Attachment 2REMARKS OF FREDERICK LYON,
ATTORNEY AT LAW,
ON BEHALF OF LOS GATOS LODGE, LLC AND KEET NERHAN,
REGARDING THE PROPOSED ADOPTION OF
THE AMENDED AHOZ ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
AND THE INCLUSION OF LOS GATOS LODGE PROPERTIES IN THE AHOZ
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 9, 2013
INTRODUCTION
There are a number of points of view from which one can analyze the Affordable
Housing Overlay Zone Ordinance which The Planning Commission is proposing to
recommend to the Town Council for passage. There is the point of view of the
landowner, who is being asked to allow the value of the property to be diminished by the
apparent or real financial stigma that will likely be attached to the properties after this
designation. The owner must also consider the fairness of having to shoulder almost half
of the town's obligation for affordable housing with the degraded incentives that have
been built into the proposed ordinance. From the point of view of the adjacent
landowners there is the fear, rightly or wrongly, of a devaluation of their property. Then
there is the potential developer of the property, the individual who comes along to try to
follow through the alleged intent of the ordinance, who fords he cannot economically
develop housing without the aid of charities, government funds, and density credits which
the General Plan Committee has stripped from the ordinance. Finally, you have the
individual who might wind up trying to live in this affordable community tucked inside
the high- priced, exclusive, Town of Los Gatos in an area that is convenient only to the
ATTACHIMENT 2
expensive shops and restaurants of the downtown area. Without a doubt, and from many
points of view, this is a poor choice of locations, and you don't provide the incentives to
make it work.
INCENTIVES: NOW YOU SEE THEM, NOW YOU DON'T
I was actually interested when your staff explained to the public, early last June, the
process and possible incentives which a builder might get for helping the town meet its
affordable housing goals. This week, I read the final ordinance, the culmination of all of
your work and I found that most of the economic incentives are gone. The work of your
staff has been excellent. It is thorough and well - researched. It begins with all the right
assumptions, but the Committees have gradually, one by one, taken the incentives away.
The best example I have found is 29.80.515 (b). which states, in effect, if anyone tries to
apply for any of any the state density credit incentives, or either of the stated local density
credit incentives, they shall be deemed to have violated the statute, and they may not
proceed. What happened between May of this year and now? Under the eye of the public,
affordable housing incentives were explained, and later, in the relative obscurity of the
General Plan Committee, they were taken away. It's almost as if the town wants to meet
the requirement for affordable housing, but wants no affordable housing at all.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Apparently, those in charge decided that there was a sufficient change to the environment
caused by the revised AHOZ to require an amendment to the EIR prepared
for previous General Plan use, but the impacts identified in this amendment do not
address the situation created by the changed of sites.
TRAFFIC REMAINS AN UNKNOWN FACTOR
While the town's traffic consultant was apparently asked to do some studies relevant to
current traffic patterns, estimated traffic volumes for residential traffic associated with the
projected affordable housing remains unknown. Some preliminary assumptions are made
regarding the general idea of automobile ownership by residents of affordable housing.
These assumptions are stereotypical, based on economic assumptions instead of
experience, and probably wrong. Further assumptions are made about the time that trips
will be started and completed, but they are assumptions and not based on recent empirical
data. A full traffic study is required for the Los Gatos Lodge sites, and this has not been
done. Finally, all traffic assumptions are based upon a density of 20 units per acre. If
feasibility requires an increase in units per acre, as we believe we can demonstrate, then
the traffic information is incorrect.
OTHER CEQA ISSUES
EIR - We believe that the town has erred in its failure to produce a more comprehensive
supplemental EIR than the "Addendum" which is proposed. Changing the sites of the
Affordable Housing Overlay Zones certainly triggers Section 15162 of the Public
Resources Code for action beyond what is required by "minor technical changes." The
"Project" will surely have one or more significant effects not discussed in the original
EIR if for no other reason than the traffic on Los Gatos - Saratoga Road, but for other
reasons as well.
Assumptions were made regarding the uses of properties previously designated as AHOZ
sites. These assumptions have been proven wrong as owners of these previously selected
sites have come to the town to express existing commitments to uses which were not
previously anticipated by the town when the original AHOZ sites were selected. When
taken together, these four or five changed sites add up to a substantial environmental
effect. We believe that a supplemental EIR could be sufficient, but it must take into
consideration the changes made by vacating the prior sites for new uses, and they must
consider the environmental effects of new uses on the former sites as well as effects of
the new selected sites. To be succinct, not enough environmental study has gone into the
new sites, and absolutely no environmental study has gone into the uses which will be
made of the abandoned sites.
PUBLIC SERVICES - Public Services will be burdened by the current proposal, and
over - burdened by increased density.
NOISE - Noise from the Los Gatos High School will impact any development, and with
no buffer such as might be included in a mixed project, there will be no mitigation.
SITE SPECIFIC ISSUES
In addition to items mentioned above, these sites have the characteristic of sitting lower
than the surrounding properties. Any difference between the affordable housing and the
"market rate" housing, referred to in the AHOZ ordinance, would be stark within that
setting and would be an unsatisfactory difference. Development within the "bowl' that is
the Lodge property should be homogeneous.
Because of the characteristic referred to above, building heights could vary without
affecting neighboring properties. Something as simple as a change in height limits could
change build -out ratios and planning parameters.
4
CONCLUSION
Among the things we do in our relatively small company is land development. Based on
what we have seen in this ordinance, we don't believe that this ordinance makes
affordable housing economically feasible. If that is true, why are we complaining? Why
don't we just sit back and wait for an opportunity to redevelop the hotel property using
the underlying zoning? One reason is that we could very well be interested in a serious,
feasible, affordable housing development, and the other is, that in the absence of feasible
development of this type, our property carries the label of an affordable housing site
without its benefits. This affects property values, loan values and other economic factors.
We believe the designation is unfair to the owners, unfair to the cause of affordable
housing, unfair to the neighbors and unfair to the community. If the town is not serious
about affordable housing, please don't include our property.
Respectfully Submitted,
Los Gatos Lodge, LLC.
Los Gatos Lodge
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank