Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Attachment 15
October 2012 Emails ATTACHMENT 15 This Page Intentionally Left Blank Director of Community Development Town of Los Gatos 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 408 - 399 -5768 wrooney@losgatosca. gov From: odCa�lm co. com] Sent: Wedneos sawn l ^tA " To: Wend!e Rooney Subject: RE: Low Income Dwelling Initiative and AHOZ (� Wow, that was easy;) You must still be happy about the Giants game! If you don't mind, a couple more questions and then I'll leave you alone until next week. Maybe I just need some additional light reading forthe weekend. 1) Can you please send me a map, information or link where I can view the Town's existing Low Income / High Density Housing. Whether Developed already or simply zoned for? I would like to see the existing distributions because I've been asked by a neighbor if it is severely lopsided across the town and I did not have an answer.[Wendie Rooney] The Town has an inclusionary housing program that requires a developer built a certain percentage of affordable units along with their market rate units. The Town is committed to creating mixed income projects rather than affordable only or market rate only. Consequently, we only have three one affordable only complexes in Town. One is near the Town's Corporation Yard on Miles Avenue near downtown, and two Villa Vasona a senior only affordable complex is located at 626 W. Parr and Open Doors an affordable family complex at 634 W. Parr. All other affordable units are integrated into a market rate project all over the Town, which is the concept we are proposing with the AHOZ. I don't have a map of all the affordable units in Town. 2) Do you have information /calculations on how much space is currently required for future zoning for the city ?[Wendie Rooney] Can you provide better clarification on this question. All properties, including developed and vacant, are currently zoned. The following is a link to the Town's General Plan and Housing Element, which will provide background on-the Towns -projections- for -mostly redevelopment; since there -is little to-no-vacant land in Town except for the North 40. http:// www. losgatosca .gov /index.aspx ?NID =27 a. How was the amount of land calculated? How deficient was the town before its currently approved plan ?[Wendie Rooney] Assumptions for redevelopment are based on a number of factors, including state and ABAG (Association of Bay Area Governments) growth projections, newjobs (the Town maintains a jobs to housing ratio to in theory ensure that there are sufficient jobs for residents to reduce the need for commuting), etc. The General Plan overs from 2010 to 2020 and assumed the following new and redevelopment: 419,210 s.f. in retail and services; 516,000 in office, and 8,000 s.f. in industrial uses. Total residential growth was projected at 1,593 new units, of which 629 is the AHOZ. The majority of this new growth would be accommodated on the former automobile dealership sites on Los Gatos Boulevard, North 40 and other redeveloped sites throughout the Town. b. Is the town at some minimum amount with the additions of these new zones now or has it gone substantially over the needed amount as required by the state ?[Wendie Rooney] The state only required planning is housing. Every 7 years the State establishes a new housing number which is called the Regional Housing Needs Allocation or RHNA. The Town just received the new RHNA for 2014 to 2022, and it is 619, of which the existing AHOZ sites will be counted again to fulfill the requirement if the AHOZ is adopted. 3) You mentioned briefly that the North 40 project would most likely be built as commercial only. Is this correct? If so, does this still support the town's planning zoning for Low Income Housing ?[Wendie Rooney] You must have misunderstood me. The North 40 is planned to be mixed use (retail, office, services, hotel, recreation and housing). The North 40 Advisory Committee is recommending 364 units forthe North 40. A minimum of 20 percent would be affordable housing. I believe that the developer is looking at an affordable senior housing development. My apologies again if you covered any of this in our discussions. My questions are obviously trying to assess whether this project on Knowles absolutely necessary and if so, is the amount of density suggested necessary? Could it be spread out amongst other zones to make the change more amenable to the community affected. From what I gathered via our conversation only, it seems that the majority of the North 40 would receive commercial and the Knowles project would almost entirely be high density residential. Obviously this is not what the communities in the Knowles area are interested to see happen and as you said even the town would have preferred light commercial development there.[Wendie Rooney] As we discussed, the Town is required to plan for all income levels of housing. The AHOZ does not require the property owner to build housing. In fact of the 5.2 Acre former Courthouse property, 2 acres were purchased by El Camino Hospital and will probably be developed as office. KT Properties was the successful bidder through the County surplus process on the other 3 acres and has stated their intention to build housing. The AHOZ proposing to spread out the housing over five sites, of which two are north of 85 and three are south of 85. If the Town were to proposed densities less than 20 units per acre, the State would not certify the Housing Element since the 20 units per acre is the density that the state has deemed affordable by design. The Town would have to find more properties in Town to meet the RHNA. My goal in sending you questions is to try to become educated and potentially find a solution that the Town hasn't considered, before residents start filing suits and so on which no one wants to see happen. I'm happy to study information on the town's site if it is there, or read through more documents on my own if you can just point me in the right direction. Thank you again! [WVendie Rooney] Later this week when I have time, I am going to prepare a FAQ and upload to the Town's web site based on your questions and others I have received. Once it is done, I will let you know. Thanks, Wendie Shown Wood Lockheed Martin Space Systems Company "Palo Alto: 650?424:3099 Sunnyvale: 408.742.2427 Cellular: 408.431.1897 From: Wendie Rooney [mailto:wroongy@losoatosca.aovl Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2012 9:13 AM To: Wood Shawn ` - Subject: EXTERNAL: RE: Low Income Dwelling Initiative and AHOZ Shawn: we will extend beyond our normal 300 feet. Thanks again for the suggestion. From: Wendie Rooney Sent: Wednesday, October 24 2012 8:32 AM To: Wood, Shawn Subject: RE: Low Income Dwelling Initiative and AHOZ I understand. That is state minimum, but you make a good point. I will keep you posted. 3 Begin forwarded message: I � i 1'e o- o.J�,�a `p�: %:�6a9€�}o°` o'e r . � _ • � r Dat chi ,c ' tl rJ S ff"T To: LG Town Council <councilna,los atg osca.gov >, Steve Rice -- LG Mayor <srice@los atg osca.gov >, Barbara Spector -- LG Vice Mayor <bspector@a,loseatosca. og_v >, Steve Leonardis -- LG Council Member <sleonardisna,los atg osca. og_v >, Diane McNutt -- LG Council Member <dmcnuttna,los atg osca.goy >, Joe Pirzynski -- LG Council Member <jpirzynski @1os atg osca.gov> Subject: Serious Concerns about Planned Development (AHOZ) Dear Los Gatos Town Council, As a property owner on Knowles Drive, 1 am writing to express my dismay at the emerging plans for development around my home under the so- called "Affordable Housing Overlay Zone," as well as my disappointment at the conduct of Los Gatos Council, Planning Commission, and staff. The proposed development —which seems to be in very advanced stages of planning — is bound to have significant detrimental effect on the local community, including traffic, parking, schools, and overall congestion. It will, obviously, undermine the value of our property and the quality of our lives.[Wendie Rooney] Please note that AHOZ is not a development project. It is public policy. It will not necessary result in development, but creates development standards and site and architectural standards that would be imposed if development were proposed. The Town is required to plan (emphasis added) for a specific number of housing units in five different income categories every seven years, including market rate or above moderate housing. The state requires the Town to plan for housing, but does not require the Town guarantee construction. That is a private sector responsibility. If the Town refused to plan for the housing units, the State could take control away from the Town for issuing any building permits. It is state housing law the necessitates the Town to plan for housing. This seems patently clear — and, based on minutes from recent Council meetings, was clear to at least some of the Council Members and Commissioners. However, the Town has been moving ahead with this plan at, great speed, without consultation with the local community, and without articulating a clear rationale for questionable decisions (related to waivers and incentives to commercial interests).f Wendie Rooney] The Town has actually been working on the Housing Element of which the AHOZ is the principle implementation measures, since 2009. The Housing Element was recently approved by the Town Council (March 2012) and certified by the State (September 2012). The Town's General Plan Committee, which is the oversight committee for the Housing Element, has been working on the AHOZ since November 2011. In order to better control the outcome of potential development and not allow the use of the State Density Bonus law, which could add up to a 35% density bonus and unlimited incentives or waivers of requirements, the Town created the ability for the property owner to use up to four incentives and have up to a 20% density bonus. By creating these incentives, the Town was legally and successfully able to preclude the use of the State Density Bonus law, which basically removes all Town control. Why the rush? Why are you using the concept of an "overlay zone" as opposed to rezoning ?[Wendie Rooney] The Town purposely chose the overlay since it allows the property owner to development under the existing zoning, which in the case of the Knowles property is Office or the AHOZ, but not both. If the Town would have pursued the rezone route, the property would have to be developed as housing. This allows the property owner the right to do either, and since housing is a potential, the State found that the Town Housing Element was in compliance with required state law. In reality the State would have preferred the Town to rezone the property, but the Town felt that while it is obligated to meet state housing law requirements, it wanted to preserve the property owner's ability to develop consistent with the existing zoning if they did not want housing. • Why haven't you engaged with the community ?[Wendie Rooney] The Town has been holding discussions on the AHOZ for the past year, and even further back to 2009 during the Housing Element preparation. There have been 11 public noticed General Plan Committee meetings on the AHOZ in the last 11 months, at least 8 public noticed General Plan Committee meetings on the Housing;Element of which the AHOZ was the main topic, one publically noticed Planning Commission and Town Council study session on the Housing Element and one on the AHOZ specially, three public noticed Town Council meetings on the Housing Element and one publically noticed Planning Commission hearing on the Housing Element. • Why haven't you consulted with the local (Campbell Union) school ?[Wendie Rooney] The Town has consulted all school districts that are involved, including the Campbell Union, twice, once during the Housing Element development and once last winter. We met with the school district in 2010 when the Housing Element was drafted, and they denied the request to meet with Town staff this past winter to discuss the AHOZ, since this topic was covered in the Housing Element meeting that they previously attended with the Town a year and a half earlier. • Why are you offering incentives upon incentives to a particular developer ?[Wendie Rooney] Please note the comments above. If the Town were not to offer incentives, the property owner could invoke the State Density Bonus program, which basically takes all control to regulate the development away from the Town and could results in densities that far exceed the Town's density ranges. As proposed the AHOZ for the Knowles and Capri property is consistent with the Town's densities, even with the density bonus. The overall development plans consist of about 20 acres — half of them in our neighborhood and half closer to downtown Los Gatos. I found it particularly troubling that the Town of Los Gatos has decided to segregate the dense low- income housing primarily in our neighborhood — and locate higher- income, less -dense construction closer to Downtown. How can you justify that ?[Wendle Rooney] If developed, each of the five AHOZ sites are required to provide housing in each of the five income levels that the state requires. The Town simply took the same ratio of units that the State required us to plan for and pro -rata them across all five properties. Therefore, from a percentage standpoint, there is an equal ratio of -all- five- income categories-on all - five -sites. As far as I can tell from information on your web site, an Environmental Impact Report has not been put together for this particular development — certainly not for the impact of the package of "incentives" offered to the developeri including higher density; reduced setback; taller building, and, most significantly, density transfer. in other words, keeping the low- income housing "on the other side of the tracks "(Wendie Rooney] The Town Certified an Environment Impact Report with the General Plan and Housing Element in 2010. For the AHOZ, staff prepared an Addendum to the General Plan EIR that further studied these five properties. The Addendum EIR did not find any additional impacts over. those identified in the .General Plan /Housing Element EIR. The Addendum will be included with the AHOZ application that is scheduled for. Planning Commission consideration on November 14'". I am truly puzzled by the conduct of the Town in this matter. I expect public servants and elected officials to be attentive to community issues, and not operate in cahoots with commercial interests. But here a select developer was brought into what are billed as "planning" discussions — a developer who is ready to move with a specific project proposal "within weeks." ]Wendie Rooney] The Town has nothing to do with finding or encouraging this developer. The property was owned by the County. The County decided to sell the property and sent out Request for Proposals to the private development community, including El Camino Hospital, who successful bought the corner 2 acres on Knowles and Capri. KT properties was the successful bidder for the 3 acres that wraps around the corner property. The Town had neither any ownership nor legal holdings with the property and therefore had no involvement with the selection of the buyers. This was solely a county transaction. [This developer, incidentally, is apparently just as uninterested in receiving community input as the Town Council; although he claimed to have arranged a "community meeting" on the subject for 10/29, he hasn't gotten around to actually inviting the impacted neighbors until late 10/28.] I strongly urge you to reset this planning process —to launch one which properly seeks community input, includes a thorough and careful EIR, hinges on clear articulation of the Council's rationale, and drives decision - making which balances the interests and resource of all of Los Gatos. Respectfully, Iddo Hadar [Wendie Roo eyJ As I n/4g lanning Comm' sion is scheduled /too6l.,d a public he ing on the AHO November ning at 7:00 p It is anticipated uncil will h ar this matter in ecember. Pleee to contact e if you have any questions. Thanl ou, Wendie Roo This Page Intentionally Left Blank Wendie Rooney From: m Sent: - <u�,.42nigM To: Wendie Rooney Subject: RE: Low Income Dwelling Initiative and AHOZ Hello Wendie, again thank you for getting back to me. I guess I'm trying to get to some fairly blunt points and I really just want to make sure I remain as polite as possible. You are being very helpful and I appreciate that. What I am trying to get at is it seems to me that even without the rezoning of the courthouse site on Knowles, the town of Los Gatos potentially has sufficient acreage (not built units, but potential zoned acreage) to meet the state's legal obligations. I question whether or not the The town may potentially have a released plan without the Knowles property change. That the town has no legal need to pursue the rapid change of zoning with this creative "overlay" zoning concept in order to allow this developer to build what they intend. There seems to be other underlying factors regarding the relationship of this particular developer with the town. If this were not the case, why wouldn't the town follow it's normal process to simply rezone per established rules? I must assume the developer purchased this property based on the current zoning of commercial and should have planned on commercial development. However if the developer bought this property with some sort of "arrangement" with the town to rush through an improper zoning change process, then this will raise significant legal questions with the community. For now my fundamental question is whether or not the land acreage on Knowles was indeed required for a released plan with the state, which I don't believe it was necessary, legally. I'm thinking the required planned units could easily be accommodated on other sites (planned for with no intention to build on them as you indicated in our meeting). The town could feasibly leave the Knowles property zoned as is, tell the builder to comply with the existing zoning as it is more appropriate for that location and in the best interest of the town residents. These are quickly going to become the questions posed to the township during future proceedings. I simply think it would be in the best interest of the town to take a different direction on this before it is too late. In the near term however it would be good to get some solid, candid answers. Again Wendie, thank you for all of your assistance. Shawn Wood Lockheed Martin Space Systems Company Palo Alto: 650.424.3099 Sunnyvale: 408.742.2427 Cellular: 408.431.1897 From: Wendie Rooney [mailto:wrooney @losgatosca.gov] Sent: Monday, October 29, 2012 11:47 AM To: Wood, Shawn Subject: EXTERNAL: RE: Low Income Dwelling Initiative and AHOZ Fli Shawn: I am back in the office, and I can answer some of your questions, but need some clarification on one. Please see my comments following your questions. Thanks, Wendie Wendie Rooney This Page Intentionally Left Blank From: n =ice ern �jmailto:mimoreno(cr� bcalobal.net] To: Planning Division; Michael Kotowski; a -er; Jeffrey Cristina; Rich Waterman; Campbell City Managers Office Subject: Concerned about a new development that will affect safety and traffic of Campbel residents Greetings, I live on Parr Avenue in Campbell. We have major traffic congestion problems already with people cutting through Parr to get to Knowles/Pollard. At commute times I have difficulty getting out of my driveway already. I just received a notice today, see attached that I had heard about previously through the neighborhood grapevine. It appears that the City of Los Gatos has approved a high density low- income housing project for the site of the old County Health facility, which would credit Los Gatos with 105 -130 housing units for their low- income housing per the city of Los Gatos website. This amount of new traffic on Parr and Pollard and Knowles would seriously impact the quality of life for Campbell residents adversely. We have had several major accidents this year already at the corner of Pollard and Parr. It appears to be unsafe already for kids to walk and ride their bikes to Village School. What can we do about this proposed project? Have they done a study of possible impacts on traffic and the environment? If so, what did they find? Since Parr is a street shared by both Los Gatos and Campbell residents can you do anything about it? Have they gone through the legal channels to purchase this property and build? Another problem is the fence around the old courthouse building near this same location on Knowles and Capri, because of the new fence of the building and the parking lot area, pedestrians especially those of us who use walkers at times are forced out into heavy traffic to get around the block, which I usually daily for my exercise. Looking forward to your response. Mary Jo Moreno This Page Intentionally Left Blank Wendie Rooney From: a• ::.,:,-•: ,aiI.com> Sent: Win scla r c nb 1 11 2:17 AM To: Wendie Rooney Subject: Re: Serious Concerns about Planned Development (AHOZ) Wendie Thanks for your prompt response. I have a few clarifying questions /comments: As for EIR: I note that on May 9, 2012, during a General Plan Committee meeting, you recommended that environmental review be conducted due to high density in the Southbay site. Has that review been completed? If so, where can we access it? As to the involvement of the developer: Published minutes clearly show KT Properties and its agents actively participating in AHOZ discussions, with clear development targets, although the Committee and Commission meetings are ostensibly about public policy ( "AHOZ is not a development project. It is public policy "). Having reviewed the minutes of the Committee and Commission meetings, it is quite evident that you have spent a disproportionate amount of time on the Courthouse site, ever since Marc Tersini has urged the GPC to "provide as much flexibility as it can" (February 22, 2012). As to distribution of housing types: Given the density bonus listed in your plans, about 2/3 of the potential 300 -some low /low -and -below units in the AHOZ plan are targeted for the Courthouse and Southbay properties. From meeting minutes it seems that you support KT Properties' desire for density transfer, which would likely raise this 2/3 figure. Furthermore, from oral comments from KT Properties during your last meeting, it seems they intend to EXCEED the minimum affordability ratio, creating an even more lopsided distribution. As to decision criteria used: In your comments during the March 14, 2012 GPC meeting you explained that the Ditto Lane site was removed "due to neighborhood concerns." Could you please elaborate on those concerns; and perhaps even compare and contrast the neighborhood concerns for that site, to the concerns that you have taken into account related to the Courthouse site? Also related to decision criteria used: In your comments during the March 14, 2012 GPC meeting you also refer to an Excel decision matrix for the Courthouse AHOZ site. Could you share that decision matrix with us? Thanks for your help, 01141BI F r,, On Mon, Oc 9, 2012 at 9:39 Wendie Roon <wrc Hello I do: My name is W ndie Rooney, as Janette woul ike to respond to y ur comments. P ease see my I am th�roject manager f the AHOZf I below ollowing your co ents. Als This Page Intentionally Left Blank November 2012 Emails This Page Intentionally Left Blank Frornft 1 i ,, ailto:ckuhn@cisco.com] Sent: Wednestt W a p�V.P, c( e To: Joe Pirzynski; Diane McNutt; Steve Leonar is; Spec or; Council; Steve Rice Subject: Housing Overlay Zone - Amendment Application A -12 -003 Los Gatos Council members, I am writing you as I have today learned about a proposal to change zoning on the old Los Gatos Courthouse site at Knowles Drive and Capri Drive. 1 am a Campbell resident and homeowner that lives near this location, close to Capri School. I have a daughter in Kindergarten at Capri, and a son who will also go there in a few years. I am concerned, because there is already quite a lot of traffic in this area during typical commute hours, especially during school arrival and dismissal. Capri school is presumably be expected to handle the additional student load from any new development nearby. (also_ - Campbell middle and high schools) As it is already difficult to manage_ class sizes, 1 believe any additional significant (high density) development in the area is not a wise decision. There are already a number of apartment and condominiums in the local Capri area, and there are more small developments already in progress on smaller lots in the area. I don't believe that the school or the neighborhood can sustain another large development. I thank you for your consideration. I plan to make an effort to attend meetings on this and again express my disapproval. respectfully, Chris Kuhn, Neighbor This Page Intentionally Left Blank Wendie Rooney From: Sent: Thu rsda, J �� To: Wendie Rooney Subject: RE: Town of Los Gatos Affordable Housing Overlay Zone (AHOZ) Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Wendie, I would like to meet with you, your staff and the City Mayor on this subject. I can't speak to the letter because 1 have not seen it until today. As for Beverly Bryant, I did tell here that Capri Elementary School is over capacity at 760 students (largest elementary school in the district) and we are looking for ways at relieving that high number. I thought that 10 students could be managed, but the numbers that these two projects will produce is not possible. Ms. Bryant did not tell us or mention about, these two large project when she stopped by a few weeks ago. She only came to see us about the County Mental Health building property next to the courthouse. Actually, I was surprised at the visit, since we don't have developers dropping in for such a small project. You should also know that Capri also fits the State's definition as a "Critically Overcrowded School ". I have asked my Demographer to review the two developments and calculate the projected number of students that they will generate. Once I receive that information, I will call you to set up a meeting. Thanks, James Crawford Deputy Superintendent Administrative Services Ph: (408) 341-7214 Fax: (408) 341-7225 0crawford(a2campbell usd.org From: Wendie Rooney [mailto:wrooney @losgatosca.gov] Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2012 12:03 PM To: James Crawford Cc: Sandy Bally; Todd Capurso; Greg Larson Subject: RE: Town of Los Gatos Affordable Housing Overlay Zone (AHOZ) Hello Again Deputy Superintendent Crawford: The Planning Commission took action last night to recommend approval of the Affordable Housing Overlay Zone. However, the Planning Commission directed staff to hold one or two additional community meetings to encourage as much public involvement in the process as possible before this item is presented to the Council for final consideration. Staff provided a copy of your letter to the Planning Commission. However, I believe that they were also confused when Beverley Bryant, who represents KT Properties and apparently met with your District, commented that she was told that the District was not concerned with the approximately 10 students that may be generated by the potential KT Properties development on the former Courthouse property. Attached is a letter that Town staff sent to Superintendent Andrew on May 3, 2012, informing him of the Affordable Housing Overlay Zone proposed for both the former Courthouse and the Southbay Development properties. As you will see in the letter, these sites were identified in the Town's General Plan Housing Element for residential development; and as I noted in my previous email, the Campbell Union School District participated with the Town on a collaborative student generation proj ections study for the General Plan. The letter further notes that Town staff could meet with the District if it had any questions or concerns about the predictions for school attendance resulting from potential development of the AHOZ sites. Town staff did not hear back from the District following the transmittal of this letter. The Town would very much appreciate a better understanding of the Campbell Union School District's position on the AHOZ. I would be happy to meet in person or discuss this program on the phone with you and Superintendent Crawford. Please contact me either via email or my direct phone number (408) 399 -5768. Thank you, Wendie Rooney Wendie Rooney Director of Community Development Town of Los Gatos 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 408 - 399 -5768 wrooney@los atg osca.gov From: Wendie Rooney Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2012 5:06 PM To: ']Crawford @campbellusd.org' Cc: Sandy Bally; Todd Capurso Subject: Town of Los Gatos Affordable Housing Overlay Zone (AHOZ) Hello Deputy Superintendent Crawford: Cindie Taylor forwarded your email and letter to me. By way of introduction, my name is Wendie Rooney, and I am the Strategic Projects Director for the Town of Los Gatos. We will provide your letter to the Planning Commission as requested. However, I am a little surprised by receiving it. Town staff met with your superintendent in 2010, when the Town was preparing the General Plan and Housing Element. At that time, your District did not express a concern with the students that could be generated by the Town's General Plan housing projections, of which the AHOZ is a component. In fact, your District financially participated in a Student Projection Study that was conducted in 2010 to determine the number of student that the built out of Town's General Plan could generate. More recently in February this year, the Town sent the District a letter informing it of the proposed AHOZ and offered to meet and further discuss it. Two of the five districts serving the Town's residents met with staff to discuss the AHOZ; however, staff never received a response from your district. This lead staff to assume that the District did not have concerns since the student generation numbers were consistent with those identified in the General Plan that was already approved. Again, we offer to meet and discuss the AHOZ with you and your Superintendent. My direct phone number is 408 - 399 -5768 and you now have my email address. Thank you, Wendie Rooney Wendie Rooney Director of Community Development Town of Los Gatos 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 408 - 399 -5768 wrooney@los atg osca.gov t This Page Intentionally Left Blank Wendie Rooney From: o" I .net> Sent: Monday, NoV , To: Paul Kermoyan; Wendie Rooney Cc: Joel Paulson; Sandy Baily Subject: Re: Concerned about a new development that will affect safety and traffic of Campbell residents Paul and Wendie, Thank you both for the update, I really appreciate the follow -up. I have tried to read the email from Wendie but cannot understand it. I have shared it with some of my neighbors who have similar concerns. The traffic is still getting worse, I have to wait on the other side of the intersection at Knowles/Pollard by the Courthouse to cross now from 7:30 to 12;00.1 am in a health related research study at Stanford and need to be there at 8 in the morning. There is a backup trying to get onto 85 north that is backed up and blocking Winchester many days.I have to allow an hour -and- a half mostly trying to get out of Campbell and deal with the really slow back -up on 85. Having heard the development presentation by the builder, who will build the new low income unit on the public health property, the only good news is that part of the project is for seniors only. Will that designation of this project for seniors only be permanent? I hope so, because this may limit the traffic somewhat as they are only alloting 1 parking space per unit. Will this be designated by the city as permanently only senior housing? I also don't understand why Wendie is saying there is any hope for the Vasona light rail project, from my reading, this is a dead project. The funding is gone and there is no source for new funding, is there? Was the traffic study completed before the new apartments were built behind Netflix or after? Did it included this traffic? As I understand it there is also a plan to build large housing units on the other side of the railroad tracks, that will feed into Winchester, was this accounted for in the traffic study? Thank you for your attention to this matter. Mary Jo - - - -- Original Message - - -- From: Paul Kermoyan <pauIk @cityofcampbell.com> To: Wendie Rooney <wrooney @losgatosca.gov> Cc: Joel Paulson <jpaulson @losgatosca.gov >; Sandy Baily <sbaily @losgatosca.gov >; mjgmoreno@sbeglobal.net Sent: Mon, November 19, 2012 11:38:51 AM Subject: RE: Concerned about anew development that will affect safety and traffic of Campbell residents Hi Wendie - Thanks for the detailed explanation. It appears that the traffic studies are contained in multiple documents so I appreciate your feedback and guidance on where to locate these. As for Ms. Gorney- Moreno, her concern (of course) is traffic and circulation and not so much the use. We haven't received anymore correspondence from her so your outreach should be proactively beneficial. Thanks again. Paul Kermoyan, AICP, CGBP Interim Community Development Director City of Campbell I Community Development Department paulk@cityofcainpbell.com ( 408.866.2141 1 7 408.871.5140 *: 70. N. First Street I Campbell, CA 95008 City Home I Planning Division I Municipal Code - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Wendie Rooney [ ilto:wroone losgatosca.gov] Sent: Monday, Novem r 19, 2012 1 .17 AM To: Paul Kerrnoyan Cc: Joel Paulson; S dy Baily; oreno @sbcgl` al.net Subject: RE: Con erred about new developmen hat will affect safety and traffic of C pbell resid is Hi Paul: V y strange ab t her email bo mg back. Regar ing the AHOZ pr Iect, as the p ject manager, I t you for a fact t traffic study d' include the sumptions for th Albright project. et me pro a little bac round on the AH Z. The AHOZ i an implementation pro am of the To n approved and rtified Housing ement. As such, General PI IR included ana sis of the propos d AHOZ. However, during the dev opment of the a al policy /progr ' ; a number of 7,ah' es occurred. F' st, when the Dra General Plan EI "' as published M 10, 2 010, e analysis includ applying the Z to ten parcels seven-s" w i t h - c a p a c i t y t accommodate 67 units. Prior t o t he publis ng on the final E , one site was re ved since the aut deal ship use was to c ntinue. During th development of th program, tlu e other sites (on f ur parcels totaling 27 units) were re ved from e AHOZ progr since most prope 'es were on Los Ga s Boulevard, and the goal for those roperties was mix use, but with a gr ater percentage of c ercial rather th housing. The Ho sing Element was ultimately ap oved with 494 uni on five sites. The eneral Plan Committee, ho oversaw the de elopment of the A OZ, reco/ity density b us for the Courtho e property and the outhbay pr princip y due to the fact th both properties w e within the boun of the Town's V ona Light Rail Ele ent, which call den ' ies to support the p ential extension of 'e Vasona Ligh M reover, the Town w trying to preclude e use of the State onus Program by m ing the AHOZ co essions equal to the Program. Lastly, th GPC recommende increasing the base d - -- - - z Wendie Rooney From: 11111101 I , �_ obi° i° Sent: Tuesday, sraaoer�' .lu HNi To: Choni Yangzom Cc: Wendie Rooney Subject: Re: Notification of Affordable Housing Overlay Stakeholders Distribution List Hi Wendy, Thanks for outreaching to us. As a new member of the community here, I appreciate you guys putting the meeting online so that I was able to view it. I have a few questions. During the hearing, you mentioned that 452 units have been identified from the 5 parcels and that this meets the RHNA requirements for Los Gatos. You also mentioned that your planning group tried to get to the smallest number of parcels, is this a state requirement, ? Also, you mentioned that if any of the parcels were not developed in the current "Arena" that they could be utilized for the next cycle Arena and that if any of the units are used then you have identified "reserve" parcels to fill in for those that were developed. Could you share where these parcels are and how many units you have in reserve? Also, can you confirm what milestones you are working to? I see in the RHNA primer (biip://www.seag.ca.vgv/pptac/P-dfs/agendas/011111/pptac011Ill 5 2a ndf) that the "Final RHNA must be done at least 12 months from HE due date — (October 2013)" Is Oct 2013 your deadline for signing off on the parcels? thanks Padraig On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 9:09 PM, Choni Yangzom <chonisfnn,gmail.com> wrote: HI Wendy: Can you please add us to the notification list? chonisf(aDgmail.com and padraigo a.gmail.com thank you very much. Choni & Padraig From: "Wendie Rooney" <wrooney a.losgatosca.gov> To: "Beverley Bryant (beverleybbryant(agmail.com)" <beverlevbbrvant(aDpmail.COm >, "Carolyn Sims (carolyn.sims at7gmail.com)" <carolvn.simsaa.gmail.com >, "Charles Erekson" <CEreksonascu.edu >, "Charles Erekson" <chassueerekson cDcomcast .net >, "Faye Bon (fbonainterorealestate.com)" <fbonainterorea[estate.com >, "'iddo.hadaragmail.com' (iddo.hadara- g mail. com)" <iddo.hadarCaD_gmail.com >, "Jeff Loughridge (lokrii cD-comcast.net)" <lokriigcomcast.net >, "Joanne Piva (Impiva earthlink.net)" <impiva ,earth link. net >, "Joanne Talesfore" <ioannet(a id- 3d.com >, "John Bourgeois" <love bourgeoisnyahoo.com >, "iudysmall1405 acomcast.net" This Page Intentionally Left Blank Wendie Rooney From: g° ema n -` =a -4—gf aaticows Sent: Tu ee�71rZQ20�PN1 e_ To: Wen lie Rooney Cc: Choni Yangzom Subject: Re: Notification of Affordable Housing Overlay Stakeholders Distribution List Hi Wendie, I hope you'd a good Thanksgiving. I found the maps that the gentleman mentioned regarding the town map of AHOZ /RHNA high density housing on your website. Can you supply the information regarding the other questions that I asked? Also, thanks for setting up the meeting on 12/18. cheers Padraig On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 5:15 PM, Padraig O'Mathuna <padraigoQgmail.com> wrote: Thanks for the overview Wendy, So you confirm that it's a state requirement to have the fewest number of parcels to make up the AHOZ? Can you provide us with the list of the reserved parcels? On page 44 of the Affordable Housing Overlay Zone Design Guidelines, it certainly looks like there's future planning for lot on Oka next to the freeway. Also, one of the gentlemen from the Capri/South Bay residents group had a town map of the AHOZ /RHNA, high density housing. I believe that it was "chicken scratched ". Can you send me this map as a PDF? If this is not convenient, I can drop by your office to make a copy next week. cheers Padraig F yoney 12 at 2:13 honi: PleE Wendie of Community of Los Gatos Rooney see my resp onses below aatosca.eov> te: your questio s. Thanks, Wendi This Page Intentionally Left Blank December 2012 Emails This Page Intentionally Left Blank Wendie Rooney From: MEMMIMP Sent: Tuesday, D "" T'V:JT"lll Vl To: Wendie Rooney Subject: Re: Notification of Affordable Housing Overlay Stakeholders Distribution List Hi Wendie, I understand that it is very difficult to ensure that all the stockholders in a project like this have a complete understanding and are communicating. Thanks for the letter. Although I strongly oppose this plan for not having all of LG bear the burden along with the dramatic impact this will have on our community, I do appreciate the time and effort you and your staff have invested. It's never easy. Thank you, Pat Sent from my iPad On Dec 4, 2012, at 8:34 AA4, Wendie Hi Pat: Attached is the letter t a letter that the own sent to two Los Gato School Distr' t to the fact t the School ist projections earlier. o� discuss th General Plan ousi 3. All Dist study that Plan H using Ele the 2 st 0 General ro to meet it ;reiore, we Planning ( would do sc him was on within the 4y School Di,�t AHOZ. I wrote: Campbell sch of district sent th Town in N min May req esting a meeting discuss the they never r ponded. We felt at the lack c staff, es worked col used in the ( and EIR. The EIR assumpti( ed that they w) ipat d with the Town n the Ger icl ding me, met wi all school :i (including the OZ) and atively with the own to fund ral Plan EIR. T e AHOZ was Trent AHOZ pro am had not c consequently, e felt that th not concerne v e very surprised o get this letter �nmission hearin . I have corresp i since Novembe 14 "' again askin more projectio sand then get ba k aember 15th. e Town has dili en -al Plan b meet with 'or, these Plana Commission at time derstanding why the id ntical outreach thl, let me know Wendie Rooney o ary informed of wv tuber as well [OZ. Unlike sponse was c EIR scho 1 in 2010 t prepare a tded in th anged significAntly from lack of resp se to our �f the very last oment (30 mi utes before nded twice w' h Deputy Sup intendent to meet. He dicated that demographer with Town aff. The last ' e I heard from dy worked keep the age cies that are on a semi r7hen basis, it o districts alnded the Town Councings and :e Campbell D do not the Town uses discussi have any I ss . Ironically, t e two Los Gatos r g this past s4amer to discuss the eral Plan and ousing Element tted test2o y. I have a difficult k with the To as closely even with school issue . Wendie This Page Intentionally Left Blank Wendie Rooney From: INIER19M <carolyn sims @gmail com> Sent: Wednesd a aa, = an mea��° To: Wendie Rooney Subject: Re: AHOZ Community Meeting Reminder Ms Rooney, Are you aware in any capacity at all how bad and backed up traffic already is along Knowles and Knowles /Winchester? The traffic lights are already stacked on each other with traffic backed up through green light intersections. With this in mind, at the meeting, please provide what kind of realistically valid traffic studies have been done. There does not appear to be any way possible to deal with another hundred cars crammed in at Knowles / Capri. Carolyn Sent from my iPhone On Dec 5, 2012, at 4:54 PM, Wendie Rooney <wroonev @loseatosca.aov> wrote: Hello I just anted tYC�ha reminde Zone/Community ting that To Council ers locat( i start prom6:0 0 p.m P ogram and anty of f efore it concl 8:00 D.2 P -lease note an mtorma onal. sessio AHOZ. even that the comm ty, it will not/ comm is on the in it The A /, via w' 1 t prel t e Town C January for M the upcom' g Affordable H using Ove occur on Tue day December 8, 2012, in 110 E. Mai Street, Los Gat s. The meet i a brief Dr sentation on th nro-oosed AB for q6 of the D ith the To irimary goal a public he of the AHQ ;i encourages or hard copies for the Towr � it will allow /a,, ;io s and answers out t/i- per 18`h Comm ity meetiave tff for the co unity to l t the meeting is t convey infto the and the fo m to express blic interested parties /to Town Hal2h4�,( ouncil publimuch time as to provide I submit co nts regarding the elusion in t staff report that �g in early 13. In addition, d during t e public hearing in This Page Intentionally Left Blank Wendie Rooney From: j9=11fPs MW , Wift > Sent: Thu rsdaYINI ERMNI �'WAI ; To: Wendie Rooney Subject: RE: AHOZ Community Meeting Reminder Hello Wendie. I was asked by a couple neighbors (seems 1 get asked all the fun questions lately), but this one is simple. I'm curious as well and simply not fully educated on the process. First, will the letters submitted by town residents get to the council members, as -is, in un- edited form. Second, will all council members be required to read the letters /information submitted to the council in advance of the hearing? The general question posed to me was " are we wasting our time writing anything if in fact it will never get to them, will be edited, or, they just ignore having to read it "? Thanks again, Shawn Wood Lockheed Martin Space Systems Company Palo Alto: 650.424.3099 Sunnyvale: 408.742.2427 Cellular: 408.431.1897 from: Wendie Rooney [mailto:wroonev @Iosgatosca.govI Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2012 4:55 PM To: Allie Judy (alliejudv @mac.com); Anu Tiwari; Avi and Noa Sklar (sklarnoavi@gmail.com); Beverley Bryant (beverleybbryant (&gmail.com); Carolyn Sims (carolyn.sims @gmail.com); Charles Erekson; Charles Erekson; Choni Yangzom; Damoder Reddy (dreddy40 (agmail.com); 'iddo.hadar @gmail.com' (iddo.hadar (&gmail.com); Jeff Loughridge (lokrii @comcast.net); Joanne Piva (jmpiva @earthlink.net); Joanne Talesfore; John Bourgeois ; judysmalli405 @comcast.net; Kim Hawk (kim.hawk @oracle.com); Lalitha Reddy (reddylailtha@hotmail.com); Marcia Jensen; Margaret Smith; Marico Sayoc; Mario Blaum (mblaum (6hotmail.com); Mark Tersini (Mtersini @aol.com); Mary Jo Gorney- Moreno; Padraig O'Mathuna; pat.stafford @comcast.net; Paul Judy (paulgjudy@mac.com); oaula@wessels.us; Ron Denevi (RON @LGSRC.com); ron@ronwessels.com; Sandeep Tiwari (sandeep.tiwari@gmail.com); Sharron Brodsky (Brodsky.Sharan (Ogmail.com); Silvia Kasper (SilKasper (&comcast.net); Steve Ellis and Chun Lei (eltis chun@brouhaha.com); Susana Kuzis (cskuzis @gmail.com); Tom O'Donnell; Wood, Shawn Cc: Sandy Bally; Erin Ordonez; Todd Capurso Subject: EXTERNAL: AHOZ Community Meeting Reminder Hello Again: I just wanted o send a remin er about the /ae Affordable Housing O erlay Zone Communi eeting that w' 1 occur on Tuember 18, 2012, in T wn Council Chamber ocated at 110 . Main Street, LThe meeting with art promptly at 6:00 p.m. wi a brief prese ation on the propoZ Program and a ow plenty of time for quest ns and answers�about the AHOZ be cludes at 8:00 p.m. This Page Intentionally Left Blank Wendie Roone From: 9- n ims <carolyn.sims@ mwI.com> Sent: Thursday, mb 35 AM To: Wendie Rooney Cc: carolyn.sims @gmail.com; Allie Judy (alliejudy @mac.com); Anu Tiwari; Avi and Noa Sklar (sklarnoavi @gmail.com); Beverley Bryant (beverleybbryant @ gmail.com); Charles Erekson; Charles Erekson; Choni Yangzom; Damoder Reddy (dreddy40 @gmail.com); 'iddo.hadar @gmail.com' (iddo.hadar @gmail.com); Jeff Loughridge (lokrij @comcast.net); Joanne Piva Ompiva @earthlink.net); Joanne Talesfore; John Bourgeois;judysmal]1405 @ comcast.net; Kim Hawk (kim.hawk @oracle.com); Lalitha Reddy (reddylalitha @hotmail.com); Marcia Jensen; Margaret Smith; Marico Sayoc; Mario Blaum (mblaum @hotmail.com); Mark Tersini (Mtersini @aol.com); Mary Jo Gorney- Moreno; Padraig O'Mathuna; pat.stafford @comcast.net; Paul Judy (paulgjudy @mac.com); paula @wessels.us; Ron Denevi (RON @LGSRC.com); ron @ronwessels.com; Sandeep Tiwari (sandeep.tiwari @gmail.com); Sharron Brodsky (Brodsky.Sharon @ gmail.com); Silvia Kasper (SilKasper @comcast.net); Steve Ellis and Chun Lei (ellis- chun @brouhaha.com); Susana Kuzis (cskuzis @gmail.com); Tom O'Donnell; Wood, Shawn; Sandy Bally; Erin Ordonez; Todd Capurso Subject: Re: AHOZ Community Meeting Reminder Hi Ms. Rooney, For the Dec. 18 meeting, would you please include the traffic studies done to date in regards to the traffic impact on the Knowles /Capri/Winchester/Dell area with the AHOZ development plans for both the two Knowles /Capri properties as well as the Southbay/Netflix ones near Dell/Knowles? Additionally, any plans at Albright will impact this same area as these two areas are immediately on either side of the 85 crossover on Winchester. Please include those as well. Since none of the people making this decision live in this impacted part of Los Gatos, they are unlikely to be aware of how bad and backed up traffic already is along Winchester / Knowles /Capri/Dardanelli/Dell/Netflix/85 cross -over. Since the traffic lights are already very, very close to each other (for example 8+ lights in less than one mile of driving), traffic already is backing up through green lights (e.g. on Knowles at Capri, which would be significantly impacted by the proposed AHOZ developments on Knowles /Capri. Given the current businesses, residences, pedestrian traffic on both sides, and bicycle traffic along Knowles, there does not appear to be any way possible to deal with another hundred plus cars that these AHOZ developments would create just on the Knowles /Capri sites. So, three requests: 1. Please provide this traffic analysis information at the meeting. 2. Please provide this traffic study and traffic analysis information on -line, in email, etc. 3. Please also include email with the report distributed to the committe and counsel members so that they are aware of this request for traffic information and the current reality of the traffic situation in the affected area. Please acknowledge this email. Thank you, Carolyn On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 4:54 PM, Wendie Rooney <wrooneynlosaatosca.gov> wrote: This Page Intentionally Left Blank Wendie Rooney From: M 1' < -' rtu�ast e - Sent' f hu r5d a�`"`� �^�'^fTe`"�a'n�v�gon�n- To: Wendie Rooney Subject: Re: Notification of Affordable Housing Overlay Stakeholders Distribution List Hi Wendie, I have a few of question that I hoped you could help me with. First, I am trying to find the documentation that lists the 40 different parcels throughout Los Gatos that were originally designated for AHOZ. Is there a document that has those listed and the reasons why they were eliminated from the list? I see where the Honda dealership, the Swanson dealership and the Dittos lane were eliminated recently but am struggling to understand why. Second, I am trying to understand the traffic studies and am having a hard time wrapping my head around some of the data I've seen. Is there someone who I could talk to who might be able to explain this? This seems -like one of the biggest issues on peoples' minds and I'd like to be able to explain to them thesituation. Lastly, can you provide, or at least point me in the right direction to the reports from Jeanette C. Justus Associates, Davis Demographics and the Town Staffs notes on calculating student projections? Thanks so much, in advance. Jeff Loughridge Jeff Loughridge j JLDesign Office: +1 408 358 1470 1 Cell: +1408 781 2209 1 Fax: +1 408 358 1642 lokril0comcast.net This Page Intentionally Left Blank Wendie Roone From: ' .f M- ,M=Tff d @comcast.net> Sent: Saturday -mb mi ;E$fJ- To: Wendie Rooney Cc: Carolyn Sims; Allie Judy (alliejudy @mac.com); Anu Tiwari; Avi and Noa Sklar (sklarnoavi @gmail.com); Beverley Bryant (beverleybbryant @ gmail.com); Charles Erekson; Charles Erekson; Choni Yangzom; Damodar Reddy (d red dy40 @gmail.com); 'iddo.hadar @gmail.com' (iddo.hadar @gmail.com); Jeff Loughridge (lokrij @comcast.net); Joanne Piva Qmpiva @earthlink.net); Joanne Talesfore; John Bourgeois; judysma111405 @ comcast.net; Kim Hawk (kim.hawk @oracle.com); Lalitha Reddy (reddylalitha @hotmail.com); Marcia Jensen; Margaret Smith; Marico Sayoc; Mario Blaum (mblaum @hotmail.com); Mark Tersini (Mtersini @aol.com); Mary Jo Gorney- Moreno; Padraig O'Mathuna; Paul Judy (paulgjudy @mac.com); paula @wessels.us; Ron Denevi (RON @LGSRC.com); ron @ronwessels.com; Sandeep Tiwari (sand eep.tiwari @ gmail.com); Sharron Brodsky (Brodsky.Sharon @gmail.com); Silvia Kasper (S il Kasper@ comcast.net); Steve Ellis and Chun Lei (ellis -chun @brouhaha.com); Susana Kuzis (cskuzis @gmail.com); Tom O'Donnell; Wood, Shawn; Sandy Baily, Erwin Ordonez; Todd Capurso Subject: Re: AHOZ Community Meeting Reminder Good morning Wendie, I am trying to understand some of the assumptions that have been made in the plan. Can you provide us with the breakdown by site on the number bedrooms per unit that were used in your calculations? Studio, 1 bedroom, 2.... Also, by site can you provide the assumptions that were made for the number of cars per unit and parking spots? Thank you, Pat Sent from my iPad On Dee 6, 2012, at/2:17 PM, Wen�ie Rooney <wrooneyna,losgatosca eov> wrote: Hello C olyn, Et al.: T ank you for your mail inquiry. Y `ur email will bre included with the Town Ckuncil Staff rerbrt when that repolt is re ared an distributed to Aie Town Co a, oil in early 2A 13. rordabl the stat environmental q lity act, two traffic studies hav een complet don the Housi Overlay Zone ( OZ). The oneat was prepay d between Ju and 2 is ached to this em r1. This was the ost recently c mpleted stud It is an o a own wide traffic odeling an/1' at was comp ted for the 2 . 0 General Plan. The To Council approv the Genera 2010 and c rtified the E ironmental Impact Repo (Ell that includ d the Town -wfic model. he General P an EIR also included the AHOZ program d proposed sittraffic mo el was recent updated because th e were a number f changes made l s' e the Genera Plan and General Plan EIR ere completed an approved/certifi 10. This Page Intentionally Left Blank From: michele moretti [michele moretti(cDhotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 10:49 AM To: Wendie Rooney Subject: Affordable housing Think it is great that we are doing more affordable housing. I did see one plan that could accommodate seniors even though it said so. All had second levels. They should be single story structures for seniors. All developments should have several. Michele 408 - 838 -3471 Tllis Page Intentionally Left Blank Wendie Rooney From: r. a Sent: TuV M To: Wendie Rooney Cc: Padraig O'Mathuna; Jeff Loughridge Subject: Re: AHOZ Community Meeting Reminder Attachments: imageOO1.png Hello Wendie, I hope you had a nice time away. As requested, here is the initial list of questions submitted by the residents of the Oka Road neighborhood in preparation for tomorrow's meeting. I am sure there will be more but this should get us close. We'll see you tomorrow night. Best regards, Padraig, Jeff, Pat and many others Traffic & Safety - There is a single egress for the ENTIRE Oka Road development. Have any meaningful traffic studies been performed looking at traffic flow patterns in and out of the end of Oka, the LG Swim and Racquet Club, the Mobile Home Park, apartments and the JCC? Cross traffic issues into JCC and proposed high density sites. - Are Santa Clara Fire and LG Police Departments developing emergency response and evacuation plans? - Please address the number of new cars that are projected by unit? By site -- Oka, A, B and C? Explain how parking is proposed to be handled? What happens w/ LG Swim Meets / JCC events? - Extremely dangerous for pedestrians to cross Oka now. With increased traffic, bow wilIthis be addressed? - What are the expected impacts to Lark expected to be since this is already a busy road and has a large concentration of traffic lights already Fairness - Are apartment buildings and the Mobile Home Parks included in AHOZ numbers? - Why have all other 40 potential sites throughout LG been systematically eliminated to push the entire responsibility to N. LG? - What happened with Ditto Lane recently? Why is that no longer on the table? - Why isn't the zoning of LG Blvd. areas considered and re -zoned for mixed use and not commercial only? This makes much more sense and provides walking access to grocery and also main street access to public transportation: -The Sisters of the Holy Names of Jesus and Mary have announced they will be moving and eventually selling their 11.8 -acre compound on Prospect Avenue -this is an unexpected windfall for the city. Will the Planning Commission now include this area in the AHOZ plan? A central tenet of the Los Gatos' General Plan is that it "maintains a balanced, well- designed mix of residential, commercial service, and open space uses through integrated land use planning." How can the planning commission state that locating 86% of the affordable housing in one location comprising 14x/0 of the town of Los Gatos is a balanced and well- designed mix? Schools -For Los Gatos schools the proposed number of additional kids seems completely too low. What formula was used and who was it provided by? The number of students projected to live in the 248 new units on Oka is 58 based on a formula that discounts reality. LG is an attractor school district. Los Gatos schools are surrounded by cites with much lower API scores Comparative studies paid for by the Planning Commission compare LG to cities such as Irvine (pop: 230,000, high rises, heavy industry, light commercial, residential) surrounded by very high end communities such as Laguna Nigel, Newport Beach and Laguna Beach. - How much did we pay far the study and are there any biases? Performing these studies for towns in support of AHOZ seems to be one of their primary revenue generators. - There doesn't seem to be alignment between the Planning Commission and the Los Gatos High School and Elementary School Districts with regards to demographic projections. What is being done to ensure everyone agrees to the assumptions? - If the planning commission cannot get these pretty straightforward numbers correct, how can we trust you to get the more complex traffic flow and property value estimates correct? - What happens if the student population does surge due to these high density additions? - If the school districts are already impacted and the need to build more class rooms does occur, where will these be built? Who pays? Will it be the citizens of Los Gatos through bond. measures or the developer? -Will API scores be affected? Previously provided boiler plate responses provided in the past have been linked to 20+ year old industry sponsored studies. The world has changed in 20 years. Budget & Funding & AHOZ for Town of Los Gatos -How are the RHNA numbers calculated? Are they allocated in the Bay Area by populations, income level, wealth, area ? ?? - What kind of fines does LG save by meeting its RHNA number using AHOZ (dollar amounts)? -What kind of transport or other funding is enabled by this compliance ($ to LG city)? - What is NET dollar gain to the city for this compliance? - What is the penalty for non compliance? Please be specific, cite city or state law and which state entities will be imposing the fines or imposing sanctions. Have other cities been in non - compliance? Who? -Is LG obligated to continually find more AHOZ zones forever or does the program end? If so, when? How does this fit with the 'Los Gatos vision of maintaining and expanding existing park and open space as defined in the Role of the General Plan in Achieving the Vision "? - What is the process used to opt out? Have any cities ever done so? What was the impact? Next, IF the AHOZ do get developed in the AHOZ allowed zone - -What is expected dollar gain in property sales tax (initial sale) for these units. - What is the ongoing revenue gain from annual property taxes of these properties? - What other city and other tax gains are there? - Any other net gain in revenue? - What is the net ongoing revenue gain to the city? - What other options are there for meeting the RHNA number using AHOZ ? - For example are there any'mother in law' housing units in LG ? (such as in Saratoga). How is Saratoga addressing RHNA? - Can each new development in LG be required to have a certain % of units classified as AHOZ? (so its fair to all communities). - Can commercial properties be classified as mixed use with AHOZ component? (Perhaps make commercial + AHOZ sense - like Santana row with shopping and housing mixed) frorrr "'WVerrdie Rouney"-<wrooney@tosgatosca.gov> To: "pat stafford" <pat.stafford @comcast.net> Sent: Monday, December 10, 2012 2:25:59 PM Subject: RE: AHOZ Community Meeting Reminder We are. Thanks Pat! Wendie Rooney Director of Community Development Town of Los Gatos 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 408 - 399 -5768 wrooney @losgatosca.gov This Page Intentionally Left Blank January 2013 Emails This Page Intentionally Left Blank Wendie Rooney From: o Sent: We �uwus�ariv� To: Wendie Rooney; Allie Judy (alliejudy @mac.com); Anu Tiwari; Avi and Noa Sklar (sklarnoavi @gmail.com); Beverley Bryant (beverleybbryant @ gmail.com); Carolyn Sims (carolyn.sims @gmail.com); Charles Erekson; Charles Erekson; Choni Yangzom; Damodar Reddy (dreddy40 @gmail .com);'iddo.hadar @ gmail.com' (iddo.hadar @gmail.com); Jeff Loughridge (lokrij @comcast.net); Joanne Piva Qmpiva @earthlink.net); Joanne Talesfore; John Bourgeois; 'judysmal11405 @comcast.net'; Kim Hawk (kim.hawk @oracle.com); Lalitha Reddy (reddylalitha @hotmail.com); Marcia Jensen; Margaret Smith; Marico Sayoc; Mario Blaum (mblaum @hotmail.com); Mark Tersini (Mtersini @aol.com); Mary Jo Gorney- Moreno; Padraig O'Mathuna; pat.stafford @comcast.net; Paul Judy (paulgjudy @mac.com); paula @wessels.us; Ron Denevi (RON @LGSRC.com); ron @ronwessels.com; Sandeep Tiwari (sandeep.tiwari @ gmail.com); Sharron Brodsky (Brodsky.Sharon @gmail.com); Silvia Kasper (SilKasper @comcast.net); Steve Ellis and Chun Lei (ellis- chun @brouhaha.com); Susana Kuzis (cskuzis @gmail.com); Thruston; Tom O'Donnell Subject: AHOZ Due Process Avoidance Question ?? Wendie, Happy new year to you as well. I hope you were able to enjoy some downtime over the holiday period. I have received some information about a request / motions to attempt to separate Mr. Tersini's build project at the courthouse site from the general hearings on AHOZ. I suspect this is an effort to push his personal agenda forward, enabling him to build the first proposed high density development, while avoiding due process on the AHOZ adoption. This is extremely concerning. Can you kindly comment and send over any information that you may have on this. I wish to dispel negative rumors very quickly if indeed that is the case so that we can focus on the subject matter clearly and properly. Thanks in advance. Shawn Wood Lockheed Martin Space Systems Company Palo Alto: 650.424.3099 Sunnyvale: 408.742.2427 Cellular: 408.431.1897 From: Wendie Rooney [ mailto :wroongy(ollosciatosca.gov] Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 2:15 PM To: Allie Judy (alliejudy(@mac.com); Anu Tiwari; Avi and Noa Sklar (sklarnoaviagmail.com); Beverley Bryant (beverleybbrvant(obgmail.com); Carolyn Sims (carolyn.sims(cilgmail.com); Charles Erekson; Charles Erekson; Choni Yangzom; Damoder Reddy (dreddy40(o)gmail.com); 'iddo.hadar @gmail.com' (iddo.hadaragmail.com); Jeff Loughridge (lokrij(dcomcast.net); Joanne Piva (jmoiva(&earth link. net); Joanne Talesfore; John Bourgeois ; 'judysmall1405 @comcast.net'; Kim Hawk (kim.hawk(aboracle.com); Lalitha Reddy (reddvlalitha(alhotmail.com); Marcia Jensen; Margaret Smith; Marico Sayoc; Mario Blaum (mblaum(olhotmail.com); Mark Tersini (Mtersini(a)aol.com); Mary Jo Gorney- Moreno; Padraig O'Mathuna; pat.stafford(alcomcast.net; Paul Judy (paulgjudy @mac.com); gaula(alwessels.us; Ron Denevi (RON0LGSRC.com); ron(abronwessels.com; Sandeep Tiwari (sandeep.tiwari(&gmail.com); Sharron Brodsky (Brodsky.Sharon(&gmail.com); Silvia Kasper (SilKasoer(o)comcast.net); Steve Ellis and Chun Lei (ellis- chun(Obrouhaha.com); Susana Kuzis (cskuzisagmail.com); Thruston; Tom O'Donnell; Wood, Shawn Subject: EXTERNAL: AHOZ Updates This Page Intentionally Left Blank Wendie Rooney From: h m oih> Sent: W "'0 33PMl To: Wendie Rooney Cc: Suzanne Avila Subject: RE: AHOZ Due Process Avoidance Question ?? Attachments: Tersini request from Mayor.pdf I just reviewed some of this more closely, It appears these letters were old, taking place this past summer. However I am still very concerned that a private contractor is: 1) Making strong attempts to work around the system, due process, and; 2) Is involved in general plan developmental meetings to help the town staff develop policy such as AHOZ. It appears Mr. Tersini and Private firms have been included in the committee's developmental processes, they have been allowed to speak, influence, and apparently gain traction in being separated from the town's established processes. In my opinion there are abundant examples of significant conflict of interest. May I ask what came of these requests to separate Mr. Tersini's project? Is this still an initiative being considered? Further and more generally, to what extend is Mr. Tersini, KT Properties and Midpen Housing involved in the development of AHOZ with influence in the town's decision making? Again in my opinion, this does not appear in good standing for the town staff. MI!. =i# Lockheed Martin Space Systems Company Palo Alto: 650.424.3099 Sunnyvale: 408.742.2427 Cellular: 408.431.1897 From: Wendie Rooney [mailto:wrooney @losgatosca.gov] Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 2:54 PM To: Wood, Shawn; Allie Judy (alliejudy @mac.com); Anu Tiwari; Avi and Noa Sklar (sklarnoavi @gmail.com); Beverley Bryant (beverleybbryant @gmail.com); Carolyn Sims (carolyn.sims @gmail.com); Charles Erekson; Charles Erekson; Choni Yangzom; ©amoder Reddy (dreddy40 @gmall.com); 'iddo.hadar@gmail -.com'' (iddo.hadar@gmall , com); Jeff-Loughridge (lokrij @comcast.net); Joanne Piva (jmpiva @earthliA.net); Joanne Talesfore; John Bourgeois ; 'judysma111405 @comcast.net'; Kim Hawk (kim.hawk @oracle.com); Lalitha Reddy (reddylalitha @hotmail.com); Marcia Jensen; Margaret Smith; Marico Sayoc; Mario Blaum (mblaum @hotmail.com); Mark Tersini (Mtersini @aol.com); Mary Jo Gorney- Moreno; Padraig O'Mathuna; pat.stafford @comcast.net; Paul Judy (paulgjudy @mac.com); paula @wessels.us; Ron Denevi (RON @LGSRC.com); ron @ronwessels.com; Sandeep Tiwari (sandeep.tiwari @gmail,com); Sharron Brodsky (Brodsky.Sharon @gmail.com); Silvia Kasper (SilKasper @comcast.net); Steve Ellis and Chun Lei (ellis- chun@brouhaha.com); Susana Kuzis (cskuzis @gmail.com); Thruston; Tom O'Donnell Cc: Suzanne Avila; Sandy Bally Subject: EXTERNAL: RE: AHOZ Due Process Avoidance Question ?? Hello Shawn: This is news to me. As you, Project Planner Suzanne Avila and I discussed a couple of months ago, the process that the Town is currently conducting on the AHOZ review is required prior to processing any development application that propose to use the AHOZ standards. Presently the AHOZ standards are not codified in the Town Code. This codification is required prior to processing any development application. This Page Intentionally Left Blank Wendie Rooney From: IM&NOMMEM r • g :ant. Sent: TOM , To: Wendie Rooney Cc: Allie Judy (alliejudy @mac.com); Anu Tiwari; Avi and Noa Sklar (sklarnoavi @gmail.com); Beverley Bryant (beverleybbryant @ gmail.com); Carolyn Sims (carolyn.sims @gmail.com); Charles Erekson; Charles Erekson; Choni Yangzom; Damodar Reddy (dreddy40 @ gmail.com); Jeff Loughridge (lokrij @comcast.net); Joanne Piva Qmpiva @earthlink.net); Joanne Talesfore; John Bourgeois; judysmall1405 @comcast.net; Kim Hawk (kim.hawk @oracle.com); Lalitha Reddy (reddylalitha @hotmail.com); Marcia Jensen; Margaret Smith; Marico Sayoc; Mario Blaum (mblaum @hotmail.com); Mark Tersini (Mtersini @aol.com); Mary Jo Gorney- Moreno; Padraig O'Mathuna; pat.stafford @comcast.net; Paul Judy (paulgjudy @mac.com); paula @wessels.us; Ron Denevi (RON @LGSRC.com); ron @ronwessels.com; Sandeep Tiwari (sandeep.tiwari @gmail.com); Sharron Brodsky (Brodsky.Sharon @ gmail.com); Silvia Kasper (SilKasper @comcast.net); Steve Ellis and Chun Lei (ellis- chun @brouhaha.com); Susana Kuzis (cskuzis @gmail.com); Thruston; Tom O'Donnell; Wood, Shawn Subject: Re: AHOZ Updates Thank you. 1. Please clarify and correct what appears to be an error in the technical appendix: Page 4 in the document refers to the Winchester /Knowles intersection (in the title section), yet the chart contains the names of Bascom and Samaritan. This may be a typo, or the wrong information may be included. Please provide us with a corrected page replacing this error (related to current PM Peak traffic through Knowles- Winchester). 2. Please also clarify an acronym: Model printouts (p. 69 and elsewhere) contain an output row titled "HCM2kAvgQ" -- please define. 3. A more fundamental question about the traffic modeling: At least based on the printouts (such as in p. 69 and elsewhere), it seems that no correction has been made for physical saturation of feeder lanes and the effect it would have on traffic degradation on other lanes. This obviously depends on lane configuration and physical length. Please clarify. 10381T,�fIF4 -- Iddo Hadar On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 2:14 PM, Wendie Rooney <wrooneyy@los atg osca ov> wrote: Hello and appy New r�sy�ewSectio !Hope every ne had a won rful holiday, season. One f the stakehol rs has requeste e technicandix to the ost recent A Z Traffic S dy. Prior t he holidays, t Town upload the traffic s ut not the 8 page tec cappendix The technic appendix has ow been uplo ed to the " at on the Town' Main Web age at www. osgatosca.gov. This Page Intentionally Left Blank Wendie Rooney From:haMa m• °� ®�dffillrru�o n Sent:Te6® s To: Wendie Rooney Cc: Suzanne Avila; Sandy Baily; Todd Capurso; Erwin Ordonez Subject: RE: AHOZ Due Process Avoidance Question ?? Wendy, Thank you for your response. I understand the process you describe regarding inputs to the GPC and concur with the process. As always, I do appreciate your detailed responses as they do help when I share information with some of the town residents. I however do not agree that the proposed Bifurcation is ethical. The town council and staff should not concern itself with a builder's hurried timelines and should continue to focus on the needs of the town If Mr. Tersini wished to make the purchase from the county, at his own risk with hope that the AHOZ goes through, then so be it. It should not be in the town's interest to assist a developer in speeding up the town's due process for his own company's timeline and personal gain. Nor should the town allow a developer to sidestep the town's logical due process, even if in compliance with the proposed changes, because of his own financial gain timelines. This is in my opinion, clearly, a conflict of interest and unethical. I understand you are busy and thank you for your correspondence. I am not certain how to pursue this yet, but I wish to ensure that the Town Council and Mayor be made aware of how appears to the townspeople. Personally I feel that the town staff is spending a lot of resources trying very hard to assist a private developer, which should not be the focus of the staff at a time of such significant changes to the town. The subject letters I sent you nearly spell out a conflict of interest. I will be on travel until next week as well, but I will be checking email. Thank you again for your help Wendie. Shawn Wood Lockheed Martin Space Systems Company Palo Alto: 650.424.3099 Sunnyvale: 408.742.2427 Cellular: 408.431.1897 From: Wendie Rooney [m 'to:wrooney @losgat sca.gov] Sent: Thursday, January 3, 2013 8:45 AM To: Wood, Shawn Cc: Suzanne Avila; S dy Bally; Todd Cap so; Erwin Ordonez Subject: EXTERNA . RE: AHOZ Due Pro ss Avoidance Quest Good Mornin haven: As you m remember, we (y u, Suzanne and I) discus d the fact that the T wn's public proce philosophy (whic is generally identi al to all municipalities) i that hearing bodies, hether they are in decision or reco ending capacity, l' ten to stakeholder input d generally the dec' ions or recomm dations will, to a c it extent, reflec ome or all of the input. he General Plan C ittee (GPC) meetin s were public meet gs that were duly oticed with posted agen s. As one of the bi , ers of the Cou ouse properties, Tersini and his d elopment team, inclu ' MidPen Housing, d a vested interest in ending the GPC etings where the OZ was discussed /deba d. As with any att 0 dee wishing to s eak, the GPC allow d Mr. Tersini to pr ide input. I believe tha o a certain extent, e GPC agreed with ome of his stated c hcerns. This is ne' er unusual nor unethical. This Page Intentionally Left Blank From: michele moretti [mailto:michele moretti0hotmail com] Sent: Monday, January 07, 2013 8:36 PM To: Arlene Holmboe Subject: Re: Affordable housing http: / /bus.miami.edu/ magazine /faI12012 /features /workforce housing html Maybe you should promote workforce housing and senior housing. That way you avoid the protests around inexpensive housing for people on welfare and other programs, Even though I know affordable housing is still expensive in LG. Michele 408 - 838 -3471 This Page Intentionally Left Blank Wendie Rooney From: eladrellim @comcast.net Sent: Friday, January 11, 2013 4:03 PM To: Arlene Holmboe Cc: Wendie Rooney; Sandy Baily; Erwin Ordonez; Todd Capurso; Joe Pirzynski; Steve Leonardis; Diane McNutt; BSpector Subject: AHOZ, North 40, and Albright projects - Traffic and school impacts I am writing this email in regards to the upcoming Town Council Public Hearing in January, since I won't be able to attend the meeting live. I'm very concerned that the 3 large projects being proposed for the north side of Los Gatos (Albright way aka Neff lix, North 40 and Lark AHOZ) have not been consolidated into a consistent and coherent project plan as to the actual impacts to the existing neighborhoods, which are traffic and already the already overcrowded Los Gatos School system. The traffic in this area is already close to gridlock during commute times. The on off access to highway 17 is already a mess every morning north and south bound off of Lark, without any additional new businesses or houses being built. Winchester Blvd /Lark intersection backs up more since the University Ave light was installed (without any Soccer Park traffic, yet) creating gridlock or at least one extra light cycle to turn East off of Winchester onto Lark every morning and night commute. EIR studies for traffic don't take into account the entire area impacted by these 3 developments, bounded by highway 85 on the north, Winchester on the west, Lark on the south, and Los Gatos Blvd. on the east and all neighborhoods touching these streets. The people in these neighborhoods will be severely negatively impacted by the increase in traffic along these routes and there appears to be no plans to add lanes or pay for improved freeway access by these new developments. Each development is being treated independently, not as the huge development of the 80+ acres it really is. Although the idea of affordable housing is a good idea, the School board has testified at the several planning commission meetings I've attended, there is no more room at our existing schools and there is no place to add portable classrooms or build additions at the existing schools. Affordable housing will no doubt attract young families and kids, not just millenials and empty nesters as the proposal states. Where in the existing plans is-there a plan for the developer to build an new school for the AHOZ developement off of Lark to accomodate these new students from this development? I am worried in the quest to fill the Town coffers with new tax money and appease developers, Los Gatos will lose it's small town appeal, the reason people moved to Los Gatos in the first place. People in Los Gatos don't want an environment of broad 4 lanes streets and high rise commercial developemnts, like Sunnyvale. Please slow these projects down and think through the projects in a holistic manner, to ensure short term "wins ", don't cause long term problems for future generations of Los Gatans, while preserving what makes Los Gatos a great place to live for today and tomorrow. Thank you for listening. Dale Miller 115 Newell Ct 1 408 859 4648 eladrellim6a 6omcast.net 2 Wendie Rooney From: Jennifer Yu <jenniferyu22 @hotmail.com> Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2013 8:28 AM To: Wendie Rooney, Jennifer Yu Subject: AHOZ concerns Hi Ms Rooney, I have a big concern about the street parking, traffic and road condition on OKA road this project will cause. There are 2 existing problems: 1. OKA road has lots of holes and cracks, especially around the JWC to the swim and rocket club area. I have to drive around those holes every day. The pavement was fixed several years ago but the holes came back in a few months. That says something about the traffic. I don't like the idea of bringing in additional hundreds of families to worsen this problem. 2. Street parking is pretty bad. Cars line up on both sides of street most of the commute time. They block the right turn from Oka to Lark. This causes traffic to back up in rush hours. This can only get worse when more family homes are built in this "pocket ". I also have concerns of evacuation route in case of emergency. I don't know how many families are living in this pocket area with only one exit route. Who will be blamed if something happens and we are all jammed in this area and not able to communicate with outside world? There is also the housing price and space concern. We moved here 16 years ago because we like the space and quiet neighborhood. AHOZ project will take that away and make our house not as popular and can't get the property as much worth in the market as it should be. I strongly against adding so many housing units in the Oka road area. To be fair, the required units should be better distributed to other areas within Los Gatos. Thanks for listening. Regards, Jennifer Yu This Page Intentionally Left Blank From: AndrewandJenny S. [mailto:lasastas(domail.coml Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2013 10:55 PM To: Council Subject: Concerns over Affordable Housing Overlay Zone (AHOZ) on Oka & Lark Ave. Dear Los Gatos Town Council, My wife and I moved to Los Gatos over 4 years ago. We own a home and are raising a family near Lark Ave after being drawn to this town due to its beautiful natural setting, great schools, and strong community. Recently, we have grown concerned over an noticeable increase in crime in the community. In the past two months alone, our neighborhood transformed from a quiet and peaceful location to experiencing repeated incidents of breaking and entering into residences and thefts of automobiles. These incidents have created a sense of concern over public and personal safety within our neighborhood and are eroding the quiet enjoyment many family homes on our street. Given the recent increase in crimes, we are even more concerned of the risks from the proposed Affordable Housing Overlay Zone on Oka Road and Lark Ave. We are writing to protest and raise our voices as concerned citizens. The addition of affordable housing units will add traffic to an already overcrowded street (Lark Ave.), impact the quality of public education, and decrease property values for surrounding homes. Most importantly, we are concerned over the impacts to public safety. Simply look at the map of recent local crimes (www.crimereports.com) -- the majority of crimes occurring and locations of Megan's Law Offenders in our town are located in areas that currently cater to affordable rental housing. As town council members, you each bear tremendous influence and responsibility of acting in the best interest of our town and its diverse constituents. My wife and I are writing not only as a singular constituent, but also as representatives of the future of Los Gatos -- we are well educated, young professionals who chose to live here and raise our new families here because of the opportunity to have our children attend great schools, enjoy a safe and beautiful setting and to give back to our community. Please help preserve these intrinsic qualities that motivate so many people to live in our town by rejecting further development of the AHOZ on Oka and Lark Ave. Thank you for your time. Andrew & Jennifer S. This Page Intentionally Left Blank Wendie Rooney From: Lynda Seastrom Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2013 10:57 AM To: Wendie Rooney Cc: Arlene Holmboe; Cindie Taylor Subject: FW: AHOZ proposal from Dec 18th meeting From: Ian Land [mailto:iland @garlic.com] Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2013 4:21 PM To: Council Subject: AHOZ proposal from Dec 18th meeting Los Gatos Council Members, I live near Lark Avenue and will be impacted by not only the 3 sites nearby on Oka Road, but also the other two sites near Winchester Avenue. Some in my community have put together an informative document that asserts the following: * Crime - data suggesting 'clustered' low- income housing can increase violent and other crime * Traffic - Lark Avenue is already one of the biggest delay areas and it will be even more strained * Schools -they assert 800 new students at over $100K per student to build new schools, which will require over $100M of expenditures * Property values - they have data from San Mateo suggesting that properties near a similar facility went down by nearly 20% * North 40 - Concern with building low- income housing and the North 40 update scheduled for 2014 * Fairness - 86 +% of sites are North of Lark Avenue * Alternatives - the primary thinking of their alternatives is not to cluster the low- income housing, but to distribute it across a broader swath of Los Gatos - there do seem to be some nice alternatives such as the Los Gatos Lodge, Vasona Junction Shopping Center, Los Gatos Acura, Moore Buick, Dittos Lane and the Sisters of the Holy Names Convent site * Validity to SB375 - the bill supposedly calls for proximity to public transportation and pedestrian - friendly shops and they make a valid point that the OKA Raod site does not meet these well I tend to agree with their findings and find it to have credibility. I did find some information from the town council website (http://www.losgatosca.gov/CivicAlerts.aspx?AID=798). With due respect, it did not inspire trust or credibility as it seems to assert there will be no negative effects of these developments. It is very hard to believe that the already strained traffic, as much as 3,930 cars per hour at Lark and Los Gatos Boulevard in your AHOZ appendix document, will not worsen when adding the North 40 development, and high density housing on OKA and Winchester Roads. Additionally, logic seems to support that crime, schools and property values will all become further strained on this end of the city even though the California Planning Council asserts it will not in the Myths and Facts document. Distributing the affordable housing sites across a broader swath of Los Gatos would logically seem to strain the existing infrastructure less and reduce the impact to any specific area. I do have to wonder, why there were not any proposed sites nearer downtown with its superior pedestrian access and public transportation? The data I use to understand this is the EIR that has the Los Gatos Courthouse, Southbay development, 3 sites on Oka, Swanson Ford, Bently, South Bay Honda and Dittos Lane only. Even worse, the only sites chosen seem to be even farther from downtown with the surprisingly obvious data point that 86% of the affordable housing sites are North of Lark Avenue? It does not seem to be an equitable distribution. I would appreciate the Town Council revisiting this decision and considering a more equitable distribution, such as one site on Oka road and one near Winchester and more sites distributed closer to downtown, such as the Los Gatos Lodge site, the Dittos Lane site or one or more of the car dealership sites. Also, 100% affordable housing seems like a reasonable alternative in lieu of or in conjunction with this proposal. If it is deemed to move forward with AHOZ, it would seem prudent to review the density of the developments near Winchester and on Oka as the Dittos Lane site was rejected partly because its density was too high at 12 units per acre while 20 units per acre is considered acceptable on Oka road. Additionally, the Dittos road site was a concern because it only had one road for egress - the same as Oka road. Finally, the new study should be more transparent on projections for: 1. Crime - I could not find a direct or simple study of impact on these developments in the Los Gatos data set 2. Traffic - traffic is actually asserted to get better in the presentation from December 18th, 2012. 1 would like to understand how this can be. Perhaps there is some road work to be done. The argument that these people will all be too poor to drive cars does not seem practical - many poor people can afford an older car for several thousand dollars, especially if they have a job in CA. 3. Housing values - asserting they will not change is not practical. Distributing the'sites or hiring one or twa unbiased third -party reviews of this topic would be better. 4. North 40 - if this is to be developed further, we need a transparent plan to manage the additional strain to our city's infrastructure. 5. Schools - how will the town manage and pay for the approximately 800 new students expected by these developments? 6. Alternatives - demonstration that alternatives across all of Los Gatos were given fair consideration - again, perhaps an unbiased 3rd party can provide a review and recommendation, including an optimization of alternatives as they compare to these factors and meet the requirements of S13375. 7. Reason for the low- income housing: the senate bill referred to regarding this is suggested to be SB375, a bill passed in 2009 and related to air quality ( http:// Www.scag.ca.gov /factsfieets /pdf /2009 /SCAG SB375 Factsheet.pdf). While it does say in its fact sheet that the bill ties regional housing and air quality together, it is for from clear what is being required and what is required of the town. Perhaps a second look at the bill will suggest some more palatable alternatives. Thank you in advance for your time and consideration on this important issue. Best Regards, Ian Land Los Gatos Resident since 1998 Ian Land 1408-596-0575 (mobile) 1408-402-9500 (home) I iland @alum.mit.edu 124 Arroyo Grande Way, Los Gatos, CA 95032 Wendie Rooney From: kathleen <kasch @artlover.com> Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2013 4:52 PM To: Wendie Rooney; Arlene Holmboe Subject: BMR housing Wendie Rooney, Hello, I attended the AHOZ meeting. That was interesting. Well, what I was really trying to find out is where the Afrrordable Housing is exactly. It sounds like AHOZ is something that really is not going to happen. I see a lot of construction happening around town. Are any in the actual process of being built right now and what housing is here now? See, I am one of those people that would like to live there. I have contacted Violate Perez, am on the interest list and am in loan approval processing now. The thing is, says Violeta, is that she and her staff can only let people know about what is "available right now" and don't have enough resources to keep track of future projects or what is already here but not for sale. I already live here in Los Gatos but would like to stop renting and have my own space. So what developments can I look forward too? Will there be any new construction finishing this year that I might want to "wait" for as a first time home buyer? Any suggestions on other people that would be informative? thank you Kathleen Schumacher 650.222.9821 This Page Intentionally Left Blank Wendie Rooney From: Lynda Seastrom Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2013 10:58 AM To: Wendie Rooney Cc: Arlene Holmboe; Cindie Taylor Subject: FW: Against the proposal AHOZ on Oka From: Daphne Hsiao [mailto:drhsiaoCabryr2.com] Sent: Monday, January 14, 2013 10:13 AM To: Council; Arlene Holmboe Cc: saveokaroadCalamail.com Subject: Against the proposal AHOZ on Oka Dear Town Council, As a concerned Los Gatos community member, I would like voice my concerns on the proposal plan on Oka road sites. This plan would cause more problems in school capacity, traffic jams, and values of Los Gatos properties. There are other alternatives to AHOZ current proposal, please do take into considerations of voice of community members and revise plan accordingly. Thanks! Regards, Concerned Los Gatos, community member This Page Intentionally Left Blank Wendie Rooney From: Chris Cowan <chrislcowan @yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, January 14, 2013 11:44 PM To: BSpector; Steve Leonardis; Diane McNutt; Joe Pirzynski; Marcia Jensen Cc: Town Manager; Wendie Rooney; Arlene Holmboe Subject: Comments in opposition of the Los Gatos AHOZ plan Attachments: AHOZ_ Comments_PropertyValue_Crime.pdf Dear Mayor, Council Members, Planning Commissioners and Town Staff, Please find my comments on the Affordable Housing Overlay Zone plan in the attached document. Please include my comments in the official record for the Los Gatos Town Council meeting scheduled for January 22, 2013. Also, please deliver the document to members of the Planning Commission. I'm happy to respond to any questions or comments that you would like to email to me. Thank you! Best Regards, Chris Cowan Phone: (408) 858 -0100 Chr!sLCowan@yahoo.com Chris Cowan 14412 Oka Lane Los Gatos, CA 95032 January 14, 2013 Barbara Spector, Mayor John Bourgeois, Planning Commissioner bspector @losgatosca.gov Marico Sayoc, Planning Commissioner Steve Leonardis, Vice Mayor sleonardis @losgatosca.gov Joanne Talesfore, Planning Commissioner Diane McNutt, Council Member Thomas O'Donnell, Planning Commissioner dmcnutt@losgatosca.gov Charles Erekson, Planning Commissioner Joe Pirzynski, Council Member Jpirzynski @losgatosca.gov Margaret Smith, Planning Commissioner Marcia Jensen, Council Member Wendie Rooney, mlensen @losgatosca.gov Community Development Director wrooney @losgatosca.gov Greg Larsen, Town Manager manager @losgatosca.gov Arlene Holmboe, Community Development Department aholmboe@losgatosca.gov Dear Mayor, Council Members, Planning Commissioners, and Town Staff, I am writing as a Los Gatos homeowner, taxpayer, and parent to urge the Town Council to vote against the current AHOZ plan. I live at the end of Oka Road and have concerns that the large high - density mixed - income housing developments proposed through the AHOZ plan will have a negative impact on the safety of my young family, quality -of -life in my neighborhood, and the value of my property as my single - largest investment. I am submitting these comments to make sure that Town Council members, before casting votes on the AHOZ plan, are fully informed of the negative consequences that it will have on their constituents living in the affected area. Consensus peer- reviewed research from leading investigators on housing policy states that high- density clustered affordable housing, as proposed through the AHOZ plan, causes significant losses to property values and significant increases in crime rates throughout surrounding neighborhoods, especially when placed in an incompatible host town like Los Gatos. It is clear that Town staff and Planning Commissioners have not considered these negative effects. During Town meetings on AHOZ, I have heard community members raise concern that high - density mixed - income housing will likely result in reduced property values and increased crime rates. Page 1 of 6 Regarding crime rates, Town staff and Planning Commissioners failed to offer any response or even acknowledge the concern. Regarding propertyvalues, Town staff and Planning Commissioners have dismissed concerns with misleading comments and claimed general ignorance on the topic. From the Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting, November 14, 2012, it is written that Vice Chair Charles Erekson "commented he could not find any studies regarding affordable housing and an impact on the property values of adjacent properties." To his credit, he was the only Planning Commissioner who expressed any interest in the topic, and he voted to reject the proposal. He deferred on the topic to the AHOZ project director as the assumed expert. Strategic Projects Director Wendie Rooney "commented that she is not aware of a particular study; however, she stated that a lot of work has been done in regards to that topic." She noted that she "didn't feel qualified to be able to say that indeed affordable housing would lower property values." No other member of the Town staff or Planning Commission spoke up to indicate that they had any knowledge to offer or desire to hear more on the topic. With a Project Director who is unwilling to accept responsibility for safe planning, and Planning Commissioners who are unwilling to demand answers about negative impacts of the AHOZ, impacted citizens of Los Gatos have only the Town Council to protect us from increased violent crime and massive financial losses associated with the AHOZ plan. Residents of the Town of Los Gatos expect AHOZ decision makers to be knowledgeable on the extremely important topics of safety and imposed financial burden. They should not be content to approve and proceed while claiming ignorance on the detrimental effects forced upon the neighborhoods of Los Gatos residents. To remedythe situation, I offer Town Council members some background information on the topic. Critical quotations from experts in the field and peer- reviewed references on the topic are included in Attachment 1. One factor that determines if affordable housing will have a negative impact on the surrounding neighborhood is "compatibility." Compatibility refers to the ability of affordable housing developments and residents to align with characteristics of the host neighborhood on a variety of levels including: demographics, home values, income levels, and housing densities. High- density affordable housing is, by definition, not "compatible" with my Los Gatos neighborhood. My neighborhood consists of higher - valued residences built at low- density and occupied by higher- income homeowners. Development standards, architecture, and site requirements proposed through AHOZ Design Guidelines cannot reconcile these differences. Therefore the Town is unable to ensure that developments will be compatible with my neighborhood. Another factor that determines if affordable housing will have a negative impact on the surrounding neighborhood is "concentration." Concentration refers to the magnitude of separation between individual affordable housing units. Experts on affordable housing agree that it is not a wise policy to cluster affordable housing. Research suggests that affordable housing will have a negative impact on a host neighborhood if concentration of units exceeds a threshold as low as six or more households within 500 feet. Affordable housing unit densities proposed under the AHOZ plan for Oka Road drastically and dangerously exceed this threshold. Development standards that allow 128 affordable housing units on 3 adjacent sites within 500 feet dangerously exceed the safe "concentration" threshold by a factor of 20X. Page 2 of 6 That being said, I acknowledge that there are situations where affordable housing can improve the host neighborhood: When developed in an urban environment with blighted properties and a predominantly low- income demographic, affordable housing has been proven to increase property values. However this is not the situation for Los Gatos, and attempting to predict the same outcomes for affordable housing located in Los Gatos is false and deceptive. I highly encourage the Town Council to consider any number of less harmful approaches to satisfy RHNA affordable housing requirements. The consequences of the current AHOZ plan are too profound for you to rush the Town through, this decision. Similar, communities have had success with secondary dwellings, which avoid the problems mentioned by maintaining "compatibility" with the neighborhood and avoiding "clustered" concentrations. Other approaches include: changing height restrictions near downtown, rezoning for higher densities and increasing required percentages of affordable.housing in all new developments. Ultimately, I am asking the Town Council is to do the right thing.., reject the AHOZ plan and instruct the d'eneral Plan Committee to prepare a new plan with a less dangerous approach to affordable housing in Los Gatos. When you were sworn into office, you made a commitment to represent the best interest of the citizens of Los Gatos, not the best interests of your Team on the Planning Commission and Town Staff. Put yourselves in the shoes of a resident of my neighborhood. Imagine the doubts you would have about the character of a Town representative who would knowingly vote to approve a plan that bullies your small neighborhood into accepting increased crime rates and massive financial losses. Please do not force my small neighborhood to bear the majority of the affordable housing burden so that the rest of the Town of Los Gatos won't be bothered. Respectfully, Chris Cowan ATTACHMENT 1: REFERENCES & QUOTES ATTACHMENT 2: REQUEST TO REMOVE MISLEADING DOCUMENTS FROM PUBLIC DISPLAY Page 3 of 6 ATTACHMENT 1: REFERENCES 8, QUOTES This section offers critical quotations from leading experts in the field and peer- reviewed references on the topic that decision makers on the AHOZ plan should be familiar with. Reference: M.T. Nguyen, "Does Affordable Housing Detrimentally Affect Property Values? A Review of the Literature ", Journal of Planning Literature, 2005 "In their desire to provide more affordable housing to those populations in need, there are many promoters of affordable housing who would like to say that neighboring property values do not decline. However, recent studies tell us that affordable housing can indeed lower property values." "The likelihood that property values will decline as a result of proximity to affordable housing increases when affordable housing residents are clustered." "When affordable housing is not compatible or comparable with the host neighborhood, this can lead to a reduction in nearby property values." Reference: Galster, Tatian, and Smith. 1999. "The impact of neighbors who use Section 8 certificates on property values." Housing Policy Debate 10 (4): 879 -917. "If the number of [affordable] households in any neighborhood reached a certain threshold (six or more within 500 feet), there was a downward shift in housing values. Thus, it would not be a wise policy decision to cluster affordable housing." Reference: Guy, Donald, Hysom, and Ruth. 1985. "The effect of subsidized housing on values of adjacent housing." American Real Estate and Urban Economics Association 13 (4): 378 -87. "Neighborhood house prices were directly related to distance from two mixed - income affordable housing developments." Reference: Lyons and Loveridge. 1993. "An hedonic estimation of the effect of federally subsidized housing on nearby residential property values." Staff Paper P93 -6, University of Minnesota at Minneapolis- St. Paul, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics. The study finds "a substantial reduction in property values when subsidized housing was clustered in an area". Page 4 of 6 Reference: Galster. 2002. "An economic efficiency analysis of deconcentrating poverty populations." Journal of Housing Economics, Volume 11, Issue 4, December 2002, Pages 303 -329 The study finds that a higher incidence of crime was associated with the development of large (> 53 units) affordable housing developments, but not for smaller developments. Reference: Suresh, Geetha, and Vito. 2007, "The Tragedy of Public Housing: Spatial Analysis of Hotspots of Aggravated Assaults in Louisville, KY (1989 - 1998)." American Journal of Criminal Justice 32(1/2): 99- 115. The study shows a strong positive relationship between the location of subsidized housing and crime hotspot. Reference: Sandler. 2011. "Is Public Housing a Public Bad? Externalities of Chicago's Public Housing Demolitions." Job Market paper. Davis: Department of Economics, University of California, Davis. The study shows that demolition of affordable housing caused "statistically significant decreases in crime within 114 mile... The effect is concentrated in highly costly violent crimes, with murders, assaults, and robberies declining..." Affordable housing "imposed negative externalities on surrounding neighborhoods" related to crime and violence. "These externalities should be incorporated into the decisions about low income housing." Following demolition of affordable housing, "total crime decreases by 10% relative to the average total crime per block. The effect is concentrated in violent crimes. Murders decrease by 41.2°", assaults decrease by 36.8% and robberies decrease by 18.5 %." Reference: Roncek, Bell, and Francik. 1981. "Housing Projects and Crime." Social Problems 29(2): 151- 66. Results showed that proximity to affordable housing projects for families has a statistically significant effect,on the incidence of violent crime. The study suggests that affordable housing projects should be smaller and less concentrated to avoid violent crime. Page 5 of 6 ATTACHMENT 2: REQUEST TO REMOVE MISLEADING DOCUMENTS FROM PUBLIC VIEW Residents of Los Gatos expect to receive high quality and honest information from Town staff and decision makers. The Town website links to AHOZ propaganda that is inconsistent with leading research on the topic, dubious in quality, and created to support biased agendas. I am requesting that the Town remove these misleading documents from the official Los Gatos website. "Why Affordable Housing Does Not Lower Property Values" The author, Habitat for Humanity, is a biased organization with a mission statement of advocating in favor of affordable housing. The document is not peer- reviewed by experts on the topic, and provides false and misleading information. Town staff should re- consider their criteria for reference quality to better meet the high expectations of Los Gatos residents, and remove this misleading document from public view. Weblink: http: / /www.town.los -gatos ca us/ documents /Community %2ODevelopment/ Planning/ Affordable% 20Housing% 200verlay°/ 2DZone/ HFH- WhVAffordHsgDoesNotLowerPropValue PDF "Myths and Facts About Affordable & High Density Housing" The author, California Department of Housing & Community Development, is a biased organization with the stated goal of increasing affordable housing. The document is not peer- reviewed by experts on the topic, and provides false and misleading information. This document states that "No study in California has ever shown that affordable housing developments reduce property values." This statement is intellectually dishonest based on the technicality of a study being conducted "in California." Many studies have shown that affordable housing developments do reduce property values, and there is no reason to believe that outcomes from other states would not be consistent with outcomes in California. To prove their point, the paper cites a study that offers an inconclusive conclusion on the relationship between property values and proximity to affordable housing. The reason this study struggles to find a "universal" relationship between property values and affordable housing is because it lumps together instances of affordable housing in blighted neighborhoods and upscale neighborhoods. An interested reader can easily determine statistically significant findings that affordable housing does cause a significant reduction in property values when located in an upscale neighborhood that has similar characteristics to Los Gatos (unit densities, median property values, income levels, crime levels). In the case of the Gateway Commons development in San Mateo, California, houses within '' /< mile of an affordable housing development were shown to lose about $100,000 in value after introduction of affordable housing (inflation adjusted to 2012). This finding is stated to be statistically significant. Town staff should re- consider their criteria for reference quality to better meet the high expectations of Los Gatos residents, and remove this misleading "research" paper from public view. Weblink: http: /Zwww.town.los -gatos ca us/ documents /Community %20Development/ Planning / Affordable% 20Housing% 200verlay% 2OZone /HCD ° /20- %20MVths %20and %2OFacts %20(2) PDF Page 6 of 6 This Page Intentionally Left Blank From: Jeffrey Margolis [ mailto :jeffreymaroolis(alhotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 9:26 AM To: Council; Town Manager; Wendie Rooney; saveokaroad(&gmail.com From: Chris Cowan [ mailto:chrislcowan(abyahoo.com] Sent: Monday, January 14, 2013 11:53 PM To: Council Cc: Town Manager; Wendie Rooney; SaveOkaRoad(&amail.com From: Sonya Mann fmailto:somann333(a)hotmail com] Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 2:10 PM To: Council Cc: Town Manager; Wendie Rooney; saveokaroad(alamail.com From: Crumpton [ mailto:crumnton3(alverizon.net] Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2013 6:33 PM To: Council; BSpector; Steve Leonardis From: Marolyn O'Neill [ mailto :marolyn.oneill(alatt.net] Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 8:46 PM To: Council; Arlene Holmboe Cc: SaveOkaRoad(abgmaii.com From: paulgjudv(abmac.com [mailto:paulgjudy(cbmac.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2013 9:58 PM To: Council; Arlene Holmboe Cc: saveokaroad(o)gmail.com; Wendie Rooney; Town Manager From: pat.stafford@comcast.net [ mailto:pat.stafford0comcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2013 5:44 PM To: Council Cc: Town Manager; Wendie Rooney; SaveOkaRoad(o)gmail.com From: Lynette Van Benthuysen [ mailto: Iva nbenthuysen(a)vahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2013 7:42 AM To: Council Cc: Town Manager; Wendie Rooney; SaveOkaRoad(algmail.com From: Ty Hawk [ mailto :tvronehawk(abhotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2013 1:18 PM To: Council; Arlene Holmboe Cc: saveokaroad(&gmail.com From: Ken Wong [mailto:kendodo(alvahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 4:44 PM To: Council Cc: Town Manager; Wendie Rooney; saveokaroad(@gmail.com From: Nina Grinage Cowan [mailto:nm rina e hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 2:24 PM To: Council Subject, I vehemently oppose zoning AHOZ on Oka Rd Dear Mayor Barbara Spector and Town Councilors, I hereby register my opposition to the draft planning proposal for 3 Affordable Housing Overlay Zone (AHOZ) parcels located on Oka Road and the 2 AHOZ parcels locate near Netflix as part of Los Gatos' response to California's Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) requirements. The location: of the AHOZ parcels in this area is reckless planning on the part of the town, a travesty for the local residents and a missed opportunity for the town of Los Gatos. First, the site selections do not comply with the stated objective of California's SB375. The Oka site is the furthest of many possible sites within the town from public transport services and moreover the site is not pedestrian friendly since it not conveniently located within walking distanceof any shopping, restaurants or other such amenities. The whole idea of AHOZ zoning is that it is SMART, within walking distance to amenities and close to public transport. Oka has neither. Second, due to the area's pedestrian unfriendliness, the traffic on Oka and 'Lark will be drastically affected as the new residents on Oka take to their cars as their only means of transport ation to get to Work, school, etc. As local residents, this will affect us tremendously. Oka is a small . road and we disagree with the Traffic Management team's calculation on the expected increases in traffic. Lark is al`r`eady one of the busiest roads in Los Gatos with possibly the highest concehtration of traffic lights'per mile in town, we fully expect that the 250 new residences may generate up to an additional 400 pli.is extra car's during the morning and evening traffic all going in and out of Oka. This will exacerbate an already dreadful commute for residents all around this area and no amount of traffic engineering will be able to resolve it. Third, the location of the sites further skews the town's disparity in the Jbcation of affordable housing. The area north of Lark accounts for only 14% of the town's total area but currently accounts for 67`%6 of the town's affordable housing. With this new development; the area will ac•,count for 86% of the.•affordable housing with no increase anywhere else in the town! Moreover, this planning goes against the stated ideals of affordable housing which is to ensure that this burden is shared equally by, all: members of the community. Moreover, the concentration of so much affordable housing in one area will negatively affect, the potential growth in value of existing houses in this area whilst at the same time increasing the; value of houses in other parts of the town. This is simple economics We ,residents within the, 14% are being asked to pay an unfair price in terms of both immediate ihcreased traffic and over the long term a decreased return on investment in our homes for this AHOZ development; The choice of Oka and the other . parcels are unfair to be polite and reeks of a segregationist policy" fo be less so, segregati ion'Versus Integ'r'ation! Finally, we have to acknowledge that these new residents will put a lot of, pressure on,our already , 'Ile overcrowded schools. We do not believe the figure'provided by the town plan ning of_58 tier'v students being added from the 250 new high density homes on Oka Los Gatos has excellent schools and this is one of the main reasons why I and many of my neighbors choose to setfle her e r L-os Gatos It Will be a similar case for our new AHOZ neighbors. We need to solve the `pfoblem of our already overcrowded' schools and plan for the future growth. The Davis report that projects future enrolment is based on the planning department's understated numbers and not reality. I would ask the town council what they are thinking as they zone Oka, the last large open space in Los Gatos, for high density housing instead other uses such as the location of a new school. What other solution is,there,to resolve the - challenge of our overcrowded classrooms? I would like to close by reiterating my total opposition to the .draft ,, planning :prgposalJQr 3 Affordable Housing Overlay Zones located on Oka Rd for the reasons highlighted above. This is irresponsible and ill - considered planning on the part of the town for not only the residents of the local community but also the greater Town of Los Gatos. I challenge you as elected official's "representing our community to seize this opportunity. Do not zone Oka Rd with AHOZ. Instruct the Planning Commission to propose new options_ to meet our town's RHNA requirements. Wendie Rooney From: Lynda Seastrom Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2013 10:58 AM To: Wendie Rooney Cc: Arlene Holmboe; Cindie Taylor Subject: FW: oka road From: neil grenzebach [mailto:tenisbmCalvahoo.com] Sent: Monday, January 14, 2013 12:35 PM To: Council Subject: oka road Ladies and Gentlemen, Oka road is a dead end street. Congestion already exits with apartments, houses and two sports centers; all forced to exit at one light at Lark ave. With high density housing you can add higher crime rates to the higher congestion. Sincerely Neil Grenzebach 230 El Cajon way L.G. 95032 1 This Page Intentionally Left Blank KtUXIV Mu �GL JAN 15 213 3 0 4-� y To 4 4� a 57- TZI- s- F ------------ ep, v eACLI-�Qs- rn A-i"K 7 - -t /--c5 cZ /6n -dlesal� 5V -S�-Q Rd, Q11 .T 5 S, 1 Lth T --117 vL-1- fiow I ___. -2 AO F.2� JA4X,-- -17t °( o, 7- GY / —Claii�41 :R, -L-Z�--- it 0, -aZ -TtoDol-- _J4-Vej C --- IPZQ-rj,-T 12 0K04 9 r. TO,5 7b� F JAS! 15 2013 Claudia Susana Kuzis and Mario Blaum 108 Gatos, C 9 41WOR VOWN COUNT Los G Gatos, CA 95032 Tel. (408) 823 -6829 January 13, 2013 Town Hall Attn. Town Council 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 Dear Town Council, We are very concerned neighbors living at the end of Oka Road. The plan to develop more than 200 new housing units in the area does not resist the slightest analysis. It looks to us like the Council decided to dump the state requirements for low income housing (combined with the project in the Knoll area) in the northern part of town, while discarding the projects for low income near the more affluent part of Los Gatos (where the Honorable Members of the Council live). Oka Road is in very bad shape the way it is, its surface specially between the JCC and Mozart Av. has plenty of potholes. When the calamitous state of Oka Road was pointed out to Wendie Rooney, she replied that once the area is developed, perhaps improvements to the street will be considered, a remark we consider short of insulting. The Council is supposed to serve the whole Los Gatos community, not only their own neighborhoods. Adding hundreds of units in Oka Road will make life hard to the users of the street, the only connection out of the neighborhood. Emergency evacuations will be greatly complicated. Combined with the projects in the Knoll area and the expansion of Netfl3x, traffic to the very congested Lark Avenue will become much worse. Schools are already at its limit, adding hundreds of new students will certainly deteriorate an already difficult situation. If what happened in other cities with similar projects is taken into account, we will see an increase in crime and a decrease in real estate values (Wendy Rooney was dismissive of this argument, nobody is saying that every renter or low income person is a criminal, we are talking about averages, a few bad people ruin the whole neighborhood). Moreover, the development of Oka Road is in an area farther away from public transportation than other ones the Honorable Council discarded, which clearly violates the intention of the state law (again, we understand that the Honorable members of the Council do not want AHOZ projects near their homes, but that is not a good argument for discarding perfectly feasible sites). Personally, we do not oppose some low income housing in our neighborhood, as the Honorable Members of the Council have done in theirs. We think that people like firefighters, teachers, postal workers and others are great contributors to our society and we welcome them with open arms. But we don't think that all these projects (around 86% of them) should be concentrated in the north of Lark Avenue. We should all share the burden across town. A NIMBY attitude does not help, and the Council should govern Los Gatos to the benefit of the whole town, not only of their own neighborhoods. We urge the Council to make a new AHOZ study where a more balanced approach is implemented and the whole town of Los Gatos is included. Sincerely, Claudia Susana Kazis and Mario M 1 Blaum 2 aL AVM RECEIVED JAN 1 r 2013 To; Ho norable Mayor Spector arid Membersof the Town Council JaSGgr� 5 21ti'f,0UN0 Re: AHOZ policy, Oka road/ Northern boundary of Los Gatos Dear Honorable Mayor Spector and members of the council, Having been born and raised here, let me be clear about my development philosophy. I am for it if done wisely. It has always been, and always will be inevitable as our population grows and the town matures. Most of the time it improves the quality of life for us as residents, sometimes it does not. What I am against is poorly thought out and poorly executed planning that does not integrate and consider what exists now, nor value the quality of our citizens lives here in Los Gatos,; like the so called "Netflix" project. After attending the community meeting on December 18th it became clearto me that Wendy Rooney and the towns "traffic expert" and the Planning department choose to look at the 3 developments, (Yuki North 40- Grosvenor, Pau - Netflix and the AHOZ) separately, or as totally disparate sites. It appears that they refuse to acknowledge the 3 sites in their totality as part of their analysis. When in fact, they are all almost contiguous sites, or at least were until bisected by road and highway. In fact, at the meeting when Rooney was questioned she simply said they have "studied" the traffic at "peak periods" and it passes the town's minimum requirement. Clearly, the Oka road site has one way in and one way out, thus should be considered for something for a minimum number of cars per day (such as lower density residential) , not just meet the towns approved traffic parameters. Imagine adding some 400 cars to that intersection per day. Since the installation of the light at University and Lark avenues, and as a commuter, I can assure you traffic is worse now than ever. The light created a problem that didn't exist and one it was supposed to solve! Some days between 4 and 6 PM traffic is backed up on the southbound highway 17 exit ramp of the Lark avenue exit, all trying to go East or West on Lark Avenue. In the morning, the traffic on Lark backs up from Winchester to highway 17 heading east, or from 17 to Winchester when headed west between the hours of 8 and 9:30 AM. For those of us living on the Northern edge of town the idea that traffic is "acceptable to the town during peak periods" seems ludicrous. And it will only get worse. Because of the 400,000 square foot development approved for Pau - Netflix, plus the proposed 250,000 to 400,000 proposed "mixed use project" on the North 40 (and the several thousand car trips per day to and from those sites) , plus the installation of traffic signals on Lark and University avenues, plus proposed signals across from Courtside, plus any residential traffic flow coming from Oka road, traffic is now being, and surely will be, further negatively impacted by any high density housing on Oka Road. Considering ( the near future) several thousand cars per day flowing into and out of the "north 40 onto Los Gatos Blvd, the highway 17 exits at Lark, plus the Netflix site generating several thousand vehicles per day, we have a recipe for gridlock on all of the streets mentioned.... and along with it, a decline in the quality of life not just for those of us living on the North side, but for all Los Gatos residents. All of this without mentioning the impact on our already overcrowded schools due to an increased number of children (how can /will that be limited ?) and the attendant lowering of property values due to proximity to low income (affordable) housing. A better use for Oka road would be senior housing as many of us wanted to see in the Pau development because of its very nature of fewer drivers. But 'if the town needs to address a site to satisfy the State of California then a better site for affordable -low income housing would clearly be the Knowles ave. site where ingress and egress (including emergency vehicles) presents a number of options. Let's plan wisely,sustainably, and consider what we want these sites to look like long after we are all gone. 'I include the North 40 and the "Netflix" site in that philosophy. Thank you. a---- La Rinconada neighborhood, Los Gatos Wendie Rooney From: Lynda Seastrom Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2013 10:59 AM To: Wendie Rooney Cc: Arlene Holmboe; Cindie Taylor Subject: FW: Opposed to current AHOZ plan Attachments: AHOZ objections transit and pedestrian access.pptx From: Ingrid Oakley - Girvan [mailto:oakleygirvan @gmail.coml Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2013 12:10 AM To: Council Subject: Opposed to current AHOZ plan Dear Esteemed Council Members: I'm writing you this email to officially notify you of my strong objection to the AHOZ overlay proposals in the North end of town. If you decide to concentrate ALL low income housing in this section of town, instead of as intended small unit in -fill across town, you will essentially create a dismal environment from the standpoint of traffic congestion, school overcrowding, potential crime increases, and decreased housing values. This is not a legacy worth leaving. From a planning standpoint there are a number of key elements to consider when designating AHOZ: infill usage, pedestrian access to services, transit access, traffic impact, and school overcrowding. Some of these are proscribed by AB 375 and others are elements of best practices land use, planning for service needs, community impact and quality of life. Infill The ideal low- income project is one with a small number of infill units, spread across broad geographic areas to prevent increased crime and decreased housing values for neighbors. Your town staff have ignored these concepts. There is clear and consistent statistical evidence for both increased crime and decreased housing values in proximal neighborhoods when low- income units are clustered. Please do not do foist this unfortunate chain of events on our town by clustering AHOZ. Clusters are simply unacceptable. Pedestrian Access to services The town staff currently suggested AHOZ do not maximize the pedestrian access to services when compared to other sites. Indeed, the north end of town has very few services within walking distance which is already a significant negative aspect of the Los Gatos community. Our walking road to services is Lark Ave; a very unsafe un- walkable stretch on which a number of individuals have been killed by vehicular traffic. Putting additional foot traffic on this road is a disaster with the current configuration and clear deference to automobiles over pedestrians. Please see the attached slide with embedded table. It is very unclear why town staff would suggest the clustering on Oka road given the information in the attached table unless they did not prepare this important level of analysis. A sound judgement requires data, without these poor decisions are made. Transportation Access The currently suggested AHOZ do not maximize transit options. The other attached table (embedded in the slide) contains real data that will quickly illustrate the poor choice of currently proposed AHOZ. Again, I'm mystified why town staff decisions are not "data driven ". Different sites should be adopted that better meet the AHOZ goals on multiple levels. Right now, no AHOZ goals are truly being met. Additional Critical Factors that greatly impact quality of life in Los Gatos Traffic The Lark traffic is already a congested mess many times during the day. Adding additional car trips in this region without better freeway access and additional surface roads would be a tremendous error in judgement. This end of town already looks less than appealing and does nothing to enhance the beauty of Los Gatos. Additional traffic is not the solution. There are other sites that have better traffic flow patterns and utilization of multiple small sites for smaller infill units (as intended by AB 375) would minimize the traffic impact. NO CLUSTERING. School Overcrowding Our schools are currently stuffed with children. This is not a healthy learning environment. Unless you adopt AHOZ over areas that are in Los Gatos but do not feed to Los Gatos schools, your decisions will overwhelm our schools. This could quickly result in declining scores and lower property values for all residents in the school district zone. A very specific and legally crystal clear explanation needs to be provided if you are not going to utilize the North 40 area and others that fall outside school boundaries as an AHOZ. If you insist upon proceeding down this path, my suggestion is that the town council quickly hold joint forums to allow Saratoga and Los Gatos school systems to merge in preparation for increased housing units. If this is not accomplished, schools will be overwhelmed and /or residents will be asked to foot the bill for school bonds, including the purchase of very expensive land. This is not a burden council members should want as a legacy: You have an opportunity to help solve this problem, even if it is not part of your "official business ". I ask you, during this very critical juncture in Los Gatos town planning, to remember that great things are done by those that work outside the box and pay attention to what should be addressed. Our, founding fathers did what was right because it was "the right thing to do" not because it was always part" of their job. Only you have the power to decide the future for Los Gatos. The decisions you make on this issue will either haunt us all forever or illustrate your common sense and full grasp of long term ramifications. Sincerely, Ingrid Oakley - Girvan, Ph.D., M.P.H., B.S. > 0 .2 O O c 4-J 0 C -�-j - > Ln W� 4-j Ln u Q) cn 0 4-j n 0 o L� �o Nj -0 Ln C: Q) Ln 0 -ul E +-J 4--J u < u nRS z M ��7�5 -;Zv Zim ,M 5, YP �M, g M , M5 ir g I V, o UMS, 16, b b ,b, 'EN VK i r fi ai in wiz; .4's Fz MR, iZ 'G., and - f F M s. Al HOW- "M ry aq �%, J. Iq E Ru NEI' "c C O 70 Mon X V If i 70 AE, �6 y1 55 'd �44 -3m �', �,�o & 9 " - -, , Nam .0 U f,m L4 , Mill Mt, jug'. > 0 .2 O O c 4-J 0 C -�-j - > Ln W� 4-j Ln u Q) cn 0 4-j n 0 o L� �o Nj -0 Ln C: Q) Ln 0 -ul E +-J 4--J u < u ,41 LL y C6 3 4 p� 4s " 00 Qj ma {{tp C� Q) :f gg I+�B atTf tl oo, v1 al 5O`"y r un W gill • C6 V/ 0 un '1 nr6 "1 � G`lj 11Th! � �I w lip o Q Y 0 f� V) T yo, • Iw O ��4h I�y 114L a4PP���i i-I��� c�s ON III S33 di �1'. `j�jl iA ry�l k.t7 KS % �. d31,3 tF �OJC '((y� 5S'a't N IN 'N I,N �N O t 6 N NN 'SN ° +�"Y` �? 20 U�m mJtj'L km N 0 v')_ S °I SN. �S.�,W ,gti6ry ` f.. J '67 O, N VI( {OS 60 S OO m' J �Z 1Z aZN gym! rjT QUO' 1=3 e� !a`, r�-�1 iC7� tQ b tp� i+ 0 07 g m{ ,U ,uO'd. ¢ os "��"m m N, Y fi-Y CSC 0 l� f4l� €aY tO F� Y YZ N I i V td. dA i..q 11, al tl ! y C6 00 Qj C� Q) L6 5O`"y r un W • C6 V/ 0 un V) T T • y 00 Qj 3 Iu Z 5O`"y r un W • C6 V/ 0 un Wendie Rooney From: Lynda Seastrom Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 9 :13 AM To: Wendie Rooney Cc: Arlene Holmboe; Cindie Taylor Subject: FW: Concern regarding to AHOZ proposal From: Man -Yee Hau [mailto:mhauCobvahoo com] Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2013 11:22 PM To: Council; Arlene Holmboe Cc: Save0kaRoad@qmaii.com Subject: Concern regarding to AHOZ proposal Dear Mayor Barbara Spector and town councilors, I hereby register my opposition to the draft planning proposal for 3 Affordable Housing Overlay Zone (AHOZ) parcels located on Oka Road and the 2 AHOZ parcels locate near Netflix as part of Los Gatos' response to California's Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) requirements. The location of the AHOZ parcels in this area is reckless planning on the part of the town, a travesty for the local residents and a missed opportunity for the town of Los Gatos. First, the site selections do not comply with the stated objective of California's SB375. The Oka site is the furthest of many possible sites within the town from public transport services and moreover the site is not pedestrian friendly since it not conveniently located within walking distance of any shopping, restaurants or other such amenities. The whole idea of AHOZ zoning is that it is SMART, within walking distance to amenities and close to public transport. Oka has neither. Second, due to the area's pedestrian unfriendliness, the traffic on Oka and Lark will be drastically affected as the new residents on Oka take to their cars as their only means of transportation to get to work, school, etc. As local residents, this will affect us tremendously. Oka is a small road and we disagree with the Traffic Management team's calculation on the expected increases in traffic. Lark is already one of the busiest roads in Los Gatos with possibly the highest concentration of traffic lights per mile in town, we fully expect that the 250 new residences may generate up to an additional 400 plus extra cars during the morning and evening traffic all going in and out of Oka. This will exacerbate an already dreadful commute for residents all around this area and no amount of traffic engineering will be able to resolve it. Third, the location of the sites further skews the town's disparity in the location of affordable housing. The area north of Lark accounts for only 14% of the town's total area but currently accounts for 67% of the town's affordable housing. With this new development, the area will account for 86% of the affordable housing with no increase anywhere else in the town! Moreover, this planning goes against the stated ideals of affordable housing which is to ensure that this burden is shared equally by all members of the community. Moreover, the concentration of so much affordable housing in one area will negatively affect the potential growth in value of existing houses in this area whilst at the same time increasing the value of houses in other parts of the town. This is simple economics. We residents within the 14% are being asked to pay an unfair price in terms of both immediate increased traffic and over the long term a decreased return on investment in our homes for this AHOZ development. The choice of Oka and the other parcels are unfair to be polite and reeks of a segregationist policy to be less so. Segregation versus Integration! Finally, we have to acknowledge that these new residents will put a lot of pressure on our already overcrowded schools. We do not believe the figure provided by the town planning of 58 new students being added from the 250 new high density homes on Oka. Los Gatos has excellent schools and this is one of the main reasons why I and many of my neighbors choose to settle here in Los Gatos. It will be a similar case for our new AHOZ neighbors. We need to solve the problem of our already overcrowded schools and plan for the future growth. The Davis report that projects future enrolment is based on the planning department's understated numbers and not reality. I would ask the town council what they are thinking as they zone Oka, the last large open space in Los Gatos, for high density housing instead other uses such as the location of a new school. What other solution is there to resolve the challenge of our overcrowded classrooms? I would like to close by reiterating my total opposition to the draft planning proposal for 3 Affordable Housing Overlay Zones located on Oka Rd for the reasons highlighted above. This is irresponsible and ill- considered planning on the part of the town for not only the residents of the lbcal'community but also the greater Town of Los Gatos. I challenge you as elected officials representing our community to seize this opportunity. Do not zone Oka Rd with AHOZ. Instruct the Planning Commission to propose new options to meet our town's RHNA requirements. Sincerely, ManYee Hau 16350 West Mozart Ave. Los Gatos CA 95032. From: bmerz4(@comcast net [ma ilto:bmerz4(@comcast net] Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2013 12:12 PM To: Council; Arlene Holmboe Cc: SaveOkaRoad(&gmail corn Subject: AHOZ Plan Every day as I go to work, at 9:30 - (flex hrs.), due to already impeded traffic at the Oka /Lark & (sometimes) University traffic lights on my way to 85N, it is obvious that the traffic is already too much for a small town. This is not Manhattan. If the proposed AHOZ plan is implemented, the traffic will be impossible, more dangerous and reduce the quality of life for everyone in this single entrance /egress neighborhood. It will also (statistically demonstrated) lower our already affected property values (due to the ongoing recession). Prospective buyers will turn around, before they even view the real estate. Not spreading the developments around the town is bad for this part of Los Gatos and will cause traffic accidents (possibly fatal)! There is no way to improve the road infrastructure to support a development of this size, (which, even if possible will increase the congestion and wait time), to an unbearable level. There are major new developments already (Jewish Community Center), as well as Churches, and Swim and Racquet Club, all of which attract daily large numbers of pedestrians, tennis tournaments (vehicles parking all the way down to Mozart), church goers, daycare, meetings, school functions, as well as auto traffic. I feel as though the Town Council is sweeping a state mandated "problem" under the rug just because we are located on the border, away from downtown (where, ironically, there are more jobs and public transportation for the folks that will live in the affordable housing), which is the real, legitimate reason for AHOZ. The plan achieves the physical requirement for AHOZ but not the intent. The people living in this are will have to use cars (and increase auto emissions, even more due to road congestion). They will not be able to use mass transit & anyone who thinks they will is simply not using common sense at best or intentionally misleading at worst.. The explanation that the rest of the (over 40 identified sites) in LG will not work for various reasons (biggest of which is the most undeveloped land is on Oka), is not an explanation, it is an excuse for the Town Council not doing a good job spreading the developments around. Spreading them around is good for the Town as well as the folks that will be living in the housing. Smaller developments are not a bad thing. It is much better than clumping all of it in one place, causing numerous unnecessary problems. We all live in Los Gatos, even Oka Road & everyone in the small pocket neighborhood that uses Oka to get in & out. I am asking the Council to do a better job on this necessity and actually improve our community. I hope the council will take my opinion into consideration. I do not intend to offend anyone, but I am disappointed in the present plan. Sincerely Barry & Laura Merz 16399 W Mozart Ave. Los Gatos, CA 95032 Wendie Roone From: Carolyn Sims <carolyn.sims @gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2013 1:17 PM To: Council; Arlene Holmboe; Town Manager; Steve Rice; BSpector; Diane McNutt Cc: Carolyn Sims; Wendie Rooney Subject: AHOZ: Property Values and Affordable Housing : I oppose any high- density, no -lot, no- setback, multi -story, "affordable housing" in the Knowles area (and anything along Winchester north of Lark) Hi Town Council, The AHOZ plan submitted to you by the Town Planning needs to be sent back to them for many reasons. I oppose any new or add -on high- density, no or low -lot, no or minimal- setback, "affordable housing" in the Knowles area and along Winchester anywhere north of Lark. This email focuses on just one of the reasons. High density low income housing DOES hurt property values The article that the Town posted, "Why Affordable Housing Does Not Lower Property Values" was composed by Habitat for Humanity, which has a vested interest in finding "studies" that imply that affordable housing does not negatively affect property values. The majority, if not all, of the "studies" cited also were done by (or for) those who would want to have and promote urban density and vertical growth. A simple question to ask is, "Given two exactly identical properties, one in a suburban neighborhood in a traditionally upscale town and the other in an area with high density, low income housing built right up to the sidewalk of the street, which would you be willing to pay more to purchase and move into to make your home ?" Then ask that question to people who moved and purchased in Los Gatos, Campbell, etc. What percentage would say they would pay the same or more for the one with the high density, multi- story, zero - property neighborhood? That would be the appropriate study. Ask those with NO VESTED INTEREST in building, renting, or living in a type of dwelling which has not been part of the taditirnrai suburban neighborhood. That being said. I'm sure there are other studies done by those who want to prevent urbanization of small communities that may show the opposite and that the Town should consider. Urbanization is not better than sub urbanization. They are different tastes. I did not choose to purchase a home in an urban neighborhood because that is not my taste. Those who do like urban neighborhoods tend to purchase in places like San Francisco, not Los Gatos. Please do not damage what home equity that I have. I hate seeing the high - density build -up that has happened in Cupertino, continues happening in Campbell, and is now happening in my neighborhood. I would like the Town Council to pass a motion that contains the following points: (1) rejects the current proposed AHOZ plan and returns it to the Planning Commission; (2) instructs the Commission to return with a more balanced proposal, meeting minimal state requirements without density bonuses; which integrates affordable housing into all parts of Los Gatos, ensuring that either the whole Town contribute their fair share to the solution; or alternatively that the town does not add any more affordable housing such that none of the town has to contribute; (3) instructs the Commission to develop alternative approaches to meet NHRA goals — one based on AHOZ, one based on rezoning, and one based on increasing required affordable housing ratios throughout Los Gatos —and provide a detailed comparison of the relative advantages and disadvantages of each of the approaches; instructs the Commission to include a fourth way of abstaining from the state's request; (4) guides the Commission to revise its draft EIR addendum, to capture the entire impact of the proposed approach (not merely as adjustment to GP 2020), while properly adjusting traffic and school impact analysis based on input provided in recent weeks; (5) demands that the Commission provide its revised draft EIR addendum for review by affected agencies and zentities in Los Gatos and heighboring "towns (especially Campbell) for effect on schools, traffic, and emergency services (fire and police), and properly incorporate all feedback from such entities; (6) recommends that the Commission form a resident advisory board and rely on it extensively as it develops its new proposal(s); and (7) reminds the Commission to avoid any appearance of undue influence of commercial interests during the preparation of public policy proposals Sincerely, Carolyn Sims (Resident of Los Gatos since 1984) 761 Pollard Rd. Los Gatos, CA 95032 Wendie Rooney From: John VanUnen <jplg159 @verizon.net> Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2013 1:51 PM To: Council Cc Town Manager; Wendie Rooney; SaveOkaRoad @gmail.com Subject: "I vehemently oppose zoning AHOZ on Oka Rd ". Dear Mayor Barbara Spector and town councilors, I hereby register my opposition to the draft planning proposal for 3 Affordable Housing Overlay Zone (AHOZ) parcels located on Oka Road and the 2 AHOZ parcels located near Netflex as part of Los Gatos response to California's Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) requirements. The location of the AHOZ parcels in this area is reckless planning on the part of the town, a travesty for the local residents and a missed opportunity for the Town of Los Gatos. First, the site selections do not comply with the stated objective of California's SB375. The Oka site is the furthest of many possible sites within the town from public transport services and moreover the site is not pedestrian friendly since it's not conveniently located within walking distance of any shopping, restaurants or other such amenities. The whole idea of AHOZ zoning is that it is SMART, within walking distance to amenities and close to public transport. Oka has neither. Second, due to the area's pedestrian unfriendliness, the traffic on Oka and Lark will be drastically affected as the new residents on Oka take to their cars as their only means of transportation to get to work, school, etc. As local residents, this will affect us tremendously. Oka is a small road and we disagree with the Traffic Managment team's calculation on the expected increases in traffic. Lark is already one of the busiest roads in Los Gatos with possibly the highest concentration of traffic lights per mile in town, we fully expect that the 250 new residents may generate up to an additional 400 plus extra cars during the morning and evening traffic all going in and out of Oka. This will exacerbate an already dreadful commute for residents all around this area and no amount of traffic engineering will be able to resolve it. Third, the location of the sites further skews the town's disparity in the location of affordable housing. The area north of Lark accounts for only 14% of the town's total area but currently accounts for 67% of the town's affordable housing. With this new development, the area will amount for 86% of the affordable housing with no increase anywhere else in the town! Moreover, this planning goes against the stated ideals of affordable housing which is to ensure that this burden is shared equally by all members of the community. Moreover, the concentration of so much affordable housing in one area will negatively affect the potential growth in value of existing houses in this area whilst at the same time increasing the value of houses in other parts of the town. This is simple economics. We residents within the 14 %6 are being asked to pagan unfair price in terms of both immediate increased traffic and over the long term a decreased return on investment in our homes for this AHOZ development. The choice of Oka and the other parcels are unfair to be polite and reeks of a segregationist policy to be less so. Segregation versus Intergration! Finally, we have to acknowledge that these new residents will put a lot of pressure on our already overcrowded schools. We do not believe the figure provided by the town planning of 58 new students being added from 250 new high density homes on Oka. Los Gatos has excellent schools and this is one of the main reasons why I and many of my neighbors choose to settle here in Los Gatos. It will be a similar case for our new AHOZ neighbors. We need to solve the problem of our already overcrowded schools and plan for the future growth. The Davis report that projects future enrollment is based on the planning department's understated numbers'and not reality. I would ask the town council what they are thinking as they zone Oka, the last large open space in Los Gatos, for high density housing instead of other uses such as the location of a new school. What other solution is there to resolve the challenge of our overcrowded classrooms? I would like to close by reiterating my total opposition to the draft planning proposal for 3 Affordable Housing Overlay Zones located on Oka Rd. for the reasons highlighted above. This is irresponsible and ill= considered planning on the part of the town for not only the residents of the local community but also the greater Town of Los Gatos.'I challenge you as elected officials representing our community to seize this opportunity. Do not zone`Oka Rd with AHOZ. Instruct the Planning Commission to propose new options to meet our town's RHNA requirements. Sincerely, John and Patricia VanUnen 193 La Canada Court Los Gatos, CA 95032 (408) 358 -3704 Wendie Rooney From: cat wei <catwei0318 @gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2013 2:03 PM To: Council Cc: Town Manager, Wendie Rooney Subject: I've hemently oppose zoning AHOZ on Oka Rd, Dear Mayor Barbara Spector and town councilors, I hereby register my opposition to the draft planning proposal for 3 Affordable Housing Overlay Zone (AHOZ) parcels located on Oka Road and the 2 AHOZ parcels locate near Netflix as part of Los Gatos' response to California's Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) requirements. The location of the AHOZ parcels in this area is reckless planning on the part of the town, a travesty for the local residents and a missed opportunity for the town of Los Gatos. First, the site selections do not comply with the stated objective of California's SB375. The Oka site is the furthest of many possible sites within the town from public transport services and moreover the site is not pedestrian friendly since it not conveniently located within walking distance of any shopping, restaurants or other such amenities. The whole idea of AHOZ zoning is that it is SMART, within walking distance to amenities and close to public transport. Oka has neither. Second, due to the area's pedestrian unfriendliness, the traffic on Oka and Lark will be drastically affected as the new residents on Oka take to their cars as their only means of transportation to get to work, school, etc. As local residents, this will affect us tremendously. Oka is a small road and we disagree with the Traffic Management team's calculation on the expected increases in traffic. Lark is already one of the busiest roads in Los Gatos with possibly the highest concentration of traffic lights per mile in town, we fully expect that the 250 new residences may generate up to an additional 400 plus extra cars during the morning and evening traffic all going in and out of Oka. This will exacerbate an already dreadful commute for residents all around this area and no amount of traffic engineering will be able to resolve it. Third, the location of the sites further skews the town's disparity in the location of affordable housing. The area north of Lark accounts for only 14% of the town's total area but currently accounts for 67% of the town's affordable housing. With this new development, the area will account for 86% of the affordable housing with no increase anywhere else in the town! Moreover, this planning goes against the stated ideals of affordable housing which is to ensure that this burden is shared equally by all members of the community. Moreover, the concentration of so much affordable housing in one area will negatively affect the potential growth in value of existing houses in this area whilst at the same time increasing the value of houses in other parts of the town. This is simple economics. We residents within the 14% are being asked to pay an unfair price in terms of both immediate increased traffic and over the long term a decreased return on investment in our homes for this AHOZ development. The choice of Oka and the other parcels are unfair to be polite and reeks of a segregationist policy to be less so. Segregation versus Integration! Finally, we have to acknowledge that these new residents will put a lot of pressure on our already overcrowded schools. We do not believe the figure provided by the town planning of 58 new students being added from the 250 new high density homes on Oka. Los Gatos has excellent schools and this is one of the main reason's why I and many of my neighbors choose to settle here in Los Gatos. It will be a similar case for our new AHOZ neighbors. We need to solve the problem of our already overcrowded schools and plan for the future growth. The Davis report that projects future enrolment is based on the planning department's understated numbers and not reality. I would ask the town council what they are thinking as they zone Oka, the last large open space in Los Gatos, for high density housing instead other uses such as the location of a new school. What other solution is there to resolve the challenge of our overcrowded classrooms? I would like to close by reiterating my total opposition to the draft planning proposal for 3 Affordable Housing Overlay Zones located on Oka Rd,for the reasons highlighted above. This is irresponsible and ill-considered planning on the,gart of the town for not only the residents of the local c numinity but also the g o' reater Town of Los Gatos. I challenge you as. elected officials represeiifing our community to seize this opportunity. Do not zone Oka Rd with AHOZ. Instruct the Planning Commission to propose new options to meet our town's RHNA requirements. Sincerely, Catherine Wei 16439 Mozart Ave Los Gatos, Ca 95032 Wendie Roone From: Padraig O'Mathuna <padraigo @gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2013 3:04 PM To: Council; Town Manager; Wendie Rooney; SaveOkaRoad @gmail.com Subject: I vehemently oppose zoning AHOZ on Oka Rd Dear Mayor Barbara Spector and Town Councilors, I hereby register my opposition to the draft planning proposal for 3 Affordable Housing Overlay Zone (AHOZ) parcels located on Oka Road and the 2 AHOZ parcels locate near Netflix as part of Los Gatos' response to California'sRegiona/ Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) requirements. The location of the AHOZ parcels in this area is reckless planning on the part of the town, a travesty for the local residents and a missed opportunity for the town of Los Gatos. First, the site selections do not comply with the stated objective of California's SB375. The Oka site is the furthest of many possible sites within the town from public transport services and moreover the site is not pedestrian friendly since it not conveniently located within walking distance of any shopping, restaurants or other such amenities. The whole idea of AHOZ zoning is that it is SMART, within walking distance to amenities and close to public transport. Oka has neither. Second, due to the area's pedestrian unfriendliness, the traffic on Oka and Lark will be drastically affected as the new residents on Oka take to their cars as their only means of transportation to get to work, school, etc. As local residents, this will affect us tremendously. Oka is a small road and we disagree with the Traffic Management team's calculation on the expected increases in traffic. Lark is already one of the busiest roads in Los Gatos with possibly the highest concentration of traffic lights per mile in town, we fully expect that the 250 new residences may generate up to an additional 400 plus extra cars during the morning and evening traffic all going in and out of Oka. This will exacerbate an already dreadful commute for residents all around this area and no amount of traffic engineering will be able to resolve it. Third, the location of the sites further skews the town's disparity in the location of affordable housing. The area north of Lark accounts for only 14% of the town's total area but currently accounts for 67% of the town's affordable housing. With this new development, the area will account for 86% of the affordable housing with no increase anywhere else in the town! Moreover, this planning goes against the stated ideals of affordable housing which is to ensure that this burden is shared equally by all members of the community. Moreover, the concentration of so much affordable housing in one area will negatively affect the potential growth in value of existing houses in this area whilst at the same time increasing the value of houses in other parts of the town. This is simple economics. We residents within the 14% are being asked to pay an unfair price in terms of both immediate increased traffic and over the long term a decreased return on investment in our homes for this AHOZ development. The choice of Oka and the other parcels are unfair to be polite and reeks of a segregationist policy to be less so. Segregation versus Integration! Finally, we have to acknowledge that these new residents will put a lot of pressure on our already overcrowded schools. We do not believe the figure provided by the town planning of 58 new students being added from the 250 new high density homes on Oka. Los Gatos has excellent schools and this is one of the main reasons why I and many of my neighbors choose to settle here in Los Gatos. It will be a similar case for our new AHOZ neighbors. We need to solve the problem of our already overcrowded schools and plan for the future growth. The Davis report that projects future enrolment is based on the planning department's understated numbers and not reality. 1 would ask the town council what they are thinking as they zone Oka, the last large open space in Los Gatos, for high density housing instead other uses such as the location of a new school. What other solution is there to resolve the challenge of our overcrowded classrooms? I would like to close by reiterating my total opposition to the draft planning proposal for 3 Affordable Housing Overlay Zones located on Oka Rd for the reasons highlighted above. This is irresponsible and ill- considered planning on the part of the town for not only the residents of the local community but also the greater Town of Los Gatos. I challenge you as elected officials representing our community to seize this opportunity. Do not zone Oka Rd with AHOZ. Instruct the Planning Commission to propose new options to meet our town's RHNA requirements. Sincerely, Padraig O'Mathuna 101 Mcjonera Ct., Los Gatos CA 95032 cell: 650 714 -6077 z Wendie Rooney From: Janette Judd Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2013 4:25 PM To: Wendie Rooney; Arlene Holmboe Subject: FW: AHOZ planning proposal From: anitaRau@comcast.net [mailto:anitaoau(alcomcast net] Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2013 4:23 PM To: Council; Arlene Holmboe Cc: SaveOkaRoad(a)omail corn Subject: AHOZ planning proposal Dear Mayor Barbara Spector and town councilors, I hereby register my opposition to the draft planning proposal for 3 Affordable Housing Overlay Zone (AHOZ) parcels located on Oka Road and the 2 AHOZ parcels locate near Netflix as part of Los Gatos' response to California's Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) requirements. The location of the AHOZ parcels in this area is reckless planning on the part of the town, a travesty for the local residents and a missed opportunity for the town of Los Gatos. First, the site selections do not comply with the stated objective of California's SB375. The Oka site is the furthest of many possible sites within the town from public transport services and moreover the site is not pedestrian friendly since it not conveniently located within walking distance of any shopping, restaurants or other such amenities. The whole idea of AHOZ zoning is that it is SMART, within walking distance to amenities and close to public transport. Oka has neither. Second, due to the area's pedestrian unfriendliness, the traffic on Oka and Lark will be drastically affected as the new residents on Oka take to their cars as their only means of transportation to get to work, school, etc. As local residents, this will affect us tremendously. Oka is a small road and we disagree with the Traffic Management team's calculation on the expected increases in traffic. Lark is already one of the busiest roads in Los Gatos with possibly the highest concentration of traffic lights per mile in town, we fully expect that the 250 new residences may generate up to an additional 400 plus extra cars during the morning and evening traffic all going in and out of Oka. This will exacerbate an already dreadful commute for residents all around this area and no arnount of traffic engineering will be able to resolve it. Third, the location of the sites further skews the town's disparity in the location of affordable housing. The area north of Lark accounts for only 14% of the town's total area but currently accounts for 67% of the town's affordable housing. With this new development, the area will account for 86% of the affordable housing with no increase anywhere else in the town! Moreover, this planning goes against the stated ideals of affordable housing which is to ensure that this burden is shared equally by all members of the community. Moreover, the concentration of so much affordable housing in one area will negatively affect the potential growth in value of existing houses in this area whilst at the same time increasing the value of houses in other parts of the town. This is simple economics. We residents within the 14% are being asked to pay an unfair price in terms of both immediate increased traffic and over the long term a decreased return on investment in our homes for this AHOZ development. The choice of Oka and the other parcels are unfair to be polite and reeks of a segregationist policy to be less so. Segregation versus Integration! Finally, we have to acknowledge that these new residents will put a lot of pressure on our already overcrowded schools. We do not believe the figure provided by the town planning of 58 new students being added from the 250 new high density homes on Oka. Los Gatos has excellent schools and this is one of the main reasons why I and many of my neighbors choose to settle here in Los Gatos. It will be a similar case for our new AHOZ neighbors. We need to solve the problem of our already overcrowded schools and plan for the future growth. The Davis report that projects future enrolment is based on the planning department's understated numbers and not reality. I would ask the town council what they are thinking as they zone Oka, the last large open space in Los Gatos, for high density housing instead other uses such as the location of a new school. What othersolution'is there to resolve the challenge of our overcrowded classrooms? I would like to close by reiterating my total opposition to the draft planning proposal for 3 Affordable Housing Overlay Zones located on Oka Rd for the reasons highlighted above. This is irresponsible and ill- considered planning on the part of the town for not only the residents of the local community but also the greater Town of Los Gatos. I challenge you as elected officials representing, our Z. community to seize this opportunity.,Do not zone Oka Rd with AHO Instruct the Planning Commission to propose new options to meet our town's RHNA requirements. Sincerely, Anita Pau 16350 West Mozart Ave. Los Gatos CA 9503.2 2 Wendie Rooney From: Carolyn Sims <carolyn.sims @gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2013 6:28 PM To: Council; Arlene Holmboe; Town Manager; Steve Rice; BSpector; Diane McNutt Cr Carolyn Sims; Wendie Rooney Subject: AHOZ: Unethical conflict of interest in helping developers Hi Town Council, The AHOZ plan submitted to you by the Town Planning needs to be sent back to them for many reasons. I oppose any new or add -on high- density, no or low -lot, no or minimal- setback, "affordable housing" in the Knowles area and along Winchester anywhere north of Lark. This email focuses on just one of the reasons: Ethically questionable, if not explicit conflict of interest concerns, between the Town and at least one developer. I first heard about the proposed developments at the two sites on Knowles previously owned by the county from a flyer left on my porch from a concerned citizen. I live about 1/5 of a mile away from these sites, walking distance even for a person who can qualify for handicap stickers and walking sticks. I travel several times per day on Knowles from Dardanelli to Winchester. My daughter also travels through this very short route daily. Neither the town nor the developer reached out to my VERY nearby neighborhood. My husband also travels through this very short route many times per week. The developer's (Mr. Tersini) political outreach person (the older lady with the very short gray hair) continues to tout how she went door to door to residences within 300 feet, then later it was 600 feet. This is insufficient. The Town should have created a subcommittee of residents from within at least a half mile radius because all of these residents are and will be DIRECTLY IMPACTED in ONLY NEGATIVE ways from this development. Unethical mis -step: Give false propaganda of community care and proper outreach. Mr. Tersini and his team of architects, designers, and politicians held a community meeting which I attended. They had detailed drawings and models of the development that they would be proceeding with at the sites that surround the courthouse site. These included buildings much higher than any in the neighborhood with no setback (unlike the current medical buildings), insufficient parking, insufficient open space, etc. It was very clear that he and his team had been planning this for some time. This is in spite of the Town's protest that it has been working with developers. It clearly has. This is unethical. The town should find where the money trail goes. The Town Council, Planning Commission, and other town staff should not make exceptions for a builder who wants to rush to develop high density housing and make money off a property that he chose to purchase. His own choice should not negatively effect the hundreds of current residents in the immediate and nearby neighborhoods. If Mr. Tersini decided to buy this (set of) property(ies) from the County. This was done at his own risk hoping that AHOZ would happen. Additionally, it appears from letters and documents that the Town's staff have allowed Mr. Tersini to consistently influence them! This is all for his own gain and against the wishes of the people of Los Gatos affected by these actions and planned actions. The town should not allow a developer to get around the town's due process. This has the clear appearance of a conflict of interest and is unethical. The Town needs to send the Planning Committee back to the drawing board with a clean slate. Developers should not be allowed to influence the Town's decisions to the detriment of the Town's residents. Sincerely, Carolyn Sims (Los Gatos resident since 1984) 761 Pollard Rd. Los Gatos, CA 95032 z Wendie Rooney From: Jennifer Croft Grewal <jennifer @grewals.org> Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2013 7:33 PM To: Council Cc: Town Manager; Wendie Rooney; GP Grewal Grewal; SaveokaRoad @gmail.com Subject: Vehemently Opposition to Proposed Zoning AHOZ on Oka Rd Importance: High Dear Mayor Barbara Spector and Town Councilors, My husband and I are formally writing to express our opposition to the draft planning proposal for 3 Affordable Housing Overlay Zone (AHOZ) parcels located on Oka Road and the 2 AHOZ parcels locate near Netflix as part of Los Gatos' response to California's Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) requirements. The location of the AHOZ parcels in this area is reckless planning on the part of the town, a travesty for the local residents and a missed opportunity for the town of Los Gatos. 1. The site selections do not comply with the stated objective of California's S13375. • The Oka site is the furthest of many possible sites within the town from public transport services and moreover the site is not pedestrian friendly since it not conveniently located within walking distance of any shopping, restaurants or other such amenities. • The whole idea of AHOZ zoning is that it is SMART, within walking distance to amenities and close to public transport. Oka has neither. 2. Due to the area's pedestrian unfriendliness, the traffic on Oka and Lark will be drastically affected as the new residents on Oka take to their cars as their only means of transportation to get to work, school, etc. As local residents, this will affect us tremendously. Oka is a small road and we disagree with the Traffic Management team's calculation on the expected increases in traffic. • Lark is already one of the busiest roads in Los Gatos with possibly the highest concentration of traffic lights per mile in town. • We fully expect that the 250 new residences may generate up to an additional 400 plus extra cars during the morning and evening traffic all going in and out of Oka. o This will exacerbate an already dreadful commute for residents all around this area and no amount of traffic engineering will be able to resolve it. o This has been proven already by the drastic change in traffic on Lark Avenue after the Netflix office /residential compound was built. As a long -term resident of Charter Oaks Townhouses we can testify that traffic has changed horribly since we moved here. Our community begged for attention to traffic and were largely ignored. We have suffered with the fallout of added congestion to Lark since then. 3. The location of the sites further skews the town's disparity in the location of affordable housing. o The area north of Lark accounts for only 14% of the town's total area but currently accounts for 67% of the town's affordable housing. 1 • With this new development, the area will account for 86% of the affordable housing with no increase anywhere else in the town! • This planning`goe's'against the stated ideals of affordable housing which is to ensure that this burden is shared equally by all members of the community. • The concentration of so much affordable housing in one area will negatively affect the potential growth in value of existing houses in this area whilst at the same time increasing the value of houses in other parts of the town. • We residents within the 14 % are being asked to pay an unfair price in terms of both immediate increased traffic and over the long term a decreased return on investment in our homes for this AHOZ development. • The choice of Oka and the other parcels are unfair to be polite and reeks of a segregationist policy to be less so. Segregation versus Integration! 4. We have to acknowledge that these hew r'esid'ents will put a lot of'pressure on our already overcrowded schools. We do not believe the figure provided by the town planning of 58 new students being added.from the 250. new high density homes on Oka._ ' 11 o Los Gatos has excellent schools apd this is one of the main reasons why we and many of my neighbors choose to settle here in Los Gatos It will be a similar case for our new AHOZ n'e ghbors: We need to'- `solve the problonrof our already overcrowdeed schools and plan for the future growth:.. , • The Davis report that projects future enrollment is based on the planning department's understated numbe'r`s and not reality. o We ask the town council "what they are thinking as they zone Oka,-the last large open space in Los Gatos, for high density housing instead.other uses such as the location of a new school. • What other solution is there to, resolve the, challenge of our overcrowded classrooms? 5. When the original NetFlix community was built on Winchester our community (Charter Oaks Town housbs),question ed. traffic issues that would berelated to that influx of business and residential traffic. • It _has taken years. to. get a merge, lane for our use and that -is minimal help with the existing traffic when we are tum1ng,left onto Lark. • The traffic that is-being propopsed by this additional construction is irresponsible and will'further detract.fro.m what. was a,plesartt place to reside. We would like to restate our total opposition -to the draft planning proposal for 3 Affordable Housing Overlay Zones located on Oka Rd'`for the reasons highlighted "alc ove:This Is lrresponslble: and ill= considered.plannintg on the part of the, town for not only the residents of the local community but also the greater Town of Los'Gatos. Do not zoneOka Rd with AHOZ slnstruct ,tie. lannomission to C Jennifer & „Harsimran 'GP', Grewal 103 WalnutHill,Court.. Z Los Gatos, CA 95032 Jennifer Croft Grewal (enniferopgrewe Is. ore 408- 375 -3333 mobile 408- 384 -5100 eFax This Page Intentionally Left Blank Wendie Rooney From: Raghunatha Chinnakotla <raghucb @yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2013 9:03 PM To: Council; Arlene Holmboe Cc: SaveOkaRoad @gmail.com; Town Manager; Wendie Rooney Subject: I oppose zoning AHOZ on Oka Rd Dear Mayor Barbara Spector and town councilors, I am a resident at 112 Mojonera Ct., Los Gatos. I came to know about the 3 Affordable Housing Overlay Zone (AHOZ) proposals on Oka Road and 2 near Winchester and Knowles Dr Intersection. I am a strong believer of making affordable housing available in the city of Los Gatos. However, I am extremely concerned about the proposed AHOZ and register my opposition for the following reasons. At present the traffic is very heavy on Oka Road as it is the main link connecting various neighborhoods, 1 -85S, 1 -85N and CA -17. Adding 200 plus houses will put 400 plus cars on Oka Rd during rush hour. Without the possibility of major expansions in Oak road and Lark Avenue, the traffic will only get worse. Traffic at Lark Ave /Oka Rd intersection during week day rush hours is the most important factor as everyone is on time crunch. It is the time we most care about traffic congestion since kids need to be at school on time and I need to be in office on time. With more homes to be built at Winchester and Knowles Dr intersection, I don't agree with the traffic assessment considered by the planning commission while developing the current AHOZ proposal. If the AHOZ is approved and high dense homes are built, nearly 80 +% of the affordable homes will be located north of Lark Avenue in Los Gatos. Such a large housing concentration with multiple freeway exits and entrance ramps with 1.5 mile radius will make the traffic situation a nightmare and lowers living experience in this area. Lark Avenue will become major clogged artery connecting homes, schools, hospitals and freeways. Hence, please consider plans /ideas to spread the affordable housing evenly over the town of Los Gatos. Once the houses are built according to the current proposal, we, the current and future residents of Oka Road, will have to live with the terrible traffic situation. When we purchased our home two years ago, we knew what we are buying into... a quiet neighborhood and some traffic congestion on Lark Avenue. By changing the zoning and letting additional 200 plus houses built on a dead end street will certainly change the neighborhood environment. The traffic situation will change our living experience for worse in Los Gatos. As the current proposal doesn't include high density housing zones in any other locations in Los Gatos, I consider the planning commission proposal unfair and dishonest to say the least. You, the city council, have the power to fairness. I sincerely hope that you would commission redevelop a new affordable Thank you. Sincerely, Raghu Chinnakotla 112 Mojonera Ct., Los Gatos, CA 95032 make a difference. I request you to exercise your power with reject the current proposal and have the planning housing proposal for Los Gatos that is fair and just. This Page Intentionally Left Blank Wen'die Rooney From: Lalitha Reddy <reddyWitha @hotmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2013 10:04 PM To: Council; Arlene Holmboe Cc: saveokard @gmail.com; Town Manager; Wendie Rooney Subject: Proposed AHOZ at Oka Road Dear Mayor Barbara Spector and town councillors, We hereby register our opposition to the draft planning proposal for 3 Affordable Housing Overlay Zone (AHOZ) parcels located on Oka Road and the 2 AHOZ parcels locate near Netflix as part of Los Gatos' response to California's Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) requirements. The location of the AHOZ parcels in this area is reckless planning on the part of the town, a travesty for the local residents and a missed opportunity for the town of Los Gatos. First, the site selections do not comply with the stated objective of California's SB375. The Oka site is the furthest of many possible sites within the town from public transport services and moreover the site is not pedestrian friendly since it not conveniently located within walking distance of any shopping, restaurants or other such amenities. The whole idea of AHOZ zoning is that it is SMART, within walking distance to amenities and close to public transport. Oka has neither. Second, due to the area's pedestrian unfriendliness, the traffic on Oka and Lark will be drastically affected as the new residents on Oka take to their cars as their only means of transportation to get to work, school, etc. As local residents, this will affect us tremendously. Oka is a small road and we disagree with the Traffic Management team's calculation on the expected increases in traffic. Lark is already one of the busiest roads in Los Gatos with possibly the highest concentration of traffic lights per mile in town, we fully expect that the 250 new residences may generate up to an additional 400 plus extra cars during the morning and evening traffic all going in and out of Oka. This will exacerbate an already dreadful commute for residents all around this area and no amount of traffic engineering will be able to resolve it. Third, the location of the sites further skews the town's disparity in the location of affordable housing. The area north of Lark accounts for only 14% of the town's total area but currently accounts for 67% of the town's affordable housing. With this new development, the area will account for 86% of the affordable housing with no increase anywhere else in the town! Moreover, this planning goes against the stated ideals of affordable housing which is to ensure that this burden is shared equally by all members of the community. Moreover, the concentration of so much affordable housing in one area will negatively affect the potential growth in value of existing houses in this area whilst at the same time increasing the value of houses in other parts of the town. This is simple economics. We residents within the 14% are being asked to pay an unfair price in terms of both immediate increased traffic and over the long term a decreased return on investment in our homes for this AHOZ development. The choice of Oka and the other parcels are unfair to be polite and reeks of a segregationist policy to be less so. Segregation versus Integration! Finally, we have to acknowledge that these new residents will put a lot of pressure on our already overcrowded schools. We do not believe the figure provided by the town: planning of 58 new students being added from the 250 new high density homes on Oka. Los Gatos has excellent schools and this is one of the main reasons why I and many of my neighbors choose to settle here in Los Gatos. It will be a similar case for our new AHOZ neighbors. We need to solve the problem of our already overcrowded schools and plan for the future growth. The Davis report that projects future enrolment is based on the planning department's understated numbers and not reality. I would ask the town council what they are thinking as they zone Oka, the last large open space in Los Gatos, for high density housing instead other uses . such as the Location of a new school... What other solution is there to resolve the challenge of our overcrowded: classrooms? We would like to close !by reiterating our total opposition to the draft planning proposal for 3 Affordable Housing °Overlay Zones' located on Oka Rd for'the reasons highlighted above. This is irresponsible and ill- considered planning on the' p'a' && the town for n'ot only the resider fs of the local community but also the greater Town of Los Gatos. We challenge you as elected officials representing our community to seize this opportunity. Do not zone Oka Rd with AHOZ. Instruct the Planning Commission,to propose new options to meet our town's RH_NA requirements. Sincerely, Damoder & Lalitha Reddy 16457 W Mozart Ave Los Gatos CA KOK (408)358 -4240 2 Wendie Rooney From: Lynda Seastrom Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 9:12 AM To: Wendie Rooney Cc: Arlene Holmboe; Cindie Taylor Subject: FW: I PROMISE: NOT ONE WORD ABOUT LOSS OF PROPERTY VALUE From: AviNoa Sklar [mailto:sklarnoaviCc ) amail corn] Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2013 10:03 PM To: Council Cc: Arlene Holmboe Subject: I PROMISE : NOT ONE WORD ABOUT LOSS OF PROPERTY VALUE Dear Sir /Madam We are writing to you as a very worried family who lives off of Oka rd and Motzart ave. When we moved to this house in 2002, things looked promising, schools were appealing and traffic was decent. People were friendly and pleasant. But in recent years Los Gatos has been losing its appeal of a quaint, low -key elegant town. Traffic has become unbearable, schools are becoming too populated and it affects the people attitude as well. Definitely it is not the Los Gatos we knew. It became more like Sunnyvale if you will. We noticed increasingly that it takes more and more time to drive out our neighborhood and especially to school . Oka road is slow and Lark is congested. Oka is in bad shape, narrow and neglected. The two large health clubs create hazards traffic and the curb side to turn right to Lark is always blocked by a parking car, blocking the option to turn right onto Lark while forcing you to stand in line with the cars who turn left. We also find ourselves missing two green lights to turn left because lark is congested. Placing a huge complex of houses with only Oka road as an exit is an irresponsible and detrimental move. We are trapped in case there is an earth quake or other disaster. Schools - Please keep class size the way they are. The schools have no capacity to accommodate more students. Kids are suffering. Clearly building high density units will bring double the amount of kids in. Lets face it - each upcoming new resident will probably squeeze at least two kids in each new unit. Did I mention Sunnyvale already? You know, I have two young girls who currently, feel, free to roam the neighborhood. If you put this monstrous low- income complex including rentals, do you still think they will be able to roam freely around? What would you advise me to tell them when they ask me to walk from our home to the health club or to the bus? My husband, a decent hard working man, who is employed by the county,is working three jobs to pay for the mortgage of this house and the high cost of living. It is barely enough. Why shouldn't we be able to enjoy what we are working so hard for? Please don't destroy this town. There are other alternatives. Oh , and not one word about our property value. Please stop this terrible plan. Yours, Avi and Noa Sklar 107 Mojonera Court z Wendie Rooney From: Lynda Seastrom Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 9:12 AM To: Wendie Rooney Cc: Arlene Holmboe; Cindie Taylor Subject: FW: Proposed AHOZ at Oka Road From: Lalitha Reddy [mailto:reddvlalitha(abhotmail com] Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2013 10:04 PM To: Council; Arlene Holmboe Cc: saveokard(algmail.com; Town Manager; Wendie Rooney Subject: Proposed AHOZ at Oka Road Dear Mayor Barbara Spector and town councillors, We hereby register our opposition to the draft planning proposal for 3 Affordable Housing Overlay Zone (AHOZ) parcels located on Oka Road and the 2 AHOZ parcels locate near Netflix as part of Los Gatos' response to California's Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) requirements. The location of the AHOZ parcels in this area is reckless planning on the part of the town, a travesty for the local residents and a missed opportunity for the town of Los Gatos. First, the site selections do not comply with the stated objective of California's SB375. The Oka site is the furthest of many possible sites within the town from public transport services and moreover the site is not pedestrian friendly since it not conveniently located within walking distance of any shopping, restaurants or other such amenities. The whole idea of AHOZ zoning is that it is SMART, within walking distance to amenities and close to public transport. Oka has neither. Second, due to the area's pedestrian unfriendliness, the traffic on Oka and Lark will be drastically affected as the new residents on Oka take to their cars as their only means of transportation to get to work, school, etc. As local residents, this will affect us tremendously. Oka is a small road and we disagree with the Traffic Management team's calculation on the expected increases in traffic. Lark is already one of the busiest roads in Los Gatos with possibly the highest concentration of traffic lights per mile in town, we fully expect that the 250 new residences may generate up to an additional 400 plus extra cars during the morning and evening traffic all going in and out of Oka. This will exacerbate an already dreadful commute for residents all around this area and no amount of traffic engineering will be able to resolve it. Third, the location of the sites further skews the town's disparity in the location of affordable housing. The area north of Lark accounts for only 14% of the town's total area but currently accounts for 67% of the town's affordable housing. With this new development, the area will account for 86% of the affordable housing with no increase anywhere else in the town! Moreover, this planning goes against the stated ideals of affordable housing which is to ensure that this burden is shared equally by all members of the community. Moreover, the concentration of so much affordable housing in one area will negatively affect the potential growth in value of existing houses in this area whilst at the same time increasing the value of houses in other parts of tfie town. This is simple economics. We residents within the 14% are being asked to pay an unfair price in terms of both immediate increased traffic and over the long term a decreased return on investment in our homes for this AHOZ development. The choice of Oka and the other parcels are unfair to be polite and reeks of a segregationist policy to be less so. Segregation versus Integration! Finally, we have to acknowledge that these new residents will put a lot of pressure on our already overcrowded schools. We do not believe the figure provided' by the town planning of 58 >newStudents being added from the 250 new high density homes on Oka. Los Gatos has excellent sehools,'and this is one of the main reasons why I and many of my neighbors, choose to settle here in 'Los Gatos. It will be a similar case for our new AHOZ neighbors. We need to solve the problem`. f odr'.alYeady overcrowded schools and plan for the future growth. The Davis report that projects future enrolment is based on the planning department's understated numbers and not reality, I would ask the town council what they are thinking as they zone Oka, the la'st'large open space in Los Gatos, for high density housing instead other uses such as the location of a new school. What other solution is there to resolve the challenge of our overcrowded classrooms? We would like, to close by reiterating our ;tot a opposition, to the draft planning proposal for 3 Affordable Housing Overlay Zones located on Oka Rd for. the. reasons highlighted above: This is irresponsible and ill- considered planning on the part of the town. for,not only-.the residents of the local community but also the greater Town of Los Gatos. We challengp;you as elected officials representing our community to seize this opportunity. Do not zone Oka Rd with AHOZ. Instruct the Planning Commission to propose new options to meet our town's RHNA requirements. Sincerely, - Damoder & Lalitha Reddy 16457 W Mozart Ave Los Gatos CA 95032 (408)358 -4240 z Wendie Rooney From: Barbara Massa <massa.barbara @gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 12:19 AM To: Council Cc: Town Manager, Wendie Rooney Subject: I vehemently oppose zoning AHOZ on Oka Rd Dear Mayor Barbara Spector and town councilors, I hereby register my STRONG opposition to the draft planning proposal for 3 Affordable Housing Overlay Zone (AHOZ) parcels located on Oka Road and the 2 AHOZ parcels locate near. Netflix as part of Los Gatos' response to California's Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) requirements. The location of the AHOZ parcels in this area is reckless planning on the part of the town, a travesty for the local residents and a missed opportunity for the town of Los Gatos. First, the site selections do not comply with the stated objective of California's SB375. The Oka site is the furthest of many possible sites within the town from public transport services and moreover the site is not pedestrian friendly since it not conveniently located within walking distance of any shopping, restaurants or other such amenities. The whole idea of AHOZ zoning is that it is SMART, within walking distance to amenities and close to public transport. Oka has neither. Second, due to the area's pedestrian unfriendliness, the traffic on Oka and Lark will be drastically affected as the new residents on Oka take to their cars as their only means of transportation to get to work, school, etc. As local residents, this will affect us tremendously. Oka is a small road and we disagree with the Traffic Management team's calculation on the expected increases in traffic. Lark is already one of the busiest roads in Los Gatos with possibly the highest concentration of traffic lights per mile in town, we fully expect that the 250 new residences may generate up to an additional 400 plus extra cars during the morning and evening traffic all going in and out of Oka. This will exacerbate an already dreadful commute for residents all around this area and no amount of traffic engineering will be able to resolve it. Third, the location of the sites further skews the town's disparity in the location of affordable housing. The area north of Lark accounts for only 14% of the town's total area but currently accounts for 67% of the town's affordable housing. With this new development, the area will account for 86% of the affordable housing with no increase anywhere else in the town! Moreover, this planning goes against the stated ideals of affordable housing which is to ensure that this burden is shared equally by all members of the community. Moreover, the concentration of so much affordable housing in one area will negatively affect the potential growth in value of existing houses in this area whilst at the same time increasing the value of houses in other parts of the town. This is simple economics. We residents within the 14% are being asked to pay an unfair price in terms of both immediate increased traffic and over the long term a decreased return on investment in our homes for this AHOZ development. The choice of Oka and the other parcels are unfair to be polite and reeks of a segregationist policy to be less so. Segregation versus Integration! Finally, we have to acknowledge that these new residents will put a lot of pressure on our already overcrowded schools. We do not believe the figure provided by the town planning of 58 new students being added from the 250 new high density homes on Oka. Los Gatos has excellent schools and this is one of the main reasons why I and many of my neighbors choose to settle here in Los Gatos. It will be a similar case for our new AHOZ neighbors. We need to solve the problem of our already overcrowded schools and, plan for the future growth. The Davis report that projects future enrollment is based on the planning department's understated numbers and not reality. I would ask the town council what they are thinking as they zone Oka, the last large open space in Los Gatos, for high density housing instead other uses such as the location of anew schoot.'What other solution is there to resolve the challenge of our overcrowded classrooms? I would like to close by reiterating my total opposition to the draft planning proposal for 3 Affordable Housing Overlay Zones located on Oka Rd for the reasons highlighted above. This is irresponsible and ill- considered planning on the part of the town for not only the residents ofthe local community but also the greater Town of Los Gatos. I challenge you as elected officials representing our community to seize this opportunity. Do not zone Oka Rd with AHOZ. Instruct the'Pianning Commission to propose new options to meet our town's RHNA requirements. Sincerely, Barbara Massa 408.981.4202 massa819@hotmaii.com 2 Wendie Rooney From: mary kairis <marykairis @hotmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 8:29 AM To: council @losgatos.gov Cc: Wendie Rooney; Town Manager; SaveOkaRoad @gmail.com Subject: opposition to AHOZ on Oka Road Dear Mayor Barbara Spector and town councilo traffic is, I hereby register my opposition to the draft planning proposal for 3 Affordable Housing Overlay Zone (AHOZ) parcels located on Oka Road and the 2 AHOZ parcels locate near Netflix as part of Los Gatos' response to California's Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) requirements. The location of the AHOZ parcels in this area is reckless planning on the part of the town, a travesty for the local residents and a missed opportunity for the town of Los Gatos. First, the site selections do not comply with the stated objective of California's SB375. The Oka site is the furthest of many possible sites within the town from public transport services and moreover the site is not pedestrian friendly since it not conveniently located within walking distance of any shopping, restaurants or other such amenities. The whole idea of AHOZ zoning is that it is SMART, within walking distance to amenities and close to public transport. Oka has neither. Second, due to the area's pedestrian unfriendliness, the traffic on Oka and Lark will be drastically affected as the new residents on Oka take to their cars as their only means of transportation to get to work, school, etc. As local residents, this will affect us tremendously. Oka is a small road and we disagree with the Traffic Management team's calculation on the expected increases in traffic. Lark is already one of the busiest roads in Los Gatos with possibly the highest concentration of lights per mile in town, we fully expect that the 250 new residences may generate up to an additional 400 plus extra cars during the morning and evening traffic all going in and out of Oka. This will exacerbate an already dreadful commute for residents all around this area and no amount of traffic engineering will be able to resolve it. Third, the location of the sites further skews the town's disparity in the location of affordable housing. The area north of Lark accounts for only 14% of the town's total area but currently accounts for 67% of the town's affordable housing. With this new development, the area will account for 86% of the affordable housing with no increase anywhere else in the town! Moreover, this planning goes against the stated ideals of affordable housing which is to ensure that this burden is shared equally by all members of the cormnmlity. Moreover, the concentration of so much affordable housing in one area will negatively affect the potential growth in value of existing houses in this area whilst at the same time increasing the value of houses in other parts of the town. This is simple economics. We residents within the 14% are being asked to pay an unfair price in terms of both immediate increased traffic and over the long term a decreased return on investment in our homes for this AHOZ development. The choice of Oka and the other parcels are unfair to be polite and reeks of a segregationist policy to be less so. Segregation versus Integration! Finally, we have to acknowledge that these new residents will put a lot of pressure on our already overcrowded schools. We do not believe the figure provided by the town planning of 58 new students being added from the 250 new high density homes on Oka. Los Gatos has excellent schools and this is one of the main reasons why I acid many of my neighbors choose to settle here in Los Gatos. It will be a similar case for our new AHOZ neighbors. We need to solve the problem of our already overcrowded schools and plan for the future growth. The Davis report that projects future enrolment is based on the planning department's understated numbers and not reality. I would ask the town council what they are thinking as they zone Oka, the last large open space in Los Gatos, for high density housing instead other uses such as the location of a new school. What other solution is there to resolve the challenge of our overcrowded classrooms? I would like to close by reiterating my total opposition to the draft planning proposal for 3 Affordable Housing Overlay Zones located on Oka Rd for the reasons highlighted above. This is irresponsible and ill- considered planning on the part of the town for not only the residents of the local community but also the greater Town of Los Gatos. I challenge you as elected officials representing our community to seize this opportunity. Do not zone Oka Rd with AHOZ. Instruct the Planning Commission to propose new options to meet our town's RHNA requirements. Sincerely, Mary Kairis 107 Walnut Hill Ct, Los Gatos CA 95032 Wendie Rooney From: Roy Johnson <royjohnson @FireEye.com> Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 10:14 AM To: Council Cc: Town Manager; Wendie Rooney Subject: I strongly oppose zoning AHOZ on Oka Rd Dear Mayor Barbara Spector and town councilors, hereby register my STRONG opposition to the draft planning proposal for 3 Affordable Housing Overlay Zone (AHOZ) parcels located on Oka Road and the 2 AHOZ parcels locate near Nefflix as part of Los Gatos' response to California's Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) requirements. The location of the AHOZ parcels in this area is reckless planning on the part of the town, a travesty for the local residents and a missed opportunity for the town of Los Gatos. First, the site selections do not comply with the stated objective of California's S13375. The Oka site is the furthest of many possible sites within the town from public transport services and moreover the site is not pedestrian friendly since it not conveniently located within walking distance of any shopping, restaurants or other such amenities. The whole idea of AHOZ zoning is that it is SMART, within walking distance to amenities and close to public transport. Oka has neither. Second, due to the area's pedestrian unfriendliness, the traffic on Oka and Lark will be drastically affected as the new residents on Oka take to their cars as their only means of transportation to get to work, school, etc. As local residents, this will affect us tremendously. Oka is a small road and we disagree with the Traffic Management team's calculation on the expected increases in traffic. Lark is already one of the busiest roads in Los Gatos with possibly the highest concentration of traffic lights per mile in town, we fully expect that the 250 new residences may generate up to an additional 400 plus extra cars during the morning and evening traffic all going in and out of Oka. This will exacerbate an already dreadful commute for residents all around this area and no amount of traffic engineering will be able to resolve it. Third, the location of the sites further skews the town's disparity in the location of affordable housing. The area north of Lark accounts for only 14% of the town's total area but currently accounts for 67% of the town's affordable housing. With this new development, the area will account for 86% of the affordable housing with no increase anywhere else in the town! Moreover, this planning goes against the stated ideals of affordable housing which is to ensure that this burden is shared equally by all members of the community. Moreover, the concentration of so much affordable housing in one area will negatively affect the potential growth in value of existing houses in this area whilst at the same time increasing the value of houses in other parts of the town. This is simple economics. We residents within the 14% are being asked to pay an unfair price in terms of both immediate increased traffic and over the long term a decreased return on investment in our homes for this AHOZ development. The choice of Oka and the other parcels are unfair to be polite and reeks of a segregationist policy to be less so. Segregation versus Integration! Finally, we have to acknowledge that these new residents will put a lot of pressure on our already overcrowded schools. We do not believe the figure provided by the town planning of 58 new students being added from the 250 new high density homes on Oka. Los Gatos has excellent schools and this is one of the main reasons why I and many of my neighbors choose to settle here in Los Gatos. It will be a similar case for our new AHOZ neighbors. We need to solve the problem of our already overcrowded schools and plan for the future growth.. The Davis report that projects future enrollment is based on the planning department's understated numbers and not reality. I would ask the town council what they are thinking as they zone Oka, the last large open space in Los Gatos, for high density housing instead other uses such as the location of a' new school. What other solution is there to resolve the challenge of our overcrowded classrooms? I would like to close by reiterating my total opposition to the draft planning proposal for 3 Affordable Housing Overlay Zones located on Oka Rd for the reasons highlighted above. This is irresponsible and ill- considered planning on the part of the town for not only the,residents of the local community but also the greater Town of Los Gatos. I challenge you as elected officials representing our community to seize this opportunity. Do not zone Oka Rd with AHOZ. Please instruct the Planning Commission to propose new options to meet our town's RHNA requirements. Sincerely, Roy Johnson 106 Paseo Laura, Los Gatos; CA 95032 408- 807 -8472 This email and any attachments thereto may contain private, confidential, and /or privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, copying, or distribution of this email (or any attachments thereto) by others is, strictly prohibifcd.. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender immediately and perrnanenbly delete the original and any copies of this email and i any attachmems'thereto. 2 Arlene Holmboe From: Mario Blaum < mblaum @hotmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 2:21 PM To: Council; Arlene Holmboe Subject: Opposition to AHOZ proposal for Oka Road Dear Mayor Barbara Spector and Town Council Members: I am writing to state that I oppose to the draft AHOZ proposal at Oka Road and the Netflix area. Oka Road for instance, can hardly accomodate the hundreds of houses in the plan. It is the only road out of my neighborhood, and traffic is intense at rush hour. There is no public transportation nearby, so current and future residents will have to relay on car driving. Together with the Netflix expansion and the new AHOZ housing in the Netflix area, this will add to the congestion in the already very congested Lark Av. Ironically, perfectly feasible AHOZ locations close to public transportation were discarded by the Council. With the new plan, something like 85% of affordable housing will be north of Lark Av, a small part of town. This is a very unfair and asymmetric distribution, and a self- serving plan. The Council made sure that no new affordable housing will be built near the homes of the Council members. Personally, I welcome some affordable housing near my house. However, a lot of it (in the hundreds in a very reduced area with only one street out) will bring a decline in real estate values and an increase in crime (as studies about other cities show). The schools in Los Gatos, already under pressure, will not be able to accomodate the influx of new students. As you well know, people move into Los Gatos because of its schools. I hope you reconsider the current AHOZ proposal and replace it by one addressing all of the Los Gatos community. Sincerely, Mario Blaum 108 Mojonera Ct. Los Gatos, CA 95032 mblaum @hotmail.com This Page Intentionally Left Blank Arlene Holmboe From: richard.henning @gte.net Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 3:08 PM To: Council; Arlene Holmboe Subject: A disabled comment on Affordable Housing Overlay Zone. am a permenatly disabled person who releys on S.C. county "Outreach Vans ", other tranport programs and volunteers, friends, and neighbors. I can say it in no other terms other than this location on Oka road "sucks" as far as access to any public transportation. I live within a block of Oka and the nearest bus line is over 1.5 mi. and light rail is many, many, miles away in another city. My outreach card entitles me to use county transit but honestly it is impossible for me to use from my location at Oka Road and 1 have never used it. And I would be qualified for such proposed housing M A very poor location choice and I am aware of others' numerous concerns who you have probably heard from. I hope the council represents me as a disabled voter and constituent and votes for a more user friendly location. Please put me down for a time to speak for 3 minutes at the upcoming meeting. Please respond to my email. Sincerely, Richard Henning 408 - 356 -2004 This Page Intentionally Left Blank Arlene Holmboe From: Sent: To: Cc: Attachments: Oka letter attached. Joanne Jordan Joanne Jordan <jzacco @sbcglobal.net> Wednesday, January 16, 2013 3:19 PM Council Arlene Holmboe Oka Rd. letter.docx Dear Mayor Barbara Spector and town couhcilors. I hereby register my opposition to the draft planning proposal for 3 Affordable Housing Overlay Zone (AHOZ) parcels located on Oka Road and the 2 AHOZ parcels locate near Netflix as part of Los Gatos' response to California's Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) requirements. The location of the AHOZ parcels in this area is reckless planning on the part of the town, a travesty for the local residents and a missed opportunity for the town of Los Gatos. First, the site selections do not comply with the stated objective of California's S13375. The Oka site is the furthest of many possible sites within the town from public transport services and moreover the site is not pedestrian friendly since it not conveniently located within walking distance of any shopping, restaurants or other such amenities. The whole idea of AHOZ zoning is that it is SMART, within walking distance to amenities and close to public transport. Oka has neither. Second, due to the area's pedestrian unfriendliness, the traffic on Oka and Lark will be drastically affected as the new residents on Oka take to their cars as their only means of transportation to get to work, school, etc. As local residents, this will affect us tremendously. Oka is a small road and we disagree with the Traffic Management team's calculation on the expected increases in traffic. Lark is already one of the busiest roads in Los Gatos with possibly the highest concentration of traffic lights per mile in town, we fully expect that the 250 new residences may generate up to an additional 400 plus extra cars during the morning and evening traffic all going in and out of Oka. This will exacerbate an already dreadful commute for residents all around this area and no amount of traffic engineering will be able to resolve it. Third, the location of the sites further skews the town's disparity in the location of affordable housing. The area north of Lark accounts for only 14% of the town's total area but currently accounts for 67% of the town's affordable housing. With this new development, the area will account for 86% of the affordable housing with no increase anywhere else in the town! Moreover, this planning goes against the stated ideals of affordable housing which is to ensure that this burden is shared equally by all members of the community. Moreover, the concentration of so much affordable housing in one area will negatively affect the potential growth in value of existing houses in this area whilst at the same time increasing the value of houses in other parts of the town. This is simple economics. We residents within the 14% are being asked to pay an unfair price in terms of both immediate increased traffic and over the long term a decreased return on investment in our homes for this AHOZ development. The choice of Oka and the other parcels are unfair to be polite and reeks of a segregationist policy to be less so. Segregation versus Integration! Finally, we have to acknowledge that these new residents will put a lot of pressure on our already overcrowded schools. We do not believe the figure provided by the town planning of 58 new students being added from the 250 new high density homes on Oka. Los Gatos has excellent schools and this is one of the main reasons why I and many of my neighbors choose to settle here in Los Gatos. It will be a similar case for our new AHOZ neighbors. We need to solve the problem of our already overcrowded schools and plan for the future growth. The Davis report that projects future enrolment is based on the planning department's understated numbers and not reality. I would ask the town council what they are thinking as they zone Oka, the last large open space in Los Gatos, for high density housing instead other uses such as the location of a new school. What other solution is there to resolve the challenge of our overcrowded classrooms? I would like to close by reiterating my total opposition to the draft planning proposal for 3 Affordable Housing Overlay Zones located on Oka Rd for the reasons highlighted above. This is irresponsible and ill- considered planning on the part of the town for not only the residents of the local community but also the greater Town of Los Gatos. I challenge you as elected officials representing our community to seize this opportunity. Do not zone Oka Rd with AHOZ. Instruct the Planning Commission to propose new options to meet our town's RHNA requirements. Sincerely, Joanne Jordan 206 Charter Oaks Cir. Los Gatos, CA 95032 This Page Intentionally Left Blank Shawn Wood 753 Pollard Road Los Gatos, CA 95032 Barbara Spector; Mayor Los Gatos Town Council Members 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 Dear Mayor Spector and Council Members, My name is Shawn Wood and I am a Los Gatos Town Resident. I am writing you in regards to the proposed overlay zoning proposal that you will be voting on soon, titled Affordable Housing Overlay Zone or AHOZ. I have performed a lengthy investigative process in order to educate myself and many of the townspeople on the issue at hand. I have met with several planning staff, attended and spoken at planning commission meetings and I have attended community outreach meetings with both staff members and private local builders. Before I get to the primary point of this letter, which is a proposed solution to a fundamental flaw that exists in the current AHOZ Proposal, I would like to make a few brief points on behalf of the townspeople. I feel it is in everyone's best interest for the council as a whole to have a solid understanding on the feelings of many of the townspeople. During the last Planning Commission Meeting, a vote was cast to send the current AHOZ Package for a vote with the Town Council, despite protest from a small crowd of representative townspeople. In my opinion, the commission did not know how to deal with the points presented by the representatives and decided to simply "send it to the council for vote, we don't make the decisions anyway" as one commission member stated. In this meeting the main point the commission took from the numerous protests was that the method of informing townspeople was flawed. While this is certainly a solid paint and true to fact, this overshadowed the main technical points of contention brought to light in the meeting. The fundamental flaw was not that the townspeople didn't understand what AHOZ was. The people were demonstrating that the plan was significantly flawed and inappropriate for the town to implement as -is. Subsequent to the planning commission's meeting, the planning staff held an information exchange or outreach meeting with the townspeople. This was very heavily attended where more protests and points of contention were posed to the staff. Again, in my opinion, these points and challenges are falling on deaf ears. Information exchanges are not needed. The town council needs to send the AHOZ Plan back to the planning staff to be reworked. Pertaining to some perceptions held by many of the townspeople, there is a general notion of wrongdoing. The townspeople fully understand the intent of affordable housing and what the implementation should look like. However, there is a significant suspicion of unethical conduct regarding AHOZ when reviewing the events that have taken place over the past year leading up to the commission vote, While I understand that it is not unusual for private developers to attend meetings and make suggestions to the town staff, there is an appearance of possible preferential treatment, bifurcations to avoid policy and some suggested avoidance of due process. I am certain you will receive countless letters from other members of our town outlining many of these suspect issues. I am stating this merely to convey the appearance of the courses of action taken and the resulting perceptions. I could continue to discuss perceptions of the townspeople and go through all the points of what I think are wrong with the proposed AHOZ Concept, but I am confident you will have received a significant amount of information from other submissions detailing all of those points. Having said all of this, I would like to cover one simple but extremely important concept that has been left out of the current AHOZ Proposal. This flaw became apparent to me when I was attending a community briefing by Mr. Tersini and KT Properties. The presentation was showing a handful of the local residents what KT Properties was intending to build at one of the new AHOZ Sites (specifically the old courthouse site). What he demonstrated to me is what AHOZ, as written, could allow to happen. Mr. Tersini, similar to any developer, has but one motivation. Financial Gain, In order to maximiie the financial gain for a private developer on an AHOZ -Zoned Site, they will attempt to use the largest footprint possible of the site for compacted single family dwellings to sell at market rates. Then in one small corner of a proposed site they will erect a high density "projects" style building filled with very small dwellings at a density rate vastly disproportionate to what our town should allow. Setbacks`would be reduced: Parking is almost.non- existent: This type of manipulation of the AHOZ Proposal by any developer will be detrimental to any neighborhood`and'the townasa whblei You will hear developers put spins -on their plans and 'yoU will even hear'the town staff state that there really is no way,around this approach. You will hear that for some vague interpretations of state law, this mustbe done this way:: I have contacted the:state myself: There are other opiioffs. I wd'uld like io make a couple;of points on this very clear based on my'own investigatipnss = = -... • The+toWh does not have to build'anythmg; "Tht zoning must be in-place:`AHOZ is but'one option - available to the town, in addition to normal zoning approaches which should be considered. • The town does not have to make AHOZ development affordable for a private builder, nor does the town have to make development of an AHOZ site financially' attractive. • The town does' not technically have to offer bonus incentives to'developers to encouragethem to stay within the confines of the AHOZ; orany other zoning guidelines as sett by the town: • There are'many additional optionsthat are available to the town staffto explore, some that have been employed by neighboring towns and cities. These should be fully studied as 1 have 'done, discovering there are many options. One Important Solution: I propose that regardless of the zoning pa`ckage the town cound'i:16 ides to employ; that it does so in a manner which does not cater to the profit margins'of private d'evelopM? In order to -do this,'tlie town can simply put in'place a "Den's ty per unit aere" requirement, or''limit, withlh fhe AHOZ. This-s- pI e change.would handle many issues in one swift motion: Most importantly -it would halt the potential for a private developer to acquire a ten acre parcel, for example, tl'evelop the rrlalonty'of`i't for significant profit and then place an urban projects -style dwelling on one small piece of the parcel. Then claim to be within the density restrictions fo'r the aggregate piece bf' the property. You 'can see. how detrimental this could be if left Unaddressed. Without implementation of a FSehsity per unit =acre restriction, the town will be forced to deal with every developer that subrFiits 'a plan going forwa "rd, each manipulating the � zoning rulesfortheir own financial gain.' limplore you to take'these actions'now before it is too fate and the Town of Los Gatos has to deal With density issuesbuilt by'profit oriented developers instead of the types of gently dispersed affordable housing that the town can easi'l'y accommodate if°propedy'pianned'. Respectfully, Shawn Wood Los Gatos Town Member. Dear Mayor Barbara Spector and town councilors, I hereby register my opposition to the draft planning proposal for 3 Affordable Housing Overlay Zone (AHOZ) parcels located on Oka Road and the 2 AHOZ parcels locate near Netflix as part of Los Gatos' response to California's Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) requirements. The location of the AHOZ parcels in this area is reckless planning on the part of the town, a travesty for the local residents and a missed opportunity for the town of Los Gatos. First, the site selections do not comply with the stated objective of California's S13375. The Oka site is the furthest of many possible sites within the town from public transport services and moreover the site is not pedestrian friendly since it not conveniently located within walking distance of any shopping, restaurants or other such amenities. The whole idea of AHOZ zoning is that it is SMART, within walking distance to amenities and close to public transport. Oka has neither. Second, due to the area's pedestrian unfriendliness, the traffic on Oka and Lark will be drastically affected as the new residents on Oka take to their cars as their only means of transportation to get to work, school, etc. As local residents, this will affect us tremendously. Oka is a small road and we disagree with the Traffic Management team's calculation on the expected increases in traffic. Lark is already one of the busiest roads in Los Gatos with possibly the highest concentration of traffic lights per mile in town, we fully expect that the 250 new residences may generate up to an additional 400 plus extra cars during the morning and evening traffic all going in and out of Oka. This will exacerbate an already dreadful commute for residents all around this area and no amount of traffic engineering will be able to resolve it. Third, the location of the sites further skews the town's disparity in the location of affordable housing. The area north of Lark accounts for only 14% of the town's total area but currently accounts for 67% of the town's affordable housing. With this new development, the area will account for 86% of the affordable housing with no increase anywhere else in the town! Moreover, this planning goes against the stated ideals of affordable housing which is to ensure that this burden is shared equally by all members of the community. Moreover, the concentration of so much affordable housing in one area will negatively affect the potential growth in value of existing houses in this area whilst at the same time increasing the value of houses in other parts of the town. This is simple economics. We residents within the 14% are being asked to pay an unfair price in terms of both immediate increased traffic and over the long term a decreased return on investment in our homes for this AHOZ development. The choice of Oka and the other parcels are unfair to be polite and reeks of a segregationist policy to be less so. Segregation versus Integration! Finally, we have to acknowledge that these new residents will put a lot of pressure on our already overcrowded schools. We do not believe the figure provided by the town planning of 58 new students being added from the 250 new high density homes on Oka. Los Gatos has excellent schools and this is one of the main reasons why I and many of my neighbors choose to settle here in Los Gatos. It will be a similar case for our new AHOZ neighbors. We need to solve the problem of our already overcrowded schools and plan for the future growth. The Davis report that projects future enrolment is based on the planning department's understated numbers and not reality. I would ask the town council what they are thinking as they zone Oka, the last large open space in Los Gatos, for high density housing instead other uses such as the location of anew school. What other solution is there to resolve the challenge of our overcrowded classrooms? I would like to close by reiterating my total opposition to the draft planning proposal for 3 Affordable Housing Overlay Zones located on Oka Rd for the reasons highlighted above. This is irresponsible and ill- considered planning, on the part of the town for not only the residents of the local community but also the greater Town of Los Gatos. I challenge you as elected officials' representing our community to 'seize this opportunity. Do not zone • Oka Rd with AHOZ. Instruct the Planning Commission to propose new options to meet our town's RHNA requirements. Sincerely, Kim Hawk 104 Mojonera Court Los Gatos CA 95032 (408)219 -5880 Dear Mayor Barbara Spector and town councilors, I hereby register my opposition to the draft planning proposal for 3 Affordable Housing Overlay Zone (AHOZ) parcels located on Oka Road and the 2 AHOZ parcels locate near Netflix as part of Los Gatos' response to California's Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) requirements. The location of the AHOZ parcels in this area is reckless planning on the part of the town, a travesty for the local residents and a missed opportunity for the town of Los Gatos. First, the site selections do not comply with the stated objective of California's SB375. The Oka site is the furthest of many possible sites within the town from public transport services and moreover the site is not pedestrian friendly since it not conveniently located within walking distance of any shopping, restaurants or other such amenities. The whole idea of AHOZ zoning is that it is SMART, within walking distance to amenities and close to public transport. Oka has neither. Second, due to the area's pedestrian unfriendliness, the traffic on Oka and Lark will be drastically affected as the new residents on Oka take to their cars as their only means of transportation to get to work, school, etc. As local residents, this will affect us tremendously. Oka is a small road and we disagree with the Traffic Management team's calculation on the expected increases in traffic. Lark is already one of the busiest roads in Los Gatos with possibly the highest concentration of traffic lights per mile in town, we fully expect that the 250 new residences may generate up to an additional 400 plus extra cars during the morning and evening traffic all going in and out of Oka. This will exacerbate an already dreadful commute for residents all around this area and no amount of traffic engineering will be able to resolve it. Third, the location of the sites further skews the town's disparity in the location of affordable housing. The area north of Lark accounts for only 14% of the town's total area but currently accounts for 67% of the town's affordable housing. With this new development, the area will account for 86% of the affordable housing with no increase anywhere else in the town! Moreover, this planning goes against the stated ideals of affordable housing which is to ensure that this burden is shared equally by all members of the community. Moreover, the concentration of so much affordable housing in one area will negatively affect the potential growth in value of existing houses in this area whilst at the same time increasing the value of houses in other parts of the town. This is simple economics. We residents within the 14% are being asked to pay an unfair price in terms of both immediate increased traffic and over the long term a decreased return on investment in our homes for this AHOZ development. The choice of Oka and the other parcels are unfair to be polite and reeks of a segregationist policy to be less so. Segregation versus Integration! Finally, we have to acknowledge that these new residents will put a lot of pressure on our already overcrowded schools. We do not believe the figure provided by the town planning of 58 new students being added from the 250 new high density homes on Oka. Los Gatos has excellent schools and this is one of the main reasons why I and many of my neighbors choose to settle here in Los Gatos. It will be a similar case for our new AHOZ neighbors. We need to solve the problem of our already overcrowded schools and plan for the future growth. The Davis report that projects future enrolment is based on the planning department's understated numbers and not reality. I would ask the town council what they are thinking as they zone Oka, the last large open space in Los Gatos, for high density housing instead other uses, such as the location of a new school. What other solution is there to resolve the challenge of our overcrowded classrooms? I would like to close by reiterating my total opposition to the draft planning proposal for 3 Affordable Housing Overlay'Zones located on Oka Rd for the reasons highlighted above. This is irresponsible and ill - considered planning on the part of the town for not only the residents of the local community but also the greater Town of Los Gatos. I challenge you as elected officials representing our community to seize this opportunity. Do not zone Oka Rd with AHOZ. Instruct the Planning Commission to propose new options to meet our town's RHNA requirements. Sincerely, Peter & Heidi Grady 125 Mill Creek Los Gatos CA 95032 (408) 402 -5848 Wendie Rooney From: Lynda Seastrom Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 9:10 AM To: Wendie Rooney Cc: Arlene Holmboe; Cindie Taylor Subject: FW: Town Council Should Reject the Planning Commission's Affordable Housing Segregation Plan Attachments: Draft Motion.pdf; Affordable Housing Segregation Plan.pdf; Misrepresentation of Traffic Impact.pdf; Obfuscation and Lack of Trans parency.pdf; Affordable Housing and Property Values.pdf From: Iddo Hadar [mailto:iddo.hadarCalgmail coml Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2013 8:45 PM To: Council; BSpector; Steve Leonardis; Diane McNutt; Joe Pirzynski; Arlene Holmboe Cc: Town Manager Subject: Town Council Should Reject the Planning Commission's Affordable Housing Segregation Plan Attached are five documents which submitted for your review, in preparation for the upcoming discussion of the Affordable Housing Overlay Zone proposal: 1. A Draft Motion which residents are imploring you to adopt T. A detailed review and analysis of the Affordable Housing Segregation Plan proposed by the Planning Commission (including concerns regarding the Commission's staff work and decision process) 3. An illustration of key Errors and Misrepresentations in the EIR adopted by the Planning Commission (related to traffic impact) 4. Documentation of Obfuscation and Lack of Transparency by the Planning Commission's staff 5. Clarification and correction of erroneous information and conclusions posted to the Los Gatos web site, related to the Effect of Affordable Housing on Property Values Respectfully, Knowles Drive, Los Gatos resident Draft Motion Los Gatos Town Council (1) rejects the current proposed AHOZ plan and returns it to the Planning Commission; (2) instructs the Commission to return with a balanced proposal which integrates affordable housing into all parts of Los Gatos, ensuring that all Town communities contribute their fair share to the solution; (3) instructs the Commission to develop three alternative approaches to meet RHNA goals = one based on AHOZ, one based on r'e'zoning, and one based on increasilig required affordable . housing ratios throughout Los Gatos = and provide a detailed comparison of the relative advantages and disadvantages of each of the approaches; (4) guides the Commission to revise its draft FEIR Addendum, to capture the entire impact of the proposed approach (not merely as adjustments to the 2020 General Plan'EIR), while properly adjusting traffic and school impact analysis based on input provided 'in recent weeks; (5) demands that the Commission provide its revised draft Elk addendum for review and comment by affected agencies and entities in Los Gatos,and neighboritk to,'6s' (especially' Campbell) for effect on school, traffic, and emergency services (fire and police), and properly - incorporate all feedback from such entities; (6) recommends that the Commission forma resident advisory board and rely on it extensively as it develops its new proposal(s); and (7) reminds the Commission to avoid any appearance of undue influence of commercial interested during the preparation of public policy proposals Obfuscation and Lack of Transparency by the Planning Commission: Why is the Commission's Staff Avoiding Sharing Key Information? Residents are concerned and suspicious, due to lack of transparency by the staff of the Planning Commission. While attempting to act with the appearance of cooperation and openness, the staff uses a variety of methods to obfuscate. The following example is quite illustrative: 1. The Final 2020 General Plan EIR (revised as of June 16, 2010) contained an important analysis related to traffic impact. Captured as TABLE 4.13 -5, the analysis showed the 2020 General Plan Level of Service Summary Without Planned Improvements. This was very helpful in highlighting the direct impact of the proposal, without masking it by other programs and initiatives. For example, the level of service in Intersections 1, 8, and 9 (those closest to the currently proposed sites in the AHOZ plan) is projected to become unacceptable (between E and F). 2. The FEIR Addendum (prepared November 2012) obfuscated the traffic impact: • by not including a comparable analysis (Level of Service Summary Without Planned Improvements), • by providing most analyses as an increment to the previous EIR as opposed to a review of the complete impact of the AHOZ, and • by deliberately or unintentionally using an inconsistent set of sites (inclusion or exclusion of the Bentley site), which served to understate the impact of segregating the affordable housing units north of Lark 3. During a so- called Community Meeting (December 18, 2012) between the Planning Commission's staff and local residents, Mr. Kevin Rohani (a Town Engineer) presented the traffic impact analysis. During his presentation we raised concerns regarding lack of analysis of the impact on traffic without planned improvements. Mr. Rohani indicated that such analysis existed, and that he would provide it to the residents. 4. At the close of the meeting, Ms. Wendie Rooney (Director of Community Development) summarized the set of information which would be provided to the residents ( "the following day "). Her summary did not mention the analysis of the traffic impact (without planned improvements). At this point we reminded Mr. Rohani and Ms. Rooney of the earlier commitment by Mr. Rohani, and he confirmed that the information would be made available. Obfuscation and Lack of Transparency by the Planning Commission /January 2013 S. Two days later (December 20, 2012) Ms. Rooney sent an e-mail to attendees which included the following note: We will be uploading the PowerPoint Presentation from Tuesday's meeting as well as the recently completed traffic study to the What's New Section of the Town Web site www.losgatosco.gov by the end of the day tomorrow. 6. After information was posted to the Town Web site, we sent (on December 22, 2012) to Ms. Rooney the following complaint and repeated our request by e -mail: "Contrary to the promise of your staff during the Dec 18 meeting, you have failed to provide requested information regarding the traffic,study. During the meeting, we have requested several times to receive the analysis of the traffic impact WITH ANY POTENTIAL TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS. Your staff.promised to provide,them,However, what has been posted to your site under the title of 'traffic:study "is simply another copy =• of the FEIR Addendum, which masks that analysis. We'd appreciate your explanation as to why the Town continues to hide important and pertinent analysis which had been conducted with public funds, has-important relevance to our discussion, and has been requested and promised during the public meeting." 7. An email from Ms. Wendie Rooney on 1/2 "responded" to the request: "... One of the stakeholders has requested the technical appendix to the most recent AHOZ Traffic Study. Prior to the holidays, the Town uploaded the traffic study, but not the 378 page technical appendix. The technical appendix has now been uploaded to the "What's New Section on the Town's Main Web _Page_ " None of the 378 pages of the Technical Appendix (half of which are blank) contained the information requested and promised. As is patently clear fromthe chronology above, we did NOT.request the technical appendix, but rather a very specific analysis. Therefore, the obvious questions are: Why did the Planning Commission not include the important analysis regarding"Level'of Service (WithbutPlannedlmprovements)- deemed' Important enough forthe FEIR with the Addendum '(covering the'Cormnission's plan `for segreg'afing affordable housing north of Lark)? If the staff failed to prepare such analysis, why did Mr. kohani indicate that the analysis was available during the November meeting? Conversely, if such analysis does exist, why is Ms. Rooney avoiding sharing it with residents, nitiallyuy teneging of Mt. Rohani "s commitment during the open neeting, then by delaying sharing the information until weeks after the meeting, then by providing a document which is entirely unresponsive to the request? Obfuscation and Lack of Transparency by the Planning Commission /January 2013 NOT IN MY DOWNTOWN! Los Gatos Town's Affordable Housing Segregation Plan Summary. The Los Gatos Town's Planning Commission has recently approved the Affordable Housing Overlay Zone (AHOZ). The development plans under AHOZ consist of about 20 acres in the northern part of Los Gatos — half of them north of SR -85 and half south of it. 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 "Not In My Downtown" (NIMD) 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. The decision process raises serious concerns regarding the conduct of our elected officials and public servants duringthe process, primarily with respect to the lack of transparency, decision - making without evidentiary basis, and appearance of undue influence of commercial interests on policy decisions. During a November 14 public hearing, the Commission heard overwhelmingly broad, strong, and emphatic feedback from the local community about the implications of the Commission's incredibly lopsided plan; the Commission also received a note from the Campbell School District warning the Commission of the implications of its plan on local schools. However, the Commission brushed aside the community feedback, ignored the local school warnings, and rushed through the decision process, approving a hastily- written Environment Impact Report (without any comment or edit —very unusual for the Commission) and essentially deciding to let the Town Council make the call. The Planning Commission's proposal to segregate low- income housing primarily into these "remote" parts of Los Gatos, is mindboggling, since it • exacerbates income disparity, by keeping future affordable housing away from affluent parts of town • worsens congestion, by keeping future affordable housing away from the less -dense parts of town • introduces a community divide, by maintaining future affordable housing awayfrom the predominantly -white neighborhoods of town The Commission's plan is lopsided, biased and unfair —to our town, to our community, and to the future residents, atwhatever affordability level. By segregating new residents into the remote part of town and failing to integrate them into the community —the Commission violates the spirit of affordable housing development, and does a disservice to the town by worsening congestion, while missing the commercial and environmental benefit of expanded urban living near our Downtown. Iddo Hadar / Not In My Downtown / December 2012 1 Affordable Housinigin Los Gatos - Overview Los Gatos, in order tq,provide affordable housing.so as to meet its fair share of the regional housing market, as required to certify its'plahning package, has elected to avoid re- zoning and instead adopt the AHOZ approach. Exhibit 1 clearly illustrates how the Town's Planning Commission is proposing to distribute affordable housing units: • The Commission wants the sliver of land north of SR -85 (representing about 3% of the Town's land) to capture the great.majority of.new.units at extremely low; ve „ry low, low, and moderate income levels; in this already dense area, the plan adds affordable h_ ousing at a rate of nearly 900 new units per square mile. • Inthe area immedlatelyto .thesouth.of,SR -85 and north, of Lark Avenue (representing roughly.l9% of the Town's land), the Commission proposes about 100 new affordable units per square mile • The Commission leaves the remaining 78% of Los Gatos land with ZERO affordable units. Exhibit 1; The Town's Affordable Housing Segregation Plan - Overview Showing Planning Commission's proposed distribution of total extremely low, very low, low, and moderate category housing, per "Affordable Housing:.Overlay Zone' (AHOZ) specifications - - Distribution of Land ” North of 95 3% ,rt$oth of 95, North of La rk 19% Distribution of I eew Affordable Housing . + .. . South of of Sources: Analysis of Planning Commission Staff Reports and U.S. Census (as reported by cltl dat&com); land »distribution is approximate Reaching this lopsided proposal was a fairly lengthy process for the Town; As part of the Housing, Element development process, the Town initially identified 41 parcels for potential AHtOZ. While the original AHOZ plan reviewed multiplesites and finally, planned to d.istribyte the targets across 10.sites; overthe past year a true transformation has.takgn 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 Iddo Hadar/ Not In My Downtown/ December 2012 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 percentminimum 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 %). The Planning Commission'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 the 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 developers in a position to sway the Town's presumptive policy decision making. To illustrate how extreme the proposal is, Exhibit 2 compares a few hypothetical alternatives to generate 200 affordable housing units in the Extremely Low, Very Low, and Low Income categories. Options 1 and 2 spread the development across town, allowing the plan to avoid extreme densities and target a reasonable ratio of 12.5 % -20% of units in each site in the extremely low -to -low income categories. Instead, the Planning Commission has picked Option 4 —the AHOZ proposal for the areas north of SR -85 —with an effective density of over 35 units per acre, the majority of which would be in the extremely low -to -low income categories. Exhibit 2. AHOZ Proposal and Its Alternatives Alternative models to generate 200 affordable units in Extremely Low, Very Low, and Low Income categories Note: AHOZ option demonstrated sites North of SR -85. For Courthouse site, only residential section (3.1 acres) is included in the analysis, to ensure comparability of results. Iddo Hadar/ Not In My Downtown/ December 2012 3 T V t OpLlon 1 40 .,ptiopp2 10 Option 3, ptii&bt H s 1s NAFfOZ) , _ ..., umber�ofSltes e, , _ +�`�s�a� 5 2 pv" era$S� (crRe zi Densltaveµage£umts /acre) 5 5 5 5.1 8 20 20 27 0% 0% 209/o 20% �n ty icaseIm Effective B" gnus (iacl r nsfA ,l Effec iyg Density (4nifs /a re')1 ' 19% 0/ 0/ 20/ 39/ 8 20 24 37 TT Units lr Y Ettr,,emely Lov, VeLoworo: 1,600 12.5% 1,000 20% 600 33% 381 52% Ex�tre eILOeS L�w�or oW. n'ts ni ye !Yi Q >L 200 200 200 200 Note: AHOZ option demonstrated sites North of SR -85. For Courthouse site, only residential section (3.1 acres) is included in the analysis, to ensure comparability of results. Iddo Hadar/ Not In My Downtown/ December 2012 3 The overall deVeId'pmefit plans uriderAHOZ consist of about 20 acres In north Los Gatos; within this portfolio, half of the area — and roughly %a of the planned low- income units — are north of SR -85: Exhibit`3: AHOZ Proposed Configuration Tortj e e Courthouse South-bay Oka ft Oka,B Oka C- # ores 5.2 1 7.1 6.4 3 3 : " s 125., 258 128 60 - 60, ,a : i • L at to or a 50% - 55 %-,. - 50% 50% - "50% - U: t t)t e o er 62.5 140.8_ 64 - 30' 30 Tortj e e 123 12:4 - aO� I Ac a 50% .50V jT�ofal Un is t are o or 'o er 203.3 124. - r %yTo a CJr,�„its hat�ar+e lout' orz�- I,owe�_ 62% 1) Residential section of the Courthouse site is only 3.1 acres 2) # Units --maximum, with density bonus where granted Source: Council Agenda Report dated October 10, 2012; and analysis To put in perspective, the density, proposed under AHOZ it would be instructive to review Exhibit 4. While household density across Los Gatos is under 1,200 households per square mile, the AHOZ sites on Oka would more than TEN TIMES as-dense (12,800 households persquare miles); while the AHOZ sites north of SR -85 would be yet TWICE as. dense as those south of SR -85. Exhibit 4: AHOZ Proposed Density "v` Propos'ed'Density Mato s;oo0 0 I• CSkes NOrlWSR -35 AHOZSItessouth&SR -g5, Current average across Las north ouark, Gatos Iddo Hadar/ Not In My Downtown / December 2012 _ - - 4 The EFFECTIVE distribution may be even more segregated than stated. Planning Commission staff has indicated that, in all likelihood, ALL of the low- income development in the near future under AHOZ may take place in ONE SITE. Comments from Staff suggest that development in the 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; the suggests that the focus of the Staff's work was clearly on the Courthouse. Furthermore, from oral comments from a developer who now partly owns the Courthouse site, during the 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 Commission's process of narrowing down the AHOZ portfolio to handful of properties is perplexing, especially in light of the key feature of the AHOZ— avoiding re- zoning and providing developers with flexibility. Since each individual property would have the flexibility to either adopt the AHOZ or use its regular zoning, it is hard to understand what social or economic benefit results from excluding properties from the scope of this flexible feature. Concentrating the program into fewer sites certainly concentrates the effect in just a few neighborhoods, resulting in a more pronounced impact (which will be discussed below). It also creates more risk for the Town to not realize the development targets, since meeting the goals is dependent on one or two projects, as opposed to a diversified portfolio of projects. These decisions are not abstract mathematical exercises; they would have an enormous negative effect on the community, and speak volumes about decision - making practices in Los Gatos. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that the artificial configuration of a 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 affordable housing close to Downtown and accelerating development "on the wrong side of the tracks." Iddo Hadar / Not In My Downtown / December 2012 5 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 who owned. the Oka property (while being well informed about the details of the Courthouse site). This 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..buyerofthe 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: Exhibit 5 Planning Commission Recommendations Source: GPC March -April 2012 decision matrix reports It is quite evident that the recommendations are consistently biased, providing the developer of 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, Commission's staff routinely claims that the AHOZ waivers and concessions are required, in Iddo Hadar/ Not In My Downtown /December 2012 6" Courthouse_ Southbay Oka A,.B, &, -C Density Ihtrease 2b% ( => 24 u /a) 20% (> 36 u /a) None Density Transfer " Allowed Under review Under review " Parking ` 1'space per unit 1 space per unit 1 space per senior units Site specific guidelines None °' 12 items 8-9 items for each property Coordination with Not required Not required Required - BAAQMD on air quality impacts and CalTrans for noise impacts Source: GPC March -April 2012 decision matrix reports It is quite evident that the recommendations are consistently biased, providing the developer of 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, Commission's staff routinely claims that the AHOZ waivers and concessions are required, in Iddo Hadar/ Not In My Downtown /December 2012 6" order to discourage developers from invoking the Density Bonus Program. A "Frequently Asked Questions" document posted on the Town's site explains: "By establishing flexible standards, concessions and a density bonus, the Town is able to preclude the use of the state mandated Density Bonus Program, since the AHOZ would offer incentives and development standards that would be generally similar to the State Density Bonus Program. However, unlike the State Program, which allows unlimited concessions and a density bonus of up to 35% the AHOZ would allow only four concessions and would set the maximum density bonus at 20% on two of the AHOZ properties. The General Plan Committee carefully considered the proposed density along with the density bonus on these properties and found that the development allowed with the AHOZ would maintain compatibility with the surrounding neighborhoods. A 35916 density bonus potentially could be incompatible with most of the AHOZ neighborhoods." (Emphasis added) However, on closer examination, it is striking to note that Los Gatos is now ready to offer the developer of the Courthouse site terms which amount to densities THREE TIMES LARGER than those "unacceptable" figures in the Density Bonus Program. Exhibit 6 shows that, when the benefits offered by Los Gatos — including density bonus and density transfer — amount to a density bonus of more than 100 %, compared to the mere 35% of the density bonus program. Exhibit 6: Benefits Offered to Courthouse Developer —Context Effec)tye `= D`en3i "zBonus'. 102% 35% AHOZ Plan Density Bonus Program (maximum) High - Density Residential (12 -20) Iddo Hadar / Not In My Downtown / December 2012 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Density (units /acre) Source: Analysis of staff reports and comments `Under Afford a ble r - + Hoysing Segregatiop �Under_Denslty Bonus` Plan - t H program Arda acres 3.1 3.1 Dens�y yiya', uplts / acrd)- i18,3•":" 20 20 Bonus`?aa'i` 20% 35% r)nl[da�dflalile`:a 74 34 T�anstey ¢APn`� res of slid`` 51 TOTAL' 125 gq Effec)tye `= D`en3i "zBonus'. 102% 35% AHOZ Plan Density Bonus Program (maximum) High - Density Residential (12 -20) Iddo Hadar / Not In My Downtown / December 2012 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Density (units /acre) Source: Analysis of staff reports and comments 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 were billed as `'planning" discussions a developer who is ready to move with a specific project proposal "within weeks" (based on oral comments from the developer during October 18, 2012, session). Published-minutes clearly show KT Properties and its agents prominently and actively participating in AHOZ discussions, with clear development targets, although the Committee and: Commission meetings were ostensibly about public policy. This process 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 policydiscussions; especially since the Planning Commission seems to have.fully.complied with the developer's requests. Iddo Hadar/ Not In My Downtown/ December 2012 - 8 The Planning Commission has been Acting with Disregard to the Environmental Impact of Its Proposal While the Planning Commission and its staff have been attentive to the requirements of property developers, it have generally been deaf to the needs of the local community, addressing the local impact as a mere afterthought. 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— in the "11th 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. Despite glaring errors and omissions in the hastily- written FEIR Addendum (some discussed below), the Commission approved it on November 14 without any comment or edit (very unusual for the Commission) and essentially decided to let the Town Council make the call. 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). Farfrom 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. But one can easily re- evaluate the situation, where the FOR Addendum seeks to confuse the subject: From the standpoint of the local community, the effect is enormous, and no amount of elaborate charts can hide it. Exhibit 7 applies the key CEQA Guidelines Checklist criteria to our own neighborhood: Exhibit 7: 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 trees where possible" — clearly putting development ahead of environment and degrading the visual character of the area 13. Population and Throughout the AHOZ sites, new units repr ear - doubling of local Housing residences — clearly 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, Iddo Hadar/ Not In My Downtown/ December 2x12 The FOR Addendum — approved by the Commission — attempts to understate the impact of the AHOZ proposal by basing analyses on patently faulty assumptions. Public Services For example, the FEIR Addendum and the FEIR to which it is an Addendum mischaracterize the "effect the development would have on local schools; and even though the superintendents of these schools are refuting the analysis —the Commission is brushing their comments aside. Back during the preparation of the E1R; the Superintendent of Los Gatos Union School District commented on-Ahe Commission's analysis (April 26, 2010): "1,600 new units would add 537students to ourschools." But the Commission elected to plan for only 167 (or less than one third of what the Superintendent projected). While discussing the FEIR Addendum, the Commission decided to ignore the input of another school superintendent — this time of the Campbell school district. During an October 15 review session, Planning Commission staff indicated that they hadn't discussed the revised proposal with the Campbell schools. Despite subsequent assurances received from the Planning Commission regarding engagement with the Campbell district, checks with local schools indicate otherwise. In order to avoid any ' misunderstanding, the Campbell school superintendent sent a note to the Commission informing of the inability of the district to accommodate the projected students. After reviewing this letter (Novermber 14, 2012), the Commission decided flatly ignore it. Of course, accepting the professional judgment of the school superintendents would have required the Commission to admit "in its FEIR and FEIR Addendum that the AHOZ has a significant effect on public services;liut`the Commission seems uninterested in acknowledging to this serious effect. Elsewhere in the FEIR Addendum (see excerpts in Appendix 1) the Commission admits the obvious —that that AHOZ will have an impact on schools and emergency servi"ce"s-- but siimply assumes that fixing the problems will be borne by other towns (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 mindset by which the tax,- paying residents in the northern part of Towne are somehow considered to be less important than those in Downtown. Iddo Hadar/ Not In My Downtown /December 2012 10 `well peyond capacity 16. Traffic Using a reasonable ratio of 1.5,2 vehicles, per market and affordable units (as opposed to the fictitious 1.0 proposed by GPC) indicates an addition of up to 300 -400 cars to the Town's busiest intersections and congested highway access The FOR Addendum — approved by the Commission — attempts to understate the impact of the AHOZ proposal by basing analyses on patently faulty assumptions. Public Services For example, the FEIR Addendum and the FEIR to which it is an Addendum mischaracterize the "effect the development would have on local schools; and even though the superintendents of these schools are refuting the analysis —the Commission is brushing their comments aside. Back during the preparation of the E1R; the Superintendent of Los Gatos Union School District commented on-Ahe Commission's analysis (April 26, 2010): "1,600 new units would add 537students to ourschools." But the Commission elected to plan for only 167 (or less than one third of what the Superintendent projected). While discussing the FEIR Addendum, the Commission decided to ignore the input of another school superintendent — this time of the Campbell school district. During an October 15 review session, Planning Commission staff indicated that they hadn't discussed the revised proposal with the Campbell schools. Despite subsequent assurances received from the Planning Commission regarding engagement with the Campbell district, checks with local schools indicate otherwise. In order to avoid any ' misunderstanding, the Campbell school superintendent sent a note to the Commission informing of the inability of the district to accommodate the projected students. After reviewing this letter (Novermber 14, 2012), the Commission decided flatly ignore it. Of course, accepting the professional judgment of the school superintendents would have required the Commission to admit "in its FEIR and FEIR Addendum that the AHOZ has a significant effect on public services;liut`the Commission seems uninterested in acknowledging to this serious effect. Elsewhere in the FEIR Addendum (see excerpts in Appendix 1) the Commission admits the obvious —that that AHOZ will have an impact on schools and emergency servi"ce"s-- but siimply assumes that fixing the problems will be borne by other towns (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 mindset by which the tax,- paying residents in the northern part of Towne are somehow considered to be less important than those in Downtown. Iddo Hadar/ Not In My Downtown /December 2012 10 Traffic Nowhere is the nonchalant attitude of the Planning Commission about its impact on the local community more blatant than on the subject of traffic. Appendix III exposes in some detail the errors and misrepresentations involved in the Planning Commission's of the impact on local traffic. As shown in Exhibit 8, the Planning Commission has elected to concentrate the AHOZ in the most - congested parts of town, which — even by the Commission's calculations —would have an overwhelming effect on local traffic. Exhibit 8: Effect on Traffic Delay due to Segregated AHOZ .Numbered by the Town as 1, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 25. Intersection 5 was not included since the Town foiled to report comparable traffic conditions for the impacted turns /approaches Sources: 2020 General Plan Draft and Final FEIR, FOR Addendum However, the Planning Commission has seriously underestimated the negative effect of traffic. Exhibit 9 illustrates the cumulative impact of the Commission's various errors and misrepresentations for one of the Town's busiest intersections, Knowles and Winchester (see Appendix III for more details): • The current state (for PM Peak travel) is reported by the Commission at about a 35 second delay, placing it at the "D +" level of service grade (it may be worth noting that residents who actually travel this route during PM Peak hours consider 35 seconds to be a gross understatement — as explained in the report "Planning Commission's EIR Misrepresenting Traffic Impact of AHOZ "). • The Commission calculated that the AHOZ (as planned in June 2010) would increase delays in this intersection to 63 seconds, bringing it to "E" level of service (unacceptable in Los Gatos). • The Commission's decision to segregate AHOZ development to the north of Los Gatos would add to the volume of traffic through the intersection, which the Commission understates in its FEIR Addendum as 84 additional trips during PM Peak hours; this would raise traffic delay to 96 seconds, placing the intersection solidly in the "F" level of service group (obviously, unacceptable in Los Gatos). • The calculated delay is understated, since the Commission seems to (wrongly) assume that none of the residents of the affordable housing units would own a vehicle, bringing the average vehicle per unit (across both affordable and market units) to only 1.0. Under more realistic Iddo Hadar/ Not In My Downtown/December 2012 it assumptions of 1.5 vehicles per unit', delay would grow to 267 seconds — nearly 8 times longer than today's levels. Such delay would, of course, overflow the existing intersection infrastructure. • If the vehicle assumption is adjusted to 1.75 vehicles pet unit, traffic through the intersection would come to effective standstill — longer than 22 minutes of wait time. That, of course, would completely block traffic throughout Knowles Drive. Exhibit 9: True Impactof AHOZ on Local Traffic Illustrating the impact of AHOZF ., as originally, planned and as recently segregated —on traffic de lays through the Winchester /Knowles intersection _ I' I Adjusting vehicle i assumption (1.5 vs. 1.0)67j I - i vi Segregation Plan: FEIR i - Addendum (84 trips) I. AHOZ (General j Plan 2020) Current State 0_.: _. :100 200 300 - 400 500 600 "700 1,400 Delay (PM Peak;. seconds) The increased volumes and delays in the intersections and roadways immediately next to the AHOZ sites would have a domino,effect on the busy intersections, ramps; and routes which feed or. connect with these two problem spots. Incredibly, the Commission's reports seek to mask the dramatic effect on gridlock and congestion, by ' Most people Would agree that 'a 1- gar - per -unit ratio is entirely idapptoprlate (especially He significant portion of the site is at moderate and market rates); even the California Planning Roundtable (as published bythe Association of Bay Area Governments) uses 1.2 -2 vehicles for affordable units. However, the Planning Commission staff has adopted a "1 space per unit" rule for the properties North of SR -85; this rule represents a major concession —which dramatically benefits the developer while penalizing the local community (due to Increased need for street parking). Iddo Hadar/ Not In My Downtown / December 2012 12 bundling the AHOZ with wishful traffic - improvement programs also part of General Plan 2020. But the Commission has to admit that, in reality, there really is no mitigation for these effects: Exhibit 10: No solution for the adverse congestion impact According to evaluation results, the following intersections would not satisfy operational standards at the horizon buildout under current conditions without the new improvements identified in the Draft 2020 General Plan: ♦ Winchester Boulevard and Knowles Drive ♦ Los Gatos Boulevard and Samaritan Drive t Los Gatos Boulevard and Lark Avenue f N. Santa Cruz Avenue and Los Gatos — Saratoga Road Impact TRA -1: With the implementation of the list of roadway and intersection improvements identified in the proposed Draft 2020 General Plan ... transportation impacts would be fully mitigated. However, there are currently no dedicated funding sources identified for the improvements, so it cannot be concluded that the improvements will be funded and completed at the time they are needed for mitigation to the Town level of servir . nnaraiinnat ctanrinrrt Source: Los Gatos General Plan 2020 EIR draft and FOR The fact that the Town may act to fix the traffic issue in the worst intersections at some point in the future (when the funds are available) is beside the point —what matters to the Town's residents is that the Commission's actions result in a worst -case traffic situation, which would cost more to resolve. If the added population were more evenly distributed — away from the worst congestion —the need for costly work would be less acute. Overall, we see that the FEIR routinely mischaracterizes the effect of AHOZ, with a mix of errors, faulty assumptions, and misleading representations. AHOZ would clearly have a very significant effect on schools, traffic, and possibly the environment; but the Commission isn't open for serious comment, review, and feedback which may slaw down its rush to judgment. 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. Iddo Hadar / Not in My Downtown / December 2012 13 When faced with the important need to meet future affordable housing, the Los Gatos Town's Planning Commission has followed a process characterized by low transparency, selective iiisclosure; possible undue influence of commercial interests, and disregard _for local community and' envronme.n`tal impacts —at least in the remote, northern parts of Town. Not surprisingly, the outcome of this process is equally unfortunate —as the proposed AHOZ effectively segfegites future affordable housing in Los Gatos to areas as far as possible from the Town's center; in other words "Not in My Downtown" (NWD). Exhibit 11 illustrates the stark contrast in the Commission's plan for various parts of town, with close to 900 affordable units per square mile north of SR -85, vs. 100 units in the Oka sites and NONE. elsewhere. Exhibit 11: The Lopsided Distribution of the Town's Afforddble'Housing Segregation Plan - Showing Plan ning:Commission's proposed distribution of total-extremelylow,verylow, low, and moderate category housing, p er AHOZ specifications; density calculated for the entire area —not only AHOZ sites Distribution of Land '. '_N : _ of rth. rk Sources: Analysis of Planning Commission Staff Rep Proposed.Distribution_of Affordable Housing 00 0 eao E e ]00 ! Inwmelevel • Fxlemely Low to ve ry tow 600 - •towb Motlerale W 2. taa @2 0 D North of 85 5auth of 85, North of Lark Somh of Lark Repo and U.S. Census (as reported by citi- data.com); land distribution is appro ximate The imbalance in the Planning Commission's proposal is not a mere geographical slight -of -hand — but reflects a demographic divide of the Town, which the Commission appears keen to deepen. As Exhibit 12 illustrates, the Town's Segregation Plan keeps future Affordable Housing away from the relatively high (or even medium) income sections of Los Gatos, and relegates future development to the lowest- income section of Town (as measured by median per- capita income). Iddo Hadar/ Not In My Downtown /December 2012 - - 14 Exhibit 12: The Town's Affordable Housing Segregation Plan - Along Income Distribution (1) Showing Planning Commission's proposed distribution of total low, very low, and extremely low category housing; the percentages shown are the proportion of affordable housing proposed through AHOZ in each particular area Sources: Planning Lommissen Staff Reports and U,S. Census (as reported by citi- data.com) Exhibit 13 reinforces the same observation of bias in the distribution proposed by the Planning Commission, when arrayed against median family income. The Commission's segregation plan is bound to increase income disparity across the Town, accentuating the spread between more- and less- affluent neighborhoods. Iddo Hadar/ Not In My Downtown /December 2012 15 Exhibit 13: The Town's Affordable Musing Segregation Plan - Along Income Distribution (2) Showing Planning Commission's proposed distribution of total low, very low, .an d _extremely low category housing; the percentages shownare the proportion of affordable housing proposed through AHOZ in each particular area Sources: Planning Commission. Staff Reports and U.S. Census (as reported by citi- data.com) Exhibit 14 illustrates an additional dimension of_bias in the proposal: The planned,units ar ..highly . dense — the plans for Courthouse and Southbay (including all the incentives and concessions approved by the Commission) create average of more than 3Zunits per, acre; ora rate of nearly Z4,000 ,., households per square mile. Yet the Planning Commission proposes to segregate this addition into what is already the DENSET section of town —while most of Los Gatos continues at a density of less than 1,500 households per square mile. In other words, the Commission ensures keeping the low- income housing away from the sparsely - populated sections of Los Gatos. Iddo Hadar / Not In My Downtown/ December 2012 16 Exhibit 14: The Town's Affordable Housing Segregation Plan - Along Population Density Showing Planning Commission's proposed distribution of total low, very low, and extremely low category housing; the percentages shown are the proportion of affordable housing proposed through AHOZ in each particular area Sources: Planning Commission Staff Reports and U.S. Census (as reported by citi- data.com) Finally, Exhibit 15 illustrates what may be arguably the most unfortunate bias built into the Planning Commission's proposal. The Town's Segregation Plan keeps future Affordable Housing away from the areas of Los Gatos which are near - uniform from a racial diversity standpoint; while relegating the affordable housing units to the most racially- diverse sections of Town. Iddo Hadar/ Not In My Downtown/ December 2012 17 Exhibit 15: The Town's Affordable Housing Segregation Plan - along Racial Diversity Showing Planning Commi'ssion's proposed distribution of total low, very low, and extremely low category housing; the percentages shown are the proportion of affordable housing proposed through AHOZ In each particular area Sources: Planning Commission Staff Reportsand U.S. Ce s (as reported by cld- data.com) Actions speak louder than words; one needs to judge programs by their outcomes. The outcomes targeted by. the cu. rrent proposal are very clear: The Planning Commission's proposal segregates low - income housing primarily, igtc the "remote' parts of Los Gatos, counter,to the spirit of local development While doing so, it (1) exacerbates income disparity, by keeping future affordable housing away from affluent parts of town (2) worsens congestion, by keeping future affordable housing away from the less -dense parts of town (3) introduces a community divide, by maintaining future affordable housing away from the predominantly -white neighborhoods of town Iddo Hadar/ Not In My Downtown /December 2012 is Conclusion: Recently the Los Gatos Town's Planning Commission was called upon to plan for future affordable income units throughout Town. The commission's response was a resounding "Not In My Downtown!" Paying only lip service to the concept of building affordable housing IN Los Gatos, the Commission refused to integrate affordable housing into the highest - quality regions of Town (as the spirit of affordable housing development would suggest) —and instead decided to segregate it into the lowest - quality areas. After selecting the Overlay Zone approach (with less- than - convincing rationale), the Planning Commission has inexplicably narrowed a broad set of sites across Town to a handful of sites in its northernmost areas. By focusing the program in a limited geography, the Commission concentrated its adverse effects: The proposed Affordable Housing Overlay Zone (AHOZ) would create a chasm across Town, load up local schools, drive up traffic congestion in the Town's busiest intersections and routes, and hurt the environment. By not integrating new residents near the Town's primary shopping areas and workplaces, AHOZ would also undermine the potential commercial benefits which might otherwise accrue to Los Gatos from the new residents. Most important, AHOZ would also do a disservice to the potential new residents who should be welcome and accommodated THROUGHOUT Los Gatos. The Commission has assembled an EIR ridden with errors and misrepresentations, which helped mask these effects. The EIR also failed to point out that the Commission has elected to grant exceptional concessions in response to demands by the owner of one of the targeted sites — at the expense of the significant adverse impact to the local community. Los Gatos Planning Commission's "Not In My Downtown' proposal is unfair, unjust, and horribly biased. The plan seems geared to ensuring that the wealthier, sparsely - populated, and predominantly -white neighborhoods in Town do not contribute their fair share to providing affordable housing solutions in Los Gatos. The Commission should return to the drawing board and develop a balanced proposal to integrate affordable housing into Los Gatos — not to segregate it as far as possible from the Town's center. Iddo Hadar / Not In My DoWnImn / December 7012 19 Appendix I: FEIR 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 thdt the parcels where allowed density would be increased through the AHOZore in the northern part of town and the parcels that would be removed from consideration asAHOZsites are in the southern part of town." "The additional students would further exacerbate existing conditions dt 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 ,oeed for-,additionol school services is addressed by compliance with school, impact. assessmentfees.:.,Payment of hese fees is considered.full and complete mitigation that would offset impacts from the increased demand forschool facilities." 'Development... - ., Would also incrementally/hcre'ase the need for additional park space and I/tirary facilities:7he General Plan contaihs goals; policies, a'n'd actions tl atensuYe odetivate and accessb /e'pdrk " and open space and trail systems are provided and that Los Gatos residents hate 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 inlpacts'to fire and law enforcement services to levels below significance." Iddo Hadar / Not In My Downtown/ December 2012 20 APPENDIX II: Town's Affordable Housing Segregation Plan Sources: Planning Commission Staff Reports and U.S. Census (as reported by citi- data.com) Iddo Hadar / Not In My Downtown /December 2012 21 Distribution of Existing + Proposed New Affordable Housing 1,600 South of 85, 1,400 North of 85 North of Lark South of Lark Area (square miles), estimate 0.35 2.00 835 Current Affordable Housing: Income Leea I 1,000 Low -to- Medium Income 164 19 121 Proposed Affordable Housing: Boo m x Low -to- Medium Income 178 124 0 Proposed Affordable Housing: zoo Extremely Low to Very Low Income 127 74 0 Sources: Planning Commission Staff Reports and U.S. Census (as reported by citi- data.com) Iddo Hadar / Not In My Downtown /December 2012 21 Distribution of Existing + Proposed New Affordable Housing 1,600 1,400 1,200 Income Leea I 1,000 IN Extremely I-. b Very Low _ 7 0lowta Moderate Y Boo m x 600 0 m a 400 zoo North of05 Somh of 05, North of Lark South of Lark Sources: Planning Commission Staff Reports and U.S. Census (as reported by citi- data.com) Iddo Hadar / Not In My Downtown /December 2012 21 APPENDIX III: The AHOZ Impact on Traffic' Nowhere is the nonchalant attitude of the Planning Commission about its impact on the local community more blatant than on the subject oft"raffic. Exhibit III -1: Reference Extracts from General Plan 2020 FEIR TABil5 CHANGE IN TRips GENERATED BY SITE SINCE -DRAFT - GENERAL PLAN EIR - - `11 .4parOnene -57 .6 .23 .20 a -22 -27 21 -11; -32 Apartment 38 4 .15 -19 :A 6J,' 4'_ -24 Dltios i:ene _ Aparoment -32 -3 -13 •16 [3- r7 -20 Total -4 -18 -22 -- 4'9 :3R`. -27 As a first step: The Commission makes the claim (in the FEIR Addendum s Table 5 — reproduced as Exhibit III -1) that AHOZ would lead the number of peak hour trips to decline by 27. This is both wrong and misleading: By mistakenly including the Bentley site inthe analysis (althou 'h'it was not included in any other FEIR Addendum analysis), it overstates the alleged reduction in traffic due to the proposed AHOZ segregation. When Table 5 is adjusted for this misrepresentation —see Exhibit III -2 —it clearly indicates that overall traffic conditions in Los Gatos will WORSEN (increase by 5 trips) due to the segregation. Idea Hadar/ Not In My Downtown / December 2012 22 _ , 1'rlps 1 Land d Use AM Peak PA9 Peak Site Name, Category Units In Out Total In Out Total Prpptuel3 AMU% Sl[cs - - - - Los Gatos Courthouse Apartment 21 2 0 11 8 5 13 (singlep reel) _ Snuthboy . Devalopmetlt Apartment 1.14 12 46 59 46 25'. 71 (single 1) Uka Road Apartment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (three lrareels) Sties Removed fmot Consideration `11 .4parOnene -57 .6 .23 .20 a -22 -27 21 -11; -32 Apartment 38 4 .15 -19 :A 6J,' 4'_ -24 Dltios i:ene _ Aparoment -32 -3 -13 •16 [3- r7 -20 Total -4 -18 -22 -- 4'9 :3R`. -27 As a first step: The Commission makes the claim (in the FEIR Addendum s Table 5 — reproduced as Exhibit III -1) that AHOZ would lead the number of peak hour trips to decline by 27. This is both wrong and misleading: By mistakenly including the Bentley site inthe analysis (althou 'h'it was not included in any other FEIR Addendum analysis), it overstates the alleged reduction in traffic due to the proposed AHOZ segregation. When Table 5 is adjusted for this misrepresentation —see Exhibit III -2 —it clearly indicates that overall traffic conditions in Los Gatos will WORSEN (increase by 5 trips) due to the segregation. Idea Hadar/ Not In My Downtown / December 2012 22 Exhibit III -2: Traffic Impact (per the Commission) 1) During PM Peak hours. Figure for North sites in General Plan was estimated based on extrapolation of other EIR figures 2) Adjusted. Bentley was removed as part of the traffic analysis, to ensure consistency with housing specification of the General Plan, as approved (as opposed to Draft) Source: Los Gatos General Plan 2020 El draft, HEIR, and FEIR Ad den dum 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 Exhibit III -2 remedies the situations — showing that AHOZ would add nearly 400 trips to peak hour traffic, even by the Commission's assumptions Next, contrasting Exhibit III -2 with the Town's traffic maps (provided in the FEIR) exposes another surprising part of the Commission's strategy: The proposed shift in development, to focus all housing north of Lark Ave., concentrates the new units in extreme proximity to four of the five most - congested intersections in town. These are intersections rated by the Town as having an existing Level of Service of below "C" and are identified in the EIR by numbers 1, 7, 8, and 9. They are: Winchester and Knowles, Lark and 17NB, Los Gatos Blvd and Samaritan, and Los Gatos Blvd and Lark. Therefore, the Commission is knowingly shifting the future development from lower congestion area to higher - congestion areas. Furthermore, the volume of additional trips is likely understated —due to the Commission's unjustifiable assumptions regarding the low number of vehicles per unit in the northern properties (see Exhibit III -3). 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 -2 vehicles for affordable units. However, the Planning Commission staff has adopted a "1 space per unit" rule for the properties North of SR -85; this rule represents a major concession —which dramatically benefits the developer while penalizing the local community (due to increased need for street parking). Exhibit III -3 shows that, given Los Gatos income brackets and basic principles of averaging, the Commission's implicit assumptions are hard tojustify; it is more likely to expect the AHOZ properties to average closer to 2 vehicles per unit. Iddo Hadar / Not In My Downtown / December 2017 23 ( ` North'of Lark South" of Lark .: TOTALtfor Town ° x �:Sltesy zUriiYs Tn s �, Sdes ;Units Yri s; Sltes :Units. Tri s i? GenerdlnPlanr2020;,'r r.':'r 51 4941 3071 41 1271 791 91 6211 386 EIlm South ntlo of sltes2 ; -4 127 79 -4 -127 -79 added DD nslt t -: _ kh .`y 135 84 135 84 tS 7m ofschahges ` t 4 'j 135 84 -4 -127 -79 8 Revised ^Plan 5 629 391 0 0 0 -4 .51- 629 5 391 1) During PM Peak hours. Figure for North sites in General Plan was estimated based on extrapolation of other EIR figures 2) Adjusted. Bentley was removed as part of the traffic analysis, to ensure consistency with housing specification of the General Plan, as approved (as opposed to Draft) Source: Los Gatos General Plan 2020 El draft, HEIR, and FEIR Ad den dum 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 Exhibit III -2 remedies the situations — showing that AHOZ would add nearly 400 trips to peak hour traffic, even by the Commission's assumptions Next, contrasting Exhibit III -2 with the Town's traffic maps (provided in the FEIR) exposes another surprising part of the Commission's strategy: The proposed shift in development, to focus all housing north of Lark Ave., concentrates the new units in extreme proximity to four of the five most - congested intersections in town. These are intersections rated by the Town as having an existing Level of Service of below "C" and are identified in the EIR by numbers 1, 7, 8, and 9. They are: Winchester and Knowles, Lark and 17NB, Los Gatos Blvd and Samaritan, and Los Gatos Blvd and Lark. Therefore, the Commission is knowingly shifting the future development from lower congestion area to higher - congestion areas. Furthermore, the volume of additional trips is likely understated —due to the Commission's unjustifiable assumptions regarding the low number of vehicles per unit in the northern properties (see Exhibit III -3). 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 -2 vehicles for affordable units. However, the Planning Commission staff has adopted a "1 space per unit" rule for the properties North of SR -85; this rule represents a major concession —which dramatically benefits the developer while penalizing the local community (due to increased need for street parking). Exhibit III -3 shows that, given Los Gatos income brackets and basic principles of averaging, the Commission's implicit assumptions are hard tojustify; it is more likely to expect the AHOZ properties to average closer to 2 vehicles per unit. Iddo Hadar / Not In My Downtown / December 2017 23 Exhibit III -3: Validating the Commission's assumption about number of vehicles per,unit E,'m?';ST}�,,'tb��' illvmbe(ofVi;hitlesr��.r;"_ +!nnin.4cedn$LS -Iss -i �P' ng� S.o Estlmate_M`� ..,. A 3i-5, gt prnta yDep JOff. +,ElouslplUtimate '- 0 0 2 0Y:25 -: 2 25- 1.0 2.225 1) Representative affordability ratio mix forAHOZ; assuming "Extremely Low" and "Very Low" to be of equal size 2) Implicit figures required to generate on overall overage of 1.0 vehicles per unit 3) Based on applying ratios of vehicles per household, by income level, as calculated by the California Department of Housing & Community Development to the income brackets in Los Gatos Sources: AHOZ proposal; "Myths. and Facts about Affordable & High Density Housing," California Department of Housing & Community Development Correcting these faulty assumptions would provide a more realistic projection of new cars, and expose the overwhelming effect AHOZ would have on local traffic. Exhibit III -4 begins to demonstrate the impact of that correction on local traffic: By moving from the arbitrary 1.0 vehicle rule to more realistic figures, one notices hundreds of new trips — and hundreds of more cars seeking street parking. Exhibit III -4: The traffic impact of the Commission's erroneous assumption Exhibit III -5 translates the volume of new cars to a direct impact on Los Gatos traffic, during peak hours. The number of trips in the already -busy intersections near the AHOZ proposed sites will increase dramatically: 30% increase in the Winchester and Knowles intersection, and over 40% increase in Lark Iddo Hadar/ Not In My Downtown /December 2012 24 and Oka. Exhibit III -5: Congestion impact of AHOZ IntersecftorR rx r Eztst {ng(it fJelay =+ seconds :_ Currentt Traffic '" Volume rNew Units' 3{l tided, Vehi¢les3 Added TrI s'' a p 01 fc Increase" mpacedTraffwand ° a Intersectiotrs, y ,s 1. Winchester 35.4 1375 381 667 413 3D% 2. 85 on -ramp and Knowles 3. 85 off -ramp Winchester southbound (feeder traffic through Campbell) 5. Lark and Oka 18.4 648 248 434 269 42% 4. Winchester and Lark 7. Lark and 17 NB Ramp 8. Los Gatos and Samaritan 9. Los Gatos and Lark 1; FM Peakmformation , based on 2008 survey 2) Sum of PM Peak volume in all turn lanes, based on 2008 survey 3) Using ratio of I.75vehicles per unit 4) Using ratio of 0.62 per vehicle (which appears to be the ratio used in the FOR Addendum report) 5) Congested intersections and routes which feed into or are fed by this intersection Source: General Plan 2020 FOR Depending on the details of the queuing model, these increases in peak volumes would increase wait times to unacceptable levels; and these delays would have a domino effect on the busy intersections, ramps, and routes which feed or connect with these two problem spots. Exhibit III -6 illustrates the cumulative impact of the Commission's various errors and misrepresentations for Intersection 1, Knowles and Winchester: • The current state (for PM Peak travel) is reported by the Commission at about a 35 second delay, placing it at the "D +" level of service grade (it may be worth noting that residents who actually travel this route during PM Peak hours report that delay times are regularly longer than 35 seconds). • The Commission calculated (in Table 4.13 -5 of the General Plan 2020 draft document) that the AHOZ (as planned in June 2010) would increase delays in this intersection to 63 seconds, bringing it to "E" level of service (unacceptable in Los Gatos). • The Commission's decision to segregate AHOZ development to the north of Los Gatos adds to the volume of traffic through the intersection, which the Commission understates in its FEIR Addendum as 84 additional trips during PM Peak hours; this would raise delay to 96 seconds, placing the intersection solidly in the "F" level of service group 2. 2 The Commission has refused to share with the residents the results of its traffic model for the direct impact of AHOZ (before any improvements). However, we have been able to approximate its results by formulating a classical queuing model with M /D /1 structure. The following results are based on this model, by adjusting arrival rates per the respective proportional increase in trips through the intersection. Iddo Hadar/ Not In My Downtown / December 2012 25 • The calculated delay is understated, since the Commission seems to (wrongly) assume that none of the residents of the affordable housing units would own a vehicle, bringing the average a vehicle per unit (across both affordable and market unit's) to only 1.0'. dride`r more realistic assumptions of 1.5 vehicles per unit, delay would grow to 267 seconds nearly 8 times longer than today's levels. Such delay would, of course, overflow the. existing intersection infrastructure.' • If the vehicle assumption is adjusted to 1.75 vehicles per unit, traffic through the intersection would come to effective standstill — longer than 22 minutes of wait time. That, of course, would completely -block traffic throughout Knowles Drive. Exhibit III -6: True Impact of AHOZ on Local Traffic Illustrating the impact of AHOZ —as originally planned and as recently segregated -on traffic delaysthrough the = :� f : -; Winchester /Knowles intersection LevelarServAe 'F' "F" Adjusting vehicle assumption (1.75 vs. 1.5) 3 See notes to Exhibit III -5 for underlying assumptions - Iddo Hadar/ Not In My Downtown/ December 2012 - 26 Affordable Housing and Property Values Los Gatos Town's Planning Commission and its staff have taken the position — in the context of the Affordable Housing Overlay Zone (AHOZ) discussion as well as through information posted to the Town's web site —that affordable housing has no negative impact on local property values. Unfortunately, that position is wrong. While a casual survey of research may suggest that affordable housing projects don't necessarily hurt property values— a close look (and more recent work) CLEARLY suggests otherwise, especially for the specific case of the proposed AHOZ. Review of Research A lot of academic work— a fair amount of which commissioned by housing authorities and affordable housing advocates — has gone into evaluating the effect of such project on local communities. A document posted to the Town's website, titled "Why Affordable Housing Does Not Lower Property Values,' provides a compilation of these studies. By and large, this work has reached weak conclusions — typically framing strong strawman hypotheses about the effect of projects and then failing to identify significant support for them (failing to support a hypothesis being a weaker conclusion than finding significant evidence to an alternative one). A few studies which have provided statistically- significant findings, are generally not broadly extendible. These studies are often based on arbitrary samples which rarely allow extrapolation of findings. For example, the attached study, "Relationships Between Affordable Housing Developments and Neighboring Property Values" (referenced on the Town's web site) cobbled together six properties — 4 of them senior homes, 2 mixed residential; 5 urban, 1 suburban; and all with apparent price /square foot of $50 -100 (100 -200 in today's market). This particular mix is hardly comparable to Los Gatos (a suburban mixed -used environment priced at over $600 per square foot). For the single property in the study which is somewhat comparable to Los Gatos (Gateway Commons) , the study found that proximity to affordable housing dropped property values by about $100,000 (adjusted for inflation). There is a fundamental research challenge in analyzing the impact of affordable housing: As in any science, in order to reach a solid conclusion, one needs a controlled experiment; but in most cases the research into affordable housing lacks proper control. And the reason is simple: There is what's called a "selection bias," since the projects being analyzed are not a random sample of development programs, but— obviously— are those that developers selected, and therefore reflect the developers' preferences and expectations. For example, in a review of the extensive work on this topic, it is quite evident that the great majority of projects analyzed are regularly constructed in abandoned, often foreclosed properties, which are becoming magnets to criminal and other undesirable activities. Why are developers selecting such areas? The attached recent paper, titled "The Effects of Low Income Housing Developments on Neighborhoods," recognizes the selection bias and directly corrects for it; for example, it notes that Idda Hadar /Affordable Housing and Property Values/ December 2012 1 "...developers differentially select gentrifyifig neighborhoods as locations for their developments. Failure to account for this selection can lead to faulty conclusions about the impact of these developments on local housing values." In other words — projects are located in areas which had been deteriorating, but are now on the mend; therefore, property values are already on a positive trend— which masks and confuses the impact of affordable housing. After adjusting for that effect, the research found that Low - Income Housing "... developments have a significantly negative impact on neighborhood incomes and increase turnover of 'owner- occupied households." They note that "...low income developments May be important in fimpeding gentrification or precipitating decline." This research finding is qualitatively different than many of the alternative analyses which have been promoted by the Los Gatos Town since a conclusion based on a.statistically7 significant model is inherently superior to conclusions based on failure to find to support for a strawman hypothesis. Implications for the Los Gatos AHOZ decision ,. Given the findings of the. latest and most robust research on the - topic,. it is surprising-that the Commission and its staff would be under the impression that affordable housing has a- neutral (or even positive) effect on its neighborhood. The research provided,as ostensible, "support" for the argument that Los Gatos.propertyvalueswould not react negatively to affordable housing fails to make the case. The so- called "findings" of the reports are either very weak (resulting from models poorly formulated so as,to reject a hypothesis), not applicable (due to improper. extrapolation from a fundamentally different setting), or tainted by selection bias. Relevant, recent, and properly- conducted research, on the other hand; clearly suggests that Los Gatos property values would react negatively to affordable housing. Even if'ohel wishbs`to entertain the possib litythat affordable housing may'have a non- negatiy .effect on the local area, no "academic work exists"to "support the'specific approach which the Commission has taken on AHOZ,— namely to concentrate the entire development in one specific. neighborhood; Under any interpretation of the research, spreading affordable housing throughout.Towh -as opposedto focusing it in one small area. —would be strictly'superior. In other words: • If the Commission's impression about the effect of affordable housing is incorrec% (as the findings in the attached work indicate) the Commissioners are putting a single community in e� incredible risk concentrating negative the effect on local neighborhoods andproperties in case the Commission is wrong If the Commission's impression is correct (counter to the recent research), it is hard to understand why Commissioners would select to concentrate such a beneficial initiative in only one small part of town; and deprive the greater Los Gatos community of its alleged positive impact on property values Roo Hadar / Affordable Housing and Property Values/ December 2012 ATTACHMENT 1 The Effects of Low Income Housing Developments on Neighborhoods Nathaniel Baum -Snow - Brown University & NBER' Justin Marion - UC Santa Cruz April 20072 1Corresponding Author Zwe thank participants of the North American Regional Science Council meetings, sem- inar participants at the University of Syracuse, Anna Aizer, Carlos Dobkin, Mike Eriksen, Andrew Foster, Vernon Henderson and Stuart Rosenthal for helpful discussions.. All errors are ours. Abstract This paper evaluates the impacts of low income housing developments on the neigh- borhoods in which they are built. A discontinuity in the formula determining the allocation of tax credits to low income housing developments as a function of neigh- borhood characteristics generates pseudo-random assignment in the number of low income housing units built in similar sets of census tracts. Estimates indicate that a 30 percent increase in the tax credit generates an increase of approximately 6 low income housing units on a base of 9 units per tract. We find that low income hous- ing developments cause median household incomes to decline by about 5 percent in neighborhoods near the 301h percentile of the income distribution and this effect decays monotonically with distance. Further, we provide evidence that developers differentially select gentrifying neighborhoods as locations for their developments. Failure to account for this selection can lead to faulty conclusions about the impact of these developments on local housing values. I Introduction A long literature going back to Schelling (1971) attempts to understand the extent to which neighborhoods change as a result of immigration of the poor. Endogenous sorting of households across neighborhoods makes it difficult to empirically isolate new neighbor effects from other factors that might drive neighborhood gentrification and decline. In this paper, we empirically examine the impacts of the influx of the poor on surrounding neighborhoods. To achieve exogenous variation in the char- acteristics of new neighbors, we exploit variation in the,location of poor households generated by rules governing the; allocation of federally. funded low income hous- ing tax credit (LIHTC) units across space. In addition, our analysis provides new evidence on the local impacts of this important federal housing program. Since its inception in 1986, the LIHTC program has subsidized the construction and renovation of over one million housing units in the United States. The federal government has committed to spending about $3 billion per year on the program in each year since 1986. Table 1 shows trends in the contribution of LIHTC subsidized housing construction to the housing stock. The growth in the number of LIHTC units during the sample period is significant.. Developers established 475 thousand LIHTC units between 1993 and 1999, making up 2.3 percent of the rental housing stock at the end of the period. By 2003, LIHTC units, accounted for 3.5. percent of rental units in the U.S. Meanwhile, the number of public housing units has declined from a peak of 2.4 million in 1995 to 1.8 million in 2003, representing 5.3 percent of rental housing units nationwide. The LIHTC expansion compensated for about half of the decline of over 20% in the stock of public housing units between 1993 and 2003. With few new public housing projects expected to be built in the future and a recent expansion in LIHTC funding, the LIHTC is now the primary project based federal housing program. We find that low income housing developments cause median household incomes within 1 km of the project site to decline by about 5 percent in neighborhoods near the 301h percentile of the income distribution. In addition, we show that owner turnover rates are higher near new LIHTC projects. These effects decay approxi- 1 mately monotonically with distance. Finally, we provide evidence that developers differentially select gentrifying neighborhoods as locations for their developments. Failure to account for this selection can lead to faulty conclusions about the impact of these developments on local housing values. Isolating causal effects of LIHTC developments requires exogenous variation in the allocation of developments across space. To achieve pseudo-random assignment in the location of developments, we exploit a discontinuity in the size of the tax credit and the probability that proposed developments receive the credit based on characteristics of the census tracts in which projects are proposed. Because these characteristics are measured using data from the 1990 census, the tracts falling on either side of the cutoff above which extra incentives are provided for LIHTC devel- opments were not identifiable prior to 1990. Using a regression discontinuity design, we demonstrate a significant response in subsidized housing supply as a result of tax credits. Estimates indicate that the 30 percent increase in the tax credit is associated with an increase of 6 low income housing units on a base of 9 units per tract. The cost of the regression discontinuity approach taken here is that without strong and probably unreasonable assumptions about the homogeneity of treatment effects as a function of neighborhood characteristics, it only allows us to make statements about the impact of low income housing developments for areas that are fairly poor, though not extremely poor. A model presented below demonstrates that the in- centives of developers to build low income versus market rate housing may differ markedly by local economic conditions. Data presented below indicate that poorer tracts receive more low income units on average than richer tracts, and only part of this pattern is explained by higher tax incentives to develop in lower income tracts. This paper builds on a body of research assessing the impact of subsidized housing on neighborhoods. Schwartz et al. (forthcoming) examine the impact of housing developments in New York City. Using detailed repeat sales data to measure housing values, they find that while low income housing developments are located in relatively depressed neighborhoods, they have large positive effects on local housing values. Furthermore, they find larger effects for more depressed neighborhoods. Green PJ et al. (2002) present weak evidence that LIHTC projects in Milwaukee decrease property values but show mixed evidence for other areas. Cummings & DiPasquale (1999) and McClure (2000) examine the extent to which the LIHTC efficiently finances new housing construction and serves its intended low income population. They find that over time the tax credit dollars that end up fund- ing construction and rehabilitation have increased as state authorities have added cost oversight. Cummings & DiPasquale provide evidence that LIHTC projects that received the higher tax credits are more costly to develop than other similar projects. They also present evidence of increasing returns to scale. Finally, they demonstrate that LIHTC residents are likely sufficiently wealthy to'rent unsubsidized "apartments in poor neighborhoods. We provide further evidence to this effect. This paper proceeds as follows. Section 2 describes the LIHTC program. Section 3 proposes a model that provides intuition about the incentives faced by LIHTC developers. Section 4 discusses the data and empirical methodology. Section 5 presents estimates of the impact of the LIHTC program on housing supply. In Section 5, we demonstrate that the discontinuity in the size of the tax credit and in the probability of granting the credit generates a significant response in the number of new low income units constructed for census tracts with otherwise sirinlar attributes. Section 6 evaluates the impacts of subsidized rental units on neighborhood outcomes and argues that responses are likely from the demand side of the housing market. Finally, Section 7 discusses implications for policy and concludes. 2 The LIHTC Program The LIHTC program was established as part of the Tax Reform Act of 1986 to en- courage redevelopment of poor areas with quality rental housing. In every year, Congress allocates to states a fixed amount per resident exclusively for tax credits to low income housing developers to be paid out over the subsequent 10 years.' Poten- tial projects must meet one of two criteria to be eligible for the tax credit. Either at 'Congress allocated 51.25 per resident all years 1986 to 2001 except 1989 when it allocated $0.93. In 2001, funding was increased to 81.75 per resident. 3 least 20 percent of the units must be occupied by tenants earning below 50 percent of the Area Median Gross Income (AMGI) or at least 40 percent of units must be occupied by tenants earning below 60 percent of the AMGI.Z Annual rents on these units cannot exceed 30 percent of the relevant income limit. Since the program's inception, over 95 percent of units in projects supported by the program qualified as low income, implying that the second criterion represents the preponderance of projects. The rent requirement binds for 15 years, after which some less restrictive rent restriction is required for an additional 15 years. The cost of constructing or rehabilitating the rent restricted units (excluding land) is known as the "qualified basis ". The base level of the tax credit is intended to have a discounted value of 30 percent of the qualified basis for existing projects or federally subsidized projects and 70 percent for new construction or substantial rehabilitation.' In 1989, Congress passed legislation to increase the tax credit by 30 percent for projects developed in "qualified" census tracts (QCTs) or "difficult development areas" (DDAs). A census tract counts as qualified if 50% of its households have incomes below 60% of AMGI, with the restriction that no more than 20% of the population of any metropolitan area may live in a qualified tract. Tracts with the highest fraction eligible get priority for assignment to qualified status. Because of this population restriction, only 96 percent of metropolitan census tracts above the cutoff qualify. Tracts' qualified status is assigned using decennial census data, and is thus only revised every 10 years. The 50 percent threshold is the cutoff that we exploit in this paper to provide exogenous variation in low income housing units across sets of very similar census tracts. Metropolitan areas with the highest ratio of fair market rent to AMGI up to 20 percent of the national urban population qualify as difficult development areas. While we look at changes in outcomes between 1990 and 2000, we focus on exogenous variation in LIFITC developments built between 1994 and 2The AMGI is calculated by the Department of Housing and Urban Development for all metropolitan areas and counties using data from the Internal Revenue Service, the American Hous- ing Survey and the decennial Census of Population and Housing. 3Each year, this amounts to about 4% or 9% of eligible basis tax credit over the course of 10 years. IV 1999 because 1994 was the first full year in which qualified status was assigned using 1990 census tabulations. Further, we only observe the universe of LIHTC projects built after 1994. In each year of the program, all but a few states have allocated all of their avail - able LIHTC money.4 As such, within the guidelines explained above, the states have some latitude on whether to accept projects proposed by developers into the program. Each 'state is required to have a "Qualified Allocation Plan" (QAP) to determine whether applications for developments merit receiving the tax credit. In most states, the QAP designates the number of points to be allocated for various ele- ments of each project proposal. The points are added up and projects are selected in order until the money runs out. While selection criteria differ by state, they include location, local housing demand conditions; whether funding can be "sl ared with other government programs, resident characteristics, project activities, building character- istics and costs. As of 2001, 29 states gave extra points to projects proposed for tracts with qualified status, independent of DDA status, as part of the location cri- teria.' In addition, a large fraction of states allocated extra points for development proposals that had fewer units than average. Most states give priority to rehabilita- tion over new construction to the point that almost all proposed rehabilitations get funded. Table 2 shows trends in LIHTC subsidized new construction and total renter occupied units between 1990 and 2000 as a function of the fraction of households eligible to pay reduced rents. Table 2 demonstrates that LIHTC subsidized rental units are more concentrated in poor areas. While only 9 percent of the growth in 'rental units between 1990 and 2000 in tracts with between 0 and 40 percent of households eligible for reduced rents was LIHTC subsidized, 49 percent of the increase in 51 -60 percent eligible tracts was L114TC subsidized. In the poorest areas, while the aggregate stock of rental units declined by 130 thousand units, the stock, of LIHTC units increased by 27 thousand units. One component of a thorough analysis of the welfae consequences of subsidized 4Statesare allowed to roll over'asy unused funds for one year.' - 'Gustafson L Walker (2002) provide a summary of state QAPs in 1990 and 2001. 5 housing units for poor households is to estimate the number of units that would have been built absent the subsidy, also known as "crowd out ". Table 2 shows that even in the richest areas, 64 percent of rental apartments in the private market rented at below LIHTC regulated rents in 2000, up from 49 percent in 1990. In the poorest areas, the market rate was below the regulated rent for 85 percent of apartments rented in 2000, up from 80 percent in 1990. Given these rents and the fact that most LIHTC renters have incomes just below the eligibility cutoff of 60 percent of AMGI (Wallace, 1995), it appears likely that significant crowd -out of market provided units exists due to LIHTC units. This suggestive evidence of significant crowd -out is consistent with that reported in Sinai & Waldfogel (2005), who find that project based developments including public housing exhibit about 70 percent crowd -out. We present further evidence in support of almost complete crowd out in Section 6. Table 3 presents summary statistics about LIHTC developments, demographics and housing characteristics for the same regions as those examined in Table 2. The top part of the table demonstrates a large jump of 7.1 in the average number of LIHTC subsidized units established between 1994 and 1999 across the tax credit discontinuity. More projects partly accounts for this difference, but most of it can be explained by the fact that projects installed in tracts that barely qualify have 26.9 more units on average than projects in tracts just below the discontinuity. In order for the regression discontinuity strategy to yield consistent parameter estimates, unobserved tract characteristics that influence outcomes of interest must not vary discontinuously across the policy threshold. We can partially evaluate the validity of this assumption by examining the extent to which observable tract characteristics vary across the threshold. The lower two sections of Table 3 show demographics and housing characteristics in 1990 as a function of neighborhood incomes. The final column of Table 3 shows estimated regression discontinuity (RD) coefficients at the qualified status threshold controlling for county fixed effects with the given observable characteristics as dependent variables. Consistent with the raw data, few observables have large estimated RD coefficients. Most demographic and housing characteristics vary insignificantly across the discontinuity at 50 percent R eligibility. Of the variables examined, only population, total housing units, log median household income and the fraction of owner occupied Housing units that were detached differ significantly across 'the qualified threshold and then magnitudes are small. In order to maintain continuity of baselIA6 variables across the tax credit discontinuity, we always control for county fixed effects in the empirical analysis to follow. We directly handle the smaller initial population and number of housing units in qualified tracts in the estimation methodology developed in Section 4. Table 3 also characterizes the neighborhoods near the QCT eligibility threshold, from which we obtain exogenous variation inUHTC developments.' These neighborhoods have an average poverty rate of 25 percent, are about 30 'percent black and '60 percent high'school graduate. Rents are about $395 per month as measured in 1990 dollars. 3 The LIHTC Development Decision In this section, we model the decision to develop LIHTC projects faced by a profit maximizing developer. The key endogenous elements of the model are LIHTC project location and size. The model generates a positive supply response to the tax credit. In addition, it provides a framework for analyzing the potential endogenous selection of LIHTC developments to areas with higher expected future housing values. Following presentation of the model, we demonstrate that as predicted by the model, the amount of LIHTC development empirically depends on prevailing local housing market characteristics. 3.1 The Model We consider a two-period model -In the first period, LIHTC units rent for the minimum of market rent rl- and LIHTG'regulated rent. In the second period, the expected, discounted rent net of maintenance cost for all units is r2. The marginal cost of constructing or rehabilitating each unit is c, whicli is potentially reduced by the,tax_ credit of it- percent. - Applications) for the tax credit cost: K to potential LIHTC developers. Each area has N sites for which developers can either propose 7 low income housing developments or build market rate units.6 Developers receive a fixed cost draw f from the distribution G(f) for each potential development site. The fixed cost parameter includes land preparation and acquisition costs, which include the opportunity cost of developing market rate units. Therefore, it may vary systematically with rl. Assuming that f is random captures the idea that potential development sites differ in terrain or the size of existing structures to be demolished or rehabilitated. The government accepts LIHTC tax credit proposals with some probability P(q, t), where q is the number of units proposed and t is the tax credit that varies with qual- ified status. State qualified action plans indicate that smaller projects and projects located in qualified tracts are preferred. As such, we assume that PQ < 0 and Pt > 0. Based on the observation that over 95% of total units constructed in LIHTC subsi- dized projects are low income, we allow accepted projects to include no market rate units. In areas where LIHTC regulated rents are at or above market rents, a potential developer's expected profit function at each site is given by H(q,t)= P(q,t)[q(r - c(1— t) +r2) -f] -x. (1) The developer's first -order condition is Pq[q(rl — c(1 — t) + r2) — f] + Ph — c(1 — t) + r2] = 0. (2) The probability a project proves profitable is therefore 7r(q, t) = G (q(rr, - c(1 — t) + r2) - P) . (3) Because the support of G is over higher values of / in higher rent areas, the prob- ability any potential development site in these areas proves profitable for LIHTC development may be very low. This prediction is roughly consistent with data in 'In the empirical work below, we treat either census tracts or census blocks as having N available development sites. 5 Table 3 showing 'that the prevalence of LIHTC developments is low in rich neighbor- hoods. We now characterize how the developer's choice of project size, the probability of investment', and the total number of observed installed units in a location respond to qualified' 'status through the tax credit. While in reality qualified tracts receive a 30 percent higher tax credit, we model the move from unqualified to qualified as a marginal change in order analyze the relevant incentives with a minimum of notational cost. The analytical results presented beiow can be derived using a similar logic in the discrete case. Not:sufpri'sirigly, the- number of units per project likely responds positively to small changes in the tax credit. Using the implicit function theorem- on (2), we see that Dq' _ _ Pgt [q` (rr — c(1 — t) + r2) — f) + Pgcq` + Pt (ri — c(1 — t) +T2) + Pc at P94[q* (rr — c(1 — t) +T2) — f] + 2Pg[rr, — c(1 —t) +r2] (4) which is positive if the magnitude of PQ is sufficiently small and Pt > 0. Developers face a trade -off in their choice of q, since increasing the number of units increases profits conditional on acceptance yet reduces the likelihood of proposal acceptance. The terms in the numerator capture how the tax credit alters this trade -off, as increasing the tax credit increases the profit per unit and reduces the adverse effects of size if Pqt > 0. In the extreme case, if the base number of units and marginal cost are large, it may be optimal to reduce the number of units proposed. The marginal effect of the tax credit on the probability a project is proposed is d7r K 1 dt =9(') 4c +P2Pt, >0. (5) The investment response combines two effects. _First, higher tax credits indicate a higher per unit profit, increasing the probability that a project's expected profit clears the fixed cost hurdle. Second, the probability of project acceptance rises, and °Locally funded incentives and legal restrictions such as inclusionary zoning ordinances likely generate the small number of LIHTC developments in high rent census tracts. 9 the importance of this depends on the size of the application cost.8 In places with no preferences for projects located in qualified tracts, the second term in brackets disappears. By utilizing data on applications, we will examine the probability that projects are proposed as a function of the tax credit, as expressed in (5). The actual number of installed projects is given by I = NP(q, t)7r(q, t). The response of I to the tax credit depends on the probability of a project being proposed and the probability it is chosen given that an application was submitted: DI rat = PtNG(-) + PNO 7t) > 0. (6) Given that units per project q* is increasing in the tax credit, we see that the total number of low income units should also be greater in qualified tracts. The model indicates that we should see a positive response of applications, in- stalled projects, and installed units to the tax credit. A final important implication of the model is that the location of LIHTC developments is endogenous to expected future rent r2. Conditional on the tax credit, LIHTC developments are more likely to be established in areas with higher expected future rents. That is, al — P4 NG(•)2q : +PN� O >0 (7) �r2 aT2 OT2 As seen in (7), assessing the effects of low income housing developments on hous- ing values requires accounting for the selection of developments into areas with higher expected future rents. It is straightforward to see that this nonrandom selection occurs to a greater extent in qualified tracts than in other areas. That is, the mar- ginally treated area is likely to be further down the distribution of expected future rents than the marginal non treated area. The next major section describes how the regression discontinuity estimator that we employ purges our estimates of this selection bias. 'The Envelope Theorem ensures that the term capturing the endogenous response of q is 0. 10 3.2 Further Empirical Observations Table 4 provides information on the importance of LIHTC units in local housing markets. We split the data by DDA status and by whether the state gives preference for projects in qualified areas. LIHTC units represent a less important part of the housing stock in DDAs relative to other areas. In particular, while LIHTC units represent 16 percent of the rental housing,built between 1990 and 2000 in 40 to 50 percent eligibility tracts outside of DDAs, they represent only 10 percent in DDAs. Across the qualified threshold, LIHTC units represent 29 percent of new rental housing outside of DDAs relative to just 15 percent inside DDAs. This gap is not surprising given that the available tax credit is the same for both groups in this subsainple whereas DDAs have higher construction,-:costs and a higher opportunity cost of developing low income units, as measured by fair market rents. In addition, Table 4 documents that LIHTC units form a particularly important part of the housing stock in low income areas, representing 27 percent of new rental units. Near the policy threshold, LIHTC construction accounts for 13 percent of new rental units in areas with 40 -50 percent of households income eligible and 24 percent of new rental units in areas between 50 and 60 percent income eligible. One potential benefit of LIHTC units relative to market provided units is quality. Indeed, in most states LIHTC applications receive extra points if the proposed units are large enough to house families. Table 5 demonstrates that this quality difference, as measured by the number of bedrooms, is quite large. Panel A "shows the distribu- tion of bedrooms in LIHTC units while Panels 13 and C present analogous statistics for rental units in census tract and micro data respectively. The distribution of bed- rooms in LIHTC units closely resembles that observed in the broader market. The modal LIHTC unit, 'representing 43 percent of the total, has two bedrooms. This is close to the 40 percent of units in the market with two bedrooms. Similarly, 29 percent of LIHTC units have one bedroom compared with 32 percent of units in the census. Average market rental unit sizes increases monotonically with 'area area income. However, LIHTC units are of similar size regardless of tract income. If the number of bedrooms is an indicator of quality, this suggests that while the LIHTC program is 11 meant to target lower income households, LIHTC housing may in fact be preferable to surrounding units in the same neighborhood. In addition to showing that LIHTC units are on average of higher quality than market units, Table 5 also shows that LIHTC unit size increases across the qualified threshold. We conjecture that this is likely to be a strategic response by developers to increase the probability of project acceptance. 4 Empirical Approach The primary objective of this paper is to estimate the change between 1990 and 2000 in various outcomes y that have occurred in response to the treatment of low- income projects or units x installed nearby. We first consider how to estimate parameters of interest using tract level data. We then generalize our methodology to allow for estimation of the distribution of causal effects as a function of distance using data that is geographically disaggregated beyond the tract level. The final part of this section discusses how we construct the data. 4.1 Basic Empirical Model We endeavor to estimate the parameter 01 in the equation Dyk = Np + N 1xk + b'Zk + Ek (8) where k indexes some unit of geography and Zk is a vector of initial characteristics that may influence the outcome. As argued in the previous section, estimating the specification described by (8) using OLS regression does not generally yield consistent estimates of ,61 since the error term ek is unlikely to be orthogonal to the treatment 5k. The probability a project is proposed in a particular tract, and whether this proposal is ultimately accepted, is likely to be related to some unobserved tract characteristic that also influences the change in the outcome Dyk. Developers and state housing authorities likely form expectations regarding changes in a host of neighborhood 12 characteristics like future rents and demographics that cannot be predicted with variables in Z when proposing and selecting projects. To overcome the problems in identifying 01 presented by the potentially en- dogenous "relationship between changes in neighborhood characteristics and LIHTC projects, we employ a regression discontinuity design that exploits rules governing the assignment of tax credits to projects. As described above, projects located in qualified tracts are eligible for extra tax credits and in some states are given preferen- tial status in scoring LIHTC applications. Qualified. status-is based on the fraction of households in a tract with incomes of less than 60 percent of the adjusted metropol- itan' area median gross income. If greater than 50 percent of households meet this criterion, then a tract is considered qualified.' This eligibility cutoff generates a discontinuity in the likelihood that projects located in a tract receive additional tax credits. We will begin by using the resulting discontinuity in -a first -stage specification of the number of LIHTC units. The first stage equation implied by the regression discontinuity at the census tract level is Xi - BYO + 71 Di + f (ei) + G�Zi + ui (9) where the running variable ei represents the fraction of households meeting the in- come requirement and i indexes census tracts. Di = 1 if ei > 0.5 and 0 otherwise. The control function, f (ei), of the running variable is a cubic polynomial excluding constant terms where the cutoff is subtracted from ei and the polynomial coefficients are allowed to differ below and above the cutoff. The covariates captured in the vector Z should be orthogonal to the treatment variable D; conditional on ei, and are included' as a robustness check and to improve precision. Commensurate with the discussion of Table 3 above, we always include county fixed effects as part of Z. We remain agnostic about appropriate additional controls. As such, below we present results using several different sets of control variables. The! red uded form relationslup'betweeii the change in the tract -level outcome Ay; 'This rule only creates a fuzzy discontinuity since at most 20 percent of metro area population can reside in qualified tracts. As a result, only 96 percent of tracts that meet the eligibility criteria are in fact qualified. 13 and the eligibility for extra tax credits is given by Dyi = ao + a1Di + f (ez) + AZ +77 . (10) Together with the estimate of -yl, the estimate of al can be used to obtain an Indirect Least Squares estimate of the parameter of interest, Nl = aryl, The estimated coefficient 01 is consistent provided the error tern ci does not change discontinuously across the threshold e; = 0.5. This estimator also purges any bias arising from selection due to missing project level data fro* m the estimate of N1. 4.2 Generalizing The Geography Evaluating the effects of LIHTC developments at the census tract level presents several difficulties. If the process that generates the response of Y to x operates as a function of distance, tract level regressions may provide inconsistent estimates of the response because not all census tracts are the same size. The wide variation in tract sizes generates variation in the distances to projects within tracts that is akin to a measurement error problem. Incorporating information from surrounding tracts may also improve efficiency by incorporating all useful identifying information. Data on many outcomes including housing values are available for block groups, a more disaggregated level of geography than census tracts. Using this more disaggregated data allows us to more precisely measure how the treatment changes as a function of distance. To handle these extensions, we assume that the process generating the treatment occurs at the census block level while the effects of the treatment occur as functions of distance to block group centroids. We have data on outcomes at the block group level and we observe the exact locations of LIHTC projects. Define r to index rings of width 0.5 km that are centered at each block group centroid. We aim to estimate the vector of equations given by (11). Dy9 = () + alrxgr +YZg + egr (11) 14 where g indexes block group and xg, gives the number of units or projects in rings r about the centroid of block group g. As with (8), equation (11) may be misspecified due to unobserved variables correlated with xgr that influence Ayg. To obtain ex- ogenous variation in the number of projects in a ring, we use the tax credit rules by summing (9) across tracts i within ring r to create the number of units or projects in each ring. xgr= �Bigr('%0 +7r Di +f(ei) +G'Zi +ui) (12) i(gr) where Big, is the number of census blocks in ring r around block group g that are in tract i. This formulation implies that we can use, Ei(g,,) BigrDi as an instrumental variable for xgr when estimating the following equation. Dys=0o +yrrxsr +�[Big, (Jo +f(ei) +Q'Zi] +6Zg +Eg (13) i(gr) Assuming the empirical model in (9) captures the data generating process for x at the census block level, inclusion of the aggregated polynomial control function terms ensures that the instrument is orthogonal to the error term eg. The strategy outlined above allows for identification of the pararnoter of interest 01 by exploiting variation in the fraction of blocks in rings aroinid each block group qualifying for the higher tax credit. By holding geography constant and measuring outcomes at the block group level rather than the tract level, this strategy makes more efficient use of available information and allows for identification of a more diverse set of treatment effects. 4.3 " Data The Department of Housing and Urban Development makes available data on LIHTC projects placed in service from 1987 through 2003. These data,provide information regarding specific project location including the geocoded project street address, census tract, and metropolitan statistical area. In addition, these data report infor- mation regarding the size of projects through the number of units and the number 15 of units reserved for those individuals qualifying for reduced rent. For a majority of projects, the distribution of unit size by number of bedrooms is also provided. Other project level characteristics include the type of construction (new versus rehab), and whether the project qualified for extra tax credits through an increase in the eligible basis. In all, the data provide information on 24,504 projects. Unfortunately, missing data is a significant difficulty. Information on project location is missing for 9.5 percent of projects, the number of units is missing for 4.9 percent of these projects, tract qualified status is missing for 9.7 percent of observations, 13.5 percent are missing DDA status, and 37.3 percent are missing data on the number of bedrooms. Assuming that missing information on location does not differ across the 50 percent eligibility cutoff, missing data problems, while regrettable, do not adversely affect our empirical strategy. Because the first year in which 1990 census information was used to determine QCT status was 1993, we focus only on projects allocated in 1994 or later to allow for lead time in project planning.10 Since the outcome variables we will examine are partly built using 2000 census data, we further restrict our sample to projects placed in service in 1999 or earlier. Finally, because of different rules for the allocation of tax credits in rural areas, we only consider projects placed in metropolitan areas. We combine the data on LIHTC projects with census tract and block group level data from 1990 and 2000 normalized to 1990 geography. These data provide in- formation on demographic characteristics, housing values, and characteristics of the housing stock. We observe relevant variables such as the number of renter and owner occupied units, median rents, and the local vacancy rate. We use similar data from the 1980 census normalized to 1990 tract geography to examine the relationship be- tween the number of projects and neighborhood growth and decline. Normalizations are done using population allocation factors derived from census block geography re- ported by the Census Bureau. The sample used for all regressions only include areas in census tracts with between 20 and 80 percent eligibility. This restriction leads us to drop 29 percent of the 45,305 metropolitan area census tracts and 27 percent of 10Information on the universe of LIHTC projects is available only after 1994. 16 the 166,443 block groups for which we have data. In addition, we exclude from the sample 14,638 block groups that are greater than 47r in area. One drawback to the LIHTC data is that it only contains information on projects placed in service. An observed project is one that was both proposed and selected by a state housing authority. To disentangle the supply decisions of firms from the preferences of state housing authorities, it is worthwhile to know about projects that were rejected. To this end, we collected data for all 690 applications made in California, Texas, and New Jersey in 2004 and 2005. These states Bost a large number of LIHTC projects, make applications data readily available, and contain states both with and without preferences based on'QCT status. The applications information contains location by census tract,'the number of units, the Qualified Action Plan score resulting from the project evaluation, and whether the application was accepted or rejected. Figure 1 illustrates the nature of the data used for the analysis. It shows a map of the North and West sides of Chicago. Figure 1 shows census tracts shaded by eligible household fraction, block group centroids and LIHTC projects. As is consistent with the evidence presented above, the poorer'region at the lower left to the West of the Loop received considerably more LIHTC projects than other areas. Outside the West side, there are two distinct pockets of poor tracts. The tracts including the Cabrini Green housing project include a cluster of projects as does the Uptown .neighborhood in the upper part of the map. Census tracts just above the qualified threshold (shaded light blue ) are noticeably more likely to receive projects than other areas. This phenomenon is particularly noticeable in Uptown. Wealthy areas only have a few scattered projects. Figure 1 also indicates the extent to which the use of block groups rather than census tracts 'improves the spatial density of the data. 17 5 Housing Supply Results 5.1 Tract Level Estimates Table 6 presents a variety of tract level "first stage" estimates of the impacts of the 30 percent additional tax credit on various measures of LIHTC housing sup- ply. Each element of Table 6 is an estimate of yl under different specifications of (9). Panel A shows estimated impacts of the additional tax credit on number of units, units per 1990 stock of rentals, number of projects and units per project using data from both rehabilitation and new construction projects. Specification 1 includes only the cubic control function as explanatory variables. Conditional on this control function, there are 6 more units per tract estimated to be caused by the tax credit. This amounts to a 2 percent increase in the housing stock. This response of LIHTC units comes in part because qualified tracts received 0.06 more projects conditional on the control function and in part because projects in qualified tracts had 19 additional units on average. Each estimate except that for units per project is precisely estimated. Figure 2 plots predicted values of the cubic control functions and average values of outcome variables within percentile bins against the fraction of eligible households. Graphs in Figure 2 exhibit noticeable discontinuities at the QCT eligibility threshold." Specifications shown in columns 2 -4 of Table 6 show additional analogous esti- mates of -yr when more controls are included in the regression. The controls are county fixed effects, distance to MSA central business districts, demographic charac- teristics of the tract including racial composition, education, median family income, poverty rate, and population density, and 1990 tract housing characteristics includ- ing unit vacancy rate, rental share of units, log of total Units, average building age, average number of bedrooms, and the fraction of units comprised of detached houses, attached units, and mobile homes. If the control function is adequately accounting for the association between supply and the fraction of eligible households, we would u We bootstrap the standard errors clustering at the county level. The identifying assumption for consistent estimation of standard errors is thus independence of observations between but not within counties. LU expect that adding further controls would have little impact on the estimated discon- tinuity in supply at the threshold. Indeed, adding county fixed effects in column 3, tract demographic controls in column 4, and tract Housing characteristics in column 5 generates little change in the estimated supply discontinuity. Only the coefficient on units per project changes markedly. The impact of the additional tax credit on this outcome is consistently estimated less precisely than the others at least in part because only the 9.6 percent of tracts that received projects are in the estimation sample. Table Al displays results of estimated regression 'discontinuity coefficients for placebo QCT, eligibility thresholds. We show estimates of the supply specifications with the full ,set of ,controls at eligibility thresholds of 0.3, 0,4, 0.6, 0.7 and -for comparison purposes the true value of 0.5. With only a few exceptions, the estimated discontinuity at the placebo thresholds are statistically insignificant and closer to zero than the estimates using the true eligibility threshold. Table 6 Panels B and C display results of regressions analogous to those in Panel A except that LIFITC projects are separated into new construction and rehabilitations separately. While it is impossible to achieve independent exogenous variation in the two variables using the qualified status discontinuity, we, show first stage results for these two types of projects in order to better understand the type of project that primarily drives the neighborhood level results presented in the next section. Panel B reports the results for new construction projects. In the full specification, we estimate that 4 additional new units are, built in,QCTsjust above the threshold, representing the majority of the 6 additional units of all types received by these tracts. The other measures of supply tell a similar, story. The discontinuity in normalized new.units is estimated to be 0,01 and the. estimated discontinuity in new projects is 0.05. As with the results for. all projects, the estimated discontinuity in new LIIITC developments is not sensitive to, the inclusion of controls for county area fixed effects; or demographics and .housing characteristics. Finally,, the discontinuity in units per, project is slightly larger for new projects, however it is still statistically insignificant. Iii, Panel C, we report similar estimates for rehabilitatioh projects: With the exception of units per project, these estimates merely represent the difference be- 19 tween the results displayed in Panels A and B. The estimated discontinuity at the QCT threshold is statistically insignificant for each measure of the supply of rehab projects. In the full specification, tracts just above the threshold receive 2 extra re- hab units, 0.003 more normalized rehab units, and 0.01 additional rehab projects on average. These results indicate that approximately one quarter of the supply effect of the QCT designation is through rehabilitations. Finally, rehab projects in tracts meeting the QCT requirement are larger by 11 units per project, however as with new construction this estimate is not statistically significant. 5.2 Evidence from Applications Data The additional projects and units observed in QCTs can either be due to developers proposing more projects or to states accepting projects with a higher probability. In this subsection, we investigate the potential importance of these two mechanisms by estimating the effect of QCT designation using data on applications to the LIHTC program. If all profitable projects are proposed, then the response of proposed units to the QCT designation yields the supply response of units to higher anticipated tax credits. Similarly, we can evaluate the importance of the state's preference for projects located in QCTs by examining the change in the acceptance rate of projects as a result of QCT status. In 2003 the QCT criterion was expanded to allow tracts with a poverty rate exceeding 25 percent to be considered a QCT. The applications data are from 2004 and 2005, so we use the additional information provided by the tract poverty rate when estimating the effect of QCT status on applications. Rather than estimating the discontinuity at the 0.5 income eligibility cutoff, we instead include control functions for both eligible fraction and poverty rate and instrument for QCT status using indicator variables for whether tracts meet the income and poverty rate requirements. The reported estimates are IV coefficients that summarize the effect of QCT status on application decisions. Table 7 Panel A displays estimated pure supply responses using applications data from California, Texas and New Jersey in 2004 and 2005. As with the number of 20 installed units, we observe a significant supply response to the QCT designation. QCT tracts: feceive proposals for an extra 17 units on average, controlling for only the cubic control functions. Adding additional tract controls changes' the coefficient only slightly to 18. We also find a significant effect for the number of proposed LIHTC units as a fraction of 1990 tract rental units. 'Much of the higher estimated number of units is due to more proposed projects, as QCT tracts receive 0.15 more applications. Units per proposed project also seem to be higher in the tracts qualifying for higher tax credits, however this is imprecisely estimated. Table 7 Panel B shows estimated effects of QCT status on the number of accepted projects using the same applications data. We'eWhiate thaetracts- 'd`e'signated as QCTs see an additional 4 accepted units. This coefficient is similar in magnitude to that estimated in Table 6 Panel A, though in this case it is not statistically significant. We also estimate positive but statistically insignificant effects of QCT status on the number of normalized accepted units and number of accepted. projects. These results, combined with those in Panel A, suggest that the discontinuity in supply we documented in Table 6 is at least in part due to a greater developer willingness to locate projects in qualified tracts. Evidence in Table 7 also shows that only about one - quarter of the additional proposals above the threshold are actually accepted, implying that developers may be reaping large profits from, LIHTC developments. 5.3 Ring Level First Stage Results As discussed in Section 4.2, we exaiiine the effects'of'LIHTC projects using data on outcomes at the block group level. Table 8 presents first stage `estimates of ryl r from Equation (12): Each entry is from a separate regression and can'be interpreted as the additronah, uinber of projects or units built p6 'census block`as a result of the additional 30 percent tax credit. We impose a radius of 1 km`ori the inner ring rather. than 0.5 km in order to provide sufficient variation to produce tightly estimated parameters. Standard errors are clustered at the metropolitan arda level. This level of clustering allows for a more general covariance structure of the error term than would' be implied assuming error covariances decay monotonically with 21 Euclidean distance. Therefore, standard errors are overstated. Nevertheless, it should be noted that beyond 2.5 km clustered standard errors imply a weak first stage. Specification (1) of Table 8 displays the estimated coefficients for each distance ring, controlling only for the eligible household control function, county fixed effects, and the member of census blocks in the ring interacted with county fixed effects. The estimated effect of tax credits on the number of projects per block varies between 0.005 and 0.016, depending on the ring distance. Column (4) shows analogous es- timates including a full array of controls. These estimates are similar at between 0.004 and 0.013 additional projects per block because of qualified status. The right half of Table 8 shows similar estimates for the number of installed units. The esti- mates displayed in Column (7) show that the higher number of projects corresponds to between 0.36 and 0.47 additional units per block in response to the greater tax credit. Again, these estimates change only slightly when the full set of controls are included, as shown in Column (10). We also report first stage estimates for the samples of tracts in gentrifying and declining neighborhoods. We define gentrifying areas as those block groups experi- encing an increase in real housing values between 1980 and 1990. Each subsample represents roughly half of the full sample. In every ring, gentrifying areas received more projects and units as a result of the extra tax credit than did declining areas. This evidence is consistent with the prediction from the model that LIHTC devel- opers prefer locating projects in gentrifying neighborhoods. The results reported in Table 8 Columns (1), (4), (7) and (10) form the first stage for the neighborhood outcome results discussed in the next section. We have demonstrated in this section that LIHTC housing supply responds sig- nificantly across the tax credit discontinuity. Unfortunately, the results presented in Tables 6 -8 do not provide much information on the nature of the LIHTC developers' cost function. The reason is that both the size of the tax credit and the probability of proposal acceptance change across the qualified status discontinuity. Because we do not observe application data from the relevant period, we cannot distinguish between these forces. Instead, we focus on using the exogenous variation provided by the 22 qualified status discontinuity to study the effects of low income housing developments on their surrounding neighborhoods. This is the goal of the next section. 6 LIHTC Projects and Neighborhood Outcomes In this section, we evaluate the extent to which LIHTC projects influence neighbor- hood outcomes. We find that LIHTC developments have a significantly negative impact on neighborhood incomes and increase turnover of owner- occupied house- holds. Based on evidence that the quantity of owner occupied units changed little or fell`in'response to new LIHTC units nearby, we interpret our estimates as.captur- ing shifts in the demand for living in neighborhoods with new LIHTC developments. Declining median area incomes points to negative peer effects or stigma of living near LIHTC projects as potential explanations for these demand shifts. A standard strategy for evaluating the valuation of a local amenity developed by Rosen (1974) is to estimate the response in house values to exogenous shocks in the amenity. We focus primarily -'On median incomes and owner churn rates as measures of neighborhood trajectory because they are available at the block group level of aggregation and provide tighter estimates than are available using housing values,. In • similar paper, Chay and Greenstone (2005) apply Rosen's methodology along with • regression discontinuity design to examine how homeowners value improvements in air pollution. They exploit discontinuities in regulatory intensity across counties to identify the valuation of a change in clean air through changes in housing values. Our strategy is analogous with the addition of the ring level aggregation developed above. 6.1 Impacts on Neighborhood Outcomes Table 9 reports regression discontinuity IV estimates of 01 in Equation (13) for two outcomes of interest. Table 9 Panel A shows negative responses' of block group log median household, income to nearby low income development's. By our estimates; each new development causes about a 5 percent decline in median Household income 23 within 1 km. The magnitude of this decline falls with distance to new projects such that beyond 2.5 lcrn we find effects of less than 0.02 in absolute value. It is important to realize that this shift in the composition of neighborhood population does not appear to be due in large part to the tenants in LIHTC projects. With the average project including about 60 units and the average 1 km ring with 1,000 units, tenant incomes would have to be drastically lower than neighborhood incomes to generate the estimated declines in neighborhood income. nrthermore, projects built 1 to 1.5 km away show similar effects on median incomes as projects built in the inner ring, where the block groups associated with the data on outcomes are located. We therefore interpret these income changes as primarily reflecting changes in the composition of non -LIHTC renters and owners. Table 9 Panel B reports estimated effects of LIHTC developments on the fraction of owners who moved between 1990 and 2000 in each block group. Point esti- mates for inner distance rings are consistently positive at 3.4 percentage points per project within 1 kin, 6.7 percentage points per project between 1 and 1.5 km and 2.9 percentage points per project between 1.5 and 2 km. All of these estimates are sta- tistically significant with controls and are stable across specifications. The average fraction of owners moving between 1990 and 2000 in census tracts with between 40 and 60 percent eligible households is 0.45. Estimates for rings beyond 2 km are not statistically different from 0. This marked increased churn rate of due to LIHTC projects is consistent with LIHTC projects inducing a downward shift in neighbor- hood desirability. A similar exercise reveals that the impact of LIHTC projects on the fraction of renters moving between 1990 and 2000 is not statistically significant for any distance ring. 12 Understanding the selection process used by developers for site location is crucial to the interpretation of our results. Evidence from the model and the first stage results reported in Table 8 provides support for the claim that LIHTC developers endeavor to locate in gentrifying areas. As such, a key potential threat to iden- tification of the impact of low income housing developments on any neighborhood outcome is the selection of developments into gentrifying neighborhoods. Such a se- "The census does not separately tabulate incomes by housing tenure to the block group level. 24 lection process would generate a positive correlation between LIHTC developments and housing values that is not causal. Table 10 examines the impact of LIHTC projects and units on reported values of owner - occupied single family homes at various distances from new LIHTC develop- ments. We use single family homes because this is the housing value measure that is reported consistently over time by the Census Bureau. Panel A reports coefficients from OLS regressions of the change in block group log median Housing values on the number of LIHTC projects or units built within the listed distance rings. These results consistently indicate a positive 'equilibrium relationship be$ween gentrifica- tion and the location of LIHTC developments regardless of`specification or distance ring. These estimates exhibit one particularly curious feature that calls into question their validity. Their magnitudes, while small, hardly attenuate with distance. This may reflect the fact that the location of gentrifying census block groups is spatially correlated and some of the determinants of gentrification are unobserved. Table 10 Panel B reports IV estimates for the effects on housing values. These results show that accounting for selection reverses the sign of the estimated coefficient for the inner distance iing. Depending on the array ofcontrol variables included, each LIHTC project within 1 km is''estima'ted to cause a decline in housing values of about 2 percent. Like the other outcomes examined, estimated effects die oui'beyond 2 km away from block group centroids. While point estimates for housing values are consistent with LIHTC developments being negatively valued by neighborhoods, they are not statistically significantly different from 0. Tables 8 -10 report the impacts of LIHTC projects that are new construction or rehabilitation. Because a sizable fraction of rehabilitations were of public housing units, one inight expect to find larger effects' from' new newly constructed projects only. We choose not' to emphasize these results'because both types of projects vary across the same qualified status discontinuity.' Therefore, we 'caiinot isolate exogenous variation in the two types of projects separately. Nevertheless, evidence in Table '6 indicates that the significant response of'ibe higher tax credits comes in the form 'of new construction. Therefore, it may not be' unreasonab%'to' estimate Equation (13) using new construction projects only; Doing so produces empirical 25 results that are two to four times larger in magnitude than the results reported in Tables 9 and 10, with similar levels of statistical significance. 6.2 Accounting For Potential Housing Supply Responses In order for the tax credit to induce a truly exogenous shift in the public goods provision in neighborhoods, LIHTC developments must not influence the aggregate supply of owner- occupied housing in the relevant market. In other words, in Tables 9 and 10 we hope to capture shifts in demand for housing holding supply fixed. If new low income units cause a shift in the supply of market rate housing, our estimates would at least partly reflect movements along the housing demand function. Similarly, if they cause a shift in the composition of the quality of market rate owner- occupied housing, then our estimate would be partly picking up this shift rather than local valuation of the change in the local public good. This is one reason to examine characteristics of owners and the value of owner- occupied wiits.13 If the markets for rental units and owner - occupied units are separate or sufficiently spatially integrated, there should be little supply response in the owner- occupied market to shifts in the supply of rental units. Using Sinai & Waldfogel's (2005) methodology, we evaluate the potential exis- tence of local supply responses to the installation of low income units nearby. We estimate Equation (13) using the change between 1990 and 2000 in owner occupied units, renter occupied units and total housing units as dependent variables respec- tively within various rings as dependent variables. Total housing units is the sum of the other two measures plus vacant units. The housing supply results are reported in Table 11. We find that within 1 km, renter occupied and total housing units increase by 0.23 and 0.16 respectively for every LIHTC unit built, with no significant response in the number of owner occupied units. This magnitude is consistent with about half of LIHTC units being new construction and no owner occupied housing supply "Indeed, based on the evidence in Table 5 on quality it would be a bad idea to try to infer valuation based on rents. 26 response to LIHTC developments. This supply responses in the rental and total housing markets fall monotonically as the distance ring is expanded outwards such that by 3 km out the net impact of new LIHTC units in the neighborhood is not significantly different from 0. If anything, the very local impact on the quantity of owner occupied units is negative. Given this evidence, we can interpret the housing values estimates as a lower bound on neighborhoods' valuation of low income projects. 7 Conclusions This paper demonstrates that low income. housing developments have an impact on the neighborhoods in which they are located. This. impact decays spatially and reaches as far as 3 km away. There exists a significant response in the number of low income units and projects developed in areas that provide additional tax credits for their development. The discontinuity at 50 percent eligibility of households for reduced rents generates exogenous variation in the tax credit across similar census tracts.. We use this exogenous assignment across space in the location of low income developments to identify spatial impulse- response functions showing,that LIHTC developments depress local median household income and increase turnover in owner occupied housing units within 3 kin of these projects. Fbrther,. point estimates indicate that LIHTC projects depress neighborhood median Housing values in census block groups near the qualified status discontinuity. We show the importance of using the discontinuity in the size of the tax credit as a function of tract incomes to correct for the selection of LIHTC developments into gentrifying areas. Our estimates are useful in evaluating the efficacy of the LIHTC program. One key component of such an evaluation is abetter understanding of the supply function of low income housing, and how this interacts with market supply both in the quality and quantity dimensions. While we find that LIHTC units are of higher quality, as measured by the number, of bedrooms, than the average unit housing,their, target population, we do not find that LIHTC developments have a significant effect on the age of the rental Housing stock in their neighborhoods. As demonstrated by Dunn et al. (2005) for California, LIHTC projects may cost significantly more to build 27 because of state government regulation. They estimate that California regulation requiring developers receiving the tax credit to pay the state - regulated prevailing wage increases project costs by approximately 20 percent. This paper also contributes to the literature on neighborhood dynamics. Results indicate that low income housing and residents are negatively valued by their neigh- bors. The arrival of a new LIHTC development depresses neighborhood incomes and causes a significant number of houses to change ownership. While these results do not allow us to precisely distinguish the mechanism behind these responses, they indicate that low income developments may be important in impeding gentrification or precipitating decline. 28 References Amy Schwartz, Ingrid Gould Ellen, I. V. and M. H. Schill (forthcoming). The external effects of subsidized housing investment. Regional Science and Urban Economics. Card, David, A. M. and J. Rothstein (2007). Tipping and the dynamics of segre- gation. Manuscript. Chary, K. and M. Greenstone (2005). Does air quality matter? evidence from the housing market. Journal of Political Economy 113(2), 376 -424. Cummings, J. L. and D. DiPasquale (1999). The low- income housing tax credit: An analysis of the first ten years. Housing Policy Debate 10(2), 251 -307. Dunn, Sarh, J. M. Q. and L. A. Rosenthal (2005). The effects of prevailing wage requirements on the cost of low - income housing. Industrial and Labor Relations Review 59(1), 141 -157. Fan, J. (1992). Design - adaptive nonparametric regression. Journal of the American Statistical Association 87(420), 998 1004. Green, Richard K, S. M. and K. -Y. Seah (2002). Low income housing tax credit housing developments and property values. The Center for Urban Land Eco- nomics Research, The University of Wisconsin. Gustafson, J. and J. C. Walker (2002). Analysis of state qualified allocation plans for the low- income housing tax credit program. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Jinyong Hahn, P. T. and W. V. der Klaauw (2001). Identification and estimation of treatment effects with a regression - discontinuity design. Econometrica 69(1), 201 -209. Lyons, R. F. and S. Loveridge (1993). An hedonic estimation of the effect of federally subsidized housing on nearby residential property values. Department of Agriculture and Applied Economics: Staff Paper Series. 29 McClure, K. (2000). The low- income housing tax credit as an aid to housing fi- nance: How well has it worked? Housing Policy Debate 11(1), 91 -114. Olsen, E. (2001). Housing programs for low income households. NBER Working Paper Number 8204. Peter Hall, Simon J. Sheather, M. C. J. and J. S. Marron (1991). On optimal data-based bandwidth selection in kernel density estimation. Biometrika 78 (2), 263 -269. Quigley, J. (2000). A decent home: Housing policy in perspective. Brookings - Wharton Papers on Urban Affairs, 53 -99. Rosen, S. (1974). Hedonic prices and implicit markets: Product differentiation in pure competition. Journal of Political Economy 82(1), 34 -55. Schelling, T. C. (1971). Dynamic models of segregation. Journal of Mathematical Sociology 1(1), 143 -186. Sinai, T. and J. Waldfogel (2005). Do low- income housing subsidies increase the occupied housing stock? Journal of Public Economics 89(11), 2137 -2164. Stegman, M. A. (1996). Development and analysis of the national low- income hous- ing tax credit database. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research. Wallace, J. E. (1995). Financing affordable housing in the united states. Housing Policy Debate 6(4), 785 -814. 30 U ptow Cabrin Green W, 1 km 6 LIHT( Block Centr Census Tracts Eligible Fractio 0% to so40% t 50%t 60% t Figure 1: Chicago Data Figure 2: Supply Response at Qualified Census Tract Eligibility Threshold; All Metro Area Tracts U F- M W mN OM MN h N N N oc J G r t" V] O O F- 01 M O N p 0 N O r M O tn- m N N N O O J (n O N m O N O G N I J O m N W O O r N NO N m r 7 7 W N O U i r r r O O O E Q @ O1 O1 O O W N O V V O O N I Omf E I N � @ t a � o L V N N N i M i J N N Q N M O O � O � O I @ rn � T J N 3 C O ' O S, � O J d Z) 2 S c m w c rn G @ @ N 0) Qv A 0 00 QZ OO v Q v, U) O O O 0 —0 J J a I— Df 0 F- LL LL Z C a o = 0 0 OM M o { N N Ci W N N O N p M = O J � N L_ C e C O W p N p MN M U N(NO NN fit} N p `_'o�NnM O 7 r C\ O Q J U M C O e E2 M M QM1 r 0 O M (p0 O M O N t) 3 G N p N p N N o N O M N O .fl N C N O N W a N a c @ U V o L M a N� N M O N N 7 C C ✓+ =O L O 0 J n Z C o O M n M p V r CO p 7 p N n T D E A M M co M v C d E c m � L o O O M n M p N p N p N p 0 O O = p E M Q> V (o M O N N V' O ❑ _ a ❑ o � 2 ' c � N � N d a N OJ N J J c a a a m U Sm m U mL U h 2 o 3 p 0 L= J O N O =m= J O N O =m= S 7 0 0 O 'C >, C Ma C m O a c O O,o E U =O °O U °O c�+U m :u ❑ c = 3 c = d 3 R o U) c 2 O oo z es x� LL 0 z� of 0 v Z (If � d N 1 ❑ 0 Z Table 3: Average Characteristics of Areas by Eligibility Status Notes: Each element in the table is the mean of the variable listed at left over the tracts in the relevant income eligibility group. The "RD Coeff' column reportsthe coefficient on an indicator for greater than 0.5 in an OLS- regression -of -the variable listed at left on a cubic in eligible fraction interacted with the 0.5 cutoff indicator controlling for county fixed effects. Only tracts with between 20 and 80 percent eligible households are used to calculate numbers in the final column. indicates significance at the 10 percent level. Percent of Households Eligible for Rent Reduction 0 % -40% 40 % -49 % 49 %-50 %a 50 % -51% 51 % -60% 60% -100 % RD Coeff LIHTC Projects Proposed & Built 1994 to 1999 Total Units 6.2 7.7 8.8 16.2 13.7 14.1 6.4* Low Income Units 5.5 7.4 8.6 15.7 12.9 13.1 5.6* Projects 0.07 0.11 0.15 0.19 0.21 0.23 0.06* Units Per Project 84.9 68.3 60.1 87.0 _ 66.9 61.1 12.20 1990 Census Demographics - Population 4,608 4,045 3,849 3,856 3,766 3,044 -252* Housing Units 1,868 1,677 1,557 1,560 1,483 1,176 -116* Percent Black 0.08 0.22 0.29 0.30 0.37 0.53 0.01 Percent High School Graduate 0.81 0.65 0.61 0.60 0.57 0:50 -0.01 Poverty Rate 0.08 0.20 0'.25 0.26 0.30 0;45 0.00 Median Household Income 38,695 22,754 20,142 19,548- 17,729 12,095 57 Log Median Household Income 10.51 10.01 9.89 9.86 9.76 9.83 -0.01* Renter Tenure < 10 Years - 0.50 0.42 0.41 0.40 0.39 0.36. -0;01 Owner Tenure < 10 Years 0.89 0.86 0.85 0.86 0.84 0.81 0:.00 1990 Census Housing Characteristics Average Age, Owner Occupied 27.81 36.58 37.52 38.26 39.54 41.36 0.31 Average Age, Renter Occupied 26.24 31.83 32.49 32.30 33.42 33.39. 435 Avg. # of Units, Owner Dec. 2.17 2.42 2.53 2.33 2.68 3.21- 0.o9 Avg. # of Units, Renter Occ. _ -8.37 9.19 8.85 9.49 9.73 13.14 0.60 Fraction Detached, Owner Occ. 0.80 0.69 0.64 0.68 0.65 0:60 0:02* Fraction Detached, Renter Occ. 0.35 0.28 0.27 0.26 0.25 0.18 -0,00 Median Housing Value 124,749' 80,232 76,576 69,920 70,084 59,546 -137 Log Median Housing Value 11.53 11.07 '10.98 10.94 10.91 10.71 0:01 Median Gross Rent 545 414 397 393 385 323 -3 Log Median Gross Rent 6.25 5.98 5.94 5.93 5.91 5.71 . -.010 4Log Med. Housing Value 80 -90 0.10 0.09 0.09 0.07 0.10 0.09 , -0:01 Notes: Each element in the table is the mean of the variable listed at left over the tracts in the relevant income eligibility group. The "RD Coeff' column reportsthe coefficient on an indicator for greater than 0.5 in an OLS- regression -of -the variable listed at left on a cubic in eligible fraction interacted with the 0.5 cutoff indicator controlling for county fixed effects. Only tracts with between 20 and 80 percent eligible households are used to calculate numbers in the final column. indicates significance at the 10 percent level. m M °oo °o °mm rnmvv N — mr- l m Q; H 0 0 r 00 O O o O 0 0 � O Ci Ci O" X 0 c E > O �w L m Y � ¢ N m O O O N (p O d' M O c- O O O N m ' r � O r h M C p N O O O M O O D `- O O O ^ 0 0 0 m C C m p1 m 7 � C O T c '- O N v p yy N ¢ of N CO c- (O 0 0 M N_ (p (O 6 O N M N C E N C 0 C 0 � O CO O p p m 0 pC;� 9 U s � U' z ° 'a v s c ° o � � � a m U L C C � � m t6 E ¢ .� cpi c °oo oo ° °oo 0 00o c E c C O N O N O ° N O ° N O E N O J U. y m O --O O v O a 0- N O m O m O m O o y m m 0 m m N m m N w m m ¢ p E F- N C V 6 W c V U 3 E y v 'C m E v U w E y v F E y v o m 0 M U C w P C C w 'O U C C w U° .0 C w C D C 'C N° a F W J C C m C J C C m C J C C m W J C C 10 N m 'E m CL= a= x p¢ o 0 0 ° Z Z E Table 5: The Distribution of Bedrooms in LIHTC and Market Units Percent Number of Bedrooms Eligible 0 1 2 3 4+ Mean Panel A: LIHTC Units Built 1990 -2000 0.40 0.03 0.29 0.45 0.20 0.03 1.90 40.50 0.04 0.33 0.42 0.17 0.04 1.83 50 -60 0.07 0.24 0.44 0.20 0.05 1.93 60.100 0.08 0.30 0.35 0.22 0.06 1.89 All 0.04 0.29 0.43 0.20 0.04 1.90 Panel B: Tract Level Data 0 -40 0.05 0.30 0.42 0.19 0.04 1.89 40.50 0.07 0.34 0.39 0.16 0.03 1.76 50.60 0.09 0.36 0.37 0.16 0.03 1.70 60 -100 0.11 0.36 0.34 0.16 0.04 1.66 All 0.06 0.32 0.40 0.18 0.04 1.83 Panel C: Census Microdata 0 -40 0.02 0.22 0.46 0.25 0.05 2.10 40 -50 0.02 0.32 0.46 0.17 0.03 1.85 50 -60 0.04 0.37 0.44 0.14 0.02 1.74 60 -100 0.06 0.43 0.38 Q.12 0.02 1.62 All 0.03 0.34 0.44 0.17 0.03 1-.81' Notes: The results for Panel C are calculated by examining the distribution of bedrooms for renting families in the listed income group. Income groups are assigned based on metropolitan area of residence and family composition. Table 6: Coefficients on Eligible >.6 for Various Primary Outcomes Panel A: All Project Types Number of LIHTC Low Income Units Number of LIHTC Low Income Units /1990 Rentals Number of LIHTC Low Income Projects Units Per Project 5.954 5.721 5.844 5.562 (2.563)' (2.522)* (2.451)' (2.496)"' 0.020 0.020 0.012 0.011 (0.009)* (0.009)* (0.004)'* (0.004)* 0.064 0.059 0.062 0.061 (0.030)` (0.029)* (0.028)* (0.028)` 18.773 10.497 9.913 6.014 (12.494) (12.001) (11.044) (10.982) Panel B: New Construction Projects Number of LIHTC Low Income Units Number of LIHTC Low Income Units /1990 Rentals Number of LIHTC Low Income Projects Units Per Project 4.291 3.969 4.073 3.975 (1.433)" (1.335)` (1.408)" (1.510) ** 0.008 0.009 0.009 0.008 (0.003)' (0.003)'* (0.003)* (0.003)" 0.050 0.047 0.048 0.049 (0.021)` (0.018)* (0.020)' (0.019)* 20.210 13.698 10.113 11.396 (13.330) (14.083) (14.801) (14.849) Panel C: Rehabilitation Projects Number of LIHTC Low Income Units Number of LIHTC Low Income Units /1990 Rentals Number of LIHTC Low Income Projects Units Per Project Included Controls: Cubic Polynomial Demographic Controls Housing Controls County Fixed Effects 1.663 1.752 1.771 1.587 (2.161) (2.055) (2.056) (2.075) 0.012 0.011 0.004 0.003 (0.009) (0.009) (0.002) (0.003) 0.014 0.012 0.013 0.013 (0.020) (0.019) (0.020) (0.020) 21.345 12.691 15.642 7.718 (17.910) (22.491) (21.443) (23.381) Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes No No No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Standard errors are calculated from 500 block bootstrap samples drawn using MSA level clusters. Sample includes all census tracts in metropolitan areas excluding Washington, DC. Demographic controls are fraction white, fraction black, fraction hispanic, log median family income, log per capita income, and the poverty rate from 1990. Housing controls are vacancy rate, the fraction of housing units that are rentals, log median value, log rent, log units, average owner - occupied age, average renter - occupied age, fraction owner - occupied more than 50 years old, fraction renter occupied more than 50 years old, average size and fraction over 50 units. Table 7: Qualified Census -Tract Status and LIHTC Applications. Notes: The sample includes all census tracts in Texas, California and New. Jersey. Proposal data is from 2004 and 2005. The rules governing qualified status in these -. .years are the same as for the 1990s- with the addition to the fact that qualified status is granted to tracts with poverty rates of over 25 percent. Therefore, controls include cubic polynomials interacted with ;being above the qualified thresholds in both eligible fraction and poverty rate plus an indicator for whether the tract qualifies. Additional control variables are the same as those used in Table G. The reported coefficients are IV estimates of the effect of QCT status, using dummies for whether; the tract qualifies based on eligible fraction and the - poverty rate thresholds as separate instruments. 1 2 3 4 Panel A: Proposed projects Number of Proposed LIHTC Low 16.611 16819 18.023 18.368 Income Units (6::457) ** (6.476) * ** (6:865)• ** (6.876) * *" Number of Proposed LIHTC Low 0.043 0.044 0.046 0.047 Income Units /2000 Rentals (0;021) ** (0.021) ** (0:023) ** (0.023) ** Number of Proposed LIHTC Projects 0,143 0.140 0.146 0.148 (0,073)* (0.073)' (0:077)* (0.077)* Proposed Units Per Project 56:884 .40.347 77.391 78.378 (56.745) - (56.888) (96.225) (62.081) Panel B: Accepted projects Number of Accepted LIHTC Low 3A78 3.726 4.052 4.166 Income Units (3,060) (3.059) (3.207) (3.197) Number of Accepted LIHTC Low 0.003 0:004 0.003 O.DO3 Income Units /2000 Rentals (0.005) (0`.004) (0.005) (0.005) Number of Accepted LIHTC Projects 0.037 0.039 0.038 0.037 (0.038) (0:038) (0:039) (0.039) Accepted Units Per Project 9.473 - 59174 - 34.794 - 42.607 (135.159) (86.589) (66.333) (75.870) Included Controls: Cubic Polynomials Yes Yes Yes Yes Demographic Controls No No Yes Yes Housing Controls No No No Yes County Fixed Effects No Yes Yes Yes Notes: The sample includes all census tracts in Texas, California and New. Jersey. Proposal data is from 2004 and 2005. The rules governing qualified status in these -. .years are the same as for the 1990s- with the addition to the fact that qualified status is granted to tracts with poverty rates of over 25 percent. Therefore, controls include cubic polynomials interacted with ;being above the qualified thresholds in both eligible fraction and poverty rate plus an indicator for whether the tract qualifies. Additional control variables are the same as those used in Table G. The reported coefficients are IV estimates of the effect of QCT status, using dummies for whether; the tract qualifies based on eligible fraction and the - poverty rate thresholds as separate instruments. J O U O G] a C 'a wN M d K N 2 E w a F a C A a N C O U 0 C Q Yw- O V N f0 W V N N to W r N O c d'M V N V N N +� W Q V LL N ° w° j U Q N O M O M r M N M N M r M r LL'1 Q O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 O F O 2 n � E C! E a � o �° � o � o rn o U O O O M J N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Z J. G Q a C LL ;Z' V m W R M� O J (� U Q r M O V V N V 6 M M O 0 0 0 0 o a 6 o 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 Co 0 a O ° m U 0) N C L_ Q 'C 0 WUr LL U¢v R IL` 2 a T C Q a C W 'w LL'v ry� T C L W J (D U Q E c R a N C S� 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 v (D N N N N V N M of LO I� N r M r 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ri 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 � OmN i�r� M f� N�Ot� O W M V M f 0 M O I M r r W W (p M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N O N O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 v 0 M V N O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6666666666 . . m 0 0 0 0 V omNN�'�rn �mvv>maw co 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y7 N Y'1 M N d' N O t0 4 O r r N N M Cl O U N R Vl L_ D ry C 0.2 R O 4 N U C N R O) N p R w y D w C C a R R U ° C R E O O M N 0 a d s R U e � o O C - J R N N Q U R =- C d U E T U O` y0 N J n a O N ° 0 N U N R R Y u'� ° 0 E a8ts O R O C O N C O Q O L_ k O ` � V URl O W 2 3 N p) w J n d _ p 6 N y N 0- R O o `p W N j pI c u O U R a _ R o E y a ° a d o L E p a Q N RC Q R'RO O p a�N K m R a N U a a N ° R N a o E w Z m m R O U r O N E 'I n ° E p O m c T p .fl N n C - M O 'a E .� op O N -6- m? a N L U 1 U 0 C Rp a 0 3 o o J a c R J B U R N L N N N R ° R' O- R ` r CO O U M r- O N o = o` ° m wn ;-a E a 0 m Y U O R O 0 C N R p N W V.0 .2 R R T O J 2 ° — 3 ° o v Z Ll U Ll C O Table 9: Estimated RD Effects of LIHTC_ Developments on Neighborhood Outcomes Panel A: Log Median Household Income Distance Ring (km) LIHTC Projects 100s of LIHTC Units 1 2 3 4 0 - 1 -0.036 -0.050 -0,054 -0.678 (0.015) (0.025) (0.026) (0.038) (0.039) 1- 1.5 -0.646 -0.040 -0.064 -0.048 (01027) (0.031) (0.038) (0.042) (0.045) 1.5-2 �- 0.027 -0.029 -0.058 -0.058 0.067. (0.017) (0.011) (0;037) (0.035) 2-2.5 -0.031 - 0.038 -0:087 -0.109 0.015 (0.012) (0.013) (0.035) (0.037) 2.5-3 - 0.021 -0.018 -0.067 -0.059 (0.008) (0.01 1) (0.010)- (0.033) (0;034) 3-3.5 -0.005 0.020. _ -0:018' 0.067 (0.030) (0.0015) (0.014) (0.054) (0.048) 3.5-4 -0.059 0.012 -0.165 0.033 Housing (0.023) (0.018) (0.068) (0.050) County FE Yes - Panel B: Fraction of Owners Moving in Previous 10 Years Yes Distance errors on the number of projects or 100s of units in each listed ring in separate regressions of change in log median household income or owner turnover on the controls Ring (km) LIHTC Projects 100s of LIHTC Units enters as a series of control variables. - - 1 2 3 _ . 4`. 0 - 1 0.018. 0.034 0.028 0.054 (0.014) (0.015) (0.021) (0,023) 1 -1.5 0.041 0.067 _ - 0':056 0.082 (0.019) - (0.025) (01027) 1.5-2 0.031 0.029 _(0;024) 0.067 0.058 (0.010) (0.011) (0.023) (0.021) 2-2.5 oA6, 0.067. .0:01.6 o:01.8 . (0:06) (0.008). (0:020) (0.021). 2.5-3 0.003'- 0'.005 -0:011 0.015 (0;:006 ) .. (0.006) (0.019) (0.019) 3-3.5 0.010- - -0.004. -0.036 - 0.015 (0.008) (0.008) :(0.029)_ - (0..027) 3.5-4 - 0.040, -0.028 - 6107 - - 0,075 (0.013) (0.011) (0.036) (0.030) Included Controls: - Demographics No Yes No Yes Housing No Yes No Yes` County FE Yes - Yes Yes Yes Notes: Entries list coefficients and standard errors on the number of projects or 100s of units in each listed ring in separate regressions of change in log median household income or owner turnover on the controls listed at the bottorn of the table. The aggregate cubic polynomial interacted with census fixed effects always enters as a series of control variables. Included controls are the same as those used for Table 8. Panel B: RD Results Distance Ring (km) Table 10: Estimated Effects of LIHTC Developments 100s of LIHTC Units 3 4 0-1 on Housing Valuse 1990 -2000 -0.038 -0.049 Panel A OLS Results (0.036) (0.052) Distance 1-1.5 0.010 0.054 0.062 Ring (km) LIHTC Projects 100s of LIHTC Units (0.067) 1 2 3 4 0-1 0.012 0.010 0.029 0.024 (0.049) (0.001) (0.001) (0.002) (0.002) 1-1.5 0.012 0.009 0.020 0.013 (0.054) (0.001) (0.001) (0.002) (0.002) 1.5 -2 0.012 0.010 0.022 0.014 (0.044) (0.001) (0.001) (0.002) (0.002) 2 -2.5 0.012 0.010 0.022 0.015 (0.055) (0.001) (0.001) (0.002) (0.002) 2.5 -3 0.010 0.007 0.019 0.012 (0.057) (0.001) (0.001) (0.002) (0.002) 3-3.5 0.009 0.007 0.019 0.012 No (0.001) (0.001) (0.002) (0.002) 3.5-4 0.007 0.005 0.015 0.009 Yes (0.001) (0.001) (0.001) (0.001) Panel B: RD Results Distance Ring (km) LIHTC Projects 1 2 100s of LIHTC Units 3 4 0-1 -0.034 -0.026 -0.038 -0.049 (0.033) (0.036) (0.052) (0.048) 1-1.5 0.010 0.054 0.062 0.013 (0.048) (0.060) (0.067) (0.063) 1.5-2 - 0.009 0.018 0.034 0.017 (0.025) (0.027) (0.049) (0.048) 2-2.5 0.026 0.030 0.071 0.062 (0.021) (0.022) (0.054) (0.050) 2.5-3 -0.014 -0.009 -0.025 -0.037 (0.016) (0.016) (0.044) (0.043) 3-3.5 -0.047 -0.036 -0.103 -0.135 (0.019) (0.019) (0.055) (0.056) 3.5-4 -0.070 -0.060 -0.099 -0.119 (0.034) (0.035) (0.057) (0.056) Included Controls: Demographics No Yes No Yes Housing No Yes No Yes County FE Yes Yes Yes Yes Notes: Panel A reports OLS estimates of coefficients on number of projects and 100s of units within listed distance rings. Regressions producing these results do not control for eligible household fraction in any way. Panel B reports analogous IV coefficients estimated in the same way as all coefficients reported in Table 9. The dependent variable is the change in log value of owner occupied single family homes between 1990 and 2000. Control variables match those listed in the notes to Table 6. Reported regression discontinuity coefficients are on number of low income units in each ring. Dependent variables are changes between 1990 and 2000 in counts of.the variables listed at the top of the columns within each of the rings listed at left. Controls are the'same as those used in Table 9. Total housing units includes vacant units. Tattle 11: Effects of LIHTCUUnits on the Quantity of Housing Owner Renter Total Distance Occupied Occupied Housing Ring (km) Units Units Units 0 - 1 -0.054 0.231 0.161 (0.125) (0.119) (0.186) 0-1.5 0.068 0.144 0.211 (0.056) (0.053) (0.084) 0 - 2 0.023 0.091 0.113 (0.038) (0.036) (0.056) 0-2.5 0.011 0.079 0.092 (0.032) (0.030) - (0.048) 0 - 3 -0.018 0.090 - 0.067 (0.036) (0.035) _ (0.054) 0-3.5 -0.107 0.060 -0.088 (0.071) (0.065) (0.104) 0 - 4 -0.238 0.055 -0.404 (0.193) (0.151) (0.305) Reported regression discontinuity coefficients are on number of low income units in each ring. Dependent variables are changes between 1990 and 2000 in counts of.the variables listed at the top of the columns within each of the rings listed at left. Controls are the'same as those used in Table 9. Total housing units includes vacant units. Table Al: Estimates of Placebo Treatments at Different Eligibility Thresholds 03 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 Panel A: All Project Types Number of LIHTC Low 1.979 -0.735 5.562 -3.112 4.306 Income Units (1.595) (1.495) (2.496)* (2.871) (4.975) Number of LIHTC Low 0.002 0.013 0.011 -0.003 0.032 Income Units /1990 Rentals (0.005) (0.012) (0.004)* (0.005) (0.026) Number of LIHTC Low 0.041 -0.018 0.061 -0.044 0.047 Income Projects (0.019)* (0.018) (0.028)* (0.036) (0.068) Units Per Project -1.073 1.981 6.014 -0.403 -0.376 (12.209) (10.720) (10.982) (9.367) (20.243) Panel B: New Construction Number of LIHTC Low 0.908 -0.127 3.975 -1.342 1.570 Income Units (1.161) (1.019) (1.510) ** (1.833) (3.155) Number of LIHTC Low 0.003 0.002 0.008 -0.004 0.024 Income Units /1990 Rentals (0.004) (0.002) (0.003)`* (0.003) (0.025) Number of LIHTC Low 0.023 -0.015 0.049 -0.019 -0.000 Income Projects (0.017) (0.014) (0.019)* (0.020) (0.039) Units Per Project - 10.308 8.856 11.396 7.252 29.718 (15.213) (12.131) (14.849) (12.117) (45.175) Panel C: Rehabilitation Projects Number of LIHTC Low 1.071 -0.608 1.587 -1.770 2.737 Income Units (1.006) (1.118) (2.075) (2.321) (3.850) Number of LIHTC Low -0.001 0.011 0.003 0.001 0.007 Income Units /1990 Rentals (0.002) (0.013) (0.003) (0.004) (0.007) Number of LIHTC Low 0.018 -0.003 0.013 -0.025 0.047 Income Projects (0.008)* (0.011) (0.020) (0.030) (0.060) Units Per Project - 14.345 -6.689 7.718 -2.048 -6.068 (23.063) (23.105) (23.381) (12.085) (21.055) Included Controls: Cubic Polynomial Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Demographic Controls Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Housing Controls Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes County Fixed Effects Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Standard errors are calculated from 500 block bootstrap samples, allowing for clustering at the county level. Sample includes all census tracts in metropolitan areas excluding Washington, DC. Demographic controls are fraction white, fraction black, fraction hispanic, log median family income, log per capita income, and the poverty rate from 1990. Housing controls are vacancy rate, the fraction of housing units that are rentals, log median value log rent, log units, average owner - occupied age, average renter - occupied age, fraction owner - occupied more than 50 years old, fraction renter occupied more than 50 years old, average size and fraction over 50 units. ATTACHMENT 2 Working Paper 599 Relationships between Affordable Housing Developments and Neighboring Property Values Paul M. Curarnings with John D. Landis September 1993 University of California at Berkeley $9.50 Working Paper 599 Relationships Between Affordable Housing Developments and Neighboring Property Values An Analysis of BRIDGE Housing Corporation Developments in the San Francisco Bay Area Paul M. Cummings with John D. Landis Institute of Urban and Regional Development University of California at Berkeley I. INTRODUCTION Affordable housing, a term that once defined housing for the poor, is now a precious commod- ity. The acute affordable housing shortage this country is experiencing is especially evident in the San Francisco Bay Area.' In the last two decades, the Bay Area realized dramatic land appreciation which, combined with a dwindling supply of available land, constraints on existing infrastructure, and a continued demand to live in the Bay Area, have significantly increased the cost of housing. In addition, new affordable housing development in the Bay Area faces tremendous Not In My Back Yard (NIMBY) sentiment in many communities, a sentiment that has been described as a desire to preserve the existing neighborhood because of a fear of change in the physical environment or composition of the community. One of the most persuasive arguments used by residents opposing new affordable housing developments has been that the proposed development will cause neighboring property values to decline. Without any real data to support this claim, this argument is based primarily on negative preconceptions of "affordable housing' as it has been historically defined. Many people are still familiar with the massive public housing projects constructed in the late 1960s and early 1970s. And, unfortunately, it is powerful images such as the violent destruction of a vacant and run -down Pruitt -Igoe apartment building in St. Louis that people recall today when talk of affordable housing development enters a community. In response to community concerns, developers of the affordable housing industry have tried to change theirways. Throughout the 1980s and into the early 1990s, providers of affordable hous- ing have madesignif7cant improvements in the design quality of affordable housing developments. Amenities such as decks, wood siding, and well -kept open space areas, for example, are predomi- nant new themes in recent affordable housing developments. The BRIDGE Housing Corporation (henceforth to be referred to as BRIDGE) is a good example of an affordable housing developer who is committed to working with the community to build lower -cost housing that is also an attractive physical and social asset in the community. Yet even with these positive changes, many communities are still unwilling to accept new affordable housing projects in their neighborhoods. This study considers the validity of the most common NIMBY argument, the claim that proximity to affordable housing is highly correlated with low property values, by considering the property values of thousands of single- family homes as a function of their proximity to six BRDIGE affordable housing developments.2 In doing so, the same methodology is used that academics and housing advocates have been using for years— building statistical models to identify factors that predict variation in housing prices. These models are often referred to as hedonic price models. Traditionally, most of these models have focused on variables internal to the housing unit such as age, size, and price. It is only recently that models have been created that consider such external variables as neighborhood quality.3 H. METHODOLOGY This study examines whether there is a systematic relationship between single - family home values (as measured from transaction prices) and proximity to affordable housing. As previously stated, the presumed existence of such a relationship is the core of the NIMBY argument against affordable housing projects. To determine whether such a relationship exists, a regression analysis is used to compare transaction prices across hundreds ofsingle- family homes a "t various distances from six BRIDGE affordable housing developmems In different parts of the San Francisco Bay Area. Regression analysis has'rwo advantages over traditional "comparables analysis." First, it can lie used to compare a much larger set of properties, in'this case nearly 3,000 single - family homes. Second, it can be used to isolate the price effects of proximity to affordable Housing hold- ing constant the characteristics of the home itself (a.g ; square' footage, or the number of bath- rooms). The tested regressioh model takes the follow-Whig generaf form: CPRICE90 = f(SQFT, LOTSIZE, BATHS, BDRMS AGE, Kblfile, QMUe, EMile) The dependent variable in this model is CPRICF,90, the sales price of selected sing le - fainily housing units in the vicinity of BRIDGE projects that sold between 1985 and 1992. All transaction prices were coinverted into 1990 dollars using the Consumer Price Index (CPI). The model includes five separate independent variables that describe each single- family home. SQFT is the square footage of the home. All else being equal, 'I would expect the relation- ship between SQFT and CPRICR90 to be a positive one: the larger the liome, the higher the sales price. BA7TIS and BDRMS are. the number of bedrooms andbathroomnn each home. As `v tli square footage, I would expect the relationship between 'sales price and the number of bedrooms and baths to be positive. L07'SIZE is the size of the lot in `sq'u"are feet; this too should be 'positively related to prtce.SRGE is the final independent variable'describing each home. The relationship between unit age and price is'not so straightfoiward'. In some communities, for example San Francisco; older homes might be favored for their unique deslgn, and hence be more valuable: In other communities; age might be aimeasure of ob'solescencd, leading to lower home values" or older homes ,i The three most important independent variables for the purposes of this study are £;Mile, QMale, alid EMile:= HNtile is a "du nmy varrahle' indicating whether a `single fan il`y` fiome i "s located within a half -mile of a BRIDGE project. If it is, LWIle takes 'thevalue of 1. If it is not, lWile takes the value of�0; QMVe and EfflM are dummy' variables mdica ing whether a home is located within a quarter -'mile or- cighth mile; respectively; MA BRIDGE project:' if ihosewho dePose' affordable housing projects ateeorrectin asserting that such projet6lower property values, `th'an the relation- ships between HMik, QNW6, and EMile and home sales prices'should all'be negative. That is, the closer a home is located to a BRIg"GE project, the lower tts value will be:'`Ifthose who oppose Afford- able housing projects are incorrect, then there should be no relationship between home values and proximity to a BRIDGE project, as measured using the HMile, QMile, and EMile dummy variables. The database upon which the model was tested was obtained from TRW, a company that pur- chases records of home sales from county assessors' offices throughout the state. Sales records were selected according to whether they were located within a mile of a BRIDGE project, and for those years subsequent to the opening of each project. In addition to including information on the characteristics of each home (e.g., number of bedrooms and bathrooms, square footage and lotsize, age), each sales record includes the address of the home. Using Mapinfo, a geographic information system (GIS), each sales record was "address - matched" to a city street map. Address - marching is a process by which the street number and name are used to precisely locate a home to a map. The locations of the six BRIDGE projects were also address- matched. MapInfo was then used to generate circles with radii of an eighth -mile, a quarter -mile, and a half -mile around each BRIDGE project (these circles are commonly known as "buffers "). If a particular home fell within the half -mile buffer of a BRIDGE project, the HMile, QMile, and EMile dummy variables were all assigned a value of 1. If a home fell within the quarter -mile buffer of a BRIDGE project, the EMile and EMile dummy variables were set to 1, while the HMile dummy variable was set to 0. If a home fell within the eighth -mile buffer of a BRIDGE project, the EMile dummy variable was set to 1 while the QMile and HMile dummy variables were set to 0. All three dummy variables were set to 0 for those homes falling outside the half -mile buffer. III. SIX BRIDGE PROJECTS Six BRIDGE Housing affordable developments were analyzed in this study — two in San Francisco County, three in San Mateo County, and one in Alameda County (Figure 1). The projects range in size from 42 to 167 units, and include designs that are aboth urban and suburban in character. Four of the projects are rentals; the other two are condominiums. BRIDGE and its architects try to design projects that match their neighborhoods in terms of size, scale, design, and amenities. BRIDGE's goal, in the words of president Don Terrier, "is to build affordable housing that the neighbors would feel lucky to be able to buy or rent." The following profiles offer a brief survey of the six BRIDGE projects analyzed in this study. / G5 T % \ L e C-) § a c _ CC, % -� e ® , £ ./ w .� e � J - • e ) / \.¢.. .. � .. \: Tj � ^ \ \° Coleridge Park Homes Coleridge Park Homes (Figure 2), a 49 -unit project for the elderly, was built entirely above an existing retail store in San Francisco. The project was made possible through a donation of air rights by the Standard Brands Paint Company. Coleridge Park Homes was developed as a partner- ship between BRIDGE and the Bernal Heights Community Foundation, a local community-based non - profit organization. Designed by George Miers and Associates, Coleridge Park Homes was con- structed in 1989 and includes a neighborhood park, a large landscaped interior courtyard, and a community room /recreation center.4 The regression analysis considered 394 single- family home sales in the neighborhood that occurred between 1989 and 1992: 100 homes were located within a half -mile of Coleridge Park Homes, 40 homes were located within a quarter -mile, and 11 homes were located within an eighth -mile. Holloway Terrace Holloway Terrace (Figure 3), a 42 -unit condominium project for families and the elderly in San Francisco, was constructed in 1985. This project, which also includes a community center, was built on the site of the former Farragut School in San Francisco's Ingleside neighborhood. It is one of two ownership (condominium) projects considered in this analysis. The two- and three - bedroom townhomes included in the project were initially sold for under $100,000— well below neighboring sales prices. This project was designed by David Baker + Associates and features two- bathroom units, patios, fireplaces, and attached garages. Combined with low- interest bond financing and first -time home buyer assistance from the city of San Francisco, all of the townhomes were affordable to families with annual incomes of $23,000 or less. The regression analysis con- sidered 612 single - family home sales between 1985 and 1992: 150 were located within a half -mile of the project, 61 were located within a quarter -mile, and nine were located within an eighth -mile of Holloway Terrace. Pacific Oaks Pacific Oaks (Figure 4), a 104 -unit apartment project for the elderly, was built in 1988 in Pacifica, a small seaside city in San Mateo County. The project, designed by Treffinger, Walz & MacLeod, is located on a four -acre lot, and is convenient to neighboring retail services. Pacific Oaks is located in a high- income community, and required voter approval for construction. The project was financed through tax- exempt mortgage revenue bonds and the sale of federal tax credits. The regression analysis considered 295 single - family home sales that occurred between 1988 and 1992: 45 homes were located within a half -mile of Pacific Oaks, 18 homes were located within a quarter -mile, but only two homes were located within an eighth -mi[e. �� �:. , .� d Magnolia Plaza Magnolia Plaza (Figure 5), a 125 -unit housing development for the elderly, was constructed in 1988 in South San Francisco. The project was built on a three -acre site, and is the second- largest of the projects analyzed in this study. The construction of this development was combined with the renovation of an adjacent building as a Senior Center for Magnolia Plaza residents and seniors in the community. The project, designed by Treffinger, Walz & MacLeod, includes a historic recon- struction of the city's original one -room school house as a project office and community room. The regression analysis considered 137 neighborhood home sales between 1988 and 1992: 31 homes sales were located within a half -mile of Magnolia Plaza, seven sales were located within a quarter -mile, and four sales were located within an eighth -mile. Gateway Connnons Gateway Commons (Figure 6), a 96 -unit family ownership (condominium) project in the City of San Mateo, was built in 1989. Gateway Commons was designed by Columbus Architects, and, like Holloway Terrace, was built on a surplus school site. The project includes a creekside public park, four stories of elevator -served wood frame construction, exterior walkways and bridges, and a concrete parking garage located a half level below grade. It also features a swimming pool, spa, and club house. The project was financed through the issue of Mortgage Credit Certificates and administering a mortgage assistance program. The regression analysis considered 480 neigh- borhood home sales between 1988 (one year prior to the date of finished construction) and 1992, only one of which was located within a quarter -mile of Gateway Commons. Heritage Park Heritage Park (Figure 7) is a 167 -unit apartment project for the elderly in Livermore. Built in 1988, it is the largest of all the developments analyzed in this study. The project was made pos- sible by an eight acre land donation from the City of Livermore, speedy approvals, and significant "up- zoning." Designed by Hardison, Komatsu, Ivelich & Tucker and Kermit Dorius Architects, Heritage Park features a swimming pool and a large community room. The regression analysis considered single -home home sales in the neighborhood that occurred between 1984 and 1992. This sample, unlike those for the five BRDIGE projects profiled above, included homes sold prior to construction of the affordable housing project. The sample includes 900 homes, 121 of which were located within a half -mile of Heritage Park. Figure 5 Magnolia Plaza Figure 6 Gateway Commons Figure 7 Heritage Park W. MODEL RESULTS Table 1 summarizes the total number of single- family sales associated with each BRIDGE project. In addition, two separate regression models were tested for each BRIDGE Project. The first model, summarized in Table 2, tests all eight independent variables: SQFT, BDRMS, BATHS, LOT.SIZE, AGE, HMile, QMile, and Ebfile. The second model, summarized in Table 3, includes only those independent variables previously found to be statistically significant. Model Set 1: A111ndependent Variables Included Table 2 summarizes the results of Model Set 1, in which coefficient estimates are reported for all eight independent variables, regardless of their statistical significance. The coefficient esti- mates indicate the contribution of the independent variable to the home sales price. For example, a coefficient estimate of 100 for the SQFT variable would indicate that each additional square foot of living area (above the mean) would add $100 to the sale price of a home. T- statistics are also reported for each independent variable. The t- statistics indicate the level of statistical significance of the coefficient estimate, or the degree to which the coefficient estimate is significantly different from zero. A t- statistic larger than 1.96 or smaller than -1.96 indicates that the analyst can be 95 percent sure that the coefficient estimate is truly different from zero. Variables with t- statistics between 1.96 and -1.96 are said to be insignificant; that is, they do not contribute statistically to explaining variations in home prices. The abilkyof the eight independent variables to explain local variations in home sales prices varies by project. The "best - fitting' model overall is for Heritage Park, in which only two indepen- dentvariables, AGE and SQFT, explain 78 percent (R 2 = .776) of the variation in the prices of nearby single- family homes. The other best - fitting model is for Magnolia Plaza, in which four independent variables —SQFT, LOTSIZE, BATHS, ROOMS, AGE, and HMile — explain 62 percent of the variation in nearby home sales prices. Model fits for the remaining four projects vary from a high of 47 per- cent (Pacific Oaks) to a low of 33 percent (Gateway Commons). The only independent variable that is statistically significant across all six BRIDGE projects is SQFT, or home square footage. BATHS —the number of baths in each home— and LOT,SIZE— the size of the home— are statistically significant in four models. Generally speaking, the three affordable housing proximity variables, HMile, QMile, and EMile, are not significant determinants of single - family home prices. EMilewas found to be significant for the Pacific Oaks project, but is of the wrong sign (that is, the closer a home is to the Pacific Oaks project, the higher its value). IlMile is significant for the Magnolia Plaza and Gateway Commons projects; however, the two nearer - proximity variables, QMile and EMile, are not significant. As noted above, if a BRIDGE project were actually to have a negative effect on home prices, the effect 13 Table 1 Number of Single - Family Sales by Distance from a BRIDGE Project Coleridge Holloway Pacific Magnolia Gateway Heritage Park Homes Terrace Oaks Plaza Commons Park 1/8 mile 1/4 mile 1/2 mile Total Sales 11 Sales 9 Sales 2 Sales 4 Sales 1 Sale 0 Sales -40 Sales 61 Sales 18 Sales 7 Sales "5 Sales 14 Sales 1'00 Sales 150 Sales 45 Sales 31 Sales 17 Sales 121 Sales Table 2 Summary of Regression Results with Dependent Variable CPRICE90 Estimated Coefficient (statistic in parenthesis) Independent Coleridge Holloway Pacific Magnolia Gateway Heritage Variable Park Homes Terrace Oaks Plaza Commons Park EMile QMile HMile AGE BED- ROOMS BATHS LOTSIZE SQFI' - 5954.30 8713.29 87r& 11556.49 (- 0.238) (0.413) ;524 - (- 0.410) - 101891.32 (- 1.441) 0 Sales 18680.42 - 10256.32 5884.75 4312.34 21377.10 - 11983.91 (1.187) (- 1.079) (0.442) (0.192) (0.583) (- 1.404) - 1763.35 4876.01 - 10667.898 393 $8 : - 5847.21 (- 0.170) (0.878) (- 1.246) -. 4 (- 1.730) - 196.68 - 266.06 - 151.80 4 3¢$$gF (- 1.214) (- 1.930) (- 1.209) 8�b8 264 (1 xfd3) W NMI 2188.09 In: 880 96 8345.25 - 4260.58 22960 3 - 1287.07 (0.324)6@] (1.889) (- 0.773) (� 0.672 ro 2)(3 fi46) (2 037 12821.96 (1.718) 4549.27 (- 1.793) '0 k �27r48 0 �3 234x (56u8 89� 5219 yy �� 5 22 x.44 ) 1.696 (.50 j05 0.506 gm- M. .100 45, .Yy�c X92 92 �*3��� (782 (99$� �(63i]6) n(4757) (8993 99�) Adjusted I R2 = .464 R2 =.427 R2 = .471 R2 = .616 I R2 = .331 2 - 12z Value R - .776 Highlighted box denotes significant variable. Table'3 Summary of Second Run Regression Result - Significant Variables Only Estimated Coefficient (statistic in parenthesis) Independent Coleridge, Holloway Pacific Magnolia Gateway Heritage Variable Park Homes Terrace Oaks Plaza Commons Park EMile QMile HMile AGE BED- ROOMS BATHS LOTSIZE SQFT Adjusted Rz Value es xif;,N, . These variables were not shown to be signficant in the first regression run and thus tea_ - were not considered in this second analysis. should be stronger for homes nearer the project. Clearly this is not the case for either Magnolia Plaza or Gateway Commons. Model ,Set 2; Insignificant Variables Excluded The second set of regression models (shown in Table 3) includes only those independent variables found to be statistically significant in the first set of regression runs. Coleridge Park Homes shows a final R2 value of.47; however, none of the variation in home sales price (CPRICE90) is related to proximity to a BRIDGE project. Holloway Terrace shows a final R 2 value of.43; as with Coleridge Park Homes, proximity to a BRIDGE affordable housing develop- ment is not related to home sales price fluctuations. For Pacific Oaks (R2 = .47), the distance varia- ble EMile does explain some of the variation in CPRICE90. However, the estimated coefficient is positive ($75,149.71), not negative as perceived by many homeowners. Analysis of Magnolia Plaza (R 2 = .62) and Gateway Commons (R2 =.33) also shows that thevariation in CPRICE90 can be partially explained by one of the location variables (IlMile). In the case of Magnolia Plaza, the estimated coefficient was positive ($22,534.88), suggesting that proximity to a BRIDGE project may actually raise property value. In the case of Gateway Commons, however, the estimated coeffi- cientwas a negative value (- $49,519.71). It is difficult to state that this one instance of a negative relationship between distance and price supports the perception that proximity to an affordable housing development leads to declining property values, as the two more proximate distance varia- bles, QMile and EMile, were not significant. The final development, Heritage Park, showed an Rz value of .77541 with no variation in CPRICE90 explained by the three distance variables. CONCLUSIONS and POLICY IMPLICATIONS The results of the foregoing regressions indicate that single- family home values in the neighborhood of BRIDGE Housing are not adversely affected by their proximity to those projects. Indeed, in some cases, home values are actually higher the nearer a home is to a BRIDGE project. This study demonstrates that well- designed, affordable housing projects need not adversely affect neighboring property values. Does this mean that property values are never impacted by neighboring projects? Not at all. Rather, this study suggests that the income charac- teristics of the residents of such projects are far less important than the characteristics of the projects themselves. Poorly designed, poorly maintained, and poorly managed projects can affect neighborhood property values— regardless of whether they are affordable or market -rate. Conversely, well- designed, well- managed, and well- maintained projects should not affect neighborhood property values, regardless of whether they are affordable or market -rate. The results of this study are necessarily limited to the six BRIDGE projects. Nevertheless, this study will hopefully encourage local governments and housing advocates to undertake similar analyses 17 with the ultimate goal of providing a comprehensive picture of the relationships between affordable housing and projerty values. For many people, buying a home is the largest investment they will make, and the last thing they want is a neighboring project to devalue their investment. This analysis has provided strong evidence that residential neighborhoods need not suffer from the development of well - designed and well - maintained affordable housing projects. A mote difficult task will be in convincing com mum - ties of this conclusion. Solving the'affordable housing project will require time and money. It will also require ongoing out- reach efforts to convince neighborhoods that residents of affordable housing can be good neighbors. NOTES [Affordable housing is defined by the U.S. Government (HUD) as housing (rental or ownership) which requires 30 per- cent or less of annual household income. The San Francisco Bay Area is typically rated by the National Association of Realtors and other national housing associations as the least affordable housing market in the country based on the increasing gap between income levels and housing costs. zI assume that the design quality of the six BRIDGE affordable housing developments analyzed in this study is equiva- lent. All six developments are affordable to low- income persons— those persons with household incomes equal to 60- 80 percent of median family income. 3Li and Brown, "Micro - Neighborhood Externalities and Hedonic Housing Prices." In this article, Li and Brown considered the influence of micro - neighborhood factors such as visual quality; noise pollution; or proximity to industries, thruways, and commercial establishments, on housing prices to show that a bias is created by these externalities that can be shown in lower house prices. 4For more information relating to all BRIDGE Housing Corporation affordable development characteristics, please see the 1990 -1991 BRIDGE Annual Report. 19 Behrens, J. O. 1992. "Nationwide Real Fstate Sales Database Has Numerous Uses." GIS World (March). Can, A. 1992. "Residential Quality Assessment: Alternative Approaches Using GIS." Regional Science 26: 97.110. Cervero, R. 1986. Suburban Gridlock, New Brunswick, New Jersey: Center for Urban Policy Research. Churbuck, D. 1992. "Geographies." Forbes (January 6). Clark, C. It., and D. P. Parker. 1989. Marketing New Homes, National Association of Home Builders, Ducker, K. J., and P. B. Delacy. 1990. "GIS in the Land Development Planning Process." Journal ofAmerican Planning Association (Autumn). Evans, Alan W. 1983. "The Determination of the Price of Land." Urban Studies. Goldberg, Michael, and Peter Chinloy. 1984. Urban Land Economics. Grether, D. M., and Peter Mieszkowski. 1974. "Determinants of Real Estate Values." Journal of Urban Economics. Grissom, T. V., and J. Diaz. I11. 1991. Real Estate Valuation —Guide to Investment Strategies. John Wiley S Sons, Inc. Gruen, Nina Jaffe, and Claude Gruen. 1972. Low and ModerateIncom ..eHousingintheSuburbs. New York: Praeger Publishers. Hu, , and Young. 1992. I- Iymer, D. 1989. Buying & Selling A Honie In California —A Complete Residential Real Estate Guide. San Francisco, Calif.: Chronicle Books, Lang L. 1991. "IIot Property: Geographic Information Systems Technology Gains Ground in Real Estate Applications." Computer Graphics World (December). Li, Mingche, and H. James Brown. 1980. "Micro- Neighborhood Externalities and Hedonic housing Prices." Land Economics. Meesc,R. 1991. Determinants of Residential Housing Prices: EffectsofFundamentalEconomic Factors or Speculative Bubbles? Berkeley: Institute of Business and Economic Research, University of California at Berkeley. Metropolitan Transportation Commission. 1993. Mills, E..S., and Bruce Hamilton. 1989, Urban Economics. Pisouski, A. 1992 20 Roulac, S. E., L. Lynford, and G. H. Castle, III. 1990. "Real Estate Decision Making in an Information Era." Real Estate Fin.ancejournal (Summer). Sullivan,A.M. 1990, Urban Economics, IRWIN. Thrall, G. I., and S. Elshaw- Thrall. 1991. "Reducing Investor Risk: A GIS Design for Real Estate Analysis." Geo Info Systems (November /December). 21 Planning Commission's EIR Misrepresenting Traffic Impact of AHOZ Case StudV: Winchester Blvd and Knowles br (Intersection #1) Reports by the Planning Commission about its proposed Affordable Housing Overlay Zone (AHOZ) proposal suggest that the plan would have a minor —even negligible — effect on local traffic. However, upon further examination, it becomes evident that the effect would actually be dramatic. The Commission's reports suggest otherwise only because they are fraught with errors, false assumptions, and misrepresentations. To illustrate the risks of accepting this proposal, this paper will illustrate the impact of AHOZ on one the Town's busiest intersections: Winchester Blvd. and Knowles Dr. (aka as "Intersection #1" in various traffic analyses of Los Gatos). This is the intersection most likely to be affected in the near future, should the Planning Commission's AHOZ proposal be implemented —since the potential project on the Courthouse Site is in immediate proximity to the intersection. Planning Commission is Understating Existing Traffic Conditions A recent traffic study identifies Intersection #1 as one of the three worst intersections in Los Gatos, in terms of delay during PM peak traffic hours. The level of service for the intersection is reported as "D +" due to delay of 35.4 seconds. However, the Commission provides this finding based on obvious errors and omissions. Exhibit 1: PM Peak traffic conditions 61 524 4001 321 31 0.84 0.93 1 0.64 1 0.73 1 0.77 1 0.89 1 0.56 1 0.94 1 0.90 1 0.91 1 0.81 1 0.78 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 1.00 1 1.00 1 1.00 1 1.00 1 1.00 1 1.00 1 1.00 1 1.00 1 1.00 -27%1 -23%1 -11%1 A4i1 -6i1 -10%1 -10%1 -19% Source: FEIR Addendum — Traffic Study — Technical Appendix Exhibit 1 documents the approach used by the Commission, based on a June 2012 study. The study documents traffic in each approach and movement in 15- minute increments, allowing analysts to easily point the peak traffic levels in each movement. However, the analysis provided by the Commission ignores the high - granularity data; instead, it aggregates the traffic into 60- minute segments, and sums Planning Commission's EIR Misrepresenting Traffic Impact of AHOZ / January 2023 traffic across all 12 movements; then it defines "peak hour" as the sixty- minute segment during which the grand total of traffic was the highest. This ignores the fact that each movement may peak at different points in time, and that the true level of service provided to residents is defined by conditions during the worst 15 minute segment, not during an average over a longer time period. For example, consider eastbound right -turn volume (captured in the column marked "EBR "). The analysis provided in the EIR picks the 60 minutes from 4:45pm to 5:45pm as the "peak hour" based on total traffic volume. For EBR, volume during this 60- minute interval is 362 vehicles. However, the worst 60- minute interval for EBR is actually 4:30pm to 5:30pm, when 375 vehicles make the EBR movement. Moreover, the worst 15- minute interval for this movement is from 4:30pm to 4:45pm, when 100 vehicles make the EBR turn in the intersection; that's an hourly rate of 400 (100 x 4).- The software used by the Commission's staff requires the analyst to calculate the ratio between the 60- minute segment used as input and the hourly rate during the worst 15 minute segment; this is defined as "Peak Hour Factor" (PHF) and used to properly increase the modeled level of utilization of the intersection. In the case of EBR, this ratio would be 0.91 (362 divided by 400). However, the Commission's staff has ignored these data, and assumed PHF to be 1.00 for all movements. This erroneous assumption understates the current level of traffic through the intersection by up to 44%! In the case of EBR, the Commission is understating the traffic volume by 10 %; and, since the Commission indirectly estimates traffic delays based on simulation models which use traffic volume as a primary input, the Commission's analyses significantly overstate the level of service. Delay for EBR is reported by the Commission as 36.4 seconds; our model calculated the TRUE delay as 291.5 seconds). Such delay in existing traffic is worse than "F" level of service; it regularly creates a long line of cars on Knowles Drive and impacts other movements as well —as any person actually standing on Knowles Drive during PM peak traffic hour could easily observe. Furthermore, the software used by the Commission ignores spillover effects across lanes, which are very noticeable in this intersection. For example, the delays in EBR which induce the queue on Knowles Drive affect eastbound through traffic and left turn as well — causing further degradation in the actual level of service in Intersection 111, well below the D+ suggested by the Commission. Were the Commission to properly calculate and report the Intersection's level of service, it would be obvious that adding hundreds of new units around would be a traffic disaster; however, the errors and omissions in the Commission's analyses serve to conceal this reality and mislead the public about the severity of traffic conditions at Winchester and Knowles. 1 The Commission has refused to share with the residents the results of its traffic model for the direct impact of AHOZ (before any improvements). However, we have been able to approximate its results by formulating a classical queuing model with M /D /1 structure. The results are based on this model, by adjusting arrival rates per the respective increases in trips through the intersection. Planning Commission's OR Misrepresenting Traffic Impact of AHOZ / la nuary 2013 2 EIR is Grossly Under - representing the Traffic Impact of AHOZ The Commission's errors and misrepresentations are even more extreme, when it comes to projecting the impact of traffic due to AHOZ on delays in the intersection. The Commission makes unjustifiable assumptions regarding the low number of vehicles per unit near Intersection 41 (see Exhibit 2). 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 -2 vehicles for affordable units. However, the Planning Commission staff has adopted a "1 space per unit" rule for development near Intersection #1; this rule represents a major concession — which dramatically benefits the developer while penalizing the local community (due to increased need for street parking). Exhibit 2shows that, given Los,Gatos income brackets and basic:principlesof averaging, the Commission's implicit assumptions — no cars owned by,affordable housing residents - are hard to justify; it is more likely to expect the AHOZ properties to average closer to 2 vehicles per unit — or even more. Exhibit 2: Validating the Commission's assumption about number of vehicles per unit sj L x,e:.Avg:NLtmber,of Vehlcles,wyw� �`' <rA�ii F'laa 9�i 3."5.`" Pf '1' bp• t", .c C I, ning`ko minsloit or ..(- sb"e%&ne �,-Housmg EsflniBte3 0 x-1.5 �..- 02 ... - -- 0'. 2:25 -- - 2 2.5' 1.0 2.225 1) Representative affordability ratio mix for AH02; assuming "Extremely Low" and "Very Low" to be of equal size 2f7mp1icitJigures required to generate an overall average of1.0'vehicles per unit 3) Based on applying ratios of vehicles per household, by income level,' as calculated by the California Department of - Housing& Community Development,, to the income brackets to Los. Gatos Sources: AHOZ proposal; "Myths and,Facts about Affordable & High. Density Housing," California Department of Housing & Community Development The Commission is taking an even more extreme approach; when incorporating this and other assumptions about new construction in the Courthouse Site _.- :ap ply! ngran implicit.rate of car ownership dramatically lower than the already- understated 1.0. While the Commission never directly reports the full set of figures and assumptions comprising the traffic impact of the potential Courthouse Site project, a careful review of its traffic analysis exposes some the Commission's implicit assumptions. Exhibit 3 demonstrates an approach for deriving the Commission's implicit assumptions. To evaluate the amount of traffic which the Commission assumes to be generated by the new residents in the Planning Commission's EIR Misrepresenting Traffic Impact of AHOZ /January 2013 Courthouse site, it is helpful to contrast the projections for traffic Intersection 41 with traffic through Intersection #27 - Knowles and Dardanelli -as the Courthouse Site is roughly midpoint between Intersection #1 and Intersection #27. By subtracting the projected traffic increase through Intersection #27 from the respective projected increase for Intersection #1, one can approximate the net increase in Intersection #1 traffic solely due to Courthouse Site changes. Exhibit 3: Deriving the Commission's implicit assumption about number of vehicles per unit in Courthouse Site Average n ' bertofatrfps/pea �fncrease;ig. Peak. hour ° ... �s r£,.! our,,, r! s from Avsagor)3p 2 +hourstr Exlating Traffic to •;, (extratptol�tedas1,;65�r�l�' +' '� .,,,�„ �ix2020�P,lan ft��# Eastbouknc(Eraffjc (%m KnowleslOto,: Number f new units z .e 125 KnowlesMihchester #1 122 AM EastboOntl1ra�ffic t rough ICnov less New Trt(3s1NePU Umf 'Peak;]andDarda elli#27 Y., {,,,, EBT +SBL+ 115 6661 Netttra'c'generated b Gourthousg a 7 Wesfbound {raifickinto %,jt g Knowles f om`; Knowles /WiOCheste #1 ` g 4 162 y ?, �,.y�.stbtOUnd:trsfficf2to'Ixrio Peak a r -wrrtv n ?„5- Darahelli#27 150 $��F Net,tfaffic ge�ierated b�Co��h1o� sew" r rt4 12 Average n ' bertofatrfps/pea 2020 +p hour ° ... �s 9.5 Avsagor)3p 2 +hourstr +NBL (extratptol�tedas1,;65�r�l�' 15.7 .,,,�„ �;,Uoluttte� �Yolu`me+ +WBL Number f new units z .e 125 EBR +EBT+ New Trt(3s1NePU Umf 0.125 EBL `EXlshog F 2020 +p Approaches: 555 Hour +NBL Pealc�Hour Peak , „' �;,Uoluttte� �Yolu`me+ +WBL EBR +EBT+ 559 681 EBL EBT +SBL+ 5511 6661 NBR Source: FOR Addendum - Traffic Study - Technical Appendix As shown in Exhibit 3, the Commission implicitly assumes no more than 7 new trips during AM peak hour due to the new residents in the Courthouse Site - and no more than 12 new trips during PM peak hour. Averaging these two figures and extrapolating them for the two hours of peak traffic (7am -9am and 4pm -6pm) suggests no more than 16 new trips during peak hours. Compared to 125 new units planned for the Courthouse Site, the rate of trips per unit is about 0.125; in other words -1 daily round trip per each 8 new units. This, of course, is an incredible understatement. Even the severely- understated assumption of 1 car per unit would yield more than 0.6 daily trips (based on ratios derived from the Commission's reports). And more realistic assumptions like 1.75, 2.0, or 2.225 cars per unit would yield much higher number of trips, Planning Commission's EIR Misrepresenting Traffic Impact of AHOZ / January 2013 W8T +S8R 555 717 +NBL WBR +WBT 451 601 +WBL Source: FOR Addendum - Traffic Study - Technical Appendix As shown in Exhibit 3, the Commission implicitly assumes no more than 7 new trips during AM peak hour due to the new residents in the Courthouse Site - and no more than 12 new trips during PM peak hour. Averaging these two figures and extrapolating them for the two hours of peak traffic (7am -9am and 4pm -6pm) suggests no more than 16 new trips during peak hours. Compared to 125 new units planned for the Courthouse Site, the rate of trips per unit is about 0.125; in other words -1 daily round trip per each 8 new units. This, of course, is an incredible understatement. Even the severely- understated assumption of 1 car per unit would yield more than 0.6 daily trips (based on ratios derived from the Commission's reports). And more realistic assumptions like 1.75, 2.0, or 2.225 cars per unit would yield much higher number of trips, Planning Commission's EIR Misrepresenting Traffic Impact of AHOZ / January 2013 as shown in Exhibit 4. It seems that the traffic- generation assumptions implicit in the EIR understate the Commission's'expl!cit assumptions by factor of 5 —and figures'suggested by the California Department. of Housing by a factor -of 111 - - Exhibit 4: Illustrating the extreme understatement of traffic generation implicit in the EIR Traffic Study Implicit Assumption Required per EIR Assumption (1 car per new unit) Midpoint (1.75 cars /unit) Based on Calif. Dept. of Housing Figures Numberof Trips per New Unit 0.0 - -: -- 0.5 1.0 1.5 Sources: AHOZ Proposal; FEIR Addendum'- Vaffit Study - Technical Appendix An alternative way of interpreting Exhibit 4 is that, since the implicit trip - generation assumption is 0.125, or one -fifth of the rate suggested by assuming 1 car per new unit (0.62), the Commission implicitlyis using a`car ownership rate of one fifth of 1, or just 0.2'cars per 'unit: 0.2 cars .ii i holusehold may have peen;thexight ownership rate for 6os Gatos m the 1930sj i,t,!s- certalnly the wrong rate in the 21"t century, One has to conclude that, inexplicably, the Planning Commission has all but ignored the traffic - Impact of potentlal,developnent -!n the 7courthouser Site. Planning Commission's EIR Misrepresenting Traffic Impact of AHOZ /January 2013 - 5 AHOZ would Result in Unacceptable Levels of Service Correcting the Planning Commission's faulty assumptions can provide a more realistic projection of new cars, and expose the overwhelming effect that AHOZ would have on local traffic. Depending on the details of the queuing model, these increases in peak volumes would increase wait times to unacceptable levels; and these delays would have a domino effect on the busy intersections, ramps, and routes which feed or connect with the impacted intersections. Exhibit 5 illustrates the cumulative impact of the Commission's various errors and misrepresentations for Intersection #1: o The current state (for PM Peak travel) is reported by the Commission at about a 35 second delay, placing it at the "D +" level of service grade (as noted above, correct evaluation of the current state would put it solidly at the "F" level of service). • The Commission calculated (in Table 4.13 -5 of the General Plan 2020 draft document) that the AHOZ (as planned in June 2010) would increase delays in this intersection to 63 seconds, bringing it to "E" level of service (unacceptable in Los Gatos), even if the original "D +" grade were correct. • The Commission's decision to segregate AHOZ development to the north of Los Gatos adds to the volume of traffic through the intersection, which the Commission understates in its FOR Addendum as 84 additional trips during PM Peak hours; this would raise delay to 96 seconds', placing the intersection solidly in the "F" level of service group. • The calculated delay is understated, since the Commission wrongly assumes that none of the residents of the affordable housing units would own a vehicle, bringing the average vehicle per unit (across both affordable and market -rate units) to only 1.0. Under more realistic assumptions of 1.5 vehicles per unit, delay would grow to 267 seconds — nearly 8 times longer than today's levels. Such delay would, of course, overflow the existing intersection infrastructure. If the vehicle assumption is adjusted to 1.75 vehicles per unit, traffic through the intersection would come to effective standstill — longer than 22 minutes of wait time. That, of course, would completely block traffic throughout Knowles Drive. 2 As noted earlier: The results are based on a classical queuing model with M /D /1 structure, while adjusting arrival rates per the respective increases in trips through the intersection. Planning Commission's EIR Misrepresenting Traffic Impact of AHOZ /January 2013 Exhibit 5: True Impact of AHOZ on Local Traffic The impact of AHOZ — as originally,planned, and as recently segregated.-- on the Winchester /Knowles intersection Levelof T vice "F" J. Adjusting vehicle assumption (1.75 vs. 1:5) 1,400 e � Models and analyses are no better than the inputs provided.to them (or, more bluntly= Garbage In, Garbage Out); the Planning Commission has provided erroneous inputs to the traffic analysis underlying the EIR; resulting ,ingross misrepresentation of traffic impacts of AHOZ -for example, on Intersection #1: • The Commission has ignored detailed traffic volume data avallable,to tt. under-reporting the current level of traffic through the intersection by up to 44 %. These volumes imply thatthe existing level of service in Intersection #1 is often unacceptable (below "C"). • The Commission appears to assume that none of the affordable housing residents in the Courthouse Site would own a car (allowing the Commission to calculate average car ownership rate of 1 per unit). • Furthermore, the Commission implicitly assumes that the great majority of cars owned by residents in the Courthouse Site's market -rate units would not be used during peak hour traffic; the Commission is effectively assuming car ownership of merely 0.2 per unit. When these inputs are corrected, simulation models clearly indicate that the Courthouse Site development suggested by AHOZ would bring Intersection. #1 traffic conditions to unacceptable- levels. Planning Commission's FIR Misrepresenting Traffic Impact of AHOZ /January 2013 7 Arlene Holmboe From: Janette Judd Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2013 8:45 AM To: Wendie Rooney; Arlene Holmboe Subject: FW: Against AHOZ on Oka From: Zhong Pan [mailto:pan zhong(alyahoo.comj Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 10:38 PM To: Council Subject: Against AHOZ on Oka Dir Town Council, We are resident at 200 Las Miradas Drive, heard the proposal of Affordable Housing Overlay Zone on Oka. We have strong concern about the impact to the traffic, schools and property values, and against this proposal. We need alternative solutions to AHOZ. Sincerely, Zhong &Yan This Page Intentionally Left Blank Arlene Holmboe From: Janette Judd Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2013 8:46 AM To: Wendie Rooney, Arlene Holmboe Subject: FW: AHOZ on Oka et al - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Lori Moore [mailto:lori.moore @me.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 6:01 PM To: Council Subject: AHOZ on Oka et al Hello Town Council of Los Gatos, First of all, thank you all for the hard work you do to keep Los Gatos the kind of place that no matter where I go in the US, people have heard of our charming and desirable town. I have lived, and been a homeowner, in Los Gatos for 15 years. I love this town very much and have no plans to leave- - ever! First I lived in the neighborhood of Belwood, on Belvue Drive. Now I live in a townhouse in Charter Oaks at 115 Almond Hill Court. I understand there is a town code amendment application in the works with the intent to add several Affordable Housing properties to Los Gatos. I would like to offer my support of this idea 100 %. 1 live very close to Oka, Charter Oaks being just on the other side of the LG creek from there. I walk regularly on the creek trail then crossover to the neighborhood on the other side which connects to Oka. I am very familiar with the area and I think it would be the perfect spot to put the type of housing you are proposing. There is a movement in my neighborhood to stop this. We all got a flyer and lether telling us it was an "awful" idea and encouraging us to get involved. So ok, I amt 1 am somewhat educated on Affordable Housing. I know that it is not the same thing as low income housing, which is probably what people assume. Another thing they may not realize is that Affordable Housing in Los Gatos will probably not be the same as the stigma the objectors may have in their heads (low quality, slapped together, bad looking, etc). I also know that the effect it could potentially have on our property values is minimal. I cannot be a the hearing on January 22 as 1 have an important volunteer commitment that evening. I plan to write up an argument for the AHOZ in LG and pass it out in my neighborhood. If you have any factual information to share, that would be great. If there is anything else that I can do to help, I am certainly open to jumping on board. Sincerely, Lori Moore Arlene Holmboe From: Janette Judd Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2013 11:37 AM To: Wendie Rooney, Arlene Holmboe Subject: FW: Oka Road From: hulasbOaol.com [mailto:hulasb(cbaol.com] Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2013 9:24 AM To: Council Subject: Oka Road Please do a traffic TIME STUDY of Oka Road. Personally visit this location and see the Church, JCC, and Swim and Racquet Club when in use. We have lived on Mozart for 29 years. With the high density housing you propose, there is NO WAY we will be able to get out - or an ambulance in - if there is an emergencyll OR in the alternative, MAKE PLANS FOR ANOTHER ROAD TO EXIT OUR NEIGHBORHOOD Thankyou Suzann Beglau & Greg MacSwain 16481 Mozart Ave. Los Gatos Ibis Page Intentionally Left Blank Arlene Holmboe From: Janette Judd Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2013 1:20 PM To: Arlene Holmboe; Cindie Taylor Subject: FW: ( JTorre) I oppose AHOZ zoning on Oka Rd One not on your list From: J Torre [ma ilto:jtorre(alprodigv.net] Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 7:15 PM To: Council Cc: Town Manager; Wendie Rooney; SaveOkaRoadPgmail com Subject: I oppose AHOZ zoning on Oka Rd TO: Mayor Barbara Spector and Los Gatos Town Council I oppose the draft planning proposal for 3 Affordable Housing Overlay Zone (AHOZ) parcels located on Oka Road and the 2 AHOZ parcels located near Nefflix as part of the Los Gatos response to California's Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) requirements. The locations of the proposed AHOZ parcels do not address the requirements for affordable housing, will increase existing congestion in that part of town, and reflects a serious lack of due diligence by the Town of Los Gatos. (1) The selected sites do not address the stated objective of California's SB375 which is to meet its greenhouse gas reduction target through integrated land use, housing and transportation planning. The Oka Road site is much farther from public transit services than other possible sites within Los Gatos; it is not located within walking distance of any shopping, restaurants or other such amenities and services. AHOZ zoning is intended to e.g., allow higher density housing than the underlying zoning permits in order to develop an area within walking distance of schools, public transit, and /or other commercial amenities. Oak does none of those. (2) Due to the area's distance from services as outlined above, residents of any new developments, like the current residents, will have to drive for everything adding significantly to the traffic on Oka and especially on Lark Avenue. I cannot fathom how the Traffic Management team calculated the expected increases in traffic. Lark Avenue is one of the busiest roads in Los Gatos with perhaps the highest concentration of traffic lights per mile in town. It already backs up significantly and not just at commute times. The addition of several hundred new residences pouring vehicles into Lark Avenue, not to mention what the Albright project also adds, will bring it to a standstill that no traffic engineering will be able to resolve. (3) The location of the sites conflicts with stated objective for affordable housing to be distributed equally throughout the town by adding it all in one area. The concentration of lower cost housing in one area is bound to decrease growth in value of existing houses in this area disproportionately to the value of houses in other parts of the town giving residents a double whammy of both immediate increased traffic and over the long term a decreased return on investment in our homes. 4) The additional residents will add to the problems for our already overcrowded schools. To keep its reputation for excellent schools, Los Gatos needs to solve its current overcrowding problem and plan for future growth. Like the traffic studies, the figures provided by the town planners for new students being added from the proposed high density homes on Oka Road are incomprehensible. As is the thought that the town council would consider zoning the last large open space in town for high density housing instead of other uses such as the location of a new school. I reiterate my opposition to the draft planning proposal for 3 Affordable Housing Overlay Zones on Oak Rd for the reasons outlined above. It represents at best inadequate, and possibly irresponsible, planning by the town which will affect not only the residents of the neighborhoods near Oka Road, but also the entire Town of Los Gatos. I strongly request that, as our elected officials, you reject this proposal for an Oka Road AHOZ and instruct the Planning Commission to propose new options to meet our town's RHNA and SB375 requirements that also address rather than aggravate its other growth problems. Sincerely, Jeanne Torre 306 Willow Hill Ct. Los Gatos, CA 95032 408 - 374 -9813 z Arlene Holmboe From: Janette Judd Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2013 1:21 PM To: Arlene Holmboe; Cindie Taylor Subject: FW: (Wendy Dodd) I strongly oppose zoning AHOZ on Oka Rd One not on your list From: Wendy Dodd [mailto:14wendydodd@gmail com] Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 9:14 PM To: Council; Town Manager; Wendie Rooney Cc: Wendy Dodd Subject: I strongly oppose zoning AHOZ on Oka Rd Dear Mayor Barbara Spector and town councilors, I am registering my extreme opposition to the draft planning proposal for 3 Affordable Housing Overlay Zone (AHOZ) parcels located on Oka Road and the 2 AHOZ parcels locate near Netflix as part of Los Gatos' response to California's Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) requirements. The location of the AHOZ parcels in this area is reckless planning on the part of the town, a travesty for the local residents and a missed opportunity for the town of Los Gatos. This plan needs to be seriously reconsidered. School are already full and growing in numbers every year. We have to acknowledge that these new residents will put a lot of pressure on our already overcrowded schools. We do not believe the figure provided by the town planning of 58 new students being added from the 250 new high density homes on Oka. This is unrealistic. Los Gatos has excellent schools and this is one of the main reasons why I and many of my neighbors choose to settle here in Los Gatos. It will be a similar case for our new AHOZ neighbors. We need to solve the problem of our already overcrowded schools and plan for the future growth. The Davis report that projects future enrollment is based on the planning department's understated numbers and not reality. I would ask the town council what they are thinking as they zone Oka, the last large open space in Los Gatos, for high density housing instead other uses such as the location of a new school. What other solution is there to resolve the challenge of our overcrowded classrooms? The site selections do not comply with the stated objective of California's SB375. The site is not pedestrian friendly since it not conveniently located within walking distance of any shopping, restaurants or other such amenities. The whole idea of AHOZ zoning is that it is SMART, within walking distance to amenities and close to public transport. Oka has neither. The location of the sites further skews the town's disparity in the location of affordable housing. The area north of Lark accounts for only 14% of the town's total area but currently accounts for 67% of the town's affordable housing. With this new development, the area will account for 86% of the affordable housing with no increase anywhere else in the town! Moreover, this planning goes against the stated ideals of affordable housing which is to ensure that this burden is shared equally by all members of the community. Moreover, the concentration of so much affordable housing in one area will negatively affect the potential growth in value of existing houses in this area whilst at the same time increasing the value of houses in other parts of the town. This is simple economics. We residents within the 14% are being asked to pay an unfair price in terms of both immediate increased traffic and over the long term a decreased return on investment in our homes for this AHOZ development. The choice of Oka and the other parcels are unfair to be polite and reeks of a segregationist policy to be less so. Segregation versus Integration! Safety becomes and issue when new housing is added to one and only access down Oka Road. Oka is a small road and we disagree with the Traffic Management,team's calculation on the expected increases in traffic. Lark is already one of the busiest roads in Los Gatos with possibly the highest concentration of traffic lights per mile in town, we fully expect that the 250 new residences may generate up to an additional 400 plus extra cars during the morning and evening traffic all going in and out of Oka. This will exacerbate an already dreadful commute for residents all around this area and no amount of traffic engineering will be able to resolve it. I would like to close by reiterating my total opposition to the draft planning proposal #or 3 Affo {dable Housing Overlay Zones located on Oka Rd for the reasons highlighted above. This is irresponsible and ill- con'sid'ered planning on the part of the town for not only the residents of the local community but also the greater Town of Los Gatos 16. alfenge,:you as elected officials representing our community to seize this opportunity.'Do not zone Oka Rd with AHOZ. Instruct the Planning Commission to propose new options to meet our town's RHNA requirements Sincerely, Wendy Dodd 408- 242 -6082. wendv.wtf &.gmaiLcom z Arlene Holmboe From: Janette Judd Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2013 1:21 PM To: Arlene Holmboe; Cindie Taylor Subject: FW: (David Dodd) Reconsider the zoning AHOZ on Oka Rd. I OPPOSE IT!!! One not on your list From: David Dodd [mailto:dave.dodd0nne.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 9:48 PM To: Council; Town Manager; Wendie Rooney Subject: Reconsider the zoning AHOZ on Oka Rd. I OPPOSE IT!! 1 Dear Mayor Barbara Spector and town councilors, First, the site selections do not comply with the stated objective of California's SB375. The Oka site is the furthest of many possible sites within the town from public transport services and moreover the site is not pedestrian friendly since it not conveniently located within walking distance of any shopping, restaurants or other such amenities. The whole idea of AHOZ zoning is that it is SMART, within walking distance to amenities and close to public transport. Oka has neither. Second, due to the area's pedestrian unfriendliness, the traffic on Oka and Lark will be drastically affected as the new residents on Oka take to their cars as their only means of transportation to get to work, school, etc. As local residents, this will affect us tremendously. Oka is a small road and we disagree with the Traffic Management team's calculation on the expected increases in traffic. Lark is already one of the busiest roads in Los Gatos with possibly the highest concentration of traffic lights per mile in town, we fully expect that the 250 new residences may generate up to an additional 400 plus extra cars during the morning and evening traffic all going in and out of Oka. This will exacerbate an already dreadful commute for residents all around this area and no amount of traffic engineering will be able to resolve it. Third, the location of the sites further skews the town's disparity in the location of affordable housing. The area north of Lark accounts for only 14% of the town's total area but currently accounts for 67% of the town's affordable housing. With this new development, the area will account for 86% of the affordable housing with no increase anywhere else in the town! Moreover, this planning goes against the stated ideals of affordable housing which is to ensure that this burden is shared equally by all members of the community. Moreover, the concentration of so much affordable housing in one area will negatively affect the potential growth in value of existing houses in this area whilst at the same time increasing the value of houses in other parts of the town. This is simple economics. We residents within the 14% are being asked to pay an unfair price in terms of both immediate increased traffic and over the long term a decreased return on investment in our homes for this AHOZ development. The choice of Oka and the other parcels are unfair to be polite and reeks of a segregationist policy to be less so. Segregation versus Integration! Finally, we have to acknowledge that these new residents will put a lot of pressure on our already overcrowded schools. We do not believe the figure provided by the town planning of 58 new students being added from the 250 new high density homes on Oka. Los Gatos has excellent schools and this is one of the main reasons why I and many of my neighbors choose to settle here in Los Gatos. It will be a similar case for our new AHOZ neighbors. We need to solve the problem of our already overcrowded schools and plan for the future growth. The Davis report that projects future enrollment is based on the planning department's understated numbers and not reality. I would ask the town council what they are thinking as tiey zone Oka, the last large open space in Los Gatos, for high density housing instead other uses such as the location of a new school. What other solution is there to resolve the challenge of our overcrowded classroom's? I hereby register my STRONG opposition to the. draft planning proposal for 3 Affordable Housing Overlay Zone (AHOZ) parcels located on Oka Road and the 2 AHOZ parcels locate near Netflix as part of Los Gatos' response to California's Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA)requirements. The location of the AHOZ parcels in this area is reckless planning on the part of the town, a travesty for the local residents and a missed opportunity for the town of Los Gatos. I would like to close by reiterating my total opposition to the draft planning proposal,for.,Affo.rdable Housing Overlay Zones located on Oka Rd for the reasons highlighted above. This is irresponsible and ill- considered planning on the part of the town for not only the residents of the local cornrnunity but also the greater Town of Los Gatos. I challenge you as elected officials representing our community to seize this opportunity. Do not zone Oka Rd with AH'OZ.- - Instruct the Planning Commission to propose new options to Meet bur town's RHNA requirements. Sincerely, David Dodd - 408 =888 -3743 dave.dodd(�.com PA \ 7\ cs \/ \j \d _ $ cq 3 a#A0 #Ag 16 ( \ z « 3 a J a mix / ® E \ �O \ 0 2 _ D » § \ } cq �� . ) \ ) f z } O0 3 ® ® § �z_ j | § ) ) ©� \ ) § / " w { - z� ( I I b \ ] ) { U) CL C\l e O E \ ƒ. \ 7\ cs \/ \j \d _ $ cq 3 a#A0 #Ag 16 This Page Intentionally Left Blank