Attachment 4-14REQUIRED 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 comer 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.
APPLICANT: Town of Los Gatos
FINDINGS:
Required finding for CEQA:
■ 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:
■ The proposed amendment is internally consistent with the General Plan.
Required findings for Town Code Amendment:
■ The proposed amendment is consistent with the General Plan.
N'MEWMDMGM012Windings Al2- 00)and GP -12-0 ,dm
ATTACB MENT 4
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
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
A -12 -003
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;
ATTACHMENT 5
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.
THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
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
29.80.520.
29.10.525.
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
Moderate
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%
30%
20%
Oka Road Sites C
35%
15%
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, at which time
the Affordable Housing Agreement shall be executed no later than the
issuance of the certificate for the fifty -first percent of the market rate unit.
The Affordable Housing Agreement shall be binding on all future owners
and successors of interests of the housing development.
Permitted Uses in the AHOZ
(a)
Multifamily dwellings;
(b)
Two - family dwellings;
(c)
Single - family dwellings;
29.80.530. Conditional Uses Permitted. No Conditional Use Permit shall be required for a
housing development that meets the intent and regulations contained in this
ordinance.
levels on five properties within the Town that are 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 comer 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, or 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.
29.80.535. 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
Site
Maximum
Lot
Minimum Setback
Requirements)
Maximum
Height
Density
Units
Parking Ratio
Coverage
Limit ft z
Per
Front
Sides
Rear
Acre
Courthouse
40%
25
20
20
30 to 35
20
0 -1 bedroom: I 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
t0
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
Property line setbacks. Internal setbacks are determined through the Architecture and Site Review Process.
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.
Tandem parking is allowed automatically.
29.80.545. Affordable Housing Overlay Zones Development Incentives
(a) Concessions and Incentives. Applications meeting the intent of the
AHOZ will be automatically granted four 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) Parking 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 I space per unit for units reserved for seniors
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
up 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 /market 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.I 1- 14- 12.doe
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL
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) GP -12 -004
WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code Section 65353, the Town Council
conducted a public hearing for consideration of amendments to the General Plan on
'2013.
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.
ATTACHMENT 6
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the
Town of Los Gatos, California, held on the _ day of , 2013 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
NADEV\RES0S\20l2 \GPA Resolution Courthourse Property.doc
wY
Q
1` V ;
�375_Know1es- ®rive
14205 dapri ®rive
-/K
Application No. GP -12 -004 A.P.N. #406 -28 -032 N
Change of the general plan map amending the Town General Plan
From: Public
To: Office Professional
-Forwarded by Planning Commission Date: November 14, 2012
Approved by Town Council Date: Ord:
Clerk Administrator Mayor EXHIBIT A
Of Attachment 6
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
n
C,j
ORDINANCE NO.
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
ATTACHMENT 7
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 DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
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\ORDSB75 Knowles-14205 Capri AHOZ Ord.doc
ff.
375 -Kn® fes give
/14205 Capri give \�
Application No. A -12 -003 A.P.N. #406 -28 -032
Change of zoning map amending the Town Zoning Ordinance.
® Addition of AHOZ
Forwarded by Planning Commission
Approved by Town Council Date:
Clerk Administrator Mayor
N
Date: November 14, 2012
Ord:
EXHIBIT A
Of Attachment 7
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
ORDINANCE NO.
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
ATTACHMENT 8
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 DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION I
The Zoning Map of the Town is hereby amended to apply the AHOZ designation to the property
shown on Exhibit A.
SECTION I1
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
WDEV\ORDSTC owles Dr. AHOZ Ordinen eAm
Forwarded by Planning Commission
Approved by Town Council Date:
Clerk Administrator
Mayor
Date: November 14, 2012
Ord:
EXHIBIT A
Of Attachment 8
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
ORDINANCE
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 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
ATTACMENT 9
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 DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
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:TDEV\ORDS \Oka Road Site A AHOZ Ordinance.doc
c0i / - 1 7��
H RAN
BRiGH
I,
�I `1 WIM
VA
TOWN OF LOS -�
Application No. A -12 -003 A.P.N. #424 -08 -074
Change of zoning map amending the Town Zoning Ordinance
® Addition of AHOZ
rorwarded by Planning Commission
Approved by Town Council Date:
Clerk Administrator Mayor
Uate: November 14, 2012
Ord:
EXHIBIT A
Of Attachment 9
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
ORDINANCE NO.
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
ATTACHMENT 10
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 DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
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.doe
r
I TOWN OF LOS GATOS I
Application No. A -12 -003 A.P.N. #424 -08 -057
Change of zoning map amending the Town Zoning Ordinance
® Addition of AHOZ
Forwarded by Planning Commission
Approved by Town Council Date:
Clerk Administrator Mlayor
Date: November 14, 2012
Ord:
EXHIBIT A
Of Attachment 10
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
ORDINANCE NO.
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:
• 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
ATTACHMENT 11
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 DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1
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 C AHOZ Ordinance.doc
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
Application No. A -12 -003 A.P.N. #424 -08 -021
Change of zoning map amending the Town Zoning Ordinance.
® Addition of AHOZ
❑ Zone Chan 2e
Forwarded by Planning Commission
Approved by Town Council Date:
Clerk Administrator Mayor
a
Liate:November 14, 2012
Ord:
E%HIBIT A
of Attacbmeut 11
This 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
AHOZ development standards and Design Guidelines to the Planning Commission and Town
Council; and
ATTACHMENT 12
WHEREAS, adoption of these design guidelines will help provide clear direction to Town
staff, developers, Planning Commission and Town Council.
NOW, 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 of the Town of Los
Gatos, California, held on the _ day of, 2013, by the following vote:
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 \RES0W012Adoption of the AHOZ Design Guidelines.docx
i
EXHIBIT A
Of Attachment 12
r
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
TOWN COUNCIL
Barbara Spector Alayor
Steve Leonardis Vice- Alayor
Marcia Jensen
Diane McNutt
Joe Pirzynski
Steve Rice Former Council Alember
PLANNING COMMISSION
Marcia Jensen Former Chair
Charles Erekson Fortner Mice -Chair
John Bourgeois
Marico Sayoc
Margaret Smith
Joanne Talesfore
GENERAL PLAN COMMITTEE
John Bourgeois Planning Commission
Marcia Jensen
Marico Savoc
Joe Pirzynski
Barbara Spector
Barbara Cardillo
Mathew Hudes
(Vacant)
Todd Jarvis
TOWN STAFF
Greg Larson
Pamela Jacobs
Judith Propp
Wendie Rooney
Sandy Bailv
Heather Bradley
Suzanne Avila
Larry Cannon
Town of Los Gatos
Planning Commission
Planning Commission
Town Council
Town Council
Community Services Cononission
Public Representative
Public Representative
Business Representative
Toton Manager
Assistant Town Manager
Town Attorney
Community Development Director
Planning Manager
Associate Plmmer
Senior Planter
Town Arcbitect /
Cannon Design Group
Community Development Department
110 East Main Street
P.O. Box 949
Los Gatos, CA 95031
Adopted by the (403) 354 -6372
Los Gatos Town Council (408) 354 -7593 fax
January ,2011 wwsv.losgamsca.gov
Due to
the iength
of
this document,
please
see Exhibit
A
of Exhibit 8 of
Attachment 1 previously submitted for
the complete document,
Ais Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
Letters Submitted to the Planning Commission During the
November 14, 2012, Meeting
ATTACHMENT 13
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
imail - Disagreement with AHOZ planned development on Knowles
:v4 Y � •x' 9^ q �
https: / /mail. �-ooLl e.comt mail /u/0 / ?ui= 2 &ik=2774fafc63 &view=pt&-sea..
Carolyn Sims <carolyn.sims @gmail.com>
Disagreement with AHOZ planned development on Knowles
' �rolyn.sims @g mail.com>
To: Carolyn i s <carolyn.sims @gmail.com>
November 13, 2012
To: Los Gatos Planning Commission and to Los Gatos Town Council
Regarding: Planned zoning changes to allow for high- density low- income housing
PM
I am writing and attending the November 14, 2012 meeting to express my complete disagreement with and
extreme concern for the town's plans and the methods being used to push plans through for building high - density
and low- income housing on the properties that were owned by Santa Clara county that contained the courthouse
and other health facilities. These plans appear to being rapidly pushed through without any regard for the current
Los Gatos residents in the Knowles, Pollard, Vasona, Capri, Dardenelli, Parr, Winchester area, which I'll refer to
as NW LG.
I attended a presentation by the developer "team" where I learned that the plan is to jam -pack multiple "single -
family" homes (no yards, parking), multiple "town- houses" (also without yards or parking), and an apartment
building for low- income that is planned to be right next to the sidewalk and also have no green space and
inadequate (one spot per unit) parking. This plan by NO means fits in with the current zoning or the nature of the
neighborhood. Appropriate use for this space would be for a park or medical offices, both of which do comply
with current zoning and would enhance and not detract from the neighborhood.
I have lived in Los Gatos, on Pollard, just off of Knowles, for almost-30 years. When I moved here, thiswas
considered a suburban area. What you propose will create something more akin to the bad areas of San
Francisco and New York where dwellings crowd the street and there is no place for the residents to park or the
traffic to flow.
When I moved here, I could easily commute to most places in the valley. Now it takes 20 minutes to go the less
than one mile to travel down Knowles, turn right on Winchester, and sit on the non - moving on ramp to 85N.
Adding more than a hundred more people will further exacerbate the already intolerable traffic conditions along
Winchester, from north of the Chevron down to and along Lark and all along Knowles and Pollard. Adding more
signals would not work as there are already too many signals too close together. Adding more lanes would also
further degrade the livability of the area due to the increased noise and fumes, including sirens, honking,
booming stereos, etc.
Having office buildings does not have the same negative impact as most of the current residents begin their
commutes before the offices' staffs arrive and return after the offices are closed. For those who don't commute,
the extended lunch hour is also already beyond the limits of traffic, as are the times for the school drops offs and
pickups.
Our extended neighborhood, including the nearby Campbell blocks, provided a reasonable area for a nice family
of 3 11/14/2012 4:33 PM
�u�nu - a�aaau wau�iu vriw �aaavc yanwn.0 wra.ivy.arvan vu auay.r i�� .auyo.i. u.. a.r��vy�.waa"uss..0 W ..� . w ..wu. ._ � ,
walk. There is already too much traffic. And, dumping high - density housing along Knowles will make a walk
impossible, impractical and unsafe. This NW LG area already is the lowest income, highest density, most
"diverse" area of Los Gatos. It is the one area of Los Gatos that can least afford to have more low income
people crammed together. Neither I nor my offspring would feel safe enough, even with our large German
Shepherd to walk down Knowles and Capri.
Also, this area has already had an influx There is the Open Door projects and there are the tall, high- density
little grouping of homes just before getting to the Safeway shopping center on Pollard. Also, the largest most
recent increase in traffic at KnowlesMfinchester /Pollard is due to the Aventino development at Netflix This area
used to be A -Z nursery and rockery. Just in the last couple of weeks, I was reminded out much our area has
already changed for the negative with the influx of high - density dwellers. While checking out at CVS, the alarm
went off, the cashier stated to the other cashier that she "called that one". A certain type of man had come in,
cruised through the store, and shoplifted more than $40 of inventory. The cashiers were prevented by CVS
policy to go after him after he set off the alarm or to confront him before he was proved to be a thief. Similarly,
Safeway has had issues of items being eaten or drunk and left in the aisles — never being paid for. Welfare
"stamp" care people tried to buy candy with their balance of less than $3. Later they walked out. These thieves
cause the prices to go up for all of us in the neighborhood.
When high density low income housing comes into a neighborhood, the homeowners and auto insurance rates go
up. I cannot afford this and the upcoming tax hikes and the already existing increases in medical insurance due
to Obamacare (Blue Shield stated this is why the rates went up.) I do not want my neighborhood to become less
safe and more expensive.
Additionally, these types of residents are more likely to be smokers and partiers. I do not want to have to hold
my breath walking by (if I dare to walk by) so as not to breathe their smoke. Nor, do I want to have to listen to
their music or smell their cooking. Nor, do I want to deal with their traffic.
Why has Los Gatos decided to shove all of the AHOZ here? Why not spread it around elsewhere? Because the
neighbors elsewhere have concerns? Well, so do we. Do you want to dump these kids on Campbell Union
school district and make our (but not your) property taxes go up again when someone decides to do yet another
bond? (Many of my neighbors and friends who are Los Gatos residents in the CUSD send or sent our children to
private school. But it's not fair to add to the problem.
The town did not send any notices out. Apparently there was something about 300 feet. That wouldn't get off the
property if measured from the center! Something like this would need to go out on a mile radius. That is how
impactful this ill- thought plan is. The planning commission members nor the town council members reside in this
part of Los Gatos, so it is "okay" to "dump" the AHOZ problem here. No, it is NOT okay.
Finally and very importantly, I think that this development will lower my property value by as much as $350,000
from the current Zillow value. This is completely unacceptable and if this occurs, this will need to be made up to
me and my neighbors. We work just as hard for our home on quarter -acre lots as the mansion owners in other
parts of Los Gatos. It is not "okay" to steal our equity.
The state concept of what they are trying to do as far as put people nearer their jobs is not a logical concept in
this century. Jobs are not stable and companies and corporations do not tend to take into account where their
of 3 11/14/2012 4:33 PM
employees live. For example, perhaps Safeway employees many "lower income" people. These employees
have to work at whatever store the Safeway corporation sends them to. Moving is too expensive and disruptive
to do when either they will get sent to work in a different store or for anyone get laid off and have to find another
job. Most people working at Netflix are going to be able to afford and most likely want a home of their own in a
real neighborhood with tree lined streets and their own backyard, not this new high density layout.
Another issue is the lack of setback and trees. The current medical offices building on Knowles is setback and
has trees as tall as it. Knowles looks nice (except for the traffic). Take a look at Winchester in Campbell where
they are replacing the thrift shop with a tall low income high density dwelling (kitty corner from the Rotten Robbie
south of Campbell Ave). The building is barely off the sidewalkll How ugly and overwhelming. Also look at the
area on the NE corner of San Tomas and Campbell, where they are finishing building something like what you
want to do on Knowles. There will be a lot of people crammed in there on top of each other, looking into each
others' windows, and again no parking and no green space (although the Campbell community center is only a
few blocks away).
Also, adding high density low income housing at the Southbay development also on Knowles /Dell area would
further add to the bad traffic and too many people issues. These people would further crowd the Los Gatos
Creek Trails and make that an unsafe area to enjoy. Additionally, adding homes where there are business
buildings on the SE side of Winchester / 85 (Albright) would also have a negative impact on traffic, congestion,
quality of life, crowding, public services.
Please, do not do this to the nearby Knowles neighborhood!!
Sincerely,
Carolyn Sims
761 Pollard Rd
Los Gatos, CA 95032
carolyn.sims@gmaii.com
3 of 3 11/14/2012 4:33 PP
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
�S'J� -rU7oo
Los Gatos Resident
I would like the following submitted to the Town Planning Commission and to the Town'Council for
review and consideration regarding the topic of Affordable Housing in Los Gatos and the proposed
implementation of the AHOZ Zoning Approach. The AHOZ Plan, as proposed by the commission, does
not meet the intentions of the town, its residents, nor does it properly accomplish the goals of the State
of California regarding the allocation of land for affordable living for town residents.
##1: Affordable Distribution
The intent of the affordable housing initiative in the state of California is to create affordable housing
interspersed amongst the neighborhoods that the very town resident grew up in and can afford to
remain in, despite financial success or lack thereof. These people need to live near their jobs. We all
understand the need and the rationale for the law and these planning changes within the town. Having
said that, the affordable housing is supposed to be properly interspersed throughout the town, near
jobs, markets and the neighborhoods where people work and contribute. I challenge the manner in
which the town's planning commission is implementing the affordable housing initiatives. Some
questions and important points of contention that I pose to the Commission and the Council:
1) What is the current mapping /distribution, with and without the new proposed AHOZ locations,
of the town's affordable housing? (Requested weeks ago and still waiting for the data).
2) Why are all 5 sites in the new AHOZ in the very north side of town? Even the Environmental
Impact Report (EIP- Addendum) makes an independent statement that says "of the 10 remaining
proposed sites, the 5 kept in the plan are all in the very northern part of town. The 5 eliminated
were more southern, mixed in town ".
3) The 5 sites that were eliminated from the plan could have easily been kept in the plan, resulting
in all 10 sites kept at lower density across the board. This would still fully meet the required
allocations to the town by the Bay Area Housing and the State requirements. Why were they
eliminated? Planning Commission members state that these 5 and others including areas like
the Los Gatos lodge site and Dittos Lane were eliminated due to "concerns by town residents in
those areas ". I find this unacceptable. Further, the original sites that numbered many more
than 10 (need to verify with the council the initial number of potential sites) were eliminated
but we have no information as to why. I request it be made publicly available the rationale that
each and every site was eliminated from consideration.
4) Why are the 3 remaining AHOZ sites in the OKA area omitted from having a density bonus? The
other two north of 85 (Knowles and South Bay) have high density bonus allotments. In addition
to their northern location and close proximity to Campbell, I believe it is because the three OKA
sites are in LG Schools (no bonus) and the other two high density sites are in Campbell schools.
In speaking with commission members, it has been stated that it would cause traffic problems
to develop the OKA Sites. This is a direct contradiction to the EIP Addendum. I request that this
be studied further and an explanation of the density bonus situation be given. The EIP says that
globally there is no issue, which is why there is no Site - Specific analysis done for any site.
5) Of the proposed sites, each has its own individual distribution of Very Low and Low income
housing as a percentage of the whole, vs. Market Rate homes, etc. The two northern sites have
higher distributions than the rest. Beverly Bryandt (with Mr. Tersini) said herself in pitching to
the council that in "one swoop the town can take care of its Very Very low housing need in one
site at the courthouse". I find this a gross neglect in planning on the part of the commission.
Further, based on statements made by the commission, it appears that Mr. Tersini and his
construction company was involved in the development of the AHOZ. I find this indirect conflict
Shawn Wood
Los Gatos Resident
I would like the following submitted to the Town Planning Commission and to the Town Council for
review and consideration regarding the topic of Affordable Housing in Los Gatos and the proposed
implementation of the AHOZ Zoning Approach. The AHOZ Plan, as proposed by the commission, does
not meet the intentions of the town, its residents, nor does it properly accomplish the goals of the State
of California regarding the allocation of land for affordable living for town residents.
#1: Affordable Distribution
The intent of the affordable housing initiative in the state of California is to create affordable housing
interspersed amongst the neighborhoods that the very town resident grew up in and can afford to
remain in, despite financial success or lack thereof. These people need to live near their jobs. We all
understand the need and the rationale for the law and these planning changes within the town. Having
said that, the affordable housing is supposed to be properly interspersed throughout the town, near
jobs, markets and the neighborhoods where people work and contribute. I challenge the manner in
which the town's planning commission is implementing the affordable housing initiatives. Some
questions and important points of contention that I pose to the Commission and the Council:
1) What is the current mapping /distribution, with and without the new proposed AHOZ locations,
of the town's affordable housing? (Requested weeks ago and still waiting for the data).
2) Why are all 5 sites in the new AHOZ in the very north side of town? Even the Environmental
Impact Report (EIP- Addendum) makes an independent statement that says "of the 10 remaining
proposed sites, the 5 kept in the plan are all in the very northern part of town. The 5 eliminated
were more southern, mixed in town ".
3) The 5 sites that were eliminated from the plan could have easily been kept in the plan, resulting
in all 10 sites kept at lower density across the board. This would still fully meet the required
allocations to the town by the Bay Area Housing and the State requirements. Why were they
eliminated? Planning Commission members state that these 5 and others including areas like
the Los Gatos lodge site and Dittos Lane were eliminated due to "concerns by town residents in
those areas ". I find this unacceptable. Further, the original sites that numbered many more
than 10 (need to verify with the council the initial number of potential sites) were eliminated
but we have no information as to why. I request it be made publicly available the rationale that
each and every site was eliminated from consideration.
4) Why are the-3- remaining -AHOZ -sites in the OKA area omitted from having a density bonus? -The
other two north of 85 (Knowles and South Bay) have high density bonus allotments. In addition
to their northern location and close proximity to Campbell, I believe it is because the three OKA
sites are in LG Schools (no bonus) and the other two high density sites are in Campbell schools.
In speaking with commission members, it has been stated that it would cause traffic problems
to develop the OKA Sites. This is a direct contradiction to the EIP Addendum. I request that this
be studied further and an explanation of the density bonus situation be given. The EIP says that
globally there is no issue, which is why there is no Site-Specific analysis done for any site.
5) Of the proposed sites, each has its own individual distribution of Very Low and Low income
housing as a percentage of the whole, vs: Market Rate homes, etc. The two northern sites have
higher distributions than the rest. Beverly Bryandt (with Mr. Tersini) said herself in pitching to
the council that in "one swoop the town can take care of its Very Very low housing need in one
site at the courthouse ". I find this a gross neglect in planning on the part of the commission.
Further, based on statements made by the commission, it appears that Mr. Tersini and his
construction company was involved in the development of the AHOZ. I find this in direct conflict
of interest with power of the town council, the intentions of state law and in direct conflict with
representation of town residents. I request this situation be investigated and potential legal
conflicts be understood.
#2: Building Proposal vs. Reality
Knowles Ave is a nice tree lined street which appears anything but dense, although it has already grown
significantly. more congested this past year. The residents are already dealing with added congestion.
Near the courthouse public use -zoned site, the street has some office space set quite far back from the
road surrounded by trees. On the same street is some mature tree lined streets with some duplex
residences and some quarter acre lot size single family residential. What is proposed to be build does
not fit in with this picture and is not consistent with the town's plans, or this particular residential area.
1) The AHOZ states 20 units per acre, with a 20% bonus at this location. Most would think that
consists of 24 Units per Acre construction (Personally I feel this is still high for this area). In
Reality, they propose to use the majority of the property to build market value single family,
zero lot line style homes and town homes, high density again in my opinion, on a couple of the
acres. On the remaining 1 acre the builder intends to erect well over 50 units, on one acre,
exceeding 35 feet in height, butted right up to Knowles utilizing the decreased setbacks.
Globally there is little to no parking, as noted by many of the council members as well. I would
like the Town Council to review and comment on the appropriateness of 50+ units built on a
single acre with very little parking.
2) What is a proper comparison? Wendie Rooney states that with respect to the parking and
setback reductions and density and height exceptions being given to the builder, that the
proposed AHOZ guidelines are consistent with what is found in other suburban areas. I would
like to see these comparisons. I care about Los Gatos and these proposals are not consistent
with this town and what this town is capable of
3) Traffic. Building any sort of high density dwelling with a single parking space per unit will invite
disaster to a neighborhood. Joanne Talesfore said it in the last council meeting. "Most seniors
have two cars"[ What if they have visitors? Additionally, the builder held an independent
meeting with many of the neighbors, many of which were seniors and the seniors became angry
at these suggestions that they don't have multiple vehicles or go or do much. Frankly, building
this dense site as is, despite what other municipalities may have done, would be gross
negligence on the part of the planning commission to allow to take place. I would like to have
the builder show the town council. overlaid on the graphics that they have created what the
addition of hundreds of cars would look like in and around the neighborhood streets
4) In my personal estimation, with 50 or more units on one small acre with only 1 parking space,
you just added 50 additional cars on the streets for the residents, plus another 50 on average for
visitors. This does not include the zero lot line town homes that will fill their garages and also
park in the streets with their additional vehicles, etc. There is no place for them to park other
than filling up all of the residential streets and /or overcrowding an already busy Knowles Ave
and Capri Area. The graphics and data presented by the builder are misleading and the
residents have already spoken up and told the builder he is incorrect on his parking
assumptions. I request this feedback be relayed to the Town Council
#3: Environmental Impact
After studying the EIP and the Addendum I do not believe the town planning commission has done
proper diligence in analyzing the impacts to the town of Los Gatos. The proposed AHOZ developments
would further density the most congested areas of Los Gatos, where the town is already feeling the
impacts of the increased congestion.
1) The town has performed a study, but in my personal terms is a broad brush stroke, quick
solution to a needed in -depth study. The numbers were played with over a particular route
through town. I do not find this adequate and request a better study to be performed
investigating the impacts to the future addition of over 600 units in this single intersection area.
2) Each site has its own specific AHOZ allocations and restrictions. The EIP studies should be
performed in the same manner. I am confident that if the Courthouse Knowles site and the
South Bay Site were to be studied further. There is only one freeway direction entrance to 85.
The lane capacity of Dell, Knowles and those small intersections through Lark will NOT support
the added traffic. Utilizing the EIP Addendum as is just globally says that the area can handle
more. But this is inadequate.
3) Further, Wendie Rooney herself stated that the rational for not utilizing a density bonus in the 3
OKA Sites was due to anticipated traffic problems. Interesting. Is that an opinion? Why is there
a problem then at the OKA locations and not at Knowles and South Bay? I request to see data
supporting a problem at the OKA locations that does not exist at the other locations. IF this is
not available then I further challenge the AHOZ and the Density Bonus Structure.
4) A key selling point for the Courthouse Knowles site and the Southbay site is the "Ghost Vasona
Light Rail Station ", which admittedly in the Council Meeting minutes was stated to most likely
"never be built ". If this is a selling point for the Courthouse and Southbay Sites, it should have
equal appeal to the OKA Road Sites. Logically this site should carry the same appeal to the
planners due to very convenient access to public transit, and, there is MUCH more land. Using
the Planning Commissions same arguments, in conjunction with the Builders suggested
rationale, the higher capacities could be handled there by seniors with "only ONE car" and those
that "don't get out much" can simply use mass transit. I request all of these allocations and
studies be revisited.
#4: Communication & Conflict of Interest
The town did a very poor job communicating with the general public and I suspect a potentially legal
issue with conflict of interest between the planning commission, the town and the new builders at the
Courthouse Site.
1) First and foremost, the typical newspaper ads and council meetings alone seems inappropriate
level of communication. This is far too important an issue regarding the town's development.
Councilwoman M—cNuttstated-that the "Community will come unhinged ". They will see through
the idea of the "phantom light rail" that will never be built, setback allotments, etc. "People will
not be happy." "What are we going to do" she asked. Steve immediately shared her concerns
and asked pertinent questions as to how this was being developed, communicated to the people
and potentially implemented. I would like to request the planning commission and council to
take a different approach. The community needs to be further informed and the concept of
AHOZ matured. publicly. The even disbursement of affordable housing needs to be discussed.
#5: AHOZ Concept
Per notes I have taken from the recent recorded commission and council meetings, the AHOZ concept is
"relatively new ", "only a handful of communities in the state of California have decided to try it ", "new
for this upcoming planning period ". "Very little precedent or cases on it."
1) So why are we doing it? What is the rush here? With all of the site zoning that was
proposed, with the original 10 sites and Nothing being built anywhere, the state would have
passed the planning comission's plan. I do not believe the town was in danger of being sued
by anyone as there seems to be a prevailing fear.
2) AHOZ was approved /Rushed through Jan 2013 for transportation funds. I want to know
what funds are forcing our town leaders to make bad and /or rushed decisions. Exactly what
3) Did the town even try to meet the Affordable Housing quota without a density bonus ailed
on to one site ?, with a better land spread (which is the original intent of the state law
anyway)? I think the Town Council would like to understand this better as well.
4) Regarding Concessions, why are we giving so many? I don't agree with this approach and it
is not state law. If the plan were reworked with the original amount of land, less density,
fewer concessions, however with the right amount of space to support the "quota' for
space, the AHOZ could be put in place in such manner to maintain less density, or, the
builders would have to default to the existing zoning. Both are a win -win for the Town. The
planning council can argue that they "think" the state would not approve this approach, but
this is unknown. State law simply states you have to plan for, does not say you have to
build, nor does it say HOW you have to plan for it. Just that you do and you must meet the
quota. I have personally called the state planning office and they indeed support this and
state that they allow the local governments to handle this in the manner they see fit. There
is no perceived pressure to mandatorily incentivize a builder, but it is encouraged. I request
this be further studied and communicated for the benefit of the Town and Commission
before something as significant as the AHOZ be acted upon.
In Closing:
In the end this AHOZ proposal does NOT meet the intent of the state or the town in my opinion. The
state does not intend for a town to build dense, isolated projects, which is what is being proposed. And
the density is being intentionally biased with density bonus in specific locations, supported by
misinterpretation of traffic impacts in the EIP, along with conflicting planning commission statements.
1) AHOZ is not near the work and is nowhere near public transit other than the same bus stops
that are everywhere in town. Most jobs are on Los Gatos Blvd, and Lark, and University, and
Santa Cruz Ave. There is very little other than Netflix near the two large high density
northern sites, where I challenge the validity of the town's location planning.
2) The AHOZ is obviously not evenly spread out. The stated intentions from the state is to have
widely comingled levels of affordable homes. Not a 50+ unit project on one acre stuffed
next to a handful of zero lot line townhomes so the builder can make extra money.
3) The light rail (phantom or not) shouldn't even be referenced. IF you are going to reference
it and use it as any type of justification, show me the near term planning for it and modify
the OKA Sites to benefit from similar density bonus accordingly.
4) The planning commission has no intention to develop other areas, as verbally stated in
meetings with me and recorded in the council meeting minutes. I contend these are clearly
not the actions our Planning commission should be taking to meeting the intentions of the
state and what is best for ALL neighborhoods in the town. I hope the Town Council will take
this and all ooints herein under advisement.
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
To:
PLANNING COMMISSION
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
110 E. MAIN STREET
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 2012
Dear Sirs:
I am challenging the proposed: action regarding Affordable Housing Overlay Zone - Town Code
Amendment Application A -12 -003 and General Plan Amendment Application GP -12 -004.
I am a Los Gatos resident living on Knowles Drive; based on discussions with my neighbors and other
members of the community, it is clear that the Planning Commission has knowingly failed to take into
account material issues throughout its decision process.
See my enclosed comments for significant concerns about the Planning Commission's decisions and
actions in this matter.
Respectfully,
Denise Hadar
Community Concerns about AHOZ Plans
As property owners on Knowles Drive, we're expressing our dismay at the emerging plans for
development around our homes under the so- called "Affordable Housing Overlay Zone," as well as our
disappointment at the conduct of Los Gatos Town's Planning Commission, and staff.
The Planning Commission's proposal segregates low- income housing primarily into the "remote" parts
of Los Gatos, counter to the spirit of local development and reflective of an apparent "NIMBY" mindset
among decision - makers. By concentrating the entire low- income development in one region, the
proposal 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 lives.
We are further concerned with the conduct of our elected officials and public servants during the
process, primarily with respect to lack of transparency, decision - making without evidentiary basis, and
the appearance of undue influence of commercial interests on policy decisions.
Introduction and Context
Los Gatos, in order to provide for low income housing as required to certify its planning package, has
elected to avoid re- zoning and instead picked the "Affordable Housing Overlay Zone" (AHOZ) approach.
As part of the Housing Element development process, the Town initially identified 41 parcels for
potential AHOZ. While the original AHOZ plan reviewed multiple sites and finally planned to distribute
the targets across 10 sites; over the past year a true transformation has taken place, and by now the
Town's General Plan Committee refined the list to five properties. Effectively, not even all five
properties are expected to contribute to the Town's housing solutions in the near future.
Obviously, segregating the development into fewer properties meant allocating a much larger number
of low- income housing to each of the few select sites. The Town's primary target for this work is the
Courthouse. As recently as 9/21/2011, in the Town's HOUSING SITES INVENTORY (Chapter 6 of the
2007 -2014 Housing Element: Technical Appendix), Los Gatos commented on the Courthouse: "As
County -owned property, any residential development on the site must include a minimum of 20 percent
affordable units. If the property were sold to a private developer, this 20 percent minimum affordability
requirement would still apply." However, in the ensuing months, the Town has shifted gears, and now
the AHOZ expects a minimum of 50% affordable units in the site (relative increase of 150% .
These are not abstract mathematical exercises — these decisions have enormous negative effect on the
community, and speak volumes about decision- making practices in Los Gatos.
1. Planning Commission Decisions about Configuring the AHOZ are
Arbitrary, Lopsided, and Unfair
While Los Gatos has been discussing AHOZ for a while, a lot about this method is still shrouded in
mystery. To this day, the Town has yet to provide a compelling rationale for the adoption of the AHOZ
approach (as opposed to rezoning). If indeed the Town's priority is to encourage housing, it is
inconceivable that the Town would insist on allowing developers the flexibility to NOT build housing in
the few targeted properties (as the text provided by the Planning Commission attempts to suggest).
To the casual observer, an interesting advantage of the AHOZ is the fact that it allows planners to
develop a balanced footprint, by which development can be properly spread across Town. However, Los
Gatos seems intent on doing the exact opposite.
The overall development plans under AHOZ consist of about 20 acres in north Los Gatos — half of them
in our neighborhood (north of SR -85). However, 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; roughly % of the planned low- income units are north of SR -85 (see
Exhibit A). Some have indicated that, in all likelihood, only Courthouse may be developed in the near
future; in other words, 100% of the low- income development under AHOZ may take place in ONE SITE.
Exhibit A. AHOZ Proposed Configuration
Total Acres-
North of SR -85 - -
South 'of SR -85'. -
Courthouse
Southbay
Oka A
Oka B
Oka C
k acres
5.2
7.1
6.4
3
3
# Units
125
256
128
60
60
% Units that are low or lower
50%
55%
50%
50%
50%
# Units that are low or lower
62.5
140.8
1 64
30
30
Total Acres-
12.3
12.4
% of Total Acres
50%
50%
Total Units that are low or lower .
203.3
124
%Total Units that are low or
lower
62%
38%
Note: # Units — maximum, with density bonus where granted
Source: Council Agenda Report dated October 10, 2012; and analysis
Furthermore, from oral comments from a developer who now partly owns the Courthouse site, during
October 15, 2012 session, it seems the developer intends to EXCEED the minimum affordability ratio,
creating an even more lopsided distribution. Planning Commission staff confirmed that the developer
intends to "... have a greater percentage of units in the lower affordable ranges." This would make the
distribution of low- income housing even more lopsided
The EFFECTIVE distribution may be even more segregated. Comments from Planning Commission staff
suggestthat development in Southbay and Oka properties is unlikely in the near future. Anecdotally: in
response to questioning during the October 15, 2012 session, Planning Commission staff was not even
aware of the current ownership of the Oka properties — while being well- versed in the details of the
Courthouse site; suggesting that the focus of the Staff's work was clearly on the Courthouse.
Los Gatos Town's decision process— narrowing the affordable housing universe from 41 sites to 10 to 5
and potentially 2 or 1— is inexplicable, since the Town has not maintained transparency and clarity on
consistent decision criteria. For example —the Planning Commission had analyzed all the facts and
determined that the Dittos property should be set to be 100% affordable housing, only to reverse its
decision —now believing that, for the benefit of Los Gatos, Dittos should have 0% affordable housing. A
year ago, 20% affordable housing was deemed the proper figure for Courthouse; today, it is 50 %. What
is common between these two examples (other than haphazard, oblique decision making), is the early
engagement of property developers with the Planning Commission, putting the developers in a position
to sway the Town's presumptive policy decision making.
The Commission's decision - making practices are even more surprising, when viewed in the context of
other Commission decisions; for example, rejecting a plan to zone the los Gatos lodge site for this
particular purpose; and approving Netflix to build a 6 story high rise in our neighborhood (with similar
haste and lack of community and environmental consideration).
It is hard to avoid the conclusion that the artificial configuration of bundle of properties comprising the
AHOZ has allowed Los Gatos to appear to provide a broad -based solution to affordable housing, while in
reality segregating such housing to one area — a "site out of sight." The Town is delaying development of
low- income housing close to Downtown and accelerating development "on the wrong side of the
tracks." Recent FEIR Addendum (see excerpts in Appendix 1) clearly spell this out— noting that the
impact of the new construction on schools and emergency services will be borne by other town (an
approach which economists call "beggar thy neighbor ").
This approach is inherently unfair — to our neighborhood, to other towns, and to the potential residents
of these affordable housing units; it certainly suggests a mindset by which the tax - paying residents in
the northern part of Town are somehow considered to be less important than those in Downtown. We
certainly hope that this is not the mindset of our elected officials— but this is certainly how their actions
speak.
2. The Planning Commission Decisions may have been Unduly
Influenced by Commercial Interests
As noted earlier, it was eye- opening to see, during the Town Council and Planning Commission study
session on October 15`", that the Planning Commission staff didn't know the ownership of the Oka
property (while being well informed about the details of the Courthouse site). That reinforced the
perception that AHOZ is, in essence, an elaborate construct which masks a justification for a single,
questionable development project.
A short chronology may be helpful: On February 22, 2012, a representative of KT Properties joined a
special meeting of the General Plan Committee (GPC), introduced himself as the potential buyer of the
Courthouse site, noted that "they would need a density of 25 units per acre to make it work" and
"recommended that the GPC provide as much flexibility as it can." It seems that the GPC has heeded that
call, and has since sought ways to accelerate the Courthouse process (e.g., "bifurcate" the decision).
However, the same representative returned the following month (March 28, 2012) and informed the
GPC of "his concern with the proposed affordability ratios and the density for the Courthouse site, and
how it would not support a project. They are recommending... 50% affordable housing..." as well as "an
increase in height" Incredibly, these minutes read as if a developer was dictating to the GPC the terms
of what is supposed to be a policy decision.
To see how the GPC responded to the developer's "recommendation," it is instructive to compare the
General Plan Commission and Staff recommendations and decisions about the various sites, during the
March -April 2012 period (see Exhibit B)
Exhibit B: Planning Commission Recommendations
source: lam Marcii -April 2012 decision matrix reports
It is quite evident that the recommendations are consistently biased, providing the Courthouse site with
additional concessions and waivers. Even though these concessions have profound effects on the local
community, Planning Commission staff continues to provide tortured excuses for offering them
specifically in the Courthouse site.
For example, most people would agree that a 1- car - per -unit ratio is entirely inappropriate (especially if a
significant portion of the site is at moderate and market rates); even the California Planning Roundtable
(as published by the Association Of Bay Area Governments) uses 1.2 -1.5 vehicles for low income units.
However, the Planning Commission staff stands by its "1 space per unit" concession —which dramatically
4
Courthouse
Southbay
Oka A, B, & C
Density Increase
20% ( => 24 u /a)
20% ( => 24 u /a)
None
Density Transfer
Allowed
Under review
Under review
Setback reduction
50%
50% reduction of
50% but not in conflict
setbacks from not more
with Town Architect's
than two property lines
specific buffer
recommendations
Parking
Reduction to 1 space
Reduction to 1 space
1 space per senior units
per unit
per unit
Site specific guidelines
None
12 items
8 -9 items for each
property
Coordination�Mth-
Not required
Not required
Required
BAAQMD on air quality
impacts and CalTrans
for noise impacts
source: lam Marcii -April 2012 decision matrix reports
It is quite evident that the recommendations are consistently biased, providing the Courthouse site with
additional concessions and waivers. Even though these concessions have profound effects on the local
community, Planning Commission staff continues to provide tortured excuses for offering them
specifically in the Courthouse site.
For example, most people would agree that a 1- car - per -unit ratio is entirely inappropriate (especially if a
significant portion of the site is at moderate and market rates); even the California Planning Roundtable
(as published by the Association Of Bay Area Governments) uses 1.2 -1.5 vehicles for low income units.
However, the Planning Commission staff stands by its "1 space per unit" concession —which dramatically
4
benefits the developer while penalizing the local community (due to increased need for street parking)
Public servants and elected officials should 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" (based on oral comments during October 15, 2012, session).
Published minutes clearly show KT Properties and its agents prominent and actively participating in
AHOZ discussions, with clear development targets, although the Committee and Commission meetings
are ostensibly about public policy. The Planning Commission and its staff has knowingly blurred the line
between AHOZ — ostensibly public policy — and a development project.
By failing to maintain proper boundaries between planning and project work, the Planning Commission
has put itself in a position of appearing to be improperly influenced by commercial interests during
policy discussions. One can't help but wonder about undue influence on the planning process, after
observing that the Planning Commission seems to have fully complied with the developer's requests.
3. The Planning Commission has been Acting with Disregard to the
Interests of the Local Community
While showing great zeal for ensuring low- income housing development (at least north of SR -85), Los
Gatos may have taken several shortcuts; most important, Los Gatos is addressing the impact on the local
community as a mere afterthought.
For example, the impact on the Campbell school districts is projected to be profound. However, during
the October 15 meeting, Planning Commission staff indicated that they hadn't discussed the revised
proposal with the Campbell schools. Despite subsequent assurances we've received from the Planning
Commission regarding their engagement with the Campbell district, our checks with local schools
indicate otherwise.
Elsewhere, the AHOZ— desigrr guide lirres developed-bythe- staff -do not provide even a single image of a
building design which the Planning Commission actually approved (35'tall buildings); or provide an
example of the density which KT properties may be targeting for its project (well above 40 units /acre). It
is disconcerting to realize that the Commission approved a concept without even viewing an example of
such construction. [The Planning Commission staff had originally recommended buildings heights of
42 ft. GPC has adopted an oblique language which may enable it to permit it at a later stage.)
During a lengthy decision process, which included a series of critical decisions by the Planning
Commission, its Staff failed to provide sufficient information regarding the impact on the community
and the environment. Policy decisions (wide- ranging incentives, waivers and concessions) have been
routinely made in a vacuum, based on personal judgment —and possibly on "recommendations"
provided by commercial interests, as noted above.
Through several hearings, concerns have been raised about the lack of a relevant Environmental Impact
Report (EIR) which reflects the impact of the specific incentives which the commissioners and
councilmembers were being asked to approve. Recently— arguably in the "11`h hour" —the Planning
Commission staff has put together a document titled "FEIR Addendum." However, even a cursory review
of said report proves it to be superficial and erroneous in its conclusions. It is evident that the
Commission did not conduct the EIR with the intent of informing its decisions, but rather as a
last- minute exercise in producing a document which ignores the community's concerns and "passes the
buck" to other organizations (see Appendix 1). Far from resolving the inadequacies of the review process,
this after - the -fact exercise is superficial, misguided, and appears aimed at placating the concerns
emerging from the local community.
The FEIR Addendum mischaracterizes the impact of the proposal as less than significant— by providing
the analysis as an increment to a baseline EIR (which had been questionable). But from the standpoint
of the local community, the effect is enormous, and no amount of elaborate charts can hide it. Exhibit C
applies the key CEQA Guidelines Checklist criteria to our own neighborhood:
Exhibit C: Community Impact Report
Topic
Threat to Our Community
1. Aesthetics
Beautiful mature trees are likely to be cut, since the AHOZ Design
Guidelines casually indicate "preserve mature tress where possible" —
clearly putting development ahead of environment and degrading the visual
character of the area
13. Population and
Our neighborhood currently has little over 200 private residences. An
Housing
addition of 200 new units (see Exhibit A) to this area is highly significant
14. Public Services
Due to increased traffic, access of emergency vehicles to El Camino Hospital
may be delayed; and local schools (already crowded) will see a major influx
16. Traffic
Using a reasonable ratio of 1.5 -2 vehicles per unit (as opposed to the
fictitious 1.0 proposed by GPC) indicates an addition of up to 300 -400 cars
to an already busy intersection and congested highway access
A critical analysis in the FEIR Addendum —Table 5 — misrepresents the traffic impact of the proposed
configuration. Table 5 analysis is likely incorrectly reflecting the-Planning Commission's unjustifiable
assumptions regarding the low number of vehicles per unit in the northern properties. Additionally: By
mistakenly including Bentley in the analysis (although it was not included in any other FEIR analysis), it
overstates the alleged reduction in traffic due to the proposed AHOZ segregation. When Table 5 is
adjusted for this misrepresentation, it clearly indicates that overall traffic conditions in Los Gatos will
WORSEN due to the segregation.
To quote the FEIR "The General Plan EIR found that implementation of General Plan 2020 would have a
significant and unavoidable impact in regard to traffic." Unfortunately, the proposed AHOZ segregation
is clearly adding a significant and avoidable impact to existing gridlock and congestion.
If anything, the FEIR Addendum proves the Town's desire to avoid any serious discussion of the
consequences of its pre- conceived decisions — decisions that had routinely been made without proper
information, and without consultation with the local community.
2
Conclusion
When faced with an important need to meet future affordable housing, the Los Gatos Town's Planning
Commission has followed a process characterized by low transparency, selective disclosure, possible
undue influence of commercial interests, and disregard for local community and environmental impacts
— at least in the remote, northern parts of Town. Not surprisingly, the outcome of this process is equally
unfortunate — at the proposed AHOZ effectively segregates future affordable housing in Los Gatos to
areas as far as possible from the Town's center; in other words "Not In My Downtown" (NIMD).
Appendix I: FOR Addendum - Attempt to Shift Responsibility
The following quotes from the FEIR Addendum highlight the Planning Commissions' blatant attempt to
delegate all the consequences of its decisions to other local organizations:
"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."
'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 ... Payment of these fees is considered full
and complete mitigation that would offset impacts from the increased demand for school facilities."
"Development... 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 residents 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."
'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 Serena Police Department would be able to continue providing
fire and law enforcement protection services. Costs associated with the increased demand would be
offset by revenue from additional property taxes from new developments. Additionally, the General Plan
2020 includes goals, policies, and actions that improve response 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."
To:
PLANNING COMMISSION
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
110 E. MAIN STREET
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 2012
Dear Sirs:
I am challenging the proposed action regarding Affordable Housing Overlay Zone - Town Code
Amendment Application A -12 -003 and General Plan Amendment Application GP -12 -004.
I am a Los Gatos resident living on Knowles Drive; the proposed action is liable to have severe
detrimental effects on our community and environment, effects which the Planning Commission has
inadvisedly brushed aside.
See my enclosed comments for significant concerns about the Planning Commission's decisions and
actions in this matter.
Respectfully,
- v
Iddo Hadar
NOT IN MY DOWNTOWN
Los Gatos Town's Affordable Housing Segregation Plan
e development plans uncle. .HOZ consisc of ahouc H, acres in d-e- r.o ..ec: of! os Gags -half of
.::ern nord: of SR -35 and half south of it. Hoviever, the Tovin of Los G2tcs t-as decided to segregate the
dense iovi- income iIOUSM59; placing r0u. -Hy b:JO- thirds of the :' :iii li' : ?J?,? number of planned units north
of S' -8S. Some Lave indicated that, in a(I likelihood, only Cou °house may be developed in the near
futu.,2; in other words, Alt of the Ioav,- income development under AHOZ may take place in G"J_ SiT =.
As mart 1 illustrates, the Town's Segregation Plan keeps future Affordabla Housing away from the
reiativAy high (o. even medium) income sections of Los Gatos, and relegates future development to the
lovrest- income section of Town (as measured by median per - capita Income).
char- 1' The Town's Affordable Housing Segregation Plan - alonf Inccon;e Distrib•ition 1
Sn&, -Ang Planning Commission's proposed distribution of total iosv, very loin, and extremely low category housing
X36
(i� e
Qzv
Sources. P nrr, -mac^' _ ,._ : - .. . _ . s _: _ _ - -. -,
Chart 2 reinforces the same observation of bias in the distribution proposed by the planning
Commission, ,Yhen arrayed against median fan-.H/ Income. The Commission's segregation plan is bound
to increase income disparity across the Tov:n, accentuating the spread betveen more- and (ass - affluent
neighborhoods.
Chart 2• The To,•rn's Affordable Housing Se0feLICOO Plan — 31009 Income Distribution (2)
Showing Planning Commission's proposed distribution of total low, very love, and extremely love category housing
f�
OP
y tf
14 &1.fy: r
�y
,✓�/ pnb pu;o
{JO
+i3
a:
tn.
Sources: Planning Commission Staff Repors and U.S. Census (as reported by &i- data.mm(
Chart 3 illustrates an additional dimension of bias in the proposal: The planned units are highb; dense —
the plans for Courthouse and Southbay (including all the incentives and concessions approved b/ the
Commission) Create an averaa_ Of 10.55 units per aCre, or a rate of 5,815 househe!ds per square mile; in
certain parts, it may exceed the rate of 30.000 householc {s per square mi;e. Yet the 'fanning Coramissioi.
pi - 'Fcs_s tG - This __ _ _ :. This ad_II!IOo int i the C'c`ISET of Los GatJ5
co ;,times a: a : _rsit j of less than i,SGG hOU3ahOIJ5 per squ_r mil a. In other %lords, the Commission
ensures keepi a the 1„v- income t,ousing, a.vay from the _=parser -pcp. dated secti. ons of Los Gatos.
Char+. 3: Ti^e Town's .Affordable Housing Seeregation Plan =alone Population Densitv
�hG.•, ;r,;, Ala ^: ^in2 CCr.,:T:iiSiJn'� : _. =2d d�s'�_ 1��cn c %cola! i�.•f, v =_r� !� , --: j z:�.:re�-eiy icw ca,egc ,,Foos -a
_`_. ___. ?..'f _� _Crtt Ci S...'. _.S.. c' .: 3... _ -... __'SLS � 2r -..�_ ]•/ L ..- _o. &C., �
Finally, Chzr'_ il:asir_!rs ;.hat n.ay be ar gat ly the mcst unfoitinat bias b -iil' inter the ✓la :oin
Commission's proposal. The Tom: ;n'S Se_ rcgaGOr Plan keeps future „ ffordabl=_ 113usii-,; aura; from 'he
ar?as of Ws GaatJ:. -.-h IC1l are rear- urifcrm fi oni a rectal diversity standpciri; C.I'11e r= lc�otl�i� Ch9
afford =bl_ housing .Wit- to th most raci _ ily- diverse sections cf To,.-!n.
3
ti.
3SQb -.
i) "b
•
Qa6
0A Gao
0% 0%
` Cra: Gac.
O
'
�
pq
g4p Q!}YI
06,D � .b
g
r
- 7�
� � 1�pF
1.5441-i W-
•y +-.� -li.e
1
_
_`_. ___. ?..'f _� _Crtt Ci S...'. _.S.. c' .: 3... _ -... __'SLS � 2r -..�_ ]•/ L ..- _o. &C., �
Finally, Chzr'_ il:asir_!rs ;.hat n.ay be ar gat ly the mcst unfoitinat bias b -iil' inter the ✓la :oin
Commission's proposal. The Tom: ;n'S Se_ rcgaGOr Plan keeps future „ ffordabl=_ 113usii-,; aura; from 'he
ar?as of Ws GaatJ:. -.-h IC1l are rear- urifcrm fi oni a rectal diversity standpciri; C.I'11e r= lc�otl�i� Ch9
afford =bl_ housing .Wit- to th most raci _ ily- diverse sections cf To,.-!n.
3
Chart d: The Tosvn's Affordable Housing ° ^greg -tlon Plan — along Ra671 Diversity
Shoavirg Planning Commission's proposed distrctaion of total low, very low, and extremely loev category housing
OaU
Oq o?U
00'0
010 DOV
0010
00a
i
r..
I
-
0016 X0/0
09 o J
� 3 f
Sources: Planning Commission Staff," Reports and U.S. Census (as reported by citi- data.com)
Actions speak louder than words; one reeds to judge programs ty their outcomes. The outcomes
targeted by the current proposal are very clear: The Planning Commission's proposal segregates lo`,v-
inCorne hous ;ng primarily into the "remote" parts o' Gatos, counter to the spirit of local
development. VJhile doing so, it
(1) exacerbates income disparity, by keeping future affordable housing 2vga7 from affluent parts of
town
(2) vJor52rs Congestion, by k22pir.g future affordable 0iJ H/ r on C.`e IcSS -9 ?r52 p'cI 5 Cf COY:n
(3) Introduces a community divide, by maalntaining fJture a'ffordabl2 housing; a:`/ay from ,lie
predominantby -white neighborhoods of town
Los Gatos TCvin's "Not In My Downtown" proposal is unfair, unjust, and horribly biased.
This Pa; e
Intentionally
Left Blank
a M 0
UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT
Campbell Union School District
155 North Third Street
Campbell CA 95000
T 400 -364 -0790
F 4M341 -7230
vmm.campbellusd.crg
Governing Board Members
Damell= th.S. Cchen
Julie Constant
Scott Kleinterg
Leah K. Read
Juliet many- Mcrales
GGVE -mine Board Phone Pic:
,106.341 -72-1
Superintendent
Eric Andrew. Ed.D.
4C0- 341 -7211
November 14, 2012
Todd Capurso
Secretary
Planning Commission
Town of Los Gatos
110 E Main Street
Los Gatos, CA
Noll 2012
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING DIVISION
Re: Public Hearing, Affordable Housing Overlay Plan, APN 406 -28 -032 and APN 424 -32 -077
Dear Planning Commission,
I am not able to attend the meeting tonight, but would like the concerns of the Campbell
Union School District to be recognized at the meeting.
The Campbell Union School District does not have the capacity to house students planned for
the affordable housing overlay plan for APN 406 -28 -032 and APN 424 -32 -077.
If you or your staff have any questions, please contact me at (408) 341 -7214.
SiJr e rel , // /q'
L' a es Craw of rd
Deputy Superintendent
Administrative Services
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
�J
AHOZ Community Meeting
Tuesday, December 18, 2012
Town Council Chambers
Staff present: Wendie Rooney, Special Projects Manager; Erwin Ordonez, Senior
Planner; Suzanne Avila, Senior Planner; Kevin Rohani, Town Engineer
Planning Commission members present: Tom O'Donnell, John Bourgeois, Margaret
Smith
Public present: Jega Aravandy, Thruston Awalt, Mario Blaum, Rita Bonasera, Sharon
Brodsky, Beverley Bryant, Mike Bulea, Eleanor & Vivian Chen, Moon Chien, Raghu
Chinnakotla, Chris Cowan, Rob & Barbara Coyle, Ron Denevi, Wendy & Dave Dodd,
Mary Ann Fasano, Gaurav Goel, Alysia Gonzalez, Ddo Hadar, Barbara & Rick Hassa,
Man-Yee Han & Amita Pau, Ty & Kim Hawk, Mike & Tasha Henry, Mary Horng,
Syshin Homg & Hsiaoping Yu, Jenny Huang, Carl Jaco & I -Ying Wang, Susan Jamison,
Suzanne Jaszewski, Edith & Paul Judy, Jul Jurman, Laurel Kalida, Claudia Susana Kuzis,
Patricia Ladd, Paul Lai, Alan Lee & Amy Leung, Jeff Longridge, Jackson & Angela
Louiz, Raymond Ma, Barry & Laura Merz, Ed Morimoto, Marolyn O'Neill, Susan &
Kurt Ongman, Mike Onishi, Elaine Petron, Damoder & Lalitha Reddy, Rob Rennie, Bill
& Sandi Rosingana, Elizabeth Rutlin, Kathy Schumacher, Carolyn Sims, Noa & Avi
Sklar, Mary Smutnak, Pat Stafford, Nate Stein, Elvia Tahara, Mark Tersini, Anu &
Sandeep Tinari, Joe Wei, Ron Wessels, Jeff Whalen, Glen Williams, Ken Wong, Choni
Yangzom
Meeting started at 6:00 p.m.
Wendie Rooney introduced staff and discussed the purpose of the meeting and topics that
will be covered.
• Purpose of the AHOZ and why it is being proposed:
a. State requirements and RHNA numbers
• What the AHOZ -does- not -do:
a. Result in a development project
b. Rezone property to another use
c. Force the property owner to develop
d. Generate impacts to properties greater than what would occur with any other
development anticipated in General Plan 2020
What the AHOZ does:
a. Provide precise development standards
b. Requires compliance with high quality architecture and site standards
c. Provide concessions or incentives to develop with AHOZ
d. Preserve's the Town's authority over development decisions
Consequences of not having an AHOZ or similar program:
a. Other types of development could occur
b. State may de- certify the Housing Element
ATTACHMENT 14
Erwin Ordonez presented information on affordable housing:
• What is considered an Affordable Income:
a.
very low
b.
low
C.
median
d.
moderate
e.
above moderate
• Housing types considered affordable:
a. Apartments
b. Condominium, townhouse and single - family units
• Map of housing units in Town of Los Gatos
Kevin Rohani presented information on traffic analysis:
• Traffic projections
• Level of Service (LOS)
Question: Will the LOS on Lark & Oka actually improve and how is the measurement
made?
Staff response: Operating range of signals in Town range from A to D. Physical
improvements can be made such as adding a turn lane, or changes can be made to the
timing of a signal.
Question: What would be done at the intersection of Lark & Oka to improve the LOS?
Staff response: The studies that were done include traffic counts. Data from the traffic
counts are put into a computer model. Two traffic studies have been done relative to the
General Plan update and AHOZ.
Question: What is the budget to implement traffic improvements? If not all required
funds have not been appropriated, what is the mechanism to obtain funding?
Staff response: The program includes various alternatives. Funds come from traffic
impact mitigation fees that are collected (developers pay a pro -rata share). For example,
the redevelopment of the Swanson Ford site includes payment of traffic impact fees and
improvements to- the.intersectionat Los Gatos Blvd. & Blossom Hill Road, and streets
fronting the site.
Question: Does the AHOZ apply only to Los Gatos and how does it relate to and affect
Monte Sereno?
Staff response: Every jurisdiction has its own Housing Element and housing programs.
The AHOZ being proposed is specific to Los Gatos and the individual sites.
Question: The goal is to achieve a balanced well designed mix and to spread out
affordable housing. The area north of Lark will hold 85% of affordable housing with the
AHOZ.
Staff response: Considerations in determining the sites included State criteria, site
constraints, off - setting affordable housing with market rate housing, and suitability of a
site for development.
Question: Does development have to be housing, and how was the number of units
determined? How about a park instead.
Staff response: The Oka Road properties are zoned for residential use. The Town does
not have funds to acquire property for development as a park. Development on Oka
would be residential either with or without the AHOZ.
Question: How are traffic counts affected during periods of heavy traffic? What
measurements were used to come to the conclusion that that longest wait is 55 seconds?
Staff response: Traffic count hoses measure the speed of vehicles and the number of
vehicles that go though in a 24 -hour period. The raw data is evaluated based on the
specific land uses. Staff observance is done to make adjustments and fine -tune the timing
on signals. The intersection at Knowles -& Winchester will be modified when the
approved office building is developed at the southwest corner.
Question: How is it determined that a vehicle makes it through the intersection in one
cycle?
Staff response: LOS is measured over a 24 -hour period. There may be times when it
may take longer than the average time to get through an intersection. Computer models
and observance are used to adjust the cycle and timing of signals. Building for the peak
period is not feasible. The Town determines impact based on the LOS.
Question: The Sisters of Holy Names are selling a property on Prospect Avenue. Will
this property be considered for AHOZ?
Staff response: That property is in the hillside area. If developed, the Town's
Inclusionary housing program may be required, but the Town policy and General Plan
calls for lower densities in the hillsides to maintain views and character. The property is
not part of the AHOZ program.
Question: The condition of Oka Road is poor (looks like it has been bombed). Will any
improvements be done?
Staff response: Improvements are generally done when development occurs.
Question: What is the impact to the taxpayer? Pleasanton is going through a similar
process and has a calculation to determine the impact to schools. Who is considering the
financial impact?
Staff response: Per State law, the Town is required to plan for affordable housing. There
is an impact to schools when any type of growth occurs, however, the schools plan for
new growth and per the state, school impact fees mitigate the impact of new
development. All of the properties are privately owned. Student generation rates were
considered with the General Plan update. Single- family generates more than multi-
family. Property taxes are paid to also help offset school impacts.
Question: Existing zoning on Oka Road is low to medium density. Will the AHOZ
change that?
Staff response: A developer could develop under the existing zoning or propose a higher
density project through the AHOZ.
3
Question: Will a project be rental or owner occupied?
Staff response: A mix provides the best opportunity for a greater number of people. The
AHOZ does not dictate whether a development should be rental or owned.
Question: Is it possible for the January meeting to be pushed back so there is more time
for residents to have questions asked?
Staff response: It is possible, subject to Council approval.
Question: Oka Road cannot be widened any further in most areas. What mitigation can
be done?
Staff response: The General Plan includes a Safety Element. The Environmental Impact
Report (EIR) for the General Plan assumes build -out of the community. Evacuation and
safety issues were evaluated. There are many streets in Town that have one way in and
one way out.
Question: Where does it say in the US Constitution that development can occur or be
required?
Question: Schools for housing on Oka Road; it appears that the school districts are not
informed. New facilities may be required. The traffic flow on Oka Road needs to be
studied and considered.
Staff response: The school districts have been informed. The school districts participate
in the General Plan and Housing Element development process. In fact two of the
superintendents provided public comment during the adoption process. If a development
is proposed, a traffic study will be required. Traffic and circulation are studied as part of
a development proposal.
Question: Is there a limit on the amount of AHOZ that must be provided. Is there not a
physical limit?
Staff response: Every seven years (housing cycle) the State gives the Town new housing
numbers that the Town is obligated to plan for accommodating. If the AHOZ sites are
not developed prior to 2014, these sites can be reused to achieve the next cycle of
housing numbers.
Question: For a community with a population of about 30,000, establishing the AHOZ
and being able to count it again if the site(s) is /are not developed, would that solve the
problem?
Staff response: Yes, if the sites are not developed.
Question: Oka Road parcels A, B and C — what does the R- 1:8 /AHOZ ratio mean?
Staff response: The table in the Housing Element shows the current zoning (R -1:8)
which allows up to 8 units per acre, or development under the AHOZ. At 20 units per
acre, up to 128 units could be developed. It is either or, not both.
Question: 50% is the median rate. Is the other 50% low?
Staff response: Each site has a range of affordability from very low to above moderate
or market rate. The split is approximately 50% low and very low and 50% moderate and
above for each site.
Question: What were the assumptions in the EIR?
Staff response: The worst case scenario or that all sites built out at maximum density.
Question: Will all of the new housing be in the Los Gatos School District?
Staff response: The Oka Road sites are in the Los Gatos District and the Courthouse and
South Bay sites are in the Campbell District.
Question: Is the Blossom Hill Manor in Los Gatos?
Staff response: Most of it is in the County. Properties are annexed in as new
development occurs or at the property owner's request.
Question: What percent of the budget comes from the State?
Staff response: Minimal, but staff would have to consult the Finance Department for an
complete answer.
Question: Is there no way to opt out?
Staff response: Yes, but there are a number of consequences including loss of authority
to issue building permits.
Question: There are five 5a' grade classes at Blossom Hill School and the school is at
capacity. How will that be off -set?
Staff response: New growth is going to occur regardless of the AHOZ. School districts
participate in the General Plan update and were well aware of the growth projections in
the General Plan. The Town went with as minimal a program as would be accepted by
the State. Developers pay an impact fee that goes to school districts to offset impacts and
the schools receive property tax.
Question: Parking on Oka Road is already impacted by two athletic clubs. How will
parking be provided?
Staff response: If development is proposed, on -site parking must be provided.
Question: Not many developers want to build affordable housing. How will residents be
repaid for being impacted by increased crime rates, and their property values being
affected.
Staff response: Integrated (both market and affordable) housing is not associated with
increased crime rates.
Question: Assumptions on the number of cars for the number of bedrooms in a unit do
not seem realistic. There is no relationship to income rate or the actual number of cars
people own.
Staff response: Two sites are within the Vasona Light Rail transit corridor, and parking
ratios are lower for those. Existing Town housing and school enrollment data was used
to determine student generation rates for different housing types.
Question: People work hard to be able to live in this area. It does not seem fair to be
asked to accommodate so many units. Is it accurate that 248 units will only generate only
58 students?
Staff response: Actual enrollment rates were used to estimate student generation. RHNA
numbers have been required for years, through many housing cycles.
Question: Multi - family housing was used to determine student generation rates?
Staff response: The School districts provided generation for single - family. The numbers
that the Town generated were based on data from the school district and generation rates
from a similar high performing school district in Irvine, CA.
Question: Was there community outreach before November?
Staff response: Outreach was done starting with the Housing Element and General Plan
updates.
Question: The proposal is to add several hundred units in the Oka Road area. Will there
be families?
Staff response: No development is being proposed. If a project is developed, it is
reasonable to assume there would be new families.
Question: How can the traffic be improved? If you add lights, it increases the time it
takes to get somewhere.
Staff response: Adding a signal does facilitate turning movements. Traffic is an element
that evolves and is continually evaluated.
Question: Is the light rail corridor based on the extension going through?
Staff response: VTA encourages higher densities within the Vasona Light Rail area.
The EIR/EIS for the Light Rail extension was just released. There is bus transit available
even without the extension. VTA would like desire a higher density that the 20 units per
acre being proposed by the Town.
Question: Los Gatos has a very good school district. Is there any data from the school
districts that they can accommodate new families?
Staff response: The Los Gatos Union Elementary School District has recently completed
a demographic studies.
Question: Each unit will bring in one or two students.
Staff response: The student generation projections were not that high.
Question: Why does the government need to pay for or mandate housing in Los Gatos?
Staff response: The Town does not have to pay for housing. Based on State law, the
Town is required to plan for housing.
Question: Can you deny a developer?
Staff response: If they are not complying with regulations, yes.
Question: Why is the AHOZ being proposed rather than rezoning?
Staff response: The Town believes that rezoning is not as desirable as creating the
AHOZ. It does not lock in only residential uses. For example, the courthouse site could
be developed as office under existing zoning or residential through the AHOZ. If the
property were rezoned to residential, office use would be precluded. This allows
flexibility, but also ensures the Town is meeting with State law.
Question: If traffic data were provided that shows the AHOZ cannot be sustained, could
the overlay be removed?
Staff response: If a LOS of D could not be maintained, and there is no way to make
improvements to address that, a development could be denied.
The following information will be added to the web -site:
• Traffic Study
• Link to Capital Improvement Program (CIP)
• Link to General Plan
• PowerPoint presentation from this meeting
The meeting was adjourned at 8:05 p.m
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank