Modify - clarify that
home occupations
are allowed in
residential zones
consistent with the
Zoning Code.
1.4.1 Implement
zoning and
design
standards
Continue to implement residential zoning, development
standards, and design review to ensure compatibility of housing with neighborhood character, minimum open
yard space, and streets that are safe.
-
Community
Development
Department, Planning
and Transportation
Commission, City
Council, Design
Review Commission
The City continues to
implement zoning
standards and design
review. Objective
standards have been
adopted to facilitate and
streamline development
review.
Modify/Merge -
implement
development and
design standards
that are objective in
the review of
housing
developments
consistent with State
law. See Program
1.4.2. 1.4.2 Evaluate
design review
process
Regularly review and adjust, if appropriate, criteria,
objectives, and procedures for design review of
residential construction to be compatible in terms of
bulk and mass, lot coverage, and proportion with
houses in the immediate vicinity. This program will set criteria under which development must be reviewed by
City staff, the Design Review Commission, and/or the
Planning and Transportation Commission.
-
Community
Development
Department, Design
Review Commission,
Planning and
Transportation
Commission, City
Council
The City made
modifications in 2015
and 2015 to design
review requirements. The
design review process
should continue to be
evaluated and
streamlined.
Modify - amend
design review
process and review
bodies to streamline
and remove the
story pole
requirement.
284
Agenda Item # 7.
Existing Programs Review City of Los Altos | D-5
Program Name &
Number
Program
Description Objectives ResponsibleParty Evaluation Modify / Delete / Continue
1.4.3 Facilitate
alternative
modes of
transportation
in residential
neighborhoods
Facilitate alternative modes of transportation in
residential neighborhoods. -
Community
Development
Department, Planning
and Transportation
Commission, City
Council
The City has
implemented this through
the development review
process. More specificity
could be provided.
Modify - provide
specific actions the
City will undertake
(e.g., fund
community service
organizations or
other organizations
to offer rides, etc.)
1.4.4 Accommodate
the needs of
children
through design
review and
land use
regulations,
including open
space, parks
and recreation
facilities,
pathways, play
yards, etc.
Accommodate the needs of children through design
review and land use regulations, including open space,
parks and recreation facilities, pathways, play yards,
etc.
-
Community
Development
Department
This has been completed
through the adoption of
common and private
open space standards for
multi-family projects.
Modify - this has
been completed;
however, the City
could incentivize
creation of play
areas in housing
developments.
1.5.1 Review
compatibility
of land
divisions as
part of the
permit review
and approval
process
Review compatibility of land divisions as part of the
permit review and approval process. -
Community
Development
Department, Planning
and Transportation
Commission, City
Council
This is addressed
through subdivision map
findings for approval.
Delete - this is
addressed through
State required
subdivision map
approval process
and findings.
Program Category 2: New Construction
2.1.1 Encourage
diversity of
housing
Require diversity in the size of units for projects in
mixed-use or multifamily zones to accommodate the
varied housing needs of families, couples, and
individuals. Affordable housing units proposed within
projects shall reflect the mix of community housing
needs.
-.
Community
Development
Department, Planning
and Transportation
Commission, City
Council
The City evaluates during
development review. This
is policy language, not a
program.
Delete - reframe as
a policy.
285
Agenda Item # 7.
D-6 | City of Los Altos Existing Programs Review
Program Name &
Number
Program
Description Objectives ResponsibleParty Evaluation Modify / Delete / Continue
2.1.2 Implement
multifamily
district
development
standards
Continue to implement the multifamily district
development standards to ensure that the maximum
densities established can be achieved and that the
maximum number of units is required to be built. (See
Table B-41 in Appendix B for a summary of multifamily
zoning requirements.)
-
Community
Development
Department, Planning
and Transportation
Commission, City
Council
The City continues to
implement adopted
standards.
Delete - replace
with programs to
remove identified
constraints to
housing (Appendix
C).
2.1.3 Allow
employee
housing
The City shall amend the Zoning Ordinance to
specifically allow employee housing for six or fewer
residents as a permitted use in residential zoning
districts, in compliance with Health and Safety Code
Section 17021.5and 17021.6.
-
Community
Development
Department, Planning
and Transportation
Commission, City
Council
The City has not
amended the Zoning
Code to allow for
employee housing given
limited agricultural
operations in Los Altos.
Continue
2.2.1 Provide
development
incentives for
mixed-use
projects in
commercial
districts
Continue to implement the affordable housing mixeduse policies developed for the Commercial Thoroughfare (CT) district, and expand development
incentives to other commercial districts in the city,
including CN (Commercial Neighborhood), CS
(Commercial Service), CD (Commercial Downtown),
CD/R-3 (Commercial Downtown/ Multiple Family), and
CRS (Commercial Retail Service). Development
incentives will be included for these districts that will encourage the development of affordable housing in
these identified commercial areas.
-
Community
Development
Department, Planning
and Transportation
Commission, City
Council
The City adopted
amendments to the CT
District and density
bonus provisions to
implement this program.
Delete - incentives
through density
bonus and other
standards
addressed through
other programs.
2.3.1 Implement
density
bonuses
Continue to implement density bonuses and other
incentives as provided by state law and the City’s
Zoning Ordinance.
-
Community
Development
Department
The City continues to
review and approve
density bonus and
incentive requests.
Modify - amend
density bonus
provisions to be
consistent with State
law.
Program Category 3: Special Needs Housing
3.1.1 Support
efforts to fund
homeless
services
Consider pursuing funding from available sources for
homeless services. The City will also assist community
groups that provide homeless services and assist such
groups in applying for funding from other agencies. The City will consider applying for grants where appropriate or will encourage/partner with local and regional
nonprofit organizations that wish to apply for such
grants.
-
Community
Development
Department, CDBG
funds* (As
transferred to the
County and applied
to the City program.)
The City continues to
transfer its CDBG funds
to the County to support
local housing programs,
including programs to
support people
experiencing
homelessness.
Modify - reflect City
funding and support
of the County’s
homelessness
services; add City
promotion of these
available services.
286
Agenda Item # 7.
Existing Programs Review City of Los Altos | D-7
Program Name &
Number
Program
Description Objectives ResponsibleParty Evaluation Modify / Delete / Continue
3.1.2 Continue to
participate in
local and
regional
forums for
homelessness,
supportive,
and
transitional
housing
Continue to participate in regional efforts as coordinated with other adjacent cities to address homeless and
emergency and transitional housing issues and
potential solutions.
-
Community
Development
Department, City
Council, Community
Services Agency
In addition to transferring
its CDBG funds to the
County, the City provides
funding for the
Community Services
Agency (CSA) of
Mountain View and Los
Altos that provides
various housing services.
Modify - expand to
reflect the City’s
funding and support
for CSA.
3.2.1 Amend the
City’s Zoning
Ordinance to
accommodate
emergency
shelters
Amend the City’s Zoning Ordinance concurrently with
the adoption of this Housing Element to allow
emergency shelters as a permitted use by right in the
Commercial Thoroughfare (CT) district without a
conditional use permit or other discretionary review and only subject to the development requirements in this
zone. This district is well suited for the development of emergency shelters with its full access to public transit and underdeveloped parcels that allow higher-density
housing opportunities.
The public transit opportunities include Caltrain, the
VTA Bus Service, and the VTA transit hub on Showers
Drive in Mountain View. The CT district has almost 11
acres of underdeveloped parcels that will accommodate
residential housing such as emergency shelters. Four
key opportunity sites make up the approximately 11
acres of development potential that could generate as
much as 378 housing units, not including density
bonuses for affordable housing. The City will also
evaluate adopting standards consistent with
Government Code Section 65583(a) (4) that addresses
operational and design criteria that may include:
• Lighting
• On-site management
• Maximum number of beds or persons to be
served nightly by the facility
-
Community
Development
Department
The City adopted Zoning
Code amendments in
2015 that allow for
emergency shelters
consistent with State law.
Delete - this has
been completed. A
new program will
address Low Barrier
Navigation Centers.
287
Agenda Item # 7.
D-8 | City of Los Altos Existing Programs Review
Program Name &
Number
Program
Description Objectives ResponsibleParty Evaluation Modify / Delete / Continue • Off-street parking based on demonstrated
need
• Security during hours that the emergency
shelter is in operation
• Allowing supportive services on-site at a level
commensurate with the number of beds
3.2.2 Recognize
the statutory
requirements
for transitional
and supportive
housing
Recognize the requirement of SB 2 to explicitly allow
both supportive and transitional housing types in all
zones that allow residential. The definitions of
transitional and supportive housing as defined in Health and Safety Code Sections 50675.2 and 50675.14.
Transitional and supportive housing will be allowed as a permitted use, subject only to the same restrictions on residential uses contained in the same types of
structure.
-
Community
Development
Department
The City amended the
Zoning Code in 2015 to
allow transitional and
supportive housing.
Modify - additional
Zoning Code
amendments are
necessary to be
consistent with
current State law for
transitional and
supportive housing.
3.2.3 Provide
incentives and
amend the
City’s Zoning
Ordinance for
compliance
with statutory
requirements
for singleroom
occupancy
residences to
address the
needs of
extremely lowincome
households
AB 2634 requires cities to identify zoning to encourage and facilitate supportive housing in single-room
occupancy units. The City will amend the Zoning
Ordinance concurrently with the adoption of this
Housing
Element to define single-room occupancy units (SROs)
and to allow SROs with a conditional use permit in
commercial thoroughfare districts in the city.
In addition, the City will review its affordable housing ordinance and other available development incentives
to determine what measures can be taken to encourage
the development of housing for people with extremely
low incomes.
-
Community
Development
Department
The City amended the
Zoning Code in 2015 to
allow SROs. No SROs
have been applied for
since the Zoning Code
amendment. The City
may consider additional
measures to encourage
SROs.
Modify - revise to
focus on actions to
encourage SROs
(reduced parking,
streamlined review,
etc.)
288
Agenda Item # 7.
Existing Programs Review City of Los Altos | D-9
Program Name &
Number
Program
Description Objectives ResponsibleParty Evaluation Modify / Delete / Continue Program Category 4: Affordability
4.1.1 Monitor
condominium
conversion
Continue to implement the Condominium Conversion
Ordinance to protect against the conversion or
demolition of rental units. It shall require buildings in multifamily zoning districts initially built as rental units which have not been converted to condominiums to be
reconstructed as rental units unless there is greater
than a 5 percent vacancy rate.
-
Community
Development
Department
No apartments were
converted to
condominiums during the
last cycle.
Continue
4.1.2 Conserve
small houses
in areas of
small lot sizes
Continue to conserve the stock of small houses in areas of small lot sizes. -
Community
Development
Department
The City continues to
implement, but there are
no specific standards.
Delete - reframe as
a policy.
4.2.1 Facilitate
new
construction of
second
dwelling units
Chapter 14.14 (Second Living Units in R1 Districts) of
the Municipal Code allows a detached second dwelling
unit to be permitted on a lot or parcel within a singlefamily residential district that has a minimum of the greater of 150 percent of the lot area required in the
residential zoning district in which the second living unit is proposed to be located, or 15,000 square feet of lot area. A lesser lot size is required if a second unit is attached to the main residence. Findings for approval
include that a public benefit will result because the
proposed second living unit will be maintained as
affordable for very low- and low-income households. A
second living unit may be established through the
conversion of existing floor space in a single-family
structure, the addition to a single-family structure,
conversion of a conforming accessory structure, or the
construction of a new accessory structure.
The City will continue to implement the following actions annually:
• Continue to implement second dwelling unit
regulations to provide increased opportunities
for the development of affordable second
units.
• Promote awareness of regulations which allow
the construction of new second units
consistent with City regulations through public
-
Community
Development
Department
The City adopted
updates to the ADU
standards pursuant to
State law. The City has
seen an increase in ADU
interest and permits.
Modify - promote
ADU production
through streamlined
review and clear
information/
requirements.
289
Agenda Item # 7.
D-10 | City of Los Altos Existing Programs Review
Program Name &
Number
Program
Description Objectives ResponsibleParty Evaluation Modify / Delete / Continue information at the Community Development
Department public counter and inclusion on
the City’s website.
• Annually review the number of second
dwelling unit permits issued.
• Continue to require a verification and
quantification procedure regarding rent and
occupancy as a condition of the permit.
4.2.2 Study the
feasibility of
reducing
minimum lot
sizes for
second living
units
Study the feasibility of reducing minimum lot sizes for second living units and amend, as appropriate, the
Zoning Ordinance to a reduce the minimum lot size for
second dwelling units.
-
Community
Development
Department, City
Council
The City adopted various
amendments to ADU
standards. This is no
longer applicable as
State law prohibits
establishing a minimum
lot size.
Delete - no longer
applicable as State
law prohibits
establishing a
minimum lot size.
4.3.1 Assist in the
development
of affordable
housing
If necessary for the development of affordable housing
projects, and when requested by the project sponsor,
consider assisting in securing funding for low- and
moderate-income housing developments through one
or more of the following actions:
• Transfer the City’s annual CDBG allocation to
the County for projects that serve the Los Altos
community.
• Provide funding to participate in a multijurisdictional housing finance program (such as a Mortgage Revenue Bond or Mortgage
Credit Certification Program).
• Apply for state and federal funding on behalf of
a nonprofit, under a specific program to
construct affordable housing including persons
with physical disabilities or developmental
disabilities.
-
Community
Development
Department, City
Council
In addition to transferring
its CDBG funds to the
County, the City
processes density bonus
and incentive requests
for projects that include
affordable units.
Modify - add other
financial incentives
for the City to
consider and offer
(e.g., waiving City
fees for 100%
affordable housing
projects).
290
Agenda Item # 7.
Existing Programs Review City of Los Altos | D-11
Program Name &
Number
Program
Description Objectives ResponsibleParty Evaluation Modify / Delete / Continue
4.3.2 Implement
Chapter 14.28
of the
Municipal
Code, which
defines the
number of
required
below-marketrate (BMR)
units by
development
size and type,
and requires
on larger
projects
(greater than
10 market-rate
units) that the
BMR units
generally
reflect the size
and number of
bedrooms of
the marketrate units
Continue to implement the City’s Multi-Family
Affordable Housing Ordinance (Chapter 14, Section
28), which includes a series of unit thresholds at which affordable housing units will be required. The ordinance establishes the following thresholds and requirements:
• 1–4 units: Affordable housing units are not
required.
• 5–9 units: Affordable housing units are
required. In the event that the developer can
demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City
Council that providing affordable housing units
in a project will be financially infeasible, the
City Council may waive the requirement to
provide affordable housing units.
• 10 or more units: Affordable housing units are
required as follows:
o For rental units – 15% low income or
10% very low-income housing
o For owner units – 10% moderateincome housing
Chapter 14.28 also notes that unless otherwise
approved by the City Council, all affordable units in a project shall be constructed concurrently with marketrate units, shall be dispersed throughout the project, and shall not be significantly distinguishable by design, construction, or materials.
-
Community
Development
Department
In 2018, the City
changed requirements to
15% for 5 to 9-unit
projects; 20% low income
or 15% very low income
for rental projects of 10
or more units; and 15%
(with the majority of units
affordable to moderate
income) for ownership
projects of 10 or more
units. Between 2015-
2020, the City issued
permits for 2 very low
income units, 28 low
income units, and 2
moderate income units.
Modify- remove
specification of
inclusionary
amounts as those
may be adjusted as
needed to better
meet housing
objectives. Evaluate
inclusionary housing
requirements to
improve
effectiveness in
meeting City
objectives.
4.3.3 Consider
reduced
parking
requirements
for certain
housing types
and affordable
housing units
For affordable housing units and small housing units
including senior housing, studios and SROs, the City
will consider allowing just one parking space per unit.
The City will continue to monitor the underground
parking requirement to ensure this requirement is not a constraint to the production of housing or a constraint to meeting maximum densities.
-
Community
Development
Department
The City has allowed
mechanical parking lifts
to facilitate underground
parking for mixed-income
projects.
Modify - evaluate
various approaches
to reduce parking
requirements and
amend the Zoning
Code to implement.
291
Agenda Item # 7.
D-12 | City of Los Altos Existing Programs Review
Program Name &
Number
Program
Description Objectives ResponsibleParty Evaluation Modify / Delete / Continue
4.3.4 Continue to
encourage
maximum
densities
Continue to ensure that the City is meeting maximum
densities in the zones that allow multifamily housing.
The City will monitor the lot coverage requirement and
the height requirements. Most recently, the City
removed the “stories requirement” from the commercial
and multiple-family districts to allow more flexibility in development and to facilitate greater potential densities.
The City also codified a maximum density development
requirement, which notes that the maximum density
permitted shall be constructed unless it is determined
by the City Council that a less dense project would be in the best interests of the community. In addition, the City will monitor the underground parking requirements as
stated in Program 4.3.3 to ensure that they do not
cause a significant constraint to meeting the maximum
densities required by all of Los Altos’ multiple- family zoning districts.
-
Community
Development
Department
The City has continued
to implement this
program; however,
current analysis of
governmental constraints
documented in Appendix
C.
Delete - replace
with programs to
remove identified
constraints to
housing (Appendix
C).
4.3.5 Initiate an
affordable
housing
administration
contract
review and
renewal
Initiate a Request for Project for the contract
administration of the City’s affordable housing programs including an emphasis on an appropriate contract
duration, administration responsibilities, enforcement, outreach and marketing.
-
Community
Development
Department, City
Council
The City has a contract
with Alta Housing, who
monitors the City's BMR
units.
Modify - update to
reflect existing
contract and
commitment to
monitor BMR units.
4.3.6 Improve the
City’s BMR
program
priority
ranking
process
Review and amend, as necessary, the City’s BMR
program application ranking process. -
Community
Development
Department, City
Council
Implemented in March
2015, when the City
revised the priority list to
merge Los Altos
residents and those
employed within the City
limits as a second
priority.
Delete - this
program has been
completed.
4.3.7 Consider a
commercial
development
linkage fee for
affordable
housing
Study and explore the option of a commercial
development linkage fee for affordable housing. If
appropriate, consider adopting a local fee.
-
Community
Development
Department, City
Council
Adopted a commercial
development linkage fee
ordinance in 2018
(Municipal Code Chapter
3.49). A fee has not yet
been established.
Modify - conduct
required analysis to
support and adopt a
commercial linkage
fee.
292
Agenda Item # 7.
Existing Programs Review City of Los Altos | D-13
Program Name &
Number
Program
Description Objectives ResponsibleParty Evaluation Modify / Delete / Continue Program Category 5: Housing Discrimination
5.1.1 Assist
residents with
housing
discrimination
and landlordtenant
complaints
Continue to provide a service to refer individuals to
organizations or agencies who handle complaints about
discrimination, landlord-tenant relations, etc.
Complaints regarding discrimination will be referred to the Mid-Peninsula Citizens for Fair Housing, Santa
Clara County, and other appropriate fair housing
agencies. Complaints regarding landlord-tenant
problems will be referred to the Los Altos Mediation
Program, the County of Santa Clara Office of Consumer
Affairs, or other appropriate local agencies.
-
Community
Development
Department
The City continues to
make referrals as
complaints arise. The
non-profit organization
Project Sentinel provides
fair housing services to
residents of Santa Clara
County.
Modify - expand to
raise awareness of
services in addition
to referring
complaints.
Program Category 6: Senior Housing
6.1.1 Discourage
senior-only
housing from
converting to
other uses
Discourage projects developed as senior-only projects
from converting to other uses.
- Community
Development
Department
The City continues to
implement, but no
specific standards.
Delete - reframe as
a policy.
6.1.2 Assist
seniors to
maintain and
rehabilitate
their homes
Seek, maintain, and publicize a list of resources or
service providers to help seniors maintain and/or
rehabilitate their homes.
-
Community
Development
Department, Senior
Commission
City staff assisted the
Senior Commission on
an informational letter to
contractors and property
owners on Age Friendly
Design Elements. The
City created a handout
on Age Friendly Design
Elements.
Modify - update (as
needed) and
regularly promote
the Age Friendly
Design Elements
handout; require
larger lower income
developments to
utilize Universal
Design standards
6.1.3 Encourage
conforming
and contextual
senior housing
near
transportation
and services
Ensure that senior housing conforms and harmonizes
with surrounding neighborhoods and encourage that it
be located near transportation and services.
-
Community
Development
Department
The City implements
Zoning Code standards
for development.
Delete - reframe as
a policy for
promoting senior
housing near transit
and services.
293
Agenda Item # 7.
D-14 | City of Los Altos Existing Programs Review
Program Name &
Number
Program
Description Objectives ResponsibleParty Evaluation Modify / Delete / Continue
6.2.1 Provide
senior housing
density
bonuses and
development
incentives
Provide density bonus increases in the Cuesta-Lassen
multifamily district of up to 38 dwelling units per acre for projects that are senior-only. Provide expanded
development incentives for senior-only projects in this district.
Consider increased densities and development
incentives for senior and affordable housing projects in all multifamily districts.
-
Community
Development
Department
The City continues to
process density bonus
and incentive requests.
Modify - codify the
additional density
bonus and
incentives for
senior-only projects.
6.2.2 Designate
and encourage
senior housing
on specific
well-suited
sites
Identify and consider additional parcels well suited for senior housing. All PUD/SC sites were developed
during the previous planning period.
-
Community
Development
Department
The City has continued
to consider additional
parcels for senior
housing, and potential
housing sites are
identified in the sites
inventory (Appendix B).
Delete - addressed
through sites
inventory and
rezoning program.
6.2.3 Mixed-use
development,
including
developments
that contain
senior and
institutional
housing, will
be encouraged
in public and
quasi-public
land use areas
that are zoned
PCF
Mixed-use development, including developments that
contain senior and institutional housing, will be
encouraged in public and quasi-public land use areas
that are zoned PCF.
-
Community
Development
Department
The City has continued
to consider additional
parcels for housing, and
potential housing sites
are identified in the sites
inventory (Appendix B).
Delete - addressed
through sites
inventory and
rezoning program.
6.2.4 Senior
housing with
extended care
facilities will
be allowed in
multifamily
and mixed-use
zoning
districts
Continue to explore opportunities to promote senior
housing with extended care facilities in other multifamily and mixed-use districts. This type of housing is
currently allowed as a conditional use in the PCF
district.
-
Community
Development
Department
The City has continued
to consider opportunities
to promote senior
housing with extended
care facilities in other
areas.
Modify - amend
Zoning Code to
clearly allow senior
housing under multifamily use and
residential care
facilities consistent
with State law.
294
Agenda Item # 7.
Existing Programs Review City of Los Altos | D-15
Program Name &
Number
Program
Description Objectives ResponsibleParty Evaluation Modify / Delete / Continue Program Category 7: Energy Efficiency
7.1.1 Promote
energy and
water
conservation
through
education and
awareness
campaigns
Continue to promote residential energy and water
conservation, consistent with the City’s adopted Climate Action Plan, through consumer information on financial
assistance and rebates for energy-efficient home
improvements published by governmental agencies,
nonprofit organizations, and utility companies. The City will make information available at the public counter of the Community Development Department, at the Los
Altos Senior Center, through the public libraries, and
through the City’s newsletters. The information will also be available on the City’s website, and a link to energy programs will be placed on the Los Altos Environmental
Commission’s website.
-
Community
Development
Department
City staff and the
Environmental
Commission continue to
implement. The City is
currently developing a
Climate Action and
Adaptation Plan (CAAP).
Continue/Update -
update to reflect the
CAAP effort as
appropriate. Merge
with other programs
as noted below.
7.1.2 Participate in
a Property
Assessed
Clean Energy
(PACE)
financing
program
Los Altos has adopted resolutions supporting the
CalFIRST Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE)
Program. By doing this, Los Altos residents may be
eligible to finance any energy improvements to their
homes—solar panels, water-efficient landscapes, etc.—
on their property tax assessment. This allows the
financing to be extended over multiple years and also
allows a home to be sold with that assessment
assigned to the new owner. Although CalFIRST has
encountered legal challenges to providing these loans
for residential purposes, other opportunities exist. The City will vet the applicability of Cal FIRST alternatives and will participate as appropriate.
-
Community
Development
Department
The City adopted a
Resolution supporting
the PACE program.
Modify - delete this
program and note
PACE financing in
Program 7.1.1.
7.1.3 Promote the
use of solar
energy
This program focuses on promoting solar energy as a
means to increase energy efficiency and promote green
energy alternatives. As part of this program, the City will leverage and promote other state and commercial
initiatives to encourage solar energy, such as grants,
tax credits, and rebates, as they are implemented. (No
design review of solar panels is allowed by law.
Setbacks, height restrictions, etc., are already covered by the Zoning Ordinance.)
-
Community
Development
Department
The City continues to
provide information on
available programs to the
public.
Modify - delete this
program and merge
leveraging and
promoting initiatives
to encourage solar
energy with
Program 7.1.1.
295
Agenda Item # 7.
D-16 | City of Los Altos Existing Programs Review
Program Name &
Number
Program
Description Objectives ResponsibleParty Evaluation Modify / Delete / Continue
7.2.1 Implement
energyefficient
regulations
Continue to implement building code and zoning
standards that promote energy efficiency in residential design, layout, construction, and landscaping. The City enforces energy efficiency standards of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations (California Building
Code Standards), which uses zoning requirements for
lot size, building separation, yards, setbacks,
landscaping, and design review to promote energy
conservation in new development.
-
Community
Development
Department
The City continues to
implement; Building
Code compliance is
mandatory.
Delete - Building
Code compliance is
mandatory.
7.2.2 Monitor and
implement
thresholds and
statutory
requirements
of climate
change
legislation
Monitor the implementation measures of the Global
Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32) and SB 375,
which requires planning organizations to promote
sustainable communities as part of their regional
transportation plans. The City will implement the
measures as guidance for thresholds and compliance
methods are released by the State.
-
Community
Development
Department
City staff continue to
implement measures,
including the City’s
Climate Action Plan.
Continue - update
to reflect the CAAP
effort as
appropriate.
Program Category 7: Statutory Compliance and Reporting
8.1.1 Develop
annual
housing status
report
Provide an annual status report to the City Council and California Department of Housing and Community
Development (HCD) on the status of the General Plan
housing programs and their implementation as required
by state law.
-
Community
Development
Department
The City continues to
submit Annual Progress
Reports (APRs) to HCD
annually.
Modify - expand to
identify that
reporting will also
address no net loss
requirements as
necessary.
8.2.1 Participate in
the regional
housing needs
determination.
Continue the regional conversation about meeting the
housing needs. Actively participate in the ABAG
Regional Housing Needs Determination. The City will
meet with ABAG staff to provide land use, housing,
employment, and other information related to the RHNA
formula to ensure that the allocation accurately
represents Los Altos’ fair share of the region’s housing needs.
-
Community
Development
Department
The City has continued
to work with ABAG on
the RHNA.
Continue.
296
Agenda Item # 7.
Public Participation Summaries City of Los Altos | E-1
Appendix E: Public Participation
Summaries
Contents
Appendix E: Public Participation Summaries............................................. 1 Community Workshop #1.............................................................................................................. 2 Community Workshop #2............................................................................................................18 March 22, 2022 City Council Meeting Summary.........................................................................53 297
Agenda Item # 7.
LOS ALTOS HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE | COMMUNITY WORKSHOP #1 SUMMARY - 1 Community Workshop #1
Format: Zoom Virtual Meeting | January 13, 6:30-8:00pm
The purpose of the Housing Element Update Community Workshop #1 was to provide an overview of the Housing Element process and the components of a Housing Element, share background information and preliminary findings from housing needs, and gather input from meeting participants about critical housing issues, needs and goals for housing in the City of Los Altos. Feedback received will inform the content of future outreach events and will guide the preparation of the Housing Element Update.
The community workshop was held via Zoom on Thursday, January 13, 2022 from 6:30-8:00 pm and was facilitated by City staff and the consultant team (Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc. and Plan to Place). All materials were made available and posted on the project website prior to the meeting.
Approximately 60 members of the public attended the meeting. The meeting agenda is outlined below:
1. Welcome & Introductions
2. Housing Element Basics
3. FAQ’s
4. Community Engagement Overview
5. Preliminary Housing Data
6. Key Planning Considerations
7. Participant Q&A
8. Small Group Discussion + Report Back
9. Closing and Next Steps
ATTENDANCE
Meeting participants: approximately 60 attendees
City Staff
● Laura Simpson – Interim Planning Director
● Sonia Lee – Public Information Officer
Consultant Team
● Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc. – David Bergman, Jennifer Murillo, Stefano Richichi ● Plan to Place – Dave Javid, Paul Kronser
Public Participation Summaries City of Los Altos | E-2
298
Agenda Item # 7.
LOS ALTOS HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE | COMMUNITY WORKSHOP #1 SUMMARY - 2
WORKSHOP SUMMARY
Laura Simpson opened the meeting by welcoming attendees, introducing the team, giving an agenda overview, and conducted the demographic live poll.
The following is a summary of the results from the demographic poll that was administered at the beginning of the meeting:
Demographic Live Poll (full results in the appendix)
1. Where do you live? (select one)
• 91% live in Los Altos
• 3% live in Santa Clara County but not Los Altos
• 6% live outside of Santa Clara County
2. Where do you work? (select one)
• 31% work In Los Altos (including remote work)
• 11% do not work Los Altos, but in Santa Clara
• 11% work outside Santa Clara
• 39% are retired
• 3% do not work or are looking for work
• 6% do not work and are not looking for work
3. Which of the following describes why you decided to attend tonight’s workshop? (select all that apply)?
● 28% want to know more about the Housing Element Update process. ● 4% want to know more about obtaining housing in Los Altos ● 41% want to support more housing development in Los Altos ● 26% are concerned about more housing development in Los Altos
4. Have you participated in other Housing Element events? ● 32% yes
● 68% no
5. What is your current housing situation?
● 89% own a home
● 8% rent a home
● 3% live with family/friends (I do not own or rent)
6. What type of housing do you live in?
• 79% live in a house
• 15% live in a duplex/townhome/condo
• 3% live in an apartment
• 3% other
7. What is your age?
• 3% 19-25
Public Participation Summaries City of Los Altos | E-3
299
Agenda Item # 7.
LOS ALTOS HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE | COMMUNITY WORKSHOP #1 SUMMARY - 3 • 8% 26-45
• 44% 46-64
• 44% 65-84
8. Race and Ethnicity (select all that apply)
• 71% White
• 17% other
• 9% Hispanic or LatinX
• 3% Asian
9. Which bracket best describes your household income?
• 15% $49,701 to $82,850
• 3% $82,851 to $117,750
• 24%117,751 to $181,550
• 58% $181,551 or more
After the poll closed, Jennifer Murillo from Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc. (LWC) gave a presentation on the housing element process which included background and purpose, state requirements for housing elements, and the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA). The presentation also included with an overview of the community engagement process and strategy which included community input to date and upcoming activities for the public to participate in. Jennifer then provided a summary of initial findings and key planning considerations followed by an opportunity for any clarifying questions from the meeting participants through chat, which were answered by the project team. Some of the questions included clarification about the process and results of the polls. To find a list of all questions asked, please see the Appendix.
Following the presentation portion of the workshop, Dave guided workshop participants through an online live poll to gather feedback on housing in Los Altos. This provided attendees a preview of the topics to be covered in the small breakout rooms (see Appendix for the poll results).
Public Participation Summaries City of Los Altos | E-4
300
Agenda Item # 7.
LOS ALTOS HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE | COMMUNITY WORKSHOP #1 SUMMARY - 4 Prior to breaking into small groups, Dave gave an overview of the small group breakout room logistics and then opened the rooms which participants were randomly assigned. A facilitator and note taker from the project team were assigned to each breakout room.
SMALL GROUP DISCUSSION SUMMARY
The remainder of the meeting was devoted to gathering input from meeting participants through facilitated small group discussions. Feedback was recorded in three breakout rooms on a virtual whiteboard (see snapshot below) in response to the discussion prompts below. The summary below provides a high-level overview of themes that emerged from the small group discussions.
The numbers in parenthesis indicate the number of breakout rooms in which the referenced comment was expressed.
Example of notes taken on virtual whiteboard during the small group discussion Public Participation Summaries City of Los Altos | E-5
301
Agenda Item # 7.
LOS ALTOS HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE | COMMUNITY WORKSHOP #1 SUMMARY - 5 Example of Menti Poll results on virtual whiteboard during the small group discussion Small Group Discussion Prompts
1. What do you think are the most critical housing issues in Los Altos?
2. What do you think are the housing types most needed in Los Altos?
3. When assessing new housing development that might be built in Los Altos in the next 8 to 10 years, what should be the City’s most important considerations?
4. Is there anything else that you would like to share about why you are here this evening? Any questions, comments, or additional housing opportunities we should be aware of?
5. Do you have any suggestions for what groups should be reached out to, to solicit additional feedback on the Housing Element Update?
Public Participation Summaries City of Los Altos | E-6
302
Agenda Item # 7.
LOS ALTOS HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE | COMMUNITY WORKSHOP #1 SUMMARY - 6 Main Takeaways
What do you think are the most critical housing issues in Los Altos? • The permit process for ADU’s needs to be improved and expedited from its current state. (2)
• Concerns that with added housing units, there hasn't been thought into the services to support this new population growth and the impacts on surrounding residents/businesses. (2)
• Turning vacant homes throughout the City into rental units and other creative policies should be looked at to provide additional housing. (2)
• The existing zoning policies do not allow for the additional housing units needed to meet RHNA. (1)
• Affordable housing for low and middle income families is needed to support local businesses that currently commute from outside the City/County. (1) • It is important to preserve the R1 – Single Family Zone and explore other zoning areas to add additional housing stock to meet the RHNA numbers. (1) What do you think are the housing types most needed in Los Altos? • Allow for a variety of dense low/middle income housing in places that are less intrusive and can accommodate you families and those who work in Los Altos. (3) • Desire for more ADU’s with a streamlined process. (1) • Affordable multifamily housing located close to transit opportunities is highly desirable. (1)
• Senior housing is desired to accommodate the aging population. (1) When assessing new housing development that might be built in Los Altos in the next 8 to 10 years, what should be the City’s most important considerations? • Keep the charm and quaint feel of Los Altos that many residents have moved to the area for. (2)
• Provide a mixture of affordable housing for those in the service industries including firefighters, City staff, and teachers. (2)
• Focus new housing in areas with transit options and create walkable neighborhoods with access to services. (2)
• Prioritize a housing stock that serves young families, low income, the disabled and seniors. (1)
• Make sure there is a timely entitlement process for building new housing units. (1) • State and local programs should be created to increase affordability without building all new units. (1)
Is there anything else that you would like to share about why you are here this evening? Any questions, comments, or additional housing opportunities we should be aware of? • The City needs to do more outreach than they are currently doing to reach in need populations that may not be captured in the current noticing.
Public Participation Summaries City of Los Altos | E-7
303
Agenda Item # 7.
LOS ALTOS HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE | COMMUNITY WORKSHOP #1 SUMMARY - 7 • Utilize the data collected to create realistic housing goals and policies that address affordable and diverse housing. (2)
• Don’t compromise the quality of life in Los Altos to meet the number of housing units needed. (2)
• Plan for infrastructure and other needed improvements that come with additional housing and population growth.
Do you have any suggestions for what groups should be reached out to, to solicit additional feedback on the Housing Element Update?
• None noted.
Public Participation Summaries City of Los Altos | E-8
304
Agenda Item # 7.
LOS ALTOS HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE | COMMUNITY WORKSHOP #1 SUMMARY - 8 Appendix
DEMOGRAPHIC LIVE POLL RESULTS
1. Where do you live?
2. Where do you work?
Public Participation Summaries City of Los Altos | E-9
305
Agenda Item # 7.
LOS ALTOS HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE | COMMUNITY WORKSHOP #1 SUMMARY - 9
3. Which of the following describes why you decided
to attend tonight’s workshop? (select all that apply)
4. Have you participated in other Housing Element
events?
Public Participation Summaries City of Los Altos | E-10 306
Agenda Item # 7.
LOS ALTOS HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE | COMMUNITY WORKSHOP #1 SUMMARY - 10
5. What is your current housing situation?
6. What type of housing do you live in?
Public Participation Summaries City of Los Altos | E-11 307
Agenda Item # 7.
LOS ALTOS HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE | COMMUNITY WORKSHOP #1 SUMMARY - 11
7. What is your age?
8. Race and Ethnicity
Public Participation Summaries City of Los Altos | E-12 308
Agenda Item # 7.
LOS ALTOS HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE | COMMUNITY WORKSHOP #1 SUMMARY - 12
9. Which bracket best describes your household
income?
Public Participation Summaries City of Los Altos | E-13 309
Agenda Item # 7.
LOS ALTOS HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE | COMMUNITY WORKSHOP #1 SUMMARY - 13
HOUSING IN LOS ALTOS LIVE POLL RESULTS
1. What do you think are the most critical housing
issues in Los Altos?
2. What do you think are the housing types most
needed in Los Altos?
Rate and
number of new
housing units
getting built
Protections for
renters facing
displacement or
discrimination
Concentration
or segregation
of certain
groups
Down payment
assistance for
first time home
buyers
Financial
assistance for
home
repairs/renovation
Fair housing
issues / access
to quality
housing and
access to
financing
Availability of
housing for
young families
(e.g. 2+
bedrooms)
Public Participation Summaries City of Los Altos | E-14 310
Agenda Item # 7.
LOS ALTOS HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE | COMMUNITY WORKSHOP #1 SUMMARY - 14
3. When assessing new housing that might be built in
Los Altos in the next 8-10 years, what should be the
City’s most important consideration?
CHAT COMMENTS/QUESTIONS
• Is this the 1st Housing Element Mtg for Los Altos? Plse advise. o Response: This is the first Community Workshop. There have been some pop-ups and small group meetings already.
• Is there a problem with logging on? A friend is having trouble getting into this meeting • Every house is a house!
• Not just single detached homes
• Salim-argue with Websters
• Is there a Middle Eastern/North African category on the race/ethnicity question? This community comprises a large proportion of Los Altos residents - important to consider for future polls o Response: In census terms these ethnicities are racially white White – A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa • Will the poll results and presentation be posted online? When? • I am so excited about this process!
• Agree Jeanine!
• Hi Julie! I just heard from Adobe Pet Hospital; they are cutting off all service after 5pm due to inability to staff!
• How many ADUs were permitted in Los Altos in 2021?
• Loved the centerfold ad for the Housing Element in the Town Crier today! Great job Bruce and the HE team!
• We need homes for all different stages of life
Public Participation Summaries City of Los Altos | E-15 311
Agenda Item # 7.
LOS ALTOS HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE | COMMUNITY WORKSHOP #1 SUMMARY - 15 • I read (on the HE website I believe) about a pop up at Woodland Library but when I went there at the time announced, the library was closed and when I got home the announcement was removed from the website. What happened??
• 1/2 acre or lower income sites?
• multi-family
• Low income sites have to be half an acre or higher Because you can’t afford to build an affordable building on less
• Younger families, workers, diverse cultures all increase our city's vitality and ensure we're a fullattribute City 25 years from now. • Please explain 1/2 acre required for low income? How many units on that? • I still don't see any explanation how this works.
• Could folks who are talking introduce themselves? There are no names on the photos • Will housing in the middle be addressed?
• How are lower income units funded? Does the state provide funding? • I signed up a long time ago for the newsletter/announcements from the HE website. Why have I received nothing except an announcement about tonights meeting? Why aren't the popups announced (maybe a day before)?
• I am answering many of these questions based upon the rhna requirements being imposed on los altos. it is not what I necessarily believe
• nothing about mass transit?
• or bikeability
• I understand that there is a law that dictates what HCD thinks needs to built in LA. My question is, do Los Altos residents want this growth?
• Apparently we do, Barry. Did you look at the poll results? • Barry-I am not convinced most residents want increased growth in density and height • we need this growth
• Anne-self selecting group. fifty people do not a city make • Jeannie-we don't need the growth, we are forced to accept it • I heard about some communities where churches are partnering and providing space on their properties for high density affordable housing- sounds innovative and a win-win. • @David, @Jen, I have been on 100+ zoom meetings without any issues with audio. Most everyone knows how to use Zoom. Why did you choose to introduce a likely totally-new environment of Ring Central?
• It would be great if some of the Los Altos churches wold step up and provide housing, or even safe parking. I hope they do.
• Programs will be key. Programs, programs, programs!
• it would be great if all those supporting more affordable housing if they sell their homes to someone in need at a below market price. That would facilitate more home ownership by those who cannot afford current prices
• Some cities fine owners of ghost houses.
• Hey Jon, I did just that with my second home!!!
• Jeanine-great. wish more folks would do likewise
• I would ask the housing element to address higher density and alternative zoning/uses on church properties and possibly school properties too. Would be nice to see some creative open-minded Public Participation Summaries City of Los Altos | E-16 312
Agenda Item # 7.
LOS ALTOS HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE | COMMUNITY WORKSHOP #1 SUMMARY - 16 thoughtfulness on that. We need to get much more creative to support building more housing and the extra housing, at higher densities is important. I would like to see us be more aggressive on housing, especially below market rate housing.
• SOOO excited that Los Altos is talking about how to do this! • I would like to see more folks from differernt perspective participate in future meetings • Will presentation and notes be on the website?
• We are still incredibly high-level and vague. I would like to see two or three examples of how to achieve lower income housing
• Our breakout group had different perspectives. But in the end virtually all want more housing. That's representative of the city, I would guess. There were a lot of new faces here tonight. • I would also like to start looking at zoning maps to discuss upzoning Public Participation Summaries City of Los Altos | E-17 313
Agenda Item # 7.
Community Workshop #2
Format: Zoom Virtual Meeting | March 1, 7:00-8:30pm
The purpose of the Housing Element Update Community Workshop #2 was to provide an overview of the Sites Inventory Analysis and gather input from meeting participants about the key screening criteria, key assumptions, and policy considerations that informed the site inventory. Feedback will inform the refinement of the site inventory and will guide the preparation of the Housing Element Update.
The community workshop was held via Zoom on Tuesday, March 1 from 7-8:30 pm and was facilitated by City staff and the consultant team (Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc. and Plan to Place).
All materials were made available and posted on the project website prior to the meeting.
Approximately 150 households attended the meeting. The meeting agenda is outlined below:
1. Welcome & Introductions
2. Agenda & Logistics
3. Presentation on Site Analysis
4. Group Q&A
5. Overview & Opening of Breakout Rooms
6. Breakout Rooms Report Back
7. Closing and Next Steps
ATTENDANCE
Meeting participants: approximately 150 households
City Staff
● Laura Simpson – Interim Planning Director
● Sonia Lee – Public Information Officer
Consultant Team
● Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc. – David Bergman, Jennifer Murillo, Stefano Richichi, Olivia Salter
● Plan to Place – Dave Javid, Paul Kronser, Rachael Sharkland LOS ALTOS HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE | COMMUNITY WORKSHOP #2 SUMMARY - 1 Public Participation Summaries City of Los Altos | E-18 314
Agenda Item # 7.
WORKSHOP SUMMARY
Laura Simpson opened the meeting by welcoming attendees and introduced the team. Dave provided an agenda overview and conducted the demographic live poll. The following is a summary of the results from the demographic poll that was administered at the beginning of the meeting:
Demographic Live Poll (full results in the appendix)
1. What is your age?
○ 2% are 18 and under
○ 2% are 25-44
○ 52% are 45-65
○ 43% are 64-84
○ 2% are 85 and over
2. What is the primary language spoken in your house?
○ 97% speak English
○ 2% speak Cantonese
○ 2% speak Vietnamese
3. Which category best describes you?
○ 2% identify as American Indian/Alaska Native
○ 13% identify as Asian
○ 2% identify as Black or African American
○ 6% identify as Hispanic or LatinX
○ 71% identify as White
○ 6% Other
4. Where do you live? (select one)
○ 95% live in Los Altos
○ 3% live in Santa Clara County but not Los Altos
○ 2% live outside of Santa Clara County
5. Where do you work?
○ 29% work In Los Altos (including remote work)
○ 28% do not work Los Altos, but in Santa Clara
○ 6% work outside Santa Clara
○ 34% are retired
○ 2% do not work or are looking for work
○ 2% do not work and are not looking for work
6. If you work in Los Altos, how long is your commute?
○ 31% travel less than 20 minutes for work
○ 6% travel 20-30 minutes for work
○ 2% travel 40-50 minutes for work
○ 39% don’t work in Los Altos
○ 22% Other
LOS ALTOS HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE | COMMUNITY WORKSHOP #2 SUMMARY - 2 Public Participation Summaries City of Los Altos | E-19 315
Agenda Item # 7.
7. If you live in Los Altos, what is your current housing situation? ○ 97% own a home
○ 2% live with family/friends (don’t own or rent)
○ 2% don’t live in Los Altos
8. If you live in Los Altos, how long have you lived there? ○ 3% have lived in Los Altos for 3-5 years
○ 6% have lived in Los Altos for 6-10 years
○ 89% have lived in Los Altos for 10+ years
○ 2% don’t live in Los Altos
9. If you live in Los Altos, what kind of housing do you live in? ○ 88% live in a house
○ 9% live in a duplex/townhome/condo
○ 2% don’t live in Los Altos
○ 2% other
10. Have you participated in other Los Altos Housing Element events? ● 54% no
● 46% yes
After the poll closed, Jennifer Murillo from Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc. (LWC) gave a presentation that included a brief overview of the Housing Element, but focused primarily on the approach for the Sites Inventory Analysis. The Housing Element Overview included background, purpose, update process, and state requirements.
Jennifer then provided an explanation of the key screening criteria and assumptions that informed the sites analysis and policy considerations for providing additional housing capacity.
To guide feedback, the policy considerations were divided into five topics including the Commercial Thoroughfare zone (El Camino Real), the Public and Community Facilities Zone (focused on the properties of Los Altos United Methodist Church, Los Altos Christian Schools, and vacant property at Grant Road and Fremont Avenue), the Office Administrative Zone (primarily along San Antonio Road east of downtown and on Los Altos Oaks), the Commercial Retail Sales Zone (in the downtown area focused on Main Street and State Street), and the area of the Loyola Corners Specific Plan. Each of the areas was illustrated with a map(s) and included a question that was used as a discussion prompt for the breakout rooms (see below).
This was followed by an opportunity for any clarifying questions from the meeting participants through the virtual chat feature. To find a list of all the comments and questions asked, please see the Appendix.
Following the presentation portion of the workshop, Dave gave an overview of the small group breakout room logistics and then opened the rooms which participants were randomly assigned.
A facilitator and note taker from the project team were assigned to each breakout room. The project website (https://www.losaltoshousing.org/) currently houses an online feedback form to allow members of the community that did not participate at the workshop an opportunity to provide input. These online responses will be collated and added to this summary.
LOS ALTOS HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE | COMMUNITY WORKSHOP #2 SUMMARY - 3 Public Participation Summaries City of Los Altos | E-20 316
Agenda Item # 7.
MAIN ROOM CHAT SUMMARY
The summary below captures takeaways from the main room chat that was open to participants before breaking into small groups. These comments and questions do not pertain to specific discussion prompts, but have been organized into broad themes. In response to the participants’ request for a complete record of the meeting chat, a transcript of all of the comments and questions from the main room that were fielded during the upfront presentation can be found in the Appendix.
Main Takeaways
Request for more information and/or clarification regarding site inventory ● Request for explanation of and interest in contesting RHNA numbers. ● Request for a spreadsheet of the site inventory with addresses and capacity. o Are the identified sites sufficient to meet the RHNA target? ● Request for clarification on assumptions that went into site selection and feasibility of sites being developed.
o Is there any evidence that the churches are interested in developing housing? o Is Los Altos going to invoke eminent domain in order to force current businesses out?
● Request for what constitutes "substantial evidence" that the city must provide to show that non-vacant sites can be developed.
● Desire to understand how property owners and their willingness to sell impacts the site analysis.
● Confirm viability of developing housing on parking plazas. ● Confirm feasibility of alternatives to increasing parking (underground parking, shuttles to reduce VMT).
Suggestions for future workshops
● Desire to see more diverse participants, especially those that will be most affected by the proposed changed zoning (e.g. below 45, renters, young families, and professionals). ● Request for more time in the breakout rooms with fewer questions so discussion can be more in depth.
● Clearer maps so feedback can be more directed.
o Do you realize that we can't read these zoning maps (street names illegible)? Request for more information about BMR housing
● Clarification request for BMR requirements as they impact density bonuses and additional height.
o When you remove caps, and assuming BMR units are included in a project, can developers add another story for a total of 4 stories?
● Concern that BMR housing is concentrated in one location (South Los Altos).
LOS ALTOS HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE | COMMUNITY WORKSHOP #2 SUMMARY - 4 Public Participation Summaries City of Los Altos | E-21 317
Agenda Item # 7.
● More information about specified rental/purchase rates for very-low income units. ● Request for identification of developers that will build BMR units. o Please provide specifics of how 501 very-low income units will be built? What are the specified rental/purchase rates? Which identified developers might build these and where?
Advocacy for housing if coupled with other amenities, services, and infrastructure ● More information on how urban transit infrastructure, amenities, and schools will be part of the planning process.
o Where will the new schools for new residents be located? ● Support for mixed-use buildings with commercial/ retail on the ground floor and housing above.
o Can we convert commercial zones to mixed use?
● Support for the City to establish large-scale upzones, rather than parcel by parcel.
Opposition to increased density
● Opposition to additional height generally and its impact on the neighborhood.
Commercial Thoroughfare (CT) District
● Support for increasing density in the downtown area.
Community Facilities Zone (Including Grant Road and Fremont Avenue) ● Grant and Fremont, northeast corner, would be better served by an open space and a bike lane for bicyclists to get them away from the commuter Fremont/Grant road traffic. ● Concern that developing housing at Grant and Fremont will change neighborhood character, will cause more traffic congestion and is isolated from services. ○ Why are we considering the Grant/Fremont and the Magdalena churches, and other areas, which will just contribute to more traffic and disrupt existing neighborhoods?
Loyola Corner Specific Plan (LCSP)
● Concern for developing LCSP because height and traffic may disrupt existing character. o How will parking be accommodated at LCSP?
● Support for more housing and services at LCSP.
LOS ALTOS HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE | COMMUNITY WORKSHOP #2 SUMMARY - 5 Public Participation Summaries City of Los Altos | E-22 318
Agenda Item # 7.
SMALL GROUP DISCUSSION SUMMARY
The remainder of the meeting was devoted to gathering input from meeting participants through facilitated small group discussions. Feedback was recorded in four breakout rooms on a virtual whiteboard (see snapshot below) in response to the discussion prompts below. The summary below provides a high-level overview of themes that emerged from the small group discussions.
The numbers in parentheses indicate the number of breakout rooms in which the referenced comment was expressed. A full transcript of all of the char comments from each breakout room can be found in the Appendix.
Example of notes taken on virtual whiteboard during the small group discussion LOS ALTOS HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE | COMMUNITY WORKSHOP #2 SUMMARY - 6 Public Participation Summaries City of Los Altos | E-23 319
Agenda Item # 7.
Small Group Discussion Prompts
1. Allow higher density in the Commercial Thoroughfare (CT) District?
2. Allow residential uses on certain Public and Community Facilities (PCF) zoned parcels?
3. Allow residential uses in the Office Administrative (OA) District?
4. Establish a minimum density and allow 3 stories (or 100% residential uses) in the Commercial Retail Sales (CRS) District?
5. Remove the density cap and allow 3 stories (or 100% residential uses) in the Loyola Corners Specific Plan (LCSP)?
Main Takeaways
General (not in response to a specific question)
● More information on the implications of CA state laws (SB9, SSB10, SB35) on Los Altos, and how Los Altos will meet the state's requirements for substantive evidence that a parcel can be redeveloped. (4)
● Request for more specific and clear information on site inventory (e.g. addresses with proposed capacity). (3)
● Clarification request for BMR requirements. (4)
● Clarification needed for this discussion to differentiate between height, stories, density, and what ‘multifamily’ means and looks like. (4)
● Concern that high density will negatively impact current residents’ neighborhood aesthetics and real estate investment. (4)
● Concern that BMR housing will be concentrated in certain areas creating "ghettos,” aesthetically poor housing, and/or places that reflect isolation of persons that live in affordable housing. (3)
● Concentrate density where it's already commercially viable, eg. large parcels, or parcels that can be aggregated and are near transit and amenities. (4) ● Up zoning in the El Camino area to increase density is appropriate. (4) ● How is school capacity being taken into account? (3)
Allow Higher Density in the Commercial Thoroughfare (CT) District? ● Density and height should be concentrated along El Camino commercial thoroughfare because it is near transit and services. (4)
● Request to include buffer zoning to mitigate impact of height on El Camino on surrounding SFH neighborhoods. (2)
● Desire to see a traffic study on El Camino that accommodates increased density. (3) ● Request for more information about density bonus as it relates to BMR housing and which developers are interested in building units with presumably these deed-restricted rents. (2)
● Request to include open space near San Antonio in the site inventory. (1) LOS ALTOS HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE | COMMUNITY WORKSHOP #2 SUMMARY - 7 Public Participation Summaries City of Los Altos | E-24 320
Agenda Item # 7.
Allow residential uses on certain Public and Community Facilities (PCF) zoned parcels? ● More information about the Fremont and Grant parcel needed to understand what appropriate density would be, whether services could be added to this area, and how traffic would be accommodated. (4)
● No high density on Fremont, may negatively impact existing neighborhood ambiance and kids walk and bike along the street to and from schools. (2) ● Request for more information about how housing would be built on church property and why these sites were selected, and whether loss of churches might have a negative impact on the community. (2)
● Concern that these properties are isolated and not near amenities. (2) ● Support for more housing along Grant and Fremont. (2) Allow residential uses in the office administrative (OA) district? ● Rancho is a historic structure and serves as a central location for various amenities, don’t remove this resource. (3)
● South San Antonio road has small lots that directly impact single family homes, don't increase density here. (2)
● San Antonio is a good place for housing because it is near transit; commercial on the ground floor and housing above would be appropriate. (3) Establish a minimum density and allow 3 stories (or 100% residential uses) in the Commercial Retail Sales (CRS) District?
● Support increased density here as long as parking is considered. (1) ● Consider building on top of existing parking garages or on parking plazas. (3) ● Clarification on the height implication of 3 stories (34 or 38’, does this include retail etc.). (1)
● Request for a more creative and inclusive approach to neighborhood planning with multiple kinds of housing. (1)
● Concern about design standards and setbacks. (1)
Remove the density cap and allow 3 stories (or 100% residential used) in the Loyola Corners Specific Plan (LCSP)?
● Consider a tiered approach to mitigate height. (2)
● We have already spent time on this specific plan as a community, why is this being re-opened? (2)
● Yes, to 3 stories here. (3)
● No to 3 stories here, concern about impact on aesthetics and privacy. (3) ● In favor of building on parking lots. (1)
LOS ALTOS HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE | COMMUNITY WORKSHOP #2 SUMMARY - 8 Public Participation Summaries City of Los Altos | E-25 321
Agenda Item # 7.
● No high density on Main or First, unless design standards include setbacks to improve the pedestrian experience. (1)
● Concern about intersection and bridge over expressway. (1) LOS ALTOS HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE | COMMUNITY WORKSHOP #2 SUMMARY - 9 Public Participation Summaries City of Los Altos | E-26 322
Agenda Item # 7.
Appendix
DEMOGRAPHIC LIVE POLL RESULTS
1. What is your age?
LOS ALTOS HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE | COMMUNITY WORKSHOP #2 SUMMARY - 10 Public Participation Summaries City of Los Altos | E-27 323
Agenda Item # 7.
2. What is the primary language spoken in your house (Choose all that apply)?
3. Which category best describes you?
LOS ALTOS HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE | COMMUNITY WORKSHOP #2 SUMMARY - 11 Public Participation Summaries City of Los Altos | E-28 324
Agenda Item # 7.
4. Where do you live?
5. Where do you work?
LOS ALTOS HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE | COMMUNITY WORKSHOP #2 SUMMARY - 12 Public Participation Summaries City of Los Altos | E-29 325
Agenda Item # 7.
6. If you work in Los Altos, how long is your commute?
7. If you live in Los Altos, what is your current housing situation? LOS ALTOS HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE | COMMUNITY WORKSHOP #2 SUMMARY - 13 Public Participation Summaries City of Los Altos | E-30 326
Agenda Item # 7.
8. If you live in Los Altos, how long have you lived there?
9. If you live in Los Altos, what kind of housing do you live in? LOS ALTOS HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE | COMMUNITY WORKSHOP #2 SUMMARY - 14 Public Participation Summaries City of Los Altos | E-31 327
Agenda Item # 7.
10. Have you participated in other Los Altos Housing Element events?
LOS ALTOS HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE | COMMUNITY WORKSHOP #2 SUMMARY - 15 Public Participation Summaries City of Los Altos | E-32 328
Agenda Item # 7.
TRANSCRIPT OF ALL CHAT COMMENTS
MAIN ROOM CHAT COMMENTS
Can we see the images of attendees while we wait?
What state law is mandating this need for more housing? Why is English “as expected” the primary language spoken in the homes of L A? Will the answers to these questions be summarized and distributed? The most important thing we need tonight is a spreadsheet of the site inventory, even if preliminary, so your community can do independent analysis of whether or not you are meeting the HCD criteria to create a feasible HE. We don't want the state to reject our HE, even at the 1st pass.
I agree with Jeanine. We need to know the preliminary sites, and how many homes are expected out of each site
Outreach has been pretty broad… glad we want beyond the TC! The slides identify sites and a range of numbers of possible new housing (of each type), but there is no table that summarizes the totals. I think we’ll first see that with the Draft Housing Element.
If we can’t get a legal, feasible housing element, we will be in for lots of legal fees and perhaps lose any local control
How are you talking about numbers, then, if you don’t know what they are? How do you know the preliminary sites are enough?
Since we have no vacant sites of material import, we need to see upzoning everywhere.
Upzoning does not mean automatic development. But it does show the state commitment to housing opportunity.
Presentation states " Over 80% of RHNA estimated to be accommodated through existing zoning and ADU's and pipeline projects" Would like to see how consultants arrived to this conclusion/Spreadsheet and Assumptions made (i.e City spoke with property owners that are willing to sell or develop their parcel). Thanks.
Curtis, agree, but we need that spreadsheet sooner.
Who set our RHNA and the percentages, and is there any ability to change it? MJ Loptin: Every city that has tried to lower their RHNA has failed.
Right, Mircea. If the city thinks 80% of RHNA will be accommodated by existing zoning, then why are we not developing at 80% of our required rate, even for market rate housing LOS ALTOS HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE | COMMUNITY WORKSHOP #2 SUMMARY - 16 Public Participation Summaries City of Los Altos | E-33 329
Agenda Item # 7.
What participant Mircea seeks, as do many of us, is the "substantive evidence" the city must provide to show that that non-vacant sites can actually be developed. because Anne, it is developers who develop properties, not the city “Substantial evidence"
That 80% number is absurd unless eminent domain will be applied to all strip malls and churches in town.
MJ: Los Altos and many cities appealed to change their allocation and lost that ask. These are our final numbers.
But the exact percentages for the different RHNA categories can be adjusted? Some of those would be quite challenging here
MJ Lopatin: This is all challenging, but together we can rise to the challenge and house the people who work here.
I believe even parking plazas re also considered non-vacant.
MJ: no adjustment of that allocation either, and I agree.
Jon, it is the city, not the developers, who zones at a density that is feasible, or does not. If the city doesn’t zone for enough housing, then the site will not be developed. See the Village Court for an example.
These RHNA numbers need to be challenged. No scientific formula but everyone just seems to accept them. ABAG has a committee made up of local officials, staff and stakeholders.
Stakeholders meaning people who have a vested interest. the parking lots are considered non vacant because cars really do park there and merchants downtown depend upon people coming downtown
There are 4 maps that show where the city is planning, at this point, to locate the RHNA + buffer units. North, North Central, South Central and South. The types of units by income are color coded. Why are the vast majority of low income RHNA units assigned to South Central and South Los Altos - both sections considered South Los Altos. Low Income and Moderate Income housing units should be distributed equally throughout Los Altos. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/612fc0231c3b5b71bdaee404/t/621953fd6ed5e56712590 95b/1645827079609/LWC_LosAltos_HEU_Wkshp2_PPT_Final_022522_w_maps.pdf The maps are in this link.
As far as I reviewed on what was presented to date is a wishful thinking by hired consultants.
Presentation with no backing/data. How would you know how many ADU's will build through 2031? Last 5 years average?/Extrapolation etc. How about how many condominiums projects LOS ALTOS HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE | COMMUNITY WORKSHOP #2 SUMMARY - 17 Public Participation Summaries City of Los Altos | E-34 330
Agenda Item # 7.
are upcoming besides what is in a current building-construction phase? Have they talked to property owners and have commitments otherwise is all a big "estimate". challenging the numbers at this point, based on the bundle of legal precedent that such efforts are guaranteed failures, is a fool's follow. Let's spend our calories solving the housing problem.
We don't need lawsuits and loss of local control where developers come in with license to build what they want. Just look at what happened to us with 40Main! it is a little disappointing that we do not have more 45 and younger and less than 10 participating in this workshop
we have few under 45 participating because most homeowners are older. and young folks, by and large, don't see the value in participating in this process. my kids don't see how they will be able to buy a house anywhere, much less los altos
I agree Freddie
Potential site 61 has significant environmental issues that I think should disqualify it as a potential site at this time. The site has an identified riparian stream flowing into a stormwater detention basin with two dams that prevent flooding of downstream residential areas. It appears that this has not been properly evaluated. This is known as 2100 Woods Lane Seas of asphalt for parking are a blight, climate-negative, and a waste of space. Put the parking in puzzlers or underground. Make Los Altos more walkable and use shuttles.
I agree that the Woods Lane site is not a good one for housing.
Agree with Freddie
Instead the city could use the large property it owns at the corner of Green Oak Lane and Bendigo Dr
and Jeanine, who will pay for the parking that needs to be built-will you, will the city, cost is 100K per underground space
Agree that we have WAY too much parking downtown and need more green space and mixed use housing, including on existing parcels zoned for commercial only (along San Antonio near 1st)
The people who use the parking should pay for it, that is a great way to disincentivize way too much parking downtown? yes, right now, but when things go back to a more normal pace, I don't think so
Not everyone can ride a bike!
Elaine-they do-its called parking permits
Jon, we have to move our city forward.
LOS ALTOS HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE | COMMUNITY WORKSHOP #2 SUMMARY - 18 Public Participation Summaries City of Los Altos | E-35 331
Agenda Item # 7.
The city needs to either commit to putting housing on the parking plazas (and this would be legally binding) or remove them from the sites inventory Jeanine-that is rhetoric and nonsense. I am asking pragmatic questions and you talk moving forward???
Jeanine - perhaps not everyone agrees about what constitutes “forward.” The statement that CT/El Camino Real will accommodate properties on El Camino is not correct. The properties identified on the virtual map are not happening/development potential.
Those owners are not selling. PAMF specifically.
We need to see the formula that says we need this much housing based people working remotely. We don't have the schools to accommodate this housing. we are not the first city to do this. If other small-medium cities can do it, why can't we? Do the Magdalena churches plan on leaving?
we are going to ban religious services so we can get more housing :) because it’s not what we want for our city?
I hope not
Is there any evidence that either the Methodist church or Bridges have any interest at all in developing housing? I hope they are interested, but when Los Altos Affordable Housing Alliance inquired, they said they were not
Moving forward means preparing our city for the next generations. We 60plus year olds need to think about how damaging to our community it is to be missing two generations behind us in terms of our demographics. The city will lose its vibrancy, its sustainability, and it self-sufficiency for lack of revenue.
Where do you expect cars to be parked near the proposed Loyola Corners development? There is no public transit, so at least 2 cars will be needed for each unit. Also, is Los Altos going to invoke eminent domain in order to force current businesses out? I was wondering that as well. That's our church
Exactly. City needs to confirm they spoke with the churches.
No eminent domain. That is not how it works.
The housing has to go somewhere. Most likely large undeveloped properties. Wherever there are large spans of asphalt that is underutilized.
Millenials are moving into my neighborhood. They want bigger houses and yards.
LOS ALTOS HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE | COMMUNITY WORKSHOP #2 SUMMARY - 19 Public Participation Summaries City of Los Altos | E-36 332
Agenda Item # 7.
Downtown needs to be preserved.
It is paramount the city provide "substantive evidence" of feasibility: talk to parcel owners, offer incentives, look at existing leases, etc.as
Millennials who are moving into your neighborhood want what is in your neighborhood, obviously, but that doesn’t mean they represent what other millennials want Jeanine-people do move here, typically they have lots more money than the poor folks who currently live here, myself included. los altos was not my first house purchase-it took decades for me to afford this town. there is no free lunch
Sandy: The parking can go underground and many of the housing units will be studios and one bedrooms so one slab of asphalt per unit is sufficient
Are we considering a lot of this development in the downtown triangle? Increasing density there, where it is close to downtown services and transit - and not backing up against residences - seems a win for the town meeting our RHNA numbers and the downtown businesses having more customers. Why are we considering the Grant/Fremont and the Magdalena churches, and other areas, which will just contribute to more traffic and disrupt existing neighborhoods?
In the CRS zone, the property next door to our Legion Hall, 347 1st Street is planning a 5 story building. (corner of 1st and Whitney). I don't understand how the housing element suggests 3 stories. Is this a reduction from current zoning?
El Rancho Shopping Center needs to be preserve
Or turned into BCS new campus
State and Main are the heart of what is Los Altos the village. Any intensified unit capacity should be at the perimeter not in the core
Loyola Corners near my house is severely in need of a makeover.
When you talk about removing caps, then developers get to add another story beyond the 3 stories if they have enough BMR without any approval, so are you including those 4 stories in your estimates, or just the new 3 story limit you are proposing Loyola Corners, near my house, needs to be updated, and three or four stories with first floor retail would be great
The Rancho shopping center and downtown will remain, just small parts of them will have people living there.
Where will the new schools for all of these new residents be located? LOS ALTOS HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE | COMMUNITY WORKSHOP #2 SUMMARY - 20 Public Participation Summaries City of Los Altos | E-37 333
Agenda Item # 7.
Jon, yes, the very wealthy millennials can move here. But we need a middle class and we need to house workers. It's the right thing to do by climate action. We need to think of urban planning and a wholistic view. Not to protect fiefdoms.
So as she is saying it’s capacity not proposed developments The "candidate parcels" are not correct. Those owners cannot sell they are locked in with the buildings to the left and right on a parking sharing agreement. Not happening.
Yes!!! Anne. What a great development that would be
Thank you pbressack. I should have stated that I meant the downtown periphery, not the triangle.
The city is not going to develop the parking plazas and should not pretend they will No height increase please, stop trying to destroy Los Alto’s charm, these tall building are ruining it and making it look like a ugly mess.
I do not agree that 4 stories in Loyola Corners would be good. We just went through all this for the Special plan in 2017. Our current 2 stories will automatically become 3 stories with BMRs These maps are not that helpful. Just feedback, not meant to be critical.
We have to put the housing somewhere. We need to allow for 1958 homes. Where do you propose they go?
Another tactic that needs to change: these patchwork upzones are counterproductive. The city must establish large-scale upzones. For example, make the San Antonio proposed area a large mixed use zone, not parcel by parcel. All of downtown should be zoned for mixed use.
Three stories is not what most people want in Loyola corners. We are not Palo Alto.
Agree Jeanine
Calling this ‘conservative’ is, well, something
What happens to the stores like Luckys that are developed? Do we order from Amazon for groceries?
From Pat: Do you realize that we can't tell much of anything from those zoning maps? We can't see what's there now, can't see the street names. Meaningless -- and yet you want feedback. well those who live off of San Antonio respectfully disagree-it is our backyard and sideyard. if you want more housing, put it in your backyard, not mine.
Potential for 2100 Woods Lane must address ongoing violation of environmental regulations, and threats to neighborhoods because of flood control basin located there.
We just keep the village characteristics in Los Altos. That’s why we chose to purchase a house LOS ALTOS HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE | COMMUNITY WORKSHOP #2 SUMMARY - 21 Public Participation Summaries City of Los Altos | E-38 334
Agenda Item # 7.
and live here. We have been living here over 28 years
All of our grocery stores should be on first floors with housing above. Imagine how wonderful that'd be. Community, no driving, instant customer bases. the current proposal for 2100 Woods Lane (it’s up on the city website) is laughable and will never, ever be approved by the city
Figures
Agree Jeanine.
Happy Mardi Gras everyone!
Why are we focusing only on existing residential zones? Why not convert commercial zones to mixed use?
I would like to understand the specifics on how 501 very-low income units will be built. What are the specified rental/purchase rates for very-low income units? Which identified developers might build these and where?
There was talk of converting OA to residential, which we should definitely do We just respect the current real estate price fir our current residents. It’s not fair to build condo units to bring down our real estate prices.
When I bought my home here in 1989, the city looked quite different. So many of your homes weren't here. Your homes in which many of you live were the result of larger lot buys and subdivisions. I hold no ill will against all the beneficiaries of this increased density. Virtually EVERY single house in Los Altos is the result of subdivision.
Yes, thank you Jill, for asking that.
and your point Jeanine is that we should look like San Francisco, the Bronx or Mumbai? wow, Jon,
The point is that subdividing lots is our heritage
A little hyperbole, for sure, but things must change.
Wow? What a stretch. How is sub-diving lots a heritage? Maybe when parcels were huge it made sense to sub-divide but now we are down to a 1/4 acre. Anything smaller is like SF.
It'd be nice if more people can share feedback. This was billed as a community feedback workshop. I worry that it's unwise to take 1-2 inputs on a topic & run w/that as though it reflects a broad base of input or consensus of opinion. Perhaps the breakouts need a little more time & fewer questions so we can discuss them in more depth.
Can we get the complete Chats for all the Breakout Rooms? LOS ALTOS HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE | COMMUNITY WORKSHOP #2 SUMMARY - 22 Public Participation Summaries City of Los Altos | E-39 335
Agenda Item # 7.
Loyola Corner there many single dwelling houses and this is not something that we approve of any 3 story building.
Thank you Stefano for your excellent moderation.
Loyola Corners would be great with retail businesses on the first floor, housing on 2 stories above, and a park-like area between the new development and the residential area.
Yes, Joe!
We used to have a limit on single family housing stories--depending on the character of the community. If no other 2 story houses in area, you could not develop a 2 story house there.
How things have changed!
Love the forward looking ideas Joe!
Joe-to do so requires a mass that doesn't work for the neighborhood and is underparked. it was proposed several y ears ago
No 3 storeys in Loyola corner pls. We live on Miramonte Ave. Parking and privacy are concerns. Your consideration will be greatly appreciated One speaker wasn't sure Loyola Corners had residential units. It indeed does have lots of residential units. As previously mentioned by sev'l participants, it is an area busy w/pedestrian, bike, & auto traffic. Parking is already challenging there. Raising the height limit is not appropriate given the negative impacts it would have to the existing neighborhoods. single story R! overlays still exist, Carol. But the irony is that many owners who moved in after the overlay was instituted don't like the restriction.
@Jon I respectfully disagree. Those buildings should be condemned and replaced. Lots of buffer area available in the back parking lot.
Most that live in Loyola Corners do not want anything over 30 ft.
We want to see the “uncharted Chat”. Please provide it in its raw form. Thanks Joe-look at the proposal that was made and figure out how to address the legitimate issues, which were non trivial
@Nancy the housing has to go somewhere. Where do you propose? I just met someone this week who lives in Loyola Corners and wants to build R-3 where their house is now.
minimum parcel size can be reduced, R-3 can be allowed everywhere. construction doesn't happen overnight, and this is how you get "gentle density" @Joe, I would be happy to give you my choices. Fell free to contact me.
LOS ALTOS HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE | COMMUNITY WORKSHOP #2 SUMMARY - 23 Public Participation Summaries City of Los Altos | E-40 336
Agenda Item # 7.
Grant and Fremont, northeast corner, would be better served by a park, dog park, and transition for bicyclists to get them away from the commuter Fremont/Grant road traffic. It ties into that recently improved Fremont Avenue with bike lane and beautiful trees.
Forgot to ask if there are any school sties on the list? We might be able to add in parking lots @nancy you should put them here so the public can se your ideas. Why withhold? I live near Loyola Corners and go there frequently. Would love to have more options for shopping
I wonder if all of the toxic waste from the gas station in that area was removed.
It'd be nice if more people can share feedback. This was billed as a community feedback workshop. I worry that it's unwise to take 1-2 inputs on a topic & run w/that as though it reflects a broad base of input or consensus of opinion. Perhaps the breakouts need a little more time & fewer questions so we can discuss them in more depth. Folks need to see whose raising their hand & trying to share in feedback. Please don't screen that off in future mtgs. we can see who raises their hands.
I'd be interesting to hear from young people who don't own yet.
Thank you City Staff: Laura and Sonia; Thank you Lisa Wise Consulting and Thank you Plan-to-Place.
I think the city has a responsibility to proactively reach out to those who will be most affected by the proposed changed zoning. they should have a say as well @Elizabeth M: the breakouts where good, but a bit scripted. Not clear they addressed what people were most concerned about.
Of course! I'm in favor of flag lots and two story townhomes that match the home heights and more.
There is great interest from the two younger generations and from workers in rental solutions.
There should be an in person community workshops where we use scaled lego blocks to place housing on large map tables. Not joking.
Yes, thank you for this session and the quality. Important work.
I'm in my early 30s and an fortunate enough to own, but all my friends who don't yet are moving away.
great interest from younger generation and workers, but the solution should not be at the expense of disadvantaging those who live here
we need these people to live here.
LOS ALTOS HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE | COMMUNITY WORKSHOP #2 SUMMARY - 24 Public Participation Summaries City of Los Altos | E-41 337
Agenda Item # 7.
BREAKOUT ROOM CHAT COMMENTS
ROOM 1 CHAT COMMENTS
I agree with both Abby and Elizabeth that height on El Camino, if too high, will block light and definitely need a buffer zone to the nearby single story houses.
I heard, secondhand, that Biden said the country needs 3.8 million new homes. CA is demanding 3.5 million new homes. So, CA requirements seem way out of line if these figures are true.
The Fremont and Grant parcel should not have high density development. It would be completely out of character with that whole area, and we need more parks Grant fremont parcel—how many units and where would they park? That is such a busy corner with lots of bikes and pedestrians and we just redid Fremont there.
Having a lot of residents going in and out at Grant and Fremont would be very problematic Good point MJ. I agree with both of your points about not having high density & the need for more parks. Additionally, due to the adjacent residential areas height increases would be problematic to the established neighborhoods there. It is a very busy part of town in terms of pedestrian, bikes, & auto use.
From Pat: Do people understand that no one would force the churches to build houses on their property? It would just change the zoning and IF a church wanted to build housing, it could.
From Pat: 12 units on 1/2 acre? Would it be six stories tall? Have you actually seen this corner? (reference to Grant and Fremont)
There are so many kids walking and biking to and from schools there, along Grant and Fremont, it would be very dangerous
are we going to cover the South Area? Specific 2100 Woods Lane? From Pat: In order to meet the RHNA numbers, the charm and character of every city in CA is going to change. Check out SB9 and SSB10 and SB35 and all the other laws coming from Sacramento.
I think this area would be a good place for more development, since everyone loves to be near downtown, so a higher development here would be good. Not tall but more than single family.
I would like to point out that Rancho already is a two story building, but it is such a good design, that it is not obvious. This is not just a “strip Mall” or the site of a grocery store. There are dozens of businesses and services, some of which are essential, that are all located in one LOS ALTOS HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE | COMMUNITY WORKSHOP #2 SUMMARY - 25 Public Participation Summaries City of Los Altos | E-42 338
Agenda Item # 7.
place. It is a central location that is used by thousands of people on both sides of the expressway. It serves as a community center that is used by residents of all ages, including the school age children who often congregate their after school. Many of my neighbors walk and/or bike to Rancho. We live about a mile away, and my husband bikes there every day. Sometimes he walks, if we are having the car repaired by Jerry, who is an excellent mechanic at the Rancho service station. He can drop off the car, walk home—then walk back when the car is ready. Everyone I know uses Rancho extensively, both for essential and non-essential purposes.
From pat: You're not controlling the conversation, Jen. You're letting people ramble. And it's not really clear exactly what you want. Are you asking if this is a good location? Are you asking how high buildings should be? Or what density? From pat: Just asking for "reactions" lets people ramble.
We are very concerned about setbacks, which make huge difference when buildings start to get higher. And if 3 stories is the new limit, as others have said, the developers will get to build 4 by including a BMR or two.
From Pat: Re Loyola Corners. We already have a 3-story building (with CA Density Bonus) in play. Yes, I would change the density to allow more housing.
Did I miss the part on wood’s lane?
Loyola Corner there many single dwelling houses and this is not something that we approve of any 3 story building.
ROOM 2 CHAT COMMENTS
Agreed with Roberta. LWC should disclose excel sheets and shapefiles to get better community input on the site inventory.
I support all the proposals for higher density.
I’m in favor of higher density
of course you do salim, because you don't personally get disadvantaged by a big building in your backyard.
This area of El Camino is already more built up, so the cost of replacement is high and therefore redevelopment is unlikely. It's great to zone for higher density, but doing that in larger areas with less already built will be more effective.
I actually support it, too, for many reasons. We have tiny cottages in our neighborhood that are wonderful, but couldn’t even be replaced at the same density if they needed to be rebuilt. Our LOS ALTOS HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE | COMMUNITY WORKSHOP #2 SUMMARY - 26 Public Participation Summaries City of Los Altos | E-43 339
Agenda Item # 7.
zoning is unreasonably inflexible and doesn’t even reflect actuality. there is an amazing willingness to destroy the backyard and neighborhood of others. just because you don't live in the ct zone doesn't give you license to advocate for bulldozing neighborhoods and replacing those single family homes with tall multifamily buildings Agree that more development should take place along El Camino rather than taking away what open areas we have.
Why aren't you looking at more church parking lots?
Alice Shyu: 1) Questions - parking and traffic will be more congested. Any solution? 2) real estate prices - will high density condos bring down our current residents’ real estate investment?
3) sharing. (Less than half acre lot. 0.476 acre). Our own house remodeling. We need to bring down our front entrance design to blend into our neighborhood landscaping. Please don’t have double standard and bring in high density condos in very residential area. Thank you for listening.
Corner of Grant and Fremont used to be a gas station. How high will the building be? Fremont Avenue was gridlocked pre COVID times--where will extra cars go ? I agree with Cindy P.
Has the city considered capping building heights to 2 story on Main St. or possibly protecting that small street as a historic district. The rest of downtown can go 4+ stories.
South San Antonio Rd is a bad place to target for housing. It already has parking problems. It abuts single l family homes and no land buffer is proposed.
South San Antonio road has lots that aren't deep and directly impact on single family backyards and side yards. the oa zone should not allow housing. keep the downtown, downtown.
The general plan already permits residential uses in OA San Antonio as a transit route is another great reason to put housing there.
Where on Fremont ave is there OA?
It's worth reminding that if planning doesn't plan for the requisite homes, state law will bypass local planning entirely.
san Antonio isn't a transit route. there is one bus that has infrequent service. Jill, suggest you get your facts right
LOS ALTOS HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE | COMMUNITY WORKSHOP #2 SUMMARY - 27 Public Participation Summaries City of Los Altos | E-44 340
Agenda Item # 7.
viable ideas-housing in the parking plazas as long as the parking gets replaced viable ideas-redevelop homestead plaza
I am well aware of that Jon, but it will change. Your tone is inappropriate and rude It’d be great if we knew how all of these numbers were calculated.
Why Homestead Plaza? There is little parking there as is. What happens to the stores there? I agree Salim. Why these particular numbers? The State has taken too much control over local zoning laws. ^^
Why doesn’t the city protect the old, potentially historic buildings on Main St? well there seem to be a willingness to get rid of retail and services, so that is a big site. I think where we are heading is insane. it is furthermore insane since we have to meet numbers without the inevitable density bonuses that always occur When my husband lived in Switzerland there was a butcher shop a block away in the middle of his neighborhood. It was wonderful.
The state is taking it away a little tiny bit at a time because municipalities aren't allowing houses to get built
the debate isn't about multifamily housing-its is about 50 and 60 foot buildings, which is the inevitable result of allowing housing in most of these area I'm in favor of multi-story high residential on top of the City parking lots, so they are more interior, behind the storefronts. However, I'm against high density along Main or First because the city allows building next to sidewalk because of mixed use, and density bonus. It destroys the pedestrian level view when you allow buildings right up to the sidewalk even if they throw in a few BMR.
And even the kindergartners walk alone to school. They closed the downtown Friday to sunday night to cars and made it pedestrian and bus only. Such a nice, safe, vibrant way of life.
Cindy, I agree with the unpleasant walk along 1st. The city needs to implement a sidewalk policy with a tree strip and landscape buffer.
No overdevelopment of Loyola Corners.
I am against destroying the things that make our downtown along main and state streets charming and inviting. 50 and 60 foot buildings fit that categoyr No overdevelopment of Loyola Corners.
LOS ALTOS HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE | COMMUNITY WORKSHOP #2 SUMMARY - 28 Public Participation Summaries City of Los Altos | E-45 341
Agenda Item # 7.
Parking along curb side is dangerous especially at night. Not enough parking. Miramonte Ave could not be expanded.
the consensus is everyone (myself included) wants develop to occur somewhere, as long as it isn't in their neighborhood.
3 storeys buildings? 3rd floor residents can see through the windows in their neighborhood. We need privacy. Thank you for your consideration
the old math was 3 stories was 30 feet, now 3 stories can be 45 feet before bonuses and waivers which bring total height to 65 feet. we are being hoodwinked I agree with Debbie Skelton. I'm particularly concerned about the intersection and bridge over the expressway. Lots of traffic/ped/bike conflicts now. why not blanket R-3?
you can build one house on an r-3 if you want
no actually you cannot
Citizens don't really have control over the State law
Loyola Corner there many single dwelling houses and this is not something that we approve of any 3 story building.
ROOM 3 CHAT COMMENTS
The el Camino corridor is much more able to support high density buildings. Still lacks adequate public transport, etc. Much better than cramming ADU’s in residential neighborhoods.
There are a number of city-owned lots that are not on the current site list. Just in my neighborhood, there is the bordered up coffee stop in Loyola Corners, the vacant lot on the corner of Green Oak Lane and Bendigo Dr, and the vacant lot at the SW Corner of Grant and Fremont (kitty corner from the site that is on the site map.
Since these are all owned by the city right now, there is no reason these should not be used for housing now.
Across the street Density is 60-90DU/AC Los Altos is at 38 DU/AC Using the 30% of income for Very Low Income level, that would mean: $2K/month rent for a family of 4
LOS ALTOS HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE | COMMUNITY WORKSHOP #2 SUMMARY - 29 Public Participation Summaries City of Los Altos | E-46 342
Agenda Item # 7.
Agree with Freddie, have to choose carefully on el Camino to consider existing single family homes
Whoops: sent too fast. Family of 4 would require $2K rents/month. For family of 2, it would be $1.7K monthly rents. I would like to understand which identified developer will build these units with presumably these deed-restricted rents?
I don’t think that Rancho Shopping Center will be developed for anything because I don’t think the owner wants to build, but it’s one parcel, and if a developer (market or affordable) built it, they’d build the entire lot
Barry, the developer who builds those units is any developer in Los Altos, because they are required to build 15% or more affordable units in every project Has anyone done a traffic study on El Camino? I feel like it is going to be gridlock when all the proposed housing units are finished. We all want the high density housing away from us but it was already gridlock at 5:00 PM before Covid. I agree with you Cindy. That open space is lovely.
More housing (especially within walking distance of services) lowers traffic because people don’t need to drive to work, grocery, etc
Curious about SB9 and if homeowners/developers might build 4 units on a SF lot. How do we forecast the new housing unit potential here?
Those churches are across the street from a grocery store! Rancho is right there.
Thanks Anne, where is it mandated that a developer must build 15% very low income units? Didn’t know this existed.
I agree with David. Is there an overall urban planning document to put the proposed sites in context?
Downtown is the place that needs “vibrancy” in order to support shops and restaurants.
Consider putting 4 story housing units all over downtown and build 3 or more parking garages at least two on what was the parking plazas
Barry, it’s called “inclusionary zoning” and most cities around here that are not named Los Altos Hills have it. The actual details vary, but nobody’s building a 20 unit project in Los Altos, Mountain View or Palo Alto without building some affordable homes Developers must provide 15% affordable units on each condominium project and pay $55-60K/unit on park fees traffic impact fees plus school fees EST $2-3/SF per SF of building or something like that
LOS ALTOS HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE | COMMUNITY WORKSHOP #2 SUMMARY - 30 Public Participation Summaries City of Los Altos | E-47 343
Agenda Item # 7.
I agree, no zoning on OA
3 stories, but what max height?
35 ft max in downtown
3 stories 35 ft
Mircea, can you build 3 stories with lower one retail in 35 feet? Barely? Not when you add in density bonuses
11 ft commercial /1st 8ft-1-2-3 so with commercial is hard. they will need about 38 ft to make it decent.
@Mircea: is that 15% referring to SB35 projects, or all projects. Does Los Altos require this 15% for all projects?
15% BMR on all developments - Outside any SB35
@Anne, @Mircea, how many very low income units have been built in Los Altos in the past few years?
Mircea: plus elevator shaft,... 😬 I seen too many Developments which tend to end up as 10’ per floor plus 10-15’ extra
Besides parking, how is school capacity planning being taking into account? They allow elevator shaft additional height up to 8ft on top of the roof @Mircea. Thanks. But presumably all developments then utilize SB35 in order to gain projects benefits? Are there non-SB35 projects that provide 15%BMR units? On a 3 story building the elevator profile is not that bad I agree with KirkM. Thanks
Rancho Shopping Center needs preservation as it is historically significant and serves a large spectrum of the community 3 miles from the downtown. A large repertoire of needs are met for the community surrounding it. It is “vibrant” and is “utilized” extensively. Many citizens walk and bike to it. Take a look at the myriad of services to get an idea of what I am saying. The redwood tree is huge, as are the white oaks. It is park-like and unique.
All non-SB35 projects must provide 15% BMR
For question 5, yes absolutely allow 3 stories at Loyola Corners. That property is underutilized.
I agree that Rancho is special and those services essential. Is there a way to build mixed-use on that site with new housing and still keep those services? I like to hope so.
LOS ALTOS HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE | COMMUNITY WORKSHOP #2 SUMMARY - 31 Public Participation Summaries City of Los Altos | E-48 344
Agenda Item # 7.
I’m in favor of putting housing on parking plazas, but we shouldn’t put the parking plazas on the housing element site inventory unless the city has a plan, with deadlines and commitments, and puts that plan in the housing element where it will be legally binding No to three stories.
No, 2 stories only in Loyola corners
@tom Why 2 stories vs. 3 in Loyola Corners? Imagine 3 stories at Loyola Corners with a park like area between the development and the R1 housing
Agree on Loyola corners, way under utilized and old, hasn’t changed in 25 years @Mircea, the Los Altos number is 501 for very low income units. Are you or some other developer likely to build these?
The problem is if we allow the more then two stories, the developers can ask for bonuses and it will end up a huge buildings with no set backs. Two story duplexes would be fine Many of the San Antonio offices have homes right behind the site. Local residents are concerned about parking and traffic in Hillview neighborhood.
Loyola Corners is not a commercial zone, it’s commercial neighborhood, for good reason. Look at specific plan - it was created with a great deal of thought and consideration. It’s not downtown
@Anne, are you asking for legally binding commitments for all of the housing element? I’m saying that if the city tries to put parking plazas on the site inventory, but does not make a commitment in the housing element to actually develop the parcels, then the state will reject the housing element and make the city take those sites off the housing element. Like they did with Santa Monica
You’ve got to consider the creek and impact on building right on the creek for the old bank site.
Plus people have single family homes on the other side of creek, so a large building would have BIG impact
If the city puts programs to develop the parking plazas in the housing element, it IS legally binding
@Mircea, I am interpreting your comments correctly. There is no 15% requirement unless developers use SB35, and that provides developers the ability to exceed local zoning requirements.
ROOM 4 CHAT COMMENTS
LOS ALTOS HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE | COMMUNITY WORKSHOP #2 SUMMARY - 32 Public Participation Summaries City of Los Altos | E-49 345
Agenda Item # 7.
"I think the diocese of San Jose is looking at what they can do with their lands. Saint Nicholas and Saint Williams and Saint Simons in LA"
"Up zoning in this area is completely appropriate, El Camino commercial thoroughfare should be dense especially since it is near transit and services Not sure they are looking at all those sites but those are the sites
Opposition to density and increase to height limits but not in opposition to more housing on the whole
"The church on Grant Rd. between Fremont and Foothill might be one to consider as well." "To Teresa’s point can we caveat the heights to be max after density bonus just to clarify for people"
What is the highest building on El Camino?
"I'm going to guess 5 stories"
"And Mountain View is at 5 including rooftop I think"
"Oh except the one large apartment and office across from Jordan" "How short are we from the mandated number?" 500 short
"Thanks. What is the downside of showing properties like B of A as potential sites even if B of A says it is not interested?"
"The downside is that the state rejects the siting...bad." "Thanks. What happens if the state rejects the siting? What makes this bad?" "Upzoning along El Camino thoroughfare is a good idea, the residents will be near stores, services and public transportation, and close to downtown Mountain View, will be quite convenient location for residents (and probably also for business)" "In order for the Housing Element to be accepted by HCD, the sites listed as able to be developed must be feasible. There must be evidence that the parcel can be developed." "Get your friends to look at it" I’m guessing the church isn’t planning on closing. Just making room for housing
"Michael, back to the topic of what happens when the state rejects our HE: at first, warnings, then fines, then bigger fines, then we lose our local control (they give developers the permission to come in and build without our input), and then the state comes in and, at the extreme, can put our city into receivership to tell us where we will build housing and what density it will be.They could even put halts on requests for private owners to revise their property pending the consideration of whether or not housing can be put there. It is imperative we make a feasible Housing Element and keep things under our control." LOS ALTOS HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE | COMMUNITY WORKSHOP #2 SUMMARY - 33 Public Participation Summaries City of Los Altos | E-50 346
Agenda Item # 7.
"Michael, we also lose state funding...oh he's dealing with this" "All cities adopt housing elements. We want to be a city that has one" "Are you familiar with the situation at 40 Main?"
"Schools are not full
"our schools are not full"
"when you create demand for schools, schools happen. same goes for transit." "The schools come at great cost to our community"
"Why aren't apartments family oriented? Lots of families live in apartments" "Agree merchants benefit it we add housing downtown"
"I agree with Julie! Our privilege has allowed many of us to characterize family life unreasonably elite. I admit sometimes I even have to check myself on this. The merchants (existing and future) in South los altos would be thrilled with more customers.
Safeway/Andronicos is barely hanging on.
Fremont/Grant would be a nice site for a 4- or 6 plex. The conifers along the periphery would make it invisible to adjacent neighbors.
I do not think that the Fremont/Grant site is perfect, but at this stage in the housing crisis, I don't think we have the luxury of finding perfect. There is a bus route that goes right past that corner, and it would be easy to have an entrance on Fremont and an exit on Grant. A vacant lot with a few townhomes houses people
I like thinking about organic growth in ADUs and sprinkling a 4 or 6-plex where we can. It’s more work to plan the sites throughout the city but also more welcoming than placing it all at El Camino
The presentation shows something like 30 to 40 units per acre so that 0.5 acre site would likely have 15 to 20 units as I read the documents.
Agree with Julie as well. A 4 or 6-plex is much more palatable to areas with family homes than a bulky apartment building
Most of the El Camino residential units are condos, not rentals. Only Colonnade is rentals and is owned by Stanford.
I also like taking 1-acre lots in the R1 area (upzone to R2) and creating cute little 2/1 bungalow courts like in the old days. These are great for starter families. I'd rather have a bungalow court next to me than a 2 story mcmansion (no disrespect to my neighbors where I live!).
Ooh sounds nice. I’ll move in Jeanine. Would be nice to have places to downsize for this largely over 60 crowd
LOS ALTOS HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE | COMMUNITY WORKSHOP #2 SUMMARY - 34 Public Participation Summaries City of Los Altos | E-51 347
Agenda Item # 7.
Great suggestion by Jeanine Valadez, creative and very appealing The orchard site is historical and has limitations because it was donated to city (or sold?) with limitations that it must remain an orchard.
I love walking through the Dos Pueblos neighborhood. Small lots, gorgeous cute new and old small homes, great community.
the orchard at the civic center has an historic designation The proposal it so build 30 to 40 units per acre not low density like "2/1 bungalow courts like in the old days"
Great suggestion, Jeanine. Could be great for older folks who are downsizing (count me in when I’m 75!)
we should protect the orchard; I believe in locational history. I have a vestigial appie in my backyard.
Generally, I hope the new housing re-uses parking lots, instead cutting down trees. The corner at Grant/Fremont seems to be a nice piece of land for trees to make the area green Agree with dongzheng on making best use of parking lots and NOT giving up greenspace wherever we can avoid it.
Support upzoning to allow mixed use everywhere.
Absolutely upzone OA to mixed use.
Absolutely support the upzoning of parcels in the ‘administrative’ area (the purple area) which you just mentioned.
Yes, OA should allow residential
In fact those offices on Altos Oaks used to be housing in the old days.
Check out Midpen housing at 2510 Soquel Ave. in Santa Cruz. It is very low profile but has a good number of units.
I’d like to see an emphasis of getting the affordable as a priority LOS ALTOS HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE | COMMUNITY WORKSHOP #2 SUMMARY - 35 Public Participation Summaries City of Los Altos | E-52 348
Agenda Item # 7.
LOS ALTOS HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE | 3/22/22 CITY COUNCIL SUMMARY - 1 City Council Meeting
Format: Zoom Virtual Meeting | March 22, 2022, 7:00 pm
The purpose of the City Council’s March 22, 2022 Housing Element Update agenda item was to provide a brief overview of the Housing Element Update process, describe the sites inventory analysis methodology and preliminary findings, and to receive direction from the City Council regarding potential zoning modification options to address an anticipated shortfall in Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) capacity.
The City Council Meeting was held via Zoom at 7:00 pm and was facilitated by City staff and the consultant team (Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc.). The meeting agenda, staff report, and PowerPoint presentation were made available online prior to the meeting. Approximately 40 members of the public attended the meeting. The presentation for this agenda item is outlined below:
1. Housing Element Overview
2. Sites Inventory Analysis
3. Community Feedback
4. Next Steps
ATTENDANCE
Meeting participants: approximately 40 attendees
City Staff
● Gabriel Engeland – City Manager
● Jon Maginot – Assistant City Manager
● Laura Simpson – Interim Planning Director
Consultant Team
● Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc. – David Bergman, Jennifer Murillo, Stefano Richichi
MEETING SUMMARY
Laura Simpson opened the meeting and introduced the team. Jennifer Murillo from Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc. gave a presentation that included a brief overview of the Housing Element and process, but focused primarily on approach, methodology, and assumptions for the sites inventory analysis. Jennifer then described various policy considerations for preliminary zoning modification options. The following questions were posed in the presentation:
1. Allow higher density in the Commercial Thoroughfare (CT) District?
2. Allow residential on certain Public and Community Facilities (PCF)-Zoned Parcels?
3. Allow residential in the Office Administrative (OA) District?
4. Establish a minimum density and allow 3 stories (or 100% residential uses) in the Commercial Retail Sales (CRS) District?
5. Remove the density cap and allow 3 stories (or 100% residential uses) in the Loyola Corners Specific Plan?
Public Participation Summaries City of Los Altos | E-53 349
Agenda Item # 7.
LOS ALTOS HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE | 3/22/22 CITY COUNCIL SUMMARY - 2 Preliminary sites maps were presented, noting that community feedback has been and continues to be received and will inform revisions to the preliminary sites maps.
Following the presentation, City Councilmembers asked questions and requested additional information regarding the methodology used for identification of preliminary sites. No further direction was provided.
Comments from members of the public are summarized below:
• If density isn’t modified in the R-1 districts, changes will have to made in other zoning districts.
• Being identified as a preliminary site does not mean that an existing building on the property will be torn down or that the existing use will be removed. • Requests for additional information and a detailed list of preliminary sites. • Concern that Rancho Shopping Center, Lucky’s, State Street Market, City parking spaces, Packard Foundation garden, and St. Nicholas’s parking lot are not going to redevelop as housing.
• The OA District has narrow lots and shouldn’t be rezoned to allow residential. • Concern about allowing residential in the OA District and insufficient parking. • The outreach strategy should include banners, sandwich boards, etc. • Support for the need to upzone. The Housing Element should be a plan to build more housing, not just a plan to please HCD. We’re not telling businesses to go away; office and retail can coexist with housing.
• Some zoning modifications should be implemented. This could be through wholesale changes to zoning or overlays to promote redevelopment of certain properties. • Concern about limited access and safety/evacuation issues regarding the 2100 Woods Lane site.
Public Participation Summaries City of Los Altos | E-54 350
Agenda Item # 7.
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing City of Los Altos | F-1 Appendix F: Affirmatively Furthering
Fair Housing (AFFH)
Contents
Appendix F: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH).......................... 1 Section F.1 Introduction............................................................................................................ 2 F.1.1 Notes on Figures and Analysis.............................................................................. 2 Section F.2 Assessment of Fair Housing.................................................................................. 3 F.2.1 History of Fair Housing Issues............................................................................... 3 F.2.2 Fair Housing Outreach and Enforcement.............................................................. 4 F.2.3 Integration and Segregation .................................................................................. 6 F.2.4 Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty .........................................18 F.2.5 Access to Opportunity .........................................................................................20 F.2.6 Disproportionate Housing Needs.........................................................................28 F.2.7 Other Relevant Factors .......................................................................................38 F.2.8 Summary of Fair Housing Issues ........................................................................39 Section F.3 Sites Inventory.....................................................................................................41 F.3.1 Potential Effects on Patterns of Segregation.......................................................41 F.3.2 Potential Effects on Access to Opportunity .........................................................45 Section F.4 Contributing Factors and Meaningful Actions......................................................49 351
Agenda Item # 7.
F-2 | City of Los Altos Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Section F.1 Introduction
Assembly Bill 686, signed in 2018, establishes a statewide framework to affirmatively further fair housing (AFFH) with the goal of achieving better economic and health outcomes for all Californians through equitable housing policies. AB 686 defined “affirmatively furthering fair housing” to mean “taking meaningful actions, in addition to combat discrimination, that overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity” for persons of color, persons with disabilities, and other protected classes. AB 686 requires cities and counties to take deliberate actions to foster inclusive communities, advance fair and equal housing choice, and address racial and economic disparities through local policies and programs. Housing elements are now required to address the following five components:
• Inclusive and Equitable Outreach: A summary of fair housing outreach and capacity that includes all economic segments of the community.
• Assessment of Fair Housing: An assessment of fair housing issues, including integration and segregation patterns, racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty, disparities in access to opportunity, and disproportionate housing needs for all identified populations.
• Analysis of Sites Inventory: An evaluation of whether the Housing Element’s sites inventory improves or exacerbates conditions for fair housing. • Identification of Contributing Factors: The identification and prioritization of contributing factors related to fair housing issue.
• Priorities, Goals, and Actions to AFFH: The identification of fair housing goals and actions that directly address the contributing factors outlined above. The housing element should include metrics and milestones for evaluating progress and fair housing results.
This section documents four of the five components of the AFFH components. The summary of AFFH-related outreach is included in Housing Element Section I.E (Summary of Public Participation).
F.1.1 Notes on Figures and Analysis
This Appendix contains geospatial data downloaded from HCD’s AFFH Data and Mapping Resources Hub. Additional analysis is sourced from the Census American Community Survey and HCD’s pre-certified data, where appropriate.
352
Agenda Item # 7.
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing City of Los Altos | F-3 Section F.2 Assessment of Fair Housing
F.2.1 History of Fair Housing Issues
Los Altos occupies land that was inhabited by the indigenous Ohlone people. According to the City of Los Altos Historic Context statement1
, evidence of their presence on the land has been
confirmed by the discovery of human and cultural remains within the City Limits. This population began to be displaced from the territory that includes Los Altos with the establishment of La Purisima Conception Rancho and Rancho San Antonio during the period of Spanish and Mexican occupation. The Los Altos region began to attract significant Euro-American settlement after California’s entry into the United Sates in 1850. This population growth was accelerated by the arrival of the railroad into the area in 1864. The region remained primarily agricultural with large land holdings owned by Euro-American landowners. The first urban lots were subdivided in 1906 by the Altos Land Company on what is currently referred to as the Downtown triangle. The remainder of the area of Los Altos was largely agricultural. The large agricultural holdings were generally owned by Euro-American families who would employ ethnic Japanese and Chinese persons as domestic labor.
2 Census provides insight into the racial and ethnic composition of the Los Altos area in the early 20th century. The census did not record any Black or African Americans in Los Altos until 1920 when three individuals were recorded as being present. The largest non-white population in the area were ethnic Japanese. By 1920 this population comprised 22 percent of the foreign-born population in Los Altos. Much of this population was engaged in agricultural production on leased land due to explicitly racist land ownership laws, ethnic Japanese farmers were not able to own land outright.
3 Discrimination against ethnic Asians was a feature of the land tenure system that effected Los Altos’ development. The Chinese exclusion act of 1882, which was not repealed until 1943, formalized discrimination against ethnic Chinse persons and limited their ability to own land in Los Altos; and the internment of Japanese Americans during the Second World War removed many ethnic Japanese families from Los Altos.
4 The practice of formal exclusion based on race and ethnicity effected the ability of a non-white population to own property in Los Altos until these legal exclusions were invalidated by the federal Fair Housing Act (also known as Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968). At the State level, the California Fair Employment and Housing Act also provided legal remedies to address housing discrimination on the basis of race and ethnicity. Despite these legal protections, the legacy of 1 City of Los Altos, Historic Resources Inventory, Section II Los Altos: Historic Context April 2011 2 Ibid p.19 3 Ibid p. 20 4 Los Altos Historical Society Finding Asian America in the Museum April 15, 2021 353
Agenda Item # 7.
F-4 | City of Los Altos Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing racialized control of land in Los Altos can be observed in contemporary patterns of residential composition within Los Altos and the greater region.
F.2.2 Fair Housing Outreach and Enforcement
Fair housing complaints can be an indicator of housing discrimination in contemporary Los Altos.
Fair housing issues can arise through discrimination against an individual based on disability, race, national origin, familial status, disability, religion, or sex when renting or selling a dwelling unit.
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO) is the federal agency responsible for eliminating housing discrimination, promote economic opportunity, and achieving diverse, inclusive communities. FHEO services and activities include investigating fair housing complaints, conducting compliance reviews, ensuring civil rights in HUD programs, and managing fair housing grants.
The Office of Supportive Housing provides fair housing services to urban and unincorporated areas of Santa Clara County. They provide information and services on tenants’ rights, fair housing, and local tenant protections. The non-profit organization Project Sentinel provides fair housing services to residents of Santa Clara County that include assisting individuals with housing discrimination complaints. From 2004 to 2021, there were nine fair housing cases in Los Altos.
These cases related to protected categories as follows: familial status (five cases, 56 percent), disability (two cases, 22 percent), and race (two cases, 22 percent). All cases were counseled and closed; no cases are currently pending in Los Altos. 5 Comments during the Housing Element Update process identified a need for providing more information about available services to residents, particularly seniors. Housing Element programs are included to promote awareness of available resources, information, and services related to fair housing and affordable housing generally.
The City does not have any pending lawsuits, enforcement actions, judgements, settlements, or findings related to fair housing and civil rights. The City does not currently have any local fair housing laws or programs to specifically address fair housing issues.
The city complies with State and federal housing laws as follows:
• Fair Housing Act; Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 – the City complies by ensuring its actions related to housing are not discriminatory through City protocols, decision-making procedures, and adhering to non-discrimination requirements of federal funding programs.
5 Elizabeth Sanchez, Supervising Fair Housing Coordinator, Project Sentinel, May 2022. 354
Agenda Item # 7.
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing City of Los Altos | F-5 • Rehabilitation Act of 1973 – see Fair Housing Act; also, the City complies through its accessibility protocols, administered and enforced by the City’s ADA/504 Coordinator and Building Official.
• American Disabilities Act – the City complies with the ADA through building permit review and issuance and as described in Appendix C (Housing Constraints, Section C.2.2, Housing for Persons with Disabilities).
• California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) and FEHA Regulations – the City complies with FEHA and its regulations through established City protocols for hiring and decision making, mandatory trainings for City staff, and legal counsel and advisement. • Government Code Section 65008 – the City ensures that the City’s actions are not discriminatory through training programs conducted by the City’s Human Resources Department. Programs are included in this Housing Element to facilitate housing for all households, including protected classes (e.g., programs regarding residential care facilities, reasonable accommodation, and emergency shelters). • Government Code Section 8899.50 – Appendix F of this Housing Element documents compliance with Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing requirements. • Government Code Section 11135 et. seq. – the City complies with anti-discrimination requirements through the City’s Human Resources programs and the City’s procurement protocols.
• Density Bonus Law (Government Code Section 65915) – the City must update its density bonus provisions in compliance with the Density Bonus Law as described in Appendix C (Housing Constraints) and Program 3.E.
• Housing Accountability Act (Government Code Section 65589.5) – the City has documented compliance with the HAA as described in Appendix C (Housing Constraints). • No-Net-Loss Law (Government Code Section 65863) – the City has documented compliance with sufficient capacity for RHNA and will ensure compliance with no-net-loss via programs (Program 1.J).
• Least Cost Zoning Law (Government Code Section 65913.1) – the City includes programs in this Housing Element to ensure that sufficient land is zoned with appropriate standards to accommodate its RHNA.
• Excessive subdivision standards (Government Code Section 65913.2) – the City’s subdivision standards are typical or not excessive in compliance with the Government Code (see Appendix C, Section C.2.5).
• Limits on growth control (Government Code Section 65302.8) – the City complies as it has no growth control measures.
355
Agenda Item # 7.
F-6 | City of Los Altos Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing • Housing Element Law (Government Code Section 65583) – this Housing Element documents compliance with Housing Element Law.
F.2.3 Integration and Segregation
This section analyzes integration and segregation, including patterns and trends, related to people with protected characteristics.
Race and Ethnicity
According to the American Community Survey (ACS), Los Altos had a lower proportion of racial and ethnic groups than Santa Clara County in 2019. Approximately 38.4 percent of the Los Altos population belonged to a racial minority group compared to 55.5 percent of the county population at that time. The largest minority group was Asian in both the city and county at 31.4 percent and
36.5 percent, respectively. Residents identifying as Hispanic or Latino was 4.4 percent in the city and 25.5 percent in the county.
Figure F-1 provides historical non-white population percentages by block group based on 2010 ACS data. At this time, the northern portion of the city had the lowest non-white percentages with less than 20 percent in two northern block groups. Most of the city had non-white percentages in the 21 to 40 percent range. In 2010, two block groups in the southern portion of the city had nonwhite percentages above 40 percent.
Figure F-2 shows the non-white population percentage by census block group for 2018. Most block groups in the city had a non-white population in the range of 21 to 40 percent at that time.
Ten block groups had non-white population percentages in the next highest category with most of them located in the southern portion of the city.
The city had higher percentages of non-white population overall in 2018 as compared to 2010 according to ACS data. The 2018 ACS data showed an increase in non-white population percentage in most block groups in the city compared to 2010 data. The southern portion of the city bordered by Interstate 280 contained the highest non-white percentages in both periods. Nonwhite population percentages are generally higher outside of the city to the north, east, and south. 356
Agenda Item # 7.
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing City of Los Altos | F-7 Figure F-1: Non-White Population (2010)
Source: HCD AFFH Spatial Data
357
Agenda Item # 7.
F-8 | City of Los Altos Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Figure F-2: Non-White Population (2018)
Source: HCD AFFH Spatial Data
Disability
People are considered to have a disability if they have one or more of the following: hearing difficulty, vision difficulty, cognitive difficulty, ambulatory difficulty, self-care difficulty, and independent living difficulty.
Figure F-3 presents the ACS 2010 to 2014 data for percentage of population with a disability and Figure F-4 shows the ACS 2015 to 2019 data for percentage of population with a disability.
According to 2015 to 2019 ACS data, approximately 5.7 percent of Los Altos residents have a disability, compared to 8.0 percent countywide (Table F-1). All census tracts in Los Altos consisted of less than 10 percent of residents experiencing disability during both five-year time periods except for the southernmost tract that extends beyond City limits. Surrounding areas exhibit similar disability levels in the 2019 data with most adjacent census tracts in the same quintile range as the city. Two tracts adjacent to the north and southwest of the city have disability population estimates in the next highest range of 10 to 20 percent (Figure F-4). 358
Agenda Item # 7.
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing City of Los Altos | F-9 Although Los Altos has a lower proportion of population with a disability compared to the county, comments during the Housing Element update process reflected the desire to prioritize housing that serves young families, low-income households, seniors, and those with disabilities.
Table F-1: Percentage of Population with a Disability (2019) Los Altos Santa Clara County
Number Percentage Percentage
1,739 5.7% 8.0%
Source: ACS 2019 5-Year Estimates, Table S1810
Figure F-3: Percent of Population with a Disability (2010 - 2014) Source: HCD AFFH Spatial Data
359
Agenda Item # 7.
F-10 | City of Los Altos Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Figure F-4: Percent of Population with a Disability (2015 - 2019) Source: HCD AFFH Spatial Data
In Los Altos, there are differences in disability status by race and ethnicity. White individuals are far more likely to have disabilities than Black individuals, with the incidence of disabilities among the larger Asian and Hispanic populations in between. It is likely that the very small number of Black residents and disparities in age (which is highly correlated with disability status) between White, Asian, and Hispanic residents explains much of the disparity. The median age of Hispanic residents of Los Altos is 36.6, while the median age for White residents of Los Altos is 50.1. 360
Agenda Item # 7.
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing City of Los Altos | F-11 Table F-2: Disability Status by Race and Ethnicity (2019) Race or Ethnicity Total Population Number with a
Disability % with a Disability
White Alone, Not Hispanic or Latino 17,543 1,284 7.3%
Black or African American Alone 129 0 0.0%
Asian Alone 9,562 342 3.6%
Hispanic or Latino (of any race) 1,341 60 4.5%
Source: Lawyer’s Committee, Baird + Driskell Community Planning; ACS 2019 5-Year Estimates Input during the Housing Element process included that housing stock should accommodate the ageing population and prioritize people with disabilities, as well as young families and low-income households.
Familial Status
Familial status protection covers households in which one or more minor children live with: a parent, a person who has legal custody (including guardianship) of a minor child or children, or the designee of a parent or legal custodian, with the written permission of the parent or legal custodian. Examples of familial status discrimination include refusal to rent to families with children, eviction of families once a child joins, and confinement of families to specific floors of a building.
According to 2019 ACS data, 39.4 percent of all households in Los Altos have one or more children under the age of 18, which is about a two percent increase from the 2010 estimate (37.3 percent). The city’s share of all households with children is higher than that of the county overall at 36.3 percent. It is also higher than the surrounding neighboring jurisdictions of Palo Alto (34.0 percent), Mountain View (27.4 percent), and Sunnyvale (33.9 percent). The rate for married couple households with children in the city is 34.8 percent compared to 27.0 percent in the county according to ACS 2019 data (Table F-3).
Figure F-5 shows the percentages of children in married couple households in Los Altos by quintile. The percentage of children living in married couple households is uniformly high across the city, exceeding 80 percent in all tracts. Most census tracts adjacent to these areas also have high levels at over 80 percent. As noted in Section F.2.2, most fair housing complaints in Los Altos have been related to familial status. Furthermore, comments during the Housing Element process identified that the availability of housing for young families is a critical issue.
Single-parent households are also a fair housing protected class. Los Altos has 2.2 percent of households consisting of single-parent households according to the ACS data. Female-headed households are more likely to experience greater housing affordability challenges due to typically lower household incomes compared to two-parent households. ACS data indicates that 1.9 percent of households in Los Altos are single female-headed households with children (Table F4). 361
Agenda Item # 7.
F-12 | City of Los Altos Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing ACS five-year data for 2015 to 2019 is presented by quintile for the percentages of children in single female-headed households in Los Altos is shown in Figure F-6. This map shows that all census tracts within the city have percentages of children in single female-headed households below 20 percent. Every adjacent tract to the city contains similar levels of these types of households, with the exception of one tract to the north of the city. This tract contains percentages of children in single female-headed households in the next highest quartile at approximately 24.8 percent.
Table F-3: Percentage of Married-Couple Households with Children (2019) Los Altos Santa Clara County
34.8% 27.0%
Source: ACS 2019 5-Year Estimates, Table DP02
Table F-4: Percentage of Female-Headed Households with Children, No Spouse/Partner Present (2019) Los Altos Santa Clara County
1.9% 3.3%
Source: ACS 2019 5-Year Estimates, Table DP02
362
Agenda Item # 7.
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing City of Los Altos | F-13 Figure F-5: Children in Married-Couple Households (2015 - 2019) Source: HCD AFFH Spatial Data
363
Agenda Item # 7.
F-14 | City of Los Altos Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Figure F-6: Children in Female-Headed Households with No Partner Present (2015-2019) Source: HCD AFFH Spatial Data
Income
According to the 2015 to 2019 ACS, the median household income in Los Altos was $235,278, which was more than Santa Clara County at $124,055 during the same period (Table F-5).
Figure F-7 displays the distribution of median household income by census tract in Los Altos for 2010 to 2014. Household income was approximately uniform across the city during that time period at $100,000 or above. Most tracts adjacent to the city exhibited similar incomes at that time.
Figure F-8 presents median household income by block group for 2015 to 2019. Household incomes in the city remained at similar levels compared to 2010 to 2014 data. Several block groups did not have household income data for that period, so tract level data was used instead as indicated in Figure F-8. Household income was lower in about half of the surrounding block groups outside city in the 2015 to 2019 ACS data compared to the previous period. 364
Agenda Item # 7.
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing City of Los Altos | F-15 Table F-5: Median Household Income (2019)
Los Altos Santa Clara County
$235,278 $124,055
Source: ACS 2019 5-Year Estimates, Table S1901
Figure F-7: Median Household Income (2010 - 2014)
Source: HCD AFFH Spatial Data
365
Agenda Item # 7.
F-16 | City of Los Altos Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Figure F-8: Median Household Income (2015 - 2019)
Source: HCD AFFH Spatial Data
366
Agenda Item # 7.
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing City of Los Altos | F-17 Figure F-9: Low to Moderate Income Population (2015 - 2019) Source: HCD AFFH Spatial Data
Figure F-9 presents the distribution of LMI households in the city by quartile. The amount of LMI households is low across the city at less than 25 percent. Census tracts adjacent to the city to the north have much higher levels of LMI populations than the city. A tract to the southeast of the city contains a higher LMI population percentage. This follows the observed regional pattern of LMI household percentages generally increasing to the north.
Income can also be disaggregated by race and ethnicity to further understand local patterns of segregation and integration. The citywide poverty rate was 2.8 percent according to 2015 to 2019 ACS data, compared to 7.5% countywide. The rate by race/ethnic group in Los Altos is shown in Table F-6. Residents who identify as two or more races experience poverty at a higher rate than other racial or ethnic groups in the city at about 7.8 percent. The poverty rate for this group is notable because of the number of individuals and that they represented about 5.5 percent of the total population according to the 2019 ACS data. Black and American Indian residents also experience elevated poverty rates relative to their population share (also see Appendix A, Housing Needs Assessment, Section A.3.4, Residents Living Below the Poverty Level). 367
Agenda Item # 7.
F-18 | City of Los Altos Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Table F-6: Persons in Poverty by Race/Ethnicity (2019)
Number of
Persons
Poverty Rate by
Race/Ethnicity
% Of Total
Population
Below poverty level estimate 856 2.8% -
White alone 484 2.6% 61.6%
Black or African American alone 7 5.4% 0.5%
American Indian and Alaska Native alone 2 6.5% 0.1%
Asian alone 232 2.4% 31.4%
Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander alone 0 - 0.0%
Some other race alone 2 0.7% 0.9%
Two or more races 129 7.8% 5.5%
Hispanic or Latino origin (of any race) 30 2.2% 4.4%
Source: ACS 2019 5-Year Estimates, Table S1701
Segregation Report
The AFFH Segregation Report for Los Altos has been prepared by the University of California Merced Urban Policy Lab in cooperation with the Association of Bay Area Governments and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission. The key findings from the report include the observations that both neighborhood racial segregation and income segregation in Los Altos declined since 2010. Another key finding states that “segregation between lower-income residents and residents who are not lower-income has decreased between 2010 and 2015”.
These findings are consistent with figures provided in this section, and the report is attached to this appendix.
F.2.4 Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAPs) Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAP) are areas that exhibit both high racial/ethnic concentrations and high poverty rates. HUD defines R/ECAPs as census tracts with a majority non-white population (50 percent or more) and a poverty rate that exceeds 40 percent or is three times the average poverty rate for the county, whichever is lower.
R/ECAPs may indicate the presence of disadvantaged households facing housing insecurity and need. They identify areas whose residents may have faced historical discrimination and who continue to experience economic hardship, furthering entrenched inequities in these communities.
According to Figure F-10, there are no R/ECAPs in Los Altos or in the surrounding area. 368
Agenda Item # 7.
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing City of Los Altos | F-19 Figure F-10: Racially/Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (2009-2013) Source: HCD AFFH Spatial Data
Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Affluence (RCAAs) Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Affluence (RCAAs) are neighborhoods in which there are both high concentrations of non-Hispanic White households and high household income rates.
Based on research from the University of Minnesota Humphrey School of Public Affairs, RCAAs are defined as census tracts where 80 percent or more of the population is white, and the median household income is $125,000 or greater (which is slightly more than double the national median household income in 2016).
However, HCD adjusted the RCAA methodology to track more closely with California’s higher levels of diversity by setting the white population threshold to 50 percent. According to 2010 data available from HCD (Figure F-11), Los Altos had two white-majority census tracts in the predominant category at about 52 percent each, with the remaining areas between 10 and 50 percent. Those two white-majority tracts have household incomes greater than $125,000 and are therefore RCAAs by the HCD criteria. One of these RCAA tracts is situated between El Monte 369
Agenda Item # 7.
F-20 | City of Los Altos Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Avenue and Almond Avenue and the other RCAA tract is located in the northwestern portion of the city to the west of San Antonio Road.
Figure F-11: White Majority Tracts (2010)
Source: HCD AFFH Spatial Data
F.2.5 Access to Opportunity
One important component of fair housing is a neighborhood’s access to opportunity, which correlates relative place-based characteristics of an area, such as education, employment, safety, and the environment, with critical life outcomes, such as health, wealth, and life expectancy.
Ensuring access to opportunity means both investing in existing low-income and underserved communities, as well as supporting residents’ mobility and access to ‘high resource’ neighborhoods.
In February 2017, the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) and the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) convened the California Fair Housing Task Force to provide research and evidence-based policy recommendations to further HCD’s fair housing goals of (1) avoiding further segregation and concentration of poverty and (2) 370
Agenda Item # 7.
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing City of Los Altos | F-21 encouraging access to opportunity through land use policy and affordable housing, program design, and implementation.
HCD and TCAC prepared opportunity maps to identify census tracts with the highest and lowest resources. High resource areas are areas with high index scores for a variety of opportunity indicators. Examples of indicators of high resources areas include high employment rates, low poverty rates, proximity to jobs, high educational proficiency, and limited exposure to environmental health hazards. High resources tracts are areas that offer low-income residents the best chance of a high quality of life, whether through economic advancement, high educational attainment, or clean environmental health. Census tracts in the city that are categorized as moderate resource areas have access to many of the same resources as the high resource areas but may have fewer job opportunities, lower performing schools, lower median home values, or other factors that lower their indexes across the various economic, educational, and environmental indicators.
Low resources areas are characterized as having fewer opportunities to employment and education, or a lower index for other economic, environmental, and educational indicators. These areas have greater quality of life needs and should be prioritized for future investment to improve opportunities for current and future residents.
The opportunity maps inform TCAC, which oversees the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) Program, to distribute funding more equitably for affordable housing in areas with the highest opportunity. The analysis evaluates total access to opportunity (e.g., high, moderate, low), but also individually assesses opportunity access across more specific indicators, such as education, transportation, economic development, and environment.
TCAC Opportunity Areas – Composite Score
The 2022 TCAC Opportunity Areas Composite Score provides an aggregate index of three domains: economic, education, and environmental. Census tracts with higher composite scores indicate higher resource areas overall. As shown in Figure F-12, most tracts in Los Altos are in the highest resource category. The northeastern tract, bordered by El Camino Real, San Antonio Road, and Almond Avenue, is a high resource area. Areas outside of the city to the north have lower composite scores which reflects the regional trend of generally lower scores in the north and eastern portions of the county. Lower composite scores outside of the city to the north along El Camino Real are mostly the result of much lower environmental and educational ratings with a low economic rating further reducing the composite score to low resource in one tract. Two factors likely contributing to the lower environmental scores in this area are higher traffic volumes and higher concentrations of commercial and industrial land use. 371
Agenda Item # 7.
F-22 | City of Los Altos Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Figure F-12: TCAC Opportunity Areas 2022 - Composite Score Source: HCD AFFH Spatial Data
Economic Score
The 2022 TCAC Opportunity Areas Economic Score for a census tract is based on poverty, adult education, employment, job proximity, and median home value indicators. The score is broken up by quartiles, with the highest quartile indicating more positive economic outcomes and the lowest score indicating least positive outcomes. The city’s census tracts have the highest economic scores of 0.75 to 0.99 as shown in Figure F-13. Most of the surrounding areas also have the highest economic score except for the low resource area noted in the previous section. 372
Agenda Item # 7.
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing City of Los Altos | F-23 Figure F-13: TCAC Opportunity Areas 2022 - Economic Score Source: HCD AFFH Spatial Data
Education Score
The 2022 TCAC Opportunity Areas Education Score for a census tract is based on math and reading proficiency, high school graduation rate, and student poverty rate indicators. The score is broken up by quartiles, with the highest quartile indicating more positive education outcomes and the lowest quartile signifying less positive outcomes.
As shown in Figure F-14, most census tracts in the city have a good education score between
0.50 and 0.75. Three tracts in the south have scores greater than 0.75. These scores suggest that the city generally has positive educational outcomes for students.
Los Altos contains seven school enrolment zones in total with some of their boundaries partially overlapping the city. Six of the seven zones are within the 0.50 and 0.75 education score range.
Only one Los Altos school, Oak Avenue School, located north of Fremont Avenue, is within the highest education score area for the city. The two other high education score tracts are outside of Los Altos school districts.
373
Agenda Item # 7.
F-24 | City of Los Altos Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Figure F-14: TCAC Opportunity Areas 2022 - Education Score Source: HCD AFFH Spatial Data
Environmental Score
Environmental scores for census tracts presented in Figure F-15 are based on 2022. TCAC Opportunity Areas Environmental Scores that reflect environmental risk. The scores are divided into quartiles with higher scores representing more positive environmental outcomes and lower scores indicating least positive environmental outcomes for residents living there.
The city contains two ranges of high environmental scores indicating that residents have generally positive environmental conditions. As shown in Figure F-15, the highest environmental scores are mostly in the western portions of the city. These tracts also score higher than the surrounding areas. Environmental scores decrease to the north and east across Santa Clara County due in part to higher levels of traffic and air pollution within transportation corridors in more concentrated areas.
374
Agenda Item # 7.
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing City of Los Altos | F-25 Figure F-15: TCAC Opportunity Areas 2021 - Environmental Score Source: HCD AFFH Spatial Data
Jobs Proximity Index
HUD’s Jobs Proximity Index for a census tract measures the area’s distance from employment.
This index can be used as a proxy to indicate relative transportation needs in a community. The score is broken up by quintiles, with the highest quintile representing areas closest to job centers.
The Jobs Proximity Index score is relatively high across Los Altos with most of the city in the 60 to 80 quintile range as shown in Figure F-16. Scores are highest in the north and lowest in the south. Scores are generally similar in adjacent tracts to the east and west outside of the city while they are lower to the north and south.
Approximately 769 people are both employed and live in Los Altos, which is 6.4 percent of employed Los Altos residents according to 2019 employment data6. The largest proportion of 6 Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (LEHD), OnTheMap, 2019. 375
Agenda Item # 7.
F-26 | City of Los Altos Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing employed Los Altos residents work in the City of San Jose (19.5 percent), followed by the City of Mountain View (7.7 percent), the City of Sunnyvale (6.9 percent), and the City of Los Altos (6.4 percent).
Figure F-16: Jobs Proximity Index (HUD, 2014-2017)
Source: HCD AFFH Spatial Data
Disparities in Access to Opportunity for Persons with Disabilities People with disabilities often experience challenges with accessibility, discrimination, and housing choice that make it difficult to find suitable housing to meet their needs. According to the Needs Assessment (Appendix A, Figure A-23), the most common types of disabilities in Los Altos in 2018 were ambulatory disabilities followed by hearing and independent living disabilities.
The California Department of Developmental Services (DDS) currently provides communitybased services to approximately 350,000 persons with developmental disabilities and their families through a statewide system of regional centers, developmental centers, and communitybased facilities. The San Andreas Regional Center serves individuals and families in Monterey, San Benito, Santa Clara, and Santa Cruz counties. DDS provides data on developmental 376
Agenda Item # 7.
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing City of Los Altos | F-27 disabilities by age and type of residence. According to DDS and as shown in the Needs Assessment (Appendix A, Table A-7), there are about 95 residents with a development disability in Los Altos, with most of them (93) able to live in a home with their parent or guardian.
During the Housing Element process, a service provider for the San Andreas Regional Center described the heightened need for accessible units coupled with coordinated supportive services and access to public transit for people with developmental disabilities, who are more likely than the general population to have an accompanying physical disability.
There are a variety of housing types appropriate for people with disabilities, such as licensed and unlicensed single-family homes, group homes, and transitional and supportive housing. The design of housing-accessibility modifications, proximity to services and transit, and the availability of group living opportunities represent some of the types of considerations that are important in serving this need group. The Housing Constraints Appendix (Appendix C) discusses how the City permits various housing types, including the allowance for reasonable accommodations.
Additionally, the Santa Clara County Social Services Agency operates the In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) program for low-income seniors or people with disabilities. This program provides support for individuals such as meal preparation, laundry, house cleaning, and personal care to enable them to live at home.
Disparities in Access to Transportation Opportunities
The HUD Low Transportation Cost Index is based on estimates of transportation costs for a family that meets the following description: a 3-person single-parent family with income at 50 percent of the median income for renters for the region. These estimates originate from the Location Affordability Index (LAI). Transportation costs are modeled for census tracts as a percent of income for renters in these households. Index values are inverted, and percentile ranked nationally, with values ranging from 0 to 100. Higher index values indicate lower transportation costs in that neighborhood. Transportation costs may be low within a tract for a range of reasons, including greater access to public transportation and the density of homes, services, and jobs in that area.
Figure F-17 displays the Transportation Cost Index ranges in Los Altos. The index values are at or above 89 across the city indicating that Los Altos has lower transportation costs than that percentage of the nation. Transportation costs are therefore estimated to be low for a 3-person single-parent family with income at 50 percent of the median income. Transportation costs for renters in the city and access to transportation opportunities are relatively even and closely match adjacent areas outside of the city.
Residents of Los Altos have access to various transit modes. The city contains part of the Santa Clara County bike path network, and some roads have bike lanes for cyclists. Bus routes within Los Altos include service along San Antonio Road, El Monte Road, and El Camino Real. Bus 377
Agenda Item # 7.
F-28 | City of Los Altos Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing routes connect Los Altos to the larger Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority network and CalTrain.
Comments during the Housing Element process included focusing housing, particularly affordable housing, in areas with transit options and that are walkable with access to services. Also, several comments were received that requested that additional transportation services for seniors should be addressed.
Figure F-17: HUD Low Transportation Cost Index
Source: HUD Spatial Data
F.2.6 Disproportionate Housing Needs
Overpayment
HUD defines overpayment, or “housing cost burden”, as households paying 30 percent or more of their gross income on housing expenses, including rent or mortgage payments and utilities.
Housing cost burden is considered a housing need because households that overpay for housing costs may have difficulty affording other necessary expenses, such as childcare, transportation, and medical costs.
378
Agenda Item # 7.
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing City of Los Altos | F-29 Renters are typically more likely to overpay for housing costs than homeowners. The percentage of renter households exhibiting cost burden varies across the city from less than 20 percent to between 40 and 60 percent (Figure F-18). The highest renter overpayment percentage is located in the northwestern area of the city which is a high resource area that is designated as a RCAA and also contains the highest Jobs Proximity Index score in the city.
Figure F-18: Overpayment by Renters (2015 - 2019)
Source: HCD AFFH Spatial Data
Homeowners generally experience a lower rate of cost burden than renters. Figure F-19 shows the percentages of homeowners experiencing overpayment for the 2015 to 2019 time period.
Percentages of homeowners with overpayment range from approximately 20 percent to 60 percent across the city, the same ranges as renters experiencing overpayment. The area with the highest percentages of homeowner overpayment are high resource areas with high education scores.
Although Los Altos has a lower proportion of cost-burdened households compared to the county and the Bay Area (Housing Needs Assessment, Appendix A, Section A.5.3), housing affordability 379
Agenda Item # 7.
F-30 | City of Los Altos Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing of housing was a key issue raised throughout the Housing Element update process. Housing in Los Altos is unaffordable to many households, including critical workers (e.g., teachers, firefighters, service industries, etc.), and not just lower income households. This was also reflected in responses to the community feedback form/questionnaire distributed to businesses and workers, where limited availability of affordable units, lack of resources to find affordable housing, and long waitlists were identified as barriers.
Figure F-19: Overpayment by Owners (2015 - 2019)
Source: HCD AFFH Spatial Data
Overcrowding
Overcrowding is defined by the Census as a unit in which more than one person occupies a room (excluding bathrooms and kitchens) while severe overcrowding occurs when more than 1.5 people occupy a room. Overcrowded households are an indicator of housing needs, as lower income families or individuals may choose to live together in smaller spaces to save money on housing costs.
380
Agenda Item # 7.
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing City of Los Altos | F-31 In addition to the strain on residents’ mental and physical health, overcrowding can also lead to more rapid deterioration of the property due to increased usage. Overall 0.6 percent of households in Los Altos experienced overcrowding and 0.1 percent experienced severe overcrowding according to ACS 2019 five-year data. The city’s overcrowding rates are lower than Santa Clara County overcrowding and severe overcrowding rates of 5.2 and 4.7 percent, respectively (Table F-7). Overcrowding is more prevalent in renter households (see Housing Needs Assessment, Appendix A, Section A.3.2).
Table F-7: Overcrowding and Severe Overcrowding Rates
Los Altos Santa Clara County
Occupants Per Room Units Percentage Percentage
1.01 to 1.5 68 0.6% 5.2%
1.51 or more 13 0.1% 2.9%
Source: ACS 2019 5-Year Estimates, Table DP04
Estimated percentages of overcrowded households in Los Altos by census tract are shown in Figure F-20. The highest overcrowding percentage is about 2.5 percent and is found in the southernmost tract located south of Foothill Expressway. Half of the tracts contain overcrowding rates of zero percent. Overcrowding levels in adjacent areas are mostly similar to the city but are higher in some areas to the north and south.
The statewide spatial data for severe overcrowding did not contain any values in the vicinity of Los Altos as shown in Figure F-21.
381
Agenda Item # 7.
F-32 | City of Los Altos Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Figure F-20: Overcrowded Households HUD, CHAS, ACS (2020) Source: HCD AFFH Spatial Data
382
Agenda Item # 7.
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing City of Los Altos | F-33 Figure F-21: Severely Overcrowded Households HUD, CHAS, ACS (2020) Source: HCD AFFH Spatial Data
In Los Altos, rates of overcrowding are highest for Hispanic households, followed by Asian households. As with disability status, age likely plays some role in explaining racial and ethnic disparities in overcrowding. Relatively younger adults, around the age of the median-age Hispanic households, are more likely to have minor children in their households, which, in turn, increases the likelihood of overcrowding. Conversely, older adults closer to the median-age of White households, are more likely to reside in one- or two-person households. 383
Agenda Item # 7.
F-34 | City of Los Altos Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Table F-8: Occupants per Room for Households by Race and Ethnicity Race or Ethnicity Total Households % in Overcrowded
Units*
White Alone, Not
Hispanic or Latino 6.,903 0.3%
Black or African
American Alone 40 0.0%
Asian Alone 3,111 1.4%
Hispanic or Latino (of
any race) 334 2.4%
* Overcrowded units defined as 1.01 or more occupants per room.
Source: Lawyer’s Committee, Baird + Driskell Community Planning; ACS 2019 5-Year Estimates
Location Affordability Index
Figure F-22 shows HUD’s Location Affordability Index for 2012 to 2016 in Los Altos. This index estimates household housing and transportation cost on a neighborhood-scale. As shown in this figure, the index in half of the tracts have values up to $3,000 per month. The city contains higher index values (greater than $3,000) in two census tracts in the southern portion of the city, south of Fremont Avenue. These tracts score highest for this index but are not the highest areas for overpayment, however. Adjacent tracts generally have lower Location Affordability Index scores than the city.
384
Agenda Item # 7.
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing City of Los Altos | F-35 Figure F-22: Location Affordability Index HUD (2012 – 2016) Source: HCD AFFH Spatial Data
Substandard Housing
Incomplete plumbing or kitchen facilities can be used as a proxy to indicate substandard housing conditions. According to the 2015 to 2019 ACS, 0.2 percent of Los Altos households lacked complete plumbing installations, which is slightly lower than Santa Clara County overall at 0.3 percent. The estimate of Los Altos households without complete kitchen facilities is 0.8 percent while the county estimate is at 0.9 percent.
385
Agenda Item # 7.
F-36 | City of Los Altos Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Table F-9: Substandard Housing Rates
Los Altos Santa Clara County
Substandard Housing Units Percentage Percentage
Lacking complete plumbing facilities 18 0.2% 0.3%
Lacking complete kitchen facilities 85 0.8% 0.9%
Source: ACS 2019 5-Year Estimates, Table DP04
The age of housing stock can also be an indicator of substandard housing. As homes get older, there is a greater need for maintenance and repair. If not properly addressed, an aging housing stock can result in poorer living standards, incur more expensive repair costs and, under certain conditions, lower overall property values. See Housing Needs Assessment (Appendix A, Section A.4.4) for additional information on housing stock age and condition.
Displacement Risk
The University of California Berkeley’s Urban Displacement Project (UDP) uses data-driven research to produce maps identifying sensitive communities that are at-risk of displacement. UDP defines sensitive communities as currently having “populations vulnerable to displacement in the event of increased redevelopment and drastic shifts in housing cost”. Vulnerability was determined based on the following characteristics:
• The share of very low-income residents is above 20 percent; AND
• The tract meets two of the following criteria:
o Share of renters is above 40 percent
o Share of people of color is above 50 percent
o Share of very low-income households that are severely rent burdened households is above the county median
o Percent change in rent is above county median rent increase o Rent gap, which is the difference between tract median rent and median rent for surrounding areas
UDP has not identified any vulnerable communities within the city (Figure F-23). 386
Agenda Item # 7.
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing City of Los Altos | F-37 Figure F-23: Vulnerable Communities
Source: HCD AFFH Spatial Data
Homelessness
Information on homelessness and resources for persons experiencing homelessness in Los Altos is described in the Housing Needs Assessment (Appendix A, Section A.3.4, People Experiencing Homelessness).
Between 2017 and 2019, Los Altos saw its homeless population increase over tenfold, from six to 76 people. This is higher than the rate of increase in the county, 31 percent, during the same period (7,394 to 9,706 people experiencing homelessness). Los Altos’ homeless population is less than one percent of the county’s homeless population. While White residents represent the largest proportion of Santa Clara County residents experiencing homelessness, making up just under 44 percent of the homeless population, Black or African American and American Indian or Alaska Native residents are overrepresented – accounting for 18.8 and 8.1 percent of the homeless population while only making up 2.5 and 0.5 percent of the overall population of the county respectively.
387
Agenda Item # 7.
F-38 | City of Los Altos Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Los Altos is part of the Santa Clara County Continuum of Care (CoC) in the Office of Supportive Housing, which is a regional planning body funded by HUD that coordinates housing and services funding across its partner jurisdictions.
F.2.7 Other Relevant Factors
Rates of Homeownership by Race and Ethnicity
The home ownership rate is about 81 percent in Los Altos compared to about 56 percent for Santa Clara County. The 2019 ACS data for percentages of occupied housing units by race is presented in Table F-10.
Not all racial and ethnic groups in Los Altos have a similar likelihood of owning a home. The rates of home ownership are lower than renting for Blacks, American Indians, residents of two or more races, and Latinos according to the ACS data. The ownership rate is similar to renting for other ethnic groups. Racial and ethnic groups that have much lower rates of homeownership are more at risk of being displaced due to rising rental prices.
Table F-10: Housing Tenure by Race/Ethnicity in Los Altos (2019) Los Altos
Renter Occupied Units Owner Occupied Units Total Occupied Units
Number % of Total Number % of Total
White alone, not Latino 1,254 62.0% 5,649 65.5% 7,166
Black or African American alone 31 1.5% 9 0.1% 40
American Indian and Alaska
Native alone 7 0.3% 0 0.0% 7
Asian alone 496 24.5% 2,615 30.3% 3,111
Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific
Islander alone 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0
Some other race alone 10 0.5% 61 0.7% 71
Two or more races 103 5.1% 154 1.8% 257
Hispanic or Latino origin 149 7.4% 185 2.1% 334
TOTAL 2,050 19% 8,673 79% 10,986
Source: ACS 2019 5-Year Estimates, Table S2502
One obstacle to home ownership is lack of access to the first tier of the financial system to obtain banking services and loans. The Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council's (FFIEC) provides the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) July 2021 census tract spatial data known as CRAMap 2021 (www.ffiec.gov/cra/). Included in the CRAMap 2021 spatial data is the Unbanked index (developed by RPM Consulting) which provides an estimate of households lacking access 388
Agenda Item # 7.
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing City of Los Altos | F-39 to the primary banking system. This index estimates the likelihood of a household will lack both a savings and checking account with a bank, thrift, or credit union.
Figure F-24 presents estimates for the percentages of households that lack access to banking and credit from the CRAMap 2021 Unbanked index. Identifying areas with relatively higher levels of residents without access to the primary banking system can facilitate the process of providing them first-tier financial services. This may aid lower income residents in avoiding a dependency on second-tier services, particularly predatory lenders. Estimates for the percentages of households without access to primary banking and credit is very low across the city.
Figure F-24: Percentage of Households without Access to Banking or Credit Source: FFIEC CRAMap 2021 Spatial Data
F.2.8 Summary of Fair Housing Issues
Access to opportunity in Los Altos is approximately evenly distributed across the city as evidenced by the relatively consistent TCAC scores citywide. However, the northwest area of the city, including Downtown, meets the criteria to be considered a Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Affluence (RCAA), evidence that some non-white residents may experience different 389
Agenda Item # 7.
F-40 | City of Los Altos Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing economic conditions than white residents. Black, American Indians, and residents of two or more races are more like to experience poverty and are less likely to own their home than other racial groups.
A citywide fair housing issue is overpayment by renters and homeowners, although homeowners are more cost burdened than renters. Almost 23 percent of renters (457 households) are cost burdened, compared to 28 percent of homeowners (2,416 households). The city also contains high to very high Location Affordability Index rates.
The primary fair housing issue in Los Altos is disproportionate housing needs because it is likely to affect the most residents and protected classes. The contributing factor to this primary issue is land use and zoning laws either limiting where multi-family housing can be built or procedures resulting in a protracted entitlement effort. This contributing factor is evident due to the high levels of overpayment by homeowners and renters within both higher and lower income households.
The data indicates that higher and lower income households, encompassing various household sizes and characteristics, may choose more affordable housing if available.
The second fair housing issue is also disproportionate housing needs due to the contributing factor of a lack available affordable units in a range of sizes. A combination of very high Location Affordability Index rates and high levels of overpayment indicate the need for more affordable housing, which could be provided through smaller unit sizes and a mix of housing types. The number of cost-burdened households indicates that many residents are struggling to afford housing costs which can lead to increased homelessness rates for at-risk populations.
The third fair housing issue is segregation and integration because of community opposition to building more affordable housing in the city. This is evident in the development review process, which requires multiple review bodies and meetings (often with City Council approval) and cumbersome requirements (e.g., installation of story poles). Public comments expressed that the City’s review process, ranging from accessory dwelling units to large projects, is a challenge to building housing in Los Altos.
The fourth fair housing issue is also segregation and integration due to the contributing factor of limited options for affordable housing, as clearly demonstrated by public comments throughout the Housing Element process. Comments identified that the availability of affordable housing is a critical issue, and housing affordable to low and moderate-income households, families, essential workers, and seniors is needed. New residential development throughout Los Altos would provide housing in high and highest resources areas, as well as in Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Affluence (RCAA). The RCAAs in Los Altos include Downtown, San Antonio Road, and the west portion of El Camino Real, where various housing sites are located. 390
Agenda Item # 7.
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing City of Los Altos | F-41 Section F.3 Sites Inventory
AB 686 requires a jurisdiction’s site inventory to be consistent with its duty to affirmatively further fair housing. This section evaluates the city’s site inventory locations against various measures in the Assessment of Fair Housing that includes income level, racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty, access to opportunity, and environmental risk to determine any socio-economic patterns or implications.
F.3.1 Potential Effects on Patterns of Segregation
A comparison of a jurisdiction’s site inventory against its LMI households and R/ECAP area can reveal if the city’s accommodation of housing is exacerbating or ameliorating segregation and social inequity. Figure F-25 shows the locations of Los Altos’ sites inventory relative to LMI concentrations, and Figure F-26 shows the distribution of sites area relative to the area of LMI concentrations.
The city contains two LMI percentage quartiles, less than 25 percent and 25 to 50 percent.
The city’s lowest LMI percentage category of less than 25 percent covers almost all of the city.
The amount city area within this area is 100 percent when rounded to the nearest whole percentage, and about 95 percent of the sites inventory area is in this category.
The other LMI category (25 to 50 percent) covers less than one percent of city area and is in the very southern portion of the city. This LMI category contains five percent of site inventory area. 391
Agenda Item # 7.
F-42 | City of Los Altos Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Figure F-25: Site Inventory including Rezone Sites and LMI Households Source: HCD AFFH Spatial Data and LWC
392
Agenda Item # 7.
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing City of Los Altos | F-43 Figure F-26: Distribution of Site Inventory including Rezone Sites across LMI Population Percentages Source: HCD AFFH Spatial Data and LWC
Figures F-27 and F-28 show the site inventory area associated with R/ECAPs. As previously noted, Los Altos does not have any R/ECAPs within its boundaries. The amount of city and site inventory areas not within a R/ECAP is therefore 100 percent. 100
0 0 0
95 5
0 0
0 25
50 75
100
<25% 25 - 50% 50% - 75% 75% - 100%
Percentage of Total Area
Low to Moderate Income Population Percentages
Percentage of City Area Percentage of Site Inventory Area 393
Agenda Item # 7.
F-44 | City of Los Altos Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Figure F-27: Site Inventory including Rezone Sites and R/ECAPs Source: HCD AFFH Spatial Data and LWC
394
Agenda Item # 7.
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing City of Los Altos | F-45 Figure F-28: Distribution of Site Inventory including Rezone Sites across R/ECAP Source: HCD AFFH Spatial Data and LWC
F.3.2 Potential Effects on Access to Opportunity
Figure F-29 shows sites inventory locations across the city’s TCAC Opportunity Areas. As mentioned earlier, the city is categorized as either highest or high resource areas based on the TCAC Composite Score. These areas have been scored based on very good access to high quality schools, economic opportunities, and low environmental risk. 0 25
50 75
100
0 - Not a R/ECAP 1 - R/ECAP Area
Percentage of Total Area
Percentage of City Area Percentage of Site Inventory Area 0% 0%
100% 100%
395
Agenda Item # 7.
F-46 | City of Los Altos Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Figure F-29: Site Inventory including Rezone Sites and TCAC Composite Scores Source: HCD AFFH Spatial Data and LWC
Figure F-30 shows the distribution of Los Altos sites across the TCAC Opportunity Area Composite Score categories. The city is comprised of two categories: highest resource (89 percent of the city) and high resource (11 percent of the city. The sites inventory area distribution is aligned with the city’s Opportunity Areas. In this respect, the sites inventory is considered to mitigate fair housing concerns regarding access to opportunity because housing development potential in the city is equitably located in high resource neighborhoods overall. 396
Agenda Item # 7.
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing City of Los Altos | F-47 Figure F-30: Distribution of Site Inventory including Rezone Sites across TCAC Opportunity Areas Source: HCD AFFH Spatial Data and LWC
Figure F-31 shows the sites inventory across the city’s CalEnviroScreen scores. The city contains two CalEnviroScreen scores ranging from the lowest one to 10 percent (first decile, lowest risk) and 21 to 30 percent (third decile, lower risk).
Figure F-27 shows the distribution of sites across the range of CalEnviroScreen scores presented as deciles in Los Altos. The city contains two decile scores: 1 and 3. The highest environmental risk to residents (score three) accounts for less than one percent of city area and makes up five percent of the sites inventory area.
89 11
0 0 0 0
84 16
0 0 0 0
0 25
50 75
100
1. Highest
Resource
2. High
Resource
3. Moderate
Resource
(Rapidly
Changing)
4. Moderate
Resource
5. Low
Resource
6. High
Segregation &
Poverty
Percentage of Total Area
TCAC Composite Score
Percentage of City Area Percentage of Site Inventory Area 397
Agenda Item # 7.
F-48 | City of Los Altos Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Figure F-31: Site Inventory including Rezone Sites and CalEnviroScreen Scores Source: HCD AFFH Spatial Data and LWC
398
Agenda Item # 7.
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing City of Los Altos | F-49 Figure F-32: Distribution of Site Inventory including Rezone Sites across CalEnviroScreen Scores
Source: HCD AFFH Spatial Data and LWC
Note: CalEnviroScreen Score 3 represents less than 1% of total area within the city; therefore, is rounded to 0.
Section F.4 Contributing Factors and Meaningful
Actions
Table F-11 lists the most prevalent fair housing issues and their corresponding contributing factors for the City of Los Altos, as prioritized through the findings from the City’s outreach efforts and the above assessment, as outlined in Section F.2.8.
Table F-11: Contributing Factors
Priority Contributing Factor Fair Housing Issue
1 Land use and zoning laws Disproportionate Housing Needs 2 Availability of affordable units in a range of sizes Disproportionate Housing Needs 3 Community opposition Segregation and Integration
4 Location and type of affordable housing Segregation and Integration Table F-12 consists of proposed housing programs the City will pursue to specifically overcome identified patterns and trends from the above assessment and proactively affirmatively further fair housing in Los Altos. The programs are detailed metrics and milestones in Section IV of the Housing Element.
100
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
95 0
5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 25
50 75
100
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Percentage of Total Area
CalEnviroScreen Score
Percentage of City Area Percentage of Site Inventory Area (Lowest Risk) (Highest Risk)
399
Agenda Item # 7.
F-50 | City of Los Altos Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Table F-12: Meaningful Actions
Contributing
Factor
AFFH
Strategy Housing Implementation Programs
Land use and
zoning laws
New housing
choices and
affordability in
areas of
opportunity
1.A: Rezone for RHNA shortfall
1.C: Allow housing in the Office Administrative (OA) District
1.E: Update the Loyola Corners Specific Plan
Availability of
affordable units
in a range of
sizes
New housing
choices and
affordability in
areas of
opportunity
1.B: Facilitate higher density housing in the Commercial Thoroughfare (CT) District
1.H Facilitate housing on City-owned sites
2.D: Encourage and streamline Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)
6.A: Assist residents with housing discrimination and landlord-tenant complaints
Community
opposition
New housing
choices and
affordability in
areas of
opportunity
2.A: Continue to implement and enhance inclusionary housing requirements
3.F: Reduce Conditional Use Permit requirement for residential mixed-use and multi-family
3.H: Amend design review process and requirements
Location and
type of
affordable
housing
New housing
choices and
affordability in
areas of
opportunity
1.D: Allow housing on certain Public and Community Facility District sites and facilitate housing on religious institution properties
6.B: Maintain and expand an inventory of affordable housing funding sources
6.C: Target housing development in highest resource areas
6.F: Affirmatively market physically accessible units
Protect
existing
residents from
displacement
5.A: Monitor condominium conversions
6.E: Prepare and distribute anti-displacement information Housing
mobility
strategies
4.J: Facilitate alternate modes of transportation for residents
5.B: Continue to work with Alta Housing to administer the City’s affordable housing programs
6.D: Promote Housing Choice (Section 8) rental assistance program Attachment: AFFH Segregation Report, Los Altos
400
Agenda Item # 7.
1 AFFH SEGREGATION REPORT: LOS
ALTOS
UC Merced Urban Policy Lab and ABAG/MTC Staff
Version of Record: March 06, 15:57:45
401
Agenda Item # 7.
2 0.1 Table of content
0.1 Table of content .................................................................................................... 2
0.2 List of figures ....................................................................................................... 3
0.3 List of tables ........................................................................................................ 3 1 Introduction .............................................................................................................. 4
1.1 Purpose of this Report ............................................................................................. 4
1.2 Defining Segregation ............................................................................................... 5
1.3 Segregation Patterns in the Bay Area ........................................................................... 5
1.4 Segregation and Land Use ......................................................................................... 6 2 Racial Segregation in City of Los Altos .............................................................................. 8
2.1 Neighborhood Level Racial Segregation (within City of Los Altos) ......................................... 8
2.2 Regional Racial Segregation (between Los Altos and other jurisdictions) ...............................16 3 Income Segregation in City of Los Altos .......................................................................... 21
3.1 Neighborhood Level Income Segregation (within Los Altos) ................................................21
3.2 Regional Income Segregation (between Los Altos and other jurisdictions) ..............................27 4 Appendix 1: Summary of Findings ................................................................................. 31
4.1 Segregation in City of Los Altos .................................................................................31
4.2 Segregation Between City of Los Altos and Other jurisdictions in the Bay Area Region ..............31 5 Appendix 2: Segregation Data ...................................................................................... 33 6 References .............................................................................................................. 37 402
Agenda Item # 7.
3 0.2 List of figures
Figure 1: Racial Dot Map of Los Altos (2020) .............................................................................. 9 Figure 2: Racial Isolation Index Values for Los Altos Compared to Other Bay Area Jurisdictions (2020) ........11 Figure 3: Racial Dissimilarity Index Values for Los Altos Compared to Other Bay Area Jurisdictions (2020) ...14 Figure 4: Theil’s H Index Values for Racial Segregation in Los Altos Compared to Other Bay Area Jurisdictions (2020) ...........................................................................................................................15 Figure 5: Racial Dot Map of Los Altos and Surrounding Areas (2020) .................................................16 Figure 6: Racial Demographics of Los Altos Compared to All Bay Area Jurisdictions (2020) ......................18 Figure 7: Comparing the Share of People of Color in Los Altos and Vicinity to the Bay Area (2020) ............19 Figure 8: Income Dot Map of Los Altos (2015) ............................................................................22 Figure 9: Income Group Isolation Index Values for Los Altos Compared to Other Bay Area Jurisdictions (2015) ...................................................................................................................................24 Figure 10: Income Group Dissimilarity Index Values for Los Altos Compared to Other Bay Area Jurisdictions (2015) ...........................................................................................................................26 Figure 11: Income Group Theil’s H Index Values for Los Altos Compared to Other Bay Area Jurisdictions (2015) ...........................................................................................................................27 Figure 12: Income Dot Map of Los Altos and Surrounding Areas (2015) ..............................................28 Figure 13: Income Demographics of Los Altos Compared to Other Bay Area Jurisdictions (2015) ...............29
0.3 List of tables
Table 1: Racial Isolation Index Values for Segregation within Los Altos .............................................10 Table 2: Racial Dissimilarity Index Values for Segregation within Los Altos .........................................13 Table 3: Theil’s H Index Values for Racial Segregation within Los Altos .............................................15 Table 4: Population by Racial Group, Los Altos and the Region .......................................................17 Table 5: Regional Racial Segregation Measures ..........................................................................20 Table 6: Income Group Isolation Index Values for Segregation within Los Altos ....................................23 Table 7: Income Group Dissimilarity Index Values for Segregation within Los Altos ...............................25 Table 8: Theil’s H Index Values for Income Segregation within Los Altos............................................26 Table 9: Population by Income Group, Los Altos and the Region .....................................................28 Table 10: Regional Income Segregation Measures .......................................................................30 Table 11: Neighborhood Racial Segregation Levels in Los Altos .......................................................33 Table 12: Neighborhood Income Segregation Levels in Los Altos ......................................................34 Table 13: Regional Racial Segregation Measures .........................................................................35 Table 14: Regional Income Segregation Measures .......................................................................35 Table 15: Population by Racial Group, Los Altos and the Region .....................................................36 Table 16: Population by Income Group, Los Altos and the Region ....................................................36 403
Agenda Item # 7.
4 1 INTRODUCTION
The requirement to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing (AFFH) is derived from The Fair Housing Act of 1968, which prohibited discrimination concerning the sale, rental, and financing of housing based on race, color, religion, national origin, or sex—and was later amended to include familial status and disability.1 The 2015 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Rule to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing and California Assembly Bill 686 (2018) mandate that each jurisdiction takes meaningful action to address significant disparities in housing needs and access to opportunity.23 AB 686 requires that jurisdictions incorporate AFFH into their Housing Elements, which includes inclusive community participation, an assessment of fair housing, a site inventory reflective of AFFH, and the development of goals, policies, and programs to meaningfully address local fair housing issues. ABAG and UC Merced have prepared this report to assist Bay Area jurisdictions with the Assessment of Fair Housing section of the Housing Element.
Assessment of Fair Housing Components
The Assessment of Fair Housing includes five components, which are discussed in detail on pages 22-43 of HCD’s AFFH Guidance Memo:
A: Summary of fair housing enforcement and outreach capacity B: Integration and segregation patterns, and trends related to people with protected characteristics
C: Racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty D: Disparities in access to opportunity
E: Disproportionate housing needs, including displacement risk
1.1 Purpose of this Report
This report describes racial and income segregation in Bay Area jurisdictions. Local jurisdiction staff can use the information in this report to help fulfill a portion of the second component of the Assessment of Fair Housing, which requires analysis of integration and segregation patterns and trends related to people with protected characteristics and lower incomes. Jurisdictions will still need to perform a similar analysis for familial status and populations with disability.
This report provides segregation measures for both the local jurisdiction and the region using several indices. For segregation between neighborhoods within a city (intra-city segregation), this report includes isolation indices, dissimilarity indices, and Theil’s-H index. The isolation index measures
1 https://www.justice.gov/crt/fair-housing-act-2
2 HCD AFFH Guidance Memo
3 The 2015 HUD rule was reversed in 2020 and partially reinstated in 2021. 404
Agenda Item # 7.
5 segregation for a single group, while the dissimilarity index measures segregation between two groups.
The Theil’s H-Index can be used to measure segregation between all racial or income groups across the city at once. HCD’s AFFH guidelines require local jurisdictions to include isolation indices and dissimilarity indices in the Housing Element. Theil’s H index is provided in addition to these required measures. For segregation between cities within the Bay Area (inter-city segregation), this report includes dissimilarity indices at the regional level as required by HCD’s AFFH guidelines. HCD’s AFFH guidelines also require jurisdictions to compare conditions at the local level to the rest of the region; and this report presents the difference in the racial and income composition of a jurisdiction relative to the region as a whole to satisfy the comparison requirement.
1.2 Defining Segregation
Segregation is the separation of different demographic groups into different geographic locations or communities, meaning that groups are unevenly distributed across geographic space. This report examines two spatial forms of segregation: neighborhood level segregation within a local jurisdiction and city level segregation between jurisdictions in the Bay Area.
Neighborhood level segregation (within a jurisdiction, or intra-city): Segregation of race and income groups can occur from neighborhood to neighborhood within a city. For example, if a local jurisdiction has a population that is 20% Latinx, but some neighborhoods are 80% Latinx while others have nearly no Latinx residents, that jurisdiction would have segregated neighborhoods.
City level segregation (between jurisdictions in a region, or inter-city): Race and income divides also occur between jurisdictions in a region. A region could be very diverse with equal numbers of white, Asian, Black, and Latinx residents, but the region could also be highly segregated with each city comprised solely of one racial group.
There are many factors that have contributed to the generation and maintenance of segregation.
Historically, racial segregation stemmed from explicit discrimination against people of color, such as restrictive covenants, redlining, and discrimination in mortgage lending. This history includes many overtly discriminatory policies made by federal, state, and local governments (Rothstein 2017).
Segregation patterns are also affected by policies that appear race-neutral, such as land use decisions and the regulation of housing development.
Segregation has resulted in vastly unequal access to public goods such as quality schools, neighborhood services and amenities, parks and playgrounds, clean air and water, and public safety (Trounstine 2015). This generational lack of access for many communities, particularly people of color and lower income residents, has often resulted in poor life outcomes, including lower educational attainment, higher morbidity rates, and higher mortality rates (Chetty and Hendren 2018, Ananat 2011, Burch 2014, Cutler and Glaeser 1997, Sampson 2012, Sharkey 2013).
1.3 Segregation Patterns in the Bay Area
Across the San Francisco Bay Area, white residents and above moderate-income residents are significantly more segregated from other racial and income groups (see Appendix 2). The highest levels of racial segregation occur between the Black and white populations. The analysis completed for this report indicates that the amount of racial segregation both within Bay Area cities and across jurisdictions in the region has decreased since the year 2000. This finding is consistent with recent research from the Othering and Belonging Institute at UC Berkeley, which concluded that “[a]lthough 7 405
Agenda Item # 7.
6 of the 9 Bay Area counties were more segregated in 2020 than they were in either 1980 or 1990, racial residential segregation in the region appears to have peaked around the year 2000 and has generally declined since.”4
However, compared to cities in other parts of California, Bay Area jurisdictions have more neighborhood level segregation between residents from different racial groups. Additionally, there is also more racial segregation between Bay Area cities compared to other regions in the state.
1.4 Segregation and Land Use
It is difficult to address segregation patterns without an analysis of both historical and existing land use policies that impact segregation patterns. Land use regulations influence what kind of housing is built in a city or neighborhood (Lens and Monkkonen 2016, Pendall 2000). These land use regulations in turn impact demographics: they can be used to affect the number of houses in a community, the number of people who live in the community, the wealth of the people who live in the community, and where within the community they reside (Trounstine 2018). Given disparities in wealth by race and ethnicity, the ability to afford housing in different neighborhoods, as influenced by land use regulations, is highly differentiated across racial and ethnic groups (Bayer, McMillan, and Reuben 2004).5 ABAG/MTC plans to issue a separate report detailing the existing land use policies that influence segregation patterns in the Bay Area.
4 For more information, see https://belonging.berkeley.edu/most-segregated-cities-bay-area-2020. 5 Using a household-weighted median of Bay Area county median household incomes, regional values were $61,050 for Black residents, $122,174 for Asian/Pacific Islander residents, $121,794 for white residents, and $76,306 for Latinx residents. For the source data, see U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015- 2019), Table B19013B, Table B19013D, B19013H, and B19013I. 406
Agenda Item # 7.
7 Definition of Terms - Geographies
Neighborhood: In this report, “neighborhoods” are approximated by tracts.6 Tracts are statistical geographic units defined by the U.S. Census Bureau for the purposes of disseminating data. In the Bay Area, tracts contain on average 4,500 residents. Nearly all Bay Area jurisdictions contain at least two census tracts, with larger jurisdictions containing dozens of tracts.
Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction is used to refer to the 109 cities, towns, and unincorporated county areas that are members of ABAG. Though not all ABAG jurisdictions are cities, this report also uses the term “city” interchangeably with “jurisdiction” in some places.
Region: The region is the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area, which is comprised of Alameda County, Contra Costa County, Marin County, Napa County, San Francisco County, San Mateo County, Santa Clara County, Solano County, and Sonoma County.
6 Throughout this report, neighborhood level segregation measures are calculated using census tract data.
However, the racial dot maps in Figure 1 and Figure 5 use data from census blocks, while the income group dot maps in Figure 8 and Figure 12 use data from census block groups. These maps use data derived from a smaller geographic scale to better show spatial differences in where different groups live. Census block groups are subdivisions of census tracts, and census blocks are subdivisions of block groups. In the Bay Area, block groups contain on average 1,500 people, while census blocks contain on average 95 people. 407
Agenda Item # 7.
8 2 RACIAL SEGREGATION IN CITY OF LOS ALTOS
Definition of Terms - Racial/Ethnic Groups
The U.S. Census Bureau classifies racial groups (e.g. white or Black/African American) separately from Hispanic/Latino ethnicity.7 This report combines U.S. Census Bureau definitions for race and ethnicity into the following racial groups:
White: Non-Hispanic white
Latinx: Hispanic or Latino of any race8
Black: Non-Hispanic Black/African American
Asian/Pacific Islander: Non-Hispanic Asian or Non-Hispanic Pacific Islander People of Color: All who are not non-Hispanic white (including people who identify as “some other race” or “two or more races”)9
2.1 Neighborhood Level Racial Segregation (within City of Los Altos) Racial dot maps are useful for visualizing how multiple racial groups are distributed within a specific geography. The racial dot map of Los Altos in Figure 1 below offers a visual representation of the spatial distribution of racial groups within the jurisdiction. Generally, when the distribution of dots does not suggest patterns or clustering, segregation measures tend to be lower. Conversely, when clusters of certain groups are apparent on a racial dot map, segregation measures may be higher.
7 More information about the Census Bureau’s definitions of racial groups is available here:
https://www.census.gov/topics/population/race/about.html. 8 The term Hispanic has historically been used to describe people from numerous Central American, South American, and Caribbean countries. In recent years, the term Latino or Latinx has become preferred. This report generally uses Latinx to refer to this racial/ethnic group. 9 Given the uncertainty in the data for population size estimates for racial and ethnic groups not included in the Latinx, Black, or Asian/Pacific Islander categories, this report only analyzes these racial groups in the aggregate People of Color category.
408
Agenda Item # 7.
9 Figure 1: Racial Dot Map of Los Altos (2020)
Universe: Population. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Census State Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File, 2020 Census of Population and Housing, Table P002.
Note: The plot shows the racial distribution at the census block level for City of Los Altos and vicinity. Dots in each census block are randomly placed and should not be construed as actual placement of people.
There are many ways to quantitatively measure segregation. Each measure captures a different aspect of the ways in which groups are divided within a community. One way to measure segregation is by using an isolation index:
• The isolation index compares each neighborhood’s composition to the jurisdiction’s demographics as a whole.
• This index ranges from 0 to 1. Higher values indicate that a particular group is more isolated from other groups.
• Isolation indices indicate the potential for contact between different groups. The index can be interpreted as the experience of the average member of that group. For example, if the isolation index is .65 for Latinx residents in a city, then the average Latinx resident in that city lives in a neighborhood that is 65% Latinx.
Within City of Los Altos the most isolated racial group is white residents. Los Altos’s isolation index of
0.530 for white residents means that the average white resident lives in a neighborhood that is 53.0% white. Other racial groups are less isolated, meaning they may be more likely to encounter other racial groups in their neighborhoods. The isolation index values for all racial groups in Los Altos for the years 2000, 2010, and 2020 can be found in Table 1 below. Among all racial groups in this jurisdiction, the white population’s isolation index has changed the most over time, becoming less segregated from other racial groups between 2000 and 2020.
409
Agenda Item # 7.
10 The “Bay Area Average” column in this table provides the average isolation index value across Bay Area jurisdictions for different racial groups in 2020.10 The data in this column can be used as a comparison to provide context for the levels of segregation experienced by racial groups in this jurisdiction. For example, Table 1 indicates the average isolation index value for white residents across all Bay Area jurisdictions is 0.491, meaning that in the average Bay Area jurisdiction a white resident lives in a neighborhood that is 49.1% white.
Table 1: Racial Isolation Index Values for Segregation within Los Altos Los Altos Bay Area
Average
Race 2000 2010 2020 2020
Asian/Pacific Islander 0.167 0.247 0.358 0.245
Black/African American 0.005 0.005 0.008 0.053
Latinx 0.034 0.042 0.053 0.251
White 0.784 0.682 0.530 0.491
Universe: Population.
Source: IPUMS National Historical Geographic Information System (NHGIS). U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Census State Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File, 2020 Census of Population and Housing, Table P002. Data from 2010 is from U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010, Table P4. Data for 2000 is standardized to 2010 census tract geographies and is from U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000, Table P004.
Figure 2 below shows how racial isolation index values in Los Altos compare to values in other Bay Area jurisdictions. In this chart, each dot represents a Bay Area jurisdiction. For each racial group, the spread of dots represents the range of isolation index values among Bay Area jurisdictions.
Additionally, the black line within each racial group notes the isolation index value for that group in City of Los Altos, and each dashed red line represents the Bay Area average for the isolation index for that group. Local staff can use this chart to contextualize how segregation levels for racial groups in their jurisdiction compare to other jurisdictions in the region.
10 This average only includes the 104 jurisdictions that have more than one census tract, which is true for all comparisons of Bay Area jurisdictions’ segregation measures in this report. The segregation measures in this report are calculated by comparing the demographics of a jurisdiction’s census tracts to the jurisdiction’s demographics, and such calculations cannot be made for the five jurisdictions with only one census tract (Brisbane, Calistoga, Portola Valley, Rio Vista, and Yountville).
410
Agenda Item # 7.
11 Figure 2: Racial Isolation Index Values for Los Altos Compared to Other Bay Area Jurisdictions (2020)
Universe: Bay Area Jurisdictions.
Source: IPUMS National Historical Geographic Information System (NHGIS). U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Census State Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File, 2020 Census of Population and Housing, Table P002.
Another way to measure segregation is by using a dissimilarity index:
• This index measures how evenly any two groups are distributed across neighborhoods relative to their representation in a city overall. The dissimilarity index at the jurisdiction level can be interpreted as the share of one group that would have to move neighborhoods to create perfect integration for these two groups.
• The dissimilarity index ranges from 0 to 1. Higher values indicate that groups are more unevenly distributed (e.g. they tend to live in different neighborhoods). 411
Agenda Item # 7.
12 Dissimilarity Index Guidance for Cities with Small Racial Group Populations The analysis conducted for this report suggests that dissimilarity index values are unreliable for a population group if that group represents approximately less than 5% of the jurisdiction’s total population.
HCD’s AFFH guidance requires the Housing Element to include the dissimilarity index values for racial groups, but also offers flexibility in emphasizing the importance of various measures. ABAG/MTC recommends that when cities have population groups that are less than 5% of the jurisdiction’s population (see Table 4), jurisdiction staff use the isolation index or Thiel’s H-Index to gain a more accurate understanding of their jurisdiction’s neighborhood-level segregation patterns (intra-city segregation).
If a jurisdiction has a very small population of a racial group, this indicates that segregation between the jurisdiction and the region (inter-city segregation) is likely to be an important feature of the jurisdiction’s segregation patterns.
In City of Los Altos, the Latinx group is 4.9 percent of the population, and the Black/African American group is 0.6 percent of the population - so staff should be aware of this small population size when evaluating dissimilarity index values involving these groups.
Table 2 below provides the dissimilarity index values indicating the level of segregation in Los Altos between white residents and residents who are Black, Latinx, or Asian/Pacific Islander. The table also provides the dissimilarity index between white residents and all residents of color in the jurisdiction, and all dissimilarity index values are shown across three time periods (2000, 2010, and 2020).
In Los Altos the highest segregation is between Black and white residents (see Table 2). Los Altos’s Black /white dissimilarity index of 0.124 means that 12.4% of Black (or white) residents would need to move to a different neighborhood to create perfect integration between Black residents and white residents. However, local jurisdiction staff should note that this dissimilarity index value is not a reliable data point due to small population size. See callout box above for more information.
The “Bay Area Average” column in this table provides the average dissimilarity index values for these racial group pairings across Bay Area jurisdictions in 2020. The data in this column can be used as a comparison to provide context for the levels of segregation between communities of color are from white residents in this jurisdiction.
412
Agenda Item # 7.
13 For example, Table 2 indicates that the average Latinx/white dissimilarity index for a Bay Area jurisdiction is 0.207, so on average 20.7% of Latinx (or white residents) in a Bay Area jurisdiction would need to move to a different neighborhood within the jurisdiction to create perfect integration between Latinx and white residents in that jurisdiction.
Table 2: Racial Dissimilarity Index Values for Segregation within Los Altos Los Altos Bay Area
Average
Race 2000 2010 2020 2020
Asian/Pacific Islander vs. White 0.126 0.086 0.068 0.185 Black/African American vs. White 0.177* 0.144* 0.124* 0.244 Latinx vs. White 0.138* 0.120* 0.089* 0.207
People of Color vs. White 0.113 0.080 0.064 0.168
Universe: Population.
Source: IPUMS National Historical Geographic Information System (NHGIS). U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Census State Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File, 2020 Census of Population and Housing, Table P002. Data from 2010 is from U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010, Table P4. Data for 2000 is standardized to 2010 census tract geographies and is from U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000, Table P004.
Note: If a number is marked with an asterisk (*), it indicates that the index is based on a racial group making up less than 5 percent of the jurisdiction population, leading to unreliable numbers.
Figure 3 below shows how dissimilarity index values in City of Los Altos compare to values in other Bay Area jurisdictions. In this chart, each dot represents a Bay Area jurisdiction. For each racial group pairing, the spread of dots represents the range of dissimilarity index values among Bay Area jurisdictions. Additionally, the black line within each racial group pairing notes the dissimilarity index value in Los Altos, and each dashed red line represents the Bay Area average for the dissimilarity index for that pairing. Similar to Figure 2, local staff can use this chart to contextualize how segregation levels between white residents and communities of color in their jurisdiction compare to the rest of the region. However, staff should be mindful of whether a racial group in their jurisdiction has a small population (approximately less than 5% of the jurisdiction’s population), as the dissimilarity index value is less reliable for small populations.
413
Agenda Item # 7.
14 Figure 3: Racial Dissimilarity Index Values for Los Altos Compared to Other Bay Area Jurisdictions (2020)
Universe: Bay Area Jurisdictions.
Source: IPUMS National Historical Geographic Information System (NHGIS). U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Census State Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File, 2020 Census of Population and Housing, Table P002.
Note: The analysis conducted for this report suggests that dissimilarity index values are unreliable for a population group if that group represents approximately less than 5% of the jurisdiction’s total population. ABAG/MTC recommends that when cities have population groups that are less than 5% of the jurisdiction’s population (see Table 4), jurisdiction staff could focus on the isolation index or Thiel’s H-Index to gain a more accurate understanding of neighborhood-level racial segregation in their jurisdiction.
The Theil’s H Index can be used to measure segregation between all groups within a jurisdiction:
• This index measures how diverse each neighborhood is compared to the diversity of the whole city. Neighborhoods are weighted by their size, so that larger neighborhoods play a more significant role in determining the total measure of segregation. • The index ranges from 0 to 1. A Theil’s H Index value of 0 would mean all neighborhoods within a city have the same demographics as the whole city. A value of 1 would mean each group lives exclusively in their own, separate neighborhood.
• For jurisdictions with a high degree of diversity (multiple racial groups comprise more than 10% of the population), Theil’s H offers the clearest summary of overall segregation.
The Theil’s H Index values for neighborhood racial segregation in Los Altos for the years 2000, 2010, and 2020 can be found in Table 3 below. The “Bay Area Average” column in the table provides the average Theil’s H Index across Bay Area jurisdictions in 2020. Between 2010 and 2020, the Theil’s H Index for racial segregation in Los Altos declined, suggesting that there is now less neighborhood level racial segregation within the jurisdiction. In 2020, the Theil’s H Index for racial segregation in Los Altos 414
Agenda Item # 7.
15 was lower than the average value for Bay Area jurisdictions, indicating that neighborhood level racial segregation in Los Altos is less than in the average Bay Area city.
Table 3: Theil’s H Index Values for Racial Segregation within Los Altos Los Altos Bay Area
Average
Index 2000 2010 2020 2020
Theil's H Multi-racial 0.012 0.009 0.006 0.042
Universe: Population.
Source: IPUMS National Historical Geographic Information System (NHGIS). U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Census State Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File, 2020 Census of Population and Housing, Table P002. Data from 2010 is from U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010, Table P4. Data for 2000 is standardized to 2010 census tract geographies and is from U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000, Table P004.
Figure 4 below shows how Theil’s H index values for racial segregation in Los Altos compare to values in other Bay Area jurisdictions in 2020. In this chart, each dot represents a Bay Area jurisdiction.
Additionally, the black line notes the Theil’s H index value for neighborhood racial segregation in Los Altos, and the dashed red line represents the average Theil’s H index value across Bay Area jurisdictions. Local staff can use this chart to compare how neighborhood racial segregation levels in their jurisdiction compare to other jurisdictions in the region.
Figure 4: Theil’s H Index Values for Racial Segregation in Los Altos Compared to Other Bay Area Jurisdictions (2020)
Universe: Bay Area Jurisdictions.
Source: IPUMS National Historical Geographic Information System (NHGIS). U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Census State Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File, 2020 Census of Population and Housing, Table P002. 415
Agenda Item # 7.
16 2.2 Regional Racial Segregation (between Los Altos and other jurisdictions)
At the regional level, segregation is measured between cities instead of between neighborhoods. Racial dot maps are not only useful for examining neighborhood racial segregation within a jurisdiction, but these maps can also be used to explore the racial demographic differences between different jurisdictions in the region. Figure 5 below presents a racial dot map showing the spatial distribution of racial groups in Los Altos as well as in nearby Bay Area cities.
Figure 5: Racial Dot Map of Los Altos and Surrounding Areas (2020) Universe: Population.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Census State Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File, 2020 Census of Population and Housing, Table P002.
Note: The plot shows the racial distribution at the census block level for City of Los Altos and vicinity. Dots in each census block are randomly placed and should not be construed as actual placement of people.
To understand how each city contributes to the total segregation of the Bay Area, one can look at the difference in the racial composition of a jurisdiction compared to the racial composition of the region as a whole. The racial demographics in Los Altos for the years 2000, 2010, and 2020 can be found in Table 4 below. The table also provides the racial composition of the nine-county Bay Area. As of 2020, Los Altos has a higher share of white residents than the Bay Area as a whole, a lower share of Latinx residents, a lower share of Black residents, and a higher share of Asian/Pacific Islander residents. 416
Agenda Item # 7.
17 Table 4: Population by Racial Group, Los Altos and the Region Los Altos Bay Area
Race 2000 2010 2020 2020
Asian/Pacific Islander 15.4% 23.6% 35.4% 28.2%
Black/African American 0.5% 0.5% 0.6% 5.6%
Latinx 3.0% 3.9% 4.9% 24.4%
Other or Multiple Races 3.0% 4.2% 6.6% 5.9%
White 78.2% 67.8% 52.6% 35.8%
Universe: Population.
Source: IPUMS National Historical Geographic Information System (NHGIS). U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Census State Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File, 2020 Census of Population and Housing, Table P002. Data from 2010 is from U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010, Table P4. Data for 2000 is standardized to 2010 census tract geographies and is from U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000, Table P004.
Figure 6 below compares the racial demographics in Los Altos to those of all 109 Bay Area jurisdictions.11 In this chart, each dot represents a Bay Area jurisdiction. For each racial group, the spread of dots represents the range of that group’s representation among Bay Area jurisdictions.
Additionally, the black line within each racial group notes the percentage of the population of City of Los Altos represented by that group and how that percentage ranks among all 109 jurisdictions. Local staff can use this chart to compare the representation of different racial groups in their jurisdiction to those groups’ representation in other jurisdictions in the region, which can indicate the extent of segregation between this jurisdiction and the region.
11 While comparisons of segregation measures are made only using the 104 jurisdictions with more than one census tract, this comparison of jurisdiction level demographic data can be made using all 109 jurisdictions. 417
Agenda Item # 7.
18 Figure 6: Racial Demographics of Los Altos Compared to All Bay Area Jurisdictions (2020)
Universe: Bay Area Jurisdictions.
Source U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Census State Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File, 2020 Census of Population and Housing, Table P002.
The map in Figure 7 below also illustrates regional racial segregation between Los Altos and other jurisdictions. This map demonstrates how the percentage of people of color in Los Altos and surrounding jurisdictions compares to the Bay Area as a whole:
• Jurisdictions shaded orange have a share of people of color that is less than the Bay Area as a whole, and the degree of difference is greater than five percentage points. • Jurisdictions shaded white have a share of people of color comparable to the regional percentage of people of color (within five percentage points). • Jurisdictions shaded grey have a share of people of color that is more than five percentage points greater than the regional percentage of people of color. 418
Agenda Item # 7.
19 Figure 7: Comparing the Share of People of Color in Los Altos and Vicinity to the Bay Area (2020)
Universe: Population.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Census State Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File, 2020 Census of Population and Housing, Table P002.
Note: People of color refer to persons not identifying as non-Hispanic white. The nine-county Bay Area is the reference region for this map.
Segregation between jurisdictions in the region can also be analyzed by calculating regional values for the segregation indices discussed previously. Table 5 presents dissimilarity index, isolation index, and Theil’s H index values for racial segregation for the entire nine-county Bay Area in 2010 and 2020. In the previous section of this report focused on neighborhood level racial segregation, these indices were calculated by comparing the racial demographics of the census tracts within a jurisdiction to the demographics of the jurisdiction as a whole. In Table 5, these measures are calculated by comparing the racial demographics of local jurisdictions to the region’s racial makeup. For example, looking at the 2020 data, Table 5 shows the white isolation index value for the region is 0.429, meaning that on average white Bay Area residents live in a jurisdiction that is 42.9% white in 2020. An example of regional dissimilarity index values in Table 5 is the Black/white dissimilarity index value of 0.459, which means that across the region 45.9% of Black (or white) residents would need to move to a different jurisdiction to evenly distribute Black and white residents across Bay Area jurisdictions. The dissimilarity index values in Table 5 reflect recommendations made in HCD’s AFFH guidance for calculating dissimilarity at the region level.12 The regional value for the Theil’s H index measures how
12 For more information on HCD’s recommendations regarding data considerations for analyzing integration and segregation patterns, see page 31 of the AFFH Guidance Memo. 419
Agenda Item # 7.
20 diverse each Bay Area jurisdiction is compared to the racial diversity of the whole region. A Theil’s H Index value of 0 would mean all jurisdictions within the Bay Area have the same racial demographics as the entire region, while a value of 1 would mean each racial group lives exclusively in their own separate jurisdiction. The regional Theil’s H index value for racial segregation decreased slightly between 2010 and 2020, meaning that racial groups in the Bay Area are now slightly less separated by the borders between jurisdictions.
Table 5: Regional Racial Segregation Measures
Index Group 2010 2020
Isolation Index Regional Level
Asian/Pacific Islander 0.317 0.378
Black/African American 0.144 0.118
Latinx 0.283 0.291
White 0.496 0.429
People of Color 0.629 0.682
Dissimilarity Index Regional Level
Asian/Pacific Islander vs. White 0.384 0.369
Black/African American vs. White 0.475 0.459
Latinx vs. White 0.301 0.297
People of Color vs. White 0.296 0.293
Theil's H Multi-racial All Racial Groups 0.103 0.097
Universe: Population.
Source: IPUMS National Historical Geographic Information System (NHGIS). U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Census State Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File, 2020 Census of Population and Housing, Table P002. Data from 2010 is from U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census of Population and Housing, Table P4. 420
Agenda Item # 7.
21 3 INCOME SEGREGATION IN CITY OF LOS ALTOS
Definition of Terms - Income Groups
When analyzing segregation by income, this report uses income group designations consistent with the Regional Housing Needs Allocation and the Housing Element:
Very low-income: individuals earning less than 50% of Area Median Income (AMI)
Low-income: individuals earning 50%-80% of AMI
Moderate-income: individuals earning 80%-120% of AMI
Above moderate-income: individuals earning 120% or more of AMI Additionally, this report uses the term “lower-income” to refer to all people who earn less than 80% of AMI, which includes both low-income and very low-income individuals.
The income groups described above are based on U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) calculations for AMI. HUD calculates the AMI for different metropolitan areas, and the nine county Bay Area includes the following metropolitan areas: Napa Metro Area (Napa County), Oakland-Fremont Metro Area (Alameda and Contra Costa Counties), San Francisco Metro Area (Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo Counties), San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara Metro Area (Santa Clara County), Santa Rosa Metro Area (Sonoma County), and VallejoFairfield Metro Area (Solano County).
The income categories used in this report are based on the AMI for the HUD metro area where this jurisdiction is located.
3.1 Neighborhood Level Income Segregation (within Los Altos) Income segregation can be measured using similar indices as racial segregation. Income dot maps, similar to the racial dot maps shown in Figures 1 and 5, are useful for visualizing segregation between multiple income groups at the same time. The income dot map of Los Altos in Figure 8 below offers a visual representation of the spatial distribution of income groups within the jurisdiction. As with the racial dot maps, when the dots show lack of a pattern or clustering, income segregation measures tend to be lower, and conversely, when clusters are apparent, the segregation measures may be higher as well.
421
Agenda Item # 7.
22 Figure 8: Income Dot Map of Los Altos (2015)
Universe: Population.
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, American Community Survey 5-Year 2011-2015 Low- and ModerateIncome Summary Data.
Note: The plot shows the income group distribution at the census block group level for City of Los Altos and vicinity. Dots in each block group are randomly placed and should not be construed as actual placement of individuals.
The isolation index values for all income groups in Los Altos for the years 2010 and 2015 can be found in Table 6 below.13 Above Moderate-income residents are the most isolated income group in Los Altos.
Los Altos’s isolation index of 0.758 for these residents means that the average Above Moderate-income resident in Los Altos lives in a neighborhood that is 75.8% Above Moderate-income. Among all income groups, the Above Moderate-income population’s isolation index has changed the most over time, becoming less segregated from other income groups between 2010 and 2015.
Similar to the tables presented earlier for neighborhood racial segregation, the “Bay Area Average” column in Table 6 provides the average isolation index value across Bay Area jurisdictions for different income groups in 2015. The data in this column can be used as a comparison to provide context for the levels of segregation experienced by income groups in this jurisdiction. For example, Table 6 indicates the average isolation index value for very low-income residents across Bay Area jurisdictions is 0.269,
13 This report presents data for income segregation for the years 2010 and 2015, which is different than the time periods used for racial segregation. This deviation stems from the data source recommended for income segregation calculations in HCD’s AFFH Guidelines. This data source most recently updated with data from the 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-year estimates. For more information on HCD’s recommendations for calculating income segregation, see page 32 of HCD’s AFFH Guidelines. 422
Agenda Item # 7.
23 meaning that in the average Bay Area jurisdiction a very low-income resident lives in a neighborhood that is 26.9% very low-income.
Table 6: Income Group Isolation Index Values for Segregation within Los Altos Los Altos Bay Area
Average
Income Group 2010 2015 2015
Very Low-Income (<50% AMI) 0.090 0.099 0.269
Low-Income (50%-80% AMI) 0.058 0.053 0.145
Moderate-Income (80%-120% AMI) 0.090 0.109 0.183
Above Moderate-Income (>120% AMI) 0.803 0.758 0.507
Universe: Population.
Source: Data for 2015 is from U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, American Community Survey 5-Year 2011- 2015 Low- and Moderate-Income Summary Data. Data for 2010 is from U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, American Community Survey 5-Year 2006-2010 Low- and Moderate-Income Summary Data.
Figure 9 below shows how income group isolation index values in Los Altos compare to values in other Bay Area jurisdictions. In this chart, each dot represents a Bay Area jurisdiction. For each income group, the spread of dots represents the range of isolation index values among Bay Area jurisdictions.
Additionally, the black line within each income group notes the isolation index value for that group in Los Altos, and each dashed red line represents the Bay Area average for the isolation index for that group. Local staff can use this chart to contextualize how segregation levels for income groups in their jurisdiction compare to the rest of the region.
423
Agenda Item # 7.
24 Figure 9: Income Group Isolation Index Values for Los Altos Compared to Other Bay Area Jurisdictions (2015)
Universe: Bay Area Jurisdictions.
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, American Community Survey 5-Year 2011-2015 Low- and ModerateIncome Summary Data.
Table 7 below provides the dissimilarity index values indicating the level of segregation in Los Altos between residents who are lower-income (earning less than 80% of AMI) and those who are not lowerincome (earning above 80% of AMI). This data aligns with the requirements described in HCD’s AFFH Guidance Memo for identifying dissimilarity for lower-income households.14 Segregation in Los Altos between lower-income residents and residents who are not lower-income decreased between 2010 and 2015. Additionally, Table 7 shows dissimilarity index values for the level of segregation in Albany between residents who are very low-income (earning less than 50% of AMI) and those who are above moderate-income (earning above 120% of AMI). This supplementary data point provides additional nuance to an analysis of income segregation, as this index value indicates the extent to which a jurisdiction’s lowest and highest income residents live in separate neighborhoods.
Similar to other tables in this report, the “Bay Area Average” column shows the average dissimilarity index values for these income group pairings across Bay Area jurisdictions in 2015. For example, Table 7 indicates that the average dissimilarity index between lower-income residents and other residents in a Bay Area jurisdiction is 0.198, so on average 19.8% of lower-income residents in a Bay Area jurisdiction would need to move to a different neighborhood within the jurisdiction to create perfect income group integration in that jurisdiction.
14 For more information, see page 32 of HCD’s AFFH Guidance Memo. 424
Agenda Item # 7.
25 In 2015, the income segregation in Los Altos between lower-income residents and other residents was lower than the average value for Bay Area jurisdictions (See Table 7). This means that the lowerincome residents are less segregated from other residents within Los Altos compared to other Jurisdictions in the region.
Table 7: Income Group Dissimilarity Index Values for Segregation within Los Altos
Los Altos Bay Area
Average
Income Group 2010 2015 2015
Below 80% AMI vs. Above 80% AMI 0.201 0.120 0.198
Below 50% AMI vs. Above 120% AMI 0.187 0.152 0.253
Universe: Population.
Source: Data for 2015 is from U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, American Community Survey 5-Year 2011- 2015 Low- and Moderate-Income Summary Data. Data for 2010 is from U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, American Community Survey 5-Year 2006-2010 Low- and Moderate-Income Summary Data.
Figure 10 below shows how dissimilarity index values for income segregation in Los Altos compare to values in other Bay Area jurisdictions. In this chart, each dot represents a Bay Area jurisdiction. For each income group pairing, the spread of dots represents the range of dissimilarity index values among Bay Area jurisdictions. Additionally, the black line within each income group pairing notes the dissimilarity index value in Los Altos, and each dashed red line represents the Bay Area average for the dissimilarity index for that pairing. Local staff can use this chart to contextualize how segregation levels between lower-income residents and wealthier residents in their jurisdiction compared to the rest of the region.
425
Agenda Item # 7.
26 Figure 10: Income Group Dissimilarity Index Values for Los Altos Compared to Other Bay Area Jurisdictions (2015)
Universe: Bay Area Jurisdictions.
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, American Community Survey 5-Year 2011-2015 Low- and ModerateIncome Summary Data.
The Theil’s H Index values for neighborhood income group segregation in Los Altos for the years 2010 and 2015 can be found in Table 8 below. The “Bay Area Average” column in this table provides the average Theil’s H Index value across Bay Area jurisdictions for different income groups in 2015. By 2015, the Theil’s H Index value for income segregation in Los Altos was less than it had been in 2010. In 2015, the Theil’s H Index value for income group segregation in Los Altos was lower than the average value for Bay Area jurisdictions, indicating there is less neighborhood level income segregation in Los Altos than in the average Bay Area city.
Table 8: Theil’s H Index Values for Income Segregation within Los Altos Los Altos Bay Area
Average
Index 2010 2015 2015
Theil's H Multi-income 0.029 0.012 0.043
Universe: Population.
Source: Data for 2015 is from U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, American Community Survey 5-Year 2011- 2015 Low- and Moderate-Income Summary Data. Data for 2010 is from U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, American Community Survey 5-Year 2006-2010 Low- and Moderate-Income Summary Data. 426
Agenda Item # 7.
27 Figure 11 below shows how Theil’s H index values for income group segregation in Los Altos compare to values in other Bay Area jurisdictions in 2015. In this chart, each dot represents a Bay Area jurisdiction.
Additionally, the black line notes the Theil’s H index value for income group segregation in Los Altos, and the dashed red line represents the average Theil’s H index value across Bay Area jurisdictions.
Local staff can use this chart to compare how neighborhood income group segregation levels in their jurisdiction compare to other jurisdictions in the region.
Figure 11: Income Group Theil’s H Index Values for Los Altos Compared to Other Bay Area Jurisdictions (2015)
Universe: Bay Area Jurisdictions.
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, American Community Survey 5-Year 2011-2015 Low- and ModerateIncome Summary Data.
3.2 Regional Income Segregation (between Los Altos and other jurisdictions)
At the regional level, segregation is measured between jurisdictions instead of between neighborhoods.
Income dot maps are not only useful for examining neighborhood income segregation within a jurisdiction, but these maps can also be used to explore income demographic differences between jurisdictions in the region. Figure 12 below presents an income dot map showing the spatial distribution of income groups in Los Altos as well as in nearby Bay Area jurisdictions. 427
Agenda Item # 7.
28 Figure 12: Income Dot Map of Los Altos and Surrounding Areas (2015) Universe: Population.
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, American Community Survey 5-Year 2011-2015 Low- and ModerateIncome Summary Data.
Note: The plot shows the income group distribution at the census block group level for City of Los Altos and vicinity. Dots in each block group are randomly placed and should not be construed as actual placement of individuals.
When looking at income segregation between jurisdictions in the Bay Area, one can examine how Los Altos differs from the region. The income demographics in Los Altos for the years 2010 and 2015 can be found in Table 9 below. The table also provides the income composition of the nine-county Bay Area in 2015. As of that year, Los Altos had a lower share of very low-income residents than the Bay Area as a whole, a lower share of low-income residents, a lower share of moderate-income residents, and a higher share of above moderate-income residents.
Table 9: Population by Income Group, Los Altos and the Region Los Altos Bay Area
Income Group 2010 2015 2015
Very Low-Income (<50% AMI) 7.86% 9.3% 28.7%
Low-Income (50%-80% AMI) 4.4% 4.84% 14.3%
Moderate-Income (80%-120% AMI) 7.96% 10.43% 17.6%
Above Moderate-Income (>120% AMI) 79.78% 75.42% 39.4%
428
Agenda Item # 7.
29 Universe: Population.
Source: Data for 2015 is from Housing U.S. Department of and Urban Development, American Community Survey 5-Year 2011- 2015 Low- and Moderate-Income Summary Data. Data for 2010 is from U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, American Community Survey 5-Year 2006-2010 Low- and Moderate-Income Summary Data.
Figure 13 below compares the income demographics in Los Altos to other Bay Area jurisdictions.15 Like the chart in Figure 3, each dot represents a Bay Area jurisdiction. For each income group, the spread of dots represents the range of that group’s representation among Bay Area jurisdictions. The smallest range is among jurisdictions’ moderate-income populations, while Bay Area jurisdictions vary the most in the share of their population that is above moderate-income. Additionally, the black lines within each income group note the percentage of Los Altos population represented by that group and how that percentage ranks among other jurisdictions. Local staff can use this chart to compare the representation of different income groups in their jurisdiction to those groups’ representation in other jurisdictions in the region, which can indicate the extent of segregation between this jurisdiction and the region.
Figure 13: Income Demographics of Los Altos Compared to Other Bay Area Jurisdictions (2015)
Universe: Bay Area Jurisdictions.
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, American Community Survey 5-Year 2011-2015 Low- and ModerateIncome Summary Data.
15 While comparisons of segregation measures are made only using the 104 jurisdictions with more than one census tract, this comparison of jurisdiction level demographic data can be made using all 109 jurisdictions. 429
Agenda Item # 7.
30 Income segregation between jurisdictions in the region can also be analyzed by calculating regional values for the segregation indices discussed previously. Similar to the regional racial segregation measures shown in Table 5, Table 10 presents dissimilarity index, isolation index, and Theil’s H index values for income segregation for the entire nine-county Bay Area in 2010 and 2015. In the previous section of this report focused on neighborhood level income segregation, segregation indices were calculated by comparing the income demographics of the census tracts within a jurisdiction to the demographics of the jurisdiction as a whole. In Table 10, these measures are calculated by comparing the income demographics of local jurisdictions to the region’s income group makeup. For example, looking at 2015 data, Table 10 shows the regional isolation index value for very low-income residents is
0.315 for 2015, meaning that on average very low-income Bay Area residents live in a jurisdiction that is 31.5% very low-income. The regional dissimilarity index for lower-income residents and other residents is 0.194 in 2015, which means that across the region 19.4% of lower-income residents would need to move to a different jurisdiction to create perfect income group integration in the Bay Area as a whole. The regional value for the Theil’s H index measures how diverse each Bay Area jurisdiction is compared to the income group diversity of the whole region. A Theil’s H Index value of 0 would mean all jurisdictions within the Bay Area have the same income demographics as the entire region, while a value of 1 would mean each income group lives exclusively in their own separate jurisdiction. The regional Theil’s H index value for income segregation decreased slightly between 2010 and 2015, meaning that income groups in the Bay Area are now slightly less separated by the borders between jurisdictions.
Table 10: Regional Income Segregation Measures
Index Group 2010 2015
Isolation Index Regional Level
Very Low-Income (<50% AMI) 0.277 0.315
Low-Income (50%-80% AMI) 0.157 0.154
Moderate-Income (80%-120% AMI) 0.185 0.180
Above Moderate-Income (>120% AMI) 0.467 0.435
Dissimilarity Index Regional Level
Below 80% AMI vs. Above 80% AMI 0.186 0.194
Below 50% AMI vs. Above 120% AMI 0.238 0.248
Theil's H Multi-income All Income Groups 0.034 0.032
Universe: Population.
Source: Data for 2015 is from U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, American Community Survey 5-Year 2011- 2015 Low- and Moderate-Income Summary Data. Data for 2010 is from U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, American Community Survey 5-Year 2006-2010 Low- and Moderate-Income Summary Data. 430
Agenda Item # 7.
31 4 APPENDIX 1: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
4.1 Segregation in City of Los Altos
• The isolation index measures the segregation of a single group, and the dissimilarity index measures segregation between two different groups. The Theil’s H-Index can be used to measure segregation between all racial or income groups across the city at once. • As of 2020, white residents are the most segregated compared to other racial groups in Los Altos, as measured by the isolation index. White residents live in neighborhoods where they are less likely to come into contact with other racial groups. • Among all racial groups, the white population’s isolation index value has changed the most over time, becoming less segregated from other racial groups between 2000 and 2020. • According to the dissimilarity index, within Los Altos the highest level of racial segregation is between Black and white residents.16 However, local jurisdiction staff should note that this dissimilarity index value is not a reliable data point due to small population size. • According to the Theil’s H-Index, neighborhood racial segregation in Los Altos declined between 2010 and 2020. Neighborhood income segregation declined between 2010 and 2015. • Above Moderate-income residents are the most segregated compared to other income groups in Los Altos. Above Moderate-income residents live in neighborhoods where they are less likely to encounter residents of other income groups.
• Among all income groups, the Above Moderate-income population’s segregation measure has changed the most over time, becoming less segregated from other income groups between 2010 and 2015.
• According to the dissimilarity index, segregation between lower-income residents and residents who are not lower-income has decreased between 2010 and 2015. In 2015, the income segregation in Los Altos between lower-income residents and other residents was lower than the average value for Bay Area jurisdictions.
4.2 Segregation Between City of Los Altos and Other jurisdictions in the Bay Area Region
• Los Altos has a higher share of white residents than other jurisdictions in the Bay Area as a whole, a lower share of Latinx residents, a lower share of Black residents, and a higher share of Asian/Pacific Islander residents.
16 The analysis conducted for this report suggests that dissimilarity index values are unreliable for a population group if that group represents approximately less than 5% of the jurisdiction’s total population. ABAG/MTC recommends that when cities have population groups that are less than 5% of the jurisdiction’s population (see Table 15 in Appendix 2), jurisdiction staff could focus on the isolation index or Thiel’s H-Index to gain a more accurate understanding of neighborhood-level racial segregation in their jurisdiction. 431
Agenda Item # 7.
32 • Regarding income groups, Los Altos has a lower share of very low-income residents than other jurisdictions in the Bay Area as a whole, a lower share of low-income residents, a lower share of moderate-income residents, and a higher share of above moderate-income residents. 432
Agenda Item # 7.
33 5 APPENDIX 2: SEGREGATION DATA
Appendix 2 combines tabular data presented throughout this report into a more condensed format. This data compilation is intended to enable local jurisdiction staff and their consultants to easily reference this data and re-use the data in the Housing Element or other relevant documents/analyses.
Table 11 in this appendix combines data from Table 1, Table 2, and Table 3 in the body of the report.
Table 12 in this appendix combines data from Table 6, Table 7, and Table 8 in the body of the report.
Table 13 represents a duplication of Table 5 in the body of the report; Table 14 represents a duplication of Table 10 in the body of the report; Table 15 in this appendix represents a duplication of Table 4 in the body of the report, while Table 16 represents a duplication of Table 9 in the body of the report.
Table 11: Neighborhood Racial Segregation Levels in Los Altos Los Altos Bay Area
Average
Index Race 2000 2010 2020 2020
Isolation
Asian/Pacific Islander 0.167 0.247 0.358 0.245
Black/African American 0.005 0.005 0.008 0.053
Latinx 0.034 0.042 0.053 0.251
White 0.784 0.682 0.530 0.491
Dissimilarity
Asian/Pacific Islander vs. White 0.126 0.086 0.068 0.185 Black/African American vs. White 0.177* 0.144* 0.124* 0.244 Latinx vs. White 0.138* 0.120* 0.089* 0.207
People of Color vs. White 0.113 0.080 0.064 0.168
Theil's H Multi-racial All 0.012 0.009 0.006 0.042
Universe: Population.
Source: IPUMS National Historical Geographic Information System (NHGIS). U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Census State Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File, 2020 Census of Population and Housing, Table P002. Data from 2010 is from U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census of Population and Housing, Table P4. Data for 2000 is standardized to 2010 census tract geographies and is from U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000, Table P004.
Note: If a number is marked with an asterisk (*), it indicates that the index is based on a racial group making up less than 5 percent of the jurisdiction population, leading to unreliable numbers. 433
Agenda Item # 7.
34 Table 12: Neighborhood Income Segregation Levels in Los Altos Los Altos Bay Area
Average
Index Income Group 2010 2015 2015
Isolation
Very Low-Income (<50% AMI) 0.090 0.099 0.269
Low-Income (50%-80% AMI) 0.058 0.053 0.145
Moderate-Income (80%-120% AMI) 0.090 0.109 0.183
Above Moderate-Income (>120% AMI) 0.803 0.758 0.507
Dissimilarity
Below 80% AMI vs. Above 80% AMI 0.201 0.120 0.198
Below 50% AMI vs. Above 120% AMI 0.187 0.152 0.253
Theil's H Multi-racial All 0.029 0.012 0.043
Universe: Population.
Source: Income data for 2015 is from U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, American Community Survey 5-Year 2011-2015 Low- and Moderate-Income Summary Data. Data for 2010 is from U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, American Community Survey 5-Year 2006-2010 Low- and Moderate-Income Summary Data. 434
Agenda Item # 7.
35 Table 13: Regional Racial Segregation Measures
Index Group 2010 2020
Isolation Index Regional Level
Asian/Pacific Islander 0.317 0.378
Black/African American 0.144 0.118
Latinx 0.283 0.291
White 0.496 0.429
People of Color 0.629 0.682
Dissimilarity Index Regional Level
Asian/Pacific Islander vs. White 0.384 0.369
Black/African American vs. White 0.475 0.459
Latinx vs. White 0.301 0.297
People of Color vs. White 0.296 0.293
Theil's H Multi-racial All Racial Groups 0.103 0.097
Universe: Population.
Source: IPUMS National Historical Geographic Information System (NHGIS). U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Census State Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File, 2020 Census of Population and Housing, Table P002. Data from 2010 is from U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census of Population and Housing, Table P4.
Table 14: Regional Income Segregation Measures
Index Group 2010 2015
Isolation Index Regional Level
Very Low-Income (<50% AMI) 0.277 0.315
Low-Income (50%-80% AMI) 0.157 0.154
Moderate-Income (80%-120% AMI) 0.185 0.180
Above Moderate-Income (>120% AMI) 0.467 0.435
Dissimilarity Index Regional Level
Below 80% AMI vs. Above 80% AMI 0.186 0.194
Below 50% AMI vs. Above 120% AMI 0.238 0.248
Theil's H Multi-income All Income Groups 0.034 0.032
Universe: Population.
Source: Data for 2015 is from U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, American Community Survey 5-Year 2011- 2015 Low- and Moderate-Income Summary Data. Data for 2010 is from U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, American Community Survey 5-Year 2006-2010 Low- and Moderate-Income Summary Data. 435
Agenda Item # 7.
36 Table 15: Population by Racial Group, Los Altos and the Region Los Altos Bay Area
Race 2000 2010 2020 2020
Asian/Pacific Islander 15.35% 23.64% 35.36% 35.8%
Black/African American 0.46% 0.47% 0.56% 5.6%
Latinx 2.97% 3.91% 4.86% 28.2%
Other or Multiple Races 3.02% 4.19% 6.63% 24.4%
White 78.2% 67.79% 52.58% 5.9%
Universe: Population.
Source: IPUMS National Historical Geographic Information System (NHGIS). U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Census State Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File, 2020 Census of Population and Housing, Table P002. Data from 2010 is from U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census of Population and Housing, Table P4. Data for 2000 is standardized to 2010 census tract geographies and is from U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000, Table P004.
Table 16: Population by Income Group, Los Altos and the Region Los Altos Bay Area
Income Group 2010 2015 2015
Very Low-Income (<50% AMI) 7.86% 9.3% 28.7%
Low-Income (50%-80% AMI) 4.4% 4.84% 14.3%
Moderate-Income (80%-120% AMI) 7.96% 10.43% 17.6%
Above Moderate-Income (>120% AMI) 79.78% 75.42% 39.4%
Universe: Population.
Source: Data for 2015 is from U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, American Community Survey 5-Year 2011- 2015 Low- and Moderate-Income Summary Data. Data for 2010 is from U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, American Community Survey 5-Year 2006-2010 Low- and Moderate-Income Summary Data. 436
Agenda Item # 7.
37 6 REFERENCES
Ananat, Elizabeth Oltmans. 2011. “The wrong side(s) of the tracks: The causal effects of racial segregation on urban poverty and inequality,” American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 3: 34-
66. Bayer, Patrick, Robert McMillan, and Kim S. Rueben. 2004. “What Drives Racial Segregation? New Evidence using Census Microdata,” Journal of Urban Economics 56(3): 514-535.
Burch, Traci. 2014. “The Old Jim Crow: Racial Residential Segregation and Imprisonment,” Law and Policy 36(3): 223-255.
Chetty, Raj and Nathanial Hendren. 2018. “The Impacts of Neighborhoods on Intergenerational Mobility I: Childhood Exposure Effects,” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 133(3):1107-1162 Cutler, David M., and Edward L. Glaeser. 1997. “Are ghettos good or bad?,” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 112(3): 827-72.
Lens, Michael and Paavo Monkkonen. 2016. “Do Strict Land Use Regulations Make Metropolitan Areas More Segregated by Income?,” Journal of the American Planning Association 82(1): 6–21.
Pendall, Rolf. 2000. “Local Land-Use Regulation and the Chain of Exclusion,” Journal of the American Planning Association 66(2): 125-142.
Rothstein, Richard. 2017. The Color of Law: A Forgotten History of how our Government Segregated America. New York: Liveright Publishing.
Sampson, Robert J. 2012. Great American city: Chicago and the enduring neighborhood effect.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Sharkey, Patrick. 2013. Stuck in place: Urban neighborhoods and the end of progress toward racial equality. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Trounstine, Jessica. 2015. “Segregation and Inequality in Public Goods,” American Journal of Political Science 60(3): 709-725.
Trounstine, Jessica. 2018. Segregation by Design: Local Politics and Inequality in American Cities. New York: Cambridge University Press.
437
Agenda Item # 7.
This page is intentionally blank
438
Agenda Item # 7.
Housing Resources City of Los Altos | G-1
Appendix G: Housing Resources
Contents
Appendix G: Housing Resources ................................................................. 1 Section G.1 Financial and Administrative Resources ............................................................... 2 G.1.1 Local Resources.................................................................................................... 2 G.1.2 Regional Resources .............................................................................................. 2 G.1.3 State Resources.................................................................................................... 6 G.1.4 Federal Resources ................................................................................................ 9 Section G.2 Opportunities for Energy Conservation ...............................................................10 G.2.1 Silicon Valley Clean Energy Resources ..............................................................11 G.2.2 Pacific Gas and Electric Resources ....................................................................12 G.2.3 State Energy Resources .....................................................................................12 G.2.4 Federal Energy Resources..................................................................................13 439
Agenda Item # 7.
G-2 | City of Los Altos Housing Resources
Section G.1 Financial and Administrative Resources
G.1.1 Local Resources
Below Market Rate (BMR) Housing Rental Program
Alta Housing administers the City of Los Altos’ Below Market Rate (BMR) Housing Rental Program, a program that provides rental apartments in Los Altos for low and moderate-income households. BMR rental units are leased at rates below prevailing market rents, and rent increases are subject to certain limitations. BMR renters are selected from a waiting list and must meet special income and other eligibility requirements. There are currently 51 BMR rental units managed by Alta Housing for the City.
Inclusionary Housing Program
Multi-family projects that propose five or more market-rate units in Los Altos must include some affordable housing units under the City’s Zoning Code (Municipal Code Chapter 14.28); this is the primary source of affordable housing in Los Altos. Affordable housing units are deed restricted to moderate, low, and very low-income levels. The City has 54 BMR ownership units, for a total of 105 deed restricted BMR units, including the 51 rental units (noted above), managed by Alta Housing for the City.
G.1.2 Regional Resources
Santa Clara County
• Measure A: In November 2016, Santa Clara County voters approved Measure A – the $950 million affordable housing bond. The housing bond provides the County with an unprecedented opportunity to partner with cities, residents, and the affordable and supportive housing community to significantly address the housing needs of the community’s poorest and most vulnerable residents. It will provide affordable housing for vulnerable populations including veterans, seniors, the disabled, low and moderateincome individuals or families, foster youth, victims of abuse, the homeless and individuals suffering from mental health or substance abuse illnesses. The bond proceeds would contribute to the creation and/or preservation of approximately 4,800 affordable housing units. As of March 31, 2021, $607.85 million has been allocated to various Measure A programs, including $570.95 million toward 46 housing projects throughout Santa Clara County (no Measure A housing projects have currently been approved for Los Altos). $25 million has been committed to the first-time homebuyer loan program, and $11.9 million has been committed to a supportive housing fund for predevelopment loans. As of March 2021, $342.15 million approved by Measure A has yet to be allocated. Eligible applicants include non-profit organizations, tax-credit limited partnerships, or limited liability 440
Agenda Item # 7.
Housing Resources City of Los Altos | G-3
corporations, mission aligned for-profit affordable housing developers, public agencies, other local jurisdictions, and joint ventures of the above. • Empower Homebuyers County of Santa Clara Program: Empower Homebuyers SCC is a program of the County of Santa Clara administered by Housing Trust Silicon Valley. It provides down payment assistance loans to first-time homebuyers in the county and is funded by the 2016 Measure A Affordable Housing Bond. The program is aimed at assisting low to moderate income County residents – including employees at nonprofit organizations, teachers, healthcare professionals, County employees and others. The loan can be for up to 17 percent of a home’s purchase price – which means an additional three percent from a first-time homebuyer would reach a down payment of 20 percent.
Regardless of the amount borrowed, there are no monthly payments or interest with an Empower Homebuyers loan. The Empower loan plus a share of the appreciation on the home is repaid when the loan matures, or the homeowner decides to sell or refinance the mortgage.
• HomeFirst Homeless Helpline: HomeFirst’s Outreach team provides access to emergency shelter, showers, laundry, meals, medical services, case management, and employment training in Santa Clara County.
• Housing and Community Development Asset Management: The Santa Clara County Department of Office of Supportive Housing, Housing and Community Development Asset Management team oversees and monitors the operation and financial performance of the affordable and multifamily rental projects that have been developed with financial and other forms of support from the County of Santa Clara. These projects serve a variety of low-income populations: families, seniors, disabled individuals, veterans, chronically homeless people, transition-age youth, and people with HIV/AIDS, among others. The Asset Management Team's primary responsibility is to service loans and grants provided for these projects to various non-profit and for-profit organizations. The Team is also responsible for monitoring the compliance of each project with a host of obligations that borrowers and grantees agreed to as a condition of County’s financing/support. • Santa Clara County's Mortgage Credit Certificate (MCC) Program: This program provides income eligible first-time home buyers the opportunity to reduce the amount of federal income tax they owe each year they own and live in their home. The Mortgage Credit Certificate (MCC) assists a family in qualifying for a higher first mortgage with no effect on monthly expenses. Refinanced Mortgage Credit Certificates (RMCC) are also available when the homeowner refinances their original MCC Loan. A RMCC must be issued for each refinance for the homeowner to continue receiving their federal tax credit.
The estimated number of MCCs to be issued from the March 20, 2019, CDLAC allocation was 16. Funding for this program is provided by the California Debt Limit Allocation Committee (CDLAC).
441
Agenda Item # 7.
G-4 | City of Los Altos Housing Resources
• Santa Clara County Shelter List: The County maintains a list of shelters for families with children, shelters for adults without children, and shelters for veterans on its Office of Supportive Housing website.
• Warming and Cooling Center Information: The County of Santa Clara Office of Supportive Housing works with service providers to open warming/cooling centers during inclement weather episodes (such as rain events, or extreme cold or heat events). In the event of an emergency, inclement weather episodes and shelter availability, or housingrelated issues, the Office of Supportive Housing has arranged with the County Office of Emergency Services to be able to send text messages to the homeless, service providers, and anyone else who has requested to receive the messages. The County Library located in Los Altos (13 South San Antonio Road) is identified as a warming center during regular Library business hours.
Santa Clara County Housing Authority
• Section 8 Chronically Homeless Direct Referral Program: SCCHA’s Chronically Homeless Direct Referral (CHDR) program is a locally designed voucher referral program for the chronically homeless population in Santa Clara County. A partnership between SCCHA and the County of Santa Clara ensures that chronically homeless families who receive vouchers are connected to supportive programs and case management services. • Section 8 Family Unification Program: The Family Unification Program (FUP) is a partnership between SCCHA and Santa Clara County through its Social Services Agency, Department of Family and Children Services (DFCS). FUP provides rental assistance for families whose lack of adequate housing is a primary factor in the placement of their children in out-of-home care or in the delay of their children returning home. SCCHA administers FUP Housing Choice Vouchers (HCV) rental assistance. DFCS refers FUPeligible families to SCCHA and provides case management and supportive services before and after the family is housed.
• Section 8 Family Self-Sufficiency: The Family Self Sufficiency (FSS) program provides case management and advocacy to current program participants in order to help them attain self-sufficiency goals. Families enroll and sign a five-year contract to participate in the program. After enrolling in the program, participants set goals such as finishing their education, obtaining job training, and/or employment. During the contract term, participants who increase their earned income can receive cash bonuses. When the family reports an increase in earned income, SCCHA calculates a monthly bonus amount that is deposited into an ‘escrow’ account which the family can receive upon program graduation. • Section 8 Homeownership Program: The Homeownership program is an optional U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) program that permits housing authorities to assist Housing Choice Voucher (Section 8) households in the purchase of their first homes. Participants in this program receive housing assistance payments to use 442
Agenda Item # 7.
Housing Resources City of Los Altos | G-5
toward their homeownership expenses. SCCHA administers this program for current participants but no longer accepts new applications.
• Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program: The Housing Choice Voucher (Section 8) program is SCCHA’s largest rental assistance program with about 17,000 participants.
The “housing choice voucher” is a 100 percent federally funded rental subsidy for lowincome households living in privately owned rental units. SCCHA voucher holders in the Moving to Work (MTW) program pay 32 percent of their gross income toward rent (or a minimum rent of $50, whichever is higher), and the agency pays the balance of the rent directly to the landlords on behalf of the families. Voucher holders are also required to pay that portion of their lease contract rent that is above SCCHA’s payment standard for their unit size. Currently, there are six households in Los Altos participating in the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program1.
• Section 8 Mainstream Voucher Program: The Mainstream Voucher program provides vouchers for low-income households that include a person(s) with disabilities. The program is designed to help tenants with disabilities live independently in the community. • Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation Program: The Moderate Rehabilitation (Mod Rehab) program attaches Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) rental assistance to privately owned units that are rehabilitated. Under the Mod Rehab program, SCCHA enters into a Housing Assistance Payments contract with the property owner for a specified unit and for a specified term. Mod Rehab assistance is tied to the unit, as opposed to the tenant. A family who moves from a Mod Rehab unit is not eligible to receive tenant-based HCV assistance.
SCCHA administers this program for current Mod Rehab properties but no longer accepts new/additional units under this program.
• Section 8 Non-Elderly Disabled Program: The Non-Elderly Disabled (NED) program provides assistance to non-elderly persons with disabilities who are currently residing in long-term care facilities. This voucher program is intended to help participants leave the long-term care facility and live independently. The NED program is a partnership between SCCHA and the Silicon Valley Independent Living Center (SVILC). SVILC provides NED program applicant referrals, case management, and supportive services. • Section 8 Project-Based Voucher Program: The Project Based Voucher (PBV) program attaches the rental assistance voucher to private (including SCCHA-owned/operated) housing units. Under the PBV program, SCCHA enters into a Housing Assistance Payments contract with the property owner for specified units and for a specified term.
PBV units are leased to eligible low-income tenants from SCCHA’s PBV Waiting List or in some cases referred by the property owner. PBV rental assistance is contractually tied to 1 Santa Clara County Housing Authority, email correspondence with Ricardo Alvarez, Housing Programs Manager (March 14, 2022). 443
Agenda Item # 7.
G-6 | City of Los Altos Housing Resources
the unit, as opposed to the tenant. A family who moves from the project-based unit may be eligible to receive HCV (tenant-based) assistance, if available. • Section 8 VASH Program: The HUD-VASH program provides assistance to homeless veterans by combining rental assistance with case management and clinical services. The HUD-VASH program is a partnership between the Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System (VA Palo Alto) and SCCHA. The VA Palo Alto refers homeless veterans to the HUD-VASH program and provides case management, while SCCHA administers rental assistance to eligible veterans.
G.1.3 State Resources
• Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities Program (AHSC): Administered by the Strategic Growth Council, this program provides grants and/or loans to fund landuse, housing, transportation, and land preservation projects that support infill and compact development that reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
• CalHome: HCD provides grants to local public agencies and non-profit housing developers to assist first-time homebuyers become or remain homeowners through deferred-payment loans. Funds can also be used to assist in the development of multipleunit homeownership programs. • California Emergency Solutions and Housing (CESH): This program provides funds for a variety of activities to assist persons experiencing or at risk of homelessness, such as housing relocation and stabilization services (including rental assistance), operating subsidies for permanent housing, flexible housing subsidies, emergency housing operating support, and homeless delivery systems.
• California Housing Finance Agency (CalHFA): CalHFA offers a variety of low-cost loan programs to support the development of affordable multi-family rental housing, mixedincome housing, and special needs housing. • California Housing Finance Agency (CalHFA), Mortgage Credit Certificate Program:
The MCC program is a homebuyer assistance program designed to help lower‐income families afford home ownership. The program allows home buyers to claim a dollar‐for‐ dollar tax credit for a portion of mortgage interest paid per year, up to $2,000. The remaining mortgage interest paid may still be calculated as an itemized deduction. • California Self-Help Housing Program (CSHHP): Provides grants for sponsor organizations that provide technical assistance for low and moderate-income families to build their homes with their own labor.
• Elderlink: A senior care referral service licensed by the Department of Public Health. This organization provides independent and free personalized senior care placement services to fully screened and approved nursing home, board and care, and assisted living facilities. 444
Agenda Item # 7.
Housing Resources City of Los Altos | G-7
• Golden State Acquisition Fund (GSAF): This $93 million fund provides low-cost financing aimed at supporting the creation and preservation of affordable housing across the state. GSAF makes up to five-year loans to developers for acquisition or preservation of affordable housing.
• Homekey: Homekey provides grants to acquire and rehabilitate a variety of housing types, such as hotels and residential care facilities, to serve people experiencing homelessness or who are also at risk of serious illness from COVID-19. • Housing for a Healthy California (HHC) Program: This program provides funding to deliver supportive housing opportunities to developers using the federal National Housing Trust Funds (NHTF) allocations for operating reserve grants and capital loans. The HHC program is intended to create supportive housing for individuals who are recipients of or eligible for health care provided through the California Department of Health Care Services’ Medi-Cal program.
• Housing Navigator’s Program: This grant program allocates funding to counties for the support of housing navigators to help young adults aged 18 to 21 years secure and maintain housing, with priority for individuals in the foster care system. • Infill Infrastructure Grant Program (IIG): This program promotes infill housing development by providing grant funding, in the form of gap assistance, for infrastructure improvements required for qualifying multi-family or mixed-use residential development. • Joe Serna, Jr. Farmworker Housing Grant (FWHG) Program: This program provides deferred payment loans for both owner-occupied and rental housing for agricultural workers, with a priority for lower income households.
• Local Housing Trust Fund (LHTF) Program: This program provides matching funds to local or regional housing trust funds for the creation, preservation, and rehabilitation of affordable housing, transitional housing, or emergency shelters. • Mills Act: The Mills Act is an economic incentive programs for the restoration and preservation of qualified historic buildings by private property owners. It grants local governments the authority to enter into contracts with owners of qualified historic properties who actively participate in the restoration and maintenance of their historic properties while receiving property tax relief. Los Altos administers a Mills Act program, which furthers housing affordability by reducing property taxes and preserving existing housing stock.
• Mobilehome Park Rehabilitation and Resident Ownership Program (MPRROP): This program provides financing to support the preservation of affordable mobilehome parks through conversion of the park to ownership or control by resident organizations, nonprofit housing sponsors, or local public entities.
445
Agenda Item # 7.
G-8 | City of Los Altos Housing Resources
• Multifamily Housing Program (MHP): This program provides deferred payment loans for the construction, preservation, and rehabilitation of permanent and transitional rental housing for lower-income households.
• No Place Like Home Program: This program invests in the development of permanent supportive housing for persons who are in need of mental health services and are experiencing homelessness, chronic homelessness, or who are at risk of chronic homelessness.
• National Housing Trust Fund: This program provides deferred payment or forgivable loans for the construction of permanent housing for extremely low-income households.
The required affordability covenant is for 55 years.
• Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA) Program: This program provides a permanent source of funding to all local governments in California to help cities and counties implement plans to increase affordable housing stock. Funding for this program is provided through a $75 recording fee on real estate transactions. • Predevelopment Loan Program (PDLP): This program provides financing to cover predevelopment costs to construct, preserve, or rehabilitate assisted housing. • Supportive Housing Multifamily Housing Program (SHMHP): This program provides low interest deferred loan payments to developers building affordable rental housing that contain supportive housing units.
• Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Housing Program: This program provides lowinterest loans as gap financing for higher density affordable rental housing within onequarter mile of transit stations. Grants are also available to localities and transit agencies for infrastructure improvements necessary for the development of specified housing developments or to facilitate connections between these developments and the transit station. The maximum total award amount for a single project is $15 million. • Transitional Housing Program (THP): This program provides funding to counties for child welfare services agencies to help young adults aged 18 to 25 years find and maintain housing, with priority given to those formerly in the foster care or probation systems. • Veterans Housing and Homelessness Prevention Program (VHHP): This program supports the acquisition, construction, rehabilitation, and preservation of affordable multifamily housing for veterans and their families. 446
Agenda Item # 7.
Housing Resources City of Los Altos | G-9
G.1.4 Federal Resources
• Community Development Block Grant (CDBG): The Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program was created by the Housing and Community Development (HCD) Act of 1974. In the County of Santa Clara, the CDBG Program is operated by the Office of Supportive Housing. The County CDBG Program is federally funded by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to assist lower-income and special needs persons to address housing and community development needs. The County of Santa Clara administers CDBG on behalf of the Unincorporated Areas of Santa Clara County and the Cities of Campbell, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, and Saratoga, also known as the Urban County Program. • Continuum of Care (CoC) Program: The Continuum of Care (CoC) Program is designed to promote communitywide commitment towards ending homelessness. It provides funding to nonprofits, state, and local governments to provide shelter and services to people experiencing homelessness.
• Emergency Solutions Grants (ESG) Program: This program provides funding for cities, counties, and states to engage homeless individuals and families living on the street; improve the number and quality of emergency shelters for homeless individuals and families; help operate these shelters; provide essential services to shelter residents; rapidly rehouse homeless individuals and families; and prevent families/individuals from becoming homeless.
• Home Investment Partnerships Program (HOME Program): The Home Investment Partnerships Program ("HOME Program") is federally funded by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Participating jurisdictions may use HOME funds for a variety of housing activities, according to local housing needs.
Eligible uses of funds include tenant-based rental assistance; housing rehabilitation; assistance to homebuyers; and new construction of housing. HOME funding may also be used for site acquisition, site improvements, demolition, relocation, and other necessary and reasonable activities related to the development of non-luxury housing. Funds may not be used for public housing development, public housing operating costs, or for Section 8 tenant-based assistance, nor may they be used to provide non-federal matching contributions for other federal programs, for operating subsidies for rental housing, or for activities under the Low-Income Housing Preservation Act. The HOME Program is administered by the County of Santa Clara Office of Supportive Housing on behalf of the Urban County cities and the Cities of Cupertino, Gilroy, and Palo Alto. • Low-Income Housing Preservation and Residential Home Ownership Act (LIHPRHA): This program requires all eligible HUD Section 236 and Section 221(d) projects at risk of conversion to market-rate rentals from mortgage pre-payments be 447
Agenda Item # 7.
G-10 | City of Los Altos Housing Resources
subject to LIHPRHA incentives, which include subsidies to guarantee an eight percent annual return on equity.
• Low-Income Housing Tax Credit: Administered through the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC), the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) subsidizes the acquisition, construction, and rehabilitation of affordable housing by providing a tax credit to construct or rehabilitate affordable rental housing for low-income households. • Section 108 Loan Guarantee Program: Allows CDBG entitlement jurisdictions to leverage their annual grant allocations to access low-cost financing for capital improvement projects. Eligible activities include housing, economic development, public facility, and infrastructure. This program is often used to catalyze private investment in underserved communities or as gap financing.
• Section 202 Supportive Housing for the Elderly Program: Provides an interest-free capital advance to cover the costs of construction, rehabilitation, or acquisition of very lowincome senior housing. The program is available to private, nonprofit sponsors; public sponsors are not eligible for the program.
• Section 811 Project Rental Assistance: HUD offers long-term project-based rental assistance through a NOFA published by the California Housing Finance Agency (CalHFA).
• U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Housing Programs: These programs provide homeownership opportunities for individuals and below market-rate loans/grants to public and nonprofit organizations for new construction, preservation, or rehabilitation of farmworker/rural multi-family rental housing.
• Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing (VASH) Program: HUD-VASH is a collaborative program between HUD and VA combines HUD housing vouchers with VA supportive services to help veterans who are homeless and their families find and sustain permanent housing.
Section G.2 Opportunities for Energy Conservation
The cost of energy can greatly impact housing affordability, as energy costs can constitute a significant portion of total housing costs. High energy costs also particularly impact low-income households that are less likely to have the ability to cover increased expenses.
The City encourages energy conservation in all projects consistent with the California Building Code (CBC) and Municipal Code Chapters 12.22 and 12.26 (Energy Code and California Green Building Standards Code, respectively). The City’s website includes green building resources and informational handouts. Additionally, in 2013, the City adopted its Climate Action Plan (CAP). The CAP responds to the impacts of climate change through local actions that promote adaptation 448
Agenda Item # 7.
Housing Resources City of Los Altos | G-11
and resilience by reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. This will be done by implementing policies that relate to transportation, energy use, resource conservation, green communities, and municipal operations. Moreover, the City is currently modifying its CAP to prepare a Climate Action and Adaptation Plan (CAAP) to update its greenhouse gas inventory and evaluate its sources of impact in order to determine implementation actions to reduce emissions.
The City promotes various energy conservation programs, including the Bay Area Regional Energy Network (BayREN) and Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) Financing. BayREN is a collaboration of the nine counties that comprise the San Francisco Bay Area. BayREN provides regional-scale energy efficiency programs, services, and resources. BayREN is funded by utility ratepayer funds through the California Public Utilities Commission and other sources. PACE is a mechanism for property owners to finance renewable energy, energy efficiency, and water conservation improvements to their properties and repay the loan via an annual assessment on the owner’s property tax bill. This allows the financing to be extended over multiple years and also allows a home to be sold with that assessment assigned to the new owner. Unlike traditional forms of credit that are dependent on individual credit rating, PACE financing is primarily based on a property owner’s equity in the building.
G.2.1 Silicon Valley Clean Energy Resources
Silicon Valley Clean Energy (SVCE) is a public, not-for-profit community choice aggregation (CCA) electricity provider that serves 13 communities within Santa Clara County, including Los Altos. SVCE provides residential and commercial electricity customers with clean, carbon-free electricity options at competitive prices from sources like solar, wind, and hydropower. SVCE sources the electricity, while PG&E delivers it over existing utility lines, and provides maintenance, billing, and customer service. SVCE has several programs designed to serve low-income customers, including:
• Arrearage Management Plan (AMP): The AMP is a 12-month program that provides up to $8,000 of bill forgiveness to each eligible customer that owes at least $500 on their electricity bill (or $250 for gas-only customers) for more than 90 days. To be eligible for AMP, customers must also ne enrolled in California Alternative Rates for Energy (CARE) or Family Electric Rate Assistance (FERA).
• CARE (California Alternate Rates for Energy): The CARE program provides a 20 percent discount or more on monthly bills for qualified low- or fixed-income households and housing facilities. Qualifications are based on the number of people living in the home and total annual household income.
• FERA (Family Electric Rate Assistance): Family Electric Rate Assistance provides an 18 percent discount on electricity bills for large households of three or more people with low- to middle-income. Qualifications are based on household income guidelines. 449
Agenda Item # 7.
G-12 | City of Los Altos Housing Resources
• On-Bill Credit: COVID-19 Customer Relief: SVCE provides a $100 credit for residential customers enrolled under California Alternative Rates for Energy (CARE) and Family Electric Rate Assistance as of May 10, 2020.
• Medical Baseline Allowance: SVCE Medical Baseline customers do not incur the typical Power Charge Indifference Adjustment (PCIA), a fee charge by PG&E, and therefore receive over 15 percent savings on their monthly electric bill. To qualify for Medical Baseline, a California-licensed physician must certify that a full-time resident in the home has a serious medical condition such being dependent on life-support equipment while at home.
G.2.2 Pacific Gas and Electric Resources
Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) also provides electricity service for Los Altos. PG&E assists lowincome, disabled, and senior citizen customers through several programs and community outreach projects, including:
• CARE (California Alternate Rates for Energy): See CARE under Silicon Valley Clean Energy Resources, above.
• FERA (Family Electric Rate Assistance): See FERA under Silicon Valley Clean Energy Resources, above.
• Energy Partners Program: The Energy Partners Program provides qualified low-income customers free weatherization measures and energy-efficient appliances to reduce gas and electricity usage.
• Medical Baseline Allowance: See Medical Baseline Allowance under Silicon Valley Clean Energy Resources, above.
• Relief for Energy Assistance through Community Help (REACH): This is a one-time energy-assistance program sponsored by PG&E and administered through the Salvation Army from 170 offices in Northern and Central California. Those who have experienced an uncontrollable or unforeseen hardship may receive an energy grant of up to $300.
Generally, recipients can receive REACH assistance only once within a 12-month period, but exceptions can be made for seniors, the physically challenged, and the terminally ill.
G.2.3 State Energy Resources
• California Department of Community Services & Development Programs LowIncome Weatherization Program (LIWP): California’s Low-Income Weatherization Program (LIWP) provides low-income households with solar photovoltaic (PV) systems and energy efficiency upgrades at no cost to residents. LIWP is the only program of its kind in California that focuses exclusively on serving low-income households with solar 450
Agenda Item # 7.
Housing Resources City of Los Altos | G-13
PV and energy efficiency upgrades at no cost. The program reduces greenhouse gas emissions and household energy costs by saving energy and generating clean renewable power. LIWP currently operates three program components: Multi-Family, Community Solar, and Farmworker Housing. According to CDS’s Nov. 2020 Low-Income Weatherization Program Impact Report, LIWP has received $212 million from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund since 2014. Note: The multi-family energy efficiency and renewables program component is estimated to end in June 2022. • California Public Utilities Commission Energy Savings Assistance Program (ESA):
ESA provides no-cost weatherization services to low-income households who meet the CARE income guidelines. Services provided include attic insulation, energy efficient refrigerators, energy efficient furnaces, weatherstripping, caulking, low-flow showerheads, water heater blankets, and door and building envelope repairs which reduce air infiltration.
G.2.4 Federal Energy Resources
• Federal Housing Administration Energy Efficient Mortgage Program (EEM): This program helps families save money on their utility bills by enabling them to finance energy efficient improvements with their FHA-insured mortgage. The EEM program recognizes that an energy-efficient home will have lower operating costs, making it more affordable for the homeowners. Cost-effective energy improvements can lower utility bills and make more income available for the mortgage payment.
• Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP): The program is funded by the federal government and the State Department of Community Services & Development (CSD) administers LIHEAP. The federal Department of Health and Human Services distributes funds to states annually to assist with energy bills and offset heating and/or cooling energy costs for eligible low-income households. California’s annual share is approximately $89 million which CSD distributes to contracted community energy service providers. Active. During March 2020, the CARES Act allocated California an additional $49 million to supplement its LIHEAP program, which totaled $203 million for Federal Fiscal Year 2019-2020.
451
Agenda Item # 7.
452
Agenda Item # 7.
PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE
The following is public correspondence received by the City Clerk’s Office after the posting of the original agenda. Individual contact information has been redacted for privacy. This may not be a comprehensive collection of the public correspondence, but staff makes its best effort to include all correspondence received to date.
To send correspondence to the City Council, on matters listed on the agenda please email [email protected]
453
Agenda Item # 7.
From: Jim Wing
To: Public Comment
Subject: PublicComment-Agneda07-07-12-2022
Date: Saturday, July 2, 2022 7:07:46 PM
Los Altos Mayor Enander and Distinguished Council Members, Council 07/12/2022 Meeting Agenda Item 07 Sixth Cycle Housing Element 2022-2031 Draft Remove or revise Program 5.8 [Page 37] to allow Los Altos staff to work with any consultant who can do best job / best cost. Alta Design should not be the only consultant Los Altos is allowed to work with.
Please request staff to revise underreported Draft Housing Element Vacant Residential Parcels Maps / Summary to include the many acres of land that have not or could be subdivided. Algorithm and limited site visits caused consultant to underreport vacant lots [at least 9.54 acres] since they used only parcel numbers with improvements and Santa Clara County only assigns parcel numbers after subdivision. Following are examples of underreporting that should be added to Figures B-1, B-2, B-3 starting on page 134.
Draft Housing Element Vacant Residential Parcels Map Figure B-3 [page 136] does not include vacant lot [3.5 acres] at end of Dover Court and Phase 2 of Manresa PUD lots [1.5 acre]. These lots were granted for possible future development when Jesuit Retreat and Event Center [50 acres] was annexed to Los Altos in 1986. Santa Clara County Assessor Map 175-30 does not show subdivision noted in annexation documents because property owner has not applied for subdivision. 479 Los Altos Ave [2.3 acres]
531 Rosita Ave [1.4 acres]
El Monte / Fremont [ Los Altos owned Lot, approximately 0.19 acre] Woodstock [Two Los Altos owned Lots; one 0.34 acre other 0.31acre] In addition to vacant lots, Los Altos Gardens [ 6.338 acres, Parcel Map 167-16-51] is an existing low density / low income housing complex that could be increased to high density / low income housing. Almost 20 years ago, Planning Commission discussed increasing density by making units two story to save the trees.
In my opinion, potential housing can be added to following vacant sites:
Jesuit Retreat / Event Center and Manresa Phase 2 – Planned Unit Development [PUD] with style and density of Creekside Oaks that includes 10% affordable units. 479 Los Altos Ave. – PUD with style and density of Creekside Oaks that includes 10% affordable units
531 Rosita Ave. – Subdivide to 10,000 ft2 lots and split lots.
El Monte / Fremont – one affordable unit.
Woodstock – If fire damaged trees on north lot do not survive, split lot for two affordable units. In past years homeless have used these lots.
Thank you for your consideration! Jim Wing, Milverton Road, Los Altos 454
Agenda Item # 7.
From: Paul Baker
To: Public Comment
Cc:
Subject: Agenda Item 7, July 12, 2022 - Housing Element Draft Date: Sunday, July 3, 2022 6:10:31 PM
Dear Mayor Enander and Members of the City Council,
The release of the Draft Housing Element is a big step forward for the City of Los Altos. The document is comprehensive and will serve as an excellent plan to improve the quality of life in Los Altos. Congratulations to the City Council for leading the production of this plan.
The rezoning plans for the downtown core, including permitting mixed use (housing above the shops), allowing housing on the other side of San Antonio and planned use of parking plazas for housing will permit the construction of a more lively and walkable downtown. If the City can commit to building the 100+ housing units on the parking plazas in the Housing Element we can be more certain that it will actually happen. Dealing with parking requirements for these units (either by reducing the requirements per unit or permitting parking spots that are not directly connected to the units) will be important for actually allowing these units to be built. One of the great things about living downtown would be that a car might not be needed most of the time - if this could be achieved, it would reduce congestion and pollution, so would be a big win for the City.
Rezoning Altos Oaks, Rancho and adjusting the Loyola Corners plans to permit more and better integrated housing is a great idea, I’m glad to see it in the plan. I am also very supportive of including housing on church properties in the City. Although some church owned parcels are noted on the parcel list, the zoning proposals don’t include zoning these parcels for multi-family housing. This would make these parcels much easier to use for housing. Tiny houses or ADUs on church properties would also be a way to add housing on these sites.
The Housing Element includes planned City decisions that will make building more housing in Los Altos possible.
Once the zoning changes are complete, it should be possible to make the planning commission the group that ensures that development conforms to the plan, reducing the City Council’s work load and speeding the approval process. Other process changes suggested in the Housing Element are also positive steps towards reducing time and cost for development.
The Housing Element Draft is excellent work, once it is approved I look forward to advocating for more inclusive housing in Los Altos.
Thank you,
Paul Baker
Los Altos resident since 1981
455
Agenda Item # 7.
From: Paul Baker
To: Public Comment
Subject: Draft Housing Element
Date: Sunday, July 3, 2022 6:10:53 PM
Dear Chair Doran and Members of the Planning Commission, The release of the Draft Housing Element is a big step forward for the City of Los Altos. The document is comprehensive and will serve as an excellent plan to improve the quality of life in Los Altos.
The rezoning plans for the downtown core, including permitting mixed use (housing above the shops), allowing housing on the other side of San Antonio and planned use of parking plazas for housing will permit the construction of a more lively and walkable downtown. If the City can commit to building the 100+ housing units on the parking plazas in the Housing Element we can be more certain that it will actually happen. Dealing with parking requirements for these units (either by reducing the requirements per unit or permitting parking spots that are not directly connected to the units) will be important for actually allowing these units to be built. One of the great things about living downtown would be that a car might not be needed most of the time - if this could be achieved, it would reduce congestion and pollution, so would be a big win for the City.
Rezoning Altos Oaks, Rancho and adjusting the Loyola Corners plans to permit more and better integrated housing is a great idea, I’m glad to see it in the plan. I am also very supportive of including housing on church properties in the City. Although some church owned parcels are noted on the parcel list, the zoning proposals don’t include zoning these parcels for multi-family housing. This would make these parcels much easier to use for housing. Tiny houses or ADUs on church properties would also be a way to add housing on these sites.
The Housing Element includes planned City decisions that will make building more housing in Los Altos possible.
Once the zoning changes are complete, it should be possible to make the planning commission the group that ensures that development conforms to the plan, reducing the City Council’s work load and speeding the approval process. Other process changes suggested in the Housing Element are also positive steps towards reducing time and cost for development.
The Housing Element Draft is excellent work, once it is approved I look forward to advocating for more inclusive housing in Los Altos.
Thank you,
Paul Baker
Los Altos resident since 1981
456
Agenda Item # 7.
July 5, 2022
Chair Doran and Members of the Planning Commission
City of Los Altos
1 N. San Antonio Road
Los Altos, CA 94022
Re: Agenda Item Draft Housing Element, Planning Commission meeting July 7th Dear Chair Doran and Members of the Planning Commission:
The League continues to support a comprehensive plan to address housing that follows State law, and we thank the Staff and LWC for a Draft Housing Element that provides bold steps towards a compliant Housing Element. That said, we have some major concerns.
First, regarding the Site Inventory, we would like to see street addresses along with APN#s as these are easier for the public to understand; likewise, we would like the downtown parking plazas to be identified with their Lot numbers as they are in the Downtown Vision. Second, we are pleased to see that a large buffer has been proposed. However, we think this buffer could rapidly disappear if the recommended rezonings and programs are not put in place.
In addition, many sites listed are unlikely to be developed. For example, all the downtown parking plazas are listed.
It is unrealistic to think that all will be developed with housing as the City will want to retain some surface parking and one parcel has already been designated for a potential theater. Therefore, the projected number of units on each lot is unrealistic. However, perhaps the total projected number for all the lots (138) could be a goal for one or two of the lots, better explained as part of Program 1.H. Also, for any of these sites to be attractive to affordable housing developers, as is discussed in Programs, the density/height must be increased, and the City will need to provide financial resources.
Other sites such as Draegers have been recently remodeled, making it unlikely they will be developed with housing during the next Housing Element cycle. Spokespeople for the two churches designated have stated they have no interest in building housing. Foothill Crossing, projected for 80 units, recently signed a long-term lease with a major new tenant and has expressed no interest. We suggest that these sites and others be more vigorously vetted before they are included in the site inventory.
We applaud many of the programs. We especially like Program. 1.H with its specific timeline for developing affordable housing on at least one downtown parking plaza. But without some City financing and upzoning, this program is unrealistic.
Another program the City should include is an Affordable Housing Overlay Zone for the downtown parking lots as well as other areas of the City. The City should meet with developers to see what needs to be included in order to encourage housing, i.e., height, density, fees, setbacks, etc.) 457
Agenda Item # 7.
We also commend the following programs: 1.B re the CT District, 1.C re the OA District, 1.E re Loyola Corners and
1.F re Village Court. However, we would like to see specifics, such as allow an additional story, rather than “increase building heights” (1.B), and, again, specific proposed modifications for density and height (1.E).
Program 1.I to incentivize Downtown lot consolidation is also commendable, and we recommend that lot consolidation be encouraged for other areas such as Sherwood Triangle, but there is a lack of commitment to measurable success criteria. This program and others should have metrics-based objectives.
We have long advocated that the City adopt a commercial linkage fee as envisioned by an enabling ordinance adopted four years ago (Muni Code 3.49.070, Ord. No. 2018-444), but don’t understand why this should take till the end of 2025. Re ADUs, we strongly support providing permit ready standard ADU plans (2.D), but don’t like the verbiage “consider permit fee waivers…”as once again this reflects a lack of commitment.
All the programs listed under Goal 3 to Remove constraints to the development of housing should be included, but we especially recommend updating the parking requirements (3.A) and Amending design review process (3.H).
Some specific changes to parking requirements could be promised in the Housing Element based upon the draft parking ordinance approved by the Planning Commission in 2018, such as reducing the width of parking spaces, and lane dimensions, creating a program with in-lieu parking fees, along with reducing parking for senior and deed-restricted units, and specific requirements for buildings with mechanical lifts. A parking in-lieu fee program would allow development on smaller lots downtown where the owners cannot provide the required parking on site and would generate funds to expand and enhance the parking supply. The Design Review process will be improved by eliminating the DRC as a separate body and by eliminating story poles and ensuring that all design standards are objective. Programs 3.B and 3.C are necessary for some of the sites listed in the inventory to be developed.
Program 5.B re the City’s contract with Alta Housing should be updated to reflect the recent Council discussion with Alta and the possibility that another administrative agency might be retained at the end of Alta’s contract next year.
Finally, we would urge the City to commit to providing some safe parking for vehicle-dwellers, whether on City-owned property or by working with faith-based institutions. As the Housing Element notes, several of the churches have large parking lots; similar lots are being used for safe parking in other nearby communities.
In summary, we hope all the programs proposed in the Draft Housing Element will be adopted with some additions and changes to make the programs and timelines more specific. (Please send any questions about this email to [email protected]) Karin Bricker, President LWV of Los Altos/Mountain View Area Cc: Gabe Engeland. Nick Zornes Angel Rodriguez
458
Agenda Item # 7.
From: Los Altos Affordable Housing Alliance
To: Public Comment; City Council
Cc: Gabriel Engeland
Subject: Public Comment Agenda Item #7: Sixth Cycle Housing Element 7/12/22 Date: Wednesday, July 6, 2022 4:59:59 PM
Attachments: LAAHA Letter #1 about Draft HE 2022 (for CC).pdf Hello City Council members,
Please find attached a letter from LAAHA regarding the Draft Housing Element.
Thank you,
Daphne Ross
--
Los Altos Affordable Housing Alliance
To educate and inspire the Los Altos community to build housing that is affordable for our workforce.
459
Agenda Item # 7.
July 5, 2022
To Mayor Enander, Vice Mayor Meadows, and Councilmembers, The Los Altos Affordable Housing Alliance congratulates the City’s planning staff in working with our consultants on the huge task of completing our draft Housing Element. In reading the draft Housing Element this week, we were very excited to see many of the proposed programs. We appreciate the City showing that we’re serious about our commitment to diversifying our housing stock, removing barriers to development, and creating an environment in which we can feasibly reach our RHNA targets. We would particularly like to commend the inclusion of the following:
● Programs 1A, 1B, and 1C, specifically that the OA zone will be rezoned to allow multi-family housing. The area of San Antonio Road east of downtown is a transit-friendly and logistically practical area to develop housing.
● Program 1E, which updates the Loyola Corners specific plan. This is necessary to create a thriving neighborhood hub.
● Program 2B, creating an in-lieu fee and a commercial linkage fee so that we can bring our City in line with other cities and also so that we have funding for affordable housing in the future. ● Program 2D regarding streamlining of ADUs. We applaud the decision to hire additional staff for this purpose.
Further considerations:
1. We advocated for and enthusiastically support Program 1.B: To continue to facilitate housing in the CT District, the City will remove the density maximum and increase the height allowed in the CT District. Because the housing plan is relying heavily on the CT District, for almost 500 new units in addition to the pipeline, we urge the City to clarify the height increase, by stating clearly that the City will increase the height allowance to permit at least one more story than is currently allowed. That would allow five story buildings before a Density Bonus, and six story buildings after a density bonus. As the Draft Housing Element states, this change would align Los 460
Agenda Item # 7.
Altos’ development with the buildings being built in neighboring cities along the El Camino corridor.
2. All of the arguments about increasing allowable height in the CT District also apply to the Sherwood Triangle area - the CN District bound by Sherwood Avenue, El Camino Real and San Antonio Road. It is along the El Camino corridor; the City is proposing to allow more height in neighboring CT parcels; and the new mixed use district just across El Camino in Mountain View allows six story buildings and even higher ones. The city has long wanted to see development in the Sherwood Triangle, evidenced by the fact that 19 parcels in Sherwood Triangle were included in 5th Cycle Housing Element Site Inventory, all of them holdovers from the 4th Cycle Site Inventory. Currently, base zoning in the Sherwood Triangle allows two stories with the first being commercial, or a very tight three stories squeezed into 30 feet of height. These constraints, out of step with the surrounding area, are development constraints. Only one project was approved in Sherwood Triangle during this cycle.
To facilitate development in the Sherwood Triangle, we urge the City to increase the allowable height in Sherwood Triangle to allow three stories (four stories with a density bonus).
Moreover, for parcels not fronting El Camino or San Antonio, the City should allow all-residential buildings, as the interior parcels are not ideal for commercial use. Relaxing the zoning in this way could induce owners to build, as we’ve heard from at least one developer.1 The city should also consider lot consolidation in this area as there is fragmented ownership and some small lots.
3. We are delighted to see one of our favorite proposals, housing on city-owned parking plazas, in Program 1H. The Housing Element Site Inventory projects 138 units of housing on the parking plazas, and we urge the city to make a firm commitment to developing all 138 units. We do not advocate developing all of the parking plazas for housing, and we do not believe it is necessary to choose which or how many parking plazas will be developed before the City adopts the Housing Element. However, regarding economies of scale, it perhaps makes sense to locate these 138 units on two parcels, instead of dividing the units over, say, six parcels.
4. We also believe that the Housing Element should commit to specific action steps regarding parking analysis. Program 3.A: Prepare a Downtown parking plan and update parking requirements is vague, and we know that HCD favors specificity and time limits. The Housing Element should commit to a parking restriping program and an in-lieu parking option by the end of 2023. It should also commit to creating lower parking requirements for smaller units by the end of 2024, as well as assessing the parking usage at existing multi-family buildings and amending the requirements based on those findings.
1 Mircea Voskerician
461
Agenda Item # 7.
Overall, the draft Housing Element for the 6th cycle is very promising, and we are excited about how the proposed programs will affect the direction of housing and development in our city.
Respectfully,
The Los Altos Affordable Housing Alliance Steering Committee Los Altos Affordable Housing Alliance
Committed to educating and inspiring the Los Altos community to build housing that is affordable for those who live and work in Los Altos
https://losaltosaffordablehousing.org/
462
Agenda Item # 7.
From: Elaine Haight
To: Public Comment
Cc:
Subject: Housing Element
Date: Thursday, July 7, 2022 9:57:43 AM
Dear Mayor Enander and Members of the City Council,
Thank you very much for your draft housing element. It shows that you are taking this legal process seriously, and that you truly intend to add to the very limited housing stock here in Los Altos. I am writing to address your intention to emphasize alternative transportation in your Housing Element.
It would be great if you state have concrete changes that would make the use of alternative transportation more desirable and convenient in Los Altos. As you probably know, people around here ride expensive bikes and bike theives are rampant. Here are some measures that would encourage cyclists to use their bikes for everyday transportation:
1) Every time there is a “happening” in downtown, there should be a bike valet where the bikes could be parked and watched. Greentown provided this service for a Los Altos fair last year, and the Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition does it regularly for other venues. Note that it is not helpful to offer a bike valet if you don’t advertise it prominently on any and all promotional materials. People will not ride their bikes to a venue if you don’t tell them upfront that there will be a safe place to park them.
2) Any new multi-family housing development must have a highly secure bike room designed into it from the start. Bike rooms are difficult to find convenient space for, and tricky to secure after the building has been built. These rooms are obviously huge targets for bike thieves. A bike room where residents can secure their bikes must be constructed at the time that the building is constructed.
3) Charge for parking spaces in multi-family housing developments. The family decision to use a second car vs. a bicycle must have an economic price to it. If neighbors are afraid that too many cars will park overnight on city streets for free, then a neighborhood parking permit plan can be put in place.
I’m sure you understand that the more cars Los Altos accomodates (or requires parking for), the fewer housing units the city can provide. Los Altos is a wonderful place for bicycles, and with a little planning we can take advantage of this fact to allow more people to live here.
Please add to the housing element a commitment to specific measures that encourage residents, workers and visitors to use alternative transportation.
Sincerely,
-Elaine Haight, Lisa Court, Los Altos
463
Agenda Item # 7.
PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE
The following is public correspondence received by the City Clerk’s Office after the posting of the original agenda. Individual contact information has been redacted for privacy. This may not be a comprehensive collection of the public correspondence, but staff makes its best effort to include all correspondence received to date.
To send correspondence to the City Council, on matters listed on the agenda please email [email protected]
464
Agenda Item # 7.
From: Roberta Phillips
To: Public Comment; City Council
Subject: Public Comment Housing Element July 12 Item #7 Date: Saturday, July 9, 2022 10:10:12 AM
Dear Council Members
I disagree with a section I found in the draft for HCD in the Housing Element document.The City Council should have the decision making power to approve or disapprove housing projects. You are the elected officials. The Planning Commission and Staff are not.I understand that you are trying to speed up the process, but most delays are caused by incomplete applications from developers.They do not make requested changes by the Commission nor Peer review.It is only when Council gets involved that needed modifications are made or negotiated.
Also the idea of consolidating Planning Commision with Design review is not wise. In the past, the Planning Commision has had so much on their plate that when they were responsible for transportation, they did not have the bandwidth to address the issues. Putting more on their plate will slow things down.
Please see the section that I am referring to below.
It appears that this might be a power grab on the part of the Planning Commission and the Planning Department to take away the decision making power from the City Council and give the power to themselves. It is very bad optics.
Sincerely
Roberta Phillips
30 Consolidate the Design Review Commission and Planning Commission into one body.
Modify design review process so Council serves only as the decision-making authority for appeal of design review decisions. Eliminate requirement for story poles 465
Agenda Item # 7.
From: Pat and Jerry Brodkey
To: Public Comment
Cc:
Subject: Agenda Item 7, July 12, 2022
Date: Saturday, July 9, 2022 11:40:34 AM
Dear Mayor Enander and Members of the City Council,
Congratulations to all who have worked so hard on the Housing Element.
I am so pleased to see as a city we are willing to change to make our town an even better place. The plans to develop in the downtown area with the parking plaza and development along San Antonio are outstanding.
Change can be difficult and it is great that as a community we are willing to step up and do our part to increase the supply of housing.
All the best,
Pat Brodkey
120 Los Altos Ave
28 year resident
466
Agenda Item # 7.
From: Pat Marriot
To: Public Comment
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM 7 JULY 12, 2022 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Date: Saturday, July 9, 2022 5:41:19 PM
Council Members:
PDF page 30 and page 173 Program 3.H: Amend design review process and requirements.
The City’s Design Review Commission and Planning Commission had previously been consolidated into one commission, which was again separated into two commissions in recent years.
I think this is an error. It was the Planning & Transportation Commission that was split a few years ago.
The City will consolidate the Design Review Commission and Planning Commission into one body
comprised of a maximum of seven appointed residents.
This is a bad idea if the consultants really mean the Design Review Commission. Reviewing single-family homes is quite different from reviewing multifamily, mixed use, commercial.
Different criteria. Planning Commission has to consider many more complicated issues.
The City’s design review process and applicability thresholds will be modified so that City Council serves only as the decision-making authority for appeal of design review decisions.
Another bad idea. Council has learned a lot regarding SB35 and understands the need to use only OBJECTIVE standards. The Planning Commission is a group of residents that makes recommendations to Council. I want my elected representatives involved in reviewing major projects, not just looking at appeals.
Pat Marriott Los Altos
467
Agenda Item # 7.
From: Roberta Phillips
To: City Council; Public Comment
Subject: Housing Element Council meeting July 12.2022
Date: Sunday, July 10, 2022 10:36:00 AM
Dear Council Members
I was reading the draft for Tuesday's meeting and found an error.
The report says:
Program 3.H: Amend design review process and requirements. The City’s Design Review Commission and Planning Commission had previously been consolidated into one commission, which was again separated into two commissions in recent years. The current structure of the Design Review Commission is a five-person body appointed by the City Council, while the Planning Commission is a seven-person body. Recent changes in State law drastically reduced the Design Review Commission’s purview, and the City’s well developed objective design standards for a variety of development types (adopted in 2021) effectively created an Administrative Design Review that has been well implemented by City staff. The City will consolidate the Design Review Commission and Planning Commission into one body comprised of a maximum of seven appointed residents. The City’s design review process and applicability thresholds will be modified so that City Council serves only as the decisionmaking authority for appeal of design review decisions. Additionally, housing developments and emergency shelters will only be subject to objective design standards consistent with State law, and the requirement for the installation of story poles will be eliminated" This is factually incorrect
The Planning Commission and Design Review Commission were never joined as one and then separated out. The Planning Commission was once the Planning and Transportation Commission, but then the transportation part was separated out and the Complete Streets Commission was formed. Council made that decision with the Planning Commissions as the planning Commission did not pay attention and were happy to get it off their plate.
Factually incorrect statements do not belong in the report.
It is a bad idea to join the Planning and Design review Commision into one Commission and restrict City Council from reviewing proposed buildings . City Council are elected officials .
They need to maintain responsibility and accountability. 468
Agenda Item # 7.
From: Pamela Schreiber
To: Public Comment
Subject: Fw: Public Comment Agenda Item # 7 for meeting 7/12/2022 2100 Woods Lane Los Altos Parcel 1, APN 34204078 Parcel 2, APN 34204089
Date: Sunday, July 10, 2022 8:00:03 PM
Dear Council,
I would like to respectfully provide feedback on the proposed development which is in proximity to the Toyon Farm community. My husband and I have been resident homeowners at Toyon Farm for over 15 years. It is a wonderful place to live for many reasons. One key reason is the community and land has been well cared for. I have grave concerns in the push to build more dwellings that this would negatively impact those of us who call Toyon Farm home. Please see a list of concerns below as it relates to these parcels of land. I stand with our neighbors in raising these concerns.
1. Parcel 1, APN 34204078, has a lot size of 1.12 acres, with a maximum 5 units and a realistic number of 1 unit.
This is the smallest parcel close to 280. It has no ingress or egress and is at the back of parcel 2 (APN 34204089).
2. Parcel 2, APN 34204089, has a lot size of 7.97 acres, with a maximum 35 units and a realistic number of 10 units.
Parcel 2 has a riparian watershed through the center of the property, 2 dams and the Woods Lane road. The Woods Lane road is the only ingress and egress for Toyon Farm residents living on Woods Lane, Citation Drive and for the 2100 Woods Lane property.
The concerns expressed by residents for Parcel 2 (APN 34204089 include:
1. Future development of the riparian watershed area has to be approved by the SF Bay Water Quality Board, CA Fish and Wildlife and US Army Corps of Engineers.
2. Toyon Farm could be flooded if the 2 dams are removed, damaged or blocked during development. The 2 dams serve as reservoirs to protect TFHOA property and homes on Woods Lane and Farm Road from flooding during heavy rains. It is also questionable if the 2 dams could hold back the additional run-off water from any new development upstream.
3. An increase in Woods Lane traffic will impact Toyon Farm residents, visitors, pedestrians, bikers and vehicular traffic. This is a safety issue as there are no sidewalks and residents of Toyon Farm enjoy walking in the wooded areas and along the roads that were never designed to carry frequent car traffic.
4. Woods Lane is a narrow and winding private lane. It is an ingress and egress for Toyon residents living on Woods Lane and Citation Drive and the only ingress and egress to the 2100 Woods Lane property. It is bounded by a step hill and on the other side by vegetation and water/pond
5. Woods Lane may not be able to safely accommodate an increase in traffic from Toyon Farm and a development on the 2100 Woods Lane property during an emergency or wildfire.
Thank you so very much for considering these issues. Toyon Farm is our home and one that we want to live in for a long time to come.
Pamela Schreiber-Carey
Pamela Schreiber-Carey
469
Agenda Item # 7.
July, 2022
Mayor Enander and Members of the City Council
City of Los Altos
1 N. San Antonio Road
Los Altos, CA 94022
Re: Agenda Item #7 – Sixth Cycle Housing Element, Council Meeting July 12th Dear Mayor Enander and Members of the City Council:
The League continues to support a comprehensive plan to address housing that follows State law, and we thank the Staff and LWC for a Draft Housing Element that provides bold steps towards a compliant Housing Element. We appreciate Staff providing street addresses along with APN#s as these are easier for the public to understand. That said, we have some major concerns.
First, we would like the downtown parking plazas to be identified with their Lot numbers as they are in the Downtown Vision. Second, although we are pleased to see that a large buffer has been proposed, we think this buffer could rapidly disappear if the recommended rezonings and programs are not put in place.
In addition, many sites listed are unlikely to be developed. For example, all the downtown parking plazas are listed; it is unrealistic to think that all will be developed with housing as the City will want to retain some surface parking and one parcel has already been designated for a potential theater. Therefore, the projected number of units on each lot is unrealistic. However, perhaps the total projected number for all the lots (138) could be a goal for one or two of the lots, better explained as part of Program 1.H. Also, for any of these sites to be attractive to affordable housing developers, as is discussed in Programs, the density/height must be increased, and the City will need to provide financial resources.
Other sites such as Draegers have been recently remodeled, making it unlikely they will be developed with housing during the next Housing Element cycle. Spokespeople for the two churches designated have stated they have no interest in building housing. Foothill Crossing, projected for 80 units, recently signed a long-term lease with a major new tenant and has expressed no interest. We suggest that these sites and others be more vigorously vetted before they are included in the site inventory.
We applaud many of the programs. We especially like Program. 1.H with its specific timeline for developing affordable housing on at least one downtown parking plaza. But without some City financing and upzoning, this program is unrealistic.
Another program the City should include is an Affordable Housing Overlay Zone for the downtown parking lots as well as other areas of the City. The City should meet with developers to see what needs to be included in order to encourage housing, i.e., height, density, fees, setbacks, etc.) 470
Agenda Item # 7.
We also commend the following programs: 1.B re the CT District, 1.C re the OA District, 1.E re Loyola Corners and
1.F re Village Court. However, we would like to see specifics, such as allow an additional story, rather than “increase building heights” (1.B), and, again, specific proposed modifications for density and height (1.E).
Program 1.I to incentivize Downtown lot consolidation is also commendable, and we recommend that lot consolidation be encouraged for other areas such as Sherwood Triangle., but there is a lack of commitment to measurable success criteria. This program and others should have metrics-based objectives.
We have long advocated that the City adopt a commercial linkage fee as envisioned by an enabling ordinance adopted four years ago (Muni Code 3.49.070, Ord. No. 2018-444), but don’t understand why this should take till the end of 2025. Re ADUs, we strongly support providing permit ready standard ADU plans (2.D), but don’t like the verbiage “consider permit fee waivers…”as once again this reflects a lack of commitment.
All the programs listed under Goal 3 to Remove constraints to the development of housing should be included, but we especially recommend updating the parking requirements (3.A) and Amending design review process (3.H).
Some specific changes to parking requirements could be promised in the Housing Element based upon the draft parking ordinance approved by the Planning Commission in 2018, such as reducing the width of parking spaces, and lane dimensions, creating a program with in-lieu parking fees, along with reducing parking for senior and deed-restricted units, and specific requirements for buildings with mechanical lifts. A parking in-lieu fee program would allow development on smaller lots downtown where the owners cannot provide the required parking on site and would generate funds to expand and enhance the parking supply. The Design Review process will be improved by eliminating the DRC as a separate body and by eliminating story poles and ensuring that all design standards are objective. Programs 3.B and 3.C are necessary for some of the sites listed in the inventory to be developed.
Program 5.B re the City’s contract with Alta Housing should be updated to reflect the recent Council discussion with Alta and the possibility that another administrative agency might be retained at the end of Alta’s contract next year.
Finally, we would urge the City to commit to providing some safe parking for vehicle-dwellers, whether on City-owned property or by working with faith-based institutions. As the Housing Element notes, several of the churches have large parking lots; these are being used for safe parking in other nearby communities.
In summary, we hope all the programs proposed in the Draft Housing Element will be adopted with some additions and changes to make the programs and timelines more specific. (Please send any questions about this email to
Karin Bricker, President LWV of Los Altos/Mountain View Area Cc: Gabe Engeland. Nick Zornes Angel Rodriguez
471
Agenda Item # 7.
From: Monica Waldman
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External Sender]PUBLIC COMMENT AGENDA ITEM 7 for 7/12/22 Date: Monday, July 11, 2022 11:23:59 AM
Dear Mayor Enander and Members of the City Council,
I have some concerns about the Public Review Draft of the 6th Cycle Housing Element 2023-2031 by Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc. to be discussed during the 7/12/22 meeting:
1.Some verbiage placed into the draft as nice to haves:
-Page 30-34 “Goal 4: Create housing opportunities for people with special needs” Includes many programs with “Funding Source: General Fund.” Los Altos has a smaller tax base than neighboring cities such as Mountain View and Palo Alto, where is the money from the “General Fund” going to come from to fund these programs?
-Page 29 “The Zoning Code will also be amended to allow large residential care facilities (seven or more persons) in all residential zones without discretionary review (i.e., subject only to objective standards). Residential care facilities will not be limited to individuals of 60 years of age or over, and a barrier-free definition of “family” that encompasses unrelated individuals living together as a single residential unit will be added consistent with State law.”
I had a family member in a residential care facility with more than six individuals living in a house in a residential portion of Menlo Park. The facility created excess cars on the street belonging to staff and visitors which included family, friends, delivery vehicles and County staff.
Occasionally residents exited the facility, causing police intervention and lock downs of nearby homes. I ask that Los Altos not allow large facilities, often run by private equity firms (https://middlemarketgrowth.org/the-round-alcohol-and-drug-treatment-centers-draw-private-equitybacking/), to be permitted in residential areas. -Page 31 says “The Zoning Code does not address low barrier navigation centers (LBNCs), defined as Housing First, low-barrier, service enriched shelters focused on moving people into permanent housing that provide temporary living facilities while case managers connect individuals experiencing homelessness to income, public benefits, health services, shelter, and housing (Government Code §65660). State law requires LBNCs to be permitted by-right in areas zoned for mixed-use and nonresidential zones permitting multifamily uses provided they satisfying the provisions established by AB 101 (see Government Code §65662). This would allow LBNCs in the CD/R3, CN, CD, CRS, CT, and CRS-OAD districts. The City will amend its Zoning Code to explicitly allow LBNCs as provided by State law.” Government Code §65662 (https://law.justia.com/codes/california/2020/code-gov/title-7/division-1/chapter-3/article-12/section-65662/) says “A local jurisdiction shall permit a Low Barrier Navigation Center development provided that it meets the following requirements:
(a) It offers services to connect people to permanent housing through a services plan that identifies services staffing. [...]” At this time Los Altos does not have any Low Barrier Navigation Center(s) nor do we have a plan to offer services to connect people to permanent housing. The suggestion should be taken out of the Housing Element. -Page 165 says “State law requires local governments to treat licensed residential care facilities (sometimes called group homes) with six or fewer residents as a residential use and subject to the same development standards as a single-family dwelling. Furthermore, no conditional use permit, zoning variance, or other zoning clearance shall be required of a residential facility that serves six or fewer persons that is not required of a family dwelling of the same type in the same zone. The residents and operators of a residential care facility shall be considered a family for the purposes of any law or zoning ordinance that relates to the residential use of property. However, “six or fewer persons” does not include the operator, operator’s family, or persons employed as staff.
No State law is cited. Please have the document updated to include the State law we need to comply with.
2.ADUs