Agenda packet — Los Gatos City Council, January 16, 2024 (part 5 of 7)

HCD Draft Revised Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
E-12 Appendix E JanuaryNovemberSeptember March 20232024 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.

Page 648 ends

Appendix E. Review of Previous Housing Element
JanuaryNovemberMarch September 20232024 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.

Page 649 ends

List of Organizations Contacted

APPENDIX
F

Page 650 ends

Appendix F. List of Organizations Contacted
JanuaryNovemberSeptember March 20232024 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]

Page 651 ends

HCD Draft Revised Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
F-2 Appendix F JanuaryNovemberSeptember March 20232024
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

Page 652 ends

Appendix F. List of Organizations Contacted
JanuaryNovemberSeptember March 20232024 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

Page 653 ends

HCD Draft Revised Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
F-4 Appendix F JanuaryNovemberSeptember March 20232024
3 Engage Los Gatos Housing

Page 654 ends

Appendix F. List of Organizations Contacted

Page 655 ends

HCD Draft Revised Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element

Page 656 ends

Appendix F. List of Organizations Contacted

Page 657 ends

HCD Draft Revised Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element

Page 658 ends

Appendix F. List of Organizations Contacted

Page 659 ends

HCD Draft Revised Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element

Page 660 ends

Appendix F. List of Organizations Contacted

Page 661 ends

HCD Draft Revised Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element

Page 662 ends

Appendix F. List of Organizations Contacted

Page 663 ends

HCD Draft Revised Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element

Page 664 ends

Appendix F. List of Organizations Contacted

Page 665 ends

HCD Draft Revised Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element

Page 666 ends

Appendix F. List of Organizations Contacted

Page 667 ends

HCD Draft Revised Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element

Page 668 ends

Appendix F. List of Organizations Contacted

Page 669 ends

HCD Draft Revised Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element

Page 670 ends

Appendix F. List of Organizations Contacted

Page 671 ends

HCD Draft Revised Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element

Page 672 ends

Appendix F. List of Organizations Contacted

Page 673 ends

AFFH Segregation Report Los Gatos G

APPENDIX

Page 674 ends

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

Page 675 ends

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

Page 676 ends

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

Page 677 ends

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.

Page 678 ends

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

Page 679 ends

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.

Page 680 ends

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.

Page 681 ends

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.

Page 682 ends

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.

Page 683 ends

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).

Page 684 ends

11 Figure 2: Racial Isolation Index Values for Los Gatos Compared to Other Bay Area Jurisdictions (2020)
Universe: Bay Area Jurisdictions.

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).

Page 685 ends

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.

Page 686 ends

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.

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.

Page 687 ends

14 Figure 3: Racial Dissimilarity Index Values for Los Gatos Compared to Other Bay Area Jurisdictions (2020)
Universe: Bay Area Jurisdictions.

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

Page 688 ends

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.

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.

Page 689 ends

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.

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.

Page 690 ends

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.

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.

Page 691 ends

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.

Page 692 ends

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.

Page 693 ends

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.

Page 694 ends

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.

Page 695 ends

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.

Page 696 ends

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.

Page 697 ends

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.

Page 698 ends

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.

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.

Page 699 ends

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.

Page 700 ends

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.

Page 701 ends

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.

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%

Page 702 ends

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.

Page 703 ends

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.

Page 704 ends

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.

Page 705 ends

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.

Page 706 ends

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.

Page 707 ends

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.

Page 708 ends

35 Table 13: Regional Racial Segregation Measures
Index Group 2010 2020
Isolation Index Regional Level
Asian/Pacific Islander 0.317 0.378
Black/African American 0.144 0.118
Latinx 0.283 0.291
White 0.496 0.429
People of Color 0.629 0.682
Dissimilarity Index Regional Level
Asian/Pacific Islander vs. White 0.384 0.369
Black/African American vs. White 0.475 0.459
Latinx vs. White 0.301 0.297
People of Color vs. White 0.296 0.293
Theil's H Multi-racial All Racial Groups 0.103 0.097
Universe: Population.

Table 14: Regional Income Segregation Measures
Index Group 2010 2015
Isolation Index Regional Level
Very Low-Income (<50% AMI) 0.277 0.315
Low-Income (50%-80% AMI) 0.157 0.154
Moderate-Income (80%-120% AMI) 0.185 0.180
Above Moderate-Income (>120% AMI) 0.467 0.435
Dissimilarity Index Regional Level
Below 80% AMI vs. Above 80% AMI 0.186 0.194
Below 50% AMI vs. Above 120% AMI 0.238 0.248
Theil's H Multi-income All Income Groups 0.034 0.032
Universe: Population.

Page 709 ends

36 Table 15: Population by Racial Group, Los Gatos and the Region Los Gatos Bay Area
Race 2000 2010 2020 2020
Asian/Pacific Islander 7.55% 10.95% 18.28% 35.8%
Black/African American 0.76% 0.86% 0.89% 5.6%
Latinx 5.21% 7.21% 9% 28.2%
Other or Multiple Races 3.16% 3.95% 6.55% 24.4%
White 83.31% 77.03% 65.29% 5.9%
Universe: Population.

Source: IPUMS National Historical Geographic Information System (NHGIS). U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Census State Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File, 2020 Census of Population and Housing, Table P002. Data from 2010 is from U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census of Population and Housing, Table P4. Data for 2000 is standardized to 2010 census tract geographies and is from U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000, Table P004.

Table 16: Population by Income Group, Los 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%
Universe: Population.

Page 710 ends

37 6 REFERENCES
Ananat, Elizabeth Oltmans. 2011. “The wrong side(s) of the tracks: The causal effects of racial segregation on urban poverty and inequality,” American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 3: 34-

66. Bayer, Patrick, Robert McMillan, and Kim S. Rueben. 2004. “What Drives Racial Segregation? New Evidence using Census Microdata,” Journal of Urban Economics 56(3): 514-535.

Burch, Traci. 2014. “The Old Jim Crow: Racial Residential Segregation and Imprisonment,” Law and Policy 36(3): 223-255.

Chetty, Raj and Nathanial Hendren. 2018. “The Impacts of Neighborhoods on Intergenerational Mobility I: Childhood Exposure Effects,” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 133(3):1107-1162 Cutler, David M., and Edward L. Glaeser. 1997. “Are ghettos good or bad?,” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 112(3): 827-72.

Lens, Michael and Paavo Monkkonen. 2016. “Do Strict Land Use Regulations Make Metropolitan Areas More Segregated by Income?,” Journal of the American Planning Association 82(1): 6–21.

Pendall, Rolf. 2000. “Local Land-Use Regulation and the Chain of Exclusion,” Journal of the American Planning Association 66(2): 125-142.

Rothstein, Richard. 2017. The Color of Law: A Forgotten History of how our Government Segregated America. New York: Liveright Publishing.

Sampson, Robert J. 2012. Great American city: Chicago and the enduring neighborhood effect.

Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Sharkey, Patrick. 2013. Stuck in place: Urban neighborhoods and the end of progress toward racial equality. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Trounstine, Jessica. 2015. “Segregation and Inequality in Public Goods,” American Journal of Political Science 60(3): 709-725.

Trounstine, Jessica. 2018. Segregation by Design: Local Politics and Inequality in American Cities. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Page 711 ends

Sites Inventory Form H

APPENDIX

Page 712 ends

Please Start Here, Instructions in Cell A2, Table in
A3:B17 Form Fields
Site Inventory Forms must be submitted to HCD for a
housing element or amendment adopted on or after
January 1, 2021. The following form is to be used for
satisfying this requirement. To submit the form,
complete the Excel spreadsheet and submit to HCD
at [email protected]. Please send the Excel
workbook, not a scanned or PDF copy of the tables.

General Information
Jurisidiction Name LOS GATOS
Housing Element Cycle 6th
Contact Information
First Name Joel
Last Name Paulson
Title Community Development Director
Email [email protected]
Phone 4083546879
Mailing Address
Street Address 110 East Main Street
City Los Gatos
Zip Code 94538
Website
https://www.losgatosca.gov/897/Planning

Page 713 ends

Table A: Housing Element Sites Inventory, Table Starts in Cell A2 For Santa Clara County jurisdictions, please format the APNs as follows: 999-99-999 Jurisdiction Name Site Address/Intersection 5 Digit
ZIP Code
Assessor
Parcel Number
Consolidated
Sites
General Plan Designation
(Current)
Zoning Designation
(Current)
Minimum
Density
Allowed
(units/acre)
Maximum
Density
Allowed
(units/acre)
Parcel
Size
(Acres)
Existing
Use/Vacancy Infrastructure Publicly-Owned Site Status Identified in Last/Last Two Planning Cycle(s) Lower
Income
Capacity
Moderate
Income
Capacity
Above
Moderate
Income
Capacity
Total
Capacity Optional Information1 Optional Information2 Optional Information3 LOS GATOS 0
LOS GATOS 0
LOS GATOS 0
LOS GATOS 0
LOS GATOS 0
LOS GATOS 0
LOS GATOS 0
LOS GATOS 0
LOS GATOS 0
LOS GATOS 0
LOS GATOS 0
LOS GATOS 0
LOS GATOS 0
LOS GATOS 0
LOS GATOS 0
LOS GATOS 0
LOS GATOS 0
LOS GATOS 0
LOS GATOS 0
LOS GATOS 0
LOS GATOS 0
LOS GATOS 0
LOS GATOS 0
LOS GATOS 0
LOS GATOS 0
LOS GATOS 0
LOS GATOS 0
LOS GATOS 0
LOS GATOS 0
LOS GATOS 0
LOS GATOS 0
LOS GATOS 0
LOS GATOS 0
LOS GATOS 0
LOS GATOS 0
LOS GATOS 0
LOS GATOS 0
LOS GATOS 0
LOS GATOS 0
LOS GATOS 0
LOS GATOS 0
LOS GATOS 0
LOS GATOS 0
LOS GATOS 0
LOS GATOS 0
LOS GATOS 0

Page 714 ends

Table B: Candidate Sites Identified to be Rezoned to Accommodate Shortfall Housing Need, Table Starts in Cell A2 For Santa Clara County jurisdictions, please format the APNs as follows: 999-99-999 Jurisdiction Name Site Address/Intersection 5 Digit ZIP Code
Assessor Parcel
Number
Very LowIncome Low-Income ModerateIncome
Above
ModerateIncome
Type of Shortfall Parcel Size
(Acres)
Current General
Plan Designation Current Zoning
Proposed General
Plan (GP)
Designation
Proposed Zoning
Minimum
Density
Allowed
Maximum
Density
Allowed
Total Capacity Vacant/
Nonvacant
Description of
Existing Uses Infrastructure Optional Information1 Optional Information2 Optional Information3 LOS GATOS 165 Los Gatos-Saratoga Road 95030 529-04-083 0 0 0 7 Shortfall of Sites 0.37 Central Business Dis C-2 Central Business Dis C-2:HEOZ 20 30 7 Non-Vacant Commercial YES - Current Housing Element Overlay Zone Property Owner Interest Form Sub A-3 LOS GATOS 50 Los Gatos-Saratoga Road 95030 529-24-032 76 75 51 9 Shortfall of Sites 7.04 Mixed Use Commerc CH:PD Mixed Use Commerc CH:PD:HEOZ 30 40 211 Non-Vacant Hotel/motel YES - Current Housing Element Overlay Zone Property Owner Interest Form Sub B-1 LOS GATOS Los Gatos-Saratoga Road 95030 529-24-001 9 9 9 18 Shortfall of Sites 1.49 Mixed Use Commerc CH:PD Mixed Use Commerc CH:PD:HEOZ 30 40 45 Non-Vacant Hotel/motel YES - Current Housing Element Overlay Zone Property Owner Interest Form Sub B-1 LOS GATOS Los Gatos-Saratoga Road 95030 529-24-003 1 2 2 1 Shortfall of Sites 0.28 Mixed Use Commerc CH:PD Mixed Use Commerc CH:PD:HEOZ 30 40 6 Non-Vacant Hotel/motel YES - Current Housing Element Overlay Zone Property Owner Interest Form Sub B-1 LOS GATOS 15300 Los Gatos Boulevard 95032 424-17-036 19 9 10 10 Shortfall of Sites 1.6 Mixed Use Commerc C-1 Mixed Use Commerc C-1:HEOZ 30 40 48 Non-Vacant Commercial YES - Current Housing Element Overlay Zone Property Owner Interest Form Sub C-1 LOS GATOS 15349 Los Gatos Boulevard 95032 424-19-049 4 2 2 2 Shortfall of Sites 0.34 Mixed Use Commerc CH Mixed Use Commerc CH:HEOZ 30 40 10 Non-Vacant Commercial YES - Current Housing Element Overlay Zone Property Owner Interest Form Sub C-2 LOS GATOS 15367 Los Gatos Boulevard 95032 424-19-048 15 7 7 7 Shortfall of Sites 1.2 Mixed Use Commerc CH Mixed Use Commerc CH:HEOZ 30 40 36 Non-Vacant Commercial YES - Current Housing Element Overlay Zone Property Owner Interest Form Sub C-2 LOS GATOS 15405 Los Gatos Boulevard 95032 424-19-069 16 8 8 8 Shortfall of Sites 1.34 Mixed Use Commerc CH Mixed Use Commerc CH:HEOZ 30 40 40 Non-Vacant Commercial YES - Current Housing Element Overlay Zone Property Owner Interest Form Sub C-2 LOS GATOS 15425 Los Gatos Boulevard 95032 424-19-067 13 6 7 7 Shortfall of Sites 1.09 Mixed Use Commerc CH Mixed Use Commerc CH:HEOZ 30 40 33 Non-Vacant Commercial YES - Current Housing Element Overlay Zone Property Owner Interest Form Sub C-3 LOS GATOS 15795 Los Gatos Boulevard 95032 529-15-059 7 4 4 4 Shortfall of Sites 0.64 Mixed Use Commerc CH Mixed Use Commerc CH:HEOZ 30 40 19 Non-Vacant Commercial YES - Current Housing Element Overlay Zone Property Owner Interest Form Sub C-4 LOS GATOS 16203 Los Gatos Boulevard 95032 529-16-069 9 5 5 5 Shortfall of Sites 0.79 Mixed Use Commerc CH Mixed Use Commerc CH:HEOZ 30 40 24 Non-Vacant Commercial YES - Current Housing Element Overlay Zone Conceptual Development Advisory C-5 LOS GATOS 16492 Los Gatos Boulevard 95032 532-07-086 0 0 0 2 Shortfall of Sites 0.23 Low Density Residen C-1 Low Density Residen C-1:HEOZ 10 20 2 Non-Vacant Commercial YES - Current Housing Element Overlay Zone Property Owner Interest Form Sub C-6 LOS GATOS Los Gatos Boulevard 95032 532-07-085 0 0 0 4 Shortfall of Sites 0.38 Neighborhood Comm C-1 Neighborhood Comm C-1:HEOZ 10 20 4 Vacant Vacant YES - Current Housing Element Overlay Zone Property Owner Interest Form Sub C-6 LOS GATOS 16151 Los Gatos Boulevard 95032 529-16-040 42 21 21 22 Shortfall of Sites 3.52 Mixed Use Commerc CH Mixed Use Commerc CH:HEOZ 30 40 106 Non-Vacant Commercial YES - Current Housing Element Overlay Zone Property Owner Interest Form Sub C-7 LOS GATOS 620 Blossom Hill Road 95032 529-16-041 31 16 16 16 Shortfall of Sites 2.64 Mixed Use Commerc CH Mixed Use Commerc CH:HEOZ 30 40 79 Non-Vacant Commercial YES - Current Housing Element Overlay Zone Property Owner Interest Form Sub C-8 LOS GATOS 15480 Los Gatos Boulevard 95032 424-14-034 7 3 3 4 Shortfall of Sites 0.56 Mixed Use Commerc CH Mixed Use Commerc CH:HEOZ 30 40 17 Non-Vacant Commercial YES - Current Housing Element Overlay Zone Property Owner Interest Form Sub C-9 LOS GATOS 15500 Los Gatos Bouelvard 95032 424-14-035 47 23 23 24 Shortfall of Sites 3.9 Mixed Use Commerc CH Mixed Use Commerc CH:HEOZ 30 40 117 Non-Vacant Commercial YES - Current Housing Element Overlay Zone Property Owner Interest Form Sub C-9 LOS GATOS 14859 Los Gatos Boulevard 95032 424-07-094 35 17 17 16 Shortfall of Sites 2.9 North Forty Specific P North Forty Specific P North Forty Specific P North Forty Specific P 30 40 85 Non-Vacant Residential YES - Current Housing Element Overlay Zone Property Owner has been involved D-1 LOS GATOS 16392 Los Gatos Boulevard 95032 424-07-095 9 4 5 5 Shortfall of Sites 0.78 North Forty Specific P North Forty Specific P North Forty Specific P North Forty Specific P 30 40 23 Non-Vacant Vacant YES - Current Housing Element Overlay Zone Property Owner has been involved D-1 LOS GATOS 16260 Burton Road 95032 424-07-053 5 2 3 2 Shortfall of Sites 0.44 North Forty Specific P North Forty Specific P North Forty Specific P North Forty Specific P 30 40 12 Non-Vacant Residential YES - Current Housing Element Overlay Zone Property Owner has been involved D-1 LOS GATOS 16250 Burton Road 95032 424-07-009 5 2 3 2 Shortfall of Sites 0.44 North Forty Specific P North Forty Specific P North Forty Specific P North Forty Specific P 30 40 12 Non-Vacant Residential YES - Current Housing Element Overlay Zone Property Owner has been involved D-1 LOS GATOS 14917 Los Gatos Boulevard 95032 424-07-081 45 22 22 22 Shortfall of Sites 3.74 North Forty Specific P North Forty Specific P North Forty Specific P North Forty Specific P 30 40 111 Non-Vacant Residential YES - Current Housing Element Overlay Zone Property Owner has been involved D-1 LOS GATOS 14925 Los Gatos Boulevard 95032 424-07-115 73 36 36 33 Shortfall of Sites 6.07 North Forty Specific P North Forty Specific P North Forty Specific P North Forty Specific P 30 40 178 Non-Vacant Residential YES - Current Housing Element Overlay Zone Property Owner has been involved D-1 LOS GATOS Los Gatos Boulevard 95032 424-07-116 12 6 6 7 Shortfall of Sites 1.02 North Forty Specific P North Forty Specific P North Forty Specific P North Forty Specific P 30 40 31 Non-Vacant Vacant YES - Current Housing Element Overlay Zone Property Owner has been involved D-1 LOS GATOS 16245 Burton Road 95032 424-06-115 14 7 7 6 Unaccommodated Ne 1.17 North Forty Specific P North Forty Specific P North Forty Specific P North Forty Specific P 30 40 34 Non-Vacant Residential YES - Current Housing Element Overlay Zone No; however, the parcel is located D-2 LOS GATOS Burton Road 95032 424-06-116 2 0 0 1 Unaccommodated Ne 0.11 North Forty Specific P North Forty Specific P North Forty Specific P North Forty Specific P 30 40 3 Vacant Vacant YES - Current Housing Element Overlay Zone No; however, the parcel is located D-2 LOS GATOS 16240 Burton Road 95032 424-07-010 0 0 0 7 Unaccommodated Ne 0.26 North Forty Specific P North Forty Specific P North Forty Specific P North Forty Specific P 30 40 7 Non-Vacant Residential YES - Current Housing Element Overlay Zone No; however, the parcel is located D-3 LOS GATOS 16270 Burton Road 95032 424-07-052 0 0 0 12 Unaccommodated Ne 0.43 North Forty Specific P North Forty Specific P North Forty Specific P North Forty Specific P 30 40 12 Non-Vacant Residential YES - Current Housing Element Overlay Zone No; however, the parcel is located D-4 LOS GATOS 16210 Burton Road 95032 424-07-054 3 1 2 1 Unaccommodated Ne 0.26 North Forty Specific P North Forty Specific P North Forty Specific P North Forty Specific P 30 40 7 Non-Vacant Residential YES - Current Housing Element Overlay Zone No; however, the parcel is located D-5 LOS GATOS 14831 Los Gatos Boulevard 95032 424-07-063 7 3 3 3 Unaccommodated Ne 0.56 North Forty Specific P North Forty Specific P North Forty Specific P North Forty Specific P 30 40 16 Non-Vacant Residential YES - Current Housing Element Overlay Zone No; however, the parcel is located D-5 LOS GATOS 14849 Los Gatos Boulevard 95032 424-07-064 11 5 6 5 Shortfall of Sites 0.93 North Forty Specific P North Forty Specific P North Forty Specific P North Forty Specific P 30 40 27 Non-Vacant Residential YES - Current Housing Element Overlay Zone No; however, the parcel is located D-6 LOS GATOS 14823 Los Gatos Boulevard 95032 424-07-065 0 0 0 10 Unaccommodated Ne 0.37 North Forty Specific P North Forty Specific P North Forty Specific P North Forty Specific P 30 40 10 Non-Vacant Residential YES - Current Housing Element Overlay Zone No; however, the parcel is located D-7 LOS GATOS 14800 Oka Road 95032 424-08-057 0 0 0 12 Unaccommodated Ne 2.97 Low Density Residen R-1:8 Low Density Residen R-1:8:HEOZ 0 5 12 Vacant Vacant YES - Current Housing Element Overlay Zone No; however the property owner h E-1 LOS GATOS Oka Lane 95032 424-08-029 0 0 0 1 Unaccommodated Ne 0.31 Low Density Residen R-1:8 Low Density Residen R-1:8:HEOZ 0 5 1 Vacant Vacant YES - Current Housing Element Overlay Zone No; however the property owner h E-1 LOS GATOS Oka Lane 95032 424-08-059 0 0 0 4 Unaccommodated Ne 1.01 Low Density Residen R-1:8 Low Density Residen R-1:8:HEOZ 0 5 4 Vacant Vacant YES - Current Housing Element Overlay Zone No; however the property owner h E-1 LOS GATOS Oka Lane 95032 424-08-060 0 0 0 5 Unaccommodated Ne 1.29 Low Density Residen R-1:8 Low Density Residen R-1:8:HEOZ 0 5 5 Vacant Vacant YES - Current Housing Element Overlay Zone No; however the property owner h E-1 LOS GATOS 14800 Oka Road 95032 424-08-058 0 0 0 5 Unaccommodated Ne 1.41 Low Density Residen R-1:8 Low Density Residen R-1:8:HEOZ 0 5 5 Non-Vacant Residential YES - Current Housing Element Overlay Zone No; however the property owner h E-1 LOS GATOS 16603 Lark Avenue 95032 424-08-017 0 0 0 34 Unaccommodated Ne 2.48 Medium Density Res R-M:5-12 Medium Density Res R-M:5-12:HEOZ 14 22 34 Non-Vacant Residential YES - Current Housing Element Overlay Zone No; however the property owner h E-1 LOS GATOS 14840 Oka Road 95032 424-08-021 0 0 0 60 Unaccommodated Ne 4.32 Medium Density Res R-M:5-12 Medium Density Res R-M:5-12:HEOZ 14 22 60 Vacant Vacant YES - Current Housing Element Overlay Zone No; however the property owner h E-1 LOS GATOS Oka Lane 95032 424-08-074 0 0 0 26 Unaccommodated Ne 6.41 Low Density Residen R-1:8 Low Density Residen R-1:8:HEOZ 0 5 26 Vacant Vacant YES - Current Housing Element Overlay Zone No; however the property owner h E-2 LOS GATOS Oka Road (Cal Trans ROW) 95032 37.256167, -121.9596 0 0 0 69 Unaccommodated Ne 4.9 Low Density Residen R-1:8 Medium Density Res R-M:HEOZ 14 22 69 Vacant Vacant YES - Current Housing Element Overlay Zone (HEOZ) implementation program E-3 LOS GATOS 110 Knowles Drive 95032 424-32-077 88 44 44 44 Shortfall of Sites 7.34 High Density Residen CM:AHOZ High Density Residen CM:HEOZ 30 40 220 Non-Vacant Commercial YES - Current Housing Element Overlay Zone No; however the site is located wit F-1 LOS GATOS 206 Knowles Drive 95032 424-32-076 29 14 14 15 Unaccommodated Ne 2.41 High Density Residen CM High Density Residen CM:HEOZ 30 40 72 Non-Vacant Commercial YES - Current Housing Element Overlay Zone No; however, the site is located im F-2 LOS GATOS 440 Los Gatos Almaden Road 95032 527-49-048 0 0 0 5 Shortfall of Sites 0.52 Neighborhood Comm C-1 Neighborhood Comm C-1:HEOZ 10 20 5 Non-Vacant Commercial YES - Current Housing Element Overlay Zone Property Owner Interest Form Sub G-1 LOS GATOS 445 Leigh Avenue 95032 527-49-049 0 0 0 3 Shortfall of Sites 0.29 Neighborhood Comm C-1 Neighborhood Comm C-1:HEOZ 10 20 3 Non-Vacant Commercial YES - Current Housing Element Overlay Zone Property Owner Interest Form Sub G-1 LOS GATOS 14000 Blossom Hill Road 95032 527-32-028 0 0 0 7 Shortfall of Sites 0.69 Neighborhood Comm C-1 Neighborhood Comm C-1:HEOZ 10 20 7 Non-Vacant Commercial YES - Current Housing Element Overlay Zone Property Owner Interest Form Sub H-1 LOS GATOS 401-409 Alberto Way 95032 529-23-018 0 4 4 52 Shortfall of Sites 2.19 Mixed Use Commerc CH Mixed Use Commerc CH:HEOZ 30 40 60 Vacant Vacant YES - Current Housing Element Overlay Zone (HE Property Owner Interest Form Sub I-1 3

Page 715 ends

Table C: Land Use, Table Starts in A2
Zoning Designation
From Table A, Column G
and Table B, Columns L and N (e.g.,
"R-1")
General Land Uses Allowed (e.g., "Low-density residential") R-1D Single-family dwelling, provided that there is not more than one principal residential structure on a lot, two-family dwelling, provided that there is not more than one principal residential structure on a lot, family daycare home, and residential care facility, small family home.

C-1
Retailing, including formula retail up to six thousand (6,000) square feet, Personal service businesses and service businesses necessary for the conduct of households, Office activities, Limited manufacturing activities when a majority of sales are made, on site, to the ultimate consumer, Activities permitted in the LM zone which were approved on or before February 1, 1993, provided any change of use must be a conforming use in the C-1 zone, and Group classes, and single-family, two-family, and multi-family in a mixed-use project through a CUP.

C-2
Retailing, including formula retail up to six thousand square feet, Office activities subject to subsection (c), Limited manufacturing activities when a majority of sales are made, on site, to the ultimate consumer, Wholesaling without warehousing on the premises, Single-family and two-family uses, in conjunction with the other uses permitted in this section and multi-family in a mixed-use project through a CUP CH
Retailing, including formula retail up to six thousand square feet, Personal service businesses and service businesses necessary for the conduct of households, Office activities, Limited manufacturing activities when a majority of sales are made on site to the ultimate consumer, Group classes, and singlefamily, two-family, and multi-family in a mixed-use project through a CUP CH:PD Hotel up to 300 rooms, a conference facility containing approximately 10,000 square feet, and an underground parking facility North Forty Specific Plan Retail, Restaurant, Personal Service, Office, Hotel, Townhomes, Rowhouses, Multi-Family, Condominiums, Live/Work Lofts, Park, Public Transpiration and Parking Facilities, Small Family Daycare, Alternating Use/Shared Parking, and Botanical Nursery R-1:8
Single-family dwelling, provided that there is not more than one principal residential structure on a lot, raising of trees, vegetables and horticultural specialties, but not including commercial greenhouses, retail nurseries, or storage of landscaping equipment, products or supplies for commercial uses, family daycare home, and residential care facility, small family home.

R-M:5-12 Single-family dwelling, two-family dwelling, family daycare home, residential care facility, small family home, multi-family dwelling, and a transitional Housing facility as defined by Health and Safety Code section 50675.2 CM
Activities involving controlled manufacturing, research and development, wholesaling, warehousing, and other light industrial uses, Sales to the ultimate consumer of articles manufactured on the premises to the customer's order, Professional and administrative offices, Emergency shelters as defined by Health and Safety Code section 50801
R-1D:HEOZ Housing Element Overlay Zone Implementation Program to apply to the sites included in the Site Inventory to modify the development standards (i.e., density, lot coverage, FAR, height) on those sites C-1:HEOZ Housing Element Overlay Zone Implementation Program to apply to the sites included in the Site Inventory to modify the development standards (i.e., density, lot coverage, FAR, height) on those sites C-2:HEOZ Housing Element Overlay Zone Implementation Program to apply to the sites included in the Site Inventory to modify the development standards (i.e., density, lot coverage, FAR, height) on those sites CH:HEOZ Housing Element Overlay Zone Implementation Program to apply to the sites included in the Site Inventory to modify the development standards (i.e., density, lot coverage, FAR, height) on those sites CH:PD:HEOZ Housing Element Overlay Zone Implementation Program to apply to the sites included in the Site Inventory to modify the development standards (i.e., density, lot coverage, FAR, height) on those sites North Forty Specific Plan:HEOZ Housing Element Overlay Zone Implementation Program to apply to the sites included in the Site Inventory to modify the development standards (i.e., density, lot coverage, FAR, height) on those sites R-1:8:HEOZ Housing Element Overlay Zone Implementation Program to apply to the sites included in the Site Inventory to modify the development standards (i.e., density, lot coverage, FAR, height) on those sites R-M:HEOZ Housing Element Overlay Zone Implementation Program to apply to the sites included in the Site Inventory to modify the development standards (i.e., density, lot coverage, FAR, height) on those sites R-M:5-12:HEOZ Housing Element Overlay Zone Implementation Program to apply to the sites included in the Site Inventory to modify the development standards (i.e., density, lot coverage, FAR, height) on those sites CM:HEOZ Housing Element Overlay Zone Implementation Program to apply to the sites included in the Site Inventory to modify the development standards (i.e., density, lot coverage, FAR, height) on those sites CM:HEOZ Housing Element Overlay Zone Implementation Program to apply to the sites included in the Site Inventory to modify the development standards (i.e., density, lot coverage, FAR, height) on those sites

Page 716 ends

Public Comments I

APPENDIX

Page 717 ends

Appendix I. Public Comments
JanuaryNovemberSeptember 20232024 Appendix I I-1
I.1 Public Comments
Public Comment Review Period
Pursuant to Assembly Bill (AB) 215, the Initial Public Review Draft Housing Element must undergo a draft review process subject to a 30-day public comment period, and if comments are received, an additional 10-day consideration and revision period prior to Housing and Community Development (HCD) submittal. For any subsequent revisions, the local government must post the draft revisions on its website and email a link to all individuals and organizations that have previously requested notices relating to the local government’s housing element at least seven days before submitting the draft revision to HCD.

Government Code 65585(b)(1) indicates that the purpose of the public review process includes the following:
 Disclosing agency analysis;
 Discovering public concerns; and
 Incorporating public comments.

The following document outlines all public comments received during the public comment periods as well as responses and revisions to the Draft Housing Element prior to each submittal and resubmittal to HCD.

Public Comments on the October 2022 Initial Draft Housing Element As required by HCD, the Initial Public Review Draft Housing Element was posted on the Town website and the Housing Element Update website (EngageLosGatoshousing.com) for a 30-day public review period from August 29, 2022, to September 27, 2022, during which the Town received 11 written public comments. A Housing Element Advisory Board meeting was held via Zoom on September 15, 2022, to accept verbal public comment on the Initial Public Review Draft Housing Element. Three people provided verbal comments at that meeting.

Comment Response for the Initial Public Review Draft Housing Element This response to public comments for the Initial Public Review Draft Housing Element has been prepared to address comments received during the public comment period.

Written Comments
The following written comments were received during the 30-day public comment period:

1. Mary Pope-Handy, email dated August 29, 2022;

2. Phil Koen, email dated September 4, 2022;

3. Phil Koen, email dated September 4, 2022;

4. Phil Koen, email dated September 4, 2022;

5. William Walker, Engage Los Gatos website comment dated September 4, 2022;

6. Adam Mayer, email dated September 13, 2022;

7. Edward Morimoto, email dated September 15, 2022;

8. Phill Keon, emailed dated September 26, 2022;

9. Bill Ehlers, email dated September 26, 2022;

10. Don Capobres, email dated September 27, 2022; and

11. Keith Diggs, email dated September 27, 2022.

Verbal Comments
Verbal comments were received at a Housing Element Advisory Board meeting on September 15, 2022, from the following participants:

1. Mitch Vinciguerra;

2. Susan Burnett; and

3. Brian Handy.

Page 718 ends

HCD Draft Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element
I-2 Appendix I JanuaryNovember September 20232024
Written Draft Housing Element Comments
Written comments on the Draft Housing Element and responses to those comments are presented on the following pages.

Page 719 ends

Appendix I. Public Comments
JanuaryNovemberSeptember 20232024 Appendix I I-3
From: Mary Pope-Handy <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 29, 2022 4:51 PM
To: Housing Element <[email protected]>
Subject: Comments on the LOS GATOS HOUSING ELEMENT
Hello Community Development Department,
Thank you for the time and hard work put into the Los Gatos Housing Element. We do need more housing, particularly affordable housing, in our town.

I'd like to suggest that in addition to adding residential units, we factor in the health impacts of various potential locations for housing. A number of the locations specified in the draft are up against busy streets or even freeways. These locations have health risks associated with them and it would be better if those areas were not homes.

The EPA has a publication on these health risks (please click on link to get the EPA report). Additional links:

Living near major roads linked to risk of dementia, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's and MS University of British Columbia- ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 23 January 2020.

Living near busy road stunts children's lung growth, study says - article in The Guardian (British publication), with links to the academic studies Kids living near major roads at higher risk of developmental delays - (American study) ScienceDaily.com April 9, 2019 Living Near Highways and Air Pollution - Lung.org by the American Lung Association. We do have other options for housing. For example, rather than putting townhomes at Blossom Hill and Harwood, but them at Harwood and Almond Blossom, where there's far less traffic. Right now there's a small, empty school sitting there that would be better as a few residences. The town could also incentivize putting two homes on one lot, or turning a house into a duplex, by providing tax breaks or other assistance.

It would also make sense to add housing over single story strip malls, particularly as they would be more set back from busy roads than a gas station would be. In real estate, the most important factor is always location.

We should not aspire to build homes in locations that are likely to have long term, negative consequences to the health of their occupants. If homes must be built in those locations, mitigation efforts should include robust air purifiers and sound buffers such as triple pane windows.

Sincerely,
Mary Pope-Handy
Town resident and Realtor
408-204-7673
Mary Pope-Handy
REALTOR®, ABR, AHWD, CIPS, CRS, SRES
408.204.7673 | Move2SiliconValley.com
LiveInLosGatos.com | PopeHandy.com
DRE 01153805
SanJoseRealEstateLosGatosHomes.com ValleyofHeartsDelight.com Comment Letter # 1

Page 720 ends

HCD Draft Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element
I-4 Appendix I JanuaryNovember September 20232024
Response to Comment #1
 Health risks of living near highways (high traffic sites) o Numerous factors were considered through the site selection process, including feedback received during the development of the 2040 General Plan, public discussion at HEAB meetings, and on June 7, 2022, the Town Council accepted the draft Site Inventory as recommended by the HEAB. The Site Inventory has since been modified based on the receiptval of a new Property Owner Interest Form and a request to be removed by a property owner.
o The International Building Code includes requirements that mitigate some effects of buildings in close proximity to highways, including maximum noise standards.  Implementing Senate Bill 9 (SB 9) and Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) as additional housing with incentives
o ADU’s and SB 9 projects are included in the Town’s Site Inventory to assist at achieving the Town’s RHNA plus HCD’s recommended 15 percent buffer.
o The following approaches were included within the Draft Housing Element to incentivize multiple homes on single-family residential lots:
 Policy HE-1.7: Infill Opportunities in Single-Family Neighborhoods;  Policy HE-2.6: Promote Accessory Dwelling Unit Construction;  Policy HE-6.5: Infill Opportunities in Single-Family Neighborhoods;  Implementation Program Q: Accessory Dwelling Units to waive building fees when an ADU is deed restricted for very low- and low-income households; and  Implementation Program AO: Educate Single-Family Property Owners Regarding In-Fill Housing Options.
 Consider school-owned property to be converted to housing o The Housing Element Advisory Board (HEAB) discussed and considered including a program to encourage public school-site conversions and chose not to include any school owned property as the Town does not have jurisdiction on public school property. o The subject site is a private school located on private property and has an active Conditional Use Permit for a private school use and is zoned for single-family residential uses. o Town staff has recently received an inquiry from a potential new tenant for the private school site, therefore the Town does not have justification to assume that the site would redevelop for housing within the next eight years.

Page 721 ends

Appendix I. Public Comments
JanuaryNovemberSeptember 20232024 Appendix I I-5
Comment Letter #2

Page 722 ends

HCD Draft Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element

Page 723 ends

Appendix I. Public Comments
JanuaryNovemberSeptember 20232024 Appendix I I-7
C H A P T E R 5 | S I T E S I N V E N T O R Y A N D F U N D I N G R E S O U R C E S CITY OF SUNNYVALE 5-31 2023-2031 Housing Element
Table 5-8: City of Sunnyvale, 2023-2031 Housing Element, Lawrence Station Area Plan Site Number Assessor Parcel Number (APN) Address Size (Gross Acres) General Plan Land Use Designation Zoning Maximum Achievable Density 1 Realistic Density 2 Tier Redevelopment Likelihood Total Units LowerIncome Units ModerateIncome Units Above ModerateIncome Units Subject to AB 1397 by-right policy? Description of Existing Use/Status LSAP-1 20550024 1171 Sonora Ct 1.3 Transit Mixed Use MXDI/S 80 76 1 100% 99 59 15 25 Site includes existing office building. City provided funding for site purchase to support proposed future MidPen Housing affordable housing development. LSAP-2 21627068 1382-1388 Kifer Rd 3.56 Transit Mixed Use MXD-II 68 65 3 25% 57 34 9 14 Research and development building, built in 1999, City has received interest from brokers, residential redevelopment likely in 2nd half of planning period. LSAP-3 21627069 1400 Kifer Rd 6.34 Transit Mixed Use MXD-II 68 65 3 25% 102 61 15 26 Existing data center. City has received interest from brokers, residential redevelopment likely in 2nd half of planning period. LSAP-4 21627047 111 Uranium Dr 5.79 Transit Mixed Use MXD-II 68 65 3 25% 94 56 14 23 Existing data center. Built in 1970. Most recently sold in 2019. City has received interest from brokers, residential redevelopment likely in 2nd half of planning period. LSAP-5 21301002 1165 Reed Ave 0.96 Transit Mixed Use MXD-IV 45 43 1 100% 41 25 6 10 Yes Existing grocery store, restaurant, auto repair and print shop. Constructed from 1961-1972. All three parcels under same ownership. Property owner has expressed interest in mixed-use redevelopment. 21301003 1155 Reed Ave 1.54 Transit Mixed Use MXD-IV 45 43 1 100% 66 40 10 16 Yes 21301004 1164 Willow Ave 0.34 Transit Mixed Use MXD-IV 45 43 1 100% 15 9 2 4 Yes Site Total 2.84 122 74 18 30 LSAP-6 20550019 1175 Sonora Ct 1.31 Transit Mixed Use MXDI/S 80 76 2 25% 25 15 4 6 Existing office space for lease. Built in 1976. Potential for mixed- use development likely in 2nd half of planning period. LSAP-7 20550028 1135 Sonora Ct 1.47 Transit Mixed Use MXDI/S 80 76 1 100% 112 67 17 28 Existing office space. Built in 1977. Property owner expressed interest in mixed-use redevelopment. LSAP-8 21627037 1360 Kifer Rd 14.58 Transit Mixed Use MXD-I 80 76 3 25% 277 166 42 69 Existing industrial space and data center. Constructed in 1979. Fully leased. Property owner interested in residential conversion. This is a large site. The inventory assumes 60 percent lower-income, 15 percent moderate-income, and 25 percent above moderate-income development. TOTAL 37.2 888 532 134 221 1 Maximum achievable density includes density bonus points received through the LSAP incentive program but excludes density bonus points available through the City’s Green Building Program and the State density bonus. 2 Realistic densities are calculated at 95 percent of maximum achievable density. Source: Ascent, 2021.

Comment Letter #2 Attachment #1

Page 724 ends

HCD Draft Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element
I-8 Appendix I JanuaryNovember September 20232024
Comment Letter #2 Attachment #2

Page 725 ends

Appendix I. Public Comments
JanuaryNovemberSeptember 20232024 Appendix I I-9 Page 726 HCD Draft Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element

Page 727 ends

Appendix I. Public Comments
JanuaryNovemberSeptember 20232024 Appendix I I-11 Page 728 HCD Draft Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element
I-12 Appendix I JanuaryNovember September 20232024
Response to Comment #2
 Employment characteristics
o The employment characteristics (jobs-households ratio) have been corrected on pages B10 and B11. o Table D-2 has been deleted.
 RHNA data and Site Inventory
o The Town’s Site Inventory can be found in Appendix H and a summary of identified vacant/partially vacant and available sites, ADUs, SB 9 units, and pipeline projects to meet the Town’s RHNA plus 15 percent buffer can be found in Appendix D of the HCD Draft Initial Review Housing Element.  Site reuse from 5th Cycle Housing Element requirements o There are three sites that were previously used in the Town’s 5th Cycle Housing Element. Implementation Program AS has been added to the Draft Housing Element. This program states that the Town will rezone those sites to allow housing developments by right pursuant to Government Code section 65583.2(i) when 20 percent or more of the units are affordable to lower income households on the following sites as identified in Appendix H to accommodate the lower income RHNA that was previously identified in past housing elements: Parcel 424-08-074; Parcel 424-08-057; and Parcel 424-08-21.  Site Inventory, typical density for residential
o The Housing Element Sites Inventory Form located in Appendix H and the Overview of Selected Sites located in Appendix D have both been updated utilizing the typical density identified in 2040 General Plan Residential Buildout Table.
 Percentage of nonvacant sites for low-income housing to accommodate the RHNA o The Town is relying on non-vacant sites to accommodate 50 percent or more of the RHNA for lower income households. Property owner interest forms have been submitted on a majority of the non-vacant sites showing property owner interest in of residential redevelopment within the 6th cycle planning period.  Accessory Dwelling Unit incentive program
o On April 7, 2020, the Town Council adopted Ordinance 2307, amending the Zoning Code of the Town Code regarding ADUs to comply with State law. The Town has provisions in the Town Code that include an incentive program [Town Code, Section 29.10.320(a)] Incentive program. Any accessory dwelling unit developed under an Incentive Program which may be established by Resolution of the Town Council shall be made affordable to eligible applicants pursuant to the requirements of the Incentive Program. A deed restriction shall be recorded specifying that the accessory dwelling unit shall be offered at a reduced rent that is affordable to a lower income renter (less than eighty (80) percent AMI) provided that the unit is occupied by someone other than a member of the household occupying the primary dwelling. o The current incentive program is applicable to any accessory dwelling unit meeting the requirements of the Town’s ADU incentive program. The incentive program expands the eligibly to all units rather than just non-conforming residential lots over 10,000 square feet or in the Hillside Residential Zone on sites that are larger than five acres as described in Action HOU-1.2 of the 2015-2023 Housing Element.  Implementation Program, Housing Element Overlay Zone (HEOZ) o On June 30, 2022, the Town Council adopted the 2040 General Plan. As of September 27, 2022, the Land Use and Community Design Elements of the 2040 General Plan are suspended pending the results of a referendum. In the interim, the 2020 General Plan Land Use and Community Design Elements will govern during the suspension period. The Draft Housing Element includes Programs AQ and AR, requiring amendment of the Zoning Code and 2020 General Plan Land Use Element to include a Housing

Page 729 ends

Appendix I. Public Comments
JanuaryNovemberSeptember 20232024 Appendix I I-13
Element Overlay Zone (HEOZ) to apply to the sites included in the Sites Inventory to modify the development standards on those sites as a more targeted use of increase in height and density included in the 2040 General Plan Land Use Element as needed to meet the Town’s RHNA and 15 percent buffer.

Page 730 ends

HCD Draft Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element
I-14 Appendix I JanuaryNovember September 20232024
Comment Letter #3

Page 731 ends

Appendix I. Public Comments
JanuaryNovemberSeptember 20232024 Appendix I I-15
Response to Comment #3
 Initial Public Draft of the Housing Element
o Assembly Bill 215 (AB 215) was signed by the Governor on September 28, 2021. AB 215 requires that a local government make the first draft version of the Housing Element available for public comment for at least 30 days and, if any comments are received, take at least 10 additional business days to consider and incorporate public comments into the draft Housing Element before submitting it to HCD. On August 29, 2022, the Town of Los Gatos released the Initial Public Review Draft of the 2023-2031 Housing Element for a 30-day public comment period which ran from August 29, 2022, to September 27, 2022.

Page 732 ends

HCD Draft Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element
I-16 Appendix I JanuaryNovember September 20232024
Comment Letter #4

Page 733 ends

Appendix I. Public Comments
JanuaryNovemberSeptember 20232024 Appendix I I-17
Comment Letter #4 (Sender Revision)

Page 734 ends

HCD Draft Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element
I-18 Appendix I JanuaryNovember September 20232024
2 0 2 3 - 2 0 3 1 H O U S I N G Needs
Assessment
R e d w o o d C i t y G e n e r a l P l a n P a g e H 1 - 1 Needs Assessment
Population and Employment Trends
To best understand the types of housing that are needed to meet existing and future demand, Housing Element law requires that the Housing Element assess local population demographics and housing stock characteristics. Characteristics such as age, ethnicity, and employment influence the type and cost of housing needed or in high demand. Tracking changes in demographics can also help City leaders better respond to or anticipate changing housing demand. This section evaluates the various population characteristics that affect Redwood City’s housing needs.

Current Population and Population Growth
Between 2010 and 2020, as reported by the U.S. Census, the population of Redwood City grew by approximately 13 percent, from 76,815 to 86,754 residents. This growth rate was greater in Redwood City than San Mateo County as a whole (7.6 percent). The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) forecasts continued population growth through 2040. From 2020 to 2045, ABAG estimates that the City’s population will grow by 20 percent, while countywide population is expected to increase by 18.5 percent (Table H1-1).

Table H1-1: Population Growth and Projected Growth
2010 2020 2040
% Change % Change
2010-2020 2020-2040
Redwood City 76,815 86,754 103,940 12.9% 19.8%
San Mateo County 718,451 773,244 916,590 7.6% 18.5%
Sources: Association of Bay Area Governments and Metropolitan Transportation Commission Housing Element Data Package and Projections 2040
In addition to population projections, several other demographic characteristics and trends define housing needs. Among these characteristics are age composition, racial and ethnic composition, and employment.

Age
Patterns indicate that different age groups have varying housing needs. As such, housing choice often correlates to the age of residents. Table H1-2 shows the age distribution of Redwood City residents. In 2019, the 25-44 year old age group constituted the largest age group at approximately 33 percent, followed by the 45-64 years old age group at 26 percent. Of note, certain segments of the population are increasing more rapidly than others, resulting in variations in total population make-up of the city. For example, the share of the population represented by seniors (65 years old and above) increased by two percentage points over the past 10 years, while the youth share of the population (0-14 age group) decreased by two percentage points.

Comment Letter #4 Attachment #1

Page 735 ends

Appendix I. Public Comments
JanuaryNovemberSeptember 20232024 Appendix I I-19
Response to Comment #4
 Population projections
o The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) has complied demographic, economic, and housing stock data required by HCD for each Bay Area jurisdiction. Each jurisdiction received a data packet that can be used in the Housing Needs section of the draft Housing Element. Population data sets and associated graphics were provided for year 1990 to 2020. The Town will contact ABAG/MTC to see if population data and updated graphics can be provided for the year 2040, but no additional data is available at this time.

Page 736 ends

HCD Draft Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element
I-20 Appendix I JanuaryNovember September 20232024
Feedback on Town of Los Gatos 6th Cycle 2023-2031 Housing Element William Walker September 4, 2022
I will give feedback referenced by section.

10.1.1 California’s Housing Crisis
The document states that there is a housing crisis, but there is no reference to any peer-reviewed academic study demonstrating a crisis. Last time California had a housing crisis was 2007-2008, when housing prices plummeted due to sub-prime mortgages. Many families were bankrupted.

The second paragraph states that Santa Clara County is projected to add 169,450 jobs, but again there is no reference to where the projection originated. My understanding is that California lost population in the previous several years (https://www.macrotrends.net/states/california/population(External link)), and that Santa Clara county population has declined since 2020. Also some large companies such as Charles Schwab, Tesla, HP, Oracle have relocated their headquarters out of state. Moreover, the advent of work-at-home has resulted in workers relocating to lower cost states. So I am very skeptical that population will continue to increase as in the past.

In my opinion, historically low interest rates in the previous few years resulted in excessive housing demand. The real housing crisis is likely to be a repeat of 2007-2008, which we are already starting to see as increasing interest rates cause a recession and falling house prices. Adding more housing will make the crisis worse, as it did in 2007-2008.

I find the final paragraph is really puzzling. When I moved to Los Gatos in 1983, it was highly segregated, indeed many neighborhoods built before 1963 excluded racial minorities from home ownership. It is right to condemn those bad old days. But times have completely changed, my neighborhood, and Los Gatos as a whole is highly integrated now. There is no problem to solve here.

10.1.2 Same comments as the previous section, I am highly skeptical of the projected increase in households. The actual data from last year indicates California’s population is declining (https:// www.macrotrends.net/states/california/population(External link)).

At least here there is a reference to where the data came from, but I don’t believe the data.

10.1.3 Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
I don’t understand how California is supposed to enforce replacement of segregated living patterns with integrated living patterns. Will Cupertino be forced to kick out Chinese residents? It’s an unfortunate part of human nature that many people prefer to live in neighborhoods with their affinity groups. I’m not one of them, I like the melting pot and oppose multiculturalism, but I also believe in freedom of association. Based on the racial make-up of my neighborhood, I’m very skeptical of the statement that “racial segregation in Los Gatos increased between 2010 and 2020”. Los Gatos is a model community for racial integration.

Ironically, when I went to college at Cal in the 1970s, the student Co-op where I lived was completely integrated.

Now, if you visit the Berkeley Student Co-op website, you will find that many of the Co-op houses have “themes”, such as people-of-color, and LGBT, and students are encouraged to segregate themselves to live with their affinity groups. O brave new world, that has such people in it! Segregation has become fashionable again.

10.1.4 Overview of Planning and Legislative Efforts
I’m sorry my feedback to the general plan was not adopted by the Town Council. Most importantly, the vast expansion of housing adopted by the general plan flies in the face of sound city planning practice, and will result in environmental destruction and a deterioration of the quality of life in Los Gatos and throughout the bay area. An environmentally sensitive plan would have advocated to decrease the population of outlying suburbs with no access to public transportation, such as Los Gatos, and to increase the population density within 1km of mass transit hubs, such as Cal Train stations. This is how planning is done in Japan (where my wife and I have a second home). Most of the northeastern states, such as New York, historically have very low population densities once you leave the big cities, California was built out as a continuous suburb. We need to make California look Comment Letter #5

Page 737 ends

Appendix I. Public Comments
JanuaryNovemberSeptember 20232024 Appendix I I-21
more like Japan or New York. The Los Gatos general plan doubles down on the environmentally unsustainable continuous suburb model.

I understand the California legislature has mandated certain housing policies, but the solution is to push back by banding together with other outlying suburbs and rural communities to fight environmentally destructive mandates.

Of course Los Gatos is segregated from other communities by income. Los Gatos is a luxury brand, with vacant lots running over $1 million. Forcing low income housing into Los Gatos is like asking Daimler Benz to build an economy car, their cost structure doesn’t allow it. Los Gatos land costs can’t sustain low cost housing. You don’t need to travel far from Los Gatos to get to areas with lower land prices, for example, Santa Clara, San Jose, Morgan Hill, Milpitas.

Finally, building high-density low-income housing in Los Gatos will violate the original covenants and restrictions on existing housing and degrade its value. I view the covenants and restrictions as a contract I signed onto when I bought my house. I don’t see any proposal in this document to compensate existing residents for degrading their property values. Again, the town needs to push back against legislative mandates that don’t make sense.

10.1.5 Public Participation
Public disclosure of new regulations by the Town Council is inadequate. Many residents do not subscribe to social media, do not read newspapers, shop at Safeway rather than at the farmer’s market, and avoid using the internet as much as possible. For instance, my neighbor bought a gas leaf blower one week before the town banned them. A proper form of disclosure is by USPS, every resident needs to receive a hard-copy in the mail.

But more importantly, when radical proposals that completely and irrevocably change the town’s character are proposed, the citizens of the town should be given an opportunity to vote.

This was not done with the 2040 General Plan.

10.2 Overview of Housing Need and Constraints
This section is largely repeating and expanding on what was already written in the previous section. My comments above apply.

10.2.6 Special Housing Needs
This section is mostly free of data, and what little data is presented lacks citations.

I’m a senior, but I question the section about senior household affordability. My understanding is that seniors are the wealthiest Americans (https://www.lexingtonlaw.com/blog/finance/average-net-worth-by(External link)- age.html). Seniors also benefit from Medicare, Social Security, Prop. 13 property tax reductions, and senior discounts.

The section on homelessness lacks data, and the reasons stated for homelessness are wrong. My understanding of the homeless crisis in California, as documented in Michael Shellenberger’s book San Fransicko, is that it is almost entirely a crisis of drug addiction and untreated mental illness. Organizations advocating personal liberty such as the ACLU, together with progressive prosecutors, have made it impossible to solve the homeless crisis.

Open borders have increased the supply of Fentanyl. And it is a real crisis: in San Francisco more people died of drug overdoses than Covid in the last two years.

10.4 Energy and Resource Conservation
Solar roof panels are not a means of reducing energy costs. Considering the maintenance and depreciation, I believe (I am an electrical engineer specializing in semiconductor physics) they generating very expensive power.

If the town really believes solar roof panels are a good investment, then the numbers should be presented in this document. Although I am an SVCE customer, and own an electric car I have not experienced any reduction of my power costs.

Indeed, California has some of the most expensive power in the US.

The figures touting 99% reduction in utility-related emissions by providing clean energy are patently false. When the energy required to manufacture solar panels is accounted for and amortized over their life, and recognition of the fact they are manufactured in China using high-carbon coal power, the numbers are nowhere near as good.

Moreover, solar power is not generated during the peak demand period between 4PM and 9PM. Back-up power

Page 738 ends

HCD Draft Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element
I-22 Appendix I JanuaryNovember September 20232024
capital equipment needs to be kept on-line, and that adds to the cost. Failure to do so has led to California’s current energy crisis, and caused my electric car to be charged with out-of-state coal power brought in to alleviate the crisis.

A better way and less expensive way to reduce power costs is to install a light colored roof, insulate your attic, and plant deciduous trees to shade your house. Fenestration should be minimized. I notice that most houses being remodeled these days are styled as retro mid-century modern with black roofs and huge windows, which is very bad from an energy efficiency standpoint.

California has shut down two of its three nuclear plants in the last few years, with Diablo Canyon scheduled to be taken off-line in 2024-2025. The result is an increase in the proportion of carbon- spewing power generation, and higher energy costs from renewables. According to Wikipedia, Diablo Canyon generates electricity at six cents per kW hour, one fourth of what I pay for so-called SVCE clean power. And nuclear generates power 24/7.

10.5 Goals, Policies, and Implementation Programs
Basically, I oppose almost all of the policy recommendation in this section. Here are my proposed replacement policies.

1. The town should advocate for the state to electrify CalTrain and eliminate all grade crossings. The money saved from killing the bullet train can be reallocated for this project. Once Caltrain is electrified, San Jose to San Francisco is a 30 minute commute (electric express trains without grade crossings can travel at 80 MPH).

California is way behind on electric commuter trains.

2. The town should recommend a 1km circle centered around each major CalTrain station be re-zoned for ultrahigh-density housing. The entire housing needs of San Mateo and Santa Clara county can be met for many years.

People can walk to train stations in five minutes, eliminating the need to expand freeways. Similar zoning changes would be beneficial for BART.

3. Towns and suburbs not served by mass transit hubs should be encouraged to down-size or remain stagnant to alleviate the burden on highways and reduce car-miles, exactly the opposite of what the town is currently advocating.

4. The town should request that Diablo Canyon not be closed. San Onofre nuclear power station decommissioning should be stopped immediately, and the power station should be rebuilt and brought back on line. Third-generation nuclear power stations should be built to replace windmills and photovoltaics, which are not viable sources of carbon-free power. Reasons for advocating this position can be found in Michael Shellenberger’s book Apocalypse Never.

5. The town recognizes that the VTA light rail system is a failure. It is slow, expense, unreliable, doesn’t stop near your office or home, and needs to be fixed or dismantled. Google buses are an alternative. The town should recommend to study how to get people to work without cars. Bicycles are not a good option.

Page 739 ends

Appendix I. Public Comments
JanuaryNovemberSeptember 20232024 Appendix I I-23
Response to Comment #5
The public comment includes multiple topics, including: projected housing; racial segregation; planning and legislative efforts; public participation; quality of data; energy conservation; and goals, policies, and programs.

However, most of the suggested changes are either: not within the Town’s authority; not consistent with the Town’s 2040 General Plan Vision and Guiding Principles; not aligned with the stated goals for Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH); or would not result in a greater likelihood of housing production for the next eight-year cycle. Therefore, no changes to the Draft Housing Element were included in response to these comments.

Page 740 ends

HCD Draft Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element
I-24 Appendix I JanuaryNovember September 20232024
Comment Letter #6

Page 741 ends

Appendix I. Public Comments
JanuaryNovemberSeptember 20232024 Appendix I I-25

Page 742 ends

HCD Draft Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element

Page 743 ends

Appendix I. Public Comments
JanuaryNovemberSeptember 20232024 Appendix I I-27
Comment Letter #6 Attachment #1

Page 744 ends

HCD Draft Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element
I-28 Appendix I JanuaryNovember September 20232024
Response to Comment #6
 Downtown site additions to Site Inventory
o The HEAB discussed this subject at a public meeting and collectively determined to continue moving forward with the Downtown sites in the Draft Site Inventory as recommended by the HEAB. o The bank sites located in the Downtown on Santa Cruz Avenue Areas, and referenced with this comment, were placed in the Town’s third tier of potential sites based on their gross lot area of less than half an acre and because the Town has not received any Property Owner Interest Forms for residential development on those sites.
 Recent changes to State laws
o The Town is committed to learning more about recent changes to State laws and how these may impact the Town zoning and contribute to opportunities for affordable housing construction and will incorporate them where appropriate.

Page 745 ends

Appendix I. Public Comments
JanuaryNovemberSeptember 20232024 Appendix I I-29
Comment Letter #7

Page 746 ends

HCD Draft Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element

Page 747 ends

Appendix I. Public Comments
JanuaryNovemberSeptember 20232024 Appendix I I-31
Response to Comment #7
 Site Inventory, typical density
o The Housing Element Sites Inventory Form located in Appendix H and the Overview of Selected Sites located in Appendix D have been updated utilizing the typical density identified in 2040 General Plan Residential Buildout, rather than the maximum allowed density.  High number of affordable units assigned
o The Town acknowledges the property owner’s concern with the proposed estimated income distribution and capacity estimate for the sites. This is an estimate and has been modified in response to comments received.
 No net loss law
o The Town acknowledges that there is a concern by property owners that they will bear the required burden of the No Net Loss Law. However, per Government Code section 65863, the No Net Loss Law requires a jurisdiction to maintain a sufficient supply of adequate sites in its Housing Element at all times throughout the Housing Element planning period to meet a jurisdiction’s remaining unmet share of the RHNA for each income category. To comply with the No Net Loss Law, jurisdictions must ensure their actions do not create a shortfall of available sites. When making decisions regarding zoning and land use (e.g., downzoning) and/or when approving housing development projects, jurisdictions must assess the impacts those actions have on their ability to accommodate new housing on the remaining sites in their Housing Element Sites Inventories. If, at any time during the planning period, the jurisdiction finds that their remaining sites are insufficient to accommodate its remaining RHNA, the jurisdiction must take immediate action to correct the shortfall by amending its Housing Element Sites Inventory to increase capacity by either adding previously unidentified sites or rezoning remaining sites to correct for the shortfall. If a development is approved at a lower density or income distribution than what was assumed in the Sites Inventory of the Housing Element, No Net Loss Law requires a jurisdiction to make written findings and identify additional site capacity. The No Net Loss Law is not the responsibly of the property owner.

Page 748 ends

HCD Draft Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element
I-32 Appendix I JanuaryNovember September 20232024
Comment Letter #8

Page 749 ends

Appendix I. Public Comments
JanuaryNovemberSeptember 20232024 Appendix I I-33 Page 750 HCD Draft Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element
I-34 Appendix I JanuaryNovember September 20232024
Response to Comment #8
 Production of below market rate housing units
o The Town recognizes the historic challenges of producing below market rate housing units within the Town. One of the primary purposes of this update of the Town of Los Gatos Housing Element is to increase production of below market rate housing. Goal HE-2: “Provide New Affordable Housing” is supported by 12 policies and numerous implementation programs.  Defining affordable housing
o The Town utilizes the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD)’s definition of affordability housing thresholds through the income categories assigned through Town’s RHNA. HCD with input from the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), and Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), determined the total RHNA for the 2023-2031 period. On December 16, 2021, the ABAG Executive Board adopted the Final RHNA Plan: San Francisco Bay Area, 2023-2031. Los Gatos's allocation is 1,993 units, which is broken down by income category, as shown in the table below:

Income Group Number of Units
Very Low (0-50% AMI) 537
Low (50-80% AMI) 310
Moderate (80-120% AMI) 320
Above Moderate (120%+ AMI) 826
TOTAL = 1,993
*AMI is Area Median Income
 Accessory dwelling unit incentive program
o See response to Comment #2, Accessory Dwelling Unit Incentive Program.

Page 751 ends

Appendix I. Public Comments
JanuaryNovemberSeptember 20232024 Appendix I I-35
Comment Letter #9

Page 752 ends

HCD Draft Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element
I-36 Appendix I JanuaryNovember September 20232024
Response to Comment #9
The recently adopted 2040 General Plan includes numerous goals, policies, and implementation programs to increase access to alternative transportation modes throughout Town. These comments do not raise an issue with the Draft Housing Element; therefore, no changes to the draft Housing Element are necessary.

Page 753 ends

Appendix I. Public Comments
JanuaryNovemberSeptember 20232024 Appendix I I-37
Comment #10

Page 754 ends

HCD Draft Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element

Page 755 ends

Appendix I. Public Comments
JanuaryNovemberSeptember 20232024 Appendix I I-39
Response to Comment #10
 Site D-1, maximum allowable density and maximum number of housing units o Site D-1 has been updated to reflect a maximum of 461 units at a minimum density of 30 dwelling units per acre (Appendix D and Appendix H). Implementation Program D includes amending the North Forty Specific Plan to increase the maximum allowable density from 20 dwelling units per acre to 30 dwelling units per acre and increase the total number of dwelling units allowed in the Specific Plan (Sites D-1, D-2, D-3, D-4, D-5, D-6 and D-7) as discussed in the update process for the 2040 General Plan.  Meeting affordability requirements
o The distribution of affordability levels in the Site Inventory is an estimate prepared based on a combination of factors including lot size; vacancy; property owner interest; minimum and maximum density; and other development regulations. The Site Inventory includes a 15 percent buffer to allow flexibility in consideration of development proposals without triggering the No Net Loss provisions of State law. In addition, please see Response to Comment #7, No Net Loss Law.

Page 756 ends

HCD Draft Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element
I-40 Appendix I JanuaryNovember September 20232024
Comment Letter #11

Page 757 ends

Appendix I. Public Comments
JanuaryNovemberSeptember 20232024 Appendix I I-41 Page 758 HCD Draft Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element
I-42 Appendix I JanuaryNovember September 20232024
Response to Comment #11
 Replacement of Affordable Housing Overlay Zone (AHOZ) with the Housing Element Overlay Zone (HEOZ) with increased density
o The AHOZ Overlay Zone has been replaced with the HEOZ Overlay Zone, which provides increased density for residential and residential mixed-use development.  Enable SB-9 projects in excess of minimum State standards o The Town is currently in process to update their SB 9 regulations to implement as a permanent ordinance with clear standards and processes which comply with State law and include provisions in excess of the minimum required, for example, allowing an additional 10 percent FAR for use by the first primary housing unit developed through a Two Unit Housing Development application to encourage these additional housing units.
 Reduce permit process time
o The Draft Housing Element includes:,
 Policy HE-3.1 Regulatory Incentives for Affordable Housing: Facilitate the development of affordable housing through regulatory incentives and concessions, and/or financial assistance. Continue expediting the permit processing system for affordable residential development applications and proactively seek out new models and approaches in the provision of affordable housing.  Policy HE-3.3 Efficient Development Processing: Explore continued improvements to the entitlement process to streamline and coordinate the processing of permits, design review, and environmental clearance.
 Implementation Program F: Update Permit Software System to better monitor average processing times for ministerial and discretionary development permits. Use data to set baselines timelines to drive improvements. Update the Town planning and zoning regulations and remove permit processing constraints as appropriate.
 Implementation Program K: Lot Consolidation: The Town will conduct outreach to property owners in these areas to identify meaningful incentives to facilitate lot consolidation, lot assemblage and redevelopment in mixed- use and commercial areas. Based on this feedback, within two years of Housing Element adoption, the Town will consider the development of a Lot Consolidation Ordinance to include specific incentives such as: flexible development standards such as reduced setbacks, increased lot coverage, increased heights, reduced parking, and reduced fees. Streamlined permit processing through administrative staff review. Upon adoption of the Ordinance, the Town will work with property owners that are receptive to lot consolidation/lot assemblage to assist them in facilitating the parcel merge process in a streamlined and timely manner.  Implementation Program AP: Special Needs Housing: Prioritize special needs housing by allowing for reduced processing times and streamlined procedures for applicable zoning/land use applications.

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

Page 759 ends

Appendix I. Public Comments
JanuaryNovemberSeptember 20232024 Appendix I I-43
 Verbal Draft Housing Element Comments
 Verbal comments were received on the Draft Housing Element at a HEAB meeting held on Thursday, September 15, 2022, via Zoom. The verbal comments and responses to those comments are presented below.
 Verbal Comment #1 Mitch Vinciguerra
 The speaker stated three standards that should be included in the Housing Element including: labor standards; healthcare standards; and apprenticeship program standards. The speaker suggested labor standards be implemented to ensure developers are paying area standard wages so skilled workers can afford to live in the local community. Additionally, the speaker emphasizes the value of local hiring to ensure money generated by new developments stay in the community in the form of sales and property tax revenue.

Secondly, the speaker touched on workers’ reliance on emergency rooms resulting in taxing an overburdened system. Lastly, the speaker suggested the use of apprentice programs to assist individuals in obtaining employment at no cost to taxpayers.
 Response to Verbal Comment #1
 Many of these topics are part of State laws recently enacted or currently under consideration. The Town will comply with State law. These comments do not raise an issue with the Draft Housing Element; therefore, no changes to the Draft Housing Element are necessary.
 Verbal Comment #2 Susan Burnett
 The speaker stated concerns regarding the number of proposed units for the Downtown Area and existing congestion. The speaker noted that an increase of housing units is likely to result in exacerbated parking, traffic, and overall density challenges in an already small, congested area.  Response to Verbal Comment #2
 The Housing Element Advisory Board (HEAB) discussed this subject at a public meeting and collectively determined to continue moving forward with including these sites on the Site Inventory List as accepted by Town Council.
 Verbal Comment #3 Brian Handy
 The speaker stated two concerns including: potential health impacts associated with the proximity of proposed housing sites to major roadways; and the privacy and protection of backyards for multi-story buildings.
 Responses to Verbal Comment #3
 While there are trade-offs for housing opportunity locations, several factors have been considered through the site selection process, including locations that have existing infrastructure and access to services, even though those locations are often near major roadways. On June 7, 2022, the Town Council accepted the draft Site Inventory as recommended by the HEAB. The Site Inventory has since been modified based on the receipt of a new Property Owner Interest Form and a request to be removed by a property owner. The International Building Code includes some requirements that mitigate effects of buildings in close proximity to highways, including maximum noise standards. Objective Design and Development Standards can be a tool for local communities to affect future land-use compatibility in the built environment, and the Town is currently in the process of developing Objective Standards for multi-family and mixed-use developments which includes standards related to privacy.

Page 760 ends

HCD Draft Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element
I-44 Appendix I JanuaryNovember September 20232024
 Modifications to the Draft Housing Element in Response to Public Comments  Pursuant to AB215, following the 30-day public comment period, the public comments received by the Town were considered during the 10-day consideration and revision period prior to the Housing and Community Development (HCD) submittal for first comments.
 The following modifications were made to the Town’s Draft Housing Element in response to public comments:
 Added Implementation Program AS – Provide Adequate Sites for Lower Income Households on Nonvacant and Vacant Sites Previously Identified in the 5th Cycle Housing Element;  Revised the housing density for the Sites Inventory to be consistent with the typical density identified in the 2040 General Plan Residential Buildout;
 Increased the density within the North Forty Specific Plan area to align with the related Implementation Program D;
 Increased the density for residential and mixed-use residential developments through the creation of the Housing Element Overlay Zone (HEOZ) as described in Implementation Program AQ and AR; and  Corrected employment characteristics.

Page 761 ends

Appendix I. Public Comments
JanuaryNovemberSeptember 20232024 Appendix I I-45
Public Comments on the 2023-2031 Housing Element Adopted on January 30, 2023 On January 30, 2023, the Los Gatos Town Council adopted the 2023-2031 Housing Element with modifications to the Sites Inventory. The Adopted 2023-2031 Housing Element was posted showing modifications from the October 2022 Initial Draft Housing Element to the Town’s Housing Element website (EngageLosGatoshousing.com). Notification was provided to all individuals and organizations that previously requested notices, as well as all parties on the Town’s notification list, including those who have previously commented on the Draft Housing Element for the seven-day public review period. The public review period was from February 3, 2023, to February 10, 2023, seven days prior to submittal of the adopted Housing Element to HCD for review consistent with AB 215 requirements, during which the Town received four written public comments.

Comment Response for the 2023-2031 Adopted Housing Element This response to public comments for the Adopted 2023-2031 Housing Element has been prepared to address comments received during the seven-day public review period.

Written Comments
The following written comments were received during the seven-day public review period:

1. Linda Swenberg, email dated February 3, 2023;

2. Jeffrey Barnett, email dated February 3, 2023;

3. Eric S. Phillips on behalf of Burke, Williams, and Sorensen, LLP, email dated February 10, 2023; and

4. Jak Van Nada on Behalf of the Los Gatos Community Alliance, email dated February 10, 2023.

Written Draft Housing Element Comments
Written comments on the Adopted 2023-2031 Housing Element and responses to those comments are presented on the following pages.

Page 762 ends

HCD Draft Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element
I-46 Appendix I JanuaryNovember September 20232024
Comment Letter #1

Page 763 ends

Appendix I. Public Comments
JanuaryNovemberSeptember 20232024 Appendix I I-47
Response to Comment #1
 Fair housing inquires based on race
o The error was corrected.

Page 764 ends

HCD Draft Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element
I-48 Appendix I JanuaryNovember September 20232024
Comment Letter #2

Page 765 ends

Appendix I. Public Comments
JanuaryNovemberSeptember 20232024 Appendix I I-49
Comment Letter #2 - Attachment

Page 766 ends

HCD Draft Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element

Page 767 ends

Appendix I. Public Comments
JanuaryNovemberSeptember 20232024 Appendix I I-51 Page 768 HCD Draft Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element
I-52 Appendix I JanuaryNovember September 20232024
Response to Comment #2
 Expand List of Classes Protected by Discrimination
o Policy HE-6.1 was modified to include an expanded list of classes protected against discrimination.

Page 769 ends

Appendix I. Public Comments
JanuaryNovemberSeptember 20232024 Appendix I I-53
Comment Letter #3

Page 770 ends

HCD Draft Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element

Page 771 ends

Appendix I. Public Comments
JanuaryNovemberSeptember 20232024 Appendix I I-55 Page 772 HCD Draft Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element

Page 773 ends

Appendix I. Public Comments
JanuaryNovemberSeptember 20232024 Appendix I I-57
Response to Comment #3
 Governmental constraints - story poles
o Added Story Poles discussion under the government constrains section of Appendix C. Story poles are a balance of both governmental constraints and a benefit to the community. Program AW was added to review the Story Pole and Netting Policy and explore options for residential or mixed-use projects with affordable housing to reduce the associated costs of installing story poles. The program’s objective is to consider reducing the cost of development by modifying story pole requirements for affordable housing projects.
 Governmental constraints - development impact fees and program exactions o Added discussion in Appendix C, Governmental Constraints, regarding TDM Program Fees, VMT Impact Fees, and Transportation Impact Fees.

Page 774 ends

HCD Draft Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element
I-58 Appendix I JanuaryNovember September 20232024
Comment Letter #4

Page 775 ends

Appendix I. Public Comments
JanuaryNovemberSeptember 20232024 Appendix I I-59 Page 776 HCD Draft Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element

Page 777 ends

Appendix I. Public Comments
JanuaryNovemberSeptember 20232024 Appendix I I-61 Page 778 HCD Draft Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element

Page 779 ends

Appendix I. Public Comments
JanuaryNovemberSeptember 20232024 Appendix I I-63 Page 780 HCD Draft Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element
I-64 Appendix I JanuaryNovember September 20232024
Response to Comment #4
 Planning Commission to provide reasonable standard of objective review of the Draft Housing Element
o On January 11, 2023, the Planning Commission made a recommendation to the Town Council to adopt the Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element with the revised Sites Inventory Analysis and revised Sites Inventory Form. No modifications to the Housing Element are required in response to this comment.  Table 10-3 to be updated and additional information added o Updated Table 10-3, Summary of Vacant and Underutilized Housing Sites.  Substantial development constraints for North 40 sites D1 – D7 o Program D amends the North Forty Specific Plan to increase the maximum allowable density from 20 dwelling units per acre to 40 dwelling units per acre and increase the total number of dwelling units allowed in the Specific Plan.
o Added new section “Appropriate Density/Default Density” in Appendix D, starting on page D-2 describes the development trends of in residential development in the Town and nearby jurisdictions, capacity information on non-vacant and commercial sites, and examples of residential development that occurred in non-residentially zoned parcels in the Town.
o Added new text to Appendix C, Governmental Constraints or Non-Governmental Constraints to Housing Development.
o Updated achievements and effectiveness of the 5th Cycle Housing Element Programs was added in Appendix E.
 Total units and low-income units not adequately analyzed and need adjustment to reflect realistic development for site D-1
o The distribution of units per income level is implemented consistent with State law for sites with a density of 30 or more dwelling units per acre.
 Sites D2-D7 have no evidence of redevelopment for the 6th cycle o A new section providing examples of affordable and market-rate residential developments that have occurred on sites that were less than half an acre (small sites) will be added. o Program K, Lot Consolidation, facilitates outreach to property owners to identify meaningful incentives to facilitate lot consolidation, lot assemblage and redevelopment in mixed use and commercial areas.

Based on this feedback, within two years of Housing Element adoption, the Town will consider the development of a Lot Consolidation Ordinance to include specific incentives such as: flexible development standards such as reduced setbacks, increased lot coverage, increased heights, reduced parking, reduced fees, and streamlined permit processing through administrative staff review. Upon adoption of the Ordinance, the Town will work with property owners that are receptive to lot consolidation/lot assemblage to assist them in facilitating the parcel merge process in a streamlined and timely manner.
 Non-vacant sites accommodate 98% of lower income units and no evidence is provided that existing uses will is continue during the 6th cycle
o Added new section “Appropriate Density/Default Density” in Appendix D, describing development trends in residential development in the Town and nearby jurisdictions, details of the questions provided on the Town’s Property Owner Interest Forms in relation to HCD’s Sites Inventory Guidebook, and provides construction age of most commercial buildings within the Sites Inventory.

Page 781 ends

Appendix I. Public Comments
JanuaryNovemberSeptember 20232024 Appendix I I-65
Modifications to the 2023-2031 Adopted Housing Element in Response to Public Comments
Pursuant to AB215, following the seven-day public comment period, the public comments received by the Town were considered prior to the Housing and Community Development (HCD) submittal for second comments.

The following modifications were made to the 2023-2031 Adopted Housing Element in response to public comments:
 The summary describing the types of Fair Housing Inquires for bias was updated in Chapter 10.  Policy HE-6.1 was modified to include an expanded list of classes protected against discrimination.  Added Story Poles discussion under the government constraints section of Appendix C. Program AW was added to review the Story Poles and Netting Policy and explore options for residential or mixed-use projects with affordable housing to reduce the associated costs of installing story poles.  Added discussion in Appendix C, Governmental Constraints, regarding TDM Program Fees, VMT Impact Fees, and Transportation Impact Fees.
 Updated Table 10-3, Summary of Vacant and Underutilized Housing Sites.  Added new section “Appropriate Density/Default Density” in Appendix D, starting on page D-2 describes the development trends of in residential development in the Town and nearby jurisdictions, capacity information on non-vacant and commercial sites, and examples of residential development that occurred in nonresidentially zoned parcels in the Town.  Added new text to Appendix C, Governmental Constraints or Non-Governmental Constraints to Housing Development.
 Updated achievements and effectiveness of the 5th Cycle Housing Element Programs was added in Appendix E.
 Added new section providing examples of affordable and market-rate residential developments that have occurred on site that were less than half an acre (small sites),  Added new section “Appropriate Density/Default Density” in Appendix D, describing development trends in residential development in the Town and nearby jurisdictions, details of the questions provided on the Town’s Property Owner Interest Forms in relation to HCD’s Sites Inventory Guidebook, and provides construction age of most commercial buildings within the Sites Inventory.

Page 782 ends

HCD Draft Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element
I-66 Appendix I JanuaryNovember September 20232024
Public Comments on the March 2023, Draft Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element On January 30, 2023, the Los Gatos Town Council adopted the 2023-2031 Housing Element with modifications to the Sites Inventory, making the finding that it is in substantial compliance with State law. On February 13, 2023, the Town submitted the adopted 2023-2031 Housing Element to HCD for review and comment. As described in the February 13, 2023, letter to HCD, the Town modified Appendix D (Sites Inventory Analysis), and Appendix H (Sites Inventory Form), to assume development at a minimum density. The letter described that the Town was in process of addressing the remaining comments found in the January 12, 2023, HCD Findings/Comment Letter and would be resubmitting a revised Housing Element after the revisions have been completed.

The Draft Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element was posted showing modifications to the Adopted 2023-2031 Housing Element to the Town’s Housing Element website (EngageLosGatoshousing.com). Notification was provided to all individuals and organizations that previously requested notices, as well as all parties on the Town’s notification list, including those who have previously commented on the Draft Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element for the seven-day public review period. The public review period was from March 23, 2023, to March 30, 2023, seven days prior to submittal of the adopted Housing Element to HCD for review consistent with AB 215 requirements, during which the Town received one written public comment.

Comment Response for the Draft Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element This response to public comments for the Draft Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element has been prepared to address comments received during the seven-day public review period.

Written Comments
The following written comment was received during the seven-day public review period:

1. Phil Koen, email dated March 30, 2023.

Written Draft Housing Element Comments
The written comment provided on the Draft Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element and the response to the comment is presented on the following pages.

Page 783 ends

Appendix I. Public Comments
JanuaryNovemberSeptember 20232024 Appendix I I-67
Comment Letter #1

Page 784 ends

HCD Draft Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element

Page 785 ends

Appendix I. Public Comments
JanuaryNovemberSeptember 20232024 Appendix I I-69 Page 786 HCD Draft Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element

Page 787 ends

Appendix I. Public Comments
JanuaryNovemberSeptember 20232024 Appendix I I-71 Page 788 HCD Draft Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element
I-72 Appendix I JanuaryNovember September 20232024
Response to Comment #1
 Provide clarification regarding modification of adopted housing element o The Town’s Housing Element website and the staff report was updated to clarify that the document being considered is a proposed amendment to the Town’s Adopted Housing Element.  Why is the adopted housing element being amended?
o On February 13, 2023, the Town submitted the adopted 2023-2031 Housing Element to HCD. A cover letter was included in the submittal describing that the Town was in the process of addressing all the remaining comments found in the HCD findings/comment letter and would be resubmitting a Draft Revised Housing Element after all the revisions addressing the January 12, 2023, HCD findings/comment letter were completed.
o On February 16, 2023, the Housing Element Advisory Board met to review and discuss the HCD findings/comment letter, and how the comments and findings would be addressed. o On March 16, 2023, the Housing Element Advisory Board reviewed the Draft Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element which included modifications to the Town Council adopted 2023-2031 Housing Element in response to the January 12, 2023, HCD comments.

Modifications to the Draft Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element in Response to Public Comments
Pursuant to AB215, following the seven-day public comment period, the public comments received by the Town were considered prior to the Housing and Community Development (HCD) submittal for second comments.

The following modifications were made to the Draft Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element in response to public comments:
o The Town’s Housing Element website and the staff report was updated to clarify that the document being considered is a proposed amendment to the Town’s Adopted Housing Element.

Page 789 ends

Appendix I. Public Comments
JanuaryNovemberSeptember 20232024 Appendix I I-73
Public Comment Received on August 22, 2023, Regarding the Los Gatos 2023-2031 Housing Element
On August 22, 2023, the Town received the following email and attachments from Matthew D. Francois on behalf of the Los Gatos Community Alliance. HCD was copied on the email and attachments. The attached letter suggests that the Town needs to expand the sites inventory as preliminary applications for SB 330 have been submitted with less low-income housing than is anticipated in the Draft Revised Housing Element.

Written Draft Housing Element Comments
The written comment provided on the Draft Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element and the response to the comment is presented on the following pages.

Page 790 ends

HCD Draft Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element
I-74 Appendix I JanuaryNovember September 20232024
Comment Letter #1

Page 791 ends

Appendix I. Public Comments
JanuaryNovemberSeptember 20232024 Appendix I I-75 Page 792 HCD Draft Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element

Page 793 ends

Appendix I. Public Comments
JanuaryNovemberSeptember 20232024 Appendix I I-77 Page 794 HCD Draft Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element

Page 795 ends

Appendix I. Public Comments
JanuaryNovemberSeptember 20232024 Appendix I I-79 Page 796 HCD Draft Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element

Page 797 ends

Appendix I. Public Comments
JanuaryNovemberSeptember 20232024 Appendix I I-81 Page 798 HCD Draft Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element

Page 799 ends

Appendix I. Public Comments
JanuaryNovemberSeptember 20232024 Appendix I I-83 Page 800 HCD Draft Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element

Page 801 ends

Appendix I. Public Comments
JanuaryNovemberSeptember 20232024 Appendix I I-85 Page 802 HCD Draft Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element

Page 803 ends

Appendix I. Public Comments
JanuaryNovemberSeptember 20232024 Appendix I I-87 Page 804 HCD Draft Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element

Page 805 ends

Appendix I. Public Comments
JanuaryNovemberSeptember 20232024 Appendix I I-89 Page 806 HCD Draft Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element

Page 807 ends

Appendix I. Public Comments
JanuaryNovemberSeptember 20232024 Appendix I I-91 Page 808 HCD Draft Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element

Page 809 ends

Appendix I. Public Comments
JanuaryNovemberSeptember 20232024 Appendix I I-93 Page 810 HCD Draft Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element

Page 811 ends

Appendix I. Public Comments
JanuaryNovemberSeptember 20232024 Appendix I I-95 Page 812 HCD Draft Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element

Page 813 ends

Appendix I. Public Comments
JanuaryNovemberSeptember 20232024 Appendix I I-97 Page 814 HCD Draft Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element

Page 815 ends

Appendix I. Public Comments
JanuaryNovemberSeptember 20232024 Appendix I I-99 Page 816 HCD Draft Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element

Page 817 ends

Appendix I. Public Comments
JanuaryNovemberSeptember 20232024 Appendix I I-101 Page 818 HCD Draft Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element

Page 819 ends

Appendix I. Public Comments
JanuaryNovemberSeptember 20232024 Appendix I I-103 Page 820 HCD Draft Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element

Page 821 ends

Appendix I. Public Comments
JanuaryNovemberSeptember 20232024 Appendix I I-105 Page 822 HCD Draft Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element

Page 823 ends

Appendix I. Public Comments
JanuaryNovemberSeptember 20232024 Appendix I I-107 Page 824 HCD Draft Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element

Page 825 ends

Appendix I. Public Comments
JanuaryNovemberSeptember 20232024 Appendix I I-109 Page 826 HCD Draft Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element

Page 827 ends

Appendix I. Public Comments
JanuaryNovemberSeptember 20232024 Appendix I I-111 Page 828 HCD Draft Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element

Page 829 ends

Appendix I. Public Comments
JanuaryNovemberSeptember 20232024 Appendix I I-113 Page 830 HCD Draft Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element

Page 831 ends

Appendix I. Public Comments
JanuaryNovemberSeptember 20232024 Appendix I I-115
Response to Comment #1
 SB 330 Preliminary Applications
o The SB 330 preliminary applications have not been included in the Sites Inventory as they are preliminary and not formal applications and they have not been approved. In the event that formal planning applications are approved that create a shortfall of units in the Town’s Sites Inventory, the Town will need to comply with the State’s “no net loss” provisions. The State “no net loss” law requires that, if and when a project is approved below the density described in the Town’s Housing Element, the Town must rezone sufficient sites to make up the shortfall within six months of project approval. In other words, the “no net loss” provisions kick in upon project approval. The Town intends to comply with the “no net loss” provisions if a project approval results in a shortfall.

Page 832 ends

HCD Draft Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element
I-116 Appendix I JanuaryNovember September 20232024
Public Comment Received on July 31, 2023, Regarding Story Pole Policy Modifications On July 31, 2023, the Town received the following email and attachment from Eric S. Phillips, Partner with Burke, Williams and Sorensen, LLP, representing Grosvenor USA Limited, regarding the Town Council’s consideration of the Town’s Story Pole Policy Modification scheduled for the August 1, 2023, Town Council meeting. HCD was copied on the email and attachments. The attached email describes that Grosvenor USA Limited is the developer for the proposed North Forty Phase II residential development and has interest in the outcome of the Town’s proposed story policy modifications and suggestions.

Written Draft Housing Element Comments
The written comment regarding the story pole policy modification and the response to the comment is presented on the following pages.

Page 833 ends

Appendix I. Public Comments
JanuaryNovemberSeptember 20232024 Appendix I I-117
Comment Letter #1

Page 834 ends

HCD Draft Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element

Page 835 ends

Appendix I. Public Comments
JanuaryNovemberSeptember 20232024 Appendix I I-119 Page 836 HCD Draft Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element

Page 837 ends

Appendix I. Public Comments
JanuaryNovemberSeptember 20232024 Appendix I I-121 Page 838 HCD Draft Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element
I-122 Appendix I JanuaryNovember September 20232024
Response to Comment #1
 Regarding Story Pole and Netting Policy Modifications o The Housing Element includes a discussion on the Town’s Story Pole and Netting Policy in the government constrains section of Appendix C. Story poles are a balance of both governmental constraints and a benefit to the community. Program AW’s objective is to update the Story Pole and Netting Policy and create options for residential or mixed-use projects with affordable housing to reduce the associated costs of installing story poles. Modifications already approved by Town Council on August 1, 2023, include: use of flag rope instead of netting; reduce story pole requirements for multi-building projects to just represent perimeter of site and tallest buildings; and removal of story pole requirements for projects with 30 percent Below Market Rate housing or 20 percent Low Income or Very Low Income housing. Additional modifications to further reduce impacts of the story pole policy are scheduled for review by the Town Council on December 5, 2023.

Modifications to the 2023-2031 Adopted Housing Element in Response to Public Comments
The following modifications were made to the 2023-2031 Adopted Housing Element in response to public comments:
 Program AW was updated, as described above, to reflect Town Council’s approved modifications to the Story Pole and Netting Policy.

Page 839 ends

Appendix I. Public Comments
JanuaryNovemberSeptember 20232024 Appendix I I-123
Public Comments on the September 2023, Draft Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element Pursuant to Government Code 65585(b)(1), the Town has posted the modifications to the Town’s Housing Element website and provided notification to all individuals and organizations that previously requested notices, as well as all parties on the Town’s notification list, including those who have previously commented on the Housing Element. The Draft Revised Housing Element was posted September 22, 2023, through September 29, 2023, seven days prior to the October 2, 2023, submittal of the Draft Revised Housing Element to HCD for review.

During the public comment period the Town received eight written comments.

Comment Response for the September 2023, Draft Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element This response to public comments for the September 2023 Draft Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element has been prepared to address comments received during the seven-day public review period.

Written Comments
The following written comment was received during the seven-day public review period:

1. Lee Qunitana, email dated September 29, 2023;

2. Phil Koen, email dated September 29, 2023 (4:08 p.m.);

3. Phil Koen, email dated September 29, 2023 (1:45 p.m.);

4. Anne Paulson, email dated September 29, 2023;

5. Phil Koen, email dated September 28, 2023;

6. Judy L, email dated September 27, 2023;

7. Steve Piasecki, email dated September 27, 2023; and

8. Jak Van Nada, email dated August 26, 2023.

Written Draft Housing Element Comments
The written comments provided on the September 2023 Draft Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element and the response to comments is presented on the following pages.

Page 840 ends

HCD Draft Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element
I-124 Appendix I JanuaryNovember September 20232024
Comment Letter #1

Page 841 ends

Appendix I. Public Comments
JanuaryNovemberSeptember 20232024 Appendix I I-125 Page 842 HCD Draft Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element

Page 843 ends

Appendix I. Public Comments
JanuaryNovemberSeptember 20232024 Appendix I I-127
Response to Comment #1
 Formatting
 Acknowledges public comment on suggested document format changes.  Edits and Clarifications
 The density for RD has been added to Table C-1. Appendix C. The density is 5-12 dwelling units per acre (2020 General Plan Land Use Category - Medium Density Residential).  The number of units that were entitled, permitted, under construction, and finaled from June 30, 2022, to January 31, 2023, as listed in Table 10-3, Table D-2, and Table D-7 of the Draft Revised Housing Element (November 2023) were modified to remove units that were reported to the California Department of Finance.
 Programs AD, AP, and AQ, describe the required Zoning Code amends to comply with State law.

Page 844 ends

HCD Draft Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element
I-128 Appendix I JanuaryNovember September 20232024
Comment Letter #2

Page 845 ends

Appendix I. Public Comments
JanuaryNovemberSeptember 20232024 Appendix I I-129 Page 846 HCD Draft Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element

Page 847 ends

Appendix I. Public Comments
JanuaryNovemberSeptember 20232024 Appendix I I-131 Page 848 HCD Draft Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element

Page 849 ends

Appendix I. Public Comments
JanuaryNovemberSeptember 20232024 Appendix I I-133 Page 850 HCD Draft Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element

Page 851 ends

Appendix I. Public Comments
JanuaryNovemberSeptember 20232024 Appendix I I-135 Page 852 HCD Draft Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element

Page 853 ends

Appendix I. Public Comments
JanuaryNovemberSeptember 20232024 Appendix I I-137 Page 854 HCD Draft Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element

Page 855 ends

Appendix I. Public Comments
JanuaryNovemberSeptember 20232024 Appendix I I-139 Page 856 HCD Draft Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element

Page 857 ends

Appendix I. Public Comments
JanuaryNovemberSeptember 20232024 Appendix I I-141 Page 858 HCD Draft Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element

Page 859 ends

Appendix I. Public Comments
JanuaryNovemberSeptember 20232024 Appendix I I-143 Page 860 HCD Draft Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element

Page 861 ends

Appendix I. Public Comments
JanuaryNovemberSeptember 20232024 Appendix I I-145 Page 862 HCD Draft Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element

Page 863 ends

Appendix I. Public Comments
JanuaryNovemberSeptember 20232024 Appendix I I-147 Page 864 HCD Draft Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element

Page 865 ends

Appendix I. Public Comments
JanuaryNovemberSeptember 20232024 Appendix I I-149 Page 866 HCD Draft Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element

Page 867 ends

Appendix I. Public Comments
JanuaryNovemberSeptember 20232024 Appendix I I-151 Page 868 HCD Draft Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element

Page 869 ends

Appendix I. Public Comments
JanuaryNovemberSeptember 20232024 Appendix I I-153 Page 870 HCD Draft Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element
I-154 Appendix I JanuaryNovember September 20232024
Response to Comment #2
Clarification on 5th cycle Units Carried over to 6th cycle:
 After further clarification from HCD the number of units that were entitled, permitted, under construction, and finaled from June 30, 2022, to January 31, 2023, as listed in Table 10-3, Table D-2, and Table D-7 of the Draft Revised Housing Element (November 2023) were modified to remove units that were reported to the California Department of Finance.

Page 871 ends

Appendix I. Public Comments
JanuaryNovemberSeptember 20232024 Appendix I I-155
Comment Letter #3

Page 872 ends

HCD Draft Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element

Page 873 ends

Appendix I. Public Comments
JanuaryNovemberSeptember 20232024 Appendix I I-157 Page 874 HCD Draft Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element

Page 875 ends

Appendix I. Public Comments
JanuaryNovemberSeptember 20232024 Appendix I I-159 Page 876 HCD Draft Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element
I-160 Appendix I JanuaryNovember September 20232024
Response to Comment #3
Clarification on 5th cycle Units Carried over to 6th cycle:
 After further clarification from HCD the number of units that were entitled, permitted, under construction, and finaled from June 30, 2022, to January 31, 2023, as listed in Table 10-3, Table D-2, and Table D-7 of the Draft Revised Housing Element (November 2023) were modified in yellow highlight to remove units that were reported to the California Department of Finance.

Page 877 ends

Appendix I. Public Comments
JanuaryNovemberSeptember 20232024 Appendix I I-161
Comment Letter #4

Page 878 ends

HCD Draft Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element

Page 879 ends

Appendix I. Public Comments
JanuaryNovemberSeptember 20232024 Appendix I I-163 Page 880 HCD Draft Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element

Page 881 ends

Appendix I. Public Comments
JanuaryNovemberSeptember 20232024 Appendix I I-165
Response to Comment #4
 Programs
o The Housing Element now includes a matrix with actions to ensure the Town’s Housing Element goals affirmatively further fair housing. This matrix includes specific actions, geographic targeting, timelines, and eight-year metrics that aim to address fair housing concerns including fair housing outreach and enforcement, housing mobility, place-based strategies for neighborhood improvement, new housing opportunities in high resource areas, and tenant protection and anti-displacement.
o Program E – The program’s objective is to pursue opportunities to work with an affordable housing developer to construct affordable housing on two of the Town owned properties. The number of affordable units has been increased.
o Program G – The program’s objective is to increase the floor area ratio to promote higher density housing development. A preliminary study will be completed by December 2024 to achieve this objective.
o Program J – The program’s objective is to increase the number of low-rise multi-family developments from the previous year. The number of units has been increased. o Program O – Additional objectives are now included, including a reduction in development impact fees and an increase in the total number of affordable housing units. o Program R – The program amends the Density Bonus Ordinance per State law by December 2024 and will recommend changes to increase the number of units constructed. o Program T – The program commits annually meeting with nonprofit groups on an annual basis to discuss constraints to development and develop strategies and actions for affordable housing development, especially meeting affordable housing needs for extremely low-income households and developing incentives for affordable housing. o Program Y – The program describes the Town’s commitment to continue to provide funding to WVCS for homeless persons services.
o Program Z – The program is to study and implement recommendations with regard to the Town’s Rental Dispute Mediation and Arbitration Ordinance 2128 to help further stabilize rents for long-term residents. The study will be completed by January 2025 and implemented into the Town Code by June 2025.
o Program AA – The program commits to initiate a study to determine specific updates for the Municipal Code to address reduction in parking requirements including: align parking requirements with the preparation of the Objective Design Standards; reduce parking requirements near transit, remove guest parking requirements; and allow parking to unbundled from residential units. The study is to be completed by January 2025 and implemented into the Town Code by June 2025.
 Program AQ – The rezonings and creation of the Housing Element Overlay Zone (HEOZ) has been recommended by Planning Commission and introduced by Town Council on November 7, 2023.

The rezoning is scheduled to be adopted by Town Council on November 21, 2023.  Program AV, Senate Bill 9 Monitoring - The inclusion of Senate Bill 9 units in the Housing Element towards meeting the Town’s RHNA was removed from the Draft Revised Housing Element (November 2023).
 BMP Housing Program In-Lieu Fees
o The Below Market Price Housing Program In-Lieu fees are allocated as directed by Town Council through the Town’s annual Strategic Priorities. Every year the Town Council identifies their Strategic Priorities as an initial step in the budget development process. The Town Council has made affordable housing partnerships a 2023-2025 Strategic Priority.

Page 882 ends

HCD Draft Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element
I-166 Appendix I JanuaryNovember September 20232024
 Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
o AFFH – Goals to affirmatively further fair housing have been strengthened through specific actions, geographic targeting, and eight-year metrics outlined in a new implementation table.

The Town has outlined place-based strategies for neighborhood improvement with geographic targeting to ensure areas with additional need, including areas with proposed lower income RHNA units, are adequately served.
 Sites Inventory Locations
o The sites within the Sites Inventory were based on property owner interest to develop residential within the planning period. The sites in the Sites Inventory do not saturate one specific set of income category in a specific location, rather they are spread throughout the Town. The sites in the Sites Inventory are spread throughout Town and were selected for their proximity to Town services and amenities, such as parks, high quality schools, shopping, and local Valley Transportation Authority bus transit that links to regional light rail transit.  Minimum Lot Size for Single Family
o The Town’s minimum residential lot size is 5,000 square feet in the R-1D zone. o SB 9 allows for a minimum residential lot size of 1,200 square feet.  Duplexes/Two-Family Dwellings
o Two family dwelling units are permitted in the R-1D , R-D, and R-M zones. o ADUs and Junior ADUs are permitted in the RC, HR, R-1, R-1D, R-D, R-M zones in conjunction with a single-family home, resulting up to three units per parcel. o SB 9 is allowed on a legal parcel located within a single-family residential zone (R-1 or SingleFamily Residential Zone; R-1D or Single-Family Residential Downtown Zone; HR or Hillside Residential Zone), excluding historic properties, hazardous waste sites, sites withing earthquake fault zones, flood zone, natural habitat, prime farmland, and wetlands. SB 9 allows up to four units per parcel.

Page 883 ends

Appendix I. Public Comments
JanuaryNovemberSeptember 20232024 Appendix I I-167
Comment Letter #5

Page 884 ends

HCD Draft Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element

Page 885 ends

Appendix I. Public Comments
JanuaryNovemberSeptember 20232024 Appendix I I-169 Page 886 HCD Draft Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element

Page 887 ends

Appendix I. Public Comments
JanuaryNovemberSeptember 20232024 Appendix I I-171 Page 888 HCD Draft Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element

Page 889 ends

Appendix I. Public Comments
JanuaryNovemberSeptember 20232024 Appendix I I-173 Page 890 HCD Draft Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element

Page 891 ends

Appendix I. Public Comments
JanuaryNovemberSeptember 20232024 Appendix I I-175 Page 892 HCD Draft Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element

Page 893 ends

Appendix I. Public Comments
JanuaryNovemberSeptember 20232024 Appendix I I-177 Page 894 HCD Draft Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element

Page 895 ends

Appendix I. Public Comments
JanuaryNovemberSeptember 20232024 Appendix I I-179 Page 896 HCD Draft Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element

Page 897 ends

Appendix I. Public Comments
JanuaryNovemberSeptember 20232024 Appendix I I-181 Page 898 HCD Draft Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element

Page 899 ends

Appendix I. Public Comments
JanuaryNovemberSeptember 20232024 Appendix I I-183 Page 900 HCD Draft Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element

Page 901 ends

Appendix I. Public Comments
JanuaryNovemberSeptember 20232024 Appendix I I-185 Page 902 HCD Draft Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element

Page 903 ends

Appendix I. Public Comments
JanuaryNovemberSeptember 20232024 Appendix I I-187 Page 904 HCD Draft Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element

Page 905 ends

Appendix I. Public Comments
JanuaryNovemberSeptember 20232024 Appendix I I-189 Page 906 HCD Draft Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element

Page 907 ends

Appendix I. Public Comments
JanuaryNovemberSeptember 20232024 Appendix I I-191 Page 908 HCD Draft Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element

Page 909 ends

Appendix I. Public Comments
JanuaryNovemberSeptember 20232024 Appendix I I-193 Page 910 HCD Draft Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element

Page 911 ends

Appendix I. Public Comments
JanuaryNovemberSeptember 20232024 Appendix I I-195 Page 912 HCD Draft Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element

Page 913 ends

Appendix I. Public Comments
JanuaryNovemberSeptember 20232024 Appendix I I-197 Page 914 HCD Draft Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element

Page 915 ends

Appendix I. Public Comments
JanuaryNovemberSeptember 20232024 Appendix I I-199 Page 916 HCD Draft Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element

Page 917 ends

Appendix I. Public Comments
JanuaryNovemberSeptember 20232024 Appendix I I-201 Page 918 HCD Draft Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element

Page 919 ends

Appendix I. Public Comments
JanuaryNovemberSeptember 20232024 Appendix I I-203 Page 920 HCD Draft Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element

Page 921 ends

Appendix I. Public Comments
JanuaryNovemberSeptember 20232024 Appendix I I-205 Page 922 HCD Draft Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element

Page 923 ends

Appendix I. Public Comments
JanuaryNovemberSeptember 20232024 Appendix I I-207 Page 924 HCD Draft Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element

Page 925 ends

Appendix I. Public Comments
JanuaryNovemberSeptember 20232024 Appendix I I-209 Page 926 HCD Draft Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element

Page 927 ends

Appendix I. Public Comments
JanuaryNovemberSeptember 20232024 Appendix I I-211 Page 928 HCD Draft Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element

Page 929 ends

Appendix I. Public Comments
JanuaryNovemberSeptember 20232024 Appendix I I-213 Page 930 HCD Draft Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element

Page 931 ends

Appendix I. Public Comments
JanuaryNovemberSeptember 20232024 Appendix I I-215 Page 932 HCD Draft Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element

Page 933 ends

Appendix I. Public Comments
JanuaryNovemberSeptember 20232024 Appendix I I-217 Page 934 HCD Draft Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element

Page 935 ends

Appendix I. Public Comments
JanuaryNovemberSeptember 20232024 Appendix I I-219 Page 936 HCD Draft Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element

Page 937 ends

Appendix I. Public Comments
JanuaryNovemberSeptember 20232024 Appendix I I-221 Page 938 HCD Draft Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element

Page 939 ends

Appendix I. Public Comments
JanuaryNovemberSeptember 20232024 Appendix I I-223 Page 940 HCD Draft Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element
I-224 Appendix I JanuaryNovember September 20232024
Response to Comment #5
 SB 330 Applications
o The Town has received direction from HCD that No Net Loss law is only applicable once a project has been approved. The preliminary and formal SB 330 applications that the Town has received have not been approved.
 Clarification on 5th cycle Units Carried over to 6th cycle:
o After further clarification from HCD the number of units that were entitled, permitted, under construction, and finaled from June 30, 2022, to January 31, 2023, as listed in Table 10-3, Table D-2, and Table D-7 of the Draft Revised Housing Element (November 2023) were modified in yellow highlight to remove units that were reported to the California Department of Finance.  ADU Income Distribution
o ADU income distribution is based guidance provided in the “Using ADU’s to Satisfy RHNA” Technical Memo provided by the Association of Bay Area Governments.

Page 941 ends

Appendix I. Public Comments
JanuaryNovemberSeptember 20232024 Appendix I I-225
Comment Letter #6
Response to Comment #6
 Building Height
o The Alberto site is located in the Town’s Sites Inventory and was rezoned with a Housing Element Overlay Zone (HEOZ). The HEOZ overlay in a CH allows for a 45-foot-tall building height to encourage residential development. The property owner has applied for a formal SB 330 application which proposes an approximately 50-foot tall building. Under State law the applicant has asked for a waiver for height.

The application is pending.
 Alternative Site
o The two sites located north of the 15600 Los Gatos Boulevard property are in the Housing Element’s Site’s Inventory as Site C-9 (15480 Los Gatos Boulevard and 15550 Los Gatos Boulevard).

Page 942 ends

HCD Draft Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element
I-226 Appendix I JanuaryNovember September 20232024
Comment Letter #7
Response to Comment #7
 New Development
o Each project will be evaluated independently depending upon the site and proposed scope of work.

Traffic, noise, air mitigations, off-site improvements, and dedications, etc. will be evaluated through development review and CEQA review.

Page 943 ends

Appendix I. Public Comments
JanuaryNovemberSeptember 20232024 Appendix I I-227
Comment Letter #8

Page 944 ends

HCD Draft Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element

Page 945 ends

Appendix I. Public Comments
JanuaryNovemberSeptember 20232024 Appendix I I-229 Page 946 HCD Draft Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element

Page 947 ends

Appendix I. Public Comments
JanuaryNovemberSeptember 20232024 Appendix I I-231
Response to Comment #8
 Penalties
The Town knowledges the public comment expressing concerns regarding penalties for not having a certified housing element, including potential builder’s remedy projects. Staff and the Town’s Consultant continue to work diligently with the Town’s HCD reviewer to address HCD’s comments to achieve a certified Housing Element as quickly as possible.

Page 948 ends

HCD Draft Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element
I-232 Appendix I JanuaryNovember September 20232024
Summary Modifications to the Draft Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element in Response to Public Comments
Pursuant to AB215, following the 7-day public comment period, the public comments received by the Town were considered prior to resubmitting to HCD. The following modifications were made to the Town’s Draft Housing Element in response to public comments:
o The density for RD has been added to Table C-1. Appendix C. The density is 5-12 dwelling units per acre (2020 General Plan Land Use Category- Medium Density Residential). o The number of units that were entitled, permitted, under construction, and finaled from June 30, 2022, to January 31, 2023, as listed in Table 10-3, Table D-2, and Table D-7 of the Draft Revised Housing Element (November 2023) were modified to remove units that were reported to the California Department of Finance.
o The Housing Element now includes a matrix with actions to ensure the Town’s Housing Element goals affirmatively further fair housing. This matrix includes specific actions, geographic targeting, timelines, and eight-year metrics that aim to address fair housing concerns including fair housing outreach and enforcement, housing mobility, place-based strategies for neighborhood improvement, new housing opportunities in high resource areas, and tenant protection and anti-displacement. o Programs objectives and timelines modified. The inclusion of SB 9 units in the Housing Element towards meeting the Town’s RHNA was removed from the Draft Revised Housing Element (November 2023). o Goals to affirmatively further fair housing have been strengthened through specific actions, geographic targeting, and eight-year metrics outlined in a new implementation table. The Town has outlined placebased strategies for neighborhood improvement with geographic targeting to ensure areas with additional need, including areas with proposed lower income RHNA units, are adequately served.

Page 949 ends

Appendix I. Public Comments
JanuaryNovemberSeptember 20232024 Appendix I I-233
Public Comments on the November 2023, Draft Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element Pursuant to Government Code 65585(b)(1), the Town has posted the modifications to the Town’s Housing Element website and provided notification to all individuals and organizations that previously requested notices, as well as all parties on the Town’s notification list, including those who have previously commented on the Housing Element. The Draft Revised Housing Element was posted November 16, 2023, through November 27, 2023, seven days prior to the November 28, 2023, submittal of the Draft Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element, implementing changes in response to comments in the Draft Preliminary Review Matrix provided by HCD on November 7, 2023, to HCD for review. During the public comment period the Town received one written comment.

Comment Response for the November 2023, Draft Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element This response to public comments for the November 2023 Draft Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element, implementing changes in response to comments in the Draft Preliminary Review Matrix provided by HCD on November 7, 2023, has been prepared to address comments received during the seven-day public review period.

Written Comments
The following written comment was received during the seven-day public review period:

1. Los Gatos Community Alliance (“LGCA”)
Written Draft Housing Element Comments
The written comments provided on the November 2023 Draft Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element, implementing changes in response to comments in the Draft Preliminary Review Matrix provided by HCD on November 7, 2023, and the response to comments are presented on the following pages.

Page 950 ends

HCD Draft Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element
I-234 Appendix I JanuaryNovember September 20232024
Comment Letter #1

Page 951 ends

Appendix I. Public Comments
JanuaryNovemberSeptember 20232024 Appendix I I-235 Page 952 HCD Draft Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element

Page 953 ends

Appendix I. Public Comments
JanuaryNovemberSeptember 20232024 Appendix I I-237 Page 954 HCD Draft Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element

Page 955 ends

Appendix I. Public Comments
JanuaryNovemberSeptember 20232024 Appendix I I-239 Page 956 HCD Draft Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element

Page 957 ends

Appendix I. Public Comments
JanuaryNovemberSeptember 20232024 Appendix I I-241 Page 958 HCD Draft Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element

Page 959 ends

Appendix I. Public Comments
JanuaryNovemberSeptember 20232024 Appendix I I-243 Page 960 HCD Draft Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element

Page 961 ends

Appendix I. Public Comments
JanuaryNovemberSeptember 20232024 Appendix I I-245 Page 962 HCD Draft Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element

Page 963 ends

Appendix I. Public Comments
JanuaryNovemberSeptember 20232024 Appendix I I-247 Page 964 HCD Draft Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element

Page 965 ends

Appendix I. Public Comments
JanuaryNovemberSeptember 20232024 Appendix I I-249
Response to Comment #1
 RHNA Surplus
o The method for calculating the percentage of the surplus is consistent with other Santa Clara County jurisdictions who have received certification of their Housing Element. Additionally, this method has been utilized by the Town’s Housing Element consultant with approximately 40 jurisdictions who have received certification of their Housing Element. The buffer of 25 percent, as identified in Implementation Program AS is a reflection of the March 2023 version of the Draft Revised Housing Element and could be revised to reflect the November 2023 version of the Draft Revised Housing Element, which provides a 24 percent buffer.  Projected ADU Affordability
o The income and affordability distribution of ADU’s in the Housing Element was based on a technical memorandum prepared by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), titled ‘Using ADU’s to Satisfy RHNA Technical Memo.’ The ABAG information provided by the LGCA was a draft version. The Town is utilizing the recommended percentages, provided in the final version of the ABAG technical memorandum.
 SB330 Impact
o The Town has received direction from HCD that No Net Loss law is only applicable once a project has been approved. The preliminary and formal SB 330 applications that the Town has received have not been approved. If and when a formal application is submitted and the project is approved that will trigger the “no net loss” requirements, and the Town will comply with the “no net loss” requirements.
 No Net Loss Buffer
o As discussed in the response to comment #3, the Town has received direction from HCD that No Net Loss law is only applicable once a project has been approved. The preliminary and formal SB 330 applications that the Town has received have not been approved. If and when a formal application is submitted and the project is approved that will trigger the “no net loss” requirements, and the Town will comply with the “no net loss” requirements.  Program References to Town’s Affordable Housing In Lieu Fund o The Below Market Price (BMP) housing in-lieu fees must be used for affordable housing purposes and are allocated as directed by the Town Council as part of the budgeting process.

Every year the Town Council identifies their strategic priorities as an initial step in the budget development process. The Town Council has made affordable housing partnerships a 2023- 2025 Strategic Priority.

Page 966 ends

HCD Draft Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element
I-250 Appendix I JanuaryNovember September 20232024
Summary Modifications to the November 2023, Draft Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element in Response to Public Comments
Pursuant to AB215, public comments provided during the seven-day public comment period above were considered prior to resubmitting to HCD and it was determined that no revisions were required to the Draft Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (November 2023).

Page 967 ends

December 1, 2023, HCD Comments on the Draft Revised Housing Element with Staff Responses Comment
Number HCD Comment Response
Priority
Rating
Examples from Other Certified
Housing Elements
#1a. Affirmatively further[ing] fair housing in
accordance with Chapter 15 (commencing
with Section 8899.50) of Division 1 of Title
2…shall include an assessment of fair housing
in the jurisdiction. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd.
(c)(10)(A).)
Promote and affirmatively further fair
housing opportunities and promote housing
throughout the community or communities
for all persons regardless of race, religion,
sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin,
color, familial status, or disability, and other
characteristics... (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd.
(c)(5).)
Income and Racial Concentration Area of
Affluence (RCAA): The element now includes
actions to promote an inclusive community;
however, the element must provide specific
analysis of income and RCAA at a regional level
(town compared to the broader region) to better
formulate appropriate policies and programs. The
analysis should at least address trends,
conditions, coincidence with other fair housing
factors (e.g., race, highest resource,
overpayment), effectiveness or absence of past
strategies (e.g., lack of publicly assisted housing
and lack of multifamily zoning), local data and
knowledge and other relevant factors.

Additional narrative regarding race, ethnicity, and
income trends for Los Gatos was added on page A-69
Appendix A. In addition, discussion of zoning,
including the Town’s Zoning Map was added on page
A-73 of Appendix A, as well as a narrative describing
implementation programs included in the Housing
Element which facilitate the creation of affordable
housing units on pages A-69 of Appendix A.

Straight
forward
City of Campbell, starting on
page H.II-84.

Town of Los Altos Hills, starting
on page 101.
#1b. Contributing Factors to Fair Housing Issues:

Based on a complete analysis, the element should
re-assess and prioritize contributing factors to fair
housing issues. For example, the Town is wholly a
RCAA, highest resource and highest median
incomes in contrast to the rest of the region. As a
result, fair housing issues such as the lack of
Additional narrative describing fair housing as an
issue in Town was provided on page A-18 of
Appendix A (RCAAs). Fair housing was also modified
on page A-18 of Appendix A, to be a high priority for
the Town.

Straight
forward
Campbell, starting on page H.II121.

Town of Los Altos Hills, starting
on page 78 and page 124.

ATTACHMENT 2

Page 968 ends

affordable housing and segregation from the rest
of the region should be a high priority.
#1c. Goals and Actions:

As noted above, the element must include a
complete analysis of affirmatively furthering fair
housing (AFFH). The element must be revised to
add goals and actions based on the outcomes of a
complete analysis.

As noted in HCD’s prior review and the
assessment of fair housing, the Town is wholly a
racially concentrated area of affluence, highest
resource and highest median incomes in contrast
to the rest of the region.

These conditions and circumstances warrant
significant and robust actions (not limited to the
RHNA) to promote housing mobility and
increasing housing choices and affordability
throughout the Town, including lower-density
neighborhoods. Actions should be added and
revised with aggressive numeric targets and
geographic targets throughout the Town,
including lower-density neighborhoods. Examples
include creating more housing choices and
affordability in single-family neighborhoods
beyond complying with law (e.g., SB 9, ADUs)
such as missing middle housing types, targeting
affordable housing funding, homesharing, more
than one unit of converted space within a singlefamily structure, increased multifamily capacity, enhanced efforts on religious institutional sites
Modifications to Implementation Program J on page
10-44 of Chapter 10 were made to include actions
that aim to facilitate a range of housing types,
including small multi-unit housing in low to medium
designations. Additionally, a separate action within
Implementation Project J calls for creating
opportunities for other housing types (tiny homes
and co-housing).

Moderately
complex
City of Pleasanton, starting on
page 61.

Town of Los Altos Hills, starting
on page 87.

Page 969 ends

and other alternative land use and financing
strategies.
#2a. An inventory of land suitable and available for
residential development, including vacant sites
and sites having realistic and demonstrated
potential for redevelopment during the planning
period to meet the locality’s housing need for a
designated income level, and an analysis of the
relationship of zoning and public facilities and
services to these sites. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd.
(a)(3).)
Identify actions that will be taken to make sites
available during the planning period with
appropriate zoning and development standards
and with services and facilities to accommodate
that portion of the city’s or county’s share of the
regional housing need for each income level that
could not be accommodated on sites identified in
the inventory… (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(1).)
Small Sites:

The element identifies several sites with parcels
less than a half- acre (p. D-13) that have common
ownership and, in some cases, expressed interest
to redevelop the site. For small sites with
expressed interest in redevelopment, the
element should clarify that the expressed interest
is also in consolidating the sites. For the
remaining sites (Sites D-2 and D-5), the element
should explain the circumstances leading to the
potential for consolidation such as necessity to
consolidate due to access, feasibility, shape, or
site planning flexibility. Based on the outcomes
of this analysis, the element should add or modify
Program K (Lot Consolidation) to further promote
lot consolidation, if appropriate.

Additional narrative added to page D-12 of Appendix
D, describing property owner interest in developing
multiple parcels as a single parcel, how the sites
share access, parking, and the conduciveness to
redevelopment as a single parcel given the lot shape
and configuration.

Straight
forward
This comment is not applicable
to other similar cities with
certified Housing Elements.
#2b. Electronic Sites Inventory:

For your information, while the Town has
submitted an electronic sites inventory as part of
this submittal, pursuant to Government Code
N/A For
information
only
N/A

Page 970 ends

section 65583.3, the Town must submit an
electronic sites inventory with its adopted
housing element. Please see HCD’s housing
element webpage at
https://www.hcd.ca.gov/planningandcommunity-development/housing-elements for a copy of the form and instructions. The Town
can reach out to HCD at
[email protected] for technical
assistance.
#2c. Adequate Sites Programs:

As noted in the prior review, if necessary to make
appropriate zoning available to accommodate the
lower-income RHNA, programs must be revised
to meet all requirements pursuant to
Government Code section 65583.2, subdivisions
(c), (h) and (i). The element includes Programs D
(Program By Right Zoning Text Amendment to
Accommodate RHNA), AR
(General Plan Amendment) and AS (Adequate
Sites for Housing) to address these requirements.

With respect to sites identified in prior planning
periods, the element meets statutory
requirements, but these actions must be
completed by January 31, 2024. With respect to a
shortfall of adequate sites to accommodate the
lower-income RHNA, the element includes
Programs AR and AS. However, the Programs
commit to the appropriate zoning given the
rezoning occurs after the statutory deadline of
January 31, 2023. HCD understands the Town
completed the rezoning after the statutory
deadline and, therefore, the rezoning must meet
all by right requirements pursuant to
Government Code section 65583.2, subdivisions
(h) and (i). Based on a cursory review, the
rezoning does not appear to meet these
requirements. As a result, these programs must
clearly commit to meet all by-right requirements
by January 31, 2024.

In addition, please be aware, the recent California
On January 24, 2024, the Planning Commission will
consider and make a recommendation on proposed
amendments to the Housing Element Overlay Zone
(HEOZ) Ordinance in response to the by right
requirements pursuant to Government Code section
65583.2, subdivisions (h) and (i), as well as the
minimum density requirements of Government Code
section 65583.2, subdivision (h). The Town Council
will consider the proposed HEOZ amendments at a
future date.

Straight
forward
This comment is not applicable
to other similar cities with
certified Housing Elements.

Page 971 ends

appellate decision in Martinez v. City of Clovis
found that while overlays can be used in a
rezone, when the base zone allows residential
development, both the base zone and the overlay
zone must comply with the minimum density
requirements of Government Code section
65583.2, subdivision (h). The Town may need to
adjust its rezoning strategy if the underlying
zoning for sites that will be rezoned allows
minimum densities less than 20 dwelling units
per acre. Martinez v. City of Clovis (2023) 90
Cal.App.5th 193, 307 Cal.Rptr.3d 64.
#3a. An analysis of potential and actual governmental
constraints upon the maintenance,
improvement, or development of housing for all
income levels, including the types of housing
identified in paragraph (1) of subdivision (c), and
for persons with disabilities as identified in the
analysis pursuant to paragraph (7), including land
use controls, building codes and their
enforcement, site improvements, fees and other
exactions required of developers, and local
processing and permit procedures... (Gov. Code,
§ 65583, subd. (a)(5).) Address and, where
appropriate and legally possible, remove
governmental and nongovernmental constraints
to the maintenance, improvement, and
development of housing, including housing for all
income levels and housing for persons with
disabilities…(Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(3).)
Land Use Controls:

HCD’s prior review found that the Town must list
and evaluate development standards in the
North Forty Specific Plan and High Density
Residential and Commercial designation. In
response, the Town has now listed development
standards by each zoning district but should also
analyze those development standards for impacts
on housing supply and cost and most
importantly, the ability to encourage maximum
densities without exceptions. For example, lot
Additional narrative added on pages C-8 and C-9 of
Appendix C to identify the increased development
standards, such as building height and lot coverage
for sites within the HEOZ. The Housing Element
already includes an action to develop standards to
achieve maximum density, including reducing parking
requirements.

The Town does not have a trend of meeting the
maximum density, which is primarily due to
developer preference. Additional narrative added to
Implementation Program J on page 10-45 of Chapter
10 to identify a new action to establish a maximum
average unit size.

Straight
forward
Town of Los Altos Hills, starting
on page 138.

City of Campbell, starting on
page H.II-123.

Page 972 ends

coverages, heights, and setbacks in the
Multifamily Residential (RM) zone; and lot
coverage heights and guest parking requirements
in the North Forty Specific Plan could be
constraints. Based on the outcomes of a
complete analysis, the element should add or
modify programs to include specific commitment
to review and revise these development
standards as necessary.
#3b. Local Processing and Permit Procedures:

The element now discusses decision-making
bodies and lists approval findings for the
Architecture and Site Application. However, the
element should also analyze these processes to
better inform programs to address identified
constraint. For example, the element mentions
the decision-making body depends on the scope
of the application. The element should explain the
scope, resulting decision-making body and
impacts on approval timing and certainty. In
addition, the element lists approval findings and
concludes some findings may be constraints then
modifies Program AQ (Zoning Code Amendments)
to amend approval findings (considerations). But
the element should discuss which approval
findings may be constraints to better inform
implementation of Program AQ.

Portions of the constraints section located within
Appendix C specifically identify approval findings that may be considered subjective, and; therefore,
Implementation Program AQ on pages 10-67 and 10-
68 of Chapter 10 has been modified to include
language to address subjective approval findings.

Straight
forward
City of Campbell, starting on
page H.II-156.

Town of Los Altos Hills, starting
on page 152.
#3c. Programs: As noted above, the element requires
a complete analysis of potential governmental
constraints. Depending upon the results of that
analysis, the Town may need to revise or add
programs and address and remove or mitigate
any identified constraints. In addition, programs
should be revised, as follows:
• Program D (Additional Capacity for the North
Forty Specific Plan): The Program should also
commit to establish or modify development
standards to facilitate achieving maximum
densities, regardless of the level of
affordability and should specify to either
remove the unit cap or increase the unit cap to
Modification of the language to Implementation
Program D on page 10-41 of Chapter 10 to include an
action to amend the North Forty Specific Plan to
include a policy, specifying that additional units
resulting from density bonus, SB 330, or other
applicable State laws will not count toward the unit
cap.

Modification of the timing of completion for
Implementation Program V on page 10-54 of Chapter
10 to be done earlier in the planning period.

Modification of the language to Implementation
Program AA on page 10-57 of Chapter 10 to include a
defined action.

Straight
forward
This comment is not applicable
to other similar cities with
certified Housing Elements.

Page 973 ends

allow maximum build out of each parcel,
including State Density Bonus Law or other
circumstances that might warrant increasing
allowable densities.
• Program V (Housing opportunities for Persons
living with Disabilities): Given the importance
of promoting housing access for persons with
disabilities, the Program could be modified
with a date earlier in the planning period (e.g.,
by December 2024).
• Program AA (Reduce Parking Standards): The
Program currently commits to “Initiate a study
to determine specific updates…” While
initiating a study and making a determination
are important steps by themselves, these
actions do not result in outcomes. The
Program should clearly commit to amending
the municipal code. For example, the Program
could commit to: “Initiate a study and
outreach, including with developers, and
amend the Municipal Code, as follows:…”
• Program AQ (Zoning Code Amendments): The
Program commits to apply the Housing
Element Overlay Zone (HEOZ) to identified
sites and modify development standards. HCD
understands this action has been completed.

Based on a cursory review of the Town’s
Ordinance 2347, some development standards
such as heights may be a constraint on
achieving maximum densities. As a result, this
Program should commit to monitor and
evaluate these development standards,
including outreach with the development
community, and making adjustments, as
appropriate, by a specified date.
 Program AW (Story Poles and Netting Policy):

While the Program now commits to revise
Story Poles and Netting Policy Requirements;
Modification of the language to Implementation
Program AQ on page 10-67 of Chapter 10 to commit
to monitoring and evaluating the HEOZ development
standards and making adjustments as necessary.

Additional edits were made to commit to
modifications to the open space and parking
requirements within Implementation Program AQ
based on feedback received from HCD on December
13, 2023.

Additional narrative added to Implementation
Program AW on pages 10-72 and 10-73 of Chapter 10
to describe the further modifications made to the
Story Pole Policy by the Town Council on December
5, 2023.

Page 974 ends

these requirements are constraints and impact
housing costs; supply (number of units) and
approval certainty and should be removed or
replaced with cost effective measures to
promote certainty for the developers and the
community. Further, the element should
evaluate the effectiveness of any future
requirements or measures, and making
adjustments, as necessary, by a specified date
(e.g., by 2028).
#4 Develop a plan that incentivizes and promotes the
creation of accessory dwelling units that can be
offered at affordable rent... (Gov. Code, § 65583,
subd. (c)(7).)
Program Q Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU):

While the Program now commits to amend the
ADU Ordinance, it must also commit to establish
incentives such as modifying development
standards (e.g., heights), pursuing funding;
waiving fees beyond ADU law; proactive
marketing and establishing points of contact to
ease permitting processes. In addition, the
Program commits to monitor production and
affordability of ADUs annually but should also
commit to making adjustments by a specified
date (e.g., within six months) if production and
affordability are not meeting assumptions.

Further, the Program should clearly commit to
options beyond incentives such as rezoning if
production and affordability far differs from
assumptions.

Modification of the language to Implementation
Program Q on pages 10-49 and 10-50 of Chapter 10
to include a monitoring component with a schedule
to develop alternative actions.

Straight
forward
City of Campbell, starting on
page H.IV-67.

City of Pleasanton, starting on
page 29.
#5 Local governments shall make a diligent effort to
achieve public participation of all economic
segments of the community in the development
of the Housing Element, and the element shall
describe this effort. (Gov. Code, § 65583,
subd. (c)(9).)
Public participation in the development,
adoption and implementation of the housing
Town staff will continue to engage with the
community regarding the Housing Element update
process by maintaining the information posted on
the Housing Element update website, through
posting on the Town’s various social media accounts,
and evaluation of public comments received.

Straight
forward
This comment is not applicable
to other similar cities with
certified Housing Elements.

Page 975 ends

element is essential to effective housing
planning. Throughout the housing element
process, the Town should continue to engage the
community, including organizations that
represent lower-income and special needs
households, by making information regularly
available and considering and incorporating
comments where appropriate. Please be aware,
any revisions to the element must be posted on
the local government’s website and to email a
link to all individuals and organizations that have
previously requested notices relating to the local
government’s housing element at least seven
days before submitting to HCD. HCD particularly
encourages the Town to continue engaging
commenters on this review. These comments
contained valuable insights that can result in a
more effective housing elements, especially
related to programs and specific commitment.

HCD’s future reviews will continue to consider
the extent to which the revised element
documents how the Town solicited, considered,
and addressed public comments in the element.

The Town’s consideration of public comments
must not be limited by HCD’s findings in this
review letter.

Note For your information, pursuant to Assembly Bill
1398 (Chapter 358, Statutes of 2021), as the
Town failed to adopt a compliant housing
element within 120 days of the statutory
deadline (January 31, 2023); programs to rezone
and make prior identified sites available or
address a shortfall of capacity to accommodate
the RHNA (e.g., Program D: Program By Right
Zoning Text Amendment to Accommodate RHNA,
Program AR: General Plan Amendment, Program
AS: Sites Previously Identified) must be
completed no later than one year from the
statutory deadline. Otherwise, the local
government’s housing element will no longer
comply with State Housing Element Law, and HCD
may revoke its finding of substantial compliance
N/A For
information
only
N/A

Page 976 ends

City of Campbell Housing Element – https://www.CityofCampbellHousingElement Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element – https://www.TownofLosAltosHillsHousingElement City of Pleasanton Housing Element – https://www.cityofpleasantonca.gov/assets/our-government/community-development/lwc-pleasanton-heuadopted-revised-081723-compiled?_t=1701986563 pursuant to Government Code section 65585,
subdivision (i).

Page 977 ends

STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, CONSUMER SERVICES AND HOUSING AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT
2020 W. El Camino Avenue, Suite 500
Sacramento, CA 95833
(916) 263-2911 / FAX (916) 263-7453
www.hcd.ca.gov
December 1, 2023
Joel Paulson, Director
Community Development Department
Town of Los Gatos
110 E Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Dear Joel Paulson:

RE: Town of Los Gatos’ 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Revised Draft Housing Element Thank you for submitting the Town of Los Gatos’ (Town) revised draft housing element received for review on October 2,2023, along with revisions received on November 28,2023.

These revisions were made available to the public for at least seven days prior to submitting to HCD pursuant to AB 215 (Chapter 342, Statutes of 2021). Pursuant to Government Code section 65585, subdivision (b), the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) is reporting the results of its review. Our review was facilitated by a conversation on November 7, 2023 with yourself, Jennifer Armer, Planning Manager, Jocelyn Shoopman and Erin Walter, associate planners, and Veronica Tram, the Town’s consultant. In addition, HCD considered comments from Los Gatos Community Alliance, Rutan and Tucker, Phil Koen, Eric S. Phillips, and Anne Paulson pursuant to Government Code section 65585, subdivision (c).

The revised draft element, including revisions, addresses many statutory requirements; however, revisions will be necessary to substantially comply with State Housing Element Law (Gov. Code, § 65580 et seq) as follows:

1. Affirmatively further[ing] fair housing in accordance with Chapter 15 (commencing with Section 8899.50) of Division 1 of Title 2…shall include an assessment of fair housing in the jurisdiction. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(10)(A).)
Promote and affirmatively further fair housing opportunities and promote housing throughout the community or communities for all persons regardless of race, religion, sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin, color, familial status, or disability, and other characteristics... (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(5).) Income and Racial Concentration Area of Affluence (RCAA): The element now includes actions to promote an inclusive community; however, the element must ATTACHMENT 3

Page 978 ends

Joel Paulson, Director

Page 2 ends

provide specific analysis of income and RCAA at a regional level (town compared to the broader region) to better formulate appropriate policies and programs. The analysis should at least address trends, conditions, coincidence with other fair housing factors (e.g., race, highest resource, overpayment), effectiveness or absence of past strategies (e.g., lack of publicly assisted housing and lack of multifamily zoning), local data and knowledge and other relevant factors.

Contributing Factors to Fair Housing Issues: Based on a complete analysis, the element should re-assess and prioritize contributing factors to fair housing issues. For example, the Town is wholly a RCAA, highest resource and highest median incomes in contrast to the rest of the region. As a result, fair housing issues such as the lack of affordable housing and segregation from the rest of the region should be a high priority.

Goals and Actions: As noted above, the element must include a complete analysis of affirmatively furthering fair housing (AFFH). The element must be revised to add goals and actions based on the outcomes of a complete analysis.

In addition, while the element includes some actions toward AFFH and enhancing housing mobility (e.g., choices and affordability), actions should be added, numeric targets should be increased, and geographic targeting should be fine-tuned to better promote inclusive neighborhoods throughout the Town. This is particularly important since over 80 percent of the lower-income regional housing need allocation (RHNA) is isolated in two census tracts. As noted in HCD’s prior review and the assessment of fair housing, the Town is wholly a racially concentrated area of affluence, highest resource and highest median incomes in contrast to the rest of the region.

Actions should be added and revised with aggressive numeric targets and geographic targets throughout the Town, including lower-density neighborhoods.

Examples include creating more housing choices and affordability in single-family neighborhoods beyond complying with law (e.g., SB 9, ADUs) such as missing middle housing types, targeting affordable housing funding, homesharing, more than one unit of converted space within a single-family structure, increased multifamily capacity, enhanced efforts on religious institutional sites and other alternative land use and financing strategies.

2. An inventory of land suitable and available for residential development, including vacant sites and sites having realistic and demonstrated potential for redevelopment during the planning period to meet the locality’s housing need for

Page 979 ends

Joel Paulson, Director

Page 3 ends

a designated income level, and an analysis of the relationship of zoning and public facilities and services to these sites. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(3).) Identify actions that will be taken to make sites available during the planning period with appropriate zoning and development standards and with services and facilities to accommodate that portion of the city’s or county’s share of the regional housing need for each income level that could not be accommodated on sites identified in the inventory… (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(1).) Small Sites: The element identifies several sites with parcels less than a halfacre (p. D-13) that have common ownership and, in some cases, expressed interest to redevelop the site. For small sites with expressed interest in redevelopment, the element should clarify that the expressed interest is also in consolidating the sites. For the remaining sites (Sites D-2 and D-5), the element should explain the circumstances leading to the potential for consolidation such as necessity to consolidate due to access, feasibility, shape, or site planning flexibility. Based on the outcomes of this analysis, the element should add or modify Program K (Lot Consolidation) to further promote lot consolidation, if appropriate.

Electronic Sites Inventory: For your information, while the Town has submitted an electronic sites inventory as part of this submittal, pursuant to Government Code section 65583.3, the Town must submit an electronic sites inventory with its adopted housing element. Please see HCD’s housing element webpage at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/planning-andcommunity-development/housing-elements for a copy of the form and instructions. The Town can reach out to HCD at [email protected] for technical assistance.

Adequate Sites Programs: As noted in the prior review, if necessary to make appropriate zoning available to accommodate the lower-income RHNA, programs must be revised to meet all requirements pursuant to Government Code section 65583.2, subdivisions (c), (h) and (i). The element includes Programs D (Program By Right Zoning Text Amendment to Accommodate RHNA), AR (General Plan Amendment) and AS (Adequate Sites for Housing) to address these requirements. With respect to sites identified in prior planning periods, the element meets statutory requirements, but these actions must be completed by January 31, 2024. With respect to a shortfall of adequate sites to accommodate the lower-income RHNA, the element includes Programs AR and AS. However, the Programs commit to the appropriate zoning given the rezoning occurs after the statutory deadline of January 31, 2023. HCD understands the Town completed the rezoning after the statutory deadline and, therefore, the rezoning must meet all by right requirements pursuant to Government Code section 65583.2, subdivisions (h) and (i). Based on a cursory review, the rezoning does not appear to meet these requirements. As a result, these programs must clearly commit to meet all by-right requirements by January 31, 2024.

Page 980 ends

Joel Paulson, Director

Page 4 ends

In addition, please be aware, the recent California appellate decision in Martinez v. City of Clovis found that while overlays can be used in a rezone, when the base zone allows residential development, both the base zone and the overlay zone must comply with the minimum density requirements of Government Code section 65583.2, subdivision (h). The Town may need to adjust its rezoning strategy if the underlying zoning for sites that will be rezoned allows minimum densities less than 20 dwelling units per acre. Martinez v. City of Clovis (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 193, 307 Cal.Rptr.3d 64.

3. An analysis of potential and actual governmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels, including the types of housing identified in paragraph (1) of subdivision (c), and for persons with disabilities as identified in the analysis pursuant to paragraph (7), including land use controls, building codes and their enforcement, site improvements, fees and other exactions required of developers, and local processing and permit procedures... (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(5).) Address and, where appropriate and legally possible, remove governmental and nongovernmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing, including housing for all income levels and housing for persons with disabilities…(Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(3).) Land Use Controls: HCD’s prior review found that the Town must list and evaluate development standards in the North Forty Specific Plan and High Density Residential and Commercial designation. In response, the Town has now listed development standards by each zoning district but should also analyze those development standards for impacts on housing supply and cost and most importantly, the ability to encourage maximum densities without exceptions. For example, lot coverages, heights, and setbacks in the Multifamily Residential (RM) zone; and lot coverage heights and guest parking requirements in the North Forty Specific Plan could be constraints. Based on the outcomes of a complete analysis, the element should add or modify programs to include specific commitment to review and revise these development standards as necessary.

Local Processing and Permit Procedures: The element now discusses decisionmaking bodies and lists approval findings for the Architecture and Site Application. However, the element should also analyze these processes to better inform programs to address identified constraint. For example, the element mentions the decision-making body depends on the scope of the application. The element should explain the scope, resulting decision-making body and impacts on approval timing and certainty. In addition, the element lists approval findings and concludes some findings may be constraints then modifies Program AQ (Zoning Code Amendments) to amend approval findings (considerations). But the

Page 981 ends

Joel Paulson, Director

Page 5 ends

element should discuss which approval findings may be constraints to better inform implementation of Program AQ.

Programs: As noted above, the element requires a complete analysis of potential governmental constraints. Depending upon the results of that analysis, the Town may need to revise or add programs and address and remove or mitigate any identified constraints. In addition, programs should be revised, as follows:
• Program D (Additional Capacity for the North Forty Specific Plan): The Program should also commit to establish or modify development standards to facilitate achieving maximum densities, regardless of the level of affordability and should specify to either remove the unit cap or increase the unit cap to allow maximum build out of each parcel, including State Density Bonus Law or other circumstances that might warrant increasing allowable densities.
• Program V (Housing opportunities for Persons living with Disabilities):

Given the importance of promoting housing access for persons with disabilities, the Program could be modified with a date earlier in the planning period (e.g., by December 2024).
• Program AA (Reduce Parking Standards): The Program currently commits to “Initiate a study to determine specific updates…” While initiating a study and making a determination are important steps by themselves, these actions do not result in outcomes. The Program should clearly commit to amending the municipal code. For example, the Program could commit to:
“Initiate a study and outreach, including with developers, and amend the Municipal Code, as follows:…”
• Program AQ (Zoning Code Amendments): The Program commits to apply the Housing Element Overlay Zone (HEOZ) to identified sites and modify development standards. HCD understands this action has been completed. Based on a cursory review of the Town’s Ordinance 2347, some development standards such as heights may be a constraint on achieving maximum densities. As a result, this Program should commit to monitor and evaluate these development standards, including outreach with the development community, and making adjustments, as appropriate, by a specified date.
• Program AW (Story Poles and Netting Policy): While the Program now commits to revise Story Poles and Netting Policy Requirements; these requirements are constraints and impact housing costs; supply (number of units) and approval certainty and should be removed or replaced with cost effective measures to promote certainty for the developers and the community. Further, the element should evaluate the effectiveness of any future requirements or measures, and making adjustments, as necessary, by a specified date (e.g., by 2028).

Page 982 ends

Joel Paulson, Director

Page 6 ends

4. Develop a plan that incentivizes and promotes the creation of accessory dwelling units that can be offered at affordable rent... (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(7).) Program Q Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU): While the Program now commits to amend the ADU Ordinance, it must also commit to establish incentives such as modifying development standards (e.g., heights), pursuing funding; waiving fees beyond ADU law; proactive marketing and establishing points of contact to ease permitting processes. In addition, the Program commits to monitor production and affordability of ADUs annually but should also commit to making adjustments by a specified date (e.g., within six months) if production and affordability are not meeting assumptions. Further, the Program should clearly commit to options beyond incentives such as rezoning if production and affordability far differs from assumptions.

5. Local governments shall make a diligent effort to achieve public participation of all economic segments of the community in the development of the Housing Element, and the element shall describe this effort. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(9).)
Public participation in the development, adoption and implementation of the housing element is essential to effective housing planning. Throughout the housing element process, the Town should continue to engage the community, including organizations that represent lower-income and special needs households, by making information regularly available and considering and incorporating comments where appropriate. Please be aware, any revisions to the element must be posted on the local government’s website and to email a link to all individuals and organizations that have previously requested notices relating to the local government’s housing element at least seven days before submitting to HCD. HCD particularly encourages the Town to continue engaging commenters on this review. These comments contained valuable insights that can result in a more effective housing elements, especially related to programs and specific commitment. HCD’s future reviews will continue to consider the extent to which the revised element documents how the Town solicited, considered, and addressed public comments in the element. The Town’s consideration of public comments must not be limited by HCD’s findings in this review letter.

The element will meet the statutory requirements of State Housing Element Law once it has been revised and adopted to comply with the above requirements pursuant to Government Code section 65585.

For your information, pursuant to Assembly Bill 1398 (Chapter 358, Statutes of 2021), as the Town failed to adopt a compliant housing element within 120 days of the

Page 983 ends

Joel Paulson, Director

Page 7 ends

statutory deadline (January 31, 2023); programs to rezone and make prior identified sites available or address a shortfall of capacity to accommodate the RHNA (e.g., Program D: Program By Right Zoning Text Amendment to Accommodate RHNA, Program AR: General Plan Amendment, Program AS: Sites Previously Identified) must be completed no later than one year from the statutory deadline. Otherwise, the local government’s housing element will no longer comply with State Housing Element Law, and HCD may revoke its finding of substantial compliance pursuant to Government Code section 65585, subdivision (i).

Several federal, state, and regional funding programs consider housing element compliance as an eligibility or ranking criteria. For example, the CalTrans Senate Bill (SB) 1 Sustainable Communities grant, the Strategic Growth Council and HCD’s Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities program, and HCD’s Permanent Local Housing Allocation consider housing element compliance and/or annual reporting requirements pursuant to Government Code section 65400. With a compliant housing element, the Town will meet housing element requirements for these and other funding sources.

For your information, some general plan element updates are triggered by housing element adoption. HCD reminds the Town to consider timing provisions and welcomes the opportunity to provide assistance. For information, please see the Technical Advisories issued by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research at:
https://www.opr.ca.gov/planning/general-plan/guidelines.html.

HCD appreciates the commitment and cooperation the housing element update team provided during the update and review. HCD is committed to assisting the Town in addressing all statutory requirements of State Housing Element Law. If you have any questions or need additional technical assistance, please contact Jose Armando Jauregui, of our staff, at [email protected].

Sincerely,
Paul McDougall
Senior Program Manager

Page 984 ends

This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank

Page 985 ends

HOW HAVE OTHER SIMILAR JURISDICTIONS SUCCEEDED IN GETTING THEIR HOUSING ELEMENTS CERTIFIED?
January 10 2024
This is a response provided to Los Gatos Town Council to assist in responding to the HCD letter dated December 1, 2023. This letter rejected once again, the Town’s submission of its 6th Cycle Housing Element, citing multiple issues preventing this certification. There are multiple issues cited, albeit less than in previous submissions, yet some of the new requirements related to Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AB 686) seem to be more onerous than noted in previous submissions. See the table below:

Category Issue Level of Difficulty/Response
AFFH Reassess and prioritize
contributing factors
Low difficulty- need to
highlight reasons for
segregation and lack of
affordable housing and
prioritize them.

AFFH Revise to add goals and
actions based on completed
analysis above to promote
housing mobility beyond
state requirements
High difficulty—HCD
expecting “significant and
robust” action including
rezoning beyond state law
requirements:
-Including lower density
neighborhoods
- Religious sites
- alternate land use beyond
ADU and SB-9, e.g. missing
middle
- permitting more ADUs per
stie
- more multifamily
- Affordable housing funding
- Creating Home sharing
program
Site Inventory Clarification of small sites
strategy
-Low to medium difficulty
- may need to modify
implementation program to
increase/incentivize lot
consolidation but not for
large homes
Site Inventory Electronic Sites Inventory Should be low difficulty—just format issue
ATTACHMENT 4

Page 986 ends

Site Inventory Adequate Sites Low to medium difficulty
Need to meet requirement
for by-right zoning for
rezoning—recent action by
Council did not fully meet
requirement.

New issue—may need to
increase underlying base
zoning for sites in HEOZ. This
is more difficult.

Land use Controls Listed but must analyze
impact on housing supply
Low difficulty—just need to
provide more descriptive
analysis for each land use
control listed—e.g. is height
a constraint or not and why?
Local Processing and Permits Analyze Processes to better inform programs
Low difficulty—more
specificity needed on
approval findings
Programs Several programs need to
have increased objectives,
shorter timelines,
clarification
Medium to high difficulty
depending on program—
these were mentioned:
- D (North 40)
- V (Disabled)
- AA (Parking)
- AQ (Zoning Code
Amendments)
- AW (Story Poles)
ADUs Looking for us to go above
law requirements
Medium to high difficulty
depending on extent
Public Participation Looking for increased
outreach to lower income
Low to medium—not clear
how much more is needed
It appears that some issues are fairly complex requiring actions including potential rezoning, while others require minor edits and explanation. To better inform this process, it will be most helpful to assess the actions taken by other “similar” jurisdictions, in particular those that have been successful in getting certified. By similar, the following characteristics are most relevant:
- Level of affluence of jurisdiction
- Location within State
- Size of jurisdiction
To do this, the Forbes list of the 50 wealthiest cities in California was consulted and cross referenced to the HCD site listing all jurisdictions in California and their compliance status to HE

Page 987 ends

law. This process was informative as it is clear that very few jurisdictions amongst the 50 richest in the state have their Housing Elements certified by HCD. Here are the cities in just two counties-- San Mateo County and Santa Clara County-- listed in the Forbes article and their certification status:

Ranking/name in
Forbes List
Total Households County HCD HE Compliance
1 Atherton 2244 San Mateo Out
2 Hillsborough 3512 San Mateo Out
4 Portola Valley 1662 San Mateo Out
5 Woodside 1673 San Mateo Out
6 Monte Sereno 1219 Santa Clara Out
7 Los Altos Hills 3125 Santa Clara In
15 Los Altos 10805 Santa Clara In
22 Saratoga 11039 Santa Clara Out
33 San Carlos 11393 San Mateo Out
35 Palo Alto 26007 Santa Clara Out
36 Cupertino 20963 Santa Clara Out
40 Menlo Park 11725 San Mateo Out
49 Los Gatos 13036 Santa Clara Out
For the sake of having 2 other jurisdictions that are comparable in affluence and size and being certified, the City of Manhattan Beach and the City of Piedmont were also chosen:
42 Manhattan Beach 13422 Los Angeles In
14 Piedmont 3821 Alameda In
So that give us Los Altos Hills and Los Altos in Santa Clara County, Manhattan Beach in Los Angeles County and Piedmont in Alameda County as models of compliance with comparable demographics, although Los Altos Hills and Piedmont are clearly much smaller in size and Los Altos Hills is among the top 10 cities in the state in terms of wealth (and housing prices). As all of these jurisdictions were certified in 2023, they are good examples of what it took to get their Housing Elements over the finish line. Where possible, redline versions of their elements were viewed to determine what was changed from the last comment letter from HCD to the final certification letter from HCD. See below for a summary discussion of each jurisdiction.

Los Altos Hills
Los Altos Hills did receive their certification letter from HCD on May 30, 2023, less than the 120- day deadline from their adoption of the Housing Element on January 30, 2023 without official certification from HCD. Beating this 4-month window gave Los Altos Hills 3 years to complete

Page 988 ends

their zoning updates, whereas other jurisdictions not meeting the 120 days must complete rezoning within one year. A couple of important facts about Los Altos Hills:

RHNA: 489 units
Single family homes vs. all residential units: 3139/3180 (98.7%) The last comment letter received from HCD was dated March 17, 2023. Several of the comments they received were similar to what the Town of Los Gatos received in its letter of December 1, 2023. Below is a summary of the changes they made to get their element to certification between March 17 and May 30.

Before getting to that, it should be noted that Los Altos Hills led their document with a thorough discussion of public participation and noted that the following themes were top of the list of those involved in the discussion which included a Housing Element Survey:
- High cost of living (LA Hills has the largest average home price in Santa Clara County) - Development process difficult/expensive to navigate
- ADU process difficult to navigate
These three issues seemed to flow through to actions noted throughout the Element to address them. There was a 4th issue identified in the Housing Element Survey and that was expressed difficulty in meeting the Town’s RHNA of 489 units. This went hand in hand with a discussion of “Community Opposition to Development”.

As LAH’s March 17 letter also requested more analysis for AFFH, the Town added a new table called Fair Housing vs. Location (Table 40) for the sites in the site inventory. However, since the entire Town is an RCAA, all locations for housing are considered highest resource. Nonetheless, since HCD mentioned that a significant portion of the Town of Los Gatos’ RHNA is in two census tracts, it would be useful to incorporate a similar table if not done already to add depth to the analysis, which is required as part of the first comment.

LAH also added Tables 49 and 50. Table 49 in particular addresses HCD’s requested for identifying contributing factors to Fair Housing. It has the following format.

Identified Fair
Housing Issue
Contributing
Factor
Action(s) Priority
Here are the steps that LAH added to their element to achieve certification (based on redline version):
- Program A-1 Rezoning 34 acres to allow multifamily housing o 19 acres at Foothill College and St. Nicholas
o 15 acres at identified parcels zoned for single family, now multifamily o Minimum density of 20 du per acre, 30 du per acre allowed

Page 989 ends

o This is to address the gaps in meeting RHNA for lower income o This is a revision from a previous version
o
- Program A-4 By-right approval for sites in RHNA
o Further description and dates--revision
- New Program A-12—Duplex or Triplex
o Allows conversion of single- family units to duplex and triplex subject to standards to be developed, permitted on 25% of all single-family units - New Program B-15 Streamline Committee Review process
o Remove constraints and shorten timeline
- New Program B-16 Story Poles
o Revise to streamline requirement or offer renderings in lieu of story poles - Program E-2 Emergency Shelters
o Revised to remove constraints
- New Program E-11 Incentives for Extremely Low-Income Development o Increase density bonuses beyond state law
o Develop program for funding infrastructure development (water, sewer) o Annual contact with affordable housing developers
- Revisions to G-2 Conversion Unit Education
o Enhancements to promote ADUs, SB-9 and the A-12 Duplex/Triplex Unit development
- New Program G-5 Tenant Matching and Outreach
o To encourage/facilitate homeowners creating ADUs, SB-9 or A-12 Duplex or Triplex Units to find renters
o To help renters find these opportunities
Since LAH got their certification within 120 days of the adoption on January 30, 2023, they do have 3 years to make zoning changes until 2026. But they clearly added new programs to achieve certification and revised others.

Manhattan Beach
Manhattan Beach is located in Los Angeles County and is the 42nd richest jurisdiction in California. Their housing element is on a slightly different cycle, 2021 to 2029, but it is worth noting that they did not get certified until two years later in the middle of 2023.

Their 6th cycle RHNA is 774 units, which seems a bit low since they have approximately the same number of starting units that Los Gatos does, but perhaps since their cycle was earlier, they did not get as significant of an increased in RHNA. While mentioned, but not discussed in the Element, the city has a voter initiative that creates some limitations to the placement of housing.

Page 990 ends

HCD certified their 6th cycle Housing Element on July 22, 2023, 16 months after the City Council adopted the Housing Element on March 22, 2022. Given that their RHNA was much lower than the Town’s it is noteworthy that they had multiple cycles and a 16-month span between adoption and certification by HCD.

The last comment letter from HCD was on November 22, 2022 and highlighted the following points:
- Non-vacant sites (more evidence needed)
- City-owned sites (more details needed)
- By-right zoning to be completed—more than 1 year from statutory deadline - Issue with 30 ft. height where density is 43-51 acres—need to explain how not a constraint and perhaps revise
- AFFH—call to increase housing mobility, not limited to RNHA, “throughout the city”.

Here is what Manhattan Beach did in response to get certified (after November 22 letter):
- Expanded zoning
o Establish Residential Overlay District (ROD)—42 acres in highest resource areas o Higher density 20 du per acre up to 60 du per acre
o Potential for 836 additional units, double lower income RHNA. 55% buffer above RHNA
o 60 du per acre could yield up to 2545 units
o 42 acres not located in district subject to voter initiative - Alternative Land Use strategies
o Increase number of ADUs
o Permit 2 detached ADUs in addition to single family home, more than state law permitting 1 detached ADU and 1 JADU
o Add tools to streamline approval
o Market ADU construction options
- Incentives to promote housing choices and affordability o Density bonus for lot consolidation 5-10%
o 80% density bonus for 100% affordable
o Require developers to use City’s Affirmative Marketing Plan to attract diverse renters and buyers
o Program 3 by-right zoning and/or non-discretionary for sites in inventory o Program 18--Permit residential zoning in mixed-use commercial districts without CUP--include objective standards in zones not subject to voter initiative o Program 23--New program to prevent lot consolidation for purpose of building large single-family homes

Page 991 ends

- Target Infrastructure Accessibility and Preservation
o Preserve Manhattan Beach Senior Villas (even though property has deed restriction to limit costs)—metric is 80% of units affordable to very-low-, lowand moderate-income seniors. o Programs like rides for seniors, Manhattan Beach Pathway Project (ADA) o Research and implement home sharing program
- Targeted outreach and Education
o The city added a program to establish a Housing Education Advisory Committee o Added 10 Housing Education Forums
Los Altos
Los Altos is probably the most comparable to the Town of Los Gatos. It is approximately the same size in terms of housing units and has a 6th cycle RHNA of 1958 units. They also have a high concentration of single-family housing as a percentage of all housing, at around 90%. That said, they are even more affluent than Los Gatos with a higher housing average housing price and higher average income. Los Altos had its housing element certified in November 2023 after multiple attempts. The last comment letter received before certification was on June 30 2023.

That letter prompted an outrage from the city, with accusations of HCD imposing a higher standard vs. other jurisdictions. Yet, the city did make changes to achieve certification nonetheless. The main points noted in the HCD letter were the following:
- Reliance on non-vacant sites. 50% or more of the sites are non-vacant and HCD wanted additional justification that those uses would discontinue - Promote and affirmative further fair housing, excerpt below from the letter o “Examples include creating more housing choices and affordability in singlefamily neighborhoods beyond complying with law…targeting funding, home sharing, more than one junior accessory dwelling unit per single-family structure, enhancing capacity, affordability and housing choices on religious institutional sites.”
While a red-line marked up version is not available, it is clear that some changes were made to achieve certification
- This statement appears to be in response to the concerns of AFFH o “Low-income households are likely to be excluded from essentially all neighborhoods in Los Altos”.
- Program 1A--Rezone for net new sites of 600 for surplus of 640 units vs. total RHNA of 1958 or vs. net RHNA outside of pending projects and ADUs of 1011 units. Previous surplus was 40 units. Not clear when additional sites were added.

Page 992 ends

- Program 1B--Increased height in commercial district from 45 to 55 ft. (5 stories) and develop at densities of 38 du per acre or more
- Program 1D—Rezone to permit housing on 2 religious’ sites - Program 1H—Facilitate housing on city-owned sites
- Program 2C—Affordable housing funding including
o Applying for state funding on behalf of a non-profit
o Waiving city fees for 100% affordable
o Dedicated project planner for 100% affordable
- Program 2D—Encourage and streamline ADU production
o Including a variety of pre-approved plans for different sizes and architectural styles
- Program 3L—Eliminate Story Poles—replace with modeling—all development applications
- Program 6C—Target development in highest resource areas o This appears to be an outreach program to attract developers. - Program 6.G: Housing Mobility—this appears to be the most robust program with the most modifications but pulls in other programs as evidence. o “To improve housing mobility and promote more housing choices and affordability throughout Los Altos, including in lower-density neighborhoods, the city will employ a suite of actions to expand housing opportunities affordable to extremely low, very low-, low-, and moderate-income households.” o Actions and strategies include:

SB 9 – Monitor the City’s SB 9 standards and amend standards to facilitate SB 9 applications (e.g., duplexes in single-family zones) if the city is not on track to meet its SB 9 application goal during the planning period. (See Program 1M)
New--Rezoning—Modify zoning to allow residential or increased residential intensity and/or density throughout Los Altos. Includes zoning amendments along higher intensity corridors, and for sites within lowerdensity neighborhoods (e.g. Loyola Corners, OA zoned sites on Altos Oaks Drive and church sites on Magdalena Avenue). This appears to be new and in direct response to HCD letter.

Housing on City Sites—Enter into a public-private partnership to develop housing targeting low-income households on City-owned Downtown Parking Plazas. (see Program 1H as well)
Enhanced Inclusionary Housing – See Program 2.A.

Page 993 ends

Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) – Encourage and streamline ADUs in single-family neighborhoods by preparing standardized ADU plans with a variety of unit sizes and by affirmatively marketing and outreach to increase awareness and the diversity of individuals residing in Los Altos.

See Program 2.D.

New—Junior ADUs – Develop and adopt objective standards to allow more than one (at minimum two) Junior ADU per structure by July 2025.

This appears to be new and in direct response to the HCD letter.

Religious Institutional Sites – Allow housing on all religious institutional sites within the city. Includes sites from Program 1D. This appears to be a direct response to the last HCD letter.

Assist in securing funding for affordable housing projects. Program 2C Home sharing- Research and pursue a home sharing program, including coordination with non-profits and other organizations to assist with matching tenants with existing homeowners. This appears to be new in response to HCD letter.

There was also mention of hiring a new Housing Manager, presumably to facilitate implementation of the Housing Element.

Finally, relative to responding to the HCD’s repeated requests for more analysis and conclusions from the AFFH, Los Altos seems to have added a new table which highlights fair housing issues and contributing factors, along with the actions that will address them. Section F-4.

Piedmont
The final city for comparison is the City of Piedmont in Alameda County in the east Bay. It is roughly the same size as Los Altos Hills and is ranked 14th in the Forbes survey in terms of wealth.

Piedmont has a RHNA of 587 units with a capacity of 645 units, leaving a surplus of 58 units.

Their Housing Element was certified on November 9 2023. The last comment letter from HCD was provided on May 23, 2023. Their last submission was on September 8 2023 and then the certification was between 60 and 90 days later.

Here are the main points of the May 23 2023 letter from HCD:

AFFH analysis—like the letter received by Los Gatos and other jurisdictions noted in this writeup, Piedmont was asked to complete a more thorough analysis that would lead to meaningful action.

Page 994 ends

AFFH goals and actions
- “Actions must have specific commitments, milestones, geographic targeting, and metrics or numerical targets and, as appropriate, must address housing mobility enhancement (more choices and affordability across geographies), new housing choices and affordability in higher opportunity and income areas (e.g., missing middle housing types), place-based strategies for community preservation and revitalization and displacement protection. Particularly, the element must include significant and meaningful action to enhance housing mobility. HCD will send examples under separate cover.” This looks similar to the language given to other wealthy jurisdictions.

Site Inventory—Non-vacant Sites
- Additional justification for likelihood of existing uses discontinuing Site Inventory—Programs
- Program 1L Surplus Land—needs revisions
Constraints—Program 4G—Modifying City Charter
- Needs clarification of consequences if Charter is not modified and impact on housing supply
Piedmont did submit a revised element on September 8 that included changes including the following:
- Clarifying throughout Element what locations would benefit from which programs (geographic targeting)
- Modifications to Program 1D, allowing housing on religious sites in Zone A (SF residential)
- Modifications to Program 1E—Requiring an ADU with all new single-family construction - Modifications to Program 1J to provide for going beyond SB9 state law to allow up to 4 units in Zone A (Single Family) and Zone E (Single Family Estate) - New Program 1U—Priority Development Area Designation
o For land within Zone C (multi-family residential) and Zone D (Commercial/Mixed Use) in two specific areas
o Eligible for state funding
o Suitable for low-income housing
- Clarifying the City Charter including amending the Municipal Code for clarity o Misconceptions on ability of Charter to limit housing choices - New Program Place-Based Improvement Program
o To help direct CIP funding to facilitate low-income housing

Page 995 ends

- New Program—Establish Fair Housing Task Force
o Includes directive for outreach to lower-income or special needs individuals or their representatives
- New Program 7E—Fair Housing Mobility Program
o Incorporates other programs from element
o Expanding SB-9 beyond state law
o Affordable housing loan program for new ADUs and JADUs that are deed restricted
o Home-sharing program
o Expand ADU program to provide additional incentives for deed restricted units o Requiring ADU with single-family development
o Rezoning to allow housing on religious sites within SF neighborhoods (Zone A) o Place-based improvements to facilitate lower-income, higher density development
- Revisions to AFFH analysis
o Lists which programs address each fair housing issue
o Notes that housing will be distributed across census tracts In summary, these four wealthy jurisdictions have all gotten certified Housing Elements within the past year, some with even more difficult issues to facilitate low-income housing.

While it may not be clear exactly what changes are needed to facilitate certification for Los Gatos, this analysis at least provides examples of others that have made their own decisions and been successful in achieving certification.

Submitted by: Melanie Hanssen
Planning Commission and Housing Element Advisory Board
Responding as resident of Los Gatos, not representing any commission, board or organization

Page 996 ends

This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank

Page 997 ends

PREPARED BY: Erin Walters, Associate Planner and
Jocelyn Shoopman, Associate Planner
Reviewed by: Town Manager, Assistant Town Manager, Town Attorney, and the Community Development Director
110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● (408) 354-6872 www.losgatosca.gov

TOWN OF LOS GATOS

COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: 1/16/2024
ITEM NO: 11

DESK ITEM
DATE: January 16, 2024
TO: Mayor and Town Council
FROM: Laurel Prevetti, Town Manager
SUBJECT: Review and Discuss the Proposed Revisions to the Draft Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element. Location: Town-Wide. General Plan Amendment Application GP-22-003.

REMARKS:

Attachment 5 contains comments from the Vice Mayor on the Draft Revised Housing Element.

Specifically, he provided the specific language from several adopted Housing Elements.

Attachment 6 contains public comment received between 11:01 a.m., Thursday, January 11, 2024, and 11:00 a.m., Tuesday, January 16, 2024.

Attachments Previously Received with the January 16, 2024, Staff Report:

1. Draft Revised Housing Element, Track Changes Copy

2. Draft Response Table

3. December 1, 2023, HCD’s Findings Comment Letter

4. Public Comments Received Between 11:01 a.m., Tuesday, December 19, 2023, and 11:00 a.m., Thursday, January 11, 2024
Attachments Received with this Desk Item:

5. Comments from the Vice Mayor

6. Public Comments Received Between 11:01 a.m., Thursday, January 11, 2024, and 11:00 a.m., Tuesday, January 16, 2024

Page 998 ends

This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank

Page 999 ends

49 | City of Los Altos 2023-2031 Housing Element
Program 6.G: Housing Mobility
Housing mobility strategies consist of removing barriers to housing in areas of opportunity and strategically enhancing access (Los Altos is entirely highest resource in terms of access to opportunity and a concentrated area of affluence). To improve housing mobility and promote more housing choices and affordability throughout Los Altos, including in lowerdensity neighborhoods, the City will employ a suite of actions to expand housing opportunities affordable to extremely low, very low, low, and moderate income households. Actions and strategies include:
• SB 9 – Monitor the City’s SB 9 standards and amend standards to facilitate SB 9 applications (e.g., duplexes in single-family zones) if the City is not on track to meet its SB 9 application goal during the planning period. See Program 1.M. • Rezoning – Modify zoning to allow residential or increased residential intensity and/or density of residential throughout Los Altos. This includes zoning amendments along higher intensity corridors (e.g., El Camino Real, San Antonio Road, and Foothill Expressway) and for sites within lower-density neighborhoods (e.g., Loyola Corners Specific Plan, OAzoned sites on Altos Oaks Drive, and church sites on Magdalena Avenue). See Programs 1.B, 1.C, 1. D, 1.E, and 1.F.
• Housing on City Sites – Enter into a public-private partnership to develop housing, targeting low-income households, on City-owned Downtown Parking Plazas.

See Program 1.H.
• Enhanced Inclusionary Housing – Assess and amend the City’s inclusionary housing requirements to better produce low-income units and units for special needs groups throughout Los Altos. See Program 2.A.
• Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) – Encourage and streamline ADUs in singlefamily neighborhoods by preparing standardized ADU plans with a variety of unit sizes and by affirmatively marketing and outreach to increase awareness and the diversity of individuals residing in Los Altos. See Program 2.D.
• Junior ADUs – Develop and adopt objective standards to allow more than one (at minimum two) Junior ADU per structure by July 2025. The objective is to achieve at least 10 JADUs in lower-density neighborhoods by January 2031. • Religious Institutional Sites – Allow housing on all religious institutional sites within the City (i.e., all PCF-zoned religious institutional properties in addition to the two sites identified in the housing sites inventory (Program 1.D)). Conduct outreach to owners and operators of religious institutions to raise awareness and encourage housing proposals. Permit 10 housing units on a religious institution/faith-based site(s) during the 2023-2031 planning period. If no application for housing on a religious institution/faith-based site is received by December 2025, the City will expand outreach

Page 1000 ends

efforts to be conducted annually. This may include direct mailings to faith-based sites highlighting successful affordable housing units on other faith-based sites, as well as available City resources and programs to support such projects (e.g., Program 2.C – Assist in securing funding for affordable housing projects). • Homesharing – Research and pursue a homesharing program, including coordination with non-profits and other organizations to assist with matching tenants with existing homeowners. The City will publicize and take other actions as necessary (e.g., facilitate presentations at the Los Altos Senior Center, etc.) at least annually with the goal of five opportunities per year.

Responsible Body: Development Services Department
Funding Source: General Fund
Time Frame: Annually review overall progress and effectiveness in April and include information in annual report to HCD. If the City is not on track to meet its 150 affordable housing unit goal for the 8-year RHNA cycle by 2027 (i.e., 75 affordable units built or in process by 2027), the City will consider alternative land use strategies and make necessary amendments to zoning or other land use documents to facilitate a variety of housing choices, including but not limited to, strategies that encourage missing middle zoning (small-scale multi-unit projects), adaptive reuse, and allowing additional ADUs and/or JADUs, within six months, if sufficient progress toward this quantified objective is not being met. Objective: Provide 150 housing opportunities affordable to lower income households by January 2031. Geographic Targeting: Citywide, but especially lowerdensity neighborhoods.

Page 1001 ends

Draft based on Los Altos Program 6 G – for discussion
Highlighted Adaptations to Los Gatos
Town of Los Gatos Housing Element
Program: Housing Mobility
Housing mobility strategies consist of removing barriers to housing in areas of opportunity and strategically enhancing access (Los Gatos is entirely highest resource in terms of access to opportunity and a concentrated area of affluence). To improve housing mobility and promote more housing choices and affordability throughout Los Gatos, including in lowerdensity neighborhoods, the Town will employ a suite of actions to expand housing opportunities affordable to extremely low, very low, low, and moderate income households.

Actions and strategies include:
• SB 9 – Monitor the Town’s SB 9 standards and amend standards to facilitate SB 9 applications (e.g., duplexes in single-family zones) if the Town is not on track to meet its SB 9 application goal during the planning period. See Program AV. • Rezoning – Modify zoning to allow residential or increased residential intensity and/or density of residential throughout Los Gatos. This includes zoning amendments already completed along higher intensity corridors with access to transit and other opportunities (North 40, Los Gatos Boulevard, Highway 9, and Winchester Boulevard) and for sites within lower-density neighborhoods (Oka Lane, Lark Avenue Area, Union Avenue, Downtown Area). See Program AZ which has been implemented. • Housing on Town Sites – Enter into a public-private partnership to develop housing, targeting low-income households, on Town-owned Properties. See Program E. • Enhanced Inclusionary Housing – Assess and amend the Town’s inclusionary housing requirements to better produce low-income units and units for special needs groups throughout Los Gatos. See Program L.
• Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) – Encourage and streamline ADUs in singlefamily neighborhoods by preparing standardized ADU plans with a variety of unit sizes and by affirmatively marketing and outreach to increase awareness and the diversity of individuals residing in Los Gatos. See Program Q.
• Junior ADUs – Develop and adopt objective standards to allow more than one (at minimum two) Junior ADU per structure by July 2025. The objective is to achieve at least 10 JADUs in lower-density neighborhoods by January 2031. • Religious Institutional Sites – Expand housing opportunities on all religious institutional sites within the Town. See Program S. Conduct outreach to owners and operators of religious institutions to raise awareness and encourage housing proposals. Permit 10 housing units on a religious institution/faith-based site(s) during the 2023-2031 planning

Page 1002 ends

period. If no application for housing on a religious institution/faith-based site is received by December 2025, the Town will expand outreach efforts to be conducted annually.

This may include direct mailings to faith-based sites highlighting successful affordable housing units on other faith-based sites, as well as available Town resources and programs to support such projects (e.g., Programs N, P, T, AI, AJ – Assist in securing funding for affordable housing projects).
• Homesharing – Research and pursue a homesharing program, including coordination with non-profits and other to assist with matching tenants with existing homeowners. The Town will publicize and take other actions as necessary (e.g., facilitate presentations at the Los Gatos Adult Recreation Center, etc.) at least annually with the goal of five opportunities per year.

Responsible Body: Community Development Department
Funding Source: General Fund
Time Frame: Annually review overall progress and effectiveness in April and include information in annual report to HCD. If the Town is not on track to meet its 160 affordable housing unit goal for the 8-year RHNA cycle by 2027 (i.e., 80 affordable units built or in process by 2027), the Town will consider alternative land use strategies and make necessary amendments to zoning or other land use documents to facilitate a variety of housing choices, including but not limited to, strategies that encourage missing middle zoning (small-scale multi-unit projects), adaptive reuse, and allowing additional ADUs and/or JADUs, within six months, if sufficient progress toward this quantified objective is not being met. Objective: Provide 160 housing opportunities affordable to lower income households by January 2031. Geographic Targeting: Townwide, but especially lower-density neighborhoods.

Page 1003 ends

Comment
Number
#1a.

HCD Comment Affirmatively further[ing] fair housing in accordance with Chapter 15 (commencing with Section 8899.50) of Division 1 of Title 2…shall include an assessment of fair housing in the jurisdiction. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(10)(A).) Promote and affirmatively further fair housing opportunities and promote housing throughout the community or communities for all persons regardless of race, religion, sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin, color, familial status, or disability, and other characteristics... (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(5).) Income and Racial Concentration Area of Affluence (RCAA): The element now includes actions to promote an inclusive community; however, the element must provide specific analysis of income and RCAA at a regional level (town compared to the broader region) to better formulate appropriate policies and programs. The analysis should at least address trends, conditions, coincidence with other fair housing factors (e.g., race, highest resource, overpayment), effectiveness or absence of past strategies (e.g., lack of publicly assisted housing and lack of multifamily zoning), local data and knowledge and other relevant factors.

Response Additional narrative regarding race, ethnicity, and income trends for Los Gatos was added on page A‐69 Appendix A. In addition, discussion of zoning, including the Town’s Zoning Map was added on page A‐73 of Appendix A, as well as a narrative describing implementation programs included in the Housing Element which facilitate the creation of affordable housing units on pages A‐69 of Appendix A.

Priority
Rating
Straight forward
Examples from
Other Certified
Housing
Elements
City of Campbell, starting on page H.II‐84.

Town of Los Altos Hills, starting on page 101.

Campbell ‐
pop. 44,000
RHNA 2,977 /
HE 5,311
Buffer 78%
Cert. 5/2023
Los Altos Hills ‐
pop. 8,500
RHNA 489 / HE
616 Buffer
26% Cert.
5/2023
Pleasanton ‐
pop. 78,000
RHNA 5,965 /
HE 6714 Buffer
13% Cert
9/2023
Los Altos ‐
pop. 31,000
RHNA 1,959 /
HE 2,598
Buffer 32%
Cert. 9/2023
Los Gatos ‐
pop. 31,000
RHNA 1,993 /
HE 2,371
Buffer 19%

Page 1004 ends

Comment
Number
#1b.

HCD Comment Contributing Factors to Fair Housing Issues: Based on a complete analysis, the element should re‐assess and prioritize contributing factors to fair housing issues. For example, the Town is wholly a RCAA, highest resource and highest median incomes in contrast to the rest of the region. As a result, fair housing issues such as the lack of affordable housing and segregation from the rest of the region should be a high priority.

Response Additional narrative describing fair housing as an issue in Town was provided on page A‐18 of Appendix A (RCAAs). Fair housing was also modified on page A‐18 of Appendix A, to be a high priority for the Town.

Priority
Rating
Straight forward
Examples from
Other Certified
Housing
Elements
Campbell, starting on page H.II‐ 121.

Town of Los Altos Hills, starting on page 78 and page 124.

Campbell ‐
pop. 44,000
RHNA 2,977 /
HE 5,311
Buffer 78%
Cert. 5/2023
Los Altos Hills ‐
pop. 8,500
RHNA 489 / HE
616 Buffer
26% Cert.
5/2023
p124 Los Altos Hills brought together programs that would further AFFH into concise tables Table 49 displays the identified fair housing issues, contributing factors, relative priority, and meaningful actions drawn from the analysis of fair housing.

Higher priority is given to factors that limit fair housing choice and/or negatively impact fair housing, per Government Code Section 65583(c)(10)(A)(iv). Identified Fair Housing Issue/Contributing Factor/Action/Priority Table 50 provides a detailed overview of actions included in Housing Element Programs that are aimed at affirmatively furthering fair housing. The table separates the actions by their identified fair housing issue and priority level. It provides an overview of each specific commitment, timeline, a geographic targeting, and metric for each program. HE Programs or Other Activities/Specific Commitment/Timeline/Geographic Targeting/2023‐20321 Metric Pleasanton ‐
pop. 78,000
RHNA 5,965 /
HE 6714 Buffer
13% Cert
9/2023
Los Altos ‐
pop. 31,000
RHNA 1,959 /
HE 2,598
Buffer 32%
Cert. 9/2023
Los Gatos ‐
pop. 31,000
RHNA 1,993 /
HE 2,371
Buffer 19%
While the Town has median incomes comparable to neighboring jurisdictions, the proportion of non‐Hispanic White residents in Los Gatos is higher than the countywide trend. The Town may lack sufficient housing opportunities suitable for lower income households and outreach about such opportunities for protected groups including communities of color.

Page 1005 ends

Comment
Number
#1c.

HCD Comment 0
Response Modifications to Implementation Program J on page 10‐44 of Chapter 10 were made to include actions that aim to facilitate a range of housing types, including small multi‐unit housing in low to medium designations. Additionally, a separate action within Implementation Project J calls for creating opportunities for other housing types (tiny homes and co‐housing).

Priority
Rating
Moderately complex
Examples from
Other Certified
Housing
Elements
City of Pleasanton, starting on page 61.

Town of Los Altos Hills, starting on page 87.

Campbell ‐
pop. 44,000
RHNA 2,977 /
HE 5,311
Buffer 78%
Cert. 5/2023
H.IV‐46 Campbell’s affordable housing is currently limited and concentrated in areas of the city that are disconnected from amenities and services. H.IV‐49 City Action: Support the dispersion of affordable housing throughout Moderate and High Resource areas in Campbell through the City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance (HE Program H‐1a) and new Affordable Housing Overlay Zone (HE Program H‐1c), providing sites for 1,839 lower and 614 moderate income units. (Program H5‐e). Action Outcomes : Through implementation of the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, adoption of an Affordable Housing Overlay, promotion of ADUs, allowance for lots splits and duplexes in single‐family zones, and adoption of an ordinance to allow development up to 10 units on small lots, provide increased housing options throughout Campbell’s high resource neighborhoods to foster a more inclusive community.

City Action: Initiate a marketing program for homeowners on the benefits of . . . seek to issue permits for 216 ADUs over the planning period. 216
City Action: Implement the City’s SB 9 Ordinance to expand the housing supply in High Resource single‐family zones. . . Seek to integrate at least three SB 9 units annually in high resource single‐family districts. 24 City Action: Adopt an SB 10 Ordinance (2024) to allow up to 10 units to be developed on smaller residential parcels throughout the City, with a goal to produce 200 units of missing middle housing, targeting 75% of these units in RCAAs and high resource tracts (Program H‐1g). 200
City Action: Require affordable developers receiving public funds to prepare an affirmative marketing plan. . .

City Action: Apply for Project Homekey funds and seek to achieve 100 units of permanent supportive housing, addressing approximately 50% the City’s 2022 PIT count (or updated goal based on latest PIT count). 100 MH TOTAL: 540 UNITS

Page 1006 ends

Los Altos Hills ‐
pop. 8,500
RHNA 489 / HE
616 Buffer
26% Cert.
5/2023
p87
The Town is including several programs to further accommodate lower‐income households. Increasing housing mobility and housing opportunities for the lower‐income population includes multifamily rental housing and lower cost rental opportunities. The Town is including Programs A‐1, A‐2, A‐5, and A‐6 to create a multifamily overlay zone, allow by right approval for 20 percent affordable housing developments, establish minimum densities for low‐income development, and conduct an inclusionary zoning feasibility study respectively. The Town is also incentivizing the production of ADUs using methods discussed in Programs A‐7 and G‐2, including tracking and monitoring ADUs and encouraging existing ADUs to remain affordable. The Town is also including Program F‐3 to create a registry of affordable rental units as the units are built. **A‐1 creates a new multifamily zone to allow and expedite affordable housing construction to increase housing choice options and mobility Rezone at least 34 acres via an overlay zone and rezone to ensure that the Town fully meets RHNA capacity within three years of the adoption of the housing element, including a buffer of 15% of the RHNA to ensure adequate capacity. Create a high density multifamily infill overlay zone that requires a minimum of 20 du/ac and permits densities of at least 30 du/ac for at least 19 acres on institutional properties. Rezone 15 acres from R‐A to a new multifamily zone with a minimum density of 20 du/ac. The combined rezone and overlay zone will include capacity for at least **A‐2 Tracking Unit Count **A‐5 Minimum Density **A‐6 Inclusionary **A‐12 To increase housing opportunity and mobility beyond identified RHNA sites, the Town will amend the zoning ordinance to allow existing, conforming single family residences to be converted to up to three units (i.e., into a duplex or triplex), subject to objective development standards to be prepared by the Town. These conversion units would be permitted in residential areas in specific portions of the R‐A zone that are in lower fire hazard areas with adequate water and sewer service availabilities, as determined by the City Council through the zoning ordinance amendment process, which goal is to identify areas that increase housing choice and mobility throughout Town and will include areas equal to at least 25% of conforming single family residences in the Town. The Town will conduct a mid‐cycle evaluation to examine progress of the conversion units program. NOTE: All of these rezonings are proposed to occur through 2027. 160 ADUs 50 Conversions to Duplex or Triplex Appendix A: Vacant Lots with Potential SB 9 Units 37 MH TOTAL: 247 UNITS
Pleasanton ‐
pop. 78,000
RHNA 5,965 /
HE 6714 Buffer
13% Cert
9/2023
p61

1. Religious institution/faith‐based sites: . . . Permit 10 housing units on a religious institution/faith‐based site(s) with a target of 60 percent of units in lower density areas during the 2023‐2031 planning period

2. Homesharing: Research and pursue a homesharing program, including coordination with non‐profits and other organizations to assist with matching tenants with existing

3. Accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and other “missing middle” housing in lower‐density zones: Prepare pre‐approved ADU building plans. Publicize ADU and JADU incentives such as reduced permit fees. 93 City will provide information about Ordinance No. 2228 and Cal. GC§§65852.21 and 66411.7 (urban lot splits and two‐unit developments) [SB 9]
including the relevant objective design standards and streamlined review available for such units, with a target of one application for an additional housing unit each year. 8

4. Additional Junior ADUs: Develop and adopt objective standards to allow more than one Junior ADU per structure by July 2025. The objective is to achieve at least 10 JADUs in lower density areas by January 2031.

5. Marketing of housing resources and opportunities:

6. Down Payment Assistance Loan Program: Provide down payment assistance loans for first‐time homebuyers with incomes of up to 120 percent AMI

7. Local Universal Design Ordinance: Adopt a local Universal Design Ordinance applicable to single‐family, duplex, and tri‐ plex projects. See Program 5.4
homeowners. . .goal of five opportunities per year. 40

8. Additional Housing Opportunities: Adopt an ordinance to zone certain parcels for up to 10 units of residential density if located in either a transit‐rich area or an urban infill site consistent with GC §65913.5. The ordinance will include a map demarcating the parcels subject to this upzoning. The City will adopt this ordinance no later than December 2025. The objective is to provide opportunities for at least an additional 20 units through this zoning ordinance. MH TOTAL: 181 UNITS

Page 1007 ends

Los Gatos City CouncilJanuary 16, 2024

Los Gatos City Council
January 16, 2024