK ADMINISTRATOR OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA AMCHMENT I n is Page Intentionally Left Blank cn C� ..d V) ®� as F�d N ° Ei w o bq 42 P . i ®® �E a v "ems �-• 1, ° �° w ° -4 0 ° En 0 CO P©� cd b a�Cl) ° o� o o 0 N + U la 0 'zi ro N N II c+� Ln i7 �. ® © N m •� cUd O 0 ° v W N 1 1 H[ .11 RS f+w. T q V) Q°0 ®® N"� o ®.C) lul ed .-� . a cd t� 0 0 0 0 Ca o 0 0 "� ® o\ o ® a t5 O 0 0 0 0 �� U o 0 �� 0 0� ®.N ®N c�*iNN0N Ne��1�mN c`n*»�N ® cLn Ln C) N N N N ® a��ajj p > ea DO r� ro it C) t-q C:) ®• n 0 � �ey � o� Ga u � ® V � > t N 9� N ® N N v®i M S pw� 0 0 U d C W U hhrr�� @ Cd . C� ftUtJA3 ;> q CJ > cad fJ 0 y� 6J t� bA t Q c C2 I, co Cf� k � ® ® e \ o \ CD D D O u cn ° Ei w o bq 42 P . i ®® �E a v "ems �-• 1, ° �° w ° -4 0 ° En 0 CO P©� cd b a�Cl) ° o� o o 0 N + U la 0 'zi ro N N II c+� Ln i7 �. ® © N m •� cUd O 0 ° v W N 1 1 H[ .11 RS f+w. T q 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, 2611, HELD AT THE TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS LOBBY, 110 EAST MAIN STREET, LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA. ___________________________________________ ___.,_____- __-- ___- ____- _ -_ -___ The meting 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 OVERLAP' 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 on 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. General Plan Committee November 9, 2011 Page 2 of 4 Marcia Jensen asked if the Housing; Element is still in flux, why :A.lbr"ight,' Riviera Terrace, and the North 40 couldn't be ine ftorated' into the Ho'using.Element as. an A.HOZ. Wendie Rooney commented that housing for Albright cannot be counted at this time sirice 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 tlib 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 I -16using 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 I-Iudes questioned what the ramificati.oi ins of increasing the housing numbers are, Wendie Rooney stated it was to the Town's benefit -to use these units in the' nest Housing Element cycle, Barbd a Cardillo questioned that S0 %o of the units must be affordable. Wendie Rooney commented ea "'Site will be `evaluated incl'ividti d ly. 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 (B'jQP') program would be required. All incoife levels must be met. Barbara Cardillo questionedif 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 A.HOZ, Wendie Rooney reviewed t gular upcoming G:PC dates. Meeting could start at 5 p.m. Extra dates could be added if needed. ITEM 2 APPROVAL OF MINUTES Joe Pirzynslei made a motion to approve the minutes of September 29, 2010. The motion was s'econde'd 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: \DEV \GPC\201 IDRAFTminutes \GPC -11091 Ldoc TOWN OF LO.S GATOS 110 East Main Street,. Los Gatos, CA 95030 (408) 354 -6872 SUMMARY MINU'T'ES' OF A SPECIAL. MEETING OF THE GENERAL PLAN` COMMITTEE OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS ON JANUARY 25, 2012, HELD AT THE: TOWN COt)NCIL. CHAMBERS. LOBB.Y,, 110 WT MAIN STREET; I;OS GATOS, CALIFORNIA, The meeting`�vas called to order at.5;05 parr, by-Johh BourgeoispyY�ry__.._.._.___d�__ ____.___ ATTENDANCE: Members pxesent Joe Pi.rzyn,ski, Barbara Spector, John, Bourgeois, Marcia Jensen, Barbara Cardillo, Todd Jarvis,. Matthew'Hudes, Marl'-co Sayoc Members absent; None Staff Sresent; Wendie Rooney, Director of Community Development; Sandy Daily, Planning Manager;. Heather. Brad ley-,.Associate Planner Guest Speaker;. Jan Lindenthal, Vice .President of Real. Estate Developrn6nt for Mid�Peninsula Housing, VERBAL COMMUNICATION None To allow for the guest speaker to arrive, Ttern 2 was heard prior to ItLTrl 1 ITEM2 REVIEW OF STATE DENSITY BONUS .LAW AND TOWN MUSING ASSISTANCE PROGRAM. Wendie Rooney gave ari. over•vi:ew of the State Density Bonds Law, including history, key provisions; affordability requirements, bonus. calculation, iiieeritives and concessi.ojis, waiver of development standards, maximum parking. ratios,land, donation, and a comparisoia of the Tom Housing Assistance prograrn.. John Bourgeois asked for clarification on. granting concessions• KIM.die Rooney replied that.a developer must prove that concession is necessary= to make the project feasible, Todd.da is asked' how a developer would demonstrate a need for .concessions, Wendie Rooney - replied that a developer must prove that without a certain concession, the project would not be economically feasible: A ftENIT 5 General Plan Committee January 25, 2.012 Page .2 of 4 Joe Piqymki asked how a developer -would d=qII5ITat vague .9 . 'would ? . �e economic feasibility that is -a -uc standard if -a developer is ,able to.. m ake. that:detprinination. Marcia Jensen cbmm�ented 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. discusse4 with the Town Attorney, and from what has been determined -so far, there is not a distinction between the definitions, M.arico Sayoc asked if there is a timeline when the concession requests must be asked for bythe devplopp , 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 and Archlteatiare and Site Application. Matthew Hydes asks if Town po licy was in place prior to. recent State. law, T,Vendie Rooney commented that yes, the Town should have adopted a density bonus law in 2005, Sandy Bally stated that in the past, the Town's BMP program required more affordable housing units than the, 5t.Ate Jaw,4t that time.. - )W.arico Sayocasked for an explanation of Riviera Terrace. Wen,die Rooney C.O`Mbaonted that per the Town's density bonus: policy, the 'affordable units were not counted tow.ard"the de 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 bew.ed. in addition. Roomy .-%,at the discussion of wh.etlaer I , Qnfinue Qxcp...pti - p c 119 'aijit's' fr'o'm th affordabl. units .,c overall density will be addressed ,)i hin the density bonus ordina oc, She.farther stated that the Town has both inclusionary housing xegvlati ons and a density bonus policy that .are separate but intertwined, -where. the Town :does not .00utit...,affordfible.units in the 0-verall.odensity. Marcia Ahsen asked if the Town can opt not to do-able count the units, General Plan Committee January 25, 2012 Page .3 of 4 Jos 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 t' e. current - General Plan.and ] Touring Elenleiit; inclusive of mandatory bonuses to apply Town regulations fist then apply.State bonus. WWpdis Rooney responded that a local jurigdictlon. has the, discru" 10 fj. to either use the State standard`, solely or appl,y'both the State..standard and Their pwn 4 sity bona policies. Marcia Jensen asked if going forward do ,fie or do we not have* an option.that we're going fo use Town ,regulations TNndie Rooney commented that staff is expecting to get clarification from Council regarding this. matter. Mattheiv Hudes cozinn -elated that the Tm m- must. create an ordinance that reflects the Mousing Element requirements. Is there any reason to .have parts.:of the p7an.:tl at differ from Mate law2 ffendie Rooney commented that this would-be determined when the town.adopted. the ordinance, She said the Town may opt to. us.e some or all of its existing provisions such as current allowances for greater bonuses.. on. largerpz:ojects: ITEM 1 P SENTATION:'Bi'JAN11INDEl' THAL OF KID- PENC�Si1), HOUSING. Jan Lindenthal presented an overview on the challenges of developing: affordable housing iri: 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-Nn.projects in Los Gatos including Open Doors 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 o..ff6r residents of their housing developments. She provided details of the current .challenges to constructing affordable housing including: legal and political constraints, envirozunental 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, educafing.the. community on the, issues surrounding. affordable housing and pre - zoning of affordable housing sites. She explained the financi al. feasibility process and how Mid -Pen secures fizziding 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 jantiary 2S, 2012 Page 4 of 4 She -shke&Asevefal-exaftle's of Mi&P6n de. 9 elbprn6nts in Santa Clara, .San Mateo, and -;Santa Coahtie§'&I'd discuss C"d Pen'.s hewest �V'eq. rein-,a.c Claz P u quisition and r6ha ilitatioh of qifi'g apartrn,en't &omit 16X-6s' Wnhoffie;de'velo"op"Jonts. She explained that to facilitate affordable housing, - communities can identify sites at the . h doastd densit Y ma A 5ehi,se'build coalitions to . support appiqpriate I f development, ed`ucate f1lb d'olh"niunity on Who needs "dff6.rdaB' -,hous'in , and support the State fil g supp finding permanent sourcesfor affordable housing:construotion, Heather Bradley discussed items for the -next meeting .of February 8, 2.012, regarding various' 9. .housing types ,and densities.IQ -ol direction on -types that should .or 'should not be considered., Jpe.P4'rzy.nsk1 commented that the'GPC is already -familiar with housing types and did. not thin - k-'it would be worthwhile to -,have that discussion. Wendle"RoOi'Qy bb-mmented."that if the GPC does not want t6 have that discussion, then the next OPC meeting would have to be February 22, 2012, as Cannon Design Group will not have the Courthouse site.ma:ierials ready to go -for the February 8'nieeiing. ITEM 3 APPROVAL OF MINUTES Joe Pirzynski made inotion'to approve the.iiiinuW of Nove:tiiber 9, 2011. Tho motion -was seconded by Barbara SPedor and passed -unanimously. ITEM-3 ADJ URNMENT Tile meeting was adjourned at:6:1.15.p,m, prepared by: Y(1_. .Heath er Bradley Associate P1�nrier 2512. do.c TOWN OF LOS GATOS 110 East Main Street, Los Gatos, CA 95030 (408) 3546872 --------------------------------------------------------------- ........ .......,......._.............__ 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 GATO-S, CALIFORNIA. ........................ d ..................... .------ .......e........._m........ 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 Sayoc Members - absent; Todd Jarvis. Staff present; Wendie Rooney, Director of Community Development, Sandy Baily, Planning Manager; Heather Bradley, Associate Planner; Greg Larson, Town Manager VERBAL COMMZil` ICA.TIONS; 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 KNOWLE8 i 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 S'ayoc 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 Pirzyns%i questioned if priority use of the Courthouse property was affordable housing and if housing agencies were offered the property. ATTACHMENT 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 pub11C age%J�leS 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. GPQ will look at each. , property and decide the appropriate allocation; however, the foous for this meeting is the Coiufib Dose 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. Mdreia 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 relationslip to the existing units. Toe 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 c6=: - ent that %e Courthouse site . should have its entrances facing the street, which is compatible with the neighbor'h'ood.* Wendae. Rooney responded, to a question from Joe Pirzynsld that multi - family flats were not incl uded-'as one of `the housing mixes,, since it 'was determined; to not be compa ible with the neighborhood. If GPC f6lt'that pro es should p be considered, it could be included, Tohn Bourgeois questioned this as well 'and' did not think it should be taken off the table; since there were similar structures in the neighborhood. Marcaa Jensen stated from her perspective, small lot - .single- finiily .did not seem viable for affordable housing. General :Plan Committee February 22, 2012 Page 3 of 6 ,Toe 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 .THudes 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, tit -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 mechalucal 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 .H'eitther. Bradley su-=i Iarized*the poking standards of the 'Town, the State, and what th$ 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. .MaNt k -Mayd c ejuesti:6hed if we could use the +data feoin the parking analysis for the Ditto's Lane pro�'ct: Staff commented we could provide that information to the Coinini'ttee, Joe P1rzyns1d 'questioned the l iisis for `the' Town's aichite'U's parking nietl odology. Marcia Jensen questioned if the Town is risking certification of the Housing Element if it did not modify the parking requirements. Wendie Rooney explained the Town nedds to demonstrate to tire- State-thatit is trying 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 p.arkirig regulations the way it is, 'except when we have a four- bedmorn unit, and then us'a Stat`e'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 cammented 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 reeomeiad- 4tions are coming fxoin aril commented she did not understand:' S'lze disagrees" t11at` the Town, iieed�s to include g' §ti 'parkig `as part "of'tlie standards. Joe Bourgeois followed, up on 1Vl cia's coianm'ents -and asked' vaheh 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 recoinrneldng precluding use of the Mate I7eiisitq J3arius; Cohsequeritly, the Town should provide parking requirements that are similar to the ,State's, Heather Bradley, and Wendie Rooney discussed setbacks, density, affardable housing requlrernents and ordl�aace`options and comnponents. General Plan Committee February 22, 2012 Page 5 of 6 VFR13AL COMMUNICATIONS: Mark Tersini introduced himself and TAT Properties as the potential buyer of part of the Courthouse site. The type of affordable project that they found would make sense far the site is senior housing, They are loolang 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, Wendle 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 feral decisions (except for height) were made for the Courthouse site. Joe Pirzynski thanked Mark Tersini for his valuable input regarding the property, It would be helpful to get input regarding the other AHOL 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 tune, ITEM 2 APPROVAL OF MINUTES F RO1V[ TANUARY 25, 2012 Joe Pirzynski made a motion to approve the minutes fiom January 25, 2012, The motion was seconded by Marcia Jensen and passed unanimously. General Plan Committee Febmaxy 22, 2012. Page 6 of 6 ITEM 3 ADJOLUUqME4 NT Tho meeting Was Eidjobmed at 6:55 pm Prepared by: Sandy B n ajUy na Manager anagger N:DEV\GP.MD.12m!nute.s\GPC-D22?-12.doc, TOWN OF LOS GATOS .110 East Main. Street, Los Gatos, CA 95030 (408) 354 -6872 --------------- ---- ----- -- -- ---- ---- -m-- _ -. - -- . 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 $wily, 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 REVMW OF TIM AFFORDABLE HOUSING OVERLAY ZONE DESIGN GUIDELINES AND DEVELOPMENT S'T'ANDARDS: COURTHOUSE AND SOUTIfMAY SITES Wendle 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. Wendle 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. ATTA% ,.1T 7 General Plan Committee March 14, 2012 Page 2 of 3 Wendle Rooney explained that based on the need td create sufficient incentives. for the AHOZ I — '' Density sites'p pr�'F"�dd6fliemq qfffie-Siato Pp Iff is re aut ti y.J'3 onus, ehdjbi�.fbur. oma,'c fh -'6fiusLaw�- S,taffisfu-fthcr- applicant ne.6d tb-ptoccss a PD' Application, which pursuant `to Iowa procedures, is the �appliqAnt Would process to aff W*"U'nlfi sited exceptions from town standards, Ms. Rooney summarized that the OP C. would determine wheiha or not it supported e concession 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. Consdftsbs sui ai-y: TODiC CD1180MIS Property Setbacks 70 Parking,Ratio 6-1 Density (excluding concession) Lot Coverage 7-0 Building Heights 7-0** Courthouse Affordability Ratios Defer to next meeting No use of Below Maximum li °edit includes rooftop quipm ning,: Units with an integrated garage (stacked or subterranean) ate allowed w6duptoS5f66tbthor so nna-iimum height is 30 foot. Height is measured per existing Town Code definition. Architectural projections are porn�dtted pursuant to Town Code '86otion 29.10;090. . A n"y W ulu- gal height increase rease request is su-, bjeot to A chitecture-andd Site review and approval froth the d.ed Ing body, VERBAL COMMUNICATIONS, Owen Lawler stated they could. provide, useful information about affordable housing if given an . T_ 0 o g.-E Element. oppq Q U 6 6 t: A 0 Y'M s' s." of its Jan Hoehhdu'S`er do mmented that so far, th6,Stato's'D6 .81!yB-05W : PrOY4m 'sounds more doable for a developer than what is being proposed. Recomff6nd'Odt-hatEt."'bl* rlso-nofwh'a,t-."theTo,vm is proposing and what the State would allow may be helpful to the GPC. V. ey are e. - still'Puf9bitig', a'rd`h`asik'g"the Courthouse ssite te - and will propose a development that is compatible to the neighborhood. - omtnitt&. e* and requested the Con M�ittee John Bobur'geuis re4 i6d he matrix be eniailed to'-fhe:C_ to fill in their recommendations prior to the next meeting. General Plan Committee March 14, 2012 Page 3 of 3 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 Pirzynskl and passed unanimously. ITEM 3 ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 6:45 p.m. Prepared by: c. Sandy Baily P aiY ing Manager N ADMAGFC12012mi nu tesWC -3 -1 d -12, d oo his Page Intentionally Left Blank TOWN OF LOS GATOS 110 East Main Street, Los Gatos, CA 95030 (408) 354 -6872 ______________________ ____________________________a__ 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 B ourgeois, 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 285 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, Oven 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 remanded 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 ROUSING OVERLAY ZONE DESIGN GUIDELINES AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS: COURTHOUSE AND SOUTI]BAY SITES Wendie Rooney summarized the process and the time frame, General Plan Committee March 28, 2012 Page 2 of 3 Joe Pirzynski questioned if the Courthmise site could. be bifurcated to expedite. the process for thi&site. yYela e:. Qqp qxesp 'Itl'�;�VaS-Ip6ssi,@O,-bllt would slow the overall.process--down,. She -felt 6n.e. i that 4Kca'nt-cdul run parall6l with this process and could stay in the same timeline, as this process. She emphasized that a Conceptual Development Adyisory. Committee application is all important step lor applicant to take, The Com-nittee, 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 oono.esslon; add staf s language from the GPC nierno for height increases subject to A&S. review * Parking 7-0 De*t - . 7-0 Setback reduction2 7-0 Lot c0cmge Density transfer Nebd more information on bow it would work - Defer to fixture meeting Concession Prooessina, u Pnapplicatibn conference ..7-0 ® Priority application processing 7-0 o Priority plan check processing 7-0 Concession * Wavier or deferral of planning and Agree with staff recoffiln nation with engineering qpPlIcation. fees' no waiver fees, of Town ODIISUItant f 8, '0 WO-1111 o-_-._ 1, - " "' d B,6'ff- al -o"? b- ildiq.pTan a diver., F e. 7, 6hUk and ifi--ees ac fees 0 Waive or, e tr9fic imp t f 7 0 - Ramov 6 as conocssion cons uotxon 7-0 mitigation fee -TA—ffo—w affordability: Y.-b�onus Wai...thb same affordability pppliedlothF boors units. 2m . . . . . . . . . bks 7 3 No wafQ�?T 0 0 COS.' 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 nTM 2 APPROVAL OF YJINUTE9 FROM MARCH 14, 2012 Marko Sayoc made a motion to approve the minutes fiom March 14, 2012, The motion was seconded by Marcia Jensen and passed unanimously, ITEM 3 ADJOURNMENT The meeting - was- adjoumed at 6 :45 p,m, Prepared by: t ��'-a Sandy Baily Planning Mana r N, \DEV \GPC\2012 m inutes \GP C- 3- 23 -12, doc This Page Intentionally .deft Bland TOWN OF LOS GATOS 110 East Main Street, Los Gatos, CA 95030 (4.08) 3546872 _ o._ed.__- __o_e__---- a____e_e__oo --- __- ____bd__r 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, ooe.00ememaA-aadodeeo- mmeoa.e ATTENDAINCE: Members present; Barbara Spector, Joe Pirzynski, John Bourgeois, Marico Sayoc, Todd Jarvis, Barbara Cardillo Members- absent: Marcia Jensen, Matthew Hudes. Staff opresent: Wendie Rooney, Director of Community Development; Sandy Baily, Planning Manager; Heather Bradley, Associate Planncr VERBAL COMMUNICATIONS: None ITEM 1 CONSIDERATION OF STAFF RE, COMMENDED MODIFICATIONS TO TEE 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 tune 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, Jens en'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, tf'endie 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 ATTACW..ENT 9 General Plan Committee Minutes April 11, 2012 Page 2 of 4 include findings thii fhtpllohtling Commission arid/or - Council would need to make regarding g the feasibility -based -oh the o lic6nt's-p-"r'o'- forma, " Consensus Ji" Aiiltp of 0 h4nitibe.was " 0 SU _s rb'comiheiidation, B9 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 8 s ordinance, these two programs would be separate and not combined on the same project Consensus of Committee was to support staff- s recommendation, C. guardying Projects anderSBI818 Wendle Rooney stated that staff:is'.reconarnending that eligibility be broadeiiod,to include.uhits designed for physically handicapped persons, Marico Sayoc questioned if the BW Program point rating system would be used for the State Bonus Program. Joe Pir2yoki requested finthericlarifi6ation-fegaxding how tenants are selected tinder 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 mon—itoxing corn liance p_ would be the owner/developers responsibility and that they would need to submit periodic doouhiu on to the Town -T6gardml:g their '&O'nipliaftou'. Barbra Cardillo questioned what happens if someone qualifies under several categories Barbara',Cardillo jal§o, qifekidfied Uttitbria is set -Up'.'regardi.ng'accoinmodation stan& ds. for the unit. Joe Pirzynski questioned what if 'someone protests how points were assigned, W,,endle,.Ro,6ney.disr,m8cd'1,hat sfAff i6 -iiot r000mm-chdirik"to deVeldp A p!6 4systdn for theState ordinance. s,qt estion,`06r the �BMP Pro Barbara Cardillo- commented tha"vin rc§p-bhso to I& 'Pir*Iisla U gram, she wo only aware of one protest. Town staff and a Community Services Commissioner mot as to SUpDbrt s 'talf's TeC6 eiidaflon, General Plan Committee Minutes April 11, 2012 Page 3 of 4 D, A n ation liequiretnents 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 Mooney 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, ITEM 2 CONTINUED REVIEW OF THE AFFORDABLE HOUSI G OVERLA' ZONE DESIGN GUIDELINES AND DEVELOI PAINT STANDARDS: SO'UTIBAY 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, To io Density Consensus 6 -0 Lot coverage 6 -0 Building heights 6 -02 Concessions ® height 6 -0 e Parking Defer to fatttre meeting a Density 6 -0 o Setback reduction 6 -0 —Delete as concession m Lot coverage 6 -0 ® Densft7 transfer Defer to fature meeting Concession Processing a Pre- application conference 6 -0 0 Priority application processing 6 -0 0 Priority plaan check processing 6 -0 Concession Financial m Wavier or deferral of planning and 6 -0 engineering application fees m Waiver or deferral of building plan 6 -0 check and inspection fees o Waiver or deferral of traffic impact fees Delete as concession m Waiver or deferral of construction 6 -0 mitigation fee _ Comrriittee commented that this matter be reviewed with the School District, 211irty -five feet with podium parking —.Architecture and Site to go higher. General Plan Committee Minutes April 11, 2012 Page 4 of 4 (aka Road Site & . � Con.seh s Setbaoks 6 -0 Parking ratio 6 -0 Density 6-0 . ?Lot coverage 6 -0 Building heights 6 °0. Aggpdabili ,> .ratios 6=0 (�OnCeSS10115 ® Height 6 -0 — Delete as concession Parking Gm0 o Density 6 -02 -- Delete as concession Setback reduction_ 6 -0 — Not.on creekside; same as Courthouse L of coverage &0 Densi y transfer Dafex to &tote 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 -ramp ITEi M 3 APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM MARCH 28, 2012 Barbara Spector made a motion to approve the minutes from March 28, 2012, with correction to i footnotes in matrix for Courthouse site. The motion was seconded by Todd Jarvis and passed unanimously, ITEEM 4 ADJO _N- M�'�NT The meeting was adjourned at 6,40 p.m, Prepared by: c Sandy L, B y i?1anning M er T 7: \DEV\GP=012minutes \GPC- 4- 11 -12, doo TOWN OF LOS GATOS 110 East Maui Street, Los Gatos, CA 95030 (408) 354 -6872 _.._.__.__aa_...._.,.... ........... -------- ---- ------ --- -- _____ SUMMARY MINUTES OF A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE GENERAL PLAN COMMITTEE OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS ON APRIL 2,5, 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; I-leather 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 Terrini 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, AAC1En: 1, 0 General Plan Committee Minutes April 25, 2012 Page 2 of 4 Setbacks 6 -0 Parking 6-0 D`erYs ty 166 006*rage 610 "Hegh 60 Affordabilitv Ratio 6 -0 Concessions ® Height 6 -0 a Parking 6-0 m Density 6 -0 Delete as concession Setback 6 -0 o Lot coverage 670 transfer - i�efer.to future meetings One topic for future discussion is if the property is going 10 be. subdivided, should it be reviewed as two separate parcels? _ Oka.Road Site B - Site Development Ijxf.uences The Committee members had questions /input on the following site development influence comments: Circulation : .Questioned why the Town couldn',t. require_ entry drives, Wen•die 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 adj cent,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 Diatries on the Street: - Discussed -if all-housing. hypes should have a frontage presence on the street. There was concern that this could force people to park.oa the street. Staff will wordsmith the language so it is more generic and does not require all entries to Oka Ruud Site C — Site Development Influences Noise: Conc'errie -'that poise :issues :could impact where houses are- lo.eated. 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 fixture 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 =comfortable witli 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. Nest property line should be the front setback, e Modify Caltrans note so that landscape buffer is on subject property. The landscaping shall screen the wall along the highway, ITEM2 AFFORDABLE ROUSING 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 Marieo 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 f .4 ITEM 4 ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned:at 6.30,p, m.. Prepared by; L. Baily, l' ng Managr- NADMGjPW012minulesZPC - 2- 2,600 TOWN OF LOS GATOS 110 East Main Street, Los Gatos, CA 95030 (408) 354 -6872 ytl SUMMARY MINUTES OF A SPECIAL MEETING �0�'- WrTHEyr GENBRAL VmPLAN 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. a--------------------------------------------------- The meeting was called to order at 5:15 p.m. by John Bourgeois. ATTENDANCE: Members resent: Barbara Spector, Joe Przynski, John Bourgeois, Marico Sayoc, Todd' Jarvis, Marcia Jensen, Matthew Hudes Members absent: Barbara Cardillo Staff tiresent: Wendie Rooney, Director of Community Development; Sandy Baily, Planning Manager; Heather Bradley, Associate Planner VERBAL COYEVf MCA'TIONS: 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 fiom the other four AHOZ sites, Marcia Jensen questioned if it was legal to group all properties under one EIR on the five sites Wendle .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 ATTACBMENT 11 General Plan Committee Minutes May 9, 2012 Page 2of4 Barbara Spector queki*dkedit e-cdst of this process, , -' - - C -uith ugd* Marcia- -Iieksin qudsti6h"e'd the Statq`s 'ihvd!-Vemeht with' ifie, -0 0 Site "hid asked if fli&e are � C6uith bus Ti e* A-0 e r oz es. Wendle.Rooney clarified that the Courthouse site would still be part of the AHOZ'- treated. the same as the other. sites:- -HoWeVeT, by lsifufcatiirg it fYbfft7-th6 bth& sites, KT Pr6peitio§-'r,67ald continue processing their application. She further noted that they would be responsible, for preparing the environmental reA,6W0w fire pt j&fas well as the AHOZkmd6&*.��9 sal. that Town staff would work with KT Properties on the OPA and Town Code Te4,Arnondmients that would be required to implement the A14OZ standards, Finally, she noted that•by b'i'fiu'cat rig this site fi-om the others, KT Ppoperties could continue processing t;hq applicationsand potentially the Twrn� d'i affi Matthew-Hudes-quasi ioned. if the ("lommittee-agreedx1pon bifurcating the. Courthouse site. and if the Committee would have another opportunity to review in to . tality the A40Z standaAs prior to going to flie Planning Commission: Wendle Rooney clarified that the Committee has pfovid6d input on all components of th6 AHOZ, except for the Architecture Guidelines. She commented tbat,allAhe AEOZ,standards.have been incorporated into the Architecture Guidelines that were, distributed td the Comffiffte" e, F'inal'ly she said tha.t.the next steps would be Planning Co. mmission.P-7iew.and then Town Council review. in r ,16N Bourgeois questioned.w4at action ryas a g; e qu6,sted ofthe. Committec', Barbara Speaor.plqrified that the bifivcating and expediting of the—Courthouse site is one matter 'd *he or or . no. t:. KT s proposal i consistent wit -the -Do another matter. a h sign Guidelines is anot e ,n " . -� t. ' l i: i I * .. . . . i '... . I . `b a C oision, She f6ft it ;e Council de ider the, KT*Prb` ti& Wendie Rooney commented that Town Council would ultimately consi per os but she did not originally plan to schedule, the. bifurcation ruq'!,�4 far-..TQwA Council. Joe Pirzyns7a'felt the Courthouse site matter should b+6 'b"Xpedited. He further, stated, that the Committee should, make a xecommendation and the matter, should be scheduled. with Town Council, s::-thi putting The cart b6f6rejhe M c , z 11 a J hs e' n' ri`a:lls6d, co'hdbffis'if the was' i i!! s p horse, Would the Courthouse. site be an ordinance and would that trigger the other sites to avc an ordinance? Barbara 8pector comixierited .. that staff fang tfze pz'ooess oil this .,ohe. is. okay, bu jfhc applrcaut has: , clearly understand I `h*S'ks&Ni6VQ' 9 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 S'ayoc questioned permit streamlining, the options, and what counts towards Rl Rq'A 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 I FOLLOW-UP ITEMS a. Southbav l4eiaht 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 a Density Consolidation (aka Density Transfer ; endie Rooney summarized the density transfer concept and noted that the Town has actually allowed this before on the Aventino and Terreno de Flores 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; twits are not intermixed. Joe Pirzynski commented that analysis and control would occur during A &S; th6refore, 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 AIIOZ 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` witliri a developrxlent. Wendie Rooney clarified that language would best be. placed in the AHOZ ordinance. John `Bourg'eo'is felt it was good to give the developer an opportunity to justify their development. The Cornnaittee recommend ed that this concept be allowed as a discretionary architecture and site review item rather than a_ooncgssion, as recommended.by.,staff. The consensus of the Committee was that the ordinance as well `as the dousing Element shall have a preamble which clarifies the obj ectives. Wendie Rooney confirmed that the language will set the tone of the overall AHOZ progxarn: 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 s* enior housing'where senior amenities would only cater to seniors, ITEM 2 CONTEVIMD REVIEW OF THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING OVERLAY ZQ% DESIGN GUIDELINES: PROGRESS DRAFT This item was continued to the next meting. VERBAL COYEVI1NICATIONS (Continued) Beverly Bryant, .KT Properties; encouraged the Com nittee to, review Jan Lindanthal's letter prior to the next meeting, H. their project is delayed, it may not'happen. ITEM 3 APPROVAL, OF MINUTES FROM APRIL 25, 2012 Joe Pirgns.tl mov0&40' approve'`the minutes -fibm April 25, 2011 The mot on was seconded by Marcia Jensen and passed unanimously. ITEM 4 ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjouined at 6,30 p.m. Prepared by: Sandy L B ,: Planning Mara er, . M; DEV%GP02012f i ites\0PC 5 -9 -12 finnLdoc 4•. TOWN OF LOS GATOS 110 East Main Street, Los Gatos, CA 95030 (408) 354 -6872 SUMMARY MINTUTES OF A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE GENERAL dYPLAN 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' present: Wendie Rooney, Director of Community Development; Sandy naily, piannina, Manager ITEM I. DISCUSSION OF ITT PROPERTIES' CORRESPONDENCE DATED MAY 1, 2012, WITH REGARDS TO TILT, COURTHOUSE AFFORDA 3ILITY RATIOS Mendie Rooney introduced and briefly discussed this item and distributed the revised Affordable Housing Overlay Zone (AHOZ) Affordability Ratio Chart, Mark Tersint 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 R'udes 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 fuyst- time homebuyer programs are still available, John Bourgeois questioned how the Town world 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, ATTACWERN7 1 Z General Plan Committee Minutes May 23, 2012 Page 2 of 4 Ve0e R-Oohey fi;Wffi&k'tespokded that there may be some ability to regdin..those units -elsewhere: 'neutral 6r this request. Marcia Jensen questioned if during the next Housing Element update, how will ffi-6 -Statb react if the Town has not *Met- its nioderate iflobMe IMIS. Wendle Rooney responded that th& To"Alft is --only required to provide an opportunity to 'achieve these units, The Town is not obligated to have the units constructed, Joe Pirzynsldl commented :that the Town wants to develop affordable. units. There will. be no penalty if you cannot produce flibin. There will lie ftpehaltyifyou cannot. pr0Jppt.' and .",plan for their l ; - ' A..' . the units. There may be rewards for jurisdictions that can produce umi8 "Whic * would probably be in transportation funding. We may never be able, to get funding for moderate housing, wendle Rooney'commented there are better opportunities through the regular dever6pmont process to meet moderate housing needs as opposed to low and very low. Barbara C&dillo questioned the nuinbers,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 Modes questioned what the tradz-ba may be, Todd Jarvis 'suggeste.d eh�teftaLrAfig`:a ifine lip fit.for allowing this. If the tame limit is not met, it reverts back, Questioned 'Aiit Woidd be a reasonable time limit. Joe Pirzyqski commented to not be tootestrictiYe.,ba time limits. Marcia Jensen stated that it could be a request as part of the project application. Ordinlnces should be-policy based, not project. based. Expressed concern about meeting needs and wants of a'-d ' prior to application of q, eye. qpqdnt. e or Marico Sayoc questioned if an exception would be a variance: , I : f ffic:l own 1 0 That not support the change to the affordability ratios for the property, then the applicant would need to,piocoss a planne d -Y elopne I application to request the change, Marcia Jensen questioned how it would be a planned (16Vdlopment application, Could it be included in the AHOZ ordinance? General flan Committee Minutes May 23, 2012 Page 3 of 4 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 Rl- NA 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 Mooney commented that any of the options could be a possibility in developing an ordinance. Mark Tersini commented that he liked.the- concept of having flexibility with the numbers, The process would-be smoother going under -the A- OZ 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 properly 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, Wendle Rooney commented staff will bring back wording to a future meeting, Joe Pirzynski asked if the General Flan 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. ITETA 2 CO TTIl UED REVIFW OF THE AFFORDABLE 1I®US G OVER�,A�' WINE DESIGN GUMELINES: PROGRESS DRAi T The Committee began the review of the draft AHOZ Guidelines and completed the Introduction and General Design Guidelines Sections. The Committee will discuss the Mousing Types Design Standards Guidelines at the next meeting, Genorat Plan Committee, Minutes May 23, 2012 Page 4 of 4 ITEMS -' -A-.-P-PRO,.VALOF -A-IUNU-Tt8,iFR-oM-MAY 9,2012 Marcia Jensen moved to approve the minutes from May 9, 2012, The motion was seconded by Todd-j&vis ITEA M 4 ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned tt-6:20 p.m. Prepared by: Sandy L. Daily C Manage P '0 12 , PC 5-23-12.doo TOWN OF LOS GATOS 110 .East Main Street, Los Gatos, CA 95030 (408) 354 -6872 ----o------------------------------- --------- - - -AO- admd -e SUMMARY MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE GENERAL FLAN COMMITTEE OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS ON JUNE 13,1012, 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: Melnben5 resent: Barbara Spector, Joe Pirzynski, John Bourgeois, Marico Sayoc, Marcia Jensen, Barbara Cardillo Members absent: Todd Jarvis, Matthew Hudes Staff resent: Wendie Rooney, Director of Community Development; Sandy 13aily, planning Manager; Heather Bradley, Associate Planner Guest present: Justin Tahara ITEM 1 CONTINUED R.EVIEW OF TE[E AFFORDABLE I- IOUSWG OIRLAY ZONE DESIGN GUIDELINES: PROGRESS DRAFT Committee continued the review of the Design Guidelines and discussed unit type. Committee questioned if small lot single fancily 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 ATTACWWMENT 1 3 General Plan Committee Minutes June 13, 2012 Page 2 of 2 ITEM APPROVAL OF AHNUTES FROM MAY 23,2012 Marctti n moved to 1pptb�d'Ihe, mffiufes fro n' , M6Y 23, 2012, wfth edits. Th- txiot oil was 'seconded `b-.y.,M-6 ico:S. 6b, -BarbaM Spector --abAained, -- Motion passed, ITEM 4 ADJOURNME, NT The meeting was adjourned at 6150 p,m. Prepared by: (Sandy L, Bail Planni ng ng Mana r —NMEW]. - - - 12MI Ws\ GC 6.13-12,dor, t H:,j TOWN OF LOS GATOS 110 East Main Street, Los Gatos, CA 95030 (408) 3545872 _..m...- W...a__________________ --------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY.' MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE -- GENERAL -- PLAN COMMITTEE OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS ON AUGUST 8, 2012, HELL? 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 Pirzynsk , John Bourgeois, Marico Sayoc, Marcia Jensen, Barbara Cardillo, Todd Jarvis, Matthew Hudes Members absent: None Staff present: Wendie Rooney, Director of Community Development; Erwin Ordonez, Senior Planner; Suzanne Avila, Senior Planner ITEM I I3BLOW MAWKET PRICE IJOUSING PROGRAM GUIDLEINES AND ORDINANCE RENgSIONS 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 resale of these housing units will remain affordable to median and low income levels for the longest feasible time as alproved 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 payments 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 (HU definitions (e,1, people who were homeowners prior to a divorce a displaced homemaker a single parent who has onIyowned with a former spouse a widow /widcwbr of a veteran etc 1 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, ATTACMENT 14 General Plan Committee Minutes August 8, 2012 Page 2 of 3 jn�ot "' to �6i�v the -A-BMP' to thb Town Council with a Marcia Jensen n4de W �6ii, Ewd a rocommOhdation. for approval; The motion was '-s0`0o:ftded by Job Pi7--yn'ski arid. passed r ITETW2 'C,'0NSWiVh6N OF MU AL AFF."ORDABLE E"4G OVERLAY ZONE DESIGN GUII)ELINES Director Wendie Rooney discussed the progress in preparing the most recent draft of the Affordable Housing The Committee reviewed "highlighted" revisions to the draft and disdu'ss6d additional refinements that should be made, After discussion, the Cominitteo.unanimpuply, rqqqmrnended foAtA0the Cound, with the 'follov;!ing additional eha%ges Spector second): to the prepared draft (motion Pirzynski d ,D Introductory paragraph should be revised to reflect the Committee's and Director Rooney's. revised;. text .'.T:h.e Town of Los Gatos has a rich heritage of varied homes anging froffi small cottages to liargeT homes. o Second paragraph of Introduction should delete typo: "the" Los Gatos, , Housing. Typos, second p v agph, highlight shouldybe revised to read. "..,density provisi on allowed by the AHOZ, Design Guidelines parking section should include new bullet item: "6, In housing dew-clopinDnts without . garage -.;parking, bicycle parking will be required per .VTA scan 4t aids." * 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 SX * Cottage Cluster Housing, D6y at Standards B-mlding .Placement sectlon,.,hikNight should read "Structures facing* public streets must have similar articulated facades on both.,ithe street and 00,uftyk-d, facades ..!. dftd'90.11� 013U46i, ljousing"leD kti6nt..,,.,:,8t'aiidW�dS.",lMa' Azticu.La p section '.P -71;Wx6v hi ;'u d, 11P structtires And,.,shoPjd include the e of varzed~pltched roof styles, gables oi �4 -S6uth. Bay .Development Sj1p. -seotiog shQUI4 be -.reyisq&to --reflect the -Flood- Plain Oka Roacllr,T�ailc nia OF Sites A &},13 „should be revised orof.lcctlho,Flood Plan `ft -- jvv far approval . l xfi "th fordable "op gtio si-oh- n, T bw oil, The H us & _M t General Plana 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 ADJOURNM]i:NT The meeting was adjourned at 6:25 p.m. The next regular meeting of the General flan Committee is scheduled for August 22, 2012, Prepared by: r Erwin Ordonez, Senior Tlanner NADEW PD2012minuteskepc 8.8.12rev,doc This Page Intentionally Let Blank Affordable Housing Overlay Zone Design Guidelines Please see Exhibit A to Exhibit 8 f ®r Guidelines Attachment 15 rivill is Page Intentionally Legit Blank Council /Agency Meeting 1115/12 Item #1 a MINUTES OF THE JOINT PLANNING COMMISSION AND TOWN COUNCIL STUDY SESSION AND TOWN COUNCIL /SUCCESSOR AGENCY MEETING OCTOBER 15, 2012 The Town ouncil of the Town of Los Gatos conducted a Joint Planning Commission /T kwn Council Study Session and a Town Council /Successor Agency Meeting on Mon y, October 15, 2012, JOINT STUDY SESS N CALLED TO ORDER AT 5:30 P.M. All members of the Tow Council were present as were all Planning Commissioners except Thomas O'Donnell nd Thomas O'Donnell. DISCUSSION TOPIC 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 -06 -074, 424 -03 -057 and 424 -06 -021. Wendie Rooney, Director of Community Development, presented the staff report. Town Council and Planning Commission Discussion - Commented on the staff and General Plan Committee's hard work throughout the process. - Questioned the sites and whether they are vacant land. Questioned the impacts of development on the school districts, such as increased student projections. Questioned the process for public education and outreach, Questioned the relationship between the state density bonus program and the AHOZ. Questioned the process for project approval under the AHOZ. Commented on application fees and stated they should not come from the General Fund. Commented on the tough situation that will result during the first project because of "by right" provisions regarding density, set - backs, parking, etc. Page 1 EXHIBIT 12 Study Session Continued Ms. Rooney - Commented that some of the sites are vacant and others have structures. - Commented that the Town communicated the proposals with the school districts, but did not receive much feedback, - Commented that some sites would be within Campbell School District and other sites would be within Los Gatos School District, - Commented that student projections are in the General Plan Environmental Impact Report. - Commented that developing the Affordable Hous'.ing Overlay Zones and adopting the Housing Element required many public meetings, which is all part of the public outreach process, - Commented that the ordinances for each AHOZ site would preclude a developer from using the state density bonus program in conjunction with the AHOZ. - Commented that typically Planning Commission would handle Architecture and Site approval, but Council can request review in the ordinance. Commented that BMP funds can be used for fees. - Commented that developers can build quality products within the guidelines set forth in the AHOZ. Open the public hearing, Mr. Tersini Commented that KT Properties is in the process of buying the courthouse property, and the company is working with neighbors regarding the requirements of the overlay zone. Ms. Bryant - Commented that senior housing will be part of the KT Homes project. Closed the public hearing. BUSINESS ME ING CALLED TO ORDER - 7:00 P.M. ROLL ;ALL Present: Mayor Steve R e, Vice Mayor Barbara Spector, Council Member Steven Leonardis, Council Memb ,,Diane McNutt, and Council Member Joe Pirzynski, Absent: None P � , e 2 Si bA 6t3 P5N is C� O E� wa N raa I� l01 �d M�m LO14,NNNN ,��+ II II M II II II II II II Ii f` m O m m Il- m I> LO aO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 x 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 xx,,-xxxxxxx N N T 0 d d 0 0 0 0 co M co In M M T r r r it II O II II II II II II II M O I'T 00 M M M M M O NT d' O cY �S' 1- -It �' 'd' V' 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 X 0 0 0 0 0 0 xx,- Xxxxxxx NNt- (D- 4,It0000 Ln Ln r 0 CO (p M M M M N N 't0) II 00TLOLONLO N II II N II II 11 II it II it N T 00 T N r N r (V T ' 00 00 T O 00 00 00 00 00 00 —000-0-0-0 `• O 0 x 0 0 0 0 0 O O xx,�xxxxxxx N N T M G' v' 0 0 0 0 ILO LO r 0 (D M M M M M 0 0 a 0. Q Q Q Q Q Q M (D a) N N Q iS _p 'CJ 2S O t3 e 0 e E e 2_ i O 03 0 M O M O M O O 3_1 4= tj t b $7 tj Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q NNI-- M d' ci 0000 Ln Ln r 0 (O (O M M M M r co 0 0 0 U' Lo lm CO O l0 ti O ®N�OOO?O 0,01 0 0l0 uST t� h w ; OVA-`, r'MI ?PV 00M T fm r t00 00 M �A-P d -ttfi 0 co W 00 o, (D N of OD l (5 O1 O ,MW Y S ?-S i'liE MI R 1' m UC; a) . a) °3 E NI�IMITITI I� mmo ■e MUMMER TINITI''I''I I� H e C) V O _ � C 0 U) E �+ O Q °g t C) < O � � � � Q Uocncncn 0 U) -0 0 0 0 � db i < . fit U) C (CS (0 m t® �°cn000 � EKRIBIT 13 4 l l\ T U U) e C C C e e = N c O m O n O. - m c U c o > U) 0 cn cA c cn ( 0 0 0 ° co N (Ti 0 0 N N - m m m O (Q n; -j n Lo lm CO O l0 ti O ®N�OOO?O 0,01 0 0l0 uST t� h w ; OVA-`, r'MI ?PV 00M T fm r t00 00 M �A-P d -ttfi 0 co W 00 o, (D N of OD l (5 O1 O ,MW Y S ?-S i'liE MI R 1' m UC; a) . a) °3 E NI�IMITITI I� mmo ■e MUMMER TINITI''I''I I� H e C) V O _ � C 0 U) E �+ O Q °g t C) < O � � � � Q Uocncncn 0 U) -0 0 0 0 � db i < . fit U) C (CS (0 m t® �°cn000 � EKRIBIT 13 NI�IMITITI I� mmo ■e MUMMER TINITI''I''I I� H e C) V O _ � C 0 U) E �+ O Q °g t C) < O � � � � Q Uocncncn 0 U) -0 0 0 0 � db i < . fit U) C (CS (0 m t® �°cn000 � EKRIBIT 13 EKRIBIT 13 This Page Intentionally Deft Blank Wa �m 42 4* Q F�3 Q� tai N G� 4, pr-4 km ME i 6J �i 61� EXHIBIT 14 O O O O O C:> C:) OO t \D (7\ M I'D O O O 0 0 O O O O V1 hh ®*N Ln M O "o M ,-q V1 ,i O O Q O O Lr) O Lr) O Ln Llr) do 0� cl� M �D 00 N �1 0 0 0 0 0 hffii Ln O O O O in O t-- 00 -t ei' M � � .--� 00 M � M 1� ra O O O O O O O O O O Vl Lri r-�, C) O — ,NLr) Lni� M Lr1 O O O O O V) V1 Lf') O O M N o0 [ 00 4 M O O O O O O O O Ca O O llD O o0 t�l Lri N ® ei- N It �D 00 O 0 0 0 0 0 Ln Lr) C) 0 0 O l a L N w N \10 M M 00 N cn Ln 00 r� cn N o N 00 U (D Ln N ) >C U p ® 61� EXHIBIT 14 This Page Intentionally Left Blank corn oodS firvnynaiito shAai�n tnioodCa�'1'mco comj a ..s;..z .3 - n6i�. —�� <� • ss...n...er,.e,.•,wA;r.. -r wu ��rar�•�1 .ta..�v:r�Y': gent: Monday, October 22, 2012 10:27 AM To: Council; Steve Rice; bspectorQlosgatos. ov; Steve Leonardis; smcnutt@losaatosca.gov; Joe Pirzynski Subject: Low Income Dwelling Initiative and AHOZ Steve Rice and Council Members, It has recently come to my attention that there is an initiative to allow the building of Affordable Housing Units / Low Income High Density Dwellings in certain areas of Los Gatos. I would like to gain further insight into the rationale for this initiative, the status of proposal /approval efforts and the current reactions from the community that you may have received so far. If not already sufficiently provided, I would like to know when the council will be fully disseminating information to town residents on the initiative and the resulting impacts these initiatives pose to residents in those areas. To date I have not heard anything on these significant changes to our town and I believe that more information and discussion is warranted in the best interest of our residents and fellow town members. I have obvious concerns for my property and my neighborhood's property valuation. Further I have concerns pertaining to the seemingly questionable use of new zoning concepts (Overlay Zone). The manner of implementation of this new concept, as it pertains to this initiative, suggests it is being done for the rapid advancement of this initiative without following the established laws and policies of our township. I believe these policies were enacted to protect and /or to fully inform its residents, allowing time for proper feedback. Hopefully this is not the case as I believe the council has the best interest of the Township in mind and that these initiatives simply need some additional public discussion for the benefit of the residents to further understand these changes. Please assist me in locating the right information on this issue so that I can become better informed, along with my fellow town residents. Also where and when can residents hear further public council discussions on this issue and interact with you directly regarding our growing concerns. Regards, Shawn blood Lockheed Martin Space Systems Company Palo Alto: 650.424.3099 Sunnyvale: 408.742.2427 Cellular: 408.43 1.1897 EXHTSTT 15 As a property owner on Knowles Drive, I am writing to express my dismay at the emerging plans for development around my home under the so- called "Affordable Housing Overlay Zone," as well as my disappointment at the conduct of Los Gatos Council, Planning Commission, and staff. The proposed development e which seems to be in very advanced stages of planning -- is bound to have significant detrimental effect on the local community, including traffic, parking, schools, and overall congestion, It will, obviously, undermine the value of our property and the quality of our Iives.[VVendie Rooney] Please note that AHOZ is not a development project. It is public policy, It will not necessary result in development, but creates development standards and site and architectural standards that would be imposed if development were proposed. The Town is required to flan (emphasis added) for a specific number of housing units in five different income categories-every seven years, including market rate or above moderate housing. The state requires tli'e Town to pjan for housing, biit does not require the Towmguarante'econstruction, That is a private sector responsibility., If the Town refused to plan for the housing units, the.State could take control away from the Town for issuing-any building permits. It is state housing law the necessitates the Town to plan for housing. This seems patently clear -- and, based on: minutes from .recent Council meetings, was clear to at least some of the Council Members and Commissioners. However, the Town has been moving ahead with this plan at great speed, without consultation with the local community, and without articulating a clear rationale for questionable decisions (related to waivers and incentives to commercial interests).[Wendie Rooney] The Town has actually been working on the Housing Element of which the AHOZ is the principle implementation measures. since 2009. The Housing Element was recently approved by the Town Council (March 2012.) and certified by the State (September 2012), The Town's General Plan Committee, which is the oversight committee for the Housing Element, has been working on the AHOZ since November 2011. In order to better.control the outcome of potential development and not allow the use of the State Density Bonus law, which could add up to a 35% density bonus pnd unlimited incentives or waivers of requirements, the Town created the ability for the property owner to use up to four incentives and have up to a 20% density bonus. By creating these incentives, the Town was legally and successfully able to preclude the use of the -State Density Bonus law, which basically removes all Town control. Why the rush? A Why are you using the concept of an "overlay zone" as opposed to rezoning ?[Wondie Rooney] The Town purposely chose the overlay since it allows the property owner to development under the existing zoning, which in the case of the Knowles property is Office or the AHOZ, but not both. If the Town would have pursued the rezone route, the property would have to be developed as housing. This allows the property owner the right to do either, and since housing is a potential, the State found that the Town Housing Element was in compliance with required state law. In reality the State would have preferred the Town to rezone the property, but_the Town felt that while it is obligated to meet state housing law requirements, it wanted to preserve the property owner's ability to develop consistent with the existing zoning if they did not want housing. O Why haven't you engaged with the community ?`Wendie Rooney] The Town has been holding discussions on the AHOZ for the past year, and even further back to 2009 during the Housing Element preparation, There have been 11 public noticed General Plan Committee meetings on the AHOZ in the last 11 months, at least 8 public noticed General Plan Committee meetings on the Housing Element of which the AHOZ was the main topic, one publically noticed Planning Commission and Town Council study session on the Housing Element and one on the AHOZ specially, three public noticed Town Council meetings on the Housing Element and one publically noticed Planning Commission hearing on the Housing Element, 6 Why haven't you consulted with the local (Campbell Union) school ?[Wendie Rooney] The Town has consulted all school districts that are involved, including the Campbell Union, twice, once during the Housing Element development and once last winter. We met with the school district in 2010 when the Housing Element was drafted, and they denied the request to meet with Town staff this past winter to discuss the AHOZ, since this topic was covered in the Housing Element meeting that they previously attended with the Town a year and a half earlier, ® Why are you offering incentives upon incentives to a particular developer ?[Wendie Rooney] Please note the comments above. If the Town were not to offer incentives, the property owner could invoke the State Density Bonus program, which basically takes all control to regulate the development away from the Town and could results in densities that far exceed the Town's density ranges. As proposed the AHOZ for the Knowles and Capri property is consistent with the Town's densities, even with the density bonus, The overall development plans consist of about 20 acres — half of them in our neighborhood and half closer to downtown Los Gatos. I found it particularly troubling that the Town of Los Gatos has decided to segregate the dense low - income housing primarily in our neighborhood — and locate higher- income, less -dense construction closer to Downtown. How can you justify that ?[Wendie Rooney] If developed, each of the five AHOZ sites are required to provide housing in each of the five income levels that the state requires. The Town simply took the same ratio of units that the State required us to plan for and pro -rata them across all five properties. Therefore, from a percentage standpoint, there is an equal ratio of all five income categories on all five sites. As far as I can tell from information on your web site, an Environmental Impact Report has not been put together for this particular development — certainly not for the impact of the package of "incentives" offered to the developer, including higher density, reduced setback, taller building, and, most significantly, density transfer. In other words, keeping the low - income housing "on the other side of the tracks. "`Wendie Rooney] The Town Certified an Environment Impact Report with the General Plan and Housing Element in 2010. For the AHOZ, staff prepared an Addendum to the General Plan EIR that further studied these five properties. The Addendum EIR did not find any additional impacts over those identified in the General Plan /Housing Element EIR. The Addendum will be included with the AHOZ application that is scheduled for Planning Commission consideration on November 14th, I am truly puzzled by the conduct of the Town in this matter. I expect public servants and elected officials to be attentive to community issues, and not operate in cahoots with commercial interests. But here a select developer was brought into what are billed as "planning" discussions — a developer who is ready to move with a specific project proposal "within weeks." [ Wendie Rooney] The Town has nothin tg_o do with finding or encouraging this developer. The property was owned by the County. The County decided to sell the property and sent out Request for Proposals to the private development community, including El Camino Hospital, who successful bought the corner 2 acres on Knowles and Capri. KT properties was the successful bidder for the 3 acres that wraps around the corner property. The Town had neither any ownership nor legal holdings with the property and therefore had no involvement with the selection of the buyers. This was solely a county transaction. [This developer, incidentally, is apparently just as uninterested in receiving community input as the Town Council; although he claimed to have arranged a "community meeting" on the subject for 10/20, he hasn't gotten around to actually inviting the impacted neighbors until late 10/28.] 1 strongly urge you to reset this planning process — to launch one which properly seeks community input, includes a thorough and careful EIR, hinges on clear articulation of the Council's rationale, and drives decision - making which balances the interests and resource of all of Los Gatos, Respectfully, Iddo Hadar [ Wendie Rooney] As I noted, the Planning Commission is scheduled to hold a public hearing on the AHOZ November 14th beginning at 7:00 p.m. It is anticipated the Council will hear this matter in December. Please feel free to contact me if you have any further questions. Thank you, Wendie Rooney 111405C@comcast.net> Bate: Saturday, October 27, 2012 12:41 PM To: Council <Counc!I2. osgatosca.gov >, "Stephen M. Rice" <srice@losgatosca.gov >, BSpector <BSpector2losgatosca.gov >, Steve Leonardis <SLeonardis21osgatosca.gov >, Diane McNutt <dmcnutt o�losgatosca.gov> Cc: Joe Pirzynski <JP!rzynski @losgatosca.�ov> Subject: Affordable Housing Overlay Zone I just received a letter from my neighbors and I am disappointed that the City of Los Gatos is having discussions on Low Cost Affordable Housing without having open discussion to. obtain the Tax Payers and Property Owners who will be negatively affected by changing the City. Negatively with the Creation of Low Income Housing. This will cause property values to decline, congested traffic with additional traffic volumne, and negative affect on our schools as the number of additional student-will tax and overcrowd-the schools. I would certainly vote - --NO! I have a duplex on Vasona Ave, and my Renters seem to like it there. The smallness of the town is very appealing and they like the schools and the the whole district is very close net community, Please send me any further regarding AHOZ information. When is your next open meeting for the citizens to let us Tax Payers hear about your plans and changes to Los Gatos so all the Citizens so we can see all the zoning /rezoning is being taken place without the citizens being informed or discussed. I would like to ensure that changes are not being made to suit the selected developer before the citizens are notified. We want to ensure there is no preselected developer is in the discussions before the Tax Payers are allowed to discuss the Councils Plans. No back room planning, Cverthing must be in the open. Judith Small 1405 Cordilleras Ave San Carlos, CA 94070 From: Faye Bon [mailto :fbon(a�interorealestate com] Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2012 9:22 AM To: Council; Steve Rice Subject: Affordable Housing in Los Gatos Hi, As a resident in Los Gatos, I like to voice my opinion about this. I think we already have enough lower income residential is our area and adding more would bring down our home value and crowd the neighborhood. We are very much against this action. Please hear our voice. Thank you, Faye Bon This Page Intentionally .G BlunK