Los Gatos City Council
December 19, 2023

Appendix C. Governmental and Non-Governmental Constraints November September March 2023 Appendix C C-43
occupied until the Building Official has issued a certificate of occupancy. The section below describes the average processing time for typical residential development applications.

Processing of a typical, market rate single- or multi-family housing application includes the following steps:

Submission of an Architecture and Site Application.

Distribution of the application to Planning, Building, Engineering, and the Santa Clara County Fire District departments.

Staff review of application and staff conference with the applicant to resolve any concerns or plan deficiencies, including design issues.

If deemed complete, staff continues processing the application and begins environmental review, if necessary.

Completion of environmental review and traffic impact analysis, as appropriate. Arborist review, architectural review, and/or geotechnical review may be conducted during this time through the Architecture and Site application. A deposit for review by the Town’s Consulting Architect and Consulting Arborist is requested during the application review. A peer review deposit for geotechnical and traffic impact analysis is requested by the Parks and Public Works Department during the application review.

Staff will then provide instructions on next steps, including the requirement for Story Poles.

Once the Story Poles have been installed and certified by a licensed surveyor or civil engineer to accurately represent the height and location of the proposed structure(s), public notice will be sent, and advertisement in the local newspaper approximately three weeks prior to making a decision on the project will be completed.

Pursuant to the Town Code, any interested person as defined in Section 29.10.020 may appeal to the Council any decision of the Planning Commission within 10 calendar days of the decision accompanied by the required filing fee.

Once the appeal period has passed, the applicant can remove the Story Poles.

Approval is required by the following bodies:

Development Review Committee (with appeal to the Planning Commission and further appeal to the Town Council) for projects that require no change in the General Plan or Zoning Code.

For hillside development applications, Planning Commission approval may be required depending on the scope of the project.

Town Council for projects that require a change in the General Plan or Zoning Code, and for Planned Developments.

Processing for a typical mixed-use housing project includes the following steps:

Submission of application, including application for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP), and an Architecture and Site Application.

Distribution of the application to Planning, Building Engineering, and the Santa Clara County Fire District departments.

Staff review of application and staff conference with applicant to resolve any concerns or plan deficiencies, including design issues.

If deemed complete, staff continues processing the application and begins environmental review, if necessary.

Completion of environmental review and traffic impact analysis, as appropriate. Arborist review, architectural review, and/or geotechnical review may be conducted during this time through the Architecture and Site application.

Staff will then provide instructions on next steps, including the requirement for Story Poles.

Once the Story Poles have been installed and certified by a licensed surveyor or civil engineer to accurately represent the height and location of the proposed structure(s), public notice will be sent, and advertisement in the local newspaper approximately three weeks prior to making a decision on the project will be completed.

Pursuant to the Town Code, any interested person as defined in Section 29.10.020 may appeal to the Council any decision of the Planning Commission within 10 calendar days of the decision accompanied by the required filing fee.

HCD Draft Revised Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
C-44 Appendix C March NovemberSeptember 2023
Once the appeal period has passed, the applicant can remove the Story Poles.

Approval is required by one or both of the following bodies:

Planning Commission (with appeal to the Town Council) for projects that require no change in the General Plan or Zoning Code, and for a CUP and Architecture and Site Application.

Town Council for projects that require a change in the General Plan or Zoning Code, and for Planned Developments.

Permit Processing Time
Design and neighborhood compatibility issues also often lengthen the permitting and processing time. To address this problem, the Town contracts out to an architectural consultant to review plans and provide recommendations on development applications’ compliance with the Residential Design Guidelines or Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines.

Architectural, geotechnical, and arborist reviews are conducted early in the development application process.

These reviews are conducted during thesimultaneously with the review of the Planned Development or Architecture and Site applications and do not lengthen the processing time. These reviews also streamline the public hearing process, allowing the Planning Commission to rely on the recommendations of Town staff and the Town’s consultants to receive qualified input from an architect, arborist, and geotechnical consultant, leading to a more efficient approval process.

The table below summarizes the approximate processing time for development applications in the Town.

Table C-98 Local Development Processing Time Frame
Application Type Length of Approval
Architecture and Site Application for a single- or
multi-family residential project
Three to six months *
Architecture and Site Application for a hillside
residential project
Four to six months *
Architecture and Site Application for a mixeduse project Four to eight months * Conditional Use Permit Application Two to four months
Subdivision Application Two to four months
Variance Application Two to four months
* Note: With environmental review, the process generally takes six to 18 months, depending on the size, complexity, level of CEQA review required.

Source: Town of Los Gatos.

Processing Time Relative to Santa Clara County
The Town’s processing time for permits and development review is comparable to other jurisdictions in Santa Clara County. Qualifying affordable housing developments (SB 35) are eligible for ministerial review, which significantly reduces the length of the review process. The Town’s processing times are not considered an undue constraint on housing development. In comparison to jurisdictions within Santa Clara County, the processing times for applications in the Town are generally aligned with the approximate time frames, as provide in Table C109, below. Processing times represent general applications, and processing time may increase due to a variety of factors including the complexity of the site, applicant responsiveness and completeness of application materials, and studies required for environmental review. All jurisdictions face these factors which can modify the permit processing time due the scope the project and site conditions.

Appendix C. Governmental and Non-Governmental Constraints November September March 2023 Appendix C C-45
Table C-8 109 Processing Times (in months)
Jurisdiction ADU
Process
Ministerial
By-Right
Discretionary
By-Right
Discretionary
(Development Review
CommiteeCommittee)
Discretionary
(Planning
Commission)
Discretionary
(Town
Council)
Campbell 1 1 3 N/A 5 8
Cupertino 1 to 3 1 to 6 2 to 4 2 to 4 3 to 6 6 to 12
Gilroy 1 to 2 1 to 2 2 to 4 N/A 4 to 5 5 to 6
Los Altos Hills 1 to 2 0.5 to 2 2 to 3 3 to 4 4 to 6 5 to 8 Los Gatos 1 to 2 1 to 2 1 to 2 2 to 4 4 to 6 6 to 12
Milpitas 1 to 3 1 to 3 2 to 4 3 to 4 4 to 6 6 to 12
Monte Sereno 0.75 0.75 1 1 to 2 1 to 2 1 to 2
Morgan Hill 1 to 2 1 to 3 *2 to 3 2 to 3 4 to 6 4 to 6
Mountain View 3 to 5 4 to 6 2 to 3 *6 to 18 N/A 12 to 24 San Jose 2 1 to 3 7 7 7 to 11 5 to 12
Santa Clara 0 to 1 0 to 1 0 to 3 4 to 9 6 to 9 6 to 12
Saratoga 1 1 to 2 2 to 3 N/A 4 to 6 6 to 12
Sunnyvale 1 to 3 1 to 3 3 to 6 6 to 9 9 to 18 9 to 18
Unincorporated
County 4 to 6 6 to 8 9 to 12 12 to 15 15 to 18 15 to 18 Entitlements Only. Source: SCCPC, 2022 citiesassociation.org/documents/constraints-survey-data-summary-2022.

Source: Town of Los Gatos.

Following the creation of Table C-9, iIn response to changes in State law as of January 1, 2023, and as part of the Town’s ongoing efforts to increase efficiency for permit reviews, the Town’s Planning and Building Divisions have developed a new Building permit application form and process. Residents who wish to build a new ADU or JADU can now submit a single application form and proceed through a single plan review process in order to obtain their Building Permit.

Jurisdictional permit processing procedures that are lengthy or uncertain can dissuade developers from building new housing or result in housing that is more expensive. Within Los Gatos, the permit processing times are within the average range for jurisdictions within Santa Clara County. The Town’s permit process also does not disproportionally burden ADU applications or applications for multi-family housing.

Approval Body and Appellant Body for Housing Permits
The following table indicates the approval body and appellant body for each housing permit type.

Table C-11 Approval Body for Planning Permits
Approval Body
Appellant
Body
Permit Types Director Development
Review Committee
(DRC)
Planning Commission
(PC)
Town Council (TC)
ADU (Ministerial) --
SB 9 (Ministerial) --

HCD Draft Revised Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
C-46 Appendix C March NovemberSeptember 2023
General Plan
Amendment
Recommendation to TC --
Rezone Recommendation to TC --
Planned Development Recommendation to TC --
Architecture and Site
Application
Pending scope Pending scope
PC and TC
Conditional Use Permit
Pending scope Pending scope
PC and TC
Variance TC
Subdivision
Pending scope Pending scope Pending scope
PC and TC
SB-330
Pending scope Pending scope
TC
SB-35 – Streamline
Findings and Permit Processes Related to Housing
Housing permits fall into one of two categories: ministerial andor discretionary. The following section discusses the types of residential development approved through ministerial and discretionary processes and the requirements for approval.

Ministerial/By-Right Permits
Ministerial permits, often referred to as by-right permits, are typically required for uses or structures that meet Town requirements. These permits do not require discretionary review and are approved by staff if the project complies with applicable regulations and ordinances.

Ministerial Housing Project Types:
 Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) – Building Permit Only
 Jr. Accessory Dwelling Unit (JADU) – Building Permit Only  Senate Bill 9 (SB 9) – SB 9 Application Required
There are no required findings for ministerial projects as long as they meet the Town and State requirements.

Discretionary Permits
Discretionary permits requires review and approval by a decision maker to allow a specific type of land use and/or allow for construction, modification, or use to a building. Examples of discretionary review include residential subdivisions, new residences, planned developments, and mixed-use residential development. As part of the discretionary review process, the project will be reviewed in conformance with applicable ordinances and regulations including the Town’s General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and when applicable the Town’s Residential Design Guidelines (non-hillside), Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines (hillside), Objective Design Standards for Qualifying Multi-Family and Residential Mixed-Use Developments, Affordable Housing Overlay Design Guidelines, planned developments, and specific plans. In addition, the project will be reviewed for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) which may require preparation of an environmental document and a public review period. A public hearing may also be required to issue a discretionary permit. Examples of discretionary permits related to housing include: Architecture and Site Applications;, Conditional Use Permits;, Variances;, Subdivisions;, Rezones; and General Plan Amendments.

Appendix C. Governmental and Non-Governmental Constraints November September March 2023 Appendix C C-47
Discretionary Permit Findings Related to Housing
The deciding body must make specific findings and or considerations based on Town Code, and this varies depending upon the scope of project and the type of discretionary permit required.. The following describes the required findings and considerations for discretionary permits related to housing:

Discretionary Review - Architecture and Site Application The goal of the Architecture and Site approval process is to ensure quality design and proper siting of residential and commercial structures which complement the Town environment and to preserve open spaces in the Town.

Per Town Code Section 29.20.145, Architecture and Site approval is required for new construction of any principal building in any zone, including all new residential units. It is also required for exterior alterations or additions in some cases. The Architecture and Site approval process does not apply to ADUs, JADUs, SB 9 units, or projects qualifying for streamlined review pursuant to SB 35.

Town Code Section 29.20.145. Approval required.

The DRC may be the approval authority for discretionary applications, such as an Architecture and Site application dependent upon the scope of the project and whether the project complies with the Residential Design Guidelines and/or Hillside Development Standard and Guidelines. Should a project request an exception(s) to the referenced Town documents, the discretionary application may go straight to the Planning Commission as the deciding body. Pursuant to Town Code Section 29.20.150, the approving body may shall consider the following factors in reviewing an Architecture and Site application:

Architecture and site approval is required in all zones for the following:
(1) New construction of any principal building;
(2) An exterior alteration that changes the architectural style of a single-family and two-family residence. (3) Any exterior alteration or addition to a building excluding:
a. Alterations or additions to a single- and two-family dwelling that do not require approval by the Planning Commission or Development Review Committee pursuant to the Residential Design Guidelines or the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines; b. Minor exterior alterations to commercial and multifamily buildings. (4) Intensification of land use. For the purposes of this section only, intensification of land use means all changes in use which require more parking and/or results in an increase in peak hour trips for mixed use, multi-tenant commercial, industrial or multifamily development projects if the trips exceed the traffic generation factor assigned to the project at the time of approval and/or an increase of five (5) or more peak hour trips;
(5) Residence conversions;
(6) Any development in a floodplain as required by article IX of this chapter; and as otherwise specified in this article.

Town Code Section 29.20.150. Considerations in review of applications.

The deciding body shall consider all relevant matter including, but not limited to, the following:
(1) Considerations relating to traffic safety and traffic congestion. The effect of the site development plan on traffic conditions on abutting streets; the layout of the site with respect to locations and dimensions of vehicular and pedestrian entrances, exits, drives, and walkways; the adequacy of off-street parking facilities to prevent traffic congestion; the location, arrangement, and dimension of truck loading and unloading facilities; the circulation pattern within the boundaries of the development, and the surfacing, lighting and handicapped accessibility of off-street parking facilities. a. Any project or development that will add traffic to roadways and critical intersections shall be analyzed, and a determination made on the following matters:

1. The ability of critical roadways and major intersections to accommodate existing traffic;

HCD Draft Revised Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
C-48 Appendix C March NovemberSeptember 2023

2. Increased traffic estimated for approved developments not yet occupied; and

3. Regional traffic growth and traffic anticipated for the proposed project one (1) year after occupancy.
b. The deciding body shall review the application for traffic roadway/intersection capacity and make one (1) of the following determinations:

1. The project will not impact any roadways and/or intersections causing the roadways and/or intersections to exceed their available capacities.

2. The project will impact a roadway(s) and/or intersection(s) causing the roadway(s) and/or intersection(s) to exceed their available capacities.

Any project receiving Town determination subsection (1)b.1. may proceed. Any project receiving Town determination subsection (1)b.2. must be modified or denied if the deciding body determines that the impact is unacceptable. In determining the acceptability of a traffic impact, the deciding body shall consider if the project's benefits to the community override the traffic impacts as determined by specific sections from the general plan and any applicable specific plan.
(2) Considerations relating to outdoor advertising. The number, location, color, size, height, lighting and landscaping of outdoor advertising signs and structures in relation to the creation of traffic hazards and the appearance and harmony with adjacent development. Specialized lighting and sign systems may be used to distinguish special areas or neighborhoods such as the downtown area and Los Gatos Boulevard.
(3) Considerations relating to landscaping. The location, height, and materials of walls, fences, hedges and screen plantings to einsure harmony with adjacent development or to conceal storage areas, utility installations, parking lots or unsightly development; the planting of ground cover or other surfacing to prevent dust and erosion; and the unnecessary destruction of existing healthy trees. Emphasize the use of planter boxes with seasonal flowers to add color and atmosphere to the central business district. Trees and plants shall be approved by the Director of Parks, Forestry and Maintenance Services for the purpose of meeting special criteria, including climatic conditions, maintenance, year-round versus seasonal color change (blossom, summer foliage, autumn color), special branching effects and other considerations.
(4) Considerations relating to site layout. The orientation and location of buildings and open spaces in relation to the physical characteristics of the site and the character of the neighborhood; and the appearance and harmony of the buildings with adjacent development. Buildings should strengthen the form and image of the neighborhood (e.g., downtown, Los Gatos Boulevard, etc.). Buildings should maximize preservation of solar access. In the downtown, mid-block pedestrian arcades linking Santa Cruz Avenue with existing and new parking facilities shall be encouraged, and shall include such crime prevention elements as good sight lines and lighting systems. (5) Considerations relating to drainage. The effect of the site development plan on the adequacy of storm and surface water drainage.
(6) Considerations relating to the exterior architectural design of buildings and structures. The effect of the height, width, shape and exterior construction and design of buildings and structures as such factors relate to the existing and future character of the neighborhood and purposes of the zone in which they are situated, and the purposes of architecture and site approval. Consistency and compatibility shall be encouraged in scale, massing, materials, color, texture, reflectivity, openings and other details. (7) Considerations relating to lighting and street furniture. Streets, walkways, and building lighting should be designed so as to strengthen and reinforce the image of the Town. Street furniture and equipment, such as lamp standards, traffic signals, fire hydrants, street signs, telephones, mail boxes, refuse receptacles,

Appendix C. Governmental and Non-Governmental Constraints November September March 2023 Appendix C C-49
bus shelters, drinking fountains, planters, kiosks, flag poles and other elements of the street environment should be designated and selected so as to strengthen and reinforce the Town image. (8) Considerations relating to access for physically disabled persons. The adequacy of the site development plan for providing accessibility and adaptability for physically disabled persons. Any improvements to a nonresidential building where the total valuation of alterations, structural repairs or additions exceeds a threshold value established by resolution of the Town Council, shall require the building to be modified to meet the accessibility requirements of title 24 of the California Administrative Code adaptability and accessibility. In addition to retail, personal services and health care services are not allowable uses on non-accessible floors in new nonresidential buildings. Any change of use to retail, health care, or personal service on a non-accessible floor in a nonresidential building shall require that floor to be accessible to physically disabled persons pursuant to the accessibility requirements of title 24 of the California Administrative Code and shall not qualify the building for unreasonable hardship exemption from meeting any of those requirements. This provision does not affect lawful uses in existence prior to the enactment of this chapter. All new residential developments shall comply with the Town's adaptability and accessibility requirements for physically disabled persons established by resolution. (9) Considerations relating to the location of a hazardous waste management facility. A hazardous waste facility shall not be located closer than 500 feet to any residentially zoned or used property or any property then being used as a public or private school primarily educating persons under the age of 18.

An application for such a facility will require an environmental impact report, which may be focused through the initial study process.

In addition to the Architecture and Site application considerations the following findings and considerations must be made with an Architecture and Site application.
 CEQA;
 Required consistency with the Town’s General Plan;
 Compliance with Zoning Regulations;
 Compliance with the Residential Design Guidelines (non-hillside) or Hillside Development Standard and Guidelines (when applicable); and
 Compliance with the Objective Design Standards for the Rreview of Multi-Family Housing and Mixed-Use Development applications (when applicable).

As written, the scope of considerations that the approval authority may review during the decision-making process is broad and leaves significant room for interpretation. This process has served the community well in ensuring that projects reflect the Town’s character and design values. However, the subjective nature of the “considerations” is a constraint to new residential development because it reduces the approval certainty for projects. Therefore, the Housing Element includes a program to modify the Zoning Code to require multi-family and mixed-use projects to be subject to the Town’s objective design standards, rather than current the Architecture and Site considerations.

Discretionary Review - Conditional Use Permit
The Conditional Use Permit (CUP) process provides additional consideration to ensure compatibility for uses that have a potential to have a greater impact on surrounding uses. The following residential development types require a CUP:
 Residential units as part of a mixed-use project One-family dwelling (in a mixed-use project) – Zones: O, C-1, C-2, and CH
Two-family dwelling (in a mixed-use project) – Zones: O, C-1, and CH Multi-family dwelling (in a mixed-use project) – Zones: O, C-1, C-2, and CH  Mobile home park – Zone: RM
 Caretaker residence – Zones: RC and HR
 Conversion of a mobile home park to any other use – Zones: R-M and RHM

HCD Draft Revised Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
C-50 Appendix C March NovemberSeptember 2023
 Live/work units – Zones: O, C-1, C-2, CH and LM
The DRC or PC are the approval authority for CUP applications, depending on the scope of the project. Pursuant to Town Code Section 29.20.190, the approval authority must make the following findings when granting a CUP:

Town Code Section 29.20.190. Findings and decision.
(a) The deciding body, on the basis of the evidence submitted at the hearing, may grant a conditional use permit when specifically authorized by the provisions of this chapter if it finds that:
(1) The proposed uses of the property are essential or desirable to the public convenience or welfare; (2) The proposed uses will not impair the integrity and character of the zone; (3) The proposed uses would not be detrimental to public health, safety or general welfare; and (4) The proposed uses of the property are in harmony with the various elements or objectives of the general plan and the purposes of this chapter.
(5) A hazardous waste facility proposal is subject to the California Health and Safety Code, Article 8.7, Section 25199—25199.14 and shall be consistent with the Santa Clara County Hazardous Waste Management Plan.

In addition to the Conditional Use Permit application findings following findings and considerations must be made:
 CEQA;
 Required consistency with the Town’s General Plan; and  Compliance with Zoning Regulations.

The required finding #2 – regarding integrity and character of the zone – is open to interpretation and therefore has the potential to constrain housing development. This Housing Element includes a program to revise the required findings for multi-family and mixed use projects to be based on objective standards that provide certainty in outcomes.

Discretionary Review - Variance
Town Code Sec. 29.20.170. Same—Findings and decision.

The deciding body, on the basis of the evidence submitted at the hearing, may grant a variance if it finds that:
(1) Because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of this ordinance deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zone; and (2) The granting of a variance would not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which such property is situated.

In addition to the Variance application findings the following findings and considerations must be made:

CEQA;
Required consistency with the Town’s General Plan; and
Compliance with Zoning Regulations.

Discretionary Review - Planned Development
Town Code Sec. 29.80.080. Limitations on use of a planned development. (a) The PD overlay is not intended for:
(1) Uses inconsistent with the general plan;
(2) Proposed development that is reasonably feasible under the existing Town Code; or (3) A deviation of standards applicable to similar types of development. (b) An application for a PD shall only be considered by the recommending and deciding bodies if it meets the purpose and intent of this division, and meets one or more of the following criteria:

Appendix C. Governmental and Non-Governmental Constraints November September March 2023 Appendix C C-51
(1) A project that provides a public benefit to the citizens of the Town. (2) Property that is designated within the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines Area Map. (3) Property that has a historical designation or is within a Landmark Historic Preservation (LHP) Overlay Zone.
(4) Property with a tree or "stand of trees" that is unique, historical, ecological, or of aesthetic value, as determined according to standards set forth in the Town's Tree Protection Ordinance. (5) Property that contains a stream, channel, or creek that supports or has supported riparian vegetation, fish, and/or aquatic life as further defined in the guidelines and standards for land use near streams. (6) A property with a geological hazard or within a fault zone.

Town Code Sec. 29.80.095. Findings.

The deciding body, on the basis of the totality of the evidence and testimony submitted at the hearing, may adopt a PD if all of the following findings can be made:
(1) The proposed PD is in compliance with all sections of this division. (2) The proposed PD is in conformance with the goals, policies, and applicable land use designation(s) and standards of the Town's general plan.
(3) The proposed PD is in conformance with all other applicable land use regulations, including but not limited to Town Council adopted guidelines, except as otherwise provided in section 29.80.095(4). (4) Any proposed use or development standards that deviate from the underlying zoning district(s) result in innovative and creative site planning to develop:
a. Housing with a minimum of forty (40) percent of the units affordable to households of very low, low, or moderate income; or
b. Mixed commercial, or mixed residential, or mixed commercial and residential development; or c. A development designed and sited to protect, preserve and enhance conservation and enrichment of hillsides, natural and/or historic resources, ridgelines, a tree or stand of trees, creek and riparian corridors, geologic hazard or fault zone, and open space; or d. A project that maximizes open space; or
e. The proposed PD provides a public benefit to the citizens of the Town.

In addition to the Planned Development application findings the following findings and considerations must be made:

CEQA and
 Required consistency with the Town’s General Plan.

Story Poles
The Town requires installation of height story poles and netting for all new residential (excluding single-story accessory structures) and non-residential buildings; residential second story additions; and nonresidential additions exceeding 100 square feet. This requirement is intended to demonstrate the planned rooflines and heights and massing of the proposed structure(s) and provide visual notice to the community of a forthcoming land use public hearing. The placement of story poles is extremely helpful and important during the Town’s review of applications for new development. Story poles enhance understanding of the project for Town residents, staff advisory bodies, and decision-making bodies. However, the cost of story pole and netting installation, maintenance throughout the public hearing process, and additional time added to the process for installation can be viewed as a constraint for development. Implementation Program BM requires the review of the Town’s Story Pole and Netting Policy and exploration of options for residential or mixed-use projects with affordable housing to reduce the associated cost of installing story poles.

Public Art for Private Developments
A robust public art program fosters economic development, creates vital public spaces, and promotes general health and welfare by contributing to a more desirable community in which to live, work, and recreate. Wellconceived and executed works of art that are integrated into their sites and accessible to the public enhance the value of development projects, create greater interest in leased space, promote cultural tourism, create a sense of place, and make a lasting visible contribution to the intellectual, emotional, and creative life of the community at

HCD Draft Revised Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
C-52 Appendix C March NovemberSeptember 2023
large, thereby helping to mitigate the impacts of development. The experience of public art makes public areas of buildings and grounds more inviting and engaging. There is a growing national trend of including private developments in a public art funding requirement by ordinance. In California, more than 48 cities have such an ordinance or policy.

On May 4, 2021, the Town Council adopted Ordinance 2318 amending Chapter 25 of the Town Code to establish a public art requirement for private developments. The requirement for public art will apply to the following types of development:
(a) New commercial developments (including mixed-use projects), including new construction, and additions and remodels that add more than 50% square footage; and (b) New residential projects of three or more units, including new construction, and additions and remodels that add more than 50% square footage.
(c) Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b) above, this Chapter shall not apply to:
(i) Affordable housing developments, or, if affordable housing is a part of the development, the affordable housing units shall be subtracted from the valuation of the project as in subsection (d) below; (ii) Historic renovations;
(iii) Repair or reconstruction of structures damaged by flood, fire, wind, earthquake, or other disaster; (iv) Seismic retrofit projects;
(v) Single family and two-family residential units;
(vi) Accessory dwelling units or junior accessory dwelling units; (vii) Any project exempted by Federal or State law;
(viii) Municipal facilities; and
(ix) Buildings or structures primarily used for religious worship.

A developer may satisfy the requirements of Chapter 25 of the Town Code by constructing or installing on-site public art valued at one percent of the building permit valuation.

The public art requirement for private developments can be viewed as a constraint to producing housing. The Town’s adopted Ordinance provided an exemption to the requirement to affordable housing developments. In addition, the Town Code allows for an exemption from the public art requirement if affordable housing is a part of the development and the affordable housing units shall be subtracted from the valuation of the project. Additional exemptions from the requirement for residential projects are described above.

SB 9 California Housing Opportunity and More Efficiency (HOME) Act SB 9, also known as the California Housing Opportunity and More Efficiency (HOME) Act, is a Sstate bill that requires cities to allow one additional residential unit on parcels zoned for single-dwelling units. Since the adoption of this section of the Government Code, the Town has adopted a permanent ordinance implementingn interim SB 9 ordinance and is in the process of developing a permanent ordinance for adoption by the end of 2022.

SB 35 Streamlining
(Government Code section 65913.4) allows qualifying development projects with a specified proportion of affordable housing units to move more quickly through the local government review process and restricts the ability of local governments to reject these proposals. The bill creates a streamlined approval process for qualifying infill developments in localities that have failed to meet their RHNA, requiring a ministerial approval process, removing the requirement for CEQA analysis, and removing the requirement for discretionary entitlements granted by the Planning Commission.

Since the adoption of this section of the Government Code, the Town has received one application under these provisions. The Town has included Program AM in the Housing Element to prepare an SB35 checklist and written procedures for processing SB35 applications.

SB9 California Housing Opportunity and More Efficiency (HOME) Act SB9, also known as the California Housing Opportunity and More Efficiency (HOME) Act, is a state bill that requires cities to allow one additional residential unit on parcels zoned for single-dwelling units. Since the

Appendix C. Governmental and Non-Governmental Constraints November September March 2023 Appendix C C-53
adoption of this section of the Government Code, the Town has adopted an interim SB9 ordinance and is in the process of developing a permanent ordinance for adoption by the end of 2022.

Requests to Develop at Densities Below Those Permitted
New State Housing Element law now requires the non-governmental constraints analysis to evaluate developer requests to build at densities below the density identified in the Housing Element sites inventory. In Los Gatos, properties generally develop around the mid to high range of allowable densities. Requests to develop at densities below those permitted are not an issue in Los Gatos.

Length of time between Application Approval and Building Permit Issuance New Housing Element law now also requires an examination of the length of time between receiving approval for a housing development and submittal of an application for building permits. The time between application approval and building permit issuance is influenced by a number of factors, none of which are directly impacted by the Town. Factors that may impact the timing of building permit issuance include: required technical or engineering studies; completion of construction drawings and detailed site and landscape design; securing construction and permanent financing; and retention of a building contractor and subcontractors.

The majority of residential permits in Los Gatos are for single-family homes, with building permit issuance generally taking eight to 14 months after Planning approvals. Hillside properties may take a few months longer due to the need for technical and engineering studies. Among the Town’s recent multi-family developments, the time between approvals and permit issuance has averaged 12 to 18 months. In Los Gatos, most approved projects are constructed in a reasonable time period.

Infrastructure Constraints
To support growth under the Housing Element, it is critical that public infrastructure can accommodate new development. The Town of Los Gatos does not anticipate that the provision of public services, such as water, sewer, and storm drains is a constraint to the production of new housing.

Water
Water supply demand and infrastructure was analyzed under the 2040 General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR), which considered a larger population growth than proposed under the Housing Element Update.

The San Jose Water Company provides water service to the Town. San Jose Water Company’s 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) outlines the availability of water supplies for the service area which includes the City of San Jose, the City of Cupertino, the City of Campbell, City of Monte Sereno, the City of Saratoga, the Town of Los Gatos, and parts of unincorporated Santa Clara County.

Pursuant to the 2015 UWMP, San Jose Water Company has enough water to supply capacity to meet current demands. The plan projects usage out to 2040, the same year as the General Plan horizon. From 2020 to 2040, the plan predicts that there would be adequate supply to meet water demand in a normal year. Projected water demand in a normal year for the San Jose Water Company service area in 2040 is 55,213 acre-feet per year (AFY) and future water storage is predicted to be 55,213 AFY. Approximately half of San Jose Water Company’s long-term water supply is provided by the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) each year, while approximately one-third is generally provided through groundwater. Water supply for the Town of Los Gatos is comprised primarily of imported water which serves the eastern Los Gatos area and approximately half is local surface water.

Sewer
The Town’s wastewater is collected and treated by the West Valley Sanitation District (WVSD), which then transports wastewater to the San Jose-Santa Clara Regional Wastewater Facility (wastewater treatment plant).

According to the 2040 General Plan EIR (Section 4.16, Utilities and Service Systems), the wastewater treatment plant treats an average of 110 million gallons per day (mgs), with a design capacity of up to 167 mgd.

The 2040 General Plan considered a larger population increase (approximately 8,971 residents) than considered by the Housing Element Update. According to the 2040 General Plan EIR, the West Valley Sanitation District’s Capital Improvement Plan has ongoing plans for replacement and upgrade of old sewer lines and lift equipment.

HCD Draft Revised Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
C-54 Appendix C March NovemberSeptember 2023
The general maintenance and correction of deficiencies are funded by user fees; therefore, new development would be required to pay impact fees for system expansion that would accommodate the increased growth of the Town. Impact fees on new development would ensure that the wastewater collection system receives necessary upgrades to accommodate the additional population.

C.2 Local Housing Programs
State Housing Element law requires that an analysis of governmental constraints on housing production include local government programs that regulate housing development in any way, including imposing housing cost limitations or encouraging changes in density. Los Gatos has six local housing programs that are potential constraints on market-rate housing production in the Town. The Below Market Price Program, Affordable Housing Fund, Rental Dispute Resolution Program, Density Bonus Program, State Density Bonus Program, and the Affordable Housing Overlay are discussed below.

Below Market Price (BMP) Program
The BMP Program implements the Town of Los Gatos’s inclusionary zoning ordinance, which requires that a portion of new residential construction in Los Gatos be dedicated to affordable housing. Los Gatos’s inclusionary zoning ordinance was adopted in 1979 as one of the first of such programs in California.

The BMP Program promotes the development of affordable housing units by providing standards and guidelines that require the development of a certain number of quality affordable units per rental or owner development project, based on the proposed number of market rate units. The BMP Program requires the development of affordable housing where sales and rents cannot be more than 80 percent of the current HUD Fair Market Rents (FMR) as determined by the Santa Clara County Housing Authority. The BMP Program allows low- and moderate-income households the opportunity to purchase low- and moderate-income housing in Los Gatos.

The BMP Program requirements apply to all residential development projects that include five or more residential units or parcels which involve:
 New construction of ownership or rental housing units, including mixed-use developments and addition of units to existing projects.
 Subdivision of property for single family or duplex housing development.  Conversion of rental apartments to condominiums or other common interest ownership.  Conversion of non-residential use to residential use.

The intent of the BMP Program is to provide a supply of affordable housing for households who work or currently reside in Los Gatos. However, there may be circumstances when the construction of a BMP unit is impractical.

The Town, in limited circumstances, at its sole discretion, may consider an in-lieu payment alternative to the required BMP for a project with an underlying zone of HR or a residential project, mixed-use project, multiplefamily dwelling project, residential condominium project, condominium conversions, and all residential planned development projects with five to nine units with an underlying zone of HR.. The required in-lieu fee shall be paid prior to or at time of final occupancy as follows:

Multi-Family Projects: Prior to occupancy of each phase, a proportional amount of fees shall be paid, as determined during the Planning approval process; and
Single-Family Projects: At time of final occupancy for each unit. The Town Council, in limited circumstances, at its sole discretion, may consider off-site construction of BMP units for continuum care facilities and for residential projects, mixed-use projects, multiple-family dwelling projects, residential condominium projects, condominium conversions, and residential planned development projects with five (5) to nine (9) units with an underlying zone of HR that have provided sufficient justification to the Town that an on-site BMP unit is not viable.

The developer of “for sale” BMP units shall enter into an affordability agreement with the Town. The agreement will ensure that the BMP units are sold to qualified buyers and will be released by the Town through the escrow process once the BMP is sold to a qualified buyer. Because the BMP Program regulates the number of affordable units required as part of new residential construction in Los Gatos, the program could be considered a constraint on market-rate housing development. However, because the BMP Program requires the construction

Appendix C. Governmental and Non-Governmental Constraints November September March 2023 Appendix C C-55
of affordable units with every new qualifying development, the Town sees this program not as a constraint, but as an opportunity to create and preserve affordable housing for the community. Based on a track record of successful development and preservation of affordable housing through the BMP Program, Los Gatos does not consider the program to be a constraint on affordable housing development; nevertheless, the Town proposes an implementation program N to study the BMP Program and implement recommendations to augment and improve it in order to facilitate the construction of more units.

The program is also an incentive to encourage further residential development, as BMP units in a project are not included when calculating the allowable density. This Housing Element includes an action to amend Town’s existing Density Bonus Ordinance to reflect current State Law and to conduct a study to evaluate the Town’s Density Bonus Ordinance, the implementation of the ordinance, and its impact on producing affordable units, as well as providing for incentives beyond State requirements.

The 2013 court case, Latinos Unidos del Valle de Napa y Solano v. County of Napa found that inclusionary units required by a local jurisdiction’s inclusionary ordinance qualify as affordable units for the purposes of Density Bonus Law. Therefore, developments that are subject to the Town’s BMP requirements are able to benefit from incentives and concessions provided by State Density Bonus Law.

Number of Units Required Under the BMP Program
As described above, Aall residential projects, mixed-use projects, multiple family dwelling projects, residential condominium projects, condominium conversions, and all residential planned development projects that include five or more residential units or parcels are required to participate in the BMP Program. The requirements for participation increase by development size:

1. Five to 19 market rate units: The developer shall provide a minimum number of BMP units equal to 10 percent of the number of market rate units;

2. 20 to 100 market rates units: The developer shall provide a minimum of BMP units as determined by the following formula: Number of BMP units = (.225 x total # of market rate units) - 2.5. This formula acts to increase the number of BMP units required, as a percentage of market-rate units, from 10 percent to 20 percent over the range of 20 to 100 market rate units; and

3. 101 units or more: The developer shall provide a minimum number of BMP units equal to 20 percent of the number of market rate units.

BMP dwellings within a project of rental units should also be rental units. BMP units within a project of owneroccupied units should also be designated as units for purchase. BMP units within a project that contains both rental and owner-occupied units shall also be designated as both rental and as units for purchase, in a ratio similar to that of the market rate units. The Town and developer may negotiate to provide more BMP units than required by the guidelines.

Affordability Levels Under the BMP Program for Owner Occupied Units BMP units shall be priced to be affordable to households in two income categories:

1. Moderate Income Households: Those whose income is above 80 percent, but no greater than 120 percent, of the Median Family Income (MFI); and

2. Low Income Households: Those whose income is above 50 percent, but no greater than 80 percent, of the MFI.
50 percent of the units in a project should be priced to be affordable to Moderate Income Households and and 50 percent should be priced to be affordable to Low Income Households. Whenever the calculations result in fractional units, then the number of units priced to be affordable to Low Income Households shall be rounded up to the next whole number, and the number of units priced to be affordable to Moderate Income Households shall be rounded down to the next whole number, including zero. An example of this formula is provided below in Table C-120.

HCD Draft Revised Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
C-56 Appendix C March NovemberSeptember 2023
Table C-1210 Inclusionary Requirements
Total Number of BMP
Units in Project
Units Priced for Low
Income Households
Units Priced for Median
Income Households
1 1 0
2 1 1
3 2 1
Source: Town of Los Gatos, Below Market Price Program Guidelines.

In order to be eligible to purchase an owner-occupied BMP unit, an applicant’s annual household income must be no greater than 120 percent of the MFI, adjusted for household size, as defined by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for the San Jose, CA Primary Metropolitan Statistical Area (PMSA).

Affordability Levels Under the BMP Program for Rental Units Rent for a BMP rental unit may not exceed 80 percent of the most current Fair Market Rents as determined by the Santa Clara County Housing Authority.

In order to be eligible to rent a BMP rental unit, a household’s annual income must be no greater than one hundred and 120 percent of the MFI, adjusted for household size, as defined by the HUD for the San Jose, CA PMSA. Priority is given to those households whose income is less than 50 percent of the MFI.

Tenant selection is managed by the property owner or manager of the development. An application from a tenant selected by the property owner or manager is forwarded to the administrator of the Town’s BMP Program for verification of income eligibility. Once a year, an annual re-certification of income is completed to verify that tenants are eligible to remain in the BMP rental unit.

Tenants of BMP rental units are eligible to receive conciliation and mediation services provided by Project Sentinel through the Town's Rental Dispute Resolution Program.

Affordable Housing In-Lieu Fee Fund
In-lieu fees are paid into the Town’s Affordable Housing Fund and are calculated as six percent of building permit valuation as determined by the Building Official. As previously noted, these fees may be paid by developers instead of building an affordable housing unit(s) under the BMP Program, in limited circumstances and at the sole discretion of the Town. Use of the Below Market Price Housing In-lieu Fees includes, but is not limited to:
 Providing financial assistance for home repairs for lower income households, low-income seniors and lowincome mobile homeowners (Implementation Programs IJ and AJU).  Conducting a survey of the housing conditions in Town to identify units in need of rehabilitation or replacement (Implementation Program AK).
 Purchasing housing units to make them affordable to low and/or moderate-income households (Implementation Program PT).
 Contributing funding to support countywide programs that provide home repair and accessibility improvements for lower income households (Implementation Program AUS).  Fee deferrals or reductions for affordable housing (Implementation Program OS).  Allocating a percentage of the funding to subsidize housing for extremely low-income households (Implementation Program NP).
 Funding administration of the program, as approved by the Town Council in its annual budget process.  Waiving building fees when an ADU is deed restricted for very low- and low-income households (Implementation Program QU).

The Town has not received negative feedback from developers on the Town’s inclusionary ordinance requirements in terms of affecting project viability. The BMP Program is similar to surrounding cities with a sliding scale for the required number of affordable units, and is generally accepted by the regional development community, as shown in Table C-7132. Developments that fall under the BMP Program requirement would be eligible for State density bonus provisions (Government Code § 65915) that help support the financial viability of providing affordable units. This additional fee levied on developers may be considered a constraint on housing

Appendix C. Governmental and Non-Governmental Constraints November September March 2023 Appendix C C-57
development; however, the fees are paid into a fund that will be used to develop more affordable housing in Los Gatos. Given the low rate of construction of affordable units, the Town proposes to study the BMP Program and implement recommendations to augment and improve it in order to facilitate the construction of more units.

Table C-9 1321 Inclusionary Requirements
Rental Dispute Resolution Program
The Los Gatos Rental Dispute Resolution Program provides conciliation, mediation and arbitration services for both renters and landlords in Los Gatos. The program is administered by Project Sentinel, a local non-profit Reorganization contracted by the Town. This program is not considered a constraint on housing development in Los Gatos. Los Gatos renters may also contact Neighborhood Housing Services Silicon Valley for assistance.

The Town helps preserve affordable rental housing costs through the Rental Mediation and Dispute Resolution Ordinance which applies to rental complexes of three or more units. The ordinance sets an annual limit on rent increased to five percent unless the landlord is able to demonstrate capital or financing costs to justify a greater increase. The Town has similar rent controls for mobile home units.

Mobile homes are an affordable housing resource in the Town of Los Gatos. They are often owned by seniors, households on fixed incomes, and households within the lower and moderate-income categories. Mobile home tenants are in the unique position of having made a substantial investment in a housing unit for which ground space is rented. The Mobile Home Ordinance establishes rent increase control within mobile home parks to ensure that a variety of housing types, including mobile homes, remain viable options to lower and moderateincome households in the community. Rents in mobile home parks cannot be increased by more than five percent annually unless operations and maintenance expenses significantly increased within the most recent year in comparison to the previous year.

State Mandated Density Bonus Ordinance
The Density Bonus Program allows qualified projects to add up to 100 percent of the units provided by the General Plan land use designation as long as these additional units are restricted to seniors, disabled persons, very low and/or low-income households.

Over the last Housing Element cycle, the Town approved the North 40 Phase One development which included 49 very-low income and one moderate-income manager unit as density bonus units.

The Town adopted the State Density Bonus Ordinance in June 2012. The program allows densities, incentives, concessions and maximum parking standards. In addition, the Town modified the program to apply to senior and physically handicap populations. The State Density Bonus Program provides opportunities to build additional, affordable units in Los Gatos; consequently, this program is not considered a constraint on housing development.

The Town is including an implementation Program to amend the Density Bonus Ordinance to comply with new requirements of State law since the 2012 ordinance was adopted.

Affordable Housing Overlay Zone
The Town adopted the AHOZ, and it applies to one property in the Housing Sites Inventory (see Table 6-2110 Knowles Avenue). The AHOZ allows densities (up to 20 units per acre on designated sites), development standards, and concessions that will encourage affordable housing. The Housing Element includes an implementation program to increase the maximum allowable density from 20 dwelling units per acre to 40 dwelling units per acre.

Jurisdiction Inclusionary Requirement
Campbell 15%
San Jose 15% (20% for off-site)
Los Gatos 10-20%
Cupertino 15-20%

HCD Draft Revised Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
C-58 Appendix C March NovemberSeptember 2023
Constraints on Housing for Persons with Disabilities
State law requires that the Housing Element analyze governmental constraints to housing for persons with disabilities. How a jurisdiction defines “family” in its zoning regulations can be a potential constraint to facilitating housing for persons with disabilities. The existing definition of “family” in the Town Code is “one or more persons who comprise a single housekeeping unit” or “households of six or fewer persons living in a residential care facilities small family home as defined by the California Community Care Facilities Act.” In Los Gatos, group homes are defined by the Town Code as synonymous with small family home residential care facilities, which are defined by the Town Code as “a residential care facility in the dwelling of a licensee in which care or supervision is provided for six or fewer persons. Whether or not unrelated persons are living together, a residential facility that serves six or fewer persons shall be considered a residential use of property for the purposes of this article. In addition, the residents and operators of such a facility shall be considered a family for the purposes of any law or zoning ordinance which relates to the residential use of property.” Group homes are permitted by right in all residential districts, consistent with State law, and are permitted with a CUP in the Office (O), Neighborhood Commercial (C-1), Central Business District (C-2), and Restricted Highway Commercial (CH) zones. The Town imposes no spacing or concentration requirements on any of the allowed residential care facilities. Large family home residential care facilities, which have a capacity for seven to 12 children or seven to 15 adults are allowed in all districts with a CUP, except where large family homes are prohibited in the RMH, LM, and CM districts.

The CUP requirement for residential care facilities for seven or more is a housing constraint. Implementation Program APBC, Zoning Text Amendments for Special Needs Housing, has been added to allow group homes of seven and more residents by-right in all residential zones conforming with HCD’s Group Home Technical Advisory (Dec 2022).

Generally, the Town facilitates housing for persons with disabilities by following the accessibility requirements of the California Title 24 Multi-family Accessibility Regulations for multi-family housing of three or more units.

Housing rehabilitation assistance and accessibility improvements are provided through the Town’s Community Services and Community Development departments.

The Town encourages accessibility improvements by requiring that specific design features be incorporated into all new residential home projects as a condition of approval. These requirements include:
 A wooden backing that is no smaller than 2 inches by 8 inches in all bathroom walls, at water closets, showers, and bathtubs. It will be located 34 inches from the floor to the center of the backing, suitable for the installation of grab bars.
 All passage doors of at least 32 inches wide on the accessible floor.  A primary entrance that is a 36-inch-wide door, including a five-foot by five-foot level landing, no more than one inch out of plane with the immediate interior floor level, with an 18-inch clearance.

In 2013, the Town adopted a procedure for requesting reasonable accommodation for persons with disabilities seeking equal housing access under the Federal Fair Housing Act and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act and in accordance with State housing law. A request for reasonable accommodation may include a modification or exception to the standards and practices for the siting, development, and use of housing or housing-related facilities that would eliminate regulatory barriers to accessible housing. Requests for reasonable accommodation shall be reviewed by the Planning Director within 45 days of the request. However, if the request is concurrent with a discretionary land use application, then the body overseeing the discretionary land use application will also make a determination on the reasonable accommodation request. There are seven mandatory criteria for granting a reasonable accommodation request:
 The housing will be used by an individual disabled under the Federal Fair Housing Act and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act.
 The request is necessary to make specific housing available to an individual with a disability.  The request would not impose an undue financial or administrative burden on the Town.  The request would not require a fundamental alteration in the nature of a Town program or law, including but not limited to land use and zoning.
 There would be no impact on surrounding uses.

Appendix C. Governmental and Non-Governmental Constraints November September March 2023 Appendix C C-59
 Due to physical attributes of the property or structures the request is necessary.  There is no alternative reasonable accommodation which may provide an equivalent level of benefit.

By adopting a formal procedure, the Town has provided an objective process with clear directions for both the applicant and the decision makers. This is a benefit to persons with disabilities hHowever, one of the mandatory criteria requiring “no impact on surrounding uses” is subjective and could be considered a constraint for granting a reasonable accommodation request. Therefore,, Implementation Program APBC, Zoning Text Amendments for Special Needs Housing, has been added modifying Municipal Town Code Section 29.10.530(a) to remove criteria number five regarding impact on surrounding uses. By removing the criteria of no impact on surrounding uses it will reduce the constraint.

Emergency Shelters and Low Barrier Navigation Centers
An emergency shelter is a facility that provides shelter to homeless families and/or homeless individuals on a limited short-term basis. SB 2 (2007) requires that unless adequate shelter facilities are available to meet a jurisdiction's needs (based on the most recent point-in-time count of unsheltered persons), emergency shelters must be allowed by-right in at least one zone that has adequate capacity for development of new shelters.

Emergency shelters are currently a permitted use in the CM (Controlled-Manufacturing) zone. However, newly enacted AB 2339 (2022) requires that emergency shelters be permitted by-right in a zone where other residential uses are permitted. While the CM zone allows for live/work units, based on further analysis, the LM (CommercialIndustrial) zone better fits the intent of the AB 2339 requirements. Therefore, a program has been added to the Housing Element to allow emergency shelters as a permitted use in the LM zone. The following analysis provides further information on the LM zone and its potential for shelter development.

According to the 2022 Point-in-Time Count for Santa Clara County, there were an estimated 58 unsheltered people residing in Los Gatos. Based on the Town’s maximum shelter size of twenty beds, a minimum of three shelters would be necessary to accommodate the unsheltered population. Based on the standard of approximately 200 square feet of site area per person established by AB 2339, a total of 11,600 square feet (0.27 acres) divided among three parcels is necessary. The LM zone consists of 55 parcels ranging from 4,600 square feet to 132,007 square feet. The LM parcels along University Avenue generally bounded by Blossom Hill Road to the north and Roberts Road/Andrews Street are appropriate for emergency shelter development. About 20 parcels in this area range in size from 4,600 square feet to 10,000 square feet. These parcels are located directly adjacent to multi-family residential zones to the east and C-1 zoned parcels to the west (where multi-family residential units are allowed as part of mixed-use projects). This area has access to services located in adjacent commercial areas and access to Valley Transportation Authority Route 27 bus stops within 0.25 miles. The median age of structures in this area is 65 years and there are eight parcels with an improvement-to-land value ratio (ILR) below 1.0. An ILR below 1.0 means the improvements on the site are worth less than the land, and generally indicates a lack of recent investment in repairs and renovations. For these reasons, staff believes that there is potential for adaptive reuse as shelters for these LM zoned parcels. Additionally, these parcels are not located in a Very High Fire Hazard Area or in an area at risk of flooding. Further, the majority of parcels in this area have service-related commercial uses and therefore, do not have the hazardous waste contamination concerns associated with some industrial uses.

Emergency shelters in Los Gatos are currently subject to the following requirements (Municipal Code Section

29.70.220(4)):
 Twenty (20) or fewer beds;
 Six (6) or fewer administrative staff members or employees;  Operating hours limited from 5:00 p.m. to 9:00 a.m. daily;  Conforming to all applicable building and housing codes, as determined by the Building Official.

As part of the implementation program, the Town will also review these standards against state law to ensure that they align with all State requirements.

AB 101, adopted in 2019, requires approval 'by right' of low barrier navigation centers that meet the requirements of State law. A “Low Barrier Navigation Center” means a Housing First, low barrier, service-enriched shelter focused on moving people into permanent housing that provides temporary living facilities while case managers connect individuals experiencing homelessness to income, public benefits, health services, shelter, and housing.

HCD Draft Revised Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
C-60 Appendix C March NovemberSeptember 2023
If the City receives applications for these uses, it will process them as required by State law. Program APBC, Zoning Text Amendments for Special Needs Housing, has been included in the Housing Element to develop by right procedures for processing low barrier navigation centers.

Employee Housing
California Health and Safety Code Section 17021.5 (Employee Housing Act) requires jurisdictions to permit employee housing for six or fewer employees as a single-family use. Employee housing shall not be included within the zoning definition of a boarding house, rooming house, hotel, dormitory, or other similar term that implies that the employee housing is a business run for profit or differs in any other way from a family dwelling.

Jurisdictions cannot impose a CUP, variance, or other zoning clearance of employee housing that serves six or fewer employees that is not required of a family dwelling of the same type in the same zone. The Town’s Zoning Code allows residential care facility, small family home by right in all residential zones.

Any zone in the Town that allow agriculture uses, must comply with California Health and Safety Code Section 17021.6, requiring employee housing consisting of no more than 12 units or 36 beds to be permitted in the same manner as other agricultural uses in the same zone. Implementation BC has been added to address this requirement.

Farmworkers
The Town of Los Gatos does not currently have any identified farmworkers. Given the lack of farmworkers in the community, the Town has not identified a need for specialized farmworker housing beyond overall programs for housing affordability.

C.3 Non-Governmental Constraints to Housing
Development
Market constraints to housing development in Los Gatos are the primary non-governmental impediment to housing production. The Town is located near Silicon Valley jobs and offers residents desirable amenities such as an historic downtown and a school district in which student performance ranks in the top four percent of the State.

Development Costs
In January 2022, the Santa Clara County Planning Collaborative distributed a survey to Santa Clara County jurisdictions to better understand the fees and processing times involved in the development of single-family and multi-family housing. Fourteen out of sixteen jurisdictions responded with locally collected data, which Collaborative staff used to identify major trends and produce data tables1. Additionally, the real estate economics consulting firm Century Urban conducted independent research on land and development costs2. Data and preliminary reports can be found on the Collaborative website: citiesassociation.org/constraints.

The cost of development is generally high in Santa Clara County and represents a significant constraint on the production of both single-family and multi-family housing. According to analysis by Century Urban, average development costs for single-family homes in the county range from $1,667,000 to $5,910,000. The cost of land and the size of the units are the two factors causing the most variance. Multi-family development costs are also quite high, though lower on a per unit basis compared to single family homes. Based on a survey of local development costs, Century Urban estimates the average cost per unit for a 10-unit prototype at $726,000 to $846,000. The average cost per unit to develop a 100-unit building ranges from $672,000 to $792,000. 1 Santa Clara County Planning Collaborative, 2022. Summary of Constraints Survey Data. citiesassociation.org/documents/constraints-survey-datasummary-2022 2 Century Urban, 2022. San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties Development Cost & San Mateo County Unit Mix Research. citiesassociation.org/documents/development-cost-data.

Appendix C. Governmental and Non-Governmental Constraints November September March 2023 Appendix C C-61
Jurisdictions were asked to estimate development fees based on the following hypothetical housing types and related detailed assumptions:
 Single-Family: A new single-family house on an empty lot, 2,600 square feet or 5,000 square feet, in an existing neighborhood with no significant grading or other complicating factors.  Small Multi-family: A project that includes 10 units in one building on one acre, where no zoning changes are required and permitting is by-right with medium complexity.  Large Multi-family: A project that is comprised of 100 units on two acres, 80,000 total square feet, with construction type V over a concrete podium.

Century | Urban was engaged by Baird + Driskell, hired by Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Planning Collaborative to perform research on the development costs of certain residential prototypes in Santa Clara County. The estimates shown below are based on data and sources including but not limited to: similar projects Century | Urban has underwritten and/or priced; specific project economics Century | Urban has reviewed; direct conversations with developers and cost estimators; database research including CoStar, MLS, Redfin, and title databases; online research sources including municipality and project websites; market reports compiled by real estate sales and research organizations; and, Century | Urban’s general experience assessing residential project feasibility in the San Francisco Bay Area.

Land Costs
The price of land also varies across the county based on site conditions and location, but land costs in Santa Clara County are notably higher than costs in neighboring counties. Century Urban estimates the average land price in Santa Clara County for single-family homes (based on sales within the last three years) at $1,320,000.

Land costs are lower for multi-family developments, estimated at $600,000 for small developments and $6,000,000 for large developments, or $60,000 per unit. The data does not include properties with existing homes or infrastructure that were redeveloped as new single-family homes, and the data for some cities is limited.

As the data collected is not comprehensive, summaries and averages may be valuable for reaching overall conclusions about the range of land prices in the counties, but they may or may not be representative of a given city’s average or median land price or the land price for a given parcel. The information should therefore be reviewed noting the limited number of data points for certain cities, including Los Gatos where only 15 data points were available. Land prices vary substantially by location, topography, site conditions, shape of the parcel, neighboring uses, access, noise, and many other factors. In addition, completed sales are necessarily past transactions and may not represent the current state of the market and expected future land sale prices.

There are very few vacant parcels zoned for multi-family development, and such parcels demand premium prices because of the high demand to live in Los Gatos. Additionally, most parcels have existing improvements that increase acquisition costs. Countywide, the land costs for multi-family development sites cost approximately $60,000 per unit.

Hard and Soft Costs
Soft costs for housing development include the cost of architectural, engineering, accounting, legal and other professional services, as well as the cost of obtaining permits and paying government-imposed fees. Carrying costs and the cost of construction financing can also be considered soft costs. Century Urban’s analysis finds that soft costs (such as impact fees and costs accumulated through permitting delays) are hard costs. Hard costs include the costs of labor and materials.

Hard costs are very high in Santa Clara County, and both the high cost of labor and the high cost of materials could be considered constraints on housing development. According to analysis by Century Urban, residential hard and soft costs do not vary significantly across Santa Clara County.

Hard and soft costs contribute significantly to the overall cost of developing new housing. Hard costs comprise over half of development costs for multi-family housing. Although hard costs are significant for single-family production as well, they comprise a lower percentage of overall costs because of the larger role of land costs in single-family construction. High hard costs are difficult for individual jurisdiction to mitigate.  Single-family detached ~2,660 square feet: $81 to $965 per square foot.

HCD Draft Revised Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
C-62 Appendix C March NovemberSeptember 2023
 Single-family detached ~5,000 square feet: $714 to $1,174 per square foot.  Multi-family apartments/condominiums less than 10 units on one acre: $726,500 to $846,500 per unit.  Three- to four-story 100-unit multi-family apartment/condominiums with type V construction over a concrete podium parking: $672,500 to $792,500 per unit.

Availability of Financing
The residential real estate market is strong in the Town of Los Gatos. Local realtors and developers have noted that Los Gatos was affected by the home mortgage foreclosure crisis that plagued many communities in the last fifteen years. Adjustable-rate mortgages, jumbo loans (those above $417,000), and Government-insured Federal Housing Administration home purchase loans, in addition to all-cash offers, are common in Los Gatos. Adequate financing through local banks is available to the Los Gatos community.

The Housing Trust of Santa Clara County offer three low-interest, down payment or closing cost loan programs for income qualified buyers in Los Gatos. Participation in this program includes homebuyer education classes.

The County of Santa Clara Office of Affordable Housing administers three homebuyer assistance programs. The Home Investment Partnerships Program offers down payment assistance for first-time buyers. The Mortgage Credit Certificate Program reduces the federal income taxes of qualified borrowers purchasing qualified homes, thus acting like a mortgage subsidy. The Down payment Assistance Program for First-time Buyers offers a subsidy for borrowers meeting a maximum income limit and maximum purchase price limit.

The Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) requires the reporting of data on residential loan applications, which provides insight into the availability of financing in the community. Table C-6 12 summarizes HMDA data for the San Jose, Sunnyvale, Santa Clara MSA. As shown in the table below, approximately 25 percent of all loan applications for the lowest income group are denied.

Table C-10 123 Home Purchase and Improvement Loans
Income Group Loan
Applications
Loans Approved (Originated) Loans Denied
# % # %
>50% of MSA AMI 9,757 4,518 46.3% 2,550 26.1%
50-79% of MSA AMI 19,780 12,673 64.1% 2,683 13.6%
80-99% of MSA AMI 8,535 5,775 67.7% 852 10.0%
100-119% of MSA AMI 28,507 20,122 70.6% 2,361 8.3%
≥120 of MSA AMI 87,715 59,930 68.3% 6,951 7.9%
TOTAL 154,294 103,018 66.8% 15,397 10.0%
Source: Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA), 2020
MSA – Metropolitan Statistical Area
AMI – Area Median Income
Environmental Constraints
The environmental setting affects the feasibility and cost of residential development. These areas contain environmental constraints on development, such as steep slopes, landslide hazards, fire hazards, or flood hazards, and therefore, much of the undeveloped land has been set aside as open space. The Town is adjacent to other built out communities and nestled against the Santa Cruz Mountains, limiting opportunities for expansion.

The following are environmental constraints and hazards that affect, in varying degrees, existing and future residential developments.

Urban and Wildland Fire Hazards
Wildfires are becoming an all too regular event in California, and both urban and wildland fires are a threat to the Town of Los Gatos. Wildfires that burn exclusively in uninhabited natural areas generally pose little risk to lives or property, although the smoke from such fires may cause respiratory problems for people nearby. Fires that occur

Appendix C. Governmental and Non-Governmental Constraints November September March 2023 Appendix C C-63
along the wildland-urban interface (WUI) are much more of a hazard, as they can spread into urbanized areas.

Wildfire risk is dependent on several factors, including the amount and type of vegetation in the area, weather, and local topography. Factors such as narrow, winding roads and vegetation also slow response to fires, increasing the risk of spread.

Based on the increased potential for devasting wildfires in Santa Clara County and the Town of Los Gatos, CAL FIRE developed and adopted “Fire Hazard Severity Zone” maps. These maps highlight that most of the County is located within the “high” fire severity zone, with smaller portions of the County within the “moderate” and “very high” fire severity zones. More than half of the southern portion of the Town is in the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, with most of the areas to the south in the High or Moderate zones. The Town must therefore strongly incorporate fire hazard mitigation into its land use decisions and requirements to protect residents and property. Potential impacts are mitigated by policies in the 2040 General Plan Hazards and Safety Element including the following:
 Require new development, including additions to existing structures, located in or adjacent to fire hazard areas to minimize hazards to life and property, by using fire preventive site design, access, fire-safe landscaping, building materials, and incorporating defensible space and other fire suppression techniques.  Minimize exposure to wildland and urban fire hazards through proactive code enforcement, public education programs, use of modern fire prevention measures, quick and safe access for emergency equipment and evacuation, and emergency management preparation.  Restrict development in areas with inadequate water flow or emergency access.  Monitor and remove excessive buildup of flammable vegetative materials on Town properties and along critical ingress/egress routes in the WUI.

Geological and Seismic Hazards
The San Francisco Bay Area is in one of the most active seismic regions in the United States. Los Gatos is near several active faults including the San Andreas, Hayward, and Calaveras Faults. Ground shaking is the primary risk in an earthquake and can set off a chain reaction of secondary landslides and liquefaction, or loss of soil strength. The region around the Lexington Reservoir also has higher risk of ground shaking should an earthquake occur. Implementation of applicable building codes and geotechnical investigations will minimize potential loss of life and damage to property from primary and secondary seismic hazards and siting essential structures and services outside high-risk areas will enable faster emergency response after an earthquake.

Seismic activity within or near the Santa Clara County region has historically caused significant damage to buildings and infrastructure in the Town of Los Gatos due to ground shaking and landslides. Five earthquakes have affected Los Gatos in the 20th century, with the 1906 San Francisco and 1989 Loma Prieta earthquakes having the highest magnitude. Potential impacts are mitigated by policies in the Draft 2040 General Plan Hazards and Safety including the following:
 Require new development to be sited away from high risk geologic and seismic hazard zones or, if located in a high-risk zone, incorporate construction techniques or specialized technologies to reduce risk.

Restrict new development and redevelopment based on the levels of risk and potential severity of geologic hazards.
 Require geotechnical reports analyzing seismic hazards, grading, and construction methods.  Require that a licensed geologic/geotechnical engineer complete the Town Geologic Hazards Checklist for all new proposed development to demonstrate that potential hazards have been identified and that proposed structures, including grading cuts and fills, will be designed to resist potential earthquake effects.  Implement the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines.

Flood and Inundation Hazards
Flooding can threaten life, safety, and property and can occur in a number of ways. The level in a body of water, such as a lake or creek, can rise higher than the water body’s banks, causing it to overflow into nearby areas.

Heavy precipitation can overwhelm the ability of soil to absorb water or storm drains to carry it away, causing water to build up on the surface. Localized flooding may also occur as a result of infrastructure failure, such as a burst water tank or pipe. In Los Gatos, the floods that are of most concern are from heavy rainfall causing local

HCD Draft Revised Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
C-64 Appendix C March NovemberSeptember 2023
flooding or flash floods. Flooding puts various populations in Town at risk. A 500-year flood could affect upwards of 28,000 people and cause $10 billion of structural damage.

Beyond localized flooding, Los Gatos faces a flood threat from dam inundation. While less common, dam inundation is recognized in both the Town Emergency Operations Plan and Santa Clara County OAHMP. The Lexington Reservoir as contained by the James J. Lenihan Dam is the largest concern for dam inundation.

Lexington Reservoir is the third largest reservoir in Santa Clara County storing 19,044 acre-feet of water. The potential inundation zone in the event of failure is significant, with the potential to affect over 3,000 people and damage over 1,000 structures. As future climate change-related impacts increase, localized flooding will become more common due to more extreme storms increasing the potential for more frequent and severe riverine flooding. Potential impacts are mitigated by policies in the Draft 2040 General Plan Hazards and Safety including the following:
 Require site planning and building design to mitigate identified flood and inundation hazards.  Require that new development and substantial improvements to existing structures meet Federal and State standards when located within FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) designated 100-year flood zones, as designated by current FEMA mapping.
 Cooperate with the Santa Clara Valley Water District to develop and maintain additional stormwater retention facilities in areas where they are needed or where the design capacity of existing retention facilities cannot be restored.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The use, manufacture, production, transportation, storage, treatment, disposal, and clean-up of hazardous materials and hazardous wastes present a potential threat to the health and safety of those who are using the materials and those who could be affected by improper or accidental release or disposal. Hazardous materials include all toxic, flammable, combustible, corrosive, poisonous, and radioactive substances that possess the potential to bring harm to the public or the environment. The Town maintains a comprehensive list of Hazardous Waste and Substance sites where hazardous materials are present and cleanup activities are or may be necessary. Potential impacts are mitigated by policies in the 2040 General Plan Hazards and Safety Element.

Noise and Air Quality
Noise and air quality impacts associated with Highways 17 and 85, other high-volume arterial roadways, and the Union Pacific Railroad line parallel to and south of Highway 85 could potentially impact housing. The California Building Code and the Noise Element of the Los Gatos General Plan contain policies and standards that mitigate noise impacts, and the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District require careful study and mitigation of health risks from poor air quality. Potential impacts are mitigated by policies in the Draft 2040 General Plan Environment and Sustainability Element.

Environmental constraints to housing development are mitigated where public health, safety, and welfare can be protected.

Sites Inventory Analysis D

APPENDIX

Appendix D. Sites Inventory Analysis
NovemberSeptember March 2023 Appendix D D-1
D.1 Vacant and Available Sites
The Plan Bay Area 2050 Final Blueprint1 forecasts that the nine-county Bay Area will add 1.4 million new households between 2015 and 2050. For the eight-year time frame covered by this Housing Element Update, the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) has identified the region’s housing need as 441,176 units. The total number of housing units assigned by HCD is separated into four income categories that cover housing types for all income levels, from very low-income households to market rate housing. This calculation, known as the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), is based on population projections produced by the California Department of Finance as well as adjustments that incorporate the region’s existing housing need. The adjustments result from recent legislation requiring HCD to apply additional adjustment factors to the baseline growth projection from California Department of Finance, in order for the regions to get closer to healthy housing markets. The adjustments focus on the region’s vacancy rate, level of overcrowding, and the share of cost burdened households and seek to bring the region more in line with comparable areas. The new laws governing the methodology for how HCD calculates the RHNA resulted in a significantly higher number of housing units for which the Bay Area must plan compared to previous cycles.

D.2 Regional Housing Needs Allocation
In December 2021, ABAG adopted a Final Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) Methodology. For Los Gatos, the RHNA required to be planned for the 6th cycle Housing Element Update is 1,993 units, an increase of 322 percent from the last cycle.

RHNA Summary
Los Gatos’ share of the regional housing need for the eight-year period from 2023 to 2031 is 1,993 units, which is a 322 percent increase over the 619 units required by the 2015 to 2023 RHNA. The housing need is divided into the four income categories of housing affordability. Table D-1 shows Los Gatos’ RHNA for the planning period 2023 through 2031 in comparison to the RHNA distributions for Santa Clara County and the Bay Area region.

With an update required every eight years by the State of California, this Housing Element covers a planning period from January 31, 2023, to January 31, 2031 (also referred to as the “6th cycle”).

Table D-1 Los Gatos’ Regional Housing Needs Allocation: 2023–2031 Income Group
Los
Gatos
Units
Percent
Santa
Clara
County
Units
Percent
Bay
Area
Units
Percent
Very Low Income (<50% of AMI) 537 26.9% 32,316 24.9% 114,442 25.9% Low Income (50%-80% of AMI) 310 15.6% 18,607 14.4% 65,892 14.9% Moderate Income (80%-120% of AMI) 320 16.1% 21,926 16.9% 72,712 16.5% Above Moderate Income (>120% of AMI) 826 41.4% 56,728 43.8% 188,130 42.6% Total 1,993 100.0% 129,577 100.0% 441,176 100.0%
Source: ABAG 2021
1 Plan Bay Area 2050 is a long-range plan charting the course for the future of the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area. It covers four key issues: the economy, the environment, housing and transportation

HCD Draft Revised Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
D-2 Appendix D March SeptemberNovember 2023
RHNA Credits Summary
The RHNA planning period for the ABAG region started on June 30, 2022. Housing units that were finaled, permitted, or approved after this date, or were under construction as of June 30, 2022, can be credited toward the RHNA.

A summary of the entitled/completed projects since June 30, 2022, permitted and finaled units, pipeline projects, and projected ADU’s, and SB 9 development, is provided at the end of this appendix. The Town’s RHNA requirements are included below in Table D-2Table D-22 and RHNA credits total to 737 416 units, with a remaining RHNA of 1,2561,577 units. The Town must identify adequate sites to accommodate the remaining RHNA.

Table D-2 RHNA Credits and Sites Strategies
RHNA Credit
Affordability Credit
Very LowIncome LowIncome ModerateIncome
AboveModerate
Income
Total
Entitled/Permitted/Under Construction/Finaled
(June 30, 2022, to January 31, 2023)
- Single-Family Units and Housing Projects 490 0 20 1762 2272 - ADUs 0 3 11 9 23
Pipeline Projects 0 1 0 190 191
Projected ADUs (1/1/2023-1/31/2031) 60 60 60 20 200
SB 9 Units 0 0 0 96 96
Total 10960 64 7371 491221 737416
RHNA 537 310 320 826 1,993
Remaining RHNA 428477 246 247249 335605 1,2561,577
Housing Element Overlay Zone (HEOZ) Sites 634 357 340 640624 1,9711,955 - Owner Interest/Conceptual Development Plans 480 283 264 320 304 1,3471,331 - Additional Sites 154 74 76 320 624
Surplus above Remaining RHNA 206157 111 9391 30519 715378 % Surplus 4833% 45% 3837% 913% 5724%
Source: Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department.

D.3 Sites Inventory
The purpose of the sites inventory is to identify and analyze specific sites that are available and suitable for residential development during the planning period between 2023-2031 in order to accommodate Los Gatos’ assigned overall 1,993 RHNA housing units, specifically the 1,2561,577 remaining units after taking into account units that can be credited against the RHNA. The Town does not build the housing but rather creates the implementation programs and policies to plan for where the housing can be located and how many units could be built on potential sites.

In 2017, Senate Bill (SB) 166 was signed into law and included new “no net loss” provisions that require communities to provide an ongoing, adequate supply of land resources for housing development during the entirety of the housing element update planning period. These provisions mean communities face risks of noncompliance should a housing site be developed with non-residential uses, lower residential densities, or residential uses at affordability levels higher than anticipated by the Housing Element. To avoid noncompliance, HCD advises communities to “buffer” their assigned RHNA numbers. The Sites Inventory includes 50 4847 sites in order to have enough capacity for the RHNA and recommended buffer of at least 15 percent. These sites, calculated at their net, minimum density, in addition to Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Projections, Senate Bill

Appendix D. Sites Inventory Analysis
NovemberSeptember March 2023 Appendix D D-3
(SB) 9 Projections, and Pipeline Projects, and RHNA credits for housing units that were finaled, permitted, or approved after this date, or were under construction as of June 30, 2022, have a total, net capacity of 2,3712,708 2,494 units (1,993 units plus a 25 5724 percent buffersurplus).

D.4 Appropriate Density/Default Density
As a jurisdiction within a metropolitan statistical area of over 2 million, the Town’s "default" density that can be assumed to accommodate lower income households is 30 dwelling units per acre (du/ac).2 The following land use designations will allow for at least 30 du/ac within the Town for those sites within the proposed Housing Element Overlay Zone (HEOZ):
• • High Density Residential: 30-40 du/ac
• • Mixed Use Commercial: 30-40 du/ac
• • North Forty Specific Plan: 30-40 du/ac
Table D-3Table D-33 illustrates the proposed density, height, and FAR for the various districts within the HEOZ to facilitate additional housing. These changes to development regulations will significantly increase the viability of redeveloping existing uses.
2 https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housing-element/housing-elementmemos/docs/default_2010census_update.pdf

HCD Draft Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element
D-4 Appendix D March SeptemberNovember 2023
Table D-3 Comparison of Development Regulations for the 2020 General Plan and Proposed HEOZ Density Range (du/ac) Maximum Height (feet) Lot Coverage (%) Floor Area Ratio Land Use Designations 2020 General
Plan HEOZ 2020 General Plan HEOZ 2020 General Plan HEOZ 2020 General Plan HEOZ Low Density Residential 0 – 5 0 – 5 30* 30 40%* Up to 50% Pursuant to
calculation in
Section

29.40.075 of
Town Code*
Pursuant to
calculation in
Section 29.40.075
of Town Code**
Medium Density
Residential 5 – 12
14 – 22 or 5 –
12 if in
VHFHS zone
30 or 35* 35 40%* Up to 75%
Pursuant to
calculation in
Section

29.40.075 of
Town Code or
none*
Pursuant to
calculation in
Section 29.40.075
of Town Code**
High Density Residential 12 – 20 30 – 40 35* 45 40%* up to 75% None* None** Mixed-Use Commercial 10 – 20 30 – 40 35 45 Up to 50% Up to 50%** None* Up to 3.0 Neighborhood
Commercial 10 – 20 10 – 20 35 35 Up to 50% Up to 50%** None* Up to 1.0 Central Business District 10 – 20 20 – 30 45 45 None* None** Up to 0.6 Up to 2.0 North Forty Specific Plan 20 30 – 40 As defined in
Specific Plan
As defined in
Specific Plan
As defined in
Specific Plan
As defined in
Specific Plan
As defined in
Specific Plan
As defined in
Specific Plan
* The 2020 General Plan is silent on this development standard. The applicable regulation under the Zoning Ordinance has been provided for context. ** The 2023-2031 Draft Revised Housing Element is silent on this development standard and so development would be evaluated based on the underlying designation in the 2020 General Plan Land Use Element.

Appendix D. Sites Inventory Analysis
D-5 Appendix D March SeptemberNovember 2023
Non-Vacant Capacity
The Town is relying on non-vacant sites to accommodate more than 50 percent of the RHNA for lower-income households. Because non-vacant sites comprise more than half of the Town’s Sites Inventory, Government Code Section 65583.2(g)(2) requires that the Town analyze the extent to which existing uses may constitute an impediment to additional residential development, past experience in converting existing uses to higher density residential development, market trends and conditions, and regulatory or other incentives to encourage redevelopment. The Town will need to make findings based on substantial evidence that the existing use is not an impediment and will likely discontinue during the planning period. This section includes a description of the suitability of non-vacant sites, policies that will contribute to the development of nonvacant sites, and an overview of recent affordable residential development throughout the region.

Development Trends
The Town has experienced a high demand for residential projects given recent legislation aimed at creating housing in a more streamlined process. For example, Site I-1, located at 401-409 Alberto Way received Planning entitlement approval for an office building; however, based on the discussions regarding the Housing Element and recent State housing legislation, the property owner has chosen to pursue a multi-family housing project. In addition to the North Forty Phase I project, other examples of housing projects within the fifth cycle Housing Element that occurred in commercial zones (which allow for 100 percent nonresidential uses) include:

1. 375 Knowles Avenue: Approval of a rezone from Office (O) to Office: Planned Development and a General Plan amendment from Public to Office Professional to allow for the construction of 33 singlefamily detached homes; and

2. 258 Union Avenue: Approval of a mixed-use building with three attached housing units and six detached single-family units on property zoned Neighborhood Commercial (C-1).

Implementation Programs BF and BG of the 6th cycle Housing Element Update contain land use intensifications to encourage the development of housing by allowing for greater densities, height, lot coverage, and floor area. It is expected that residential uses will redevelop with a greater frequency than the slower pace of the previous Housing Element cycles. Over the past three years, there were no development applications in Mixed Use Commercial and North Forty Specific Plan areas. The only active development project in these mixed-use areas is a residential-only project with construction underway (253 units have been finaled). Implementation programs in the 6th cycle Housing Element Update contain land use intensifications to encourage the development of housing by allowing for greater densities, height, lot coverage, and floor area. However, the Land Use Element is in referendum, the outcome of which is anticipated by fall 2024. Since September 18, 2023, five projects have submitted SB 330 preliminary applications on 14849 Los Gatos Boulevard (132 units), 14859 Los Gatos Boulevard (mixed use development with 437 units), 50 Los Gatos-Saratoga Road (158 units), 101 S. Santa Cruz Avenue (mixed-use development with 72 units), and 220 Belgatos Road (30 units). One formal SB 330 application for 405 Alberto Way (52 units) has been submitted to the Town. Given the interest in residential and mixed-use developments, it is expected that residential uses will redevelop with a greater frequency than the slower pace of the previous Housing Element cycles. There have been no 100 percent nonresidential development applications in the last few years.

Table D-4 on the following page summarizes recent residential development in the Town and nearby cities. It includes three pipeline projects listed in Table D-2 and examples of denser residential redevelopment on singlefamily and multi-family uses, industrial uses, and commercial uses in the cities of Campbell and San Jose. The City of San Jose and City of Campbell examples are nearby to the Town and are included as examples of the types of developmentexisting uses that could be projectedexpected to be redeveloped in the Town based on the proposed Housing Element Overlay Zone (HEOZ). However, most of these projects have completed construction already and therefore, data on the site conditions (such as year built, building square footage, and improvement/land values, etc.) prior to redevelopment have already been deleted by the County Assessor’s Office, and replaced with data for the new structures. Therefore, Table D-4Table D-44 is intended to demonstrate the general trend of recycling in the Town and neighboring communities. Specific conditions of existing uses in Los Gatos that are conducive to redevelopment are discussed later under the subsection “Characteristics of Existing Uses” based on the characteristics of properties with SB 330 applications, as well as properties with expressed owner interests.

HCD Draft Revised Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
D-6 Appendix D March SeptemberNovember 2023
Table D-4 Table D-2 Development Trends in Los Gatos and Nearby Cities * Mixed-use development consisting of 320 residential units, including 49 very low-income senior unit and one affordable caretakersmanger’ unit. 30 units have not received building permit approval yet.
** Applicant has requested approval for a Zone Change application from R-1:10 (Single-Family Residential with a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet) to CH (Restricted Commercial Highway) for consistency with the General Plan land use designation of Mixed-Use Commercial Property Owner Interest Form
As part of the Housing Element update outreach, the Town created a Property Owner Interest form that was made available on the Housing Element Update website to hear from property owners who may be interested in future housing development within the sixth cycle Housing Element update. The form contained 19 questions for the property owner to fill out, based on the criteria contained in HCD’s Housing Element Sites Inventory Guidebook. Property owners were asked to identify the parcel size, present zoning, present use, existing site Address Project
Type Prior Use Land Use Zoning Proposed Units
Proposed
Density
Max
Density
465 N. Santa Cruz
Avenue
Pipeline
Project
Commercial Neighborhood
Commercial
C-1 1 6 20
North Forty Phase I
Pipeline
Project
Completed
Project
Single-Family
Residential,
Commercial,
and
Agriculture
North Forty
Specific Plan
North
Forty
Specific
Plan
30* 20 20
14926 Los Gatos
Boulevard
Pipeline
Project Vacant Mixed-Use Commercial R-1:10** 5 10 20
16179 E Mozart
Avenue
Nearby
Project in
Campbell
Single‐Family
Residential
Low Density
Residential
P‐D 30 6 7.93
280 Dillon Nearby
Campbell
Development
Industrial Transit Oriented
Mixed Use
P‐D 118 27 22.64
300 Railway
Avenue
Nearby
Project in
Campbell
Industrial,
Vacant,
Single‐Family
Residential
Commercial‐
Corridor Mixed
Use
P‐D 157 27 33.7
540 E Campbell
Avenue
Nearby
Project in
Campbell
Industrial,
Single‐Family
Residential
CC/Central
Commercial
C‐P‐D 59 27 36.24
1725 S Bascom
Avenue
Nearby
Project in
Campbell
Commercial RCPO‐
Residential/Co
mmercial/
Professional
Office
P‐D 168 27 36.45
14200 Union
Avenue
Nearby
Project in
San Jose
Commercial Neighborhood/
Community
Commercial
CP (PD) 558 51 50
1410 S Bascom
Avenue
Nearby
Project in
San Jose
Commercial Neighborhood/
Community
Commercial
CP (PD) 590 131 50
1312 El Paseo De
Saratoga
Nearby
Project in
San Jose
Commercial Regional
Commercial
CP (PD) 930 87 N/A

Appendix D. Sites Inventory Analysis
NovemberSeptember March 2023 Appendix D D-7
conditions, current lot configuration, availability of infrastructure, and the interest in the type of housing for the site.

Parcels for which a Property Owner Interest Form was submitted to the Town are noted in the site details below.

There are 2827 parcels with property owner interest. Of these parcels, four are reuse sites identified in prior housing elements (see Implementation Program AS). During the outreach for the 6th cycle Housing Element, the owners of 2827 parcels expressed interest in developing housing on the sites that they own. Many property owners own more than one parcel that is contiguous to the other, and while each parcel may have its own APN, the parcels would likely be developed as a single, merged parcel. Of the sites on the inventory with owner interest in redevelopment, fourthree include projects that have submitted pre-applications under SB 330.

Characteristics of Existing Uses
While the Town had not received applications for mixed use and multi-family development in the last few years, the characteristics of properties with SB 330 applications, as well as properties with expressed owner interests in redevelopment can be used to help identify similar properties with future redevelopment potential. These properties exhibit the following general characteristics:
 Improvement Value-to-Land Ratio (IVLR): As shown in

HCD Draft Revised Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
D-8 Appendix D March SeptemberNovember 2023
 Table D-5Table D-55, the average IVLR of recent SB 330 properties and those with owner interest for redevelopment is 0.56, with the highest at 3.59. Typically, an IVLR of 1.00 of less is an indication of potential for redevelopment, as the building structures are worth less than the land. Most properties included in this sites inventory have very low improvement values compared to the land values (most are less than 1.0, with only a few hovering above 1.0). Among these properties that are non-vacant, the following general characteristics can be summarized:

There are some exceptions. Commercial buildings often have high IVLR. For example, site C-8 is a dealership with a 20,000 square-foot showroom and other service areas. However, overall, the site has low utilization (FAR of only 0.24) and the structures are older. Sites F-1 and F-2 are commercial buildings that have higher than 1.0 IVLR with low site utilization (at 0.34 and 0.44 respectively).  Floor Area Ratio (FAR): These sites have very low utilization of land with the average FAR being only

0.15, compared to the allowable between 1.0 and 3.0 for the proposed HEOZ, depending on base zoning.

This analysis uses a threshold of less than 50 percent of the allowable FAR, if an FAR is set for the zone.

If an FAR is not set for the zone, then 0.20 is used based on the average and range demonstrated by properties with owner interests.
 Age of Structures: Most buildings are at least 30 years old – the age where significant rehabilitation and system upgrades may be needed to modernize the buildings. This analysis uses a threshold of over 40 years.
 Number of Stories: Most properties with owner interest for redevelopment are just single-story buildings, except for site C-8 where there is 20,000 square-foot showroom and service areas. Existing buildings are below the 30-35 feet height allowable under the base zoning, and up to 45 feet for the proposed HEOZ.

This analysis uses a threshold of building height less than the potential building height.

In addition to having expressed interest from property owners to redevelop the sites within the next eight years, each of these sites also meet at least three of the four criteria described above. Table D-6Table D-66 illustrates how the selected parcels meet these criteria.

Appendix D. Sites Inventory Analysis
NovemberSeptember March 2023 Appendix D D-9
Table D-5 Characteristics of Existing Uses on SB 330 Properties and Properties with Owner Interests Site # APNs SB
330 Existing Uses
Average by Site
IVLR FAR Age of
Structures
# of
Stories
A-2 529-01-022 Yes Post Office 0.79 0.34 56.0 1.00
A-3 529-04-083 No Restaurant 1.14 0.28 53.0 1.00
B-1 529-24-001, 529-24-003, 529-24-
032 Yes Los Gatos Lodge 0.07 0.06 50.7 1.33
C-1 424-17-036 No Ace Hardware 0.25 0.24 63.0 1.00
C-2 424-19-049, 424-19-048, 424-19-
069 No Office, personal services 0.34 0.22 55.3 1.33
C-3 424-19-067 No Office, personal services 0.96 0.32 42.0 1.00 C-4 529-15-059 No Retail commercial 1.04 0.33 60.0 1.00 C-5 529-16-069 No Retail and auto related
services 0.17 0.26 63.0 1.00
C-6 532-07-085, 532-07-086 No Retail commercial,
personal services 0.00 0.14 58.0 0.50
C-7 529-16-040 No Car dealership 0.35 0.17 64.0 0.00
C-8 529-16-041 No Car dealership 3.59 0.24 50.0 2.00
C-9 424-14-034, 424-14-035 No Car dealership 0.51 0.07 56.0 0.50 D-1
424-07-094, 424-07-095, 424-07-
053, 424-07-009, 424-07-081,
424-07-115, 424-07-116
Yes Single-family homes and
agricultural uses 0.55 0.03 49.9 0.83
D-6 424-07-064 Yes Single-family home 1.16 0.03 103.0 1.00 G-1 527-49-048, 527-49-049 No Gas station and retail 1.07 0.13 58.5 1.00 H-1 527-32-028 No Gas station 0.26 0.05 53.0 1.00
I-1 529-23-018 Yes Office buildings (already
demolished) 0.00 0.38 57.0 3.00
Range 0.07-3.59 0.03-0.38 42.0-103.0 0.0-3.0
Average (nonvacant parcels) 0.64 0.15 55.5 1.08

Appendix D. Sites Inventory Analysis
D-10 Appendix D March SeptemberNovember 2023
Table D-6 Sites Inventory Selection Criteria
Site # APN Proposed Zoning Existing Uses Vacant
Owner
Interest SB 330
Existing
FAR
Max
FAR
% Max
FAR
Parcel
IVLR < 1.0
Site
IVLR
<1.0 Age Floors
A-2 52901022 C-2:HEOZ Commercial Y 0.34 2.00 17% 0.79 0.79 56 1 A-3 52904083 C-2:HEOZ Commercial Y 0.28 2.00 14% 1.14 1.14 53 1 B-1 52924001 CH:PD:HEOZ Hotel/motel Y Y 0.02 3.00 1% 0.17 0.06 87 2 B-1 52924032 CH:PD:HEOZ Hotel/motel Y Y 0.15 3.00 5% 0.04 0.06 65 2 B-1 52924003 CH:PD:HEOZ Hotel/motel Y Y 0.00 3.00 0% 0.00 0.06 0 0 C-1 42417036 C-1:HEOZ Commercial Y 0.24 1.00 24% 0.25 0.25 63 1 C-2 42419048 CH:HEOZ Commercial Y 0.11 1.00 11% 0.10 0.39 61 1 C-2 42419049 CH:HEOZ Commercial Y 0.27 3.00 9% 0.35 0.39 62 1 C-2 42419069 CH:HEOZ Commercial Y 0.27 3.00 9% 0.58 0.39 43 2 C-3 42419067 CH:HEOZ Commercial Y 0.32 3.00 11% 0.96 0.96 42 1 C-4 52915059 CH:HEOZ Commercial Y 0.33 3.00 11% 1.04 1.04 60 1 C-5 52916069 CH:HEOZ Commercial N 0.26 3.00 9% 0.17 0.17 63 1 C-6 53207085 C-1:HEOZ Commercial Y 0.28 1.00 28% 0.00 0.11 58 1 C-6 53207086 C-1:HEOZ Vacant Y Y 0.00 1.00 0% 0.00 0.11 0 0 C-7 52916040 CH:HEOZ Commercial Y 0.17 3.00 6% 0.35 0.35 64 1 C-8 52916041 CH:HEOZ Commercial Y 0.24 3.00 8% 3.59 3.59 50 2 C-9 42414034 CH:HEOZ Commercial Y 0.00 3.00 0% 0.00 0.88 0 0 C-9 42414035 CH:HEOZ Commercial Y 0.13 3.00 4% 1.02 0.88 56 1 D-1 42407009 North Forty Specific
Plan:HEOZ Residential Y Y 0.07 N/A N/A 0.27 0.32 82 1
D-1 42407053 North Forty Specific
Plan:HEOZ Residential Y Y 0.10 N/A N/A 1.22 0.32 62 1
D-1 42407081 North Forty Specific
Plan:HEOZ Residential Y Y 0.02 N/A N/A 1.75 0.32 51 2
D-1 42407094 North Forty Specific
Plan:HEOZ Residential Y Y 0.03 N/A N/A 0.24 0.32 68 1
D-1 42407095 North Forty Specific
Plan:HEOZ Vacant Y Y Y 0.00 N/A N/A 0.00 0.32 0 0

Appendix D. Sites Inventory Analysis
NovemberSeptember March 2023 Appendix D D-11
Site # APN Proposed Zoning Existing Uses Vacant
Owner
Interest SB 330
Existing
FAR
Max
FAR
% Max
FAR
Parcel
IVLR < 1.0
Site
IVLR
<1.0 Age Floors
D-1 42407115 North Forty Specific
Plan:HEOZ Residential Y Y 0.01 N/A N/A 0.35 0.32 86 1
D-1 42407116 North Forty Specific
Plan:HEOZ Vacant Y Y Y 0.00 N/A N/A 0.00 0.32 0 0
D-2 42406115 North Forty Specific
Plan:HEOZ Residential N 0.03 N/A N/A 0.21 0.21 71 1
D-2 42406116 North Forty Specific
Plan:HEOZ Vacant Y N 0.00 N/A N/A 0.00 0.21 0 0
D-3 42407010 North Forty Specific
Plan:HEOZ Residential N 0.07 N/A N/A 1.34 1.34 77 1
D-4 42407052 North Forty Specific
Plan:HEOZ Residential N 0.24 N/A N/A 2.25 2.25 83 2
D-5 42407054 North Forty Specific
Plan:HEOZ Residential N 0.10 N/A N/A 0.59 0.19 81 1
D-5 42407063 North Forty Specific
Plan:HEOZ Residential N 0.04 N/A N/A 0.15 0.19 74 1
D-6 42407064 North Forty Specific
Plan:HEOZ Residential N Y 0.03 N/A N/A 1.16 1.16 103 1
D-7 42407065 North Forty Specific
Plan:HEOZ Residential N 0.07 N/A N/A 0.00 0.00 91 1
E-1 42408017 R-M:5-12:HEOZ Residential N 0.04 N/A N/A 0.15 0.56 93 2 E-1 42408021 R-M:5-12:HEOZ Residential N 0.01 N/A N/A 0.20 0.56 42 1 E-1 42408029 R-1:8:HEOZ Vacant Y N 0.00 N/A N/A 0.00 0.56 0 0 E-1 42408057 R-1:8:HEOZ Vacant Y N 0.00 N/A N/A 0.00 0.56 0 0 E-1 42408058 R-1:8:HEOZ Residential N 0.07 N/A N/A 13.80 0.56 43 1 E-1 42408059 R-1:8:HEOZ Residential N 0.00 N/A N/A 0.00 0.56 0 0 E-1 42408060 R-1:8:HEOZ Vacant Y N 0.00 N/A N/A 0.00 0.56 0 0 E-2 42408074 R-1:8:HEOZ Vacant Y N 0.00 N/A N/A 0.00 0.00 0 0 E-3 CalTrans R-M:HEOZ Vacant Y N 0.00 N/A N/A 0.00 0.00 0 0 F-1 42432077 CM: HEOZ Commercial N 0.34 1.00 34% 2.33 2.33 41 1 F-2 42432076 CM:HEOZ Commercial N 0.44 1.00 44% 2.33 2.33 42 2 G-1 52749048 C-1:HEOZ Commercial Y 0.07 1.00 7% 0.50 0.78 59 1 G-1 52749049 C-1:HEOZ Commercial Y 0.19 1.00 19% 1.63 0.78 58 1 H-1 52732028 C-1:HEOZ Commercial Y 0.05 1.00 5% 0.26 0.26 53 1

HCD Draft Revised Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
D-12 Appendix D March SeptemberNovember 2023
Site # APN Proposed Zoning Existing Uses Vacant
Owner
Interest SB 330
Existing
FAR
Max
FAR
% Max
FAR
Parcel
IVLR < 1.0
Site
IVLR
<1.0 Age Floors
I-1 52923018 CH:HEOZ Vacant Y Y Y 0.00 3.00 0% 0.00 0.00 0 0

HCD Draft Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element
D-13 Appendix D March SeptemberNovember 2023
Site Capacity
On sites with Property Owner Interest and/or conceptual development plans submitted, 1,3311,347 units are projected: 480 very low income; 283 low income; 264 moderate income; and 304320 above moderate income units. Additional vacant and underutilized sites add another 624 potential units: 154 very low income; 74 low income; 76 moderate income; and 320 above moderate income.

Small Parcels
While the Sites Inventory in this Housing Element includes a few small “parcels”, no small “sites” less than 0.5 acre are used to accommodate lower income RHNA units. A site is typically comprised of a few parcels. In this Sites Inventory, only parcels that are already consolidated or under common ownership, totaling more than 0.5 acre, are used to meet the lower income RHNA. Sites that include small parcels are:
 B-1: 3 parcels (7.04 acres; 1.49 acres; and 0.28 acre) under common ownership (Los Gatos Lodge), with expressed interest from property owner to redevelop the site;  C-2: 3 parcels (0.34 acres; 1.20 acres; and 1.34 acres) under common ownership with expressed interest from property owner to redevelop the site;
 D-1: 7 parcels (2.90 acres; 0.78 acres; 0.44 acres; 0.44 acres; 3.74 acres; 6.07 acres; and 1.02 acres), with expressed interest from property owner to redevelop the site  D-2: 2 parcels (1.17 acres and 0.11 acre) under common ownership  D-5: 2 parcels (0.56 acre and 0.26 acre) under common ownership No other small parcels are used to meet the Town’s lower income RHNA.

Residential Uses
Of the 4748 parcels selected, there are nine parcels that are designated to only allow residential uses:
 Site E-1: 14800 Oka Road, APN 424-08-029, APN 424-08-059, APN 424-08-060, APN 424-08-058, APN 424- 08-017, APN 424-08-021, APN 424-08-074, and the Caltrans right-of-way adjacent to 14865 Oka Road.

The remaining sites are designated to allow for commercial and mixed-use opportunities. Given the interest that the Town has received as part of the sixth cycle Housing Element Update, there is a strong likelihood of development on these other sites will include an integration of residential units. This is demonstrated by the recently developed and underway projects in the Town and residential and mixed-use projects underway in neighboring jurisdictions.

Commercial Sites
There are 3839 sites in commercially zoned areas, including the sites within the North Forty Specific Plan and 16 reuse sites identified in prior housing elements. Under Implementation Program BH, reuse sites can be developed under ministerial review if they are developed with 20 percent or more of the units set aside for lowerincome households.

Many of these sites are developed with older, underutilized commercial and office uses, which have low floor area ratios (FAR). Many of these uses are on parcels that can be redeveloped with residential uses in a mixed-use format that would retain commercial or office use.

Examples of developer interest for construction of housing units on commercial sites in the Town include:
 401-409 Alberto Way;
 50 Los Gatos-Saratoga Road;
 16203 Los Gatos Boulevard;
 101 S. Santa Cruz Avenue; and
 15860 Winchester Boulevard.

HCD Draft Revised Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
D-14 Appendix D March SeptemberNovember 2023
Two of these examples are properties where a planning entitlement for 100 percent commercial were approved within the last eight years, but with the changing State and local regulations the property owners have abandoned those approvals and are now instead proposing new development projects that are entirely or predominantly made up of residential units. As a result, the likelihood that the other commercial sites would redevelop without some residential component is clearly low.

Potential Findings (Non-Vacant Sites)
The Town can make the following findings to determine that the existing use on sites with underutilized commercial is likely to be discontinued:
 The property owners are interested in developing at least a portion of the site with housing;  The value of these parcels to the property owner is mostly in the land, and residential uses will increase the value without substantially affecting improvement value;  The buildings that will be demolished for new commercial and/or mixed-use will all be over 430 years old at time of 2023-2031 Housing Element adoption;
 The land use designations for these sites as part of Implementation Program AQ of the HEOZ will allow for higher densities to incentivize the redevelopment of the sites; and/or  Adding a potential new use increases the value of the property.

Overview of Selected Sites
This section provides information on the current list of potential sites that show how the Town will accommodate the State’s required minimum of 1,993 housing units. Please note that the site numbers listed here are added only as a way to reference the site and label it on a map. The site number is not an indication of preference or priority. Figure D-1 shows an overview of the potential sites inventory map developed for Los Gatos’ 6th cycle Housing Element Update. The following sites make up the Site Inventory, which is available as Appendix H.

Sites Details
This section provides information on each of the sites selected for inclusion in the Sites Inventory of vacant and available sites.

Appendix D. Sites Inventory Analysis
NovemberSeptember March 2023 Appendix D D-15
Figure D-1 Overall Area Parcel Locations

HCD Draft Revised Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element

Appendix D. Sites Inventory Analysis

HCD Draft Revised Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
D-18 Appendix D March SeptemberNovember 2023
Figure D-2 Downtown Area

Appendix D. Sites Inventory Analysis

HCD Draft Revised Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element

Appendix D. Sites Inventory Analysis
NovemberSeptember March 2023 Appendix D D-21
Figure D-3 Downtown Area Asset Map

HCD Draft Revised Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element

Appendix D. Sites Inventory Analysis

HCD Draft Revised Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
D-24 Appendix D March SeptemberNovember 2023
Site A-1 Park Avenue
Addresses: 50 Park Avenue and 61 Montebello Way
Number of Housing Units: 5
“By Right” + 20% Affordable: Not Required – Not used in previous cycle.

Description: The Park Avenue Site (A-1) is located in the Downtown Area on the southwest end of Town on a wooded parcel that is currently identified as Very High Fire Risk. The site is triangular in shape with parking lots and South Santa Cruz Avenue on one side, Highway 17 on a second side, and Downtown Los Gatos forming the third side. Proximity to Downtown Los Gatos ensures that this site provides pedestrian access to urban services. This site currently is developed with residential units and is designated Medium Density Residential. The site is zoned R-1D and would allow five housing units developed at a minimum density of five du/ac.

Amenities: The closest public school is Los Gatos High School and is approximately 0.5 miles away. The closest public transit line is a Valley Transporation Authority bus stop located at West Main Street and South Santa Cruz Avenue and is approximately 0.2 miles away.

Property Owner Interest Form Submitted: Yes.

Constraints: Very high fire hazard; existing residential dwelling units would require demolition.

Figure D-4 Park Avenue (Site A-1)

Appendix D. Sites Inventory Analysis
NovemberSeptember March 2023 Appendix D D-25
Site A-2 South Santa Cruz Avenue
Address: 101 South Santa Cruz Avenue
APN: 529-01-022
Number of Housing Units: 16
“By Right” + 20% Affordable: Not Required – Not used in previous cycle.

Description: The South Santa Cruz Avenue Site (A-2) is located in the Downtown Area on the southwest end of Town along South Santa Cruz Avenue on an occupied commercial parcel in Downtown Los Gatos. The site is currently identified as Medium Density Residential. Proximity tTo Downtown Los Gatos ensures that this site provides pedestrian access to urban services.

This site is designated as Central Business District and zoned C-2, which would allow 16 housing units developed at a minimum density of 20 du/ac.

Amenities: The closest public school is Los Gatos High School and is approximately 0.5 miles away. The closest public transit line is a Valley Transporation Authority bus stop located at West Main Street and South Santa Cruz Avenue and is approximately 300 feet away.

Property Owner Interest Form Submitted: Yes.

Constraints: Very high fire hazard; the existing commercial use would require demolition.

Figure D-5 South Santa Cruz Avenue (Site A-2)

HCD Draft Revised Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
D-26 Appendix D March SeptemberNovember 2023
Site A-3 University Avenue
Address: 165 Los Gatos-Saratoga Road
APN: 529-04-083
Number of Housing Units: 7
“By Right” + 20% Affordable: Not Required – Not used in previous cycle.

Description: The University Avenue Site (A-3) is located in the Downtown Area at the corner of Los Gatos-Saratoga Road and University Avenue on an occupied commercial site. Proximity to Downtown Los Gatos ensures that this site would provide pedestrian access to urban services.

This site is designated as Central Business District and zoned C-2, which would allow seven housing units developed at a minimum density of 20 du/ac.

Amenities: The closest public school is Los Gatos High School and is approximately 0.8 miles away. The closest public transit line is a Valley Transporation Authority bus stop located at Saratoga-Los Gatos Road and University Avenue and is approximately 360 feet away.

Property Owner Interest Form Submitted: Yes.

Constraints: Existing commercial building would require demolition.

Figure D-6 University Avenue (Site A-3)

Appendix D. Sites Inventory Analysis
NovemberSeptember March 2023 Appendix D D-27
Figure D-7 Los Gatos Lodge Area

HCD Draft Revised Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
D-28 Appendix D March SeptemberNovember 2023
Figure D-8 Los Gatos Lodge Area Asset Map

Appendix D. Sites Inventory Analysis
NovemberSeptember March 2023 Appendix D D-29
Site B-1 Los Gatos Lodge
Address: 50 Los Gatos-Saratoga Road
APN: 529-04-083
Number of Net Housing Units: 2624
“By Right” + 20% Affordable: Not Required – Not used in previous cycle.

Description: The Los Gatos Lodge Site (B-1) is located in the Los Gatos Lodge Area immediately adjacent to the interchange of Highway 9 and Highway 17, east of Downtown Los Gatos. The site is the current location of the Los Gatos Lodge, with the Los Gatos High School sports fields to the south, lower-density residential uses across Bella Vista Avenue to the east, and Best Western Inn across Highway 9 on the north. This site is designated as Mixed-Use Commercial and zoned CH:PD, which would allow 264 housing units developed at a minimum density of 30 du/ac.

Amenities: The closest public school is Louise Van Meter ElementaryLos Gatos High School and is approximately 0.9 1 miles away. The closest public transit line is a Valley Transporation Authority bus stop located at Los Gatos Boulevard and Stacia Street and is approximately 0.4 miles away.

Property Owner Interest Form Submitted: Yes.

Constraints: Existing commercial buildings would require demolition and removal or modification of the existing Planned Development Overlay to accommodate residential.

Figure D-9 Los Gatos Lodge (Site B-1)

HCD Draft Revised Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
D-30 Appendix D March SeptemberNovember 2023
Figure D-10 Los Gatos Boulevard Area

Appendix D. Sites Inventory Analysis
NovemberSeptember March 2023 Appendix D D-31
Figure D-11 Los Gatos Boulevard Area Asset Map

HCD Draft Revised Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
D-32 Appendix D March SeptemberNovember 2023
Site C-1 Ace Hardware
Address: 15300 Los Gatos Boulevard
APN: 529-04-083
Number of Housing Units: 48
“By Right” + 20% Affordable: Not Required – Not used in previous cycle.

Description: The Ace Hardware Site (C-1) is located in the Los Gatos Boulevard Area on the east side of Los Gatos Boulevard and north of Gateway Drive. The site is the current location of Ace Hardware, with commercial uses to the north, south, and west, and lower-density residential uses to the east. The site is designated as Mixed-Use Commercial and zoned C-1, which would accommodate 48 housing units developed at a minimum density of 30 du/ac.

Amenities: The closest public school is Raymond J. Fisher Middle School and is approximately

1.7 miles away. The closest public transit line is a Valley Transporation Authority bus stop located at Los Gatos Boulevard and Lark Avenue and is approximately 443 feet away.

Property Owner Interest Form Submitted: Yes.

Constraints: Existing commercial building would require demolition.

Figure D-12 Ace Hardware (Site C-1)

Appendix D. Sites Inventory Analysis
NovemberSeptember March 2023 Appendix D D-33
Site C-2 Los Gatos Boulevard
Address: 15349, 15367, and 15405 Los Gatos Boulevard
APN: 424-19-049, 424-19-048, 424-19-069
Number of Housing Units: 86
“By Right” + 20% Affordable: Required – Not used in previous cycle.

Description: The Los Gatos Boulevard Site (C-2) is located in the Los Gatos Boulevard Area on the west side of Los Gatos Boulevard, and south of Garden Lane. The site is the current location of multiple commercial uses, with commercial uses to the north, south, and east, and lowerdensity residential uses to the west. The site is designated as Mixed-Use Commercial and zoned CH, which would accommodate 86 housing units developed at a minimum density of 30 du/ac.

Amenities: The closest public school is Raymond J. Fisher Middle School and is approximately

1.1 miles away. The closest public transit line is a Valley Transporation Authority bus stop located at Los Gatos Boulevard and Garden Lane and is approximately 80 feet away.

Property Owner Interest Form Submitted: Yes.

Constraints: Existing commercial building would require demolition.

Figure D-13 Los Gatos Boulevard (Site C-2)

HCD Draft Revised Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
D-34 Appendix D March SeptemberNovember 2023
Site C-3 Los Gatos Boulevard
Address: 15425 Los Gatos Boulevard
APN: 424-19-067
Number of Housing Units: 33
“By Right” + 20% Affordable: Not Required – Not used in previous cycle.

Description: The Los Gatos Boulevard Site (C-3) is located in the Los Gatos Boulevard Area on the west side of Los Gatos Boulevard and east of Garden Lane. The site is the current location of office and commerical uses, with commercial uses located on all sides. The site is designated as Mixed-Use Commercial and zoned CH, which would accommodate 33 housing units developed at a minimum density of 30 du/ac.

Amenities: The closest public school is Raymond J. Fisher Middle School and is approximately one mile away. The closest public transit line is a Valley Transporation Authority bus stop located at Los Gatos Boulevard and Village Square and is approximately 395 feet away.

Property Owner Interest Form Submitted: Yes.

Constraints: Existing commercial building would require demolition.

Figure D-14 Los Gatos Boulevard (Site C-3)

Appendix D. Sites Inventory Analysis
NovemberSeptember March 2023 Appendix D D-35
Site C-4 Affordable Treasures
Address: 15795 Los Gatos Boulevard
APN: 529-15-059
Number of Housing Units: 19
“By Right” + 20% Affordable: Not Required – Not used in previous cycle.

Description: The Affordable Treasures Site (C-4) is located in the Los Gatos Boulevard Area at the northwest corner of Los Gatos Boulevard and Farley Lane. The site is the current location of Affordable Treasures Party Store with commercial uses located to the north, south, and east and lower-density residential uses located to the west. The site is designated as Mixed-Use Commercial and zoned CH, which would accommodate 19 housing units developed at a minimum density of 30 du/ac.

Amenities: The closest public school is Raymond J. Fisher Middle School and is approximately

0.6 miles away. The closest public transit line is a Valley Transporation Authority bus stop located at Los Gatos Bouelvard and Farley Road and is approximately 167 feet away.

Property Owner Interest Form Submitted: Yes.

Constraints: Existing commercial building would require demolition.

Figure D-15 Affordable Treasures (Site C-4)

HCD Draft Revised Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
D-36 Appendix D March SeptemberNovember 2023
Site C-5 Los Gatos Boulevard
Address: 16203 Los Gatos Boulevard
APN: 529-16-069
Number of Housing Units: 24
“By Right” + 20% Affordable: Not Required – Not used in previous cycle.

Description: The Los Gatos Boulevard Site (C-5) is located in the Los Gatos Boulevard Area at the northwest corner of Los Gatos Boulevard and Roberts Road. The site is the current location of NC Boardshop skateboard shop and Autobahn Los Gatos, with commercial uses located to the north, east, and west and medium-density residential uses located to the south. The site is designated as Mixed-Use Commercial and zoned CH, which would accommodate 24 housing units developed at a minimum density of 30 du/ac.

Amenities: The closest public school is Raymond J. Fisher Middle School and is approximately

0.2 miles away. The closest public transit line is a Valley Transporation Authority bus stop located at Los Gatos Bouelvard and Roberts Road and is approximately 400 feet away.

Property Owner Interest Form Submitted: No; however, a Conceptual Development Advisory Committee application for a mixed-use development was submitted on November 17, 2020 pending an anticipated density increase as part of the General Plan and Housing Element Updates.

Constraints: Existing commercial buildings would require demolition.

Figure D-16 Los Gatos Boulevard (Site C-5)

Appendix D. Sites Inventory Analysis
NovemberSeptember March 2023 Appendix D D-37
Site C-6 Los Gatos Boulevard
Address: 16492 Los Gatos Boulevard and Assessor Parcel Number 532-07-08685 APN: 532-07-085, 532-07-086
Number of Housing Units: 6
“By Right” + 20% Affordable: Not Required – Not used in previous cycle.

Description: The Los Gatos Boulevard Site (C-6) is located in the Los Gatos Boulevard Area on the east side of Los Gatos Boulevard, north of Spencer Avenue. The site is the current location of LG Wines and Liquors and Happy Cleaners, with commercial uses located to the north, south, and west and low-density residential uses located to the east. The site is designated as Low Density Residential but zoned C-1, which would accommodate 6 housing units developed at a minimum density of 10 du/ac.

Amenities: The closest public school is Louise Van Meter Elementary School and is approximately 0.3 miles away. The closest public transit line is a Valley Transporation Authority bus stop located at Los Gatos Bouelvard and Nino Avenue and is approximately 0.1 miles away.

Property Owner Interest Form Submitted: Yes, and the owner has submitted written interest in changing the land use designation to Neighborhood Commercial.

Constraints: Existing commercial building would require demolition.

Figure D-17 Los Gatos Boulevard (Site C-6)

HCD Draft Revised Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
D-38 Appendix D March SeptemberNovember 2023
Site C-7 Los Gatos Boulevard
Address: 16151 Los Gatos Boulevard
APN: 529-16-040
Number of Housing Units: 106
“By Right” + 20% Affordable: Not Required – Not used in previous cycle.

Description: The Los Gatos Boulevard Site (C-7) is located in the Los Gatos Boulevard Area on the west side of Los Gatos Boulevard, south of Blossom Hill Road. The site currently serves as a car dealership with multiple on-site structures and commercial uses located to the north, south, and east. Low-density residential uses are located to the east and further south. The site is designated as Mixed-Use Commercial, but zoned CH, which would accommodate 106 housing units developed at a minimum density of 30 du/ac.

Amenities: The closest public school is Raymond J. Fisher Middle School and is approximately half a mile away. The closest public transit line is a Valley Transporation Authority bus stop located at Los Gatos Boulevard and Magneson Loop and is approximately 0.2 miles away.

Property Owner Interest Form Submitted: Yes.

Constraints: Existing commercial buildings would require demolition.

Figure D-18 Los Gatos Boulevard (Site C-7)

Appendix D. Sites Inventory Analysis
NovemberSeptember March 2023 Appendix D D-39
Site C-8 Blossom Hill Road
Address: 620 Blossom Hill Road
APN: 529-16-041
Number of Housing Units: 79
“By Right” + 20% Affordable: Not Required – Not used in previous cycle.

Description: The Blossom Hill Road Site (C-8) is located in the Los Gatos Boulevard Area on the south side of Blossom Hill Road, west of the Blossom Hill Road and Los Gatos Boulevard intersection. The site currently serves as a car dealership with multiple on-site structures and commercial uses located to the north and east. Residential uses are located to the north, south, and west. The site is designated as Mixed-Use Commercial, but zoned CH, which would accommodate 79 housing units developed at a minimum density of 30 du/ac.

Amenities: The closest public school is Raymond J. Fisher Middle School and is approximately one 0.4 miles away. The closest public transit line is a Valley Transporation Authority bus stop located at Los Gatos Bouelvard and Blossom Hill Road and is approximately half a mile away.

Property Owner Interest Form Submitted: Yes.

Constraints: Existing commercial buildings would require demolition.

Figure D-19 Los Gatos Boulevard (Site C-8)

HCD Draft Revised Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
D-40 Appendix D March SeptemberNovember 2023
Site C-9 Los Gatos Boulevard
Address: 15480 Los Gatos Boulevard and 15500 Los Gatos Boulevard APN: 424-14-034, 424-14-035
Number of Housing Units: 134
“By Right” + 20% Affordable: Not Required – Not used in previous cycle.

Description: The Los Gatos Boulevard Site (C-9) is located in the Los Gatos Boulevard Area on the west east side of Los Gatos Boulevard, north of Los Gatos Almaden Road. The site currently serves as a car dealership with multiple on-site structures and commercial uses located to the north, south, and west. Residential uses are located to the east and further south. The site is designated as Mixed-Use Commercial, but zoned CH, which would accommodate 134 housing units developed at a minimum density of 30 du/ac.

Amenities: The closest public school is Raymond J. Fisher Middle School and is approximately one mile away. The closest public transit line is a Valley Transporation Authority bus stop located at Los Gatos and Garden opp Moore and is approximately 0.2 miles away.

Property Owner Interest Form Submitted: Yes.

Constraints: Existing commercial buildings would require demolition.

Figure D-20 Los Gatos Boulevard (Site C-9)

Appendix D. Sites Inventory Analysis
NovemberSeptember March 2023 Appendix D D-41
Figure D-21 North Forty Area

HCD Draft Revised Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
D-42 Appendix D March SeptemberNovember 2023
Figure D-22 North Forty Area Asset Map

Appendix D. Sites Inventory Analysis
NovemberSeptember March 2023 Appendix D D-43
Site D-1 North Forty Phase II
Address: 14859 Los Gatos Boulevard, et. al.

APN: 424-07-094, 424-07-095, 424-07-053, 424-07-009, 424-07-081, 424-07-115, 424-07-116 Number of Net Housing Units: 461452
“By Right” + 20% Affordable: Required – Used in previous cycle.

Description: The North Forty Phase II Site (D-1) is located in the North Forty Area on the west side of Los Gatos Boulevard, south of Burton Road. The site contains existing single-family residences and agriculture uses. Commercial uses are located to the south and west and arterial highways located to the north and east. The site is designated and zoned as North Forty Specific Plan, which would accommodate 461 units at a minimum density of 30 du/ac.

Amenities: The closest public school is Farnham Elementary School and is approximately 0.8 miles away. The closest public transit line is a Valley Transporation Authority bus stop located at Los Gatos Bouelvard and Burton Road and is approximately 115 feet away.

Property Owner Interest Form Submitted: No; however, the property owner has been involved in attending Housing Element Advisory Board (HEAB) meetings and submitted written public comments regarding intent and interest in residential development on the site.

Constraints: Existing buildings would require demolition.

Figure D-23 North Forty Phase II (Site D-1)

HCD Draft Revised Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
D-44 Appendix D March SeptemberNovember 2023
Site D-2 North Forty Phase II
Address: 16245 Burton Road
APN: 424-06-115, 424-06-116
Number of Net Housing Units: 3837
“By Right” + 20% Affordable: Required – Used in previous cycle.

Description: The North Forty Phase II Site (D-2) is located in the North Forty Area at the terminus of Burton Road, on the west side of Los Gatos Boulevard. The site is underutilized with a single-family residence. Commercial uses are located to the east and arterial highways located to the north and west. The site is designated and zoned as North Forty Specific Plan, which would accommodate 38 housing units developed at a minimum density of 30 du/ac.

Amenities: The closest public school is Farnham Elementary School and is approximately 0.8 miles away. The closest public transit line is a Valley Transporation Authority bus stop located at Los Gatos Bouelvard and Burton Road and is approximately 0.1 miles away.

Property Owner Interest Form Submitted: No; however, the parcel is located within Phase II of the North 40 Specific Plan Area where recent significant housing development is underway.

Constraints: Existing residential building would require demolition.

Figure D-24 North Forty Phase II (Site D-2)

Appendix D. Sites Inventory Analysis
NovemberSeptember March 2023 Appendix D D-45
Site D-3 North Forty (Phase II)
Address: 16240 Burton Road
APN: 424-07-010
Number of Net Housing Units: EightSeven
“By Right” + 20% Affordable: Required – Used in previous cycle.

Description: The North Forty Phase II Site (D-3) is located in the North Forty Area along Burton Road and adjacent to the Highway 17/Highway 85 interchange. The site contains a single-family residence. Other North Forty Specific Plan properties surround the site. The site is designated and zoned as North Forty Specific Plan, which would accommodate eight housing units developed at a minimum density of 30 du/ac.

Amenities: The closest public school is Farnham Elementary School and is approximately 0.8 miles away. The closest public transit line is a Valley Transporation Authority bus stop located at Los Gatos Bouelvard and Burton Road and is approximately 0.1 miles away.

Property Owner Interest Form Submitted: No; however, the parcel is located within Phase II of the North 40 Specific Plan Area where recent significant housing development is underway.

Constraints: Existing residential building would require demolition.

Figure D-25 North Forty Phase II (Site D-3)

HCD Draft Revised Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
D-46 Appendix D March SeptemberNovember 2023
Site D-4 North Forty Phase II
Address: 16270 Burton Road
APN: 424-07-052
Number of Net Housing Units: 1312
“By Right” + 20% Affordable: Required – Used in previous cycle.

Description: The North Forty Phase II Site (D-4) is located in the North Forty Area at the end of Burton Road and immediately adjacent to the Highway 17/Highway 85 interchange. The site contains a single-family residence. Other North Forty Specific Plan properties surround the site.

The site is designated and zoned as North Forty Specific Plan, which would accommodate 13 housing units developed at a minimum density of 30 du/ac.

Amenities: The closest public school is Farnham Elementary School and is approximately 0.8 miles away. The closest public transit line is a Valley Transporation Authority bus stop located at Los Gatos Bouelvard and Burton Road and is approximately 0.2 miles away.

Property Owner Interest Form Submitted: No; however, the parcel is located within Phase II of the North 40 Specific Plan Area where recent significant housing development is underway.

Constraints: Existing residential building would require demolition.

Figure D-26 North Forty Phase II (Site D-4)

Appendix D. Sites Inventory Analysis
NovemberSeptember March 2023 Appendix D D-47
Site D-5 North Forty Phase II
Address: 16210 Burton Road and 14831 Los Gatos Boulevard APN: 424-07-054, 424-07-063
Number of Net Housing Units: 2523
“By Right” + 20% Affordable: Required – Used in previous cycle.

Description: The North Forty Phase II Site (D-5) is located in the North Forty Area along Burton Road and on the west side of Los Gatos Boulevard. The site contains single-family residences.

Other North Forty Specific Plan properties surround the site. The site is designated and zoned as North Forty Specific Plan, which would accommodate 25 housing units developed at a minimum density of 30 du/ac.

Amenities: The closest public school is Farnham Elementary School and is approximately 0.8 miles away. The closest public transit line is a Valley Transporation Authority bus stop located at Los Gatos Bouelvard and Burton Road and is approximately 0.1 miles away.

Property Owner Interest Form Submitted: No; however, the parcel is located within Phase II of the North 40 Specific Plan Area where recent significant housing development is underway.

Constraints: Existing residential building would require demolition.

Figure D-27 North Forty Phase II (Site D-5)

HCD Draft Revised Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
D-48 Appendix D March SeptemberNovember 2023
Site D-6 North Forty Phase II
Address: 14849 Los Gatos Boulevard
APN: 424-07-064
Number of Net Housing Units: 2827
“By Right” + 20% Affordable: Required – Used in previous cycle.

Description: The North Forty Phase II Site (D-6) is located in the North Forty Area on the west side of Los Gatos Boulevard, south of Burton Road. The site contains a single-family residence.

Other North Forty Specific Plan properties surround the site on the north, south, and west. East of the site, across Los Gatos Boulevard there are commercial uses. The site is designated and zoned as North Forty Specific Plan, which would accommodate 28 housing units developed at a minimum density of 30 du/ac.

Amenities: The closest public school is Farnham Elementary School and is approximately 0.8 miles away. The closest public transit line is a Valley Transporation Authority bus stop located at Los Gatos Bouelvard and Burton Road and is approximately 65 feet away.

Property Owner Interest Form Submitted: No; however, the parcel is located within Phase II of the North 40 Specific Plan Area where recent significant housing development is underway.

Constraints: Existing residential building would require demolition.

Figure D-28 North Forty Phase II (Site D-6)

Appendix D. Sites Inventory Analysis
NovemberSeptember March 2023 Appendix D D-49
Site D-7 North Forty Phase II
Address: 14823 Los Gatos Boulevard
APN: 424-07-065
Number of Net Housing Units: 101
“By Right” + 20% Affordable: Required – Used in previous cycle.

Description: The North Forty Phase II Site (D-7) is located in the North Forty Area at the southwest corner of Burton Road and Los Gatos Boulevard. The site contains a single-family residence. Other North Forty Specific Plan properties surround the site on the south and west.

North of the site, across Burton Road, and east of the site, across Los Gatos Boulevard, there are commercial uses. The site is designated and zoned as North Forty Specific Plan, which would accommodate 11 housing units developed at a minimum density of 30 du/ac.

Amenities: The closest public school is Farnham Elementary School and is approximately 0.7 miles away. The closest public transit line is a Valley Transporation Authority bus stop located at Los Gatos Bouelvard and Burton Road and is approximately 120 feet away.

Property Owner Interest Form Submitted: No; however, the parcel is located within Phase II of the North 40 Specific Plan Area where recent significant housing development is underway.

Constraints: Existing residential building would require demolition.

Figure D-29 North Forty Phase II (Site D-7)

HCD Draft Revised Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
D-50 Appendix D March SeptemberNovember 2023
Figure D-30 Lark Avenue Area

Appendix D. Sites Inventory Analysis
NovemberSeptember March 2023 Appendix D D-51
Figure D-31 Lark Avenue Area Asset Map

HCD Draft Revised Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
D-52 Appendix D March SeptemberNovember 2023
Site E-1 Oka Road
Address: Oka Road
APN: 424-08-057, 424-08-029, 424-08-059, 424-08-060, 424-08-058, 424-08-017, 424-08-021 Number of Net Housing Units: 124121
“By Right” + 20% Affordable: Required – Used in previous cycle.

Description: The Oka Road Site (E-1) is located in the Lark Avenue Area on the east side of Oka Road, north of Lark Avenue. The site contains residential and agricultural uses. Major arterial highways are located north and east of the site, with the Los Gatos Swim and Racquet Club immediately north. Agricultural and commercial uses are located across Oka Road. The site is designated as Low-Density Residential and Medium-Density Residential. Parcels within the site are zoned R-1-8 and R-M:5-12, which would allow 124 housing units developed at a typical density of four du/ac for parcels designated as Low-Density Residential and at a typical minimum of 14 du/ac for parcels designated as Medium-Density Residential.

Amenities: The closest public school is Raymond J. Fisher Middle School and is approximately

1.9 miles away. The closest public transit line is a Valley Transporation Authority bus stop located at Los Gatos Bouelvard and Lark Avenue and is approximately 0.7 miles away.

Property Owner Interest Form Submitted: No; however the property owner has submitted a public comment to the HEAB regarding future development of the site.

Constraints: Existing buildings would require demolition.

Figure D-32 Lark Avenue (Site E-1)

Appendix D. Sites Inventory Analysis
NovemberSeptember March 2023 Appendix D D-53
Site E-2 Oka Lane
Address: Oka Lane
APN: 424-08-074
Number of Housing Units: 26
“By Right” + 20% Affordable: Required – Used in previous cycle.

Description: The Oka Lane Site (E-2) is located in the Lark Avenue Area on the west side of Oka Road, north of Lark Avenue. The site contains agricultural uses. Major arterial highways are located north and east of the site, with the Bonnie View mobile home park to the north.

Agricultural and commercial uses are located across Oka Road. The site is designated as LowDensity Residential. The site is zoned R-1:8, which would allow 26 housing units developed at a typical density of 4 du/ac.

Amenities: The closest public school is Raymond J. Fisher Middle School and is approximately

1.8 miles away. The closest public transit line is a Valley Transporation Authority bus stop located at Winchester Bouelvard and Lark Avenue and is approximately 0.8 miles away.

Property Owner Interest Form Submitted: No; however the property owner has submitted a public comment to the HEAB regarding future development of the site.

Constraints: Proximity to adjacent highways.

Figure D-33 Oka Lane (Site E-2)

HCD Draft Revised Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
D-54 Appendix D March SeptemberNovember 2023
Site E-3 Caltrans Right of Way
Address: Caltrans Right of Way
APN: N/A
Number of Housing Units: 69
“By Right” + 20% Affordable: Not Required – Not used in previous cycle.

Description: The Caltrans Right of Way Site (E-3) is located in the Lark Avenue Area south and west of the Highway 17/Highway 85 interchange. The site is currently vacant. Major arterial highways are located north and east of the site. Commercial uses are located west of the site across Oka Road, and the Bonnie View mobile home park is located immediately south of the site. Should the site be annexed by the Town, it is designated as Medium-Density Residential and zoned as R-M:5-12, which would accommodate 69 housing units developed at a minimum density of 14 du/ac.

Amenities: The closest public school is Raymond J. Fisher Middle School and is approximately

2.1 miles away. The closest public transit line is a Valley Transporation Authority bus stop located at Los Gatos Bouelvard and Lark Avenue and is approximately 0.8 miles away.

Property Owner Interest Form Submitted: No, the Town has yet to reach out to Caltrans regarding future development of the site.

Constraints: Consultation with Caltrans for future development.

Figure D-34 Caltrans Right of Way (Site E-3)

Appendix D. Sites Inventory Analysis
NovemberSeptember March 2023 Appendix D D-55
Figure D-35 Winchester Boulevard Area

HCD Draft Revised Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
D-56 Appendix D March SeptemberNovember 2023
Figure D-36 Winchester Boulevard Area Asset Map

Appendix D. Sites Inventory Analysis
NovemberSeptember March 2023 Appendix D D-57
Site F-1 Knowles Drive
Address: 110 Knowles Drive
APN: 424-32-077
Number of Housing Units: 220
“By Right” + 20% Affordable: Required – Used in previous cycle.

Description: The Knowles Drive Site (F-1) is located in the Winchester Boulevard Area north and west of the Highway 17/Highway 85 interchange. The site contains industrial uses. Los Gatos Creek is immediately south and east of the site, with low-density residential uses located beyond.

High-density residential uses are located south and west of the site. Commercial/industrial uses are located north of the site across Knowles Drive. The site is designated as High-Density Residential and zoned CM:AHOZ, which would accommodate 220 housing units developed at a minimum density of 30 du/ac.

Amenities: The closest public school is Daves Elementary School and is approximately 2.3 miles away. The closest public transit line is a Valley Transporation Authority bus stop located at Knowles Drive and Capri Drive and is approximately 0.3 miles away.

Property Owner Interest Form Submitted: No; however the site is located within the Affordable Housing Overlay Zone.

Constraints: Existing buildings would require demolition and adjacency to the Los Gatos Creek Trail.

Figure D-37 Knowles Drive (Site F-1)

HCD Draft Revised Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
D-58 Appendix D March SeptemberNovember 2023
Site F-2 Winchester Boulevard
Address: 206 Knowles Drive
APN: 424-32-076
Number of Housing Units: 72
“By Right” + 20% Affordable: Not Required – Not used in previous cycle.

Description: The Winchester Boulevard Site (F-2) is located in the Winchester Boulevard Area at the northeast intersection of A Street and Knowles Drive. The site contains office uses. Multifamily residential is located to the south and office uses are located to the north, south, and west of the site. The site is designated as High-Density Residential and zoned CM, which would accommodate 72 housing units developed at a minimum density of 30 du/ac.

Amenities: The closest public school is Daves Elementary School and is approximately 2.1 miles away. The closest public transit line is a Valley Transporation Authority bus stop located at Knowles Drive and Capri Drive and is approximately 0.1 miles away.

Property Owner Interest Form Submitted: No; however, the site is located immediately adjacent to 110 Knowles Drive (Site F-1), which has an Affordable Housing Overlay Zone.

Constraints: Existing buildings would require demolition and adjacency to the Los Gatos Creek Trail.

Figure D-38 Winchester Boulevard (Site F-2)

Appendix D. Sites Inventory Analysis
NovemberSeptember March 2023 Appendix D D-59
Figure D-39 Union Avenue Area

HCD Draft Revised Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
D-60 Appendix D March SeptemberNovember 2023
Figure D-40 Union Avenue Area Asset Map

Appendix D. Sites Inventory Analysis
NovemberSeptember March 2023 Appendix D D-61
Site G-1 Los Gatos-Almaden Road
Address: 440 Los Gatos Almaden Road
APN: 527-49-048, 527-49-049
Number of Housing Units: 8
“By Right” + 20% Affordable: Not Required – Not used in previous cycle.

Description: The Los Gatos-Almaden Road Site (G-1) is located in the Union Avenue Area at the northwest corner of Leigh Avenue and Los Gatos-Almaden Road. The site contains a gas station and commercial building. Low-density residential are located north, south, and west of the site.

Leigh High School is located east of the site across Leigh Avenue. The site is designated as Neighborhood Commercial and zoned C-1, which would accommodate 8 housing units developed at a minimum density of 10du/ac.

Amenities: The closest public school is Leigh High School and is approximately 0.2 miles away.

The closest public transit line is a Valley Transporation Authority bus stop located at Los GatosAlmaden Road and Leigh Avenue and is approximately 240 feet away.

Property Owner Interest Form Submitted: Yes
Constraints: Existing gas station and commercial building would require demolition.

Figure D-41 Los Gatos-Almaden Road (Site G-1)

HCD Draft Revised Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
D-62 Appendix D March SeptemberNovember 2023
Figure D-42 Harwood Road Area

Appendix D. Sites Inventory Analysis
NovemberSeptember March 2023 Appendix D D-63
Figure D-43 Harwood Area Asset Map

HCD Draft Revised Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
D-64 Appendix D March SeptemberNovember 2023
Site H-1 Valero
Address: 14000 Blossom Hill Road
APN: 527-32-028
Number of Housing Units: 7
“By Right” + 20% Affordable: Not Required – Not used in previous cycle Property Owner Interest Form Submitted:

Description: The Valero Site (H-1) is located in the Harwood Road Area at the southwest corner of Blossom Hill Road and Harwood Road. The site contains a gas station. Low-density residential are located north, south, and east of the site. Commercial uses are located immediately west of the site. The site is designated as Neighborhood Commercial and zoned C1, which would accommodate 7 housing units developed at a minimum density of 10 du/ac.

Amenities: The closest public school is Noddin Elementary School and is approximately 0.2 miles away. The closest public transit line is a Valley Transporation Authority bus stop located at Blossom Hill Road and Harwood Road and is approximately 220 feet away.

Property Owner Interest Form Submitted: Yes.

Constraints: Existing gas station and commercial building would require demolition.

Figure D-44 Valero (Site H-1)

Appendix D. Sites Inventory Analysis
NovemberSeptember March 2023 Appendix D D-65
Figure D-45 Alberto Way Area

HCD Draft Revised Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
D-66 Appendix D March SeptemberNovember 2023
Figure D-46 Alberto Way Area Asset Map

Appendix D. Sites Inventory Analysis
NovemberSeptember March 2023 Appendix D D-67
Site I-1 Alberto Way
Address: 401-409 Alberto Way
APN: 529-23-018
Number of Housing Units: 60
“By Right” + 20% Affordable: Not Required – Not used in previous cycle.

Description: The Alberto Way Site (I-1) is located in the Alberto Way Area, located at the intersection of Alberto Way and Los Gatos-Saratoga Road. The site is currently vacant, where previous structures on site have already been cleared for development. Multi-family residential are located north and east of the site. Commercial uses are located immediately south and east of the site with Highway 17 to the west. The site is designated as Mixed Use Commercial and zoned CH, which would accommodate 60 housing units developed at a density of 27 du/ac based on a development application submitted by the property owner to the Town on December 6, 2022.

Amenities: The closest public school is Los Gatos High School and is approximately 0.8 miles away. The closest public transit line is a Valley Transporation Authority bus stop located at Los Gatos Boulevard and Caldwell Avenue and is approximately 0.4 miles away.

Property Owner Interest Form Submitted: Yes.

Constraints: Proximity to adjacent Highway 17 onramp.

Figure D-47 Alberto Way (Site I-1)

HCD Draft Revised Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
D-68 Appendix D March SeptemberNovember 2023
Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADUs and Junior ADUs) Projections Address: Various Locations
Number of Housing Units: 200
“By Right” + 20% Affordable: Not required, instead a formula exists for projecting the next eight-year cycle, along with assumptions of 30 percent very-low income units, 30 percent low income units, 30 percent moderate income units, and 10 percent above moderate categories.

Description: In addition to the housing units identified in the Town’s Sites Inventory the production of new accessory dwelling units are ulitizied in meeting the Town’s RHNA requirements. The Town analyzed the total number of ADU buidilng permits that have been approved in the last three years to identify the average number of ADU units that will be developed over the eight year planning period.

Figure D-48 below includes an analysis of the Town’s issued building permits for ADU’s between the years 2020 to 2022. In 2020, the Town issued building permits for 27 new ADUs. In 2021, the Town issued 36 building permits for new ADU’s. In 2022, the Town issued 35 building permits for new ADU’s. The last three years of data results in an average of 32 approved ADU building permits per year, however utilizing a conservative estimate the Town is using annual ADU projection of 25 units. This results in a total of 200 dwelling units planned to be constructed over the eight year planning period of the Housing Element. Program UQ: Accessory Dwelling Units has been included to monitor the number of ADU applications annually.

Based on ABAG’s pre-approved ADU Affordability Survey, the income/affordability distribution for ADUs is: 30 percent very low income; 30 percent low income; 30 percent moderate income; and 10 percent above moderate income.

Furthermore, during the RHNA projection period prior to the start of the Housing Element planning period (i.e., between June 30, 2022 and January 30, 2023), 23 ADUs and JADUs were either issued building permits, under construction, or finaled. Among these units:
 3 JADUs less than 400 square feet – average 243 square feet  11 JADUs and ADUs between 400 and 800 square feet – average 549 square feet  9 ADUs more than 800 square feet in size – average 1,027 square feet The JADUs less than 400 square feet were assumed to be affordable to low income households given the small size. Other small size units (between 400 and 800 square feet) are assumed to be affordable to moderate income households, similar to small studio and one bedroom units. Units above 800 square feet are affordable to above moderate income households only.

Constraints: None.

Appendix D. Sites Inventory Analysis
NovemberSeptember March 2023 Appendix D D-69
Figure D-48 ADU Building Permits Issued 2020-2022
Source: Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department.

HCD Draft Revised Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
D-70 Appendix D March SeptemberNovember 2023
Senate Bill 9 (SB 9) Projections
Address: Various Locations
Minimum Number of Housing Units: 96
“By Right” + 20% Affordable: Not required – Instead, formula exists for projecting the next eight-year cycle.

Description: In addition to ADU’s the production of new housing units through SB 9 are being ulitizied to meet a portion of the Town’s RHNA requirements. In compliance with SB 9, the Town of Los Gatos has adopted a SB 9 that allows for the by-right ministerial review of urban lot splits and/or two-unit development requests on singlefamily residentially zoned parcels.

Since the adoption the Town’s SB 9 Ordinane, the Town has received a total of four Two-Unit Housing Development applications and seven Urban Lot Split applications (between January 2022 and January 2023).

The applications result in a total of 13 net new housing units a year. Based on the number of applications received during the first year of SB 9 the Town is ulitizing an estimate of 12 net new housing units per year and anticipating a total of 96 residential units to be developed under SB 9 during the eight year planning period.

Within the own, 6,940 parcels in the single-family zones have parcel size over 5,000 square feet (a conservative estimate compared to the minimum State requirement of 2,500 square feet) eligible for lot split. To estimate the number of parcels with potential for urban lot split, these factors were considered to exclude:

Existing lot coverage (more than 40 percent) – Estimated by dividing building area by the number of stories
Year Built (1940 or earlier) – The Town considers homes built prior to 1941 as historic homes.

Improvement to land value ratio (more than 1.0 and therefore improvements are worth more than the land) – Similar to age of structure, newer homes that are worth more than the land may be financially less conducive to lot splits.

Overall, 2,971 parcels meet these criteria. The projection of 12 units annually represents the potential participation of less than 0.5 percent of probable parcels and therefore a fairly conservative estimate.

Below are examples of how SB 9 can be applied to some typical properties in the Town under the urban lot split and two-unit development scenarios.

Parcels eligible for an Urban Lot Split Application
100 Alerche Drive
Minimum Lot Size (40
percent of original
parcel)
Minimum Lot Width
(20 feet)
Minimum Public
Frontage (20 feet)
Minimum Public
Frontage, Flag Lot (12
feet)
Original Parcel 62,833 square feet 180 191 N/A
Parcel 1 25,165 square feet 120 240 N/A
Parcel 2 37,668 square feet 180 191 N/A
16405 Kennedy Road
Minimum Lot Size (40
percent of original
parcel)
Minimum Lot Width
(20 feet)
Minimum Public
Frontage (20 feet)
Minimum Public
Frontage, Flag Lot (12
feet)
Original Parcel 26,100 square feet 78 150 N/A
Parcel 1 10,607 square feet 105 141 N/A
Parcel 2 15,503 square feet 78 150 N/A
Parcels eligible for a Two-Unit Development Application 16619 Marchmont Drive

Appendix D. Sites Inventory Analysis
NovemberSeptember March 2023 Appendix D D-71
Maximum
Building Height
(30 feet)
Minimum
Driveway Width
(10 feet)
Minimum Setbacks
Proposed Square
Footage
(First Unit Limited
to 1,200 square
feet)
Front: 25 feet
Garage Entry: 18 feet
Interior Side: 4 feet
Rear: 4 feet
Street Side: 15 feet
Separation between detached structure: 5 feet
Unit 1 25 18
Front: 25 feet
1,200
Garage Entry: 25 feet
Interior Side: 4 feet
Rear: 32 feet
Separation between detached structure: 5 feet
Unit 2 25 12
Front: 25 feet
3,184
Garage Entry: 25 feet
Interior Side: 8 feet
Rear: 54 feet
Separation between detached structure: 5 feet
14261 Capri Drive
Maximum
Building Height
(30 feet)
Minimum
Driveway Width
(10 feet)
Minimum Setbacks
Proposed Square
Footage
(First Unit Limited
to 1,200 square
feet)
Front: 25 feet
Garage Entry: 18 feet
Interior Side: 4 feet
Rear: 4 feet
Street Side: 15 feet
Separation between detached structure: 5 feet
Unit 1 15 10
Front: 25 feet
857
Garage Entry: N/A
Interior Side: 15 feet
Rear: 72 feet
Separation between detached structure: 15 feet
Unit 2 22 10
Front: 25 feet
1,663
Garage Entry: 25 feet
Interior Side: 15 feet
Rear: 120 feet
Separation between detached structure: 5 feet
Program BL: Senate Bill 9 Monitoring has been included to monitor the number of SB 9 applications annually.

Constraints: None.

HCD Draft Revised Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
D-72 Appendix D NovemberSeptember March 2023
Units Entitled/Permitted/Under Construction/Finaled Since June 30, 2022, to January 31, 2023 Address: See addresses listed below in Table D-7Table D-77 Number of Housing Units: 2272 net new units
“By Right” = 20% Affordable: Not required.

Description: Units that are made available during the RHNA projection period (June 30, 2022, through January 31, 2031) can be credited toward the RHNA. Since June 30, 2022, the Town has entitled, permitted, and finaled a number of housing projects and one project was under construction. These projects added 2272 housing units to the Town’s inventory.

Table D-7 Entitled/Permitted/Under Construction/Finaled Address APN Net
Units
Very LowIncome
Units
Low
Income
Units
Moderate
Income
Units
Above
Moderate
Income
Units
BMP InLieu Fee
Hillside
PD
Project
Description Project Status
North Forty Phase 1 424-07-100 194 49 0 1 144 N
Mixed development
consisting of 320
residential units.

Planning Entitlements Approved, Building
Permits at Various Stages of Review,
Approval and Construction. 194 units
finaled after June 30, 2022, including 49
very-low income senior units and one
affordable caretaker's unit.

North Forty Phase 1 424-07-100 30 0 0 1 29 N
Mixed development
consisting of 320
residential units.

Planning Entitlements Approved, Building
Permits at Various Stages of Review,
Approval and Construction. 30 units under
construction.
20102 Foster Road 537-33-009 1 0 0 0 1 Y
One single-family
residence on a vacant
lot.

Building finaled.
14335 La
Rinconada Drive 409-14-026 1 0 0 0 1 N
Subdivision of one lot to
two lots. Net one single
family residential lot.

Planning Entitlements Approved.
14330 La
Rinconada Drive
07/19/23
409-14-020 1 0 0 0 1 N
Subdivision of one lot to
two lots. Net one single
family residential lot.

Planning Entitlements Under Review.

Total Net Units 2227 049 0 02 2176

Appendix D. Sites Inventory Analysis
NovemberSeptember March 2023 Appendix D D-73
Pipeline Projects
Address: See addresses listed below in Table D-8Table D-88Table D-23.

Number of Net Housing Units: 201191
“By Right” = 20% Affordable: Not required.

Description: The Town has residential development applications that have either been approved or are currently under review and are expected to be built during the 2023-2031 planning period are referred to as “Pipeline Projects”. Table D-8Table D-88 Table D-2 shows these approved and planned projects. For each project, the table includes the address, accessor parcel number (APN), number of units by income category, project description, whether or not the project is subject to BMP In-Lieu Fees as part of a Hillside Planned Development (PD), and project status.

Several projects included demolition or renovation of existing residences. The inventory does not count replacement units or renovated units toward RHNA; rather, only the net new capacity is counted towards RHNA. Units are categorized by income level as follows:
 Projects with deed-restricted affordable units are counted towards the very low-, low- or moderate income RHNA, as applicable.  Projects that include non-deed restricted market-rate rental multifamily units are assumed to meet the above moderate income RHNA.  Projects that include market-rate attached ownership or single-family units are assumed to meet above moderate income RHNA based on recent home sale prices that are generally only affordable to above market-income households.  Projects that are residential planned development projects with five (5) to nine (9) units with an underlying zone of Hillside Residential shall pay a Below Market Price In-Lieu fee prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. The in-lieu fee shall be equal to the amount of six (6) percent of the building permit valuation for the entire project.

As shown in Table D-28, there are 28 projects in the pipeline that will provide a total of 201 191 net new units.

Constraints: None.

HCD Draft Revised Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
D-74 Appendix D November SeptemberMarch 2023
Table D-8 Table D-23 Pipeline Projects Table
Address APN Net
Units
Very LowIncome
Units
Low
Income
Units
Moderate
Income
Units
Above
Moderate
Income
Units
BMP InLieu Fee
Hillside
PD
Project Description Project Status
246 Almendra Ave. 510-14-019 +1 0 0 0 1 N
One new single-family
residence on a vacant lot.

Planning Entitlements Approved,
Building Permit Under Review.
16466 Bonnie Ln. 532-02-053 +1 0 0 0 1 N
One new single-family
residence on a vacant lot.

Subdivision Approved, Planning
Entitlements for Development on Newly
Created Lot Has Not Been Submitted.
2021 Foster Rd.
537-33-001 +1 0 0 0 1 Y
One new single-family
residence on a vacant lot.

Planning Entitlements Approved,
Building Permit Under Review.
16195 George St. 529-18-051 +3 0 0 0 03 N
Demo of an existing
residence and construction of
four new condos. Net of
three units.

Planning Entitlements Approved,
Building Permit Under Review.
16100 Greenridge
Terrace 527-12-002 +8 0 0 0 8 Y
Subdivision of one vacant lot
into eight hillside lots.

Subdivision Entitlements and Site
Improvements Approved, Site
Improvements Under Construction,
Planning Entitlements for Development
on Newly Created Lots Have Not Been
Submitted.
200 Happy Acres
Rd. 537-24-030 +1 0 0 0 1 N
One new single-family
residence on a vacant lot. Planning Entitlements Under Review. 16220 Harwood Rd. 567-18-051 +2 0 0 0 2 N
Subdivision of one lot into
three lots, and a net of two
new single-family residences.

Subdivision Approved, Planning
Entitlements Under Review.
16461 S. Kennedy
Rd. 532-17-027 +1 0 0 0 1 N
One new single-family
residence on a vacant lot.

Planning Entitlements Approved,
Building Permits Under Review.

Appendix D. Sites Inventory Analysis
NovemberSeptember March 2023 Appendix D D-75
Address APN Net
Units
Very LowIncome
Units
Low
Income
Units
Moderate
Income
Units
Above
Moderate
Income
Units
BMP InLieu Fee
Hillside
PD
Project Description Project Status
16484 S. Kennedy
Rd. 532-20-012 +1 0 0 0 1 N
One new single-family
residence on a vacant lot.

Planning Entitlements Approved,
Building Permit Under Review.
300 Laurel
Mountain Ln. 567-24-023 +1 0 0 0 1 N
One new single-family
residence on a vacant lot. Planning Entitlements Under Review. 14926 Los Gatos
Blvd. 424-10-009 +5 0
1 Deed
Restricted
0 4 N
Mixed-use building with five
units. Net of five new units. Planning Entitlements Under Review. 17200 Los Robles
Way
532-36-075, -
076, and -
077.
+2 0 0 0 2 N
Lot line adjustment of three
parcels showing
development potential of two
vacant parcels. Net of two
lots.

Lot Line Adjustment Approved,
Planning Entitlements for Newly
Created Lots Have Not Been Submitted
15415 National Ave. 424-12-006 +1 0 0 0 1 N
Subdivision of one lot into
two new lots. Net of one new
single-family residence.

Subdivision Approved, Planning
Entitlements for Development on Newly
Created Lots Have Not Been
Submitted.
105 Newell Ave.

New addresses:
(103, 104, 109, and
110 Sporleder Ct)
409-24-016 +4 0 0 0 4 N
Subdivision of one lot
commercial lot into five lots.

Net of four new single-family
residential lots.

Planning Entitlements Approved,
Building Permits Under Review.
120 Oak Meadow
Dr. 529-10-131 +1 0 0 0 1 N
Subdivision of one lot into
two lots and construction of a
new single-family residence.

Planning Entitlements Under Review.
45 Reservoir Rd. 529-33-054 +1 0 0 0 1 N
One new single-family
residence on a vacant lot. Planning Entitlements Under Review. 16940 Roberts Rd. 529-18-053 +2 0 0 0 2 N
Demolition of an existing
single-family residence,
construction of three new
condominium units. Net of
two units.

Planning Entitlements Approved,
Building Permits Approved.

HCD Draft Revised Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
D-76 Appendix D November SeptemberMarch 2023
Address APN Net
Units
Very LowIncome
Units
Low
Income
Units
Moderate
Income
Units
Above
Moderate
Income
Units
BMP InLieu Fee
Hillside
PD
Project Description Project Status
465 N. Santa Cruz
Ave. 410-16-004 +1 0 0 0 1 N
Mixed-use project with one
new dwelling unit in an
existing commercial building.

Planning Entitlements Approved,
Building Permits Approved and Under
Construction.
15343 Santella Ct. 527-09-034 +1 0 0 0 1 Y
One new single-family
residence on a vacant lot. Planning Entitlements Under Review. 15415 Santella Ct. 527-09-022 +1 0 0 0 1 Y
One new single-family
residence on a vacant lot. Planning Entitlements Approved, Building Permit Under Review.
15365 Santella Ct. 527-09-36 +1 0 0 0 1 Y
One new single-family
residence on a vacant lot. Planning Entitlements Approved. 15665 Shady Ln. 527-11-009 +1 0 0 0 1 N
One new single-family
residence on a vacant lot. Planning Entitlements Approved, Building Permit Under Review.
14915 Shannon Rd. 537-27-047 +10 0 0 0 10 Y
Zone Change, General Plan
Amendment, and the
subdivision of one lot into 10
lots.

Planning Entitlements Under Review.
15215 Shannon Rd.

New addresses:
(116, 118, 120, 121
and 123 Rock Ridge
Rd.)
537-25-036 +4 0 0 0 4 Y
Subdivision of one lot into
five hillside lots. Net of four
lots.

Subdivision Entitlements Approved
Planning Entitlements for Development
on Newly Created Lots Have Not Been
Submitted.
400 Surmont Dr. 527-20-003 +2 0 0 0 2 N
Subdivision of one lot into
three lots with two new
hillside homes. Net of two
units.

Planning Entitlements Approved.
15860 Winchester
Blvd.
529-11-013, -
038, -039,
and -040
+1013 0 0 0 0103 N
113 assisted living units with
kitchens (net increase of 103
units).

Planning Entitlements Under Review.

Appendix D. Sites Inventory Analysis
NovemberSeptember March 2023 Appendix D D-77
Address APN Net
Units
Very LowIncome
Units
Low
Income
Units
Moderate
Income
Units
Above
Moderate
Income
Units
BMP InLieu Fee
Hillside
PD
Project Description Project Status
144 Wood Rd. 510-47-044
+1 0 0 0 1 N
One new single-family
residence on a vacant lot. Planning Entitlements Approved.

North Forty Phase 1 424-07-100 +30 0 0 0 30 N
Mixed-use development
consisting of 320 residential
units, including 49 very lowincome senior unit and one affordable caretakers’ unit.
30 units have not received
building permit approval yet.

Planning Entitlements Approved,
Building Permits at Various Stages of
Review and Approval and Construction.

Total Net Pipeline Units = 201191
Source: Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department.

RHNA Credits Summary
A summary of the pipeline projects, projected ADU, and SB 9 development which may serve as credit toward the Town’s RHNA requirements are included below in Table D-3 4 and in total amount to 497 units.

Table D-34 Miscellaneous RHNA Credits
RHNA Credit Affordability Credit
Very Low-Income Low-Income Moderate-Income Above-Moderate Income Total Pipeline Projects 0 1 0 200 201
ADUs 20 60 60 60 200
SB 9 Units 0 0 0 96 96
Total 20 61 60 356 497
Source: Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department.

HCD Draft Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element Appendix D. Sites Inventory Analysis
D-78 Appendix D NovemberSeptember March 2023
Inventory of Vacant and Available Sites
This section provides the formal inventory of sites that the Town of Los Gatos will rely on in the 6th Housing Element planning cycle. Per State law and Housing Policy, the Town is required to maintain “no net loss” of the housing capacity represented by this list of parcels and the sites they comprise. To facilitate this, the inventory presented in Appendix H has been designed with excess capacity. This allows some degree of flexibility in decision making for individual development projects as they come forward for approval.

In short, with some limited flexibility, the Town is committed to permitting housing on each of the parcels listed in the table below, and in so doing ensuring that the number of units listed for each parcel in the table "planned capacity” is achieved. Should the Town approve development that is inconsistent with the parcel’s planned capacity, it is then required as part of that approval to:

1. Find, based on quantitative evidence, that the remaining inventory of housing sites is still sufficient to meet the Town’s 6th cycle RHNA; or

2. Identify one or more available sites with the realistic development capacity to replace the housing that would have otherwise been developed had consistency with planned capacity been achieved.

Appendix H I provides details and capacity estimates for each of the parcels that comprise the Sites Inventory as identified in the section above.

D. 4 5Summary and Conclusions
The sites identified in this report are sufficient to accommodate Los Gatos’ Regional Housing Needs Allocation for the 6th cycle planning period. The RHNA planning period for the ABAG region started on June 30, 2022, therefore housing units that were finaled, permitted, or approved after this date, or were under construction as of June 30, 2022, can be credited toward the current sixth cycle RHNA. RHNA credits for housing units that were finaled, permitted, or approved after this date, or were under construction as of June 30, 2022; ADU projections; Senate Bill 9 projections; and the Pipeline Projects amount to 737416 units, with a remaining RHNA of 1,2561,577 units.

The Sites Inventory accommodates a net capacity of approximately 1,9711,955 units,This number accommodates a buffer surplus of approximately 25 5724 percent above the remaining RHNA of 1,2561,577 units, which would equal capacity of approximately 501 715378 additional units. These sites, in addition to Accessory Dwelling Units Projections, Senate Bill 9 Projections, and Pipeline Projects have a total, net capacity of 2,4942,7082,371 units.

This “cushion” for capacity above the base RHNA number is highly recommended because of the State’s no-netloss policy, which precludes jurisdictions from approving development that results in an overall housing site deficit. The “cushion” essentially provides a degree of flexibility for policy makers as they make development decisions. Many of the sites identified in this report have existing uses that would need to be demolished before new housing could be constructed.

For communities like Los Gatos that are largely built out and surrounded by other communities and undevelopable hillsides, redevelopment and densification is the only practical solution to providing a fair share of future housing for the San Francisco Bay Area. By its nature, such redevelopment is more costly and more time consuming than building new units on vacant land. To offset these constraints, higher densities are proposed in some areas. These higher densities act as a market incentive to offset the added cost and time required build new housing on redeveloped sites. Property owner interest will be pivotal for facilitating single-family site opportunities to add housing through construction of ADUs and use of SB 9 processes, which allow for up to four units on a property zoned for a single house.

Review of Previous Housing Element E

APPENDIX

Appendix E. Review of Previous Housing Element
NovemberSeptember2023 Appendix E E-1
E.1 Introduction
In order to effectively plan for the future, it is important to reflect back on the goals of the previous Housing Element and to identify those areas where progress was made and those areas where continued effort is needed.

State Housing Element guidelines require communities to evaluate their previous Housing Element according to the following criteria:
 Effectiveness of the Element.
 Progress on Implementation.
 Appropriateness in Goals, Objectives, and Policies.

E.2 Effectiveness of the Element
The Town of Los Gatos’ 2015 Housing Element identified the following goals:
 Expand the choice of housing opportunities for all economic segments of the community by supporting the development of affordable housing in a variety of types and sizes, including a mixture of ownership and rental housing.
 Maintain and/or adopt appropriate land use regulations and other development tools to encourage the development of affordable housing that is compatible with the neighborhood and the community.  Preserve existing residential opportunities, including the existing affordable housing stock.  Ensure that all persons have equal access to housing opportunities.  Retain and expand affordable housing opportunities for seniors.  Mitigate Town governmental constraints to affordable and special needs housing development.  Encourage residential construction that promotes green building and energy conservation practices.  Ensure that the Town has sufficient resources and takes appropriate measures to implement the Housing Element.
 Maintain the Town’s 2005 jobs-to-household ratio of 1.5 jobs per household.

In order to achieve these goals, the 2015 Housing Element listed a series of policies and programs. The policies covered a range of housing concerns, including appropriate zoning for lower and moderate-income households, assisting in developing affordable housing, removing governmental constraints, conserving the existing affordable housing stock, preventing the conversion of affordable units to market rate, and promoting equal housing opportunities for all persons. The policies comply with State housing law guidelines.

E.3 Progress on Implementation
To assess the Town’s progress on implementing the 2015 Housing Element, the following key areas were reviewed:
 Adopted Programs;
 Production of Housing;
 Preservation of “At Risk” Units; and
 Rehabilitation of Existing Units.

Each of these areas is discussed in detail below.

Overview of Adopted Programs
Table E-1 below identifies all of the actions the Town committed to in the 2015 Housing Element. The table also includes a description of the progress that was made during the 2015 to 2023 planning period. Where a program is recommended to be continued in the current Housing Element, that program appears in Section 10.6 of Chapter 10. In updating the Housing Element, the Town took a critical evaluation of the 2015 Housing Element

2023-2031 Housing Element
E-2 Appendix E NovemberSeptember March 2023
programs. Programs that are considered routine functions are removed from the 2023-2031 Housing Element as specific housing programs. Housing programs that are intended to achieve similar objectives are combined to eliminate redundancy.

HCD Draft Revised Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
E-3 Appendix E NovemberSeptember March 2023
Table E-1 Overview of Adopted Programs
No.

Programs
(The text provided in this column is a synopsis only; for complete program language refer to the 2015 Housing Element)
Achievements/Effectiveness Continue/Modify/Delete
Goal
HOU-1
Expand the choice of housing opportunities for all economic segments of the community by supporting the development of affordable housing in a variety of types and sizes, including a mixture of ownership and rental housing. Modify as Goal HE-1.

Policy
HOU-1.1
Develop and utilize all available housing funding resources in order to provide the maximum amount of affordable housing as feasible. Modify as Policy HE-2.1.

Policy
HOU-1.2
Work with nonprofit agencies and housing developers to plan and develop a mix of affordable housing opportunities in Los Gatos. Modify as Policy HE-2.9.

Actions/Implementation Programs

1.1 Continue to implement the Below Market Price (BMP) program and evaluate it annually to ensure it is not a constraint to development.

BMP Program has been implemented on all
residential projects that meet the criteria.

Modify as Implementation
Program NL.

1.2 Amend the Town Code to allow new deed restricted Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) to be affordable to lower income households on non-conforming residential lots over 10,000 square feet and in the Hillside Residential Zone on sites that are larger than 5 acres.

Town Code has been amended to address
this. Delete.

1.3 Continue to provide up to a 100 percent density bonus for developments that include housing for elderly, handicapped, and/or very low and low-income households.

This is an incentive that has been available
to projects that meet the criteria. There
are still opportunities to fulfill this program
and a modified version of this program will
be continued.

Modify as Implementation
Program VR.

1.4 Using BMP in-lieu fees, implement the proposed programs and initiatives of the Town’s Affordable Housing Strategies to increase and preserve affordable housing, such as purchasing affordability covenants in existing apartments.

Use of BMP in-lieu fees will be considered
as opportunities arise and direction is
provided to utilize the Town’s BMP in-lieu
fees. There are still opportunities to fulfill
this program and a modified version of this
program will be continued.

Modify as Implementation
Program PT.

1.5 Hold a periodic outreach meeting with affordable housing developers to discuss the development of housing affordable to extremely low-income households.

The Town will consider incentives when
projects of this nature are proposed. There
are still opportunities to fulfill this program
and it is being continued but modified.

Modify as Implementation
Program SO.

HCD Draft Revised Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
E-4 Appendix E NovemberSeptember March 2023
No.

Programs
(The text provided in this column is a synopsis only; for complete program language refer to the 2015 Housing Element)
Achievements/Effectiveness Continue/Modify/Delete

1.6 Encourage the creation of housing that is affordable to extremely low-income households by considering allocating a percentage of the Town’s Affordable Housing (Below Market Price) fund to subsidize housing for extremely low-income households.

Use of BMP in-lieu fees will be considered
as opportunities arise and direction is
provided to utilize the Town’s BMP in-lieu
fees.

Modify as Implementation
Program PN.

1.7 The Town will rezone 13.5 acres within the North 40 Specific Plan area within three years of Housing Element adoption at minimum a density of 20 dwelling units per acre to facilitate affordable housing production.

This was completed. 320 housing units
were approved with a majority under
construction.

Delete. The North Forty
Specific Plan was adopted
by the Town Council on
June 17, 2015.

1.8 To assist the development of housing for lower income households on sites larger than ten acres, the Town will facilitate land divisions and lot line adjustments to result in parcels sizes between one to ten acres that facilitate multiple-family developments affordable to lower income households in light of state, federal and local financing programs.

When this type of project is submitted, it is
given priority. There are still opportunities
to fulfill this program and a modified
version of this program will be continued.

Modify as Implementation
Program KM.

Goal
HOU-2
Maintain and/or adopt appropriate land use regulations and other development tools to encourage the development of affordable housing that is compatible with the neighborhood and the community. Delete.

Policy
HOU-2.1
Continue to designate sufficient, residentially zoned land at appropriate densities to provide adequate sites to accommodate Los Gatos’s RHNA for 2015–2023. Modify as Policy HE-1.1.

Policy
HOU-2.2
Ensure that the Town will provide sufficient land at appropriate zoning categories to meet its RHNA for very low-, and moderateincome households, as demonstrated in the Housing Sites Inventory analysis in Chapter 6 of the Housing Element Technical Appendix.

Delete.

Policy
HOU-2.3
Encourage mixed–use developments that provide affordable housing close to employment centers and/or transportation facilities, particularly along Los Gatos Boulevard and within a ½-mile radius of the future Vasona light rail station. Modify as Policy HE-2.3.

Policy
HOU-2.4
Demonstrate that all new residential development is sufficiently served by public services and facilities, including pedestrian and vehicular circulation, water and wastewater services, police, fire, schools, and parks. Modify as Policy HE-1.3.

Policy
HOU-2.5
New single-family, multi-family, and mixed-use developments shall be compatible with the character of the surrounding neighborhood. Modify as Policy HE-1.4.

Policy
HOU-2.6 Strive to ensure that at least 30 percent of the housing stock is rental units. Modify as Policy HE-2.4.

Policy
HOU-2.7 Create new affordable housing opportunities through acquisition using Affordable Housing Funds. Delete.

Appendix E. Review of Previous Housing Element
March NovemberSeptember 2023 Appendix E E-5
No.

Programs
(The text provided in this column is a synopsis only; for complete program language refer to the 2015 Housing Element)
Achievements/Effectiveness Continue/Modify/Delete
Actions/Implementation Programs

2.1 Continue to implement the minimum density and affordable housing incentives within the AHOZ.

A project has not been submitted for 110
Knowles Avenue, the one parcel in Town
with an AHOZ overlay.

Delete. The property
located at 110 Knowles
Avenue will still retain the
AHOZ designation, as well
as a HEOZ overlay.The
AHOZ will be removed
from the Town Code and
replaced with the Housing
Element Overlay Zone.

Currently the AHOZ only
applies to one site in Town
(Site F-1).

2.2 For multiple-family residential development within the North 40 and the Southbay AHOZ site, subject to by right development, the Town will amend the Town Code to add by right development findings that, among other item, state that if a project meets the objective review criteria contained in the AHOZ Design Guidelines or North Forty Specific Plan design guidelines the deciding body will approve the affordable housing proposal.

On August 1, 2017, the Town Council
approved the Phase I application for the
North Forty Specific Plan Area which
included 320 residential units. A project for
the Southbay AHOZ site was not submitted
during the fifth cycle planning period.

Delete. Implementation
Programs AQBF and BG AR
are proposed to modify the
Zoning Code and General
Plan to create the HEOZ for
all sites located on the Sites
Inventory. The AHOZ will
be removed from the Town
Code.

2.3 The Town Code (Zoning Regulations) will be amended to clarify that Transitional and Supportive Housing is permitted in all residential zones by right.

No projects were submitted during the fifth
cycle for Transitional or Supportive
Housing.

Modify as Implementation
Program BCAP.

HCD Draft Revised Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
E-6 Appendix E NovemberSeptember March 2023
No.

Programs
(The text provided in this column is a synopsis only; for complete program language refer to the 2015 Housing Element)
Achievements/Effectiveness Continue/Modify/Delete

2.4 For multiple family residential development within the North 40 and the Southbay AHOZ site subject to by right development, the Town will amend the Town Code to add by right development findings that, among other item, state that if a project meets the objective review criteria contained in the AHOZ Design Guidelines or North Forty Specific Plan design guidelines the deciding body will approve the affordable housing proposal.

On August 1, 2017, the Town Council
approved the Phase I application for the
North Forty Specific Plan Area which
included 320 residential units. A project for
the Southbay AHOZ site was not submitted
during the fifth cycle planning period.

Delete. Implementation
Programs BF AQ and BGAR
are proposed to modify the
Zoning Code and General
Plan to create the HEOZ for
all sites located on the Sites
Inventory. The AHOZ will
be removed from the Town
Code.

2.5 To ensure adequate residential capacity to accommodate the RHNA for each income category, the Town will develop and implement an ongoing formal evaluation procedure (project-by-project) of sites identified in the Sites Inventory.

If this situation arises the Town will comply
with this requirement.

Continue as
Implementation Program
C.

Goal
HOU-3 Preserve existing residential opportunities, including the existing affordable housing stock. Modify as Goal HE-4.

Policy
HOU-3.1 Encourage the maintenance and improvement of existing housing units. Modify as Policy HE-4.1.

Policy
HOU-3.2
Support the preservation and conservation of existing housing units that provide affordable housing opportunities for Town residents and workers. Modify as Policy HE-4.4.

Policy
HOU-3.3 Improve the quality of rental housing by acquisition and/or rehabilitation using Affordable Housing Fund. Modify as Policy HE4-4.2.

Policy
HOU-3.4
Preserve the affordability of units affordable to very low-, low-, and moderate-income households in Bonnie View Park, and enforce zoning regulations regarding conversion of mobile home parks in Los Gatos. Continue as Policy HE-4.3.

Actions/Implementation Programs

3.1 Continue to monitor affordable, multi-family housing units in the Town to ensure that they retain their affordability status.

No units have been converted to market
rate rents.

Continue as
Implementation Program
AGP.

3.2 The Town will continue to implement Section 29.20.155 of the Town Code that addresses conversions of residential use, specifically Section 29.20.155(a)(2) that requires that any proposed conversion satisfy the housing goals and policies as set forth in the General Plan.

This will be considered if a conversion of
residential uses is proposed.

Continue as
Implementation Program
AHQ.

3.3 Continue to participate in the County of Santa Clara Community Development Block Grant Joint Powers Authority so Town residents can participate in County CDBG Housing Rehabilitation programs.

The Town still participates in these
programs.

Continue as
Implementation Program
AIR.

Appendix E. Review of Previous Housing Element
March NovemberSeptember 2023 Appendix E E-7
No.

Programs
(The text provided in this column is a synopsis only; for complete program language refer to the 2015 Housing Element)
Achievements/Effectiveness Continue/Modify/Delete

3.4 Continue to support countywide programs that provide assistance with minor home repairs and accessibility improvements for lower-income households, including special needs households.

The Town continues to support these
programs.

Continue as
Implementation Program
AIS.

Goal
HOU-4 Ensure that all persons have equal access to housing opportunities. Modify as Goal HE-6.

Policy
HOU-4.1 Support housing programs that protect individuals’ rights. Modify as Policy HE-6.1.

Policy
HOU-4.2
Continue to provide assistance to service providers who support special needs households such as seniors, persons with disabilities (including developmental challenges), and the homeless, such as Project Sentinel, Santa Clara County Housing Authority, and Santa Clara County Office of Supportive Housing.

Continue as Policy HE-6.3.

Policy
HOU-4.3 Continue to encourage Los Gatos households to participate in financial assistance programs provided in the County of Santa Clara.

Continue as Policy HE-6.2.

Actions/Implementation Programs

4.1 Continue to provide a guide to developments that include affordable housing units as part of the Housing Resources Guide posted on the Town’s website.

The Town Housing Resources Guide is
updated when necessary and a modified
version of this program will be continued.

Modify as Implementation
Program ALW.

4.2 Continue the administration of the Rental Dispute Resolution Program and consider revisions as necessary to make the program as effective as possible in protecting both tenants and landlords’ rights.

The Town continues to use Project Sentinel
to administer a Rental Dispute Resolution
Program.

Continue as
Implementation Program
AEAM.

4.3 Continue to allow for an emergency shelter as a by-right permitted use in the Controlled Manufacturing (CM) zoning district, subject to appropriate development standards.

This program has been completed. The
Town Code has been amended to address
this.

Delete.

4.4 Continue to provide support for community and non-profit organizations providing supportive services for homeless persons in Los Gatos.

The Town continues to support
organizations that provide supportive
services for homeless persons.

Continue as
Implementation Program
YN.

HCD Draft Revised Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
E-8 Appendix E NovemberSeptember March 2023
No.

Programs
(The text provided in this column is a synopsis only; for complete program language refer to the 2015 Housing Element)
Achievements/Effectiveness Continue/Modify/Delete

4.5 Support the efforts of the Santa Clara County Fair Housing Consortium. Continue to make referrals through Project Sentinel and provide updated fair housing information on the Town’s website and at public locations through the Town, such as the Adult Recreation Center and public kiosks.

Project Sentinel is a member of the Santa
Clara County Fair Housing Consortium and
administers the Town's Rental Dispute
Resolution Program.

Modify as Implementation
Program AMX.

4.6 Support the efforts of non-profit affordable housing organizations that provide housing services in Los Gatos.

The Town has met with affordable housing
organizations regarding potential
development in Town and a modified
version of this program will be continued.

Modify as Implementation
Program Y.

4.7 Continue to support the County of Santa Clara’s Continuum of Care plan, as well as the “Housing 1000” campaign by Destination: Home.

The Town continues to support Santa Clara
County's Continuum of Care Plan and a
modified version of this program will be
continued.

Continue as
Implementation Program
UZ.

4.8 The Town shall amend the Town Code within one year of the Housing Element adoption to be consistent with the Employee Housing Act.

This program has been completed. The
Town will comply with State Law if a project
is proposed, or an issue comes up before
the Town Code is amended.

Delete.

Goal
HOU-5 Retain and expand affordable housing opportunities for seniors. Modify as Goal HE-2 Policy
HOU-5.1 Promote the Town’s Housing Conservation Program to assist low-income seniors with basic home repairs and maintenance. Delete.

Policy
HOU-5.2
Allow and encourage small-scale living facilities of two to six seniors that may include nursing care services that can be integrated into existing neighborhoods as infill development. Delete.

Policy
HOU-5.3
Work with existing senior lifestyle living and assisted living facilities in Los Gatos, and support the development of new senior housing that includes continuum of care facilities within the Town. Modify as Policy HE-2.7.

Actions/Implementation Programs

5.1 Provide regularly updated senior housing resource materials at the Adult Recreation Center.

Senior resource materials are updated
when necessary and this program will be
continued.

Continue as
Implementation Program
IAY.

Appendix E. Review of Previous Housing Element
March NovemberSeptember 2023 Appendix E E-9
No.

Programs
(The text provided in this column is a synopsis only; for complete program language refer to the 2015 Housing Element)
Achievements/Effectiveness Continue/Modify/Delete
Goal
HOU-6 Mitigate Town governmental constraints to affordable and special needs housing development. Modify as Goal HE-3 Policy
HOU-6.1 Continue expediting the permit processing system for affordable residential development applications. Modify Policy HE-3.3.

Policy
HOU-6.2 Encourage universal design features in all new residential developments, to supplement the Title 24 requirements. Modify as Policy HE-1.6.

Policy
HOU-6.3 Support the rehabilitation and modification of housing to allow accessible to people of all abilities. Delete.

Policy
HOU-6.4
Support the provision of permanent, affordable, and accessible housing that allows persons with special needs to live independent lives. For the purposes of this Housing Element “persons with special needs” include extremely low-income households, the elderly, overcrowded and large-family households, the homeless population, those in need of emergency shelter, youth aging out of foster care, female-headed or single-parent households, and persons with disabilities, including developmental challenges.

Continue as Policy HE-2.8.

Policy
HOU-6.5 Support efforts to provide coordinated services for persons with special needs in the Town. Modify as Policy HE-6.3.

Actions/Implementation Programs

6.1 Regularly review Town planning and zoning regulations and remove affordable housing development constraints as appropriate.

The Town's Housing Element contains a
number of items that limit or remove
constraints and this program will be
continued in multiple implementation
programs to reduce constraints and
encourage housing.

Modify as Implementation
Programs B, AAI, ACJ,
BFAQ, and BG AR to reduce
constraints and encourage
housing.

6.2 Continue to enforce Section 29.10.505–530 of the Town Code to ensure equal access to housing for persons with disabilities under the Fair Housing Act and provide specific procedures for requesting and granting reasonable accommodations.

This has not yet been completed and this
program will be continued.

Continue as
Implementation Program
AA.W.

6.3 Remove constraints to housing for persons with disabilities and encourage accessible housing in new residential developments.

Removal of constraints is considered when
necessary. A modified version of this
program will be continued.

Modify as Implementation
Program AB and ACAP.

HCD Draft Revised Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
E-10 Appendix E NovemberSeptember March 2023
No.

Programs
(The text provided in this column is a synopsis only; for complete program language refer to the 2015 Housing Element)
Achievements/Effectiveness Continue/Modify/Delete

6.4 Give priority to special needs housing by allowing for reduced processing time and streamlined procedures for such appropriate zoning/land use applications.

If a project of this nature is submitted, it
will be given priority and a modified version
of this program will be continued.

Modify as Implementation
Program ADAP.

6.5 Include preferential handling of special needs populations in management plans and regulatory agreements of funded projects.

Will be considered when plans are adopted,
and projects are funded, and a modified
version of this program will be continued.

Modify as Implementation
Program ADX.

6.6 Explore opportunities to work with local and/or regional partners to provide rental assistance for persons with developmental challenges.

The Town will explore opportunities with
local and/or regional partners during the
Housing Element update process and a
modified version of this program will be
continued.

Modify as Implementation
Program AFX.

6.7 Consider development of universal design enhancements to existing design guidelines and standards to encourage the inclusion of universal design features in new construction. Periodically study every two years and adopt as appropriate specific revisions or amendments to the Town’s development documents as part of the Town Building Code.

This was completed. The Town considers
enhancements to universal design and the
Town requires universal design features in
new construction consistent with Building
Code requirements.

Delete.

6.8 Increase awareness of universal design principles by periodically educating the Town Council, Commissions, and Boards about universal design and making information available to residents and builders at the Community Development Counter.

This was completed. The Town takes
appropriate actions to increase awareness
of universal design principles.

Delete.

6.9 Continue to work with the local California Department of Developmental Services Regional Center to continue to inform families within Los Gatos on housing and services available for persons with developmental challenges.

The Town works with the California
Department of Developmental Services to
inform citizens of available services and a
modified version of this program will be
continued.

Modify as Implementation
Program AFX.

6.10 On a biannual basis, continue to review, evaluate, update, and streamline as necessary, the development process for housing developments that will guarantee affordable units on a long-term basis for very low-, low-, and moderate-income households.

The Town considers improvements to the
development review process for affordable
housing projects when they are proposed.

Delete.

Appendix E. Review of Previous Housing Element
March NovemberSeptember 2023 Appendix E E-11
No.

Programs
(The text provided in this column is a synopsis only; for complete program language refer to the 2015 Housing Element)
Achievements/Effectiveness Continue/Modify/Delete
Goal
HOU-7 Encourage residential construction that promotes green building and energy conservation practices. Continue as Goal HE-5 Policy
HOU-7.1
Encourage sustainable housing development throughout the Town using the Town’s voluntary green building program by continuing to require that all residential development applications complete the Build It Green GreenPoint Rated Checklist as part of the development application package.

Modify as Policy HE-5.1.

Policy
HOU-7.2 Promote the construction of energy efficient new homes utilizing the Energy Star Homes Program. Delete.

Actions/Implementation Programs

7.1 Continue to enforce State of California Title 24 requirements for energy conservation.

The Town enforces Title 24 requirements,
and this program will be continued.

Continue as
Implementation Program
AKT.

Goal
HOU-8 Ensure that the Town has sufficient resources and takes appropriate measures to implement the Housing Element. Delete.

Policy
HOU-8.1
All approvals of residential developments of three or more units shall include a finding that the proposed development is consistent with the Town’s Housing Element and addresses the Town’s housing needs as identified in the Housing Element. Delete.

Policy
HOU-8.2 Provide adequate management and staffing of affordable housing funds and programs. Delete.

8.1 Prepare an annual housing report for the review of the Town Council including information on progress made towards achieving new construction need, affordable housing conserved/developed, effectiveness of existing programs and recommendations for improvement.

The Town prepares an annual housing
report and this program will be continued.

Continue as
Implementation Program
G.This is a routine function
and is deleted as a housing
program.

8.2 Continue to fund staff for the management and planning of housing programs and funding for the Town.

The Town has contracted with HouseKeys
to administer our affordable housing
program and has staff that dedicate time to
the Town’s affordable housing program.

Delete.

8.3 Deliver the adopted Housing Element to the San Jose Water Company and the West Valley Sanitation District.

Town staff regularly work with the San Jose
Water Company and West Valley Sanitation
District on upgrades to their infrastructure
and they are involved in development
applications and environmental review.

Modify as Implementation
Program HI.

Appendix E. Review of Previous Housing Element
E-12 Appendix E NovemberSeptember March 2023
Production of Housing
The 2015 Housing Element identified a Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) of 619 housing units in Los Gatos between January 1, 2015, and June 30, 2023. The RHNA was divided into the following income categories:
 100 units affordable to extremely low-income households.  101 units affordable to very low-income households.
 112 units affordable to low-income households.
 132 units affordable to moderate-income households.
 174 units affordable to above moderate-income households.

As shown in Table A5-2, during the 2015–2023 planning period, 683 new units were added to the Town’s housing stock, achieving approximately 110 percent of the Town’s RHNA. Units affordable to moderate- and lowerincome households that were created during the planning period include density bonus senior rental units (North Forty Phase I), an attached condominium (Union Avenue) and detached townhomes (Knowles Avenue) produced through the BMP program and accessory dwelling units.

Table E-2 Housing Units Produced, January 1, 2015, to December 30, 2022 Affordability
New Construction
Need
Housing Units
Produced Percent Achieved
Extremely Low 100 0 0%
Very Low 101 49 48.5%
Low 112 3 2.7%
Moderate 132 156 118.2%
Above Moderate 174 475 272.9%
Total 619 683 110.3%
Source: HCD Annual Progress Report Dashboard (as of December 30, 2022).

Preservation of “At Risk” Units
According to the 2015 Housing Element, there were no affordable units at risk of converting to market rate within 10 years from the beginning of the 2015 to 2023 planning period.

Rehabilitation of Existing Units
The Town did not rehabilitate any housing units between 2015 and 2023.

Efforts to Address Special Housing Needs
Special needs populations include farmworkers, large families, female-headed single parent households, people experiencing homelessness, persons with disabilities, seniors, and households with extremely low incomes.

Government Code Section 65588 requires that local governments review the effectiveness of the housing element goals, policies, and related actions to meet the community’s special housing needs. As shown in Table E-1 above, the Housing Element included several programs that addressed senior housing needs, households with extremely low incomes, emergency shelters, and needs for persons with disabilities. Some of the accomplishments include:
 Phase I of the North Forty Specific Plan included 49 very low-income senior units and 1 moderate-income manager’s unit.
 The Town’s ADU Ordinance implemented a 10 percent increase in the allowable floor area for a new ADU to increase the production of smaller, more affordable units.

Appendix E. Review of Previous Housing Element
March NovemberSeptember 2023 Appendix E E-13
 On November 15, 2022, the Town Council adopted Resolution 2022-072 adopting Objective Standards for the review of qualifying multi-family and residential mixed-use developments.

E.4 Appropriateness of Goals, Objectives, and Policies
The goals, objectives, and policies identified in the 2015 Housing Element were appropriate for the 2015 to 2023 timeframe because they directly relate to the program requirements listed by the California Department of Housing and Community Development.

As for new construction, the greatest progress was made in producing housing in the moderate income and above moderate-income categories, where the Town permitted approximately 62 percent and 80 percent of the needed units, respectively. The Town permitted only about a quarter of its needed very low-income units and less than three percent of its low-income units. As was the case in the in prior years, the cost of housing continued to be high in Los Gatos, making affordable housing difficult to develop in the Los Gatos market. The Town successfully provided the governmental framework to encourage and facilitate affordable housing through a continuation of its BMP program and enhanced Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance.

E.5 Summary
During the 2015–2023 planning period, as of December 31, 2022, 683 new units were added to the Town’s housing stock, achieving approximately 110 percent of the Town’s RHNA. The Town exceeded the required housing units per RHNA in the moderate and above moderate-income categories; however, fell short in the lowincome category. Many of the goals, policies, and programs added and modified in this document have the goal and objective of increasing the total production of very low- and low-income category housing units during the 6th Housing Element cycle.

Nonetheless, the goals, objectives, policies, and actions in the 2015 to 2023 Housing Element complied with State housing law that was in effect at the time and provided proper guidance for housing development in the Town. In the 2023 to 2031 Housing Element update, objectives for each of the goals will be modified as appropriate to more specifically respond to the current housing environment in Los Gatos. Policies will also be modified as needed to respond to current Housing Element law and existing, anticipated residential development conditions, and provide additional incentives to encourage the production of affordable housing.

List of Organizations Contacted F

APPENDIX

Appendix F. List of Organizations Contacted
NovemberSeptember March 2023 Appendix F F-1
F.1 Introduction
This appendix provides the names of organizations and tribal units that were contacted, as well as social media outreach completed by the Town during the preparation of Los Gatos’ 6th cycle Housing Element Update.

F.2 List of Organizations Contacted
1 Native American Heritage Commission Tribal Consultation List Santa Clara County 07/22/2020
1 Amah Mutsun Tribal Band
Valentin Lopez, Chairperson
P.O. Box 5272
Galt, CA 95632
Phone number (916) 743-5833
[email protected]
2 Amah Mutsun Tribal Band of Mission San Juan Bautista
Irenne Zwierlein, Chairperson
789 Canada Road
Woodside, CA 94062
Phone: (650) 851-7489
Fax: (650) 332-1526
[email protected]
3 Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of Costanoan
Ann Marie Sayers, Chairperson
P.O. Box 28
Hollister, CA 95024
Phone number (831) 637-4238
[email protected]
4 Muwekma Ohlone Indian Tribe of the SF Bay Area
Charlene Mijmeh, Chairperson
20885 Redwood Road, Suite 232
Castro Valley, CA 94546
Phone: (408) 464-2892
[email protected]
5 Muwekma Ohlone Indian Tribe of the SF Bay Area
Monica Arellano
20885 Redwood Road, Suite 232
Castro Valley, CA 94546
[email protected]
6 North Valley Yokuts Tribe
Timothy Perez, MLD Contact
P.O. Box 717
Linden, CA 95236
Phone: (209) 662-2788
[email protected]

HCD Draft Revised Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
F-2 Appendix F NovemberSeptember March 2023
7 North Valley Yokuts Tribe
Katherine Perez, Chairperson
P.O. Box 717
Linden, CA 95236
Phone: (209) 887-3415
[email protected]
8 The Ohlone Indian Tribe
Andres Galvan
P.O. Box 3388
Fremont, CA 94539
Phone: (510) 882-0527
Fax: (510) 687-9393
[email protected]
9 The Confederated Villages of Lisjan
Corrina Gould, Chairperson
10926 Edes Avenue
Oakland, CA 94603
Phone: (510) 882-027
[email protected]
2 Additional List of Contacted Organizations
1 Association of Bay Area Governments
Bay Area Metro Center
375 Beale Street, Suite 700
San Francisco, CA 94105
[email protected]
(415) 820-7900
2 Aleli Sangalang
Deputy Executive Director of Housing
Santa Clara County Housing Authortiy
505 W Julian Street
San Jose, CA 95110
(408) 275-8870
3 Santa Clara County Social Services Agency
353 West Julian Street
San Jose, CA 95110
[email protected]
(408) 755-7100
4 African American Community Service Agency
304 N. 6th Street
San Jose, CA 95112
[email protected]
(408) 292-3157

Appendix F. List of Organizations Contacted
NovemberSeptember March 2023 Appendix F F-3
5 Susan Alexander Kim
Secretary
Korean American Community Services
1800-B Fruitdale Avenue
San Jose, CA 95128
[email protected]
(408) 920-9733
6 Lindsey Caldwell
Division Director of Emergency Programs and Housing Services Catholic Charaties of Santa Clara County
2625 Zanker Road
San Jose, CA 95134-2107
[email protected]
7 Pancho Guevara
Executive Director
Sacred Heart Community Service
1381 South First Street
San Jose, CA 95110
(408) 278-2160
8 Pancho Guevara
Executive Director
Sacred Heart Community Service
1381 South First Street
San Jose, CA 95110
(408) 283-3700
9 Bay Area Legal Aid
4, N 2nd St. # 600
San Jose, CA 95113
(408) 283-3700
10 United Way Bay Area
1400 Parkmoor Avenue
San Jose, Ca 95126
(408) 345-4300

HCD Draft Revised Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
F-4 Appendix F NovemberSeptember March 2023
3 Engage Los Gatos Housing

Appendix F. List of Organizations Contacted

HCD Draft Revised Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element

Appendix F. List of Organizations Contacted

HCD Draft Revised Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element

Appendix F. List of Organizations Contacted

HCD Draft Revised Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element

Appendix F. List of Organizations Contacted

HCD Draft Revised Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element

Appendix F. List of Organizations Contacted

HCD Draft Revised Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element

Appendix F. List of Organizations Contacted

HCD Draft Revised Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element

Appendix F. List of Organizations Contacted

HCD Draft Revised Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element

Appendix F. List of Organizations Contacted

HCD Draft Revised Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element

Appendix F. List of Organizations Contacted

HCD Draft Revised Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element

Appendix F. List of Organizations Contacted

AFFH Segregation Report Los Gatos G

APPENDIX

1 AFFH SEGREGATION REPORT: LOS
GATOS
UC Merced Urban Policy Lab and ABAG/MTC Staff
Version of Record: March 06, 15:57:57

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 Town of Los Gatos ........................................................................... 8

2.1 Neighborhood Level Racial Segregation (within Town of Los Gatos) ...................................... 8

2.2 Regional Racial Segregation (between Los Gatos and other jurisdictions) .............................. 16 3 Income Segregation in Town of Los Gatos ........................................................................ 21

3.1 Neighborhood Level Income Segregation (within Los Gatos) ............................................... 21

3.2 Regional Income Segregation (between Los Gatos and other jurisdictions) ............................. 27 4 Appendix 1: Summary of Findings ................................................................................. 31

4.1 Segregation in Town of Los Gatos .............................................................................. 31

4.2 Segregation Between Town of Los Gatos and Other jurisdictions in the Bay Area Region ............ 31 5 Appendix 2: Segregation Data ...................................................................................... 33 6 References .............................................................................................................. 37

3 0.2 List of figures
Figure 1: Racial Dot Map of Los Gatos (2020) .............................................................................. 9 Figure 2: Racial Isolation Index Values for Los Gatos Compared to Other Bay Area Jurisdictions (2020) ....... 11 Figure 3: Racial Dissimilarity Index Values for Los Gatos Compared to Other Bay Area Jurisdictions (2020) .. 14 Figure 4: Theil’s H Index Values for Racial Segregation in Los Gatos Compared to Other Bay Area Jurisdictions (2020) ........................................................................................................................... 15 Figure 5: Racial Dot Map of Los Gatos and Surrounding Areas (2020) ................................................ 16 Figure 6: Racial Demographics of Los Gatos Compared to All Bay Area Jurisdictions (2020) ..................... 18 Figure 7: Comparing the Share of People of Color in Los Gatos and Vicinity to the Bay Area (2020) ........... 19 Figure 8: Income Dot Map of Los Gatos (2015) ........................................................................... 22 Figure 9: Income Group Isolation Index Values for Los Gatos Compared to Other Bay Area Jurisdictions (2015) ................................................................................................................................... 24 Figure 10: Income Group Dissimilarity Index Values for Los Gatos Compared to Other Bay Area Jurisdictions (2015) ........................................................................................................................... 26 Figure 11: Income Group Theil’s H Index Values for Los Gatos Compared to Other Bay Area Jurisdictions (2015) ........................................................................................................................... 27 Figure 12: Income Dot Map of Los Gatos and Surrounding Areas (2015) .............................................. 28 Figure 13: Income Demographics of Los Gatos Compared to Other Bay Area Jurisdictions (2015) ............... 29

0.3 List of tables
Table 1: Racial Isolation Index Values for Segregation within Los Gatos ............................................. 10 Table 2: Racial Dissimilarity Index Values for Segregation within Los Gatos ........................................ 13 Table 3: Theil’s H Index Values for Racial Segregation within Los Gatos ............................................ 15 Table 4: Population by Racial Group, Los Gatos and the Region ...................................................... 17 Table 5: Regional Racial Segregation Measures .......................................................................... 20 Table 6: Income Group Isolation Index Values for Segregation within Los Gatos ................................... 23 Table 7: Income Group Dissimilarity Index Values for Segregation within Los Gatos .............................. 25 Table 8: Theil’s H Index Values for Income Segregation within Los Gatos ........................................... 26 Table 9: Population by Income Group, Los Gatos and the Region ..................................................... 28 Table 10: Regional Income Segregation Measures ....................................................................... 30 Table 11: Neighborhood Racial Segregation Levels in Los Gatos ...................................................... 33 Table 12: Neighborhood Income Segregation Levels in Los Gatos ..................................................... 34 Table 13: Regional Racial Segregation Measures ......................................................................... 35 Table 14: Regional Income Segregation Measures ....................................................................... 35 Table 15: Population by Racial Group, Los Gatos and the Region ..................................................... 36 Table 16: Population by Income Group, Los Gatos and the Region ................................................... 36

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.

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

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.

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.

8 2 RACIAL SEGREGATION IN TOWN OF LOS GATOS
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 Town of Los Gatos) Racial dot maps are useful for visualizing how multiple racial groups are distributed within a specific geography. The racial dot map of Los Gatos 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.

9 Figure 1: Racial Dot Map of Los Gatos (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 Town of Los Gatos 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 Town of Los Gatos the most isolated racial group is white residents. Los Gatos’s isolation index of 0.663 for white residents means that the average white resident lives in a neighborhood that is

66.3% 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 Gatos 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.

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 Gatos Los Gatos Bay Area
Average
Race 2000 2010 2020 2020
Asian/Pacific Islander 0.079 0.118 0.197 0.245
Black/African American 0.009 0.012 0.022 0.053
Latinx 0.059 0.082 0.104 0.251
White 0.838 0.774 0.663 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 Gatos 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 Town of Los Gatos, 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).

11 Figure 2: Racial Isolation Index Values for Los Gatos 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).

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 Town of Los Gatos, the Black/African American group is 0.9 percent of the population - so staff should be aware of this small population size when evaluating dissimilarity index values involving this group.

Table 2 below provides the dissimilarity index values indicating the level of segregation in Los Gatos 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 Gatos the highest segregation is between Black and white residents (see Table 2). Los Gatos’s Black /white dissimilarity index of 0.369 means that 36.9% 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.

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 Gatos Los Gatos Bay Area
Average
Race 2000 2010 2020 2020
Asian/Pacific Islander vs. White 0.106 0.145 0.182 0.185 Black/African American vs. White 0.223* 0.246* 0.369* 0.244 Latinx vs. White 0.119 0.143 0.179 0.207
People of Color vs. White 0.093 0.124 0.157 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 Town of Los Gatos 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 Gatos, 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.

14 Figure 3: Racial Dissimilarity Index Values for Los Gatos 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 Gatos 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 Gatos increased, suggesting that there is now more neighborhood level racial segregation within the jurisdiction. In 2020, the Theil’s H Index for racial segregation in Los

15 Gatos was lower than the average value for Bay Area jurisdictions, indicating that neighborhood level racial segregation in Los Gatos is less than in the average Bay Area city.

Table 3: Theil’s H Index Values for Racial Segregation within Los Gatos Los Gatos Bay Area
Average
Index 2000 2010 2020 2020
Theil's H Multi-racial 0.011 0.015 0.023 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 Gatos 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 Gatos, 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 Gatos 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.

16 2.2 Regional Racial Segregation (between Los Gatos 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 Gatos as well as in nearby Bay Area cities.

Figure 5: Racial Dot Map of Los Gatos 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 Town of Los Gatos 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 Gatos 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 Gatos 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 lower share of Asian/Pacific Islander residents.

17 Table 4: Population by Racial Group, Los Gatos and the Region Los Gatos Bay Area
Race 2000 2010 2020 2020
Asian/Pacific Islander 7.6% 10.9% 18.3% 28.2%
Black/African American 0.8% 0.9% 0.9% 5.6%
Latinx 5.2% 7.2% 9.0% 24.4%
Other or Multiple Races 3.2% 4.0% 6.5% 5.9%
White 83.3% 77.0% 65.3% 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 Gatos 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 Town of Los Gatos 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.

18 Figure 6: Racial Demographics of Los Gatos 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 Gatos and other jurisdictions. This map demonstrates how the percentage of people of color in Los Gatos 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.

19 Figure 7: Comparing the Share of People of Color in Los Gatos 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.

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.

21 3 INCOME SEGREGATION IN TOWN OF LOS GATOS
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 Gatos) 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 Gatos 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.

22 Figure 8: Income Dot Map of Los Gatos (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 Town of Los Gatos 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 Gatos 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 Gatos.

Los Gatos’s isolation index of 0.619 for these residents means that the average Above Moderate-income resident in Los Gatos lives in a neighborhood that is 61.9% 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.

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 Gatos Los Gatos Bay Area
Average
Income Group 2010 2015 2015
Very Low-Income (<50% AMI) 0.125 0.162 0.269
Low-Income (50%-80% AMI) 0.067 0.115 0.145
Moderate-Income (80%-120% AMI) 0.135 0.166 0.183
Above Moderate-Income (>120% AMI) 0.728 0.619 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 Gatos 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 Gatos, 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.

24 Figure 9: Income Group Isolation Index Values for Los Gatos 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 Gatos 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 Gatos between lower-income residents and residents who are not lower-income increased 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.

25 In 2015, the income segregation in Los Gatos between lower-income residents and other residents was higher than the average value for Bay Area jurisdictions (See Table 7). This means that the lowerincome residents are more segregated from other residents within Los Gatos compared to other Jurisdictions in the region.

Table 7: Income Group Dissimilarity Index Values for Segregation within Los Gatos
Los Gatos Bay Area
Average
Income Group 2010 2015 2015
Below 80% AMI vs. Above 80% AMI 0.142 0.226 0.198
Below 50% AMI vs. Above 120% AMI 0.194 0.234 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 Gatos 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 Gatos, 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.

26 Figure 10: Income Group Dissimilarity Index Values for Los Gatos 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 Gatos 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 Gatos was about the same amount as it had been in 2010. In 2015, the Theil’s H Index value for income group segregation in Los Gatos was lower than the average value for Bay Area jurisdictions, indicating there is less neighborhood level income segregation in Los Gatos than in the average Bay Area city.

Table 8: Theil’s H Index Values for Income Segregation within Los Gatos Los Gatos Bay Area
Average
Index 2010 2015 2015
Theil's H Multi-income 0.030 0.028 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.

27 Figure 11 below shows how Theil’s H index values for income group segregation in Los Gatos 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 Gatos, 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 Gatos 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 Gatos 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 Gatos as well as in nearby Bay Area jurisdictions.

28 Figure 12: Income Dot Map of Los Gatos 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 Town of Los Gatos 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 Gatos differs from the region. The income demographics in Los Gatos 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 Gatos 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 Gatos and the Region Los Gatos Bay Area
Income Group 2010 2015 2015
Very Low-Income (<50% AMI) 10.83% 14.29% 28.7%
Low-Income (50%-80% AMI) 6.56% 10.57% 14.3%
Moderate-Income (80%-120% AMI) 11% 16.34% 17.6%
Above Moderate-Income (>120% AMI) 71.62% 58.8% 39.4%

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 Gatos 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 Gatos 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 Gatos 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.

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.

31 4 APPENDIX 1: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

4.1 Segregation in Town of Los Gatos
• 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 Gatos, 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 Gatos 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 Gatos increased between 2010 and 2020. Neighborhood income segregation stayed about the same between 2010 and 2015.
• Above Moderate-income residents are the most segregated compared to other income groups in Los Gatos. 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 increased between 2010 and 2015. In 2015, the income segregation in Los Gatos between lower-income residents and other residents was higher than the average value for Bay Area jurisdictions.

4.2 Segregation Between Town of Los Gatos and Other jurisdictions in the Bay Area Region
• Los Gatos 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 lower 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.

32 • Regarding income groups, Los Gatos 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.

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 Gatos Los Gatos Bay Area
Average
Index Race 2000 2010 2020 2020
Isolation
Asian/Pacific Islander 0.079 0.118 0.197 0.245
Black/African American 0.009 0.012 0.022 0.053
Latinx 0.059 0.082 0.104 0.251
White 0.838 0.774 0.663 0.491
Dissimilarity
Asian/Pacific Islander vs. White 0.106 0.145 0.182 0.185 Black/African American vs. White 0.223* 0.246* 0.369* 0.244 Latinx vs. White 0.119 0.143 0.179 0.207
People of Color vs. White 0.093 0.124 0.157 0.168
Theil's H Multi-racial All 0.011 0.015 0.023 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.

34 Table 12: Neighborhood Income Segregation Levels in Los Gatos Los Gatos Bay Area
Average
Index Income Group 2010 2015 2015
Isolation
Very Low-Income (<50% AMI) 0.125 0.162 0.269
Low-Income (50%-80% AMI) 0.067 0.115 0.145
Moderate-Income (80%-120% AMI) 0.135 0.166 0.183
Above Moderate-Income (>120% AMI) 0.728 0.619 0.507
Dissimilarity
Below 80% AMI vs. Above 80% AMI 0.142 0.226 0.198
Below 50% AMI vs. Above 120% AMI 0.194 0.234 0.253
Theil's H Multi-racial All 0.030 0.028 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.