Item 3 - Staff Report with Attachments
PREPARED BY: JENNIFER ARMER, AICP
Senior Planner
110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● 408-354-6832
www.losgatosca.gov
MEETING DATE: 12/12/2019
ITEM: 3
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
REPORT
REPORT
DATE: December 6, 2019
TO: General Plan Update Advisory Committee
FROM: Joel Paulson, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Review Land Use Alternatives Report and Develop Preferred Land Use
Alternative Recommendation.
BACKGROUND:
On June 20, July 18, and August 15, 2019, the General Plan Update Advisory Committee (GPAC)
met to discuss and provide direction for draft land use alternatives. The resulting Land Use
Alternatives Report (Attachment 1) is available online:
www.losgatos2040.com/documents.html
DISCUSSION:
The goal of the land use alternatives process is to determine the appropriate location, density,
and intensity of residential, commercial, mixed residential/commer cial, and industrial uses that
reflect the vision of Los Gatos in the General Plan. The Alternatives Report incorporates the
GPAC’s discussions this year, identifying and evaluating various land use options.
The GPAC plays an important role to recommend to the Planning Commission and Town Council
a preferred land use alternative that is informed by community input and forms the foundation
for the General Plan Update. The recommended land use alternative could be one of the four
presented in the Land Use Alternatives Report, or could be a combination of parts of multiple
alternatives. It is also possible to add additional items that are not analyzed in the Land Use
Alternatives Report.
The preferred land use alternative will be used in the 2040 General Plan Land Use Diagram,
land use designations, and associated land use goals, policies, and action items. Once the land
use alternative is determined, other General Plan Elements can be completed. The preferred
alternative is also the foundation for the analysis that will be completed in the 2040 General
Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
PAGE 2 OF 3
SUBJECT: Land Use Alternatives
December 6, 2019
N:\DEV\GPAC\GPAC Staff Reports\2019\12-12-19\Prior Docs\Item 3\Item 3 - Staff Report.docx
DISCUSSION (continued):
The purpose of this GPAC meeting is to answer the following questions to work through the
alternatives.
A. Are there any clarifying questions about the Land Use Alternatives Report?
• What information in the Report needs to be clarified?
B. What elements of the Land Use Alternatives Report should be excluded from future
consideration?
• For example, does Alternative A provide enough housing? Is the growth in Alternative D
too aggressive?
C. What elements of the Land Use Alternatives Report are appropriate for further
consideration?
• For example, does Alternative C provide an appropriate amount of housing? Are there
opportunity areas that should be a primary focus of increased growth?
D. What items are not considered in the Land Use Alternatives Report which should be
included in a preferred alternative?
• Specifically, should specific land use designation(s) be changed?
• What other locations in Los Gatos should be considered opportunity areas for growth
that are not included in the Land Use Alternatives Report?
NEXT STEPS:
The schedule anticipates that the GPAC will select a preferred/recommended land use
alternative in early 2020 after a January community workshop. The GPAC’s recommendation
would then be considered by the Planning Commission and Town Council in February and
March 2020, respectively (see schedule in Attachment 2).
OTHER INFORMATION:
The following information is provided in response to requests by Town Council, Planning
Commission, GPAC members, and/or the public. Committee members may find that some of
this information is useful in consideration of the land use alternatives. For those items that are
not directly related to this meeting’s discussion, there will be opportunities to discuss these
matters at future GPAC meetings.
PAGE 3 OF 3
SUBJECT: Land Use Alternatives
December 6, 2019
N:\DEV\GPAC\GPAC Staff Reports\2019\12-12-19\Prior Docs\Item 3\Item 3 - Staff Report.docx
OTHER INFORMATION (continued):
• Changes to Housing Element Law as summarized by the Association of Bay Area
Governments (Attachment 3)
• Missing Middle Housing information is provided as Attachment 4, compiled from
https://missingmiddlehousing.com/about
• Industrial Land in San Francisco: Understanding Production, Distribution, and Repair.
Available online here: http://sf-
planning.org/sites/default/files/FileCenter/Documents/4893-CW_DPR_chapter5_2.pdf
• City of Mountain View Council Report on Sustainability Action Plan 4, October 22, 2019.
This report describes actions proposed for implementation of the City’s Sustainability
Strategic Plan, and includes on page 18 two items (H and I) that specifically address
plant-based diets and a consumption-based Greenhouse Gas inventory. The report is
available online here:
https://mountainview.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4198027&GUID=CD17CF4
0-C5C5-4DAE-8FEF-17DC13E87445
• An article describing the City of Mountain View’s Sustainability Action Plan is available
online here: https://vegnews.com/2019/10/californias-tech-capital-signs-citywide-plan-
to-slash-meat-consumption
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Public comments received by 11:00 a.m., Friday, December 6, 2019 are included as Attachment
5.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachments received with this Staff Report:
1. Land Use Alternatives Report, dated December 2019, available online here:
www.losgatos2040.com/documents.html
2. GPAC Process Schedule
3. Changes in Housing Element Law
4. Missing Middle Housing Information
5. Public Comment Received before 11:00 a.m., Friday, August 9, 2019
Land Use Alternatives Report
December 2019
ATTACHMENT 1
Acknowledgments
Town Council
Mayor Marcia Jensen
Vice Mayor Barbara Spector
Council Member Steve Leonardis
Council Member Rob Rennie
Council Member Marico Sayoc
Planning Commission
Chair Matthew Hudes
Vice Chair Melanie Hanssen
Commissioner Mary Badame
Commissioner Kendra Burch
Commissioner Kathryn Janoff
Commissioner Tom O’Donnell
Commissioner Reza Tavana
General Plan Update Advisory Committee
Marcia Jensen, Mayor
Barbara Spector, Vice Mayor
Kendra Burch, Planning Commissioner (GPC)
Melanie Hanssen, Planning Commissioner (GPC)
Kathryn Janoff, Planning Commissioner (GPC)
Jeffrey Barnett, Public Representative (GPC)
Todd Jarvis, Business Representative (GPC)
Steven Piasecki, Public Representative (GPC)
Lee Quintana, Public Representative (GPC)
Susan Moore Brown, Public Representative
Ryan Rosenberg, Public Representative
Carol Elias Zolla, Public Representative
Town Staff
Laurel Prevetti, Town Manager
Arn Andrews, Assistant Town Manager
Joel Paulson, Community Development Director
Steve Conway, Director of Finance and
Administrative Services
Matt Morely, Parks & Public Works Director
Sally Zarnowitz, Planning Manager
Gitta Ungvari, Finance and Budget Manager
Jennifer Armer, Senior Planner
Jessy Pu, Traffic Engineer
Consultants
Rick Rust, AICP, Mintier Harnish
Brent Gibbons, AICP, Mintier Harnish
Ryan Lester, Mintier Harnish
Poonam Narkar, AICP, WRT
Peter Winch, AICP, WRT
Charlie Coles, Fehr & Peers
Doug Svensson, Applied Development Economics
Table of Contents
1. Introduction .........................................................................................1
2. Population, Housing, and Employment ..................................5
3. Land Use Designations ..................................................................9
4. Land Use Alternatives ...................................................................13
5. Alternatives Evaluation .................................................................21
A. Appendix: Alternatives Methodology .....................................41
Land Use Alternatives Report
Photo credit: Josh Daynard, Flickr.com
Introduction1
The Los Gatos General Plan
update process gives the
community an opportunity to
refine the Town’s “constitution” for
future growth and development.
One of the most important
decisions the Town will make
about growth in the General
Plan update is the type and
location of new land uses. The
Alternatives process helps inform
the community about choices
and support the selection of a
preferred land use alternative.
This report describes four
alternative land use concepts for
Los Gatos, each with a different
mix of densities and intensities.
This report then defines each
alternative’s effect on population,
housing, employment, fiscal
health, and transportation.
What is a General Plan?
The General Plan is a local government’s long-term framework or “constitution” for
future growth and development. The General Plan represents the community’s
view of its future and includes goals and policies upon which the Town Council and
Planning Commission will base future land use and resource decisions. California
State law requires that each Town, City, and County adopt a General Plan for physical
development within the jurisdiction and any land outside its boundaries that bears
relation to its planning. Typically, a General Plan is designed to address the issues
facing the jurisdiction for the next 20 years.
A General Plan typically has four defining features:
General. A General Plan provides general policy guidance that will be used to
direct future land use and resource decisions.
Comprehensive. A General Plan is comprehensive, covering topics such as land
use, housing, economic development, infrastructure, public safety, recreation,
natural resources, and other relevant topics.
Long-Range. A General Plan provides guidance on reaching a future envisioned
20 or more years in the future. To achieve the vision, a General Plan includes
goals, policies, and implementation programs that address both immediate and
long-term needs.
Integrated and Coherent. The goals, policies, and implementation programs
in a General Plan present a comprehensive, unified program for development,
resource conservation, and other issues that impact the community. A General
Plan uses a consistent set of assumptions and projections to assess future
demands for housing, employment, and public services (e.g., infrastructure).
A General Plan has a coherent set of policies and implementation programs
that enables citizens to understand the vision of the General Plan, and enables
landowners, businesses, and industry to be more certain about how policies will
be implemented.
1
Land Use Alternatives Report
As part of the initial work on the development of alternatives, identifying
a means to meet State requirements for future Regional Housing Needs
Allocations (RHNA) was a primary consideration. In discussions with the Town’s
General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC), the GPAC provided guidance that
the Town should develop land use alternatives that could provide space for the
future development of around 2,000 residential units (see Section 2, Residential
Market Demand, for further information).
The General Plan Update Process
Updating a General Plan is a public process that requires significant public input.
The public is asked for input at each key milestone, which is then considered
by the Town Council and incorporated into the General Plan by Town staff and
Consultants, as directed by the Town Council. For Los Gatos, the General Plan
update process is organized into nine tasks, as shown in the diagram below.
THE LOS GATOS GENERAL PLAN PROCESS
We are currently starting Task E.
A. Project Initiation
B. Prepare Background Report
C. Identify Community Issues, Opportunities,
and Constraints and Confirm Vision
D. Development of General Plan Vision
E. Development of Land Use Alternatives
F. General Plan Goals and Policy
Development
G. Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
I. Certification of EIR and Adoption of
General Plan H. Community Outreach and Engagement (Ongoing Throughout)This report analyzes four land use alternatives. These alternatives do not
propose to change the assigned land use designation of any parcel in the Town.
Instead, each alternative includes adjustments to allow increased density and
intensity ranges within certain residential and commercial designations. The
report then presents an analysis of the projected changes to jobs and housing
capacity, mobility and circulation, and the built environment.
This Alternatives Report evaluates land use alternatives using a series of
indicators to help community members and decision-makers understand the
implications of each alternative. Decisions about future land uses will influence
how many people will live in the Town, what kind of jobs and businesses will
locate and thrive in the Town, and how traffic will flow.
Decision-makers will be asked to weigh the costs and benefits of each
alternative presented in this analysis and to select a “preferred land use
alternative.” The preferred land use alternative may be one of the four
alternatives or a combination of features from several alternatives. The preferred
land use alternative will be combined with community input and the Town Vision
and Guiding Principles (prepared during Phase D), to guide the development
of General Plan goals, policies, and implementation programs through the
conclusion of the update process.
Terminology
Town Boundaries
The General Plan uses several terms to describe the Town and planning
boundaries, as shown on Figure 1-1:
Town Limits. The jurisdictional boundary of the Town that encompasses
all incorporated areas. Los Gatos town limits span approximately 11.5
square miles (7,335 acres).
Urban Service Area. Established by the Santa Clara County Local Agency
Formation Commission (LAFCO), the Urban Service Area (USA) is a
planning boundary that delineates areas outside Town limits that are
currently provided with urban services, facilities, and utilities; or areas
proposed to be annexed into a town or city within the next five years.
Town of Los Gatos General Plan 2040 | Land Use Alternatives Report
2
Figure 1-1:
Town Boundaries
December 2019
3
Sphere of Influence. A sphere of influence (SOI) is the probable physical
boundary and service area of a local agency, as adopted by a LAFCO. An
SOI typically includes both incorporated and unincorporated areas within
which the Town and/or special districts will have primary responsibility for
the provision of public facilities and services.
Planning Area. The Planning Area encompasses all incorporated and
unincorporated territory that bears a relationship to the long-term physical
planning of the jurisdiction. At a minimum, a jurisdiction’s Planning Area
should include all incorporated land within the Town limits and all land
within the Town’s SOI, as it does for this General Plan. A General Plan,
pursuant to State law, must also address all areas within the jurisdiction’s
Planning Area. The Los Gatos Planning Area includes approximately 18
square miles (11,688 acres).
What is Redevelopment?
Redevelopment describes converting an existing built property into another
use. Ideally, redevelopment aims for better use of the property that provides an
economic return to the community. For example, a property may be converted to
a mixed-use development that combines residential and commercial uses.
What is Residential Density?
In the context of planning, density is the amount of residential development
within a given area. Standards of building density for residential uses are stated
as the allowable range (i.e., minimum and maximum) of dwelling units per gross
acre (du/ac). In Los Gatos, the Town uses net acres when defining density. The
term “net” refers to the land areas minus roadway right-of-way.
Density = Dwelling Units per Acre
1 UNIT PER ACRE 6 UNITS PER ACRE 18 UNITS PER ACRE
1 story
(100% lot coverage)
2 stories
(50% lot coverage)
4 stories
(25% lot coverage)
FAR = 1.0
2 story
(100% lot coverage)
4 stories
(50% lot coverage)
8 stories
(25% lot coverage)
FAR = 2.0
What is Floor Area Ratio?
Standards of building intensity for residential and non-residential uses such as
office, commercial, industrial, and institutional development are stated as floor
area ratios (FARs). FAR is an indicator of how much building space can be built
on a given site. In the case of mixed-use developments that include residential
uses, density standards are applied to the residential component while FAR
standards are applied to the non-residential component. A site includes all
contiguous parcels that will share parking or access.
While FAR provides for overall development intensity, it does not specify
the form or character of the building. Different interpretations of the same
FAR can result in buildings of very different character. To encourage similar
interpretations of allowed FARs, other Town regulations such as zoning height
limits, building setbacks, lot coverage, or open space requirements are used to
guide the form of buildings with a given FAR.
FAR = Ratio of Floor Area to Lot Area
Town of Los Gatos General Plan 2040 | Land Use Alternatives Report
4
Population, Housing, and Employment2
Population and employment
projections are important
tools for long-range planning.
Projections offer a range of
possible growth outcomes.
Projections should not be
regarded as inevitable, since
external market forces and
Town policies can dramatically
alter the rate and type of
growth that occurs. The
decisions made as part of the
General Plan process will be a
critical determinant of future
housing and job growth in Los
Gatos.
The projections provided in this
section are used later in this
report in comparison to the
development capacity of each
of the alternatives.
Population
Los Gatos had an estimated population of around 30,250 residents as of
January 1, 2018. The population has only increased by 0.5 percent per year
since 2010, with a total increase of less than 1,200 persons during that time.
By comparison, the household population in Santa Clara County as a whole has
grown at a rate of 1.2 percent annually.
The Town of Los Gatos has added nearly 250 new housing units between 2010
and January 2018, an increase of about 0.2 percent annually. In contrast, Santa
Clara County added new housing at an annual rate of 0.7 percent, totaling over
36,000 units since 2010.
Los Gatos’ housing stock generally comprises a greater proportion of single-
family housing (71.5 percent) compared to Santa Clara County as a whole
(64.2 percent). In addition, the housing characteristics in Los Gatos show a
higher vacancy rate (5.5 percent) and smaller household size (2.4 persons per
household) than Santa Clara County (3.9 percent vacancy rate, and 3.0 persons
per household).
5
Housing
Residential
Market Demand
The demand for housing in a particular location is based on
a number of factors, including natural increase in the resident
population (births over deaths), in-migration due in part to job
opportunities, and the relative price of housing in the area. Since
1980, Los Gatos has increased population at the rate of about
one-half percent per year. This has generally been about half as
fast as the County. Between 2010 and 2019, Los Gatos grew by
5.4 percent while Santa Clara County grew 9.7 percent.
The actual pace of growth is also a function of the growth in the
supply of housing, which the General Plan will consider. If market
demand is higher than the available housing supply, residential
prices increase faster than they would otherwise. Home prices in
Los Gatos have increased significantly in recent years, similar to
many communities in the Bay Area and Santa Clara County.
The DOF prepares population projections for counties based on
the age and ethnic demographics of the population, and also
taking into account regional shifts in population due to migration.
DOF projects Santa Clara County to grow at a rate of about one
percent per year between 2020 and 2040. In the early years of
this projection, in-migration to the County accounts for just over
half of the population growth, but by 2040, in-migration accounts
for 64 percent of growth. If Los Gatos were to continue to see
growth at about half the County rate, then the total population
would increase by approximately 3,478 persons between 2020
and 2040. If the average household size stays at 2.4 persons
and the vacancy rate remains constant at about 5.5 percent,
then 1,529 housing units would be needed to accommodate this
population growth.
GROWTH
2010-2019
Los Gatos
5.4%
(0.6% annually)
Santa Clara County
9.7%
(1.1% annually)
Units Needed to
Accommodate
Growth:
1,529
at 0.5%
annual growth
Town of Los Gatos General Plan 2040 | Land Use Alternatives Report
6
However, considering the age demographics of the Los Gatos
population, the overall demand for housing could be higher than
using DOF populations projects as the base. One of the fastest
growing population segments are senior, otherwise known as
the “Baby Boomers.” Currently, 19 percent of the Los Gatos
population is 65 years or older, compared to 12 percent for the
County as a whole. Applying age-specific growth rates to the
existing Los Gatos population, based on the DOF demographic
projections, shows an annual growth rate of 0.7 percent for Los
Gatos, compared to 0.5 percent based only on the countywide
growth as discussed on the previous page. This latter projection
also accounts for a share of County in-migration being attracted
to Los Gatos. Given the income and housing price differentials
between the Town and the County, we estimate that housing
demand from in-migration to Los Gatos is about one third
the rate of the County. Using this combined approach of age
demographics and in-migration, we project an increase of 4,446
people and 1,954 housing units between 2020 and 2040.
Therefore, the range of likely market demand for housing in Los
Gatos between 2020 and 2040 is 1,529 (DOF Projection) to 1,954
(ADE Projection) units.
Market demand also relates to the anticipated mix of unit types.
With the acceleration of housing costs in the Bay Area, there is
increased demand for smaller, less expensive units, that are more
affordable to the broad populace. This will likely be reinforced
in Los Gatos with additional demand for senior housing. Both
of these trends emphasize the need for multi-family housing.
Alternative A (Low Growth) has the lowest share of multi-family
housing at 66 percent, while the other alternatives have a greater
percentage of multi-family housing ranging from 82-83 percent,
which is more likely to meet future market demand.
Units Needed to
Accommodate
Growth:
1,954
at 0.7%
annual growth
December 2019
7
Jobs
Using data from Economic Modeling Specialists International (EMSI) and the
Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (LEHD) database, Los Gatos had
approximately 19,300 jobs in 2018.1
The pending and approved projects will result in a net increase of nearly 1,300
jobs upon building completion and tenant occupancy. Over two-thirds of the
new jobs from these pending and approved projects would occur in commercial
uses. Office and industrial uses would also each add over 100 new jobs.
Institutional uses will accommodate approximately 15 new jobs.
The projected job growth rates from EMSI project a net increase of
approximately 9,400 new jobs between 2018 and 2040. These long-term
growth projections assume a long-term decrease in industrial jobs, along
with substantial increases in office and institutional uses. The institutional
job growth will total nearly 4,700 jobs and mostly occur in health care/social
assistance. Office uses would add another 3,900 jobs during this period.
Compared to the pending and approved projects, only the commercial uses
would come close to accommodating the projected job growth when using the
EMSI growth rates.
General Plan
Land Use
Designation
Job Growth
from Current
and Proposed
Projects
Projected Job
Growth
2018 to 2040
(EMSI Growth
Rates)
Projected Job
Growth
2018 to 2040
(ABAG Growth
Rates)
CAGR
2018 to 2040
(EMSI Growth
Rates)
CAGR
2018 to 2040
(ABAG Growth
Rates)
Industrial 158 -178 146 -0.6%0.3%
Office 232 3,921 223 2.4%0.1%
Commercial 875 1,007 102 0.8%0.1%
Institutional 15 4,653 749 2.7%0.6%
1 This job total differs from the EMSI data reported in the General Plan 2040 Background Report because the EMSI data used ZIP code aggregations that also include Monte Sereno and
surrounding unincorporated areas. The employment within the Los Gatos town boundary is based on the percentage of total employment within the ZIP codes, as reported in the LEHD data.
Table 2-2: Job Growth Projections
The job projections from ABAG only show a long-term net increase of about
1,200 total jobs in Los Gatos, which is less than the number of jobs that the
pending and approved projects would accommodate. The projected job growth
in industrial and office uses using the ABAG projections matches very closely
with the pending and approved projects. This assumes that once the current
projects are fully built, they will accommodate all of the long-term job growth.
The job increase for commercial uses under the ABAG projections totals only
about 100 new jobs, while the pending and approved projects can accommodate
nearly 900 new jobs. Only with institutional uses does the ABAG job projections
well exceed what the pending and approved development projects can
accommodate.
Town of Los Gatos General Plan 2040 | Land Use Alternatives Report
8
Land Use Designations3
State planning law requires general
plans to establish “standards of
population density and building
intensity,” as well as allowed
uses for the various land use
designations in the plan. As a part
of the General Plan update process,
residents, business owners, and
interested parties are provided the
opportunity to evaluate and weigh
in on the appropriate land use
types, densities, and intensities for
different areas of the community,
as well as on the form and design
of new development.
To support the description of each
alternative, this section is prepared
as a guide for understanding the
range of land uses evaluated in the
alternatives. The section includes a
short description of each existing
land use designation, followed
by a land use diagram, and a
table outlining the development
standards and allowable uses for
each designation.
Hillside Residential District
The purpose of this designation is to allow for very-
low-density, rural, large lot, or cluster, single-family
residential development that is compatible with the
mountainous parts of the Town.
Density/Intensity
Up to one dwelling unit per net acre
Up to 3.5 persons per acre
Low-Density Residential
The purpose of this designation is to allow for
low-density single-family residential development
formed through standard zoning or through a
planned development.
Density/Intensity
Up to five dwelling units per net acre
Up to 17.5 persons per acre
Medium-Density Residential
The purpose of this designation is to allow for multi-
family residential, duplex, and/or small single-family
homes.
Density/Intensity
5 to 12 dwelling units per net acre
Up to 24 persons per acre
High-Density Residential
The purpose of this designation is to allow for
intensive multi-family residential and to provide
quality housing in proximity to transit and business
areas.
Density/Intensity
12 to 20 units per net acre
Up to 40 persons per acre
Land Use Designation Descriptions
The existing 2020 General Plan includes 16 land use designations, which are relatively broad and
intended to indicate the general type of activity that may occur on a site. These designations are
described below and summarized on Table 3-1.
9
Mobile Home Park
The purpose of this designation is to allow for
affordable housing within mobile home parks. This
designation is not represented on the 2020 General
Plan Land Use Map.
Density/Intensity
5 to 12 dwelling units per acre
Up to 24 persons per acre
Office Professional
The purpose of this designation is to allow for
professional and general business office uses. This
designation applies to various locations throughout
the Town. Locations are often near neighborhood
or commercial-orientated facilities or serve as a
buffer between commercial and residential uses.
The intent of the designation is to meet community
needs for general business and professional
services and local employment.
Density/Intensity
Up to 50 percent land coverage
35-foot height limit
Neighborhood Commercial
The purpose of this designation is to allow for
necessary day-to-day goods and services within
close proximity of neighborhoods. This designation
encourages concentrated and coordinated
commercial development at easily accessible
locations.
Density/Intensity
50 percent land coverage
35-foot height limit
Mixed-Use Commercial
The purpose of the Mixed-Use designation is to
provide for a combination of residential, office, retail,
commercial, non-manufacturing industrial, and
recreation uses.
Density/Intensity
50 percent land coverage
35-foot height limit
Service Commercial
The purpose of this designation is to allow for
service-oriented businesses. Types of businesses
allowed include auto repair, building materials
sales, paint suppliers, janitorial services, towing
businesses, contractors offices and yards,
launderers and dry cleaners, as well as wholesaling
and warehousing activities.
Density/Intensity
50 percent land coverage
35-foot height limit
Central Business District
The purpose of this designation is to encourage a
mixture of community-oriented commercial goods
and services within the downtown. This designation
applies exclusively to the downtown, with the goal
to accommodate and retain small-town merchants
and preserve the Town’s character.
Density/Intensity
0.6 FAR
45-foot height limit
Light Industrial
The purpose of this designation is to allow for large-
scale office developments, well-controlled research
and development facilities, industrial parks and
service-oriented uses subject to rigid development
standards. These uses shall respond to the
community and region-wide needs.
Density/Intensity
Up to 50 percent land coverage
35-foot height limit.
Public
The purpose of this designation is to allow for public
facilities within the Town such as the Civic Center,
courthouse, schools, parks, libraries, hospitals,
churches, and fire stations.
Agriculture
The purpose of this designation is to allow for
commercial agricultural crop production.
Open Space
The purpose of this designation is to allow for public
parks, open space preserves, private preserves, and
stream corridors.
Albright Specific Plan
The purpose of this designation is to provide land
for the Albright Specific Plan.
North 40 Specific Plan
The purpose of this designation is to provide land
for the North 40 Specific Plan.
Town of Los Gatos General Plan 2040 | Land Use Alternatives Report
10
Figure 3-1:
Existing General Plan
Land Use Designations
December 2019
11
Land Use Designation Density/Intensity Allowed Uses Acres Percent of Total
HR Hillside Residential 0-1 du/ac Single-family detached 4,257.0 39.9%
LDR Low-Density Residential 0-5 du/ac Single-family detached 1,890.4 17.7%
MDR Medium-Density Residential 5-12 du/ac Duplexes, townhomes, apartments 514.5 4.8%
HDR High-Density Residential 12-20 du/ac Townhomes, apartments 60.3 0.6%
MHP1 Mobile Home Park 5-12 du/ac Mobile home parks 0.0 0.0%
O Office Professional2 Up to 50 percent land coverage
35-foot height limit
Professional and general business office 65.1 0.6%
NC Neighborhood Commercial2 Up to 50 percent land coverage
35-foot height limit
Retail, services 68.3 0.6%
MUC Mixed-Use Commercial2 Up to 50 percent land coverage
35-foot height limit
Retail, service, office, residential, non-
manufacturing industrial, recreation
100.1 0.9%
SC Service Commercial Up to 50 percent land coverage
35-foot height limit
Service-oriented commercial 17.9 0.2%
CBD Central Business District2 0.6 FAR
45-foot height limit
Community-oriented commercial goods and
services
48.5 0.5%
LI Light Industrial Up to 50 percent land coverage
35-foot height limit
Large-scale office developments, well-controlled
research and development facilities, industrial
parks, service-oriented uses (subject to rigid
development standards)
39.9 0.4%
P Public N/A Schools, civic centers, government buildings,
public and quasi-public uses
135.4 1.3%
A Agriculture N/A Agriculture 311.9 2.9%
OS Open Space N/A Open space, agricultural uses 3,088.6 29.0%
A SP Albright Specific Plan See Specific Plan Office, research and development 25.0 0.2%
NF SP North 40 Specific Plan See Specific Plan Residential, retail, services, office 43.7 0.4%
10,666.6 100.0%
1 The Town of Los Gatos has two mobile home parks that are designated Medium-Density Residential in the 2020 General Plan. The mobile home parks are currently not designed Mobile Home Park in the
current General Plan.
2 Residential is allowed as part of a mixed use project with the approval of a conditional use permit.
Source: Town of Los Gatos, 2018; Mintier Harnish, 2018.
Table 3-1: Land Use Designations Summary
Town of Los Gatos General Plan 2040 | Land Use Alternatives Report
12
Land Use Alternatives4
This section provides
detailed descriptions of the
four alternative concepts.
This section includes a
diagram of each alternative
depicting the proposed
density and intensity
ranges and a summary
of the population and
jobs that each alternative
would support (i.e., the
development capacity),
followed by a figure
comparing townwide
population, housing, and
job capacity at buildout of
each alternative (Figure
4-1).
Details on the methodology
used to calculate the
projected housing units and
population for each land
use alternative is provided
in the Appendix.
Introduction to the Alternatives
This report analyzes four land use alternative
concepts designed to accommodate future
growth in the Town of Los Gatos. Because
the Town is constrained by the surrounding
hillsides, which cannot accommodate
increased density, and a lack of vacant land,
each alternative accommodates future
growth by strategically increasing density
and intensity ranges in existing residential
and select commercial designations.
Through this approach, the alternatives
would accommodate future growth without
changing the land use designation of any
parcel in the Town.
The four land use alternatives are outlined on
the diagrams on the following pages. Each
diagram includes:
A map of the Planning Area showing
Opportunity Areas;
Proposed density ranges for each
designation, both outside and inside
Opportunity Areas; and
The percent of existing uses that can
be expected to be redeveloped under
the alternative concept.
Notes on Methodology
The only changes proposed by each alternative concept are to
allowed residential density and intensity within the following
designations:
Low-Density Residential
Medium-Density Residential
High-Density Residential
Neighborhood Commercial
Mixed-Use Commercial
All remaining designations have been excluded from this analysis,
including but not limited to, hillside and downtown areas, as
recommended by the General Plan Update Advisory Committee,
since they cannot accommodate significantly-increased densities.
This approach results in an increase of only residential uses.
For the Neighborhood Commercial and Mixed-Use Commercial
designated sites, this analysis assumes no net loss of existing
commercial and assumes the addition of residential to the
site. That is, if a commercial site is redeveloped with a mix of
commercial and residential, the amount of commercial square
footage would remain unchanged.
Because the alternative concepts do not include changes to
assigned land use designations, the land use map remains the
same for each alternative.
The Town has several other land use designations (i.e., Hillside Residential, Office Professional, Central Business District, Light
Industrial, etc.) that have the potential for additional housing, population, and employment capacity. These additional land use
designations will be analyzed as part of the Environmental Impact Report after the selection of a Preferred Land Use Alternative.
13
What are Opportunity Areas?
Within the Planning Area, seven Opportunity Areas (OA) were identified as having the
capacity to accommodate additional residential density because of the proximity
of commercial services or employment to support additional development (Figure
1-2). Opportunity Areas are areas focused on major corridors in Los Gatos that
may provide for mixed use or single use development of a variety of densities
and intensities. Each Opportunity Area is centered on a major intersection or
corridor and extends generally a quarter-mile in all directions. Although there are
opportunities in locations throughout Town, these seven Opportunity Areas have
been selected because they have the existing infrastructure necessary to reasonably
assume that each can support additional housing units.
Opportunity Area Descriptions
Los Gatos Boulevard
The Los Gatos Boulevard Opportunity Area extends from Shannon Road north to
Lark Avenue along Los Gatos Boulevard. Currently, this area is primarily an auto-
oriented corridor with a with a mixture of stand-alone retail and offices as well
commercial centers, such as Blossom Hill Pavilion, King’s Court, Cornerstone, El
Gato Village, and Los Gatos Village Square. Residential neighborhoods backing
the commercial corridor are primarily low-density residential, but include some
medium- and high-density parcels.
Lark Avenue
This Opportunity Area extends from Winchester Boulevard to Los Gatos
Boulevard along Lark Avenue, including the intersection of Lark Avenue and Oka
Road. The Lark Avenue Opportunity Area includes a mix of low- and medium-
density residential, with a few established religious institutions along Lark
Avenue and Oka Road.
North Santa Cruz Avenue
The North Santa Cruz Avenue Opportunity Area extends along North Santa Cruz
Avenue between Blossom Hill Road and Los Gatos-Saratoga Road, excluding
Downtown Los Gatos. This area includes a mix of medium- and high-density
housing, as well as a strip of commercial uses along North Santa Cruz Avenue.
Harwood Road
The Harwood Road Opportunity Area is focused around the intersection of
Harwood Road and south of Blossom Hill Road in Los Gatos. This area abuts
the City of San Jose and primarily includes low-density residential, with a few
medium-density residential designated parcels intermixed. This Opportunity
Area also includes the Blossom Hill Square Shopping Center which anchors the
intersection of Harwood and Blossom Hill Roads.
Union Avenue
The Union Avenue Opportunity Area is focused around the intersection of
Union Avenue and Los Gatos Almaden Road southwest of Blossom Hill Road
and Union Avenue in Los Gatos. Similar to the Harwood Avenue Opportunity
Area, this area abuts the City of San Jose. This area primarily includes
low-density and medium-density residential. This Opportunity Area also
includes Downing Center (commercial shopping center) which anchors the
intersection of Union Avenue and Los Gatos Almaden Road.
Winchester Boulevard
The Winchester Boulevard Opportunity Area is focused around the
intersection of Winchester Boulevard and Knowles Drive. This area abuts the
City of Campbell and primarily includes medium-density and high-density
residential. Unlike other areas in Town, this Opportunity Area also includes
designated office and medical uses adjacent to Netflix and El Camino
Hospital.
Pollard Road
The Pollard Road Opportunity Area is focused around the intersection of
Pollard Boulevard and More Avenue. This area abuts the City of Campbell
and primarily includes low-density and medium-density residential. This
Opportunity Area also includes the Rinconada Shopping Center which
anchors the intersection of Pollard Road and More Avenue.
Land Use
Designation
Existing
Density
(du/ac)
Density Range (du/ac)
Outside OA Inside OA
LDR 0 to 5 0 to 5 5 to 12
MDR 5 to 12 5 to 12 12 to 20
HDR 12 to 20 12 to 20 20 to 30
NC 0 to 20 0 to 20 10 to 20
MU 0 to 20 0 to 20 10 to 20
Example Table
This is the proposed density for
parcels Outside Opportunity Areas
This is the proposed
density for parcels Inside
an Opportunity Area
Existing Density
Residential
Land Use Designation
Why are Opportunity Areas important? Each alternative identifies
specific density increases that only apply to residential uses inside an
Opportunity Area.
Town of Los Gatos General Plan 2040 | Land Use Alternatives Report
14
Figure 1-2:
Opportunity Areas
Pollard Road OA
Winchester Boulevard OA
Lark Avenue OA
Los Gatos
Boulevard OA
Union Avenue OA
Harwood Road OA
North Santa
Cruz Avenue OA
December 2019
15
Alternative A:
Low Growth
A
Land Use
Designation
Redevelopment Percent
Outside OA Inside OA
LDR 5%5%
MDR 5%10%
HDR 10%10%
NC 5%5%
MU 5%5%
Land Use
Designation
Existing
Density
(du/ac)
Density Range (du/ac)Typical Density (du/ac)Intensity
(FAR)Outside OA Inside OA Outside OA Inside OA
LDR 0 to 5 0 to 5 5 to 12 4 10 0.25
MDR 5 to 12 5 to 12 12 to 20 10 16 0.5
HDR 12 to 20 12 to 20 20 to 30 18 26 0.75
NC 0 to 20 0 to 20 10 to 20 18 18 0.5
MU 0 to 20 0 to 20 10 to 20 18 18 0.5
Net New
Acreage
Net New
Housing Units
Net New
Population
0 1,156 2,774
Density and Intensity
Alternative A is a low-growth alternative. Under this alternative
there would be no increase in density ranges outside
Opportunity Areas and modest increases inside Opportunity
Areas. Typical densities are assumed to range from four to
18 du/ac outside Opportunity Areas and 10 to 18 du/ac inside
Opportunity Areas. Intensity varies from 0.25 FAR in LDR to 0.75
FAR in HDR.
Redevelopment
Under Alternative A, redevelopment is projected to be between
five and 10 percent both outside and inside Opportunity Areas.
Capacity
At build-out of this Alternative, the Town could accommodate an
additional 1,156 housing units and 2,774 residents.
Density and Intensity
Capacity
Redevelopment
Town of Los Gatos General Plan 2040 | Land Use Alternatives Report
16
Alternative B:
Medium Growth
B
Land Use
Designation
Redevelopment Percent
Outside OA Inside OA
LDR 5%5%
MDR 10%10%
HDR 10%10%
NC 10%10%
MU 10%15%
Net New
Acreage
Net New
Housing Units
Net New
Population
0 1,891 4,538
Density and Intensity
Alternative B is a medium-growth alternative that includes
modest increases in density ranges outside Opportunity Areas
and additional increases inside Opportunity Areas. Typical
densities are assumed to range from 10 to 26 du/ac outside
Opportunity Areas and 14 to 26 du/ac inside Opportunity Areas.
Intensity varies from 0.25 FAR in LDR and 1.0 FAR in HDR and MU.
Redevelopment
Under Alternative B, redevelopment is projected to be between
five and 10 percent outside Opportunity Areas and five and 15
percent inside Opportunity Areas.
Capacity
At build-out of this Alternative, the Town could accommodate an
additional 1,891 housing units and 4,538 residents.
Capacity
Redevelopment
Land Use
Designation
Existing
Density
(du/ac)
Density Range (du/ac)Typical Density (du/ac)Intensity
(FAR)Outside OA Inside OA Outside OA Inside OA
LDR 0 to 5 5 to 12 8 to 16 10 14 0.25
MDR 5 to 12 12 to 20 14 to 24 16 20 0.75
HDR 12 to 20 20 to 30 20 to 30 26 26 1.0
NC 0 to 20 0 to 20 10 to 20 18 18 0.75
MU 0 to 20 0 to 20 20 to 30 18 26 1.0
Density and Intensity
17
Alternative C:
Medium-High Growth
C
Land Use
Designation
Redevelopment Percent
Outside OA Inside OA
LDR 5%10%
MDR 10%10%
HDR 15%15%
NC 10%15%
MU 10%20%
Net New
Acreage
Net New
Housing Units
Net New
Population
0 2,303 5,527
Density and Intensity
Alternative C is a medium-high growth alternative that includes
modest increases in density ranges outside Opportunity Areas
and larger increases inside Opportunity Areas, particularly in
High-Density Residential, Neighborhood Commercial, and Mixed-
Use Commercial. Typical densities are assumed to vary from
10 to 26 du/ac outside Opportunity Areas and 14 to 36 du/ac inside
Opportunity Areas. Intensity varies from 0.5 FAR in LDR to 1.25 FAR
in HDR.
Redevelopment
Under Alternative C, redevelopment is projected to be between
five and 15 percent outside Opportunity Areas and 10 and 20
percent inside Opportunity Areas.
Capacity
At build-out of this Alternative, the Town could accommodate an
additional 2,303 housing units and 5,527 residents.
Capacity
Redevelopment
Land Use
Designation
Existing
Density
(du/ac)
Density Range (du/ac)Typical Density (du/ac)Intensity
(FAR)Outside OA Inside OA Outside OA Inside OA
LDR 0 to 5 5 to 12 8 to 16 10 14 0.5
MDR 5 to 12 12 to 20 14 to 24 16 20 0.75
HDR 12 to 20 20 to 30 30 to 40 26 36 1.25
NC 0 to 20 0 to 20 20 to 30 18 26 0.75
MU 0 to 20 0 to 20 30 to 40 18 26 1.0
Density and Intensity
Town of Los Gatos General Plan 2040 | Land Use Alternatives Report
18
Alternative D:
High Growth
D
Land Use
Designation
Redevelopment Percent
Outside OA Inside OA
LDR 10%15%
MDR 15%15%
HDR 15%20%
NC 15%15%
MU 15%20%
Net New
Acreage
Net New
Housing Units
Net New
Population
0 3,176 7,622
Density and Intensity
Alternative D is a high-growth alternative that includes increased
density ranges in all areas and additional increases that allow for
higher-density development in Neighborhood Commercial and
Mixed-Use Commercial designations outside Opportunity Areas.
Typical densities are assumed to vary from 10 to 36 du/ac outside
Opportunity Areas and 16 to 36 du/ac inside Opportunity Areas.
Intensity varies from 0.75 FAR in LDR to 1.5 FAR in HDR and MU.
Redevelopment
Under Alternative D redevelopment is projected to be between 10
and 15 percent outside Opportunity Areas and 15 and 20 percent
inside Opportunity Areas.
Capacity
At build-out of this Alternative, the Town could accommodate an
additional 3,176 housing units and 7,622 residents.
Capacity
Redevelopment
Land Use
Designation
Existing
Density
(du/ac)
Density Range (du/ac)Typical Density (du/ac)Intensity
(FAR)Outside OA Inside OA Outside OA Inside OA
LDR 0 to 5 5 to 12 12 to 20 10 16 0.75
MDR 5 to 12 14 to 24 14 to 24 20 20 1.0
HDR 12 to 20 20 to 30 30 to 40 26 36 1.5
NC 0 to 20 20 to 30 20 to 30 26 26 1.0
MU 0 to 20 30 to 40 30 to 40 36 36 1.5
Density and Intensity
19
Figure 4-1:
Capacity at Buildout
by Alternative
Category 2018 Alternative
A*
Alternative
B*
Alternative
C*
Alternative
D*
Population 30,250 33,024 34,788 35,777 37,872
Jobs 20,650 21,930 21,930 21,930 21,930
Housing Units 13,069 14,225 14,960 15,372 16,245
Net New
Housing Units -1,156 1,891 2,303 3,176
Capacity at Buildout
* Alternative totals include 1,140 residents, 1,280 jobs, and 475 housing
units assumed to be created by pending and approved projects.
Town of Los Gatos General Plan 2040 | Land Use Alternatives Report
20
Alternatives Evaluation5
The goal of the land use
alternatives process is to enable
community input and the Town
Council to identify a preferred
land use alternative that is the
basis for the 2040 General Plan
Land Use Diagram. To provide
the community and decision
makers with information on
which to base their preferences
and decisions, this section
includes an evaluation of the four
land use alternatives, organized
under the following topics:
• Housing Affordability
• Fiscal Health
• Transportation
• Community Character
A detailed description of the
methodology used for fiscal
health can be found in the
Appendix.
Population
The four land use alternatives analyzed as part of the Alternatives Report project are
based on different assumptions for density and redevelopment. Alternative A is the
low growth scenario, and projects the lowest population growth. Alternative D uses
the highest assumptions for density and percentage of redevelopment; subsequently,
it includes the highest projected growth. In addition, Town-approved and pending
projects that include new housing units, jobs, and anticipated non-residential square
footage are also added to each alternative. Since these projects are already in the
development pipeline, they do not vary from one alternative to another.
The California Department of Finance (DOF) estimates that the total population in
Los Gatos was approximately 31,000 residents in 2018. Between the four land use
alternatives, the projected population in Los Gatos will range from approximately
33,800 to 38,600 total residents (including those living in group quarters), with
compounded annual growth rates (CAGR) ranging from 0.4 to 1.0 percent (Table 5-1).
The incremental population growth ranges from a low of 2,774 additional residents
under Alternative A (Low Growth) to just under 7,622 additional residents for
Alternative D (High Growth).
Table 5-1: ABAG Population Growth Projections
Population Growth Scenarios
2018
Population
(Estimate)
2040
Population
(Projected)
Growth
2018 to 2040
CAGR
2018-2040
ABAG Projections 2040 31,472 33,050 1,578 0.2%
Alternative A: Low Growth 30,995 33,769 2,774 0.4%
Alternative B: Medium Growth 30,995 35,533 4,538 0.6%
Alternative C: Medium-High Growth 30,995 36,522 5,527 0.7%
Alternative D: High Growth 30,995 38,617 7,622 1.0%
21
By comparison, the Association of Bay Area
Governments (ABAG) projects a population CAGR of
about 0.2 percent. This represents an incremental
growth of about 1,600 additional residents between
2018 and 2040. The ABAG projection is lower than
projected population growth for all of the General Plan
alternatives, including Alternative A. This is due in part
because ABAG benchmarks its projections to 2010
Census counts (the estimated population for 2018 using
the ABAG figures totals just under 31,500), which is
about 500 residents more than the DOF estimate. Figure
5-1 compares the ABAG population growth projection to
total housing capacity under each alternative.
30,000
35,000
40,000
ABAG
ALT. D
ALT. C
ALT. B
ALT. A
2018 2040
Projection
Figure 5-1: ABAG Population Growth Projections
POPULATIONTown of Los Gatos General Plan 2040 | Land Use Alternatives Report
22
Housing Units
According to DOF, Los Gatos had a total inventory of about 13,300 housing
units in 2018, which represented an increase of less than 300 housing
units (0.2 percent CAGR) since 2010. The four land use alternatives project
between about 1,200 (Alternative A) and 3,200 (Alternative D) additional
housing units, with the projected growth rates ranging from 0.4 to 1.0
percent annually.
The General Plan land use alternatives would produce between 1,156 and
3,175 units. Out of all four land use alternatives, only Alternative B (Medium
Growth) falls within the projected demand range with 1,891 units (Figure
5-2).
Housing Affordability
The mix of housing units in the land use alternatives affects the overall
affordability of housing. As discussed in the market demand section (page
6), multi-family units are typically more affordable than single-family units.
Market rate prices and rents are currently unaffordable to many households
in Los Gatos and throughout the Bay Area. The Town has established
a program to require Below Market Price (BMP) units to be included in
housing projects with more than five units in order to increase the supply
of affordable units in Los Gatos. The requirement for BMP units ranges
from 10 percent for small housing projects and up to 20 percent for larger
housing projects. The housing units must be provided at two affordable
income levels: Moderate Income, which is 80 to 100 percent of the median
income, and Low Income, which is 50 to 80 percent of median income. For
2019, the household income levels that meet these thresholds are shown in
Table 5-2.
In the land use alternatives analysis, the average household size is
assumed to be 2.4 persons. At the three-person household level, the
estimated allowable housing sales prices would be approximately $390,000
for those meeting the Low-Income eligibility requirements and BMP rent
would be approximately $2,300 per month. At the Moderate-Income level
for a three-person household, the allowable housing sales price would
be approximately $500,000. For comparison, the median sales price for
homes in Los Gatos this past year exceeded $1.7 million.
Figure 5-2: Market Demand Projections
3,5001,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000
DOF PROJECTION 0.5% GROWTH 1,529 UNITS NEEDED
ADE PROJECTION 0.7% GROWTH 1,954 UNITS NEEDED
ALT. A: 1,156 UNITS
ALT. B: 1,891 UNITS ALT. C: 2,303 UNITS
ALT. D: 3,175 UNITS
UNITS
Table 5-2: Income Thresholds
Household Size
Low-Income Limit at
(80% AMI)
Median-Income Limit at
(100% AMI)
1 person Not eligible Not eligible
2 people $75,600 $100,150
3 people $85,050 $112,700
4 people $94,450 $125,200
5 people $102,050 $135,200
6 people $109,600 $145,250
7 people $117,150 $155,250
December 2019
23
Table 5-2 shows the number of single-family and multi-family housing units in each
alternative and the estimated number of BMP units that may be provided using the
Town’s BMP requirements. The land use projections for the land use alternatives are
not detailed enough to know precisely how many projects of five or more units may be
subject to the BMP ordinance. However, for purposes of this analysis, it is assumed
that all housing units developed at a density of 16 DU/AC or greater would be in projects
large enough to be subject to providing BMPs. This would include most Medium-
Density Residential (MDR) units which may be either single-family or multi-family
housing units, but generally not Low Density single-family housing units. Furthermore,
the analysis assumes the average percentage of BMP units would be 15 percent, which
is the mid-point between the high and the low requirements depending on project size.
On this basis, Alternative D provides not only the highest number of BMP units but also
the highest percentage of BMP units. Alternative B provides the lowest percentage, but
the difference is not large between the first three alternatives as shown in Table 5-3.
Table 5-3: Comparison of Housing Units Type per Alternative
Residential Units Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D
Total 1,156 1,891 2,303 3,175
Single Family 391 328 371 550
Multi-family 765 1,563 1,932 2,625
BMP Units 149 238 293 464
Percent of Total 12.9%12.6%12.7%14.6%
Jobs
All four land use alternatives assume no additional jobs beyond those created within the
pending and approved development projects currently in the pipeline (see Section 2).
The Town has several other land use designations (i.e., Office Professional, Central Business District,
Light Industrial, Public, Service Commercial, etc.) that have the potential for additional employment
capacity. These additional land use designations will be analyzed for additional employment as part
of the Environmental Impact Report after the selection of a Preferred Land Use Alternative.
Town of Los Gatos General Plan 2040 | Land Use Alternatives Report
24
Fiscal Health
It is important to ensure that the future land use mix supports a healthy
fiscal foundation for the Town. As discussed in the Background Report,
different land uses generate different levels of revenue (taxes) and
require different levels of costs (municipal services). Each of the land use
alternatives has been evaluated to determine the cost/revenue balance
at buildout of the land uses. The results are summarized in Table 5-4. The
detailed methodology for this analysis is provided in Chapter 6: Alternatives
Methodology.
Table 5-4: Comparison of Fiscal Impacts of the Alternatives on
Annual Operating Revenues and Costs
Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D
Annual Revenues $4,320,000 $5,796,000 $6,564,000 $8,378,000
Annual Costs $3,710,000 $5,280,000 $6,264,000 $8,413,000
Net Fiscal Impact $610,000 $516,000 $300,000 ($35,000)
Residential Net Impact $190,000 $96,000 ($121,000)($455,000)
Non-residential Net Impact $420,000 $420,000 $420,000 $420,000
Source: ADE, Inc. Note: figures may not exactly add due to rounding.
The figures in the Table 5-4 reflect the annual impact of the incremental
growth in residential and non-residential land uses in each land use
alternative. The figures depicted in Table 5-4 are not the total estimated
Town General Fund budget at buildout, but only the incremental change
generated by new development. The non-residential development is the
same for each alternative, so the variations in performance among the
alternatives is due solely to the changes in residential development.
In general, the more the development in the land use alternative, the higher
the annual revenues would be. However, lower density housing units (Low-
Density Residential) typically have a higher market value than higher-density
units, so the amount of property tax revenues, and to some degree taxable
household spending that generates sales tax, is dependent on the mix of
unit types in each land use alternative.
In contrast, municipal costs are largely driven by the increase in population.
For purposes of the land use alternatives analysis, all housing unit types are
assumed to have the same average household size. Therefore, the bottom-
line cost/revenue balance for each alternative reflects the ratio of aggregate
home values and household incomes to the population it creates.
Alternative A results in the highest net fiscal benefit, at about $610,000
annually. As noted in the housing affordability analysis, this alternative
has the lowest number of BMP housing units and the mix of market rate
units is more balanced between single family and multi-family. Generally,
as the number of residential units goes up in each alternative, the fiscal
benefit decreases, and Alternative D actually shows a small negative fiscal
impact. The mix of units in Alternative B produces a positive fiscal benefit
of $516,000 overall. Alternative C has an overall positive fiscal benefit of
$300,000 per year, but the residential component generates a negative
fiscal impact of -$121,000 per year.
The fiscal health results should be viewed as a relative comparison among
the land use alternatives and considered a best-case scenario over the
long run. In the 2040 Background Report, the fiscal analysis of existing land
uses showed that residential uses require more in-service cost than they
generate in Town revenues. However, that is due to the fact that existing
taxable assessed values are depressed due to the limitations imposed by
Proposition 13. In the current real estate market, residential prices for new
single family housing are high enough to generate sufficient tax revenues
to support current levels of Town services, although multi-family assessed
values still produce a negative fiscal impact. Over time, the revenue
generating potential of the development may decline as Proposition 13
limits the escalation of assessed values compared to the inflation of
municipal service costs.
December 2019
25
Transportation
Establishing Traffic Analysis Zones
This transportation evaluation analyzes vehicle trips and vehicle miles traveled
(VMT) generated by each land use alternative at full buildout. The purpose of the
transportation evaluation is to provide a relative comparison of transportation
effects for each land use alternative in order to support an informed
recommendation on a preferred alternative. Land use decisions have a direct
impact on the transportation network, so as land use changes, so do vehicle
trips and trip-making behaviors.
Planned land use changes that locate supportive land uses in proximity to one
another, as well as the presence of high-quality pedestrian, bicycle, and transit
facilities, support the potential for additional trips to be made by non-vehicle
modes (i.e., walking, biking, transit). As part of the land use alternatives analysis,
non-vehicle transportation modes were evaluated based on the potential for
internal trip making to occur with each land use alternative.
Land use data, representing additional development for each land use
alternative, was provided at the traffic analysis zone (TAZ) level using the Santa
Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) travel model. For the purpose of
this analysis, TAZs were combined into subareas based on the locations of key
intersections and travel corridors, and additional areas that are expected to
experience the most change over the next 20 years. The general locations of the
subareas used in this analysis are described below and shown on Figure 5-3.
Subarea 1: Includes most of the areas north of Bicknell Road and west of
State Route (SR) 17, comprising La Rinconada Country Golf Club and El
Camino Hospital, and covers some areas both north and south of SR 85.
Subarea 2: Includes areas south of Bicknell Road, west of SR 17, and
north of SR 9. It includes Vasona Lake Country Park and Oak Meadow
Park. Winchester Boulevard and University Avenue are the two main
roadways within this subarea providing north-south connectivity.
Subarea 3: Generally covers Downtown Los Gatos south of SR 9 and west
of Los Gatos Boulevard.
Subarea 4: Includes a majority of Los Gatos Boulevard, Live Oak Manor
Park, and Blossom Hill Park.
Subarea 5: Primarily comprised of hillside residential land uses south of
Blossom Hill Road, west of Hicks Road, and east of Los Gatos Boulevard.
The land use alternatives included in this evaluation were developed based
on recommendations from the General Plan Update Advisory Committee
and assume new housing units as part of all alternatives. The alternatives
include increases in housing units mostly within designated Opportunity Areas
that have been identified throughout the Town. Opportunity Areas focus
new development potential within a quarter-mile around key corridors and
intersections throughout Los Gatos. Opportunity Areas are generally located
along or near:
Los Gatos Boulevard between Samaritan Drive and Shannon Road
(Los Gatos Boulevard OA);
Pollard Road/More Avenue intersection (Pollard Road OA);
Winchester Boulevard/Knowles Drive intersection
(Winchester Boulevard OA);
Lark Avenue/University Avenue intersection (Lark Avenue OA);
North Santa Cruz Avenue/Andrews Street intersection
(North Santa Cruz Avenue OA);
Blossom Hill/Harwood Road intersection (Harwood Road OA); and
Union Avenue/Los Gatos-Almaden Road intersection (Union Avenue OA).
Town of Los Gatos General Plan 2040 | Land Use Alternatives Report
26
Pollard Road OA
Winchester Boulevard OA
Lark Avenue OA
Los Gatos
Boulevard OA
Union Avenue OA
Harwood Avenue OA
North Santa
Cruz Avenue OA
Figure 5-3:
Traffic Analysis
Subareas
December 2019
27
Table 5-5 summarizes the development potential for a number of new housing
units and presents the total land use change for each alternative for the Town of
Los Gatos.
The housing unit figures in Table 5-5 only account for new housing unit potential
and does not include anticipated housing units from Town pending and approved
projects.
The growth associated with each of the land use alternatives at full build-out
would change the total population of the Town. Service population refers to the
total number of people that the Town serves, or the number of people who live
and work in Los Gatos. Table 5-6 presents the service population for Los Gatos by
land use alternative. Since each of the four land use alternatives only assume new
housing units, the total number of jobs remains constant at approximately 22,000.
Methods
Trip generation and VMT metrics for land use alternatives were evaluated
using the MainStreet transportation analysis program, which was developed
by Fehr & Peers. The MainStreet program applies the US Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) approved methodology (MXD+) for the determination
of trip generation reductions versus traditional estimates prepared only using
rates from the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ Trip Generation Manual,
which is associated with the placement of compatible land uses in proximity
to one another as well as the presence of high-quality pedestrian, bicycle, and
transit facilities. By considering the local and regional context of land uses,
MainStreet produces more accurate estimates than traditional methods.
Additionally, the MainStreet program uses trip length data (by trip purpose)
from the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) travel demand
model and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) travel demand
model to calculate VMT generated by different alternatives.
The results of the MainStreet trip generation and VMT analysis are one indicator
of the potential transportation and environmental effects on the rest of the Town
and surrounding area. The analysis evaluates whether the existing transportation
network can accommodate the anticipated transportation needs associated
with each land use alternative. The evaluation was conducted by estimating the
amount of traffic generated by each land use alternative on both a Townwide and
TAZ subarea basis.
Table 5-5: Development Potential (New Housing Units)
Subarea Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D
Subarea 1 211 338 446 650
Subarea 2 181 304 426 543
Subarea 3 65 178 186 325
Subarea 4 216 574 732 1,134
Subarea 5 8 22 38 49
Total 681 1,416 1,828 2,701
Source: Mintier Harnish, 2019.
Table 5-6: Service Population by Alternative1
Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D
Population 33,000 35,000 36,000 38,000
Jobs 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000
Service Population2 55,000 57,000 58,000 60,000
Notes:
1. Rounded to the nearest thousand.
2. Service population = population + jobs
Source: Mintier Harnish, 2019.
Service population refers to the total number of
people that the Town serves, or the total number
of people who live and work in Los Gatos.
Town of Los Gatos General Plan 2040 | Land Use Alternatives Report
28
Vehicle Trip Estimates
This section provides a summary of the weekday vehicle trip generation
estimates for the four land use alternatives. The number of vehicle trips
generated by all land uses in Los Gatos were used to estimate how changes in
land use patterns may affect vehicle trips on the local roadway system. Land
use data (representing additional development for each alternative), pending and
approved projects, and existing land uses from the VTA travel model were used
to develop the estimated vehicle trips that would be generated by all land uses in
Los Gatos.
The amount of vehicle traffic generated under each alternative was estimated
by applying average trip generation rates from the Institute of Transportation
Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition (September 2017) to
the various land use types, estimating the number of weekday daily, morning
(AM) peak hour, and evening (PM) peak hour vehicle trips. The resulting
trip generation estimates for all land uses in Los Gatos by alternative are
summarized in Table 5-7.
In Los Gatos, the total daily and peak hour vehicle trips are estimated to increase
as the number of housing units increase across the four land use alternatives.
Alternative A at full build-out would add approximately 1,150 new housing units
in the Town. When compared to Alternative A, Alternative D would result in
a three percent (600 to 750) increase in peak hour vehicle trips. Alternative D
would generate the most traffic, primarily due to the addition of 3,170 new
housing units. Overall, the four land use alternatives are very similar, with only
minor differences between total peak hour trips.
Table 5-7: Total Daily and Peak Hour Vehicle Trips
Generated from Land Uses
Land Use Alternative Total Daily
Trips1
Peak Hour AM
Trips2
Peak Hour PM
Trips2
Alternative A 285,000 21,440 29,470
Alternative B 288,000 21,660 29,750
Alternative C 290,000 21,770 29,890
Alternative D 294,000 22,050 30,220
Notes:
1. Rounded to the nearest thousand.
2. Rounded to the nearest hundred.
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2019.
Intersection Operations
The existing peak hour operations of the key intersections during the morning
and evening peak hours from the 2040 General Plan Background Report are
presented in Table 5-8.
Table 5-8: Existing Intersection Levels of Service
ID Intersection Peak Hour2 Delay LOS3
1 Winchester Boulevard and Lark Avenue AM
PM
29.1
17.9
C
B
2 Los Gatos Boulevard and Samaritan Drive AM
PM
32.9
32.2
C
C
3 Los Gatos Boulevard and Lark Avenue AM
PM
49.0
37.1
D
D
4 Los Gatos Boulevard and Blossom Hill
Road
AM
PM
34.4
33.2
C
C
5 Los Gatos Boulevard and Los Gatos-
Saratoga Road
AM
PM
22.8
22.4
C
C
6 Los Gatos-Saratoga Road and University
Avenue1
AM
PM
37.6
32.1
D
C
7 N. Santa Cruz Avenue and Los Gatos-
Saratoga Road1
AM
PM
45.0
32.3
D
C
8 N. Santa Cruz-Winchester Boulevard and
Blossom Hill- Mariposa Road
AM
PM
24.9
22.2
C
C
9 Main Street and N. Santa Cruz Avenue AM
PM
20.0
33.5
C
C
10 Main Street and University Avenue AM
PM
14.9
19.3
B
B
Notes:
1. Denotes Congestion Management Program (CMP) facility
2. AM = morning, PM = evening
3. LOS calculations conducted using the TRAFFIX level of service analysis software package, which
applies the method described in the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual.
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2019.
LOS. Level of Service. Measures the quality of vehicle traffic service.
Used to analyze roadways and intersections by assigning quality
levels of traffic based on measures of speed, density, and congestion.
December 2019
29
Based on the total daily and peak hour vehicle trip estimates developed in
the previous section, a qualitative analysis was performed as an indicator
of the relative changes in traffic that might travel through the Town’s study
intersections (see Table 5-9). Expected vehicle traffic increases are presented
qualitatively using the following symbols:
■ = small increase (intersections would likely not experience noticeable
change)
■■ = moderate increase (intersections may experience some noticeable
change but would likely continue to operate with similar LOS)
■■■ = substantial increase (intersections would experience noticeable
change and would operate near, at, or over capacity)
Table 5-9: Traffic Congestion Increase Levels
ID Intersection Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D
1 Winchester Boulevard and Lark Avenue ■■■ ■■ ■
2 Los Gatos Boulevard and Samaritan Drive ■■ ■■ ■■ ■
3 Los Gatos Boulevard and Lark Avenue ■ ■■ ■■ ■■ ■
4 Los Gatos Boulevard and Blossom Hill
Road
■ ■■ ■■ ■■ ■
5 Los Gatos Boulevard and Los Gatos-
Saratoga Road
■■■■
6 Los Gatos-Saratoga Road and University
Avenue1
■■■■
7 N. Santa Cruz Avenue and Los Gatos-
Saratoga Road1
■■■■
8 N. Santa Cruz-Winchester Boulevard and
Blossom Hill- Mariposa Road
■■■■
9 Main Street and N. Santa Cruz Avenue ■■■■
10 Main Street and University Avenue ■■■■
Notes:
1. Denotes Congestion Management Program (CMP) facility
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2019.
Vehicle traffic generated by new development under each of land use
alternatives would substantially increase congestion if it adds substantial
amounts of traffic to the intersections operating near, at, or over capacity (LOS
D, E, or F). Since substantial amounts of vehicle traffic would not be generated
from the full build-out of each alternative, none of the alternatives would add
substantial amounts of growth or traffic to the study intersections in Los Gatos.
However, the intersections of Winchester Boulevard/Lark Avenue, Los Gatos
Boulevard/Samaritan Drive, Los Gatos Boulevard/Lark Avenue, and Los Gatos
Boulevard/Blossom Hill Road would likely experience moderate increases in
congestion levels mostly due to the additional housing units being considered
near these intersections.
Vehicle Miles Traveled Estimates
Vehicle miles traveled, or VMT, measures the total amount of vehicular travel
for a specific area and is a new metric used to analyze potential air quality
and greenhouse gas impacts. To calculate VMT, the number of vehicle trips
generated by development in a land use type is multiplied by the average trip
length (see Methods section on page 28 for more information). Importantly,
State law requires all lead agencies, such as Los Gatos, to change from
vehicle level-of-service (LOS) to VMT as the primary method for measuring
transportation impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
VMT can be expressed in absolute terms or as an efficiency metric, like total
VMT per service population (i.e., population plus employment), which divides
total VMT by the total population being served. As part of the evaluation, a
comparison of VMT per service population was included for each land use
alternative. Table 5-10 summarizes the total daily, morning, and evening peak
hour VMT and VMT per service population for the four land use alternatives.
As observed in the evaluation of vehicle trips generated by the four land use
alternatives, the daily and peak hour VMT estimates increase as the number of
housing units for each alternative increase. The analysis shows that the total
daily and peak hour VMT in Los Gatos would be the lowest with the full build
out of Alternative A (approximately three percent less daily and peak hour VMT
than Alternative D). However, from a VMT efficiency perspective, Alternative D
performs the best with an estimated 21.48 VMT per service population as
compared with an estimated 22.65 VMT per service population in Alternative A.
Town of Los Gatos General Plan 2040 | Land Use Alternatives Report
30
The decrease in VMT per service population can be attributed to the
intensification of housing units in Opportunity Areas, which has the potential to
make taking transit, walking, and biking more viable options. Most of the new
development proposed in the four land use alternatives concentrates housing
near other compatible land uses, such as retail along Los Gatos Boulevard, as
well as near existing bicycle facilities along Los Gatos Boulevard, and existing
transit, such as the bus stops along Winchester Boulevard. Locating housing
near other compatible land uses supports additional trips to be made by non-
vehicle modes, such as walking, biking, or taking transit. While all four land use
alternatives are actually very similar to one another, Alternative D would have
the highest potential for internal trip making to occur and would see the highest
shifts to non-vehicle transportation modes, like walking, biking, or taking transit.
Table 5-10: Total Daily and Peak Hours Vehicle Miles Traveled1
Land Use
Alternative
Total Daily
VMT1
Peak Hour
AM VMT1
Peak Hour
PM VMT1
VMT per
Service
Population2
Alternative A 1,245,000 128,600 147,400 22.65
Alternative B 1,259,000 130,000 148,800 22.20
Alternative C 1,267,000 130,700 149,500 21.95
Alternative D 1,284,000 132,300 151,100 21.48
Notes:
1. Total daily and peak hour VMT represent high-level estimates for each land use alternative in the
Town of Los Gatos. They are primarily intended to show the relative differences in travel activity
that would occur with each land use alternative. Rounded to the nearest thousands.
2. Service population = population + jobs
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2019.
December 2019
31
Community Character and Urban Form
range within each of the four land use alternatives. The visual images for
Alternatives A-C at Site 3 depict similar scale projects currently found in Los
Gatos. This was done to provide more relevant community examples. Alternative
D for Site 3 includes a sample project from Southern California as an example.
Key Takeaways
The following are a few key takeaways from the potential development
representations:
Horizontal vs. Vertical Mixed Use. Since Alternative A includes the lowest
density (dwelling units per acre) and FAR, potential mixed-use projects
would most likely use a horizontal mixed-use development model. The
horizontal mixed-use development model means that different uses
onsite are not stacked vertically (e.g., housing above commercial), but are
separate standalone uses on a single site. For example, commercial tenant
spaces would abut the street while housing units would be located at the
rear of a site to shield them from noise generated by traffic. The type of
mixed-use development for Alternatives B, C, and D is a vertical mixed-use
development model since all three alternatives have height limits at or above
three stories and an increased FAR. For example, different uses could be
integrated into one building, with commercial tenants on the bottom floor,
and office and housing on higher floors.
Parking. The parking shown for each of the potential development
representations was calculated based on current Town parking standards.
Modifications to the parking standards may need to occur if there are
changes to the density and FAR of specific land use designations. In order
to adequately address the current Town parking requirements, a variety
of parking methods are presented in the visualizations, including surface
parking (i.e., parking lots) and structured parking (i.e., podium parking,
parking garage).
Density and FAR Correlation. When the FAR is higher, but the overall
assumed density stays constant, the average gross square footage per unit
is typically larger. This is most apparent when Alternative B is compared to
Alternative A and Alternative D is compared to Alternative C. For example,
for Location 2 increasing the intensity by 0.25 FAR and retaining the
assumed density of 26 du/acre, increases the average unit size by 425
square feet to 1,225 square feet.
The design and character of the built environment, including buildings and public
infrastructure, influence the way people experience a community and remember
it. These features play an important role in creating a distinctive identity of the
community and influence the quality of life of the residents. They can also have
a considerable impact on economic development, community health, safety, and
vitality. Understanding how community character and design influence the quality
of life of residents will inform decision-making on how the Town develops into
the future to fulfill the needs of its residents and enhance it as a place to live and
work.
The four land use alternatives could have varying effects on the overall
character and identity of Los Gatos. This is largely because the areas where
the most transformational changes are anticipated are along heavily-traveled
and locally-recognized corridors and intersections, most of which are included
in the designated Opportunity Areas. These Opportunity Areas are meant to
accommodate more concentrated development where the infrastructure is
currently able to support that growth. Development within each Opportunity
Area increases in density moving from Alternative A to Alternative D. Therefore,
Alternative D would allow for taller buildings and a higher FAR to accommodate
more residential units in the same area.
Alternatives Development
Representations
As part of the land use alternatives analysis, three locations within Opportunity
Areas in Town were selected to provide a visual representation of what a potential
development might look like given the development parameters (i.e., density,
intensity) of each land use alternative. When creating potential development
representations, the following site factors were taken into consideration:
Access from the street;
Relationship to the primary street with the goal of creating a pedestrian-
friendly environment;
Compatibility with adjacent development; and
Opportunities for creating common outdoor areas, community gathering
spaces, and in the case of Site 1, a potential future street connection.
Of the three selected locations, Sites 1 and 2 have visualizations of a
potential development and an example of what its urban form could be. Site
3 photographs of development that would be consistent with the density
Town of Los Gatos General Plan 2040 | Land Use Alternatives Report
32
Site 1: Corner of Los Gatos Boulevard and Los Gatos Almaden Road
Land Use Designation: Mixed-Use Commercial
Current Use: Vacant Auto Dealership
December 2019
33
Alternative A
Commercial: 27,900 sq.ft. (existing)
Density: 18 du/ac
FAR: 0.50
Max Floors: 2
Area per Unit: 650 sq.ft.
Alternative B
Commercial: 27,900 sq.ft. (existing)
Density: 26 du/ac
FAR: 0.75
Max Floors: 3-4
Area per Unit: 850 sq.ft.
Site 1: Corner of Los Gatos Boulevard and Los Gatos Almaden Road
Land Use Designation: Mixed-Use Commercial
Current Use: Vacant Auto Dealership
A B
A B
Town of Los Gatos General Plan 2040 | Land Use Alternatives Report
34
Alternative C
Commercial: 27,900 sq.ft. (existing)
Density: 26 du/ac
FAR: 1.0
Max Floors: 4
Area per Unit: 1,290 sq.ft.
Alternative D
Commercial: 27,900 sq.ft. (existing)
Density: 26 du/ac
FAR: 1.5
Max Floors: 5
Area per Unit: 2,120 sq.ft.
Site 1: Corner of Los Gatos Boulevard and Los Gatos Almaden Road
Land Use Designation: Mixed-Use Commercial
Current Use: Vacant Auto Dealership
C D
C D
December 2019
35
Site 2: Pollard Road at More Avenue
Land Use Designation: Neighborhood Commercial
Current Use: Shopping Center with a Safeway Grocery Store
Town of Los Gatos General Plan 2040 | Land Use Alternatives Report
36
Alternative A
Commercial: 66,800 sq.ft. (existing)
Density: 18 du/ac
FAR: 0.50
Max Floors: 2
Area per Unit: 560 sq.ft.
Alternative B
Commercial: 66,800 sq.ft. (existing)
Density: 26 du/ac
FAR: 0.75
Max Floors: 3-4
Area per Unit: 1,160 sq.ft.
Site 2: Pollard Road at More Avenue
Land Use Designation: Neighborhood Commercial
Current Use: Shopping Center with a Safeway Grocery Store
A B
A B
December 2019
37
Alternative C
Commercial: 27,900 sq.ft. (existing)
Density: 26 du/ac
FAR: 1.0
Max Floors: 4
Area per Unit: 1,290 sq.ft.
Alternative D
Commercial: 27,900 sq.ft. (existing)
Density: 26 du/ac
FAR: 1.5
Max Floors: 5
Area per Unit: 2,120 sq.ft.
C D
C D
Site 2: Pollard Road at More Avenue
Land Use Designation: Neighborhood Commercial
Current Use: Shopping Center with a Safeway Grocery Store
Town of Los Gatos General Plan 2040 | Land Use Alternatives Report
38
Site 3: Corner of University Avenue and Towne Terrace
Land Use Designation: High-Density Residential
Current Use: Apartments
December 2019
39
Alternative A
Density: 26 DU/acre
Max Floors: 2
Location: Los Gatos, CA
Street: Blossom Hill Road
Alternative B
Density: 26 DU/acre
Max Floors: 3-4
Location: Los Gatos, CA
Street: Edelen Avenue
Alternative C
Density: 36 DU/acre
Max Floors: 4
Location: Los Gatos, CA
Street: Riviera Drive
Alternative D
Density: 36 DU/acre
Max Floors: 5
Location: Pasadena, CA
Street: Union Street
Site 3: Corner of University Avenue and Towne Terrace
Land Use Designation: High-Density Residential
Current Use: Apartments
A B
C D
Town of Los Gatos General Plan 2040 | Land Use Alternatives Report
40
A
This appendix provides
a description of the
methodology used to
determine total housing,
and population for each
land use alternative,
followed by a description
of the methodology used
in the fiscal analysis.
Development Capacity Methodology
This section provides a description of the methodology used to determine total
housing, population, and employment capacity for each of the land use alternatives.
The purpose of this methodology is to support a “development capacity” analysis of
the Town’s Planning Area under each of the four alternatives. Development capacity,
as used in this report, is an estimate of the total housing units, population, and
non-residential building square footage calculated based on a set of development
assumptions and calculations. It is important to note that a development capacity
analysis reflects a theoretical buildout of the available vacant land and parcels with
redevelopment potential that are within the Planning Area. It is unlikely that all of
the calculated potential development will be realized by 2040. In this analysis, four
basic land use alternatives were prepared. The Low Growth Alternative reflects
the Town’s existing General Plan relative to development density and intensity.
Alternatives B, C, and D represent increasing density and intensity, increasing as you
move from the lower to the higher alternative.
Alternative A, Low Growth
Alternative B, Medium Growth
Alternative C, Medium High Growth
Alternative D, High Growth
The following discussion provides an overview of the steps involved in producing
the development capacity analysis.
A
B
C
D
Appendix:
Alternatives Methodology
41
Step 1: Scope of Analysis
The land use alternatives included in this evaluation were developed based on
recommendations from the General Plan Update Advisory Committee (GPAC).
Following GPACs recommendation, the Consultants identified five land use
designations that could have potential for future development and should be
evaluated in this analysis. The development capacity analysis focused on
development within these designations:
Low-Density Residential (LDR)
Medium-Density Residential (MDR)
High-Density Residential (HDR)
Neighborhood Commercial (NC)
Mixed-Use Commercial (MU)
Areas not included in the analysis are those designated Hillside Residential,
Mobile Home Park, Office Professional, Service Commercial, Central Business
District (downtown), Light Industrial, Public, and Open Space.
To determine development potential, the development capacity analysis looked
at development of existing vacant parcels as well as the redevelopment and/or
intensification of some areas that contain development currently within the five
identified land use designations.
Step 2: Vacant Land
To identify vacant parcels in each of the five land use designations being
analyzed, parcel data from the Santa Clara County Assessor’s Office was used.
Using the geographic information system (GIS) data provided by the Assessor,
parcels with a tax use code of “Vacant” were identified. These sites were then
visually reviewed against aerial photography to confirm that the site was truly
vacant. Once verified, the attributes of the vacant land GIS data were exported
into an Excel spreadsheet for the analysis.
Step 3: Opportunity Areas
In addition to analyzing vacant parcels, the development capacity analysis also
examined the redevelopment potential of locations with existing development.
Within these developed areas, locations that could support more intensive uses
were identified based on location, access, infrastructure, roadway capacity,
and surrounding land uses. These locations were identified and defined as
“Opportunity Areas.” Parcels within designated Opportunity Areas (OA) are
assumed to have a higher potential redevelopment percentage and the ability
to support increased density ranges (and higher maximum building heights)
for residential and increased intensity for non-residential uses, expressed by
increasing the allowed floor area ratio (FAR).
If a parcel is designated Neighborhood Commercial or Mixed-Use Commerical,
it was assumed that square footage of existing commercial uses would remain
(as currently built or as a replacement) and residential will be added to the site,
therefore, there will be no net commercial loss as part of the redevelopment
assumptions.
Step 4: Redevelopment
The analysis also evaluated the potential for existing developed areas to
redevelop (e.g., remove an existing home and replace it with more units, such as
a duplex or triplex), or increase the use of a parcel (e.g., adding additional units
on a parcel with an existing home). This potential, expressed as a percentage
of the total area evaluated was applied to areas both inside and outside the
Opportunity Areas identified.
Step 5: Development Assumptions
All parcels inside and outside the Opportunity Areas, including vacant parcels,
were assigned a set of development assumptions that were specific to the four
land use alternatives. The following tables show the development assumptions
for redevelopment, density, typical density, and FAR for each alternative. On
each table, the following headings are shown:
Redevelopment Percent. This column states what percentage of the total
area under each land use designation is assumed to be redeveloped within
the 2040 planning period. The percentage shown provides numbers of
parcels outside the Opportunity Areas (Outside OA) and those inside the
Opportunity Areas (Inside OA).
Town of Los Gatos General Plan 2040 | Land Use Alternatives Report
42
Land Use Designation
Alternative A: Low Growth
Redevelopment Percent Density Range (DU/AC)Typical Density (DU/AC)FAROutside OA Inside OA Outside OA Inside OA Outside OA Inside OA
LDR 5%5%0 to 5 5 to 12 4 10 0.25
MDR 5%10%5 to 12 12 to 20 10 16 0.5
HDR 10%10%12 to 20 20 to 30 18 26 0.75
NC 5%5%0 to 20 10 to 20 18 18 0.5
MU 5%5%0 to 20 10 to 20 18 18 0.5
Land Use Designation
Alternative B: Medium Growth
Redevelopment Percent Density Range (DU/AC)Typical Density (DU/AC)FAROutside OA Inside OA Outside OA Inside OA Outside OA Inside OA
LDR 5%5%5 to 12 8 to 16 10 14 0.25
MDR 10%10%12 to 20 14 to 24 16 20 0.75
HDR 10%10%20 to 30 20 to 30 26 26 1
NC 10%10%0 to 20 10 to 20 18 18 0.75
MU 10%15%0 to 20 20 to 30 18 26 0.75
Land Use Designation
Alternative C: Medium-High Growth
Redevelopment Percent Density Range (DU/AC)Typical Density (DU/AC)FAROutside OA Inside OA Outside OA Inside OA Outside OA Inside OA
LDR 5%10% 5 to 12 8 to 16 10 14 0.5
MDR 10%10%12 to 20 14 to 24 16 20 0.75
HDR 15%15%20 to 30 30 to 40 26 36 1.25
NC 10%15%0 to 20 20 to 30 18 26 0.75
MU 10%20%0 to 20 30 to 40 18 26 1
Land Use Designation
Alternative D: High Growth
Redevelopment Percent Density Range (DU/AC)Typical Density (DU/AC)FAROutside OA Inside OA Outside OA Inside OA Outside OA Inside OA
LDR 10%15% 5 to 12 12 to 20 10 16 0.75
MDR 15%15%14 to 24 14 to 24 20 20 1
HDR 15%20%20 to 30 30 to 40 26 36 1.5
NC 15%15%20 to 30 20 to 30 26 26 1
MU 15%20%30 to 40 30 to 40 36 36 1.5
Density Range (DU/AC). This column states the
density range for residential that was assumed
for each alternative. Density is expressed as the
number of dwelling units per acre (DU/AC).
Typical Density. For development, on average,
maximum density/intensity is not usually
obtained. For the analysis, a density that
estimates the “typical” density was developed.
Typical density was based on previous Town
projects that were of similar size and scope
to potential development in the land use
alternatives. This is the number that is used in the
analysis for residential development.
FAR. Floor Area Ratio is a measure of intensity
that is used to define the total building area
allowed on a site. See page 4 for further
information on FAR.
Structure height varies between each of the four land
use alternatives depending on the specific land use
designation and FAR. The potential maximum allowed
height for the five land use designations in Alternative
A is two stories, Alternative B is three to four stories,
Alternative C is four stories, and Alternative D is five
stories. A visual example of potential developments
at these height intervals is provided in the Community
Character and Urban Form section on pages 34, 35, 37,
and 38.
December 2019
43
Step 6: Residential Potential
After applying the development assumptions for each of the four land use
alternatives, the potential number of new housing units and population were
calculated. The number of new housing units in each alternative was calculated
by multiplying the typical density by the number of acres of each parcel being
analyzed. For example, if a parcel was one acre in size and the typical density
was 12 DU/AC, then the total potential housing units would be 12 units.
When calculating the population, the estimated number of persons per
household for Los Gatos (based on data from the California Department of
Finance), which is 2.4 persons per unit, was multiplied by the number of units
projected. The following is a summary of the net new housing units and
population for each alternative.
Alternative A:
Low Growth
Net New
Housing Units Population
681 1,634
Alternative B:
Medium Growth
Net New
Housing Units Population
1,416 3,398
Alternative C:
Medium-High Growth
Net New
Housing Units Population
1,828 4,387
Alternative D:
High Growth
Net New
Housing Units Population
2,701 6,482
Step 7: Pending and Approved Projects
In addition to the net new housing units and population figures (from Step 6),
new housing units, population, jobs, and non-residential square footage based
on pending and approved Town projects were also added to the total potential.
Town staff provided the Consultants a list Town approved and pending projects
earlier in 2019 to inform this process.
Calculating new population for pending and approved projects used the same
process for calculating the net new population. Non-residential square footage
was provided by Town staff on a project by project basis. To estimate the
number of jobs for non-residential projects, the Consultants used an employee
per square footage assumption based on current best practice (see below)
and divided the non-residential square footage per project by the employee
assumption. For example, if the assumption is 500 square feet per employee
for commercial and a commercial project has 10,000 square feet of retail, the
estimated number of jobs for that use would be 20 jobs. Below is a summary of
the net new housing units, population, jobs, and non-residential square footage
for the Town identified pending and approved projects.
Employee Per Square Foot Assumptions
Office Retail Institutional Industrial
350 500 700 1,000
Pending and
Approved Town
Projects
Net New
Housing Units Population Jobs Non-Residential
Square Footage
475 1,140 1,280 671,768
Town of Los Gatos General Plan 2040 | Land Use Alternatives Report
44
Step 8: Results
After calculating the net new figures from the pending and approved projects,
the Consultants added them to the existing (2018) Los Gatos housing units,
population, and jobs totals, as well as the net new totals for each of the four land
use alternatives. These combined totals provide a snapshot of the Townwide
buildout of parcels within the five land use designations selected for analysis
by the GPAC. The following is a summary of the Townwide net new population,
housing units, and jobs by land use alternative.
Category Existing
(2018)**Alt A*Alt B*Alt C*Alt D*
Population 30,250 33,024 34,788 35,777 37,872
Jobs 20,650 21,930 21,930 21,930 21,930
Housing Units 13,069 14,225 14,960 15,372 16,245
Notes:
*Totals include the pending and approved projects
**Existing data is from the American Community Survey, 2018
December 2019
45
Fiscal Analysis Methodology
The fiscal analysis of the land use alternatives is based on estimates derived
from the Town FY 2019-2020 General Fund budget and the analysis of how
different land uses affect Town service cost and tax revenues, as described in
the Los Gatos Today Chapter of the General Plan Background Report published
in March 2019. This section describes these calculations in more detail.
The analysis allocates major revenues such as the property tax, sales tax and
transient occupancy tax (TOT) to land uses based on estimated socioeconomic
characteristics of the land uses and the legislative tax formulas. Other revenues
and most service costs are allocated based on per capita formulas using the
existing budget data and population and employment levels in Los Gatos. Each
section below describes the major assumptions and data sources used for each
revenue and cost category.
Property Tax
Property tax is based on projected market values for future development
shown in the table to the right (Projected Assessed Values by Land Use). The
Consultants researched prices for real estate sales transactions over the past
two years in Los Gatos. During that time, there were approximately 440 sales
transactions for properties in the land use types and density ranges and included
in the General Plan alternatives.
While property owners pay a total base property tax of one percent of assessed
value, the Town receives an estimated 9.3 percent of this revenue. The
remaining property tax revenue is distributed to the County and various other
taxing agencies, most notably local school districts, in the area.
In addition to the base property tax, the Town receives property tax in lieu of
vehicle license fees directly from the state. These revenues are based on annual
increases in assessed value in each Town and are equal to nearly 21.8 percent
of base tax revenues for Los Gatos.
Projected Assessed Values by Land Use
Land Use Assessed Value
Residential Per Unit
Single Family (Density)
(4 du/ac)$2,254,000
(10 du/ac)$2,031,000
(14 du/ac)$1,660,000
(16 du/ac)$1,511,000
Multi-Family
(18 du/ac)$1,343,000
(20 du/ac)$1,048,000
(26 du/ac)$1,165,000
(36 du/ac)$910,000
BMP Units
Low Income $385,000
Moderate Income $510,000
Non-Residential Per Sq. Ft.
Commercial $1,086
Industrial $200
Office $556
Institutional $189
Source: ADE,2019, based on property transaction data for 2017-2019
reported by CoreLogic ListSource.
Town of Los Gatos General Plan 2040 | Land Use Alternatives Report
46
Sales Tax
The Town receives 1.125 percent of taxable sales that occur within the Town
limits. In the Background Report, the Consultants estimated that approximately
25 percent of total retail demand leaves Los Gatos as households and
businesses shop at other retail centers in the regional market area.
Based on the projected home prices and rent levels for the housing units in the
land use alternatives, the Consultants estimated household income levels and
calculated the amount of taxable retail sales from each income segment shown
in the table below (Estimated Household Incomes and Sales Tax Generation
Rates).
Estimated Household Incomes and Sales Tax Generation Rates
Residential
Land Use
Categories
Sales Price
Homeowners Renters
Spent in Los
Gatos
Sales Tax per
HouseholdHousehold
Income
Retail Sales %
of Income Taxable Sales
Renter
Household
Income
Retail Sales Taxable Sales
Single Family
(4 du/ac)$2,254,000 $498,200 21.0%65.7%75.0%$580
(10 du/ac)$2,031,000 $448,900 21.0%65.7%75.0%$523
(14 du/ac)$1,660,000 $366,900 21.0%65.7%75.0%$427
(16 du/ac)$1,511,000 $334,000 21.0%65.7%75.0%$389
Multi-Family
(18 du/ac)$1,343,000 $296,800 21.0%65.7%$88,209 34.0%85.0%75.0%$241
(20 du/ac)$1,048,000 $231,600 21.0%65.7%$88,209 34.0%85.0%75.0%$226
(26 du/ac)$1,165,000 $257,500 21.0%65.7%$88,209 34.0%84.0%75.0%$230
(36 du/ac)$910,000 $201,100 21.0%65.7%$88,209 34.0%84.0%75.0%$217
BMP Low $385,000 $85,050 29.8%69.5%$85,050 34.7%84.0%75.0%$197
BMP Moderate $510,000 $112,700 28.8%69.1%$112,700 34.7%84.0%75.0%$260
Source: ADE, 2019. Homeowner incomes based on qualifying income for 30 year mortgage at 3.9% with 10% down payment and housing costs, including taxes and insurance, at 33% of income. Rents assumed to
average $2,575 per month. The sales tax per household assumes 80% renters and 20% homeowners for the multi-family units.
For non-residential projects in the land use alternatives, the sales tax generation
rates are based on the analysis of existing sales tax in the Background Report.
In the fiscal calculations, the sales tax attributed to retail/commercial excludes
sales tax generated by Los Gatos households. This was done to avoid double
counting household revenues. The remaining taxable sales from retail/
commercial are generated by non-Los Gatos households, visitor spending, and
business to business transactions. Office, industrial, and institutional taxable
sales are point of sale transactions at those places of business.
December 2019
47
Other Revenues and Costs
Other revenues and the Town service costs are projected
on a per capita basis. Residents in Town generate twice
the service demand per person as do the jobs supported
by businesses in Town. This rule of thumb was developed
through a fiscal impact methodology based on the data
that nighttime residents are present at least 16 hours in
a 24-hour day while those that commute into Town for
employment only occupy 8-hour shifts. With the 2019
population in Los Gatos of 30,988 and an estimated job
base of 19,667 jobs, this results in about 74.8 percent
of Town service costs allocated to residential uses and
23.7 percent to non-residential uses. The remaining
1.5 percent are allocated to visitors based on the number
of hotel rooms in Town. These percentages and the
resulting per capita revenue and cost factors are shown in
the table on the right (Per Capita Cost and Revenue Factors
by Major Land Use).
Intergovernmental revenues, including the gas tax, tend to
be allocated based on residential population only. General
Government Costs are not allocated on a per capita basis
but are applied as an overhead charge to other costs for
each land use. General Government includes the Town
management functions, finance, human resources, Town
Clerk, Town Attorney, and other similar functions. Overall,
these services represent about 20 percent of the total
General Fund expenditures for Los Gatos.
The detailed fiscal projections for each alternative are
shown in the tables on the following pages.
Per Capita Cost and Revenue Factors by Major Land Use
Budget Category
Residential Business
Percent
Allocation
Per Capita
Factor
Percent
Allocation
Per Capita
Factor
Revenues
Franchise Fees 76%$60.51 24%$29.66
Other taxes 76%$34.46 24%$16.89
Intergovernmental 100%$31.57 0%$0.00
Town Services 76%$106.54 24%$52.22
Fines and Forfeitures 75%$11.68 24%$5.84
Other Revenues 76%$8.77 24%$4.30
Debt Service Reimbursements 76%$0.00 24%$0.00
Transfers in 76%$13.26 24%$6.50
Expenditures
Community Development 76%$141.78 24%$69.50
Library 76%$72.24 24%$35.41
Parks and Public Works 75%$60.63 24%$30.31
Debt Payments 76%$0.00 24%$0.00
Transfers Out 76%$190.83 24%$93.54
Franchise Fees 76%$60.51 24%$29.66
Other taxes 76%$34.46 24%$16.89
Source: ADE, 2019.
Town of Los Gatos General Plan 2040 | Land Use Alternatives Report
48
Alternative A
Total Single Family Multi-Family Commercial Industrial Office Institutional
REVENUES
Property Tax $1,858,702 $599,216 $772,109 $391,559 $29,284 $60,067 $6,467
Property Tax in lieu of VLF $497,736 $160,462 $206,761 $104,854 $7,842 $16,085 $1,732
Sales Tax $720,812 $169,312 $184,914 $290,125 $11,293 $64,645 $524
Franchise Fees $207,580 $56,645 $111,101 $23,001 $6,671 $9,852 $310
Transient Occupancy Tax $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Other taxes $118,206 $32,256 $63,266 $13,098 $3,799 $5,610 $176
Licenses and Permits $285,597 $77,934 $152,858 $31,646 $9,179 $13,555 $426
Intergovernmental $87,501 $29,548 $57,954 $0 $0 $0 $0
Town Services $365,454 $99,726 $195,599 $40,494 $11,745 $17,345 $545
Fines and Forfeitures $40,213 $10,931 $21,440 $4,528 $1,313 $1,939 $61
Interest Earnings and Rents $62,721 $18,513 $26,613 $13,372 $1,231 $2,839 $153
Other Revenues $30,072 $8,206 $16,095 $3,332 $966 $1,427 $45
Transfers in $45,470 $12,408 $24,337 $5,038 $1,461 $2,158 $68
TOTAL REVENUES $4,320,066 $1,275,158 $1,833,048 $921,048 $84,785 $195,521 $10,507
EXPENDITURES
General Government $629,157 $167,134 $327,811 $90,283 $17,380 $25,712 $836
Community Development $505,602 $132,714 $260,301 $80,834 $12,504 $18,523 $726
Police Dept.$1,463,870 $382,651 $750,519 $237,738 $36,776 $54,478 $1,707
Library $247,812 $67,623 $132,634 $27,459 $7,964 $11,761 $370
Parks and Public Works $208,775 $56,753 $111,313 $23,507 $6,818 $10,068 $316
Transfers Out $654,620 $178,634 $350,367 $72,536 $21,039 $31,069 $977
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $3,709,836 $985,509 $1,932,945 $532,357 $102,482 $151,612 $4,932
TOTAL BUDGET NET (DEFICIT)/ SURPLUS $610,230 $289,649 ($99,897)$388,691 ($17,697)$43,910 $5,575
Detailed Fiscal Projections: Alternative A
Note: figures may not exactly add due to rounding.
December 2019
49
Alternative B
Total Single Family Multi-Family Commercial Industrial Office Institutional
REVENUES
Property Tax $2,478,760 $484,371 $1,507,012 $391,559 $29,284 $60,067 $6,467
Property Tax in lieu of VLF $663,780 $129,708 $403,558 $104,854 $7,842 $16,085 $1,732
Sales Tax $867,758 $141,992 $359,178 $290,125 $11,293 $64,645 $524
Franchise Fees $297,814 $42,335 $215,646 $23,001 $6,671 $9,852 $310
Transient Occupancy Tax $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Other taxes $169,590 $24,107 $122,799 $13,098 $3,799 $5,610 $176
Licenses and Permits $409,745 $58,246 $296,694 $31,646 $9,179 $13,555 $426
Intergovernmental $134,570 $22,083 $112,487 $0 $0 $0 $0
Town Services $524,315 $74,532 $379,654 $40,494 $11,745 $17,345 $545
Fines and Forfeitures $57,626 $8,170 $41,615 $4,528 $1,313 $1,939 $61
Interest Earnings and Rents $84,157 $14,746 $51,816 $13,372 $1,231 $2,839 $153
Other Revenues $43,145 $6,133 $31,241 $3,332 $966 $1,427 $45
Transfers in $65,236 $9,273 $47,237 $5,038 $1,461 $2,158 $68
TOTAL REVENUES $5,796,495 $1,015,697 $3,568,937 $921,048 $84,785 $195,521 $10,507
EXPENDITURES
General Government $895,398 $124,911 $636,275 $90,283 $17,380 $25,712 $836
Community Development $717,013 $99,187 $505,239 $80,834 $12,504 $18,523 $726
Police Dept.$2,073,425 $285,982 $1,456,743 $237,738 $36,776 $54,478 $1,707
Library $355,534 $50,540 $257,440 $27,459 $7,964 $11,761 $370
Parks and Public Works $299,181 $42,415 $216,056 $23,507 $6,818 $10,068 $316
Transfers Out $939,181 $133,506 $680,055 $72,536 $21,039 $31,069 $977
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $5,279,731 $736,541 $3,751,809 $532,357 $102,482 $151,612 $4,932
TOTAL BUDGET NET (DEFICIT)/ SURPLUS $516,764 $279,157 ($182,872)$388,691 ($17,697)$43,910 $5,575
Detailed Fiscal Projections: Alternative B
Note: figures may not exactly add due to rounding.
Town of Los Gatos General Plan 2040 | Land Use Alternatives Report
50
Alternative C
Total Single Family Multi-Family Commercial Industrial Office Institutional
REVENUES
Property Tax $2,741,725 $558,345 $1,696,003 $391,559 $29,284 $60,067 $6,467
Property Tax in lieu of VLF $734,198 $149,517 $454,167 $104,854 $7,842 $16,085 $1,732
Sales Tax $963,242 $162,463 $434,192 $290,125 $11,293 $64,645 $524
Franchise Fees $354,403 $48,013 $266,556 $23,001 $6,671 $9,852 $310
Transient Occupancy Tax $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Other taxes $201,814 $27,341 $151,790 $13,098 $3,799 $5,610 $176
Licenses and Permits $487,603 $66,059 $366,739 $31,646 $9,179 $13,555 $426
Intergovernmental $164,088 $25,045 $139,043 $0 $0 $0 $0
Town Services $623,943 $84,529 $469,284 $40,494 $11,745 $17,345 $545
Fines and Forfeitures $68,546 $9,266 $51,440 $4,528 $1,313 $1,939 $61
Interest Earnings and Rents $95,298 $16,914 $60,789 $13,372 $1,231 $2,839 $153
Other Revenues $51,343 $6,956 $38,616 $3,332 $966 $1,427 $45
Transfers in $77,632 $10,517 $58,389 $5,038 $1,461 $2,158 $68
TOTAL REVENUES $6,563,834 $1,164,965 $4,187,009 $921,048 $87,785 $195,521 $10,507
EXPENDITURES
General Government $1,062,367 $141,666 $786,490 $90,283 $17,380 $25,712 $836
Community Development $849,596 $112,491 $624,518 $80,834 $12,504 $18,523 $726
Police Dept.$2,455,699 $324,342 $1,800,658 $237,738 $36,776 $54,478 $1,707
Library $423,091 $57,319 $318,218 $27,459 $7,964 $11,761 $370
Parks and Public Works $355,878 $48,105 $267,064 $23,507 $6,818 $10,068 $316
Transfers Out $1,117,639 $151,413 $840,606 $72,536 $21,039 $31,069 $977
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $6,264,270 $835,336 $4,637,553 $532,357 $102,482 $151,612 $4,932
TOTAL BUDGET NET (DEFICIT)/ SURPLUS $299,565 $329,629 ($450,544)$388,691 ($17,697)$43,910 $5,575
Detailed Fiscal Projections: Alternative C
Note: figures may not exactly add due to rounding.
December 2019
51
Alternative D
Total Single Family Multi-Family Commercial Industrial Office Institutional
REVENUES
Property Tax $3,419,046 $744,996 $2,186,673 $391,559 $29,284 $60,067 $6,467
Property Tax in lieu of VLF $915,576 $199,500 $585,563 $104,854 $7,842 $16,085 $1,732
Sales Tax $1,178,463 $213,283 $598,593 $290,125 $11,293 $64,645 $524
Franchise Fees $477,885 $75,883 $362,169 $23,001 $6,671 $9,852 $310
Transient Occupancy Tax $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Other taxes $272,131 $43,211 $206,236 $13,098 $3,799 $5,610 $176
Licenses and Permits $657,495 $104,403 $498,287 $31,646 $9,179 $13,555 $426
Intergovernmental $228,500 $39,583 $188,917 $0 $0 $0 $0
Town Services $841,339 $133,595 $637,614 $40,494 $11,745 $17,345 $545
Fines and Forfeitures $92,376 $14,644 $69,891 $4,528 $1,313 $1,939 $61
Interest Earnings and Rents $121,642 $23,534 $80,524 $13,372 $1,231 $2,839 $153
Other Revenues $69,232 $10,993 $52,468 $3,332 $966 $1,427 $45
Transfers in $104,680 $16,622 $79,333 $5,038 $1,461 $2,158 $68
TOTAL REVENUES $8,378,365 $1,620,237 $5,546,267 $921,048 $84,785 $195,521 $10,507
EXPENDITURES
General Government $1,426,709 $223,897 $1,068,600 $90,283 $17,380 $25,712 $836
Community Development $1,138,904 $177,787 $848,529 $80,834 $12,504 $18,523 $726
Police Dept.$3,289,855 $512,610 $2,446,546 $237,738 $36,776 $54,478 $1,707
Library $570,505 $90,590 $432,361 $27,459 $7,964 $11,761 $370
Parks and Public Works $479,596 $76,028 $362,859 $23,507 $6,818 $10,068 $316
Transfers Out $1,507,050 $239,303 $1,142,128 $72,536 $21,039 $31,069 $977
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $8,412,619 $1,320,214 $6,301,023 $532,357 $102,482 $151,612 $4,932
TOTAL BUDGET NET (DEFICIT)/ SURPLUS ($34,253)$300,023 ($754,755)$388,691 ($17,697)$43,910 $5,575
Detailed Fiscal Projections: Alternative D
Note: figures may not exactly add due to rounding.
Town of Los Gatos General Plan 2040 | Land Use Alternatives Report
52
December 2019
53
2019
December
•December 12, 2019: GPAC Meeting #9 Review of the Land Use Alternatives Report working
toward a recommendation of a Preferred Land Use Alternative to Planning Commission and
Town Council.
•December 19, 2019: GPAC Meeting #10 Continuation of the review of the Land Use Alternatives
Report working toward a recommendation of a Preferred Land Use Alternative to Planning
Commission and Town Council, if needed. (Tentative)
2020
January
•Mid January 2020 (TBD): Community Workshop: Land Use Alternatives and Land Use
Alternatives Report
•January 30, 2020: GPAC Meeting #11 Recommendation to Planning Commission and Town
Council of a Preferred Land Use Alternative (the staff report for this meeting will include a
summary of the Community Workshop)
February
•Planning Commission Hearing on the GPAC Recommendation of a Preferred Land Use
Alternative and Recommendation to Town Council(date TBD)
•February 20, 2020: GPAC Meeting #12 Review and Discussion of Working Draft of Updated
General Plan Elements (one or more Elements per meeting)
March
•March 5, 2020: GPAC Meeting #13 Review and Discussion of Working Draft of Updated General
Plan Elements (one or more Elements per meeting)
•Town Council Hearing to Select a Preferred Land Use Alternative (date TBD)
•March 19, 2020: GPAC Meeting #14 Review and Discussion of Working Draft of Updated General
Plan Elements (one or more Elements per meeting)
April
•April 2, 2020: GPAC Meeting #15 Review and Discussion of Working Draft of General Plan
Elements (one or more Elements per meeting)
•April 16, 2020: GPAC Meeting #16 Review and Discussion of Working Draft of General Plan
Elements (one or more Elements per meeting)
•April 19, 2020: Spring into Green Pop-Up Booth (topic TBD)
ATTACHMENT 2
May
• May 7, 2020: GPAC Meeting #17 Review and Discussion of Working Draft of General Plan
Elements (one or more Elements per meeting)
• May 21, 2020: GPAC Meeting #18 Review and Discussion of Working Draft of General Plan
Elements (one or more Elements per meeting)
June
• June 18, 2020: GPAC Meeting #19 Review and Discussion of Working Draft of General Plan
Elements (one or more Elements per meeting)
July
• Consultants’ complete Preliminary Draft General Plan
• July 2, 2020: GPAC Meeting #20 GPAC Review and Discussion of Preliminary Draft General Plan
working toward a recommendation to Planning Commission and Town Council.
• July 16, 2020: GPAC Meeting #21 GPAC Recommendation of Preliminary Draft General Plan to
Planning Commission and Town Council, if needed. (Tentative)
• Consultants prepare Administrative Draft Environmental Impact Report. (Town staff, Planning
Commission, and Town Council will be responsible for reviewing the EIR)
August
• Public Review Draft General Plan Available
• Public Draft Environmental Impact Report Available
• Community Workshop: Release of Public Review Draft General Plan and Environmental Impact
Report (date TBD)
September
• Consultants prepare Final Environmental Impact Report
October
• Final Environmental Impact Report Available
November
• Planning Commission Hearing on Final Environmental Impact Report and Draft General Plan
(date TBD)
• Town Council Hearing to Consider Adoption of General Plan and Certification of Final
Environmental Impact Report (date TBD)
December
• Final General Plan Released (date TBD)
To: City Managers/County Administrators, Community Development and Planning Directors
From: Ken Kirkey, ABAG/MTC Planning Director
CC: ABAG Executive Board and ABAG Regional Planning Committee
Date: August 12, 2019
RE: Recent Changes to Housing Element Law
ABAG will be embarking on the Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA) process for the
sixth cycle in Fall 2019. After ABAG completes the process to allocate a portion of the region’s
housing need to each city and county, local governments are required to update the Housing
Element of their General Plans (with an expected Housing Element due date of December 2022).
While this deadline is several years away, recent legislation has made significant changes to
Housing Element Law—particularly the requirements for selecting sites to accommodate housing
need—that will necessitate substantial additional work by local governments. The new rules are
summarized in the attached file. See Government Code Sections 65583 and 65583.2 for details.
ABAG/MTC staff is encouraging jurisdictions to consider using the SB2 Planning Funds
currently available from the California Department of Housing and Community Development
(HCD) to address these new requirements.
To help local jurisdictions gain a better understanding of the new requirements, ABAG/MTC staff
has conducted a preliminary analysis to demonstrate the potential impacts of these rules on the
sites jurisdictions identified for the 2015-2023 Housing Element period. This transmittal includes
an attachment with this preliminary analysis for all jurisdictions in the county. The analysis
approximates the number of sites that could be subject to greater scrutiny based on size or existing
use and whether or not sites can be recycled in the inventory without zoning changes. The
analysis is subject to the limitations of the underlying data and is not intended to be definitive –
local jurisdiction staff will be responsible for conducting a more fine-grained analysis of the
sites to ensure consistency with state statutes.
ABAG/MTC’s map and database of local jurisdiction Housing Element sites can be downloaded
from http://opendata.mtc.ca.gov/datasets/bay-area-housing-opportunity-sites-inventory-
2007%E2%80%932023.
If you have questions about the analysis completed by ABAG/MTC staff, please contact Ada
Chan, Assistant Planner, at 415-820-7958 or achan@bayareametro.gov.
Since HCD is responsible for approving local Housing Elements, please contact them directly at
916-263-2911 if you have questions about how to ensure compliance with these statutory
requirements.
KK: GA
C:\Users\gadams\Box\#IRPP - Housing Team Share\SB2\Latest Site Inventories\Site Inventory Memo 080819.docx
Attachments Overview of Recent Changes to Housing Element Law
RHNA Site Analysis Spreadsheet for Jurisdictions (Organized by County)
ATTACHMENT 3
Compiled by ABAG/MTC Staff, July 2019
Overview of Recent Changes to Housing Element Law
Housing Element Site Inventory Reporting Requirements
Sites must be listed by Assessor Parcel Number (APN) and include the number of units
that can be “realistically accommodated” on each site.
Parcels included in the inventory must have sufficient access to utilities, including “dry
utilities.” The term “dry utilities” is not defined in the statute.
Reuse of Sites Included in Previous Housing Elements
State law limits jurisdictions’ ability to reuse the following types of sites used in previous
Housing Elements to accommodate lower-income1 housing need if those sites have not been
approved for housing:
1. A vacant site identified in two or more consecutive planning periods
2. A non-vacant site identified in one prior planning period
Unless they meet the following criteria:
1. The site is or will be rezoned to the minimum lower-income household density for the
jurisdiction within three years; and
2. The zoning allows for residential development by right if at least 20% of the units are
affordable to lower-income households
Use of Non-Vacant Sites in the Housing Element Site Inventory
According to HCD, underutilized sites (e.g., a vacant/abandoned use, a parking lot, a
blighted site) are not considered to be vacant. Jurisdictions will have to provide evidence
that the non-vacant site is suitable for lower-income development during the RHNA period.
If a jurisdiction uses non-vacant sites to accommodate 50% or more of its lower-income
housing need, the jurisdiction must provide “substantial” evidence that the existing use
on a non-vacant site that is identified for lower-income housing is likely to be
discontinued during the planning period. Absent substantial evidence, the existing use is
deemed an impediment to additional residential development.
If a site was subject to affordability agreements for lower-income households, subject to a
rent control policy, or had housing units occupied by a lower-income resident within the
past five years, the jurisdiction must require replacement of that housing at the same or
lower income level.
Use of Small and Large Sites in the Housing Element Site Inventory
Sites smaller than 1/2 acre and those larger than 10 acres are deemed inadequate to
accommodate lower-income housing need unless the jurisdiction provides examples of
lower-income development on equivalent sites (equivalent number of units at an
equivalent affordability level on a site of equivalent size) or other evidence for why the
site is appropriate.
Compiled by ABAG/MTC Staff, July 2019
Other Significant Changes to Housing Element Law
The Housing Element must affirmatively further fair housing opportunities and include a
program that establishes goals and actions to do so [GC §65583(c)(9)]. It is expected that
HCD will provide additional guidance on this topic, but materials are not yet available.
A jurisdiction must make “no net loss” findings if it approves a project on a Housing
Element site that has fewer units OR a different income category compared to what was
shown in the Housing Element [GC §65863].
The analysis of governmental constraints to housing must evaluate any local ordinances
that directly impact the cost and supply of residential development (e.g. inclusionary
ordinance and short-term rental ordinance) [GC §65583(a)(5)].
The analysis of nongovernmental constraints must evaluate developer actions related to a
project that hinder housing development and must demonstrate local efforts to remove
nongovernmental constraints that create a gap between planning for and construction of
housing [GC §65583(a) (6)].
The Housing Element must describe the typical length of time between project approval
and request for a building permit. It must also analyze requests to develop at densities
below the density identified in the site inventory [GC 65583(a)(6)].
The Housing Element must include a program to mitigate non-governmental constraints
(e.g. NIMBYism, economic conditions, jobs/housing imbalance, labor shortage, effects
of wildfire/flood, etc.) [GC 65583(c)(3)].
When describing environmental constraints, the Housing Element should include the
jurisdiction’s mitigation measures, if any. [GC 65583.2(b)(4)]
The shortfall rezone requirement has changed from by-right for all owner and rental
multifamily projects to only those owner and rental multifamily projects that include 20%
or more units that are affordable to lower-income households [GC 65583.2(h)].
The jurisdiction must demonstrate that it has a policy/procedure to accommodate
supportive housing pursuant to AB 2162 [GC 65651]. This is in addition to the SB 2
requirements for supportive housing.
SummaryCreditsAssociation of Bay Area Governments, 2015Field Name Field DescriptionValue Value Descriptionrhna_cycle Identifies the RHNA cycle in which the site was included.rhnayears Indicates the years included in the RHNA cycle.6001 Alameda County6013 Contra Costa County6041 Marin County6055 Napa County6075 San Francisco (City & County)6081 San Mateo County6085 Santa Clara County6095 Solano County6097 Sonoma CountySanta Clara Housing Site Inventory Analysis - June 2019ABAG/MTC staff is providing this preliminary analysis to jurisdictions to demonstrate the potential impacts of legislation from the 2017 Housing Package (AB 1397 and AB 879) that affect the Housing Element site inventory. These bills require jurisdictions to provide additional analysis for some sites and limit the use of certain sites for meeting the lower-income housing need. This analysis is intended to give jurisdiction staff an idea of how many of the sites identified during the previous Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA) process (2015-2023) might be subject to greater scrutiny or limitations. The analysis is not intended to be definitive -- jurisdiction staff will be responsible for conducting a more fine-grained analysis of the sites to ensure consistency with state statutes.The housing sites inventory analysis draws on the Housing Element sites identified by local jurisdictions to accommodate housing allocated to them as part of the 2007-2014 and 2015-2023 RHNA processes. The parcel list was compiled by ABAG from the housing opportunity sites inventories prepared by each of the Bay Area's 101 cities and nine counties as part of their housing elements. ABAG/MTC’s map and database of local jurisdiction Housing Element sites can be downloaded from: http://opendata.mtc.ca.gov/datasets/bay-area-housing-opportunity-sites-inventory-2007%E2%80%932023.Please note: Following the adoption of the RHNA, each jurisdiction is required to update its housing element to identify sites adequate to produce the number of units allocated to it. Although jurisdictions have identified these sites as potential locations for the development of new housing, it does not mean that development is either imminent or will ever occur at these locations. In addition, all projects proposed for these sites are subject to the full notification and review process followed by the jurisdiction where they are located.county Federal Information Processing Standards code for county. First number designates the state and the following three designate the county.
jurisdiction Name of city/town or county (for unincorporated areas) where housing opportunity site is locatedABAG_apn Assessor Parcel Number for the site as listed in ABAG parcel feature setslocal_apn Assessor Parcel Number as indicated by the jurisdictiongeneral_plan_designation General plan designation of the site. General plan land use categories provide the most broad description of allowed uses and density of development for an area.zoning Zoning category of the site. Zoning is most specific regulation of use and density allowed for an area.ABAG_acres Parcel/site size in gross acres (calculated by ABAG). Area calculated in ArcGIS 10.1 using NAD 1983 UTM Zone 10 projection.jurisdiction_acres Acreage of the site as provided by the jurisdiction.Unknown whether acres are gross or net as jurisdictions default to different designations.current_units Number of housing units that currently exist on the siteallowed_density The density of housing units allowed on the site (as designated by local general plan and zoning categories) as units per acre.Unknown whether acres are gross or net as jurisdictions default to different designations.allowed_density_low If allowable density was provided as a range, this is the low-end of the rangeallowed_density_high If allowable density was provided as a range, this is the high-end of the range.If allowable density was provided as a single number, that number was assumed to be the high-end of the range.realistic_capacity Realistic capacity, as determined by the jurisdiction, for the number of housing units that could potentially be built on the site
EL Affordable for extremely-low income households (making up to 30% of Area Median Income). Optional category for reporting housing production, but not part of Regional Housing Needs Assessment requirements or tracking.VL Affordable for very-low income households (making between 0%-50% of Area Median Income)LAffordable for low income households (making between 50%-80% of Area Median Income)M Affordable for moderate income households (making between 80%-120% of Area Median Income)AM Affordable for above-moderate income households (making over 120% of Area Median Income)BMR Below market rate housing pricingMR Market rate housing pricingaff_verylow Identifies if the jurisdiction designated the site should contain housing affordable to very-low income households (making between 0%-50% of Area Median Income).Since the extremely-low income housing unit category is not part of the Regional Housing Need Assessment process, units identified for this affordability level are included in the very-low income category.Column created by ABAG using desafford value(s) to allow easier selection of sites according to affordability levels.designated_affordability Level(s) of affordability designated by jurisdiction for units to be built on site. For a subset of records, the number of expected units for each affordability level is also included.
aff_low Identifies if the jurisdiction designated the site should contain housing affordable to low income households (making between 50%-80% of Area Median Income).Column created by ABAG using desafford value(s) to allow easier selection of sites according to affordability levels.aff_moderate Identifies if the jurisdiction designated the site should contain housing affordable to moderate income households (making between 80%-120% of Area Median Income).Column created by ABAG using desafford value(s) to allow easier selection of sites according to affordability levels.aff_abovemoderate Identifies if the jurisdiction designated the site should contain housing affordable to above-moderate income households (making over 120% of Area Median Income).Column created by ABAG using desafford value(s) to allow easier selection of sites according to affordability levels.
units_verylow Number of housing units affordable to very-low income households (making between 0%-50% of Area Median Income) the jurisdiction designated for the site.Since the allocation of extremely-low income housing units is not part of the Regional Housing Need Assessment process, units identified for this affordability level are included in the very low income category.Where the number of expected units could go to two or more income categories (i.e. 14 VL/L/M), the number is evenly divided between the categories that are included in the total. Since fractions of a housing unit cannot be built, one is the smallest number of units entered (i.e. if an entry was 1 M/AM, a one would be entered in each column). If a number larger than one has a fraction, the number entered in each column is rounded either up or down, depending on the size of the fraction.Column created by ABAG using desafford value(s).units_low Number of housing units affordable to low income households (making between 50%-80% of Area Median Income) the jurisdiction designated for the site.Where the number of expected units could go to two or more income categories (i.e. 14 VL/L/M), the number is evenly divided between the categories that are included in the total. Since fractions of a housing unit cannot be built, one is the smallest number of units entered (i.e. if an entry was 1 M/AM, a one would be entered in each column). If a number larger than one has a fraction, the number entered in each column is rounded either up or down, depending on the size of the fraction.Column created by ABAG using desafford value(s).
units_moderate Number of housing units affordable to moderate income households (making between 80%-120% of Area Median Income) the jurisdiction designated for the site.Where the number of expected units could go to two or more income categories (i.e. 14 VL/L/M), the number is evenly divided between the categories that are included in the total. Since fractions of a housing unit cannot be built, one is the smallest number of units entered (i.e. if an entry was 1 M/AM, a one would be entered in each column). If a number larger than one has a fraction, the number entered in each column is rounded either up or down, depending on the size of the fraction.Column created by ABAG using desafford value(s).units_abovemoderate Number of housing units affordable to above-moderate income households (making over 120% of Area Median Income) the jurisdiction designated for the site.Where the number of expected units could go to two or more income categories (i.e. 14 VL/L/M), the number is evenly divided between the categories that are included in the total. Since fractions of a housing unit cannot be built, one is the smallest number of units entered (i.e. if an entry was 1 M/AM, a one would be entered in each column). If a number larger than one has a fraction, the number entered in each column is rounded either up or down, depending on the size of the fraction.Column created by ABAG using desafford value(s).infrastructure_capacityDesignates (Y/N) whether the jurisdiction has the infrastructure capacity to develop the sitesite_constraints Constraints, identified by the jurisdiction, that could impact development on the site.
ApprovedDenotes there is a project approved for the siteUnderutilizedDenotes that the site has greater capacity than current uses allowUnderusedDenotes that the site has greater capacity than current uses allowBuilt Denotes that a project has been built on the siteInfill The site is in an area that has been previously built on and within the urban growth boundaryOpen SpaceThe site is in designated open spaceVacant Denotes that the site is vacantUnder ConsiderationThe site is under consideration as a housing opportunity siteProposed The site is under consideration as a housing opportunity sitePlanned There is a project either planned for the site or the site will be included in the plan and is not currently in itNon- The site is not vacantEntitled A project has completed the preliminary permitting and plan approval work for a project that has been approved by the jurisdictionsite_type Identifies the status of the site
pda Designates whether the housing opportunity site is located in a Priority Development Area (PDA).Sites were determined to be in a PDA if a spatial selection query found the parcel centroid to be inside a PDA boundary. The PDAs used for the selection query were those adopted on July 18, 2013 by the executive boards of the Association of Bay Area Governments and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission as part of Plan Bay Area.bundled_parcels Identifies whether the housing opportunity site is located on multiple parcels (bundled). If cell is blank, then the site is on a single parcel.The main parcel containing the values for all the bundled parcels (for example, affordability levels are only noted in the record for the main parcel, not distributed throughout the bundle) is identified in this column.existing_use Use(s) that currently exist on the site.jurisdiction_notes Comments regarding the housing opportunity site provided by the jurisdictionSmall Site Idenitifies if the site is less than 0.5 acres. Calculated by ABAG.Large Sites Idenitifies if the site is larger than 10 acres. Calculated by ABAG.Non-Vacant Identifies if the site is non-vacant. Calculated by ABAG.In RHNA 4 & 5 Identifies if the site has been used in both RHNA 4 and RHNA 5. Calculated by ABAG.Can Be Recycled Identifies if the site can be reused for lower-income housing without changes for upcoming RHNA cycle. Calculated by ABAG.Number of RHNA Appearances Indicates number of times the site has been used in 4th and 5th RHNA cycles.
CityDescriptionDefault DensityThe default density provides a streamlined option for local governments to meet the density requirement for lower income households and is based on a jursidiction's population.Lower-Income RHNA (2015-2023)Sum of Very Low and Low RHNA allocationTotal RHNA (2015-2023)Total RHNA allocation for 2015-2023 cycleWill non-vacant sites face increased scrutinyPercent of lower income RHNA met by units on vacant sitesSites UnitsVacant - Total399Vacant - Lower Income 00Non-Vacant33696Non-Vacant - Lower Income6696Total36795Total - Lower Income6696Small (<0.5 acres)00Large (>10 acres)1270Can be used again with no changes00Must be upzoned to default density & by right if 20% affordable30 99Requires greater than 50% upzone change to default density & by right if 20% affordable30 99Already zoned to the default density and must be by right if 20% affordable6 696This table summarizes the potential impacts of AB 1397 and AB 879 on a local jurisdiction's existing Housing Element site inventory. It is a preliminary analysis provided by ABAG/MTC staff. The analysis is not intended to be definitive -- jurisdiction staff will be responsible for conducting a more fine-grained analysis of the sites to ensure consistency with state statutes.Los Gatos20313Yes619Non-Vacant Sites ThresholdNon-vacant sites in the inventory will need evidence of development potential. If a jurisdiction relies on non-vacant sites to accommodate 50% or more of its housing need for lower-income households, the sites will be presumed unlikely to be developed without substantial evidence that the existing use is likely to be discontinued during the planning period. 0%Identified sites and units for RHNA 5 from jurisdiction's Housing Element.Small and Large Sites Facing Increased Scrutiny (Lower Income)Small and large sites are deemed inadequate for lower-income housing need unless the jurisdiction provides examples of lower-income development on equivalent sites or other evidence for why the site is appropriate.Reusing Sites Used in Previous Housing ElementsIf a vacant site was identified in two or more consecutive planning periods or if a non-vacant site was identified in a prior housing element and the site was not approved for housing development, the site cannot be used to fulfill the jurisdiction's obligation to accommodate lower-income housing need unless: the site is or will be rezoned to the jurisdiction's default density and the zoning allows for residential development by right if at least twenty percent (20%) of the units are affordable to lower-income households.Note: The definition of vacant might change which may result in more sites facing scrutiny.
Content from https://missingmiddlehousing.com/about
What is Missing Middle Housing?
Opticos Design founder Daniel Parolek inspired a new movement for housing
choice in 2010 when he coined the term “Missing Middle Housing,” a
transformative concept that highlights a time-proven and beloved way to provide
more housing and more housing choices in sustainable, walkable places.
Missing Middle Housing:
House-scale buildings
with multiple units
in walkable neighborhoods
These building types, such as duplexes, fourplexes and bungalow courts, provide
diverse housing options to support walkable communities, locally-serving retail,
and public transportation options. We call them “Missing” because they have
typically been illegal to build since the mid-1940s and “Middle” because they sit
in the middle of a spectrum between detached single-family homes and mid-rise
to high-rise apartment buildings, in terms of form and scale, as well as number of
units and often, affordability.
Missing Middle Housing is primarily about the form and scale of these buildings, designed to provide
more housing choices in low-rise walkable neighborhoods, although it also tends to be more affordable
than other new housing products currently being built.
ATTACHMENT 4
And while they are “missing” from our new building stock, these types of
buildings from the 1920s and 30s are beloved by many who have lived in
them. Ask around, and your aunt may have fond memories of living in a fourplex
as a child, or you might remember visiting your grandmother as she grew old in a
duplex with neighbors nearby to help her out. And today, young couples,
teachers, single, professional women and baby boomers are among those
looking for ways to live in a walkable neighborhood, but without the cost and
maintenance burden of a detached single-family home. Missing Middle Housing
helps solve the mismatch between the available U.S. housing stock and shifting
demographics combined with the growing demand for walkability.
We need a greater mix of housing types to meet differing income and
generational needs. This is where Missing Middle Housing can change the
conversation.”
— Debra Bassert, National Association of Home Builders
Opticos Design is driving a radical paradigm shift, urging cities, elected officials,
urban planners, architects and builders to fundamentally rethink the way they
design, locate, regulate, and develop homes. Americans want and need more
diverse housing choices in walkable neighborhoods; homes that are attainable,
sustainable, and beautifully designed.
This website is designed to serve as a collective resource for elected officials,
planners and developers seeking to implement Missing Middle projects. You
will find clear definitions of the types of housing that are best for creating
walkable neighborhoods, as well as information on the unifying characteristics of
these building types. You’ll also find information on how to integrate Missing
Middle Housing into existing neighborhoods, how to regulate these building
types, and pin-point the market demographic that demands them.
“If there’s one thing Americans love, it’s choices: what to eat, where to work,
who to vote for. But when it comes where we live or how to get around, our
choices can be limited. Many people of all ages would like to live in vibrant
neighborhoods, downtowns, and Main Streets—places where jobs and shops lie
within walking distance—but right now those places are in short supply. ‘Missing
Middle’ Housing provides more housing choices. And when we have more
choices, we create living, thriving neighborhoods for people and businesses.
— Lynn Richards, President and CEO of the Congress for the New Urbanism
What does the market want?
Demand for Housing Choice
A greater variety of household sizes and demographics require a greater variety
of housing choices.
Young, highly educated, technology-driven millennials desire mobile, walkable
lifestyles. They are willing to exchange space for shorter commutes, mixed-use
neighborhoods, and shared open spaces that foster community interaction.
At the same time, baby boomers are working and living longer. They want to
stay mobile and active in their later years, but they won’t drive forever and don’t
want to be dependent on their family members to get around. They also want to
find ways to stay in their community without having to care for a large home and
yard.
Multigenerational homes have increased by 17% since 1940, and that number
continues to rise. The growing senior population, more families with multiple
working parents, diverse family cultures, and an increased desire to live in
intergenerational neighborhoods all contribute to the growing demand for
multigenerational and even multi-family households. Affluent seniors seek to
downsize from their large suburban homes to more convenient, easy-to-care-for
townhouses, apartments, or condos, while others need quality, affordable
housing that won’t break their limited budget. Many retirees would like to move
close to, but not live with, their children and grandchildren.
The growing demand for a walkable lifestyle
has the potential to transform sprawling
suburbs into walkable communities.
90% of available housing in the U.S. is located in a
conventional neighborhood of single-family homes, adding
up to a 35 million unit housing shortage. Source: Dr.
Arthur C. Nelson, “Missing Middle: Demand and
Benefits,” Utah Land Use Institute conference, October
21, 2014.
Walkable and Accessible Amenities
Up to 85% of households will be childless by 2025.
“This country is in the middle of a structural shift toward a walkable urban way of
living. After 60 years of almost exclusively building a drivable suburban way of
life … the consumer is now demanding the other alternative,” wrote Christopher
Leinberger in the New York Times article “Car-Free in America? Bottom Line: It’s
Cheaper.”
By 2020, 34% of all American households will consist of a single person, and
many of these will be women, or older persons. By 2025, up to 85% of
households will be childless as millennials choose to marry later and have fewer
children and the number of empty nester households continues to grow.
Housing trends show singles demand more amenities, and women and older
persons who live alone generally seek housing options that offer better security.
They also drive less, reducing the need for off-street parking in private garages
or lots, and increasing the need for accessible public transportation.
“The present economic research finds that business wants talent, but talent
wants place—so more businesses are relocating to places. When drilled further
the research finds Missing Middle Housing is the fastest growing preference
because it has the ‘place’ quality talent seeks. Hence development of Missing
Middle is now recognized as a housing AND economic development strategy.”
— James Tischler, Michigan State Housing Development Authority
According to the National Association of Realtors, walkability is fast becoming
one of the most important factors in choosing where to live. People want of all
ages want easy access to amenities such as stores, businesses, cultural center,
and transit.Homebuyers are seeking locations within walking distance to
shopping, cultural amenities, jobs, and open space and the value of homes in
these types of neighborhoods has increased at a much faster pace than homes
in driveable suburban neighborhoods. “In a scenario where two houses are
nearly identical, the one with a five-foot-wide sidewalk and two street tress not
only sells for up to $34,000 more, but it also sells in less time,” wrote J. Cortright,
in CEOs for Cities’ Walking the Walk: How Walkability Raises Home Values in
U.S. Cities. But, as the chart at the right shows, now you don’t have to live in a
dense urban center to live a walkable lifestyle. Some 70% of upcoming, walkable
places in Washington D.C. are quaint neighborhoods located outside of the
urban core.
70% of walkable places in Washington D.C. are located outside the urban core.
Variety of Transportation
Accessibility to useful multimodal transit—public transportation, bike friendly
streets, and car share—is needed by baby boomers and desired by millennials.
But there is an economic argument, too.
“American families who are car-dependent spent 25% of their household income
on their fleet of cars, compared to just 9% for transportation for those who live in
walkable urban places,” says Leinberger.
Walkable neighborhoods are now a top priority for
seniors, along with access to transportation, and
connectivity. Source: What’s Next? Real Estate in the
New Economy, Urban Land Institute, 2011;
Transportation for America.
The same is true for bike friendly cities. According to the Livable Street
Alliance, as reported on the AARP Livability Fact Sheet, the average American
household spends more than $8,000 a year on cars while the cost to maintain a
bicycle is only about $300 per year. These savings, which could amount into the
billions if trends were widely adopted, could be reinvested into transit-oriented
development and infrastructure, education, and health care.
Cities and property owners benefit from less car dependent zoning too. “An off-
street parking space costs between $3,000 and $27,000 to build, and about $500
a year to maintain and manage. On-street parking is more efficient and can bring
in as much as $300,000 per space in annual revenues,” writes Prof. Donald
Shoup, in Instead of Free Parking.
An increasing number of
Americans spend close to
30% of their income on
housing while
transportation costs can
consume an additional
20% or more of household
income. Source: What’s
Next? Real Estate in the
New Economy, Urban
Land Institute, 2011.
Affordability
Housing affordability is a primary concern for many Americans across the country
ranging from blue-collar workers to early-career singles, young families and
seniors. There is an increasing segment of the population that spends more than
30% of their income on housing, reducing their purchasing power for other
amenities (Source: What’s Next? Real Estate in the New Economy, Urban Land
Institute, 2011).
Smaller homes and apartments cost less to rent or purchase and maintain, while
urban neighborhoods provide services and amenities within walking distance as
well as a variety of affordable transportation options.
Cities and towns that want to retain or attract these household types need to
focus on providing diverse, affordable housing options near jobs, schools, and
other amenities within walkable communities. In addition, suburbs that want to
retain their aging populations and attract newer, younger families, will need to
create new, walkable urban environments and encourage the construction fo
Missing Middle Housing through rezoning and by providing public transportation
options.
Sense of Community
More and more, Americans say living in a diverse community that includes
people at all stages of life is an important factor in determining where to live.
Seniors want to live near family and friends, but not with them. Missing Middle
building types allow people to stay in their community thoroughout their lives
because of the variety of sizes available and an increased accessibility to
services and amenities.
Almost 49% of Americans are living in a
multigenerational household. Source: Pew
Research Center analysis of U.S. Decennial
Census and American Community Surveys.
According to Chris Leinberger in his article “The Next Slum?” for The
Atlantic, elements that used to draw families into the suburbs—better schools
and safer communities—are now becoming the norm in cities, while these
elements could worsen in suburbs that are dependent on home values and new
development.
Housing market projections suggest that construction in the near future will
accelerate only moderately for single-family housing but will greatly increase for
multifamily housing (Source: Jordan Rappaport, “The Demographic Shift From
Single-Family to Multifamily Housing,” Economic Review, Kansas City: Federal
Reserve Bank of Kansas City, 2013). Implemented in both urban and rural
contexts, Missing Middle Housing allows people to stay in their community during
different stages of life because of the wide variety of sizes, housing levels, and
accessibility it provides.
What are the characteristics of
Missing Middle Housing?
Missing Middle Housing is not a new type of building. It is a range of building
types that exist in cities and towns across the country and were a fundamental
building block in pre-1940s neighborhoods. They are most likely present on some
of your favorite city blocks—you may even have them in your own neighborhood.
Combined together (and usually with detached single-family homes), Missing
Middle building types help provide enough households within walking distance to
support public transit and local businesses, and they are found within many of
the most in-demand communities in places like Denver, Cincinnati, Austin and
San Francisco.
So what do Missing Middle building types have in common?
Development patterns in walkable urban neighborhoods make
walking and biking convenient and support robust public transit.
(Bouldin Creek neighborhood in Austin, TX.)
Walkable Context
Missing Middle housing types are best located in a walkable context. Buyers and
renters of these housing types are often trading space (housing and yard square
footage) for place (proximity to services and amenities).
Small-Footprint Buildings
These housing types typically have small- to medium-sized footprints, with a
body width, depth and height no larger than a detached single -family home. This
allows a range of Missing Middle types—with varying densities but compatible
forms—to be blended into a neighborhood, encouraging a mix of socioeconomic
households and making these types a good tool for compatible infill.
Missing Middle housing types generally have a similar size
footprint to detached single-family homes.
Lower Perceived Density
Due to the small footprint of the building types and the fact that they are usually
mixed with a variety of building types even on an individual block, the perceived
density of these types is usually quite low—they do not look like dense buildings.
But one of the primary benefits of Missing Middle Housing is that it helps provide
the number of households needed for transit and neighborhood-serving local
businesses to be viable (typically about 16 dwelling units per acre).
“From the perspective of my work, Missing Middle Housing has a natural
complement in MMP (missing middle plan), a.k.a. a ‘hybrid grid’ or as named it in
my work, a Fused Grid … The Fused Grid proposes a set of neighborhood
modular layouts (reminiscent of Savannah) that incorporate all the desirable
elements—livability, safety, security, sociability, and delight—as do MMH
buildings.”
— Fanis Grammenos, Director of Urban Pattern Associates and author of
“Remaking the City Street Grid – A Model for Urban and Suburban Development”
Smaller, Well-Designed Units
Most Missing Middle housing types have smaller units. The challenge is to create
small spaces that are well designed, comfortable, and usable. The ultimate unit
size will depend on the context, but smaller-sized units can help developers keep
their costs down and attract a different market of buyers and renters who are not
being provided for in all markets.
One characteristic of Missing Middle Housing is smaller, well-
designed units. Courtesy: The Cottage Company
Fewer Off-street Parking Spaces
Because they are built in walkable neighborhoods with proximity to transportation
options and commercial amenities, Missing Middle housing types do not need the
same amount of parking as suburban housing. We typically recommend no more
than one parking spot per unit, and preferably less. In fact, requiring more than
one parking space per unit can make Missing Middle Housing infeasible to build.
For example, if your zoning code requires two parking spaces per unit, a fourplex
would require eight parking spaces, which would never fit on a typical residential
lot. In addition, providing that much off-street parking for each fourplex would
create a neighborhood of small parking lots rather than the desired neighborhood
of homes. Finally, requiring too much parking means that fewer households can
fit in the same amount of land, lessening the viability of transit and local
businesses.
Simple Construction
Missing Middle Housing is simply constructed (wood-frame/Type V), which
makes it a very attractive alternative for developers to achieve good densities
without the added financing challenges and risk of more complex construction
types. This aspect can also increase affordability when units are sold or rented.
As providing single family detached sub-$200,000 starter homes is becoming
increasingly out of reach for builders across the country, Missing Middle Housing
can provide an attractive and affordable alternative starter home.
Creates Community
Missing Middle Housing creates community through the integration of shared
community spaces within the building type (e.g. bungalow court), or simply from
being located within a vibrant neighborhood with places to eat, drink, and
socialize.
This is an important aspect in particular
considering the growing market of single-
person households (nearly 30% of all
households) that want to be part of a
community.
Missing Middle housing types help to create walkable
communities.
Marketable
Because of the increasing demand from baby boomers and millennials, as well
as shifting household demographics, the market is demanding more vibrant,
sustainable, walkable places to live. These Missing Middle housing types
respond directly to this demand.
In addition, the scale of these housing types makes them more attractive to many
buyers who want to live in a walkable neighborhood, but may not want to live in a
large condominium or apartment building.
If there is land for beautifully-designed homes that fill a gap between stand-alone
houses and mid-rise apartments, the smart thing to do is to fill it with housing
types we’ve been missing in our market for so long.”
— Heather Hood, Deputy Director, Northern California, Enterprise Community
Partners
How does Missing Middle Housing
integrate into blocks?
Missing Middle Housing types typically have a footprint not larger than a large
detached single-family home, making it easy to integrate them into existing
neighborhoods, and serve as a way for the neighborhood to transition to higher-
density and main street contexts. There are a number of ways in which this can
be accomplished:
Distributed throughout a block
Missing Middle Housing types are spread throughout the block and stand side-
by-side with detached single-family homes. This blended pattern of detached
single-family homes and Missing Middle Housing types, with densities up to 40
dwelling units per acre, works well because the forms of these types are never
larger than a large house.
“For us, mixing housing types is important in today’s market. Buyers want
choices, the investors and lenders want more flexibility in the projects, and
planning officials expect a more thoughtful integration into the existing
neighborhoods. The mixing of product provides a diverse community, enhances
value, and it helps create the type of place our buyers are looking for today.”
— David Leazenby, Onyx+East
Placed on the end-grain of a block
Missing Middle Housing types are placed on the end-grain of a block with
detached single-family homes, facing the primary street, which is often a slightly
busier corridor than the streets to which the detached single-family homes are
oriented. The most common condition is to have several fourplex units on the
end grain lots facing the primary street. This configuration is usually located on
the end grain of several continuous blocks adjacent to a neighborhood main
street, which increases the blended density to achieve the 16 dwelling
units/acre necessary to support small, locally-serving commercial and service
amenities.
This configuration allows for the use of slightly larger buildings because the
Missing Middle housing types are not sitting next to detached single-family
homes. In this block type, the alley to the rear of the lots also allows for a good
transition in scale to the detached single-family home lots behind them. Often
you will see a similar block configuration with one or two fourplexes on the
corners of the end grain lots on the block.
Transitioning to a commercial corridor
Missing Middle Housing is excellent to transition from a neighborhood to a Main
Street with commercial and mixed-use buildings. These types are generally more
tolerant and better able to effectively mitigate any potential conflicts related to the
proximity to commercial/retail buildings or parking lots behind commercial
buildings.
Transitioning to higher-density housing
Smaller-scale Missing Middle Housing types are placed on a few of the lots that
transition from the side street to the primary street, providing a transition in scale
to the larger buildings on the end grain of the block along the primary street.
What’s the best way to regulate
Missing Middle Housing?
Hint: Conventional Zoning Doesn’t Work
Conventional (Euclidean) zoning practice regulates primarily by land use or
allowed activities, dividing neighborhoods into single-family residential,
multifamily residential, commercial, office, etc. This separation of uses is the
antithesis of mixed-use walkable neighborhoods. Along with use, the zones are
often defined and controlled by unpredictable numeric values, such as floor area
ratio (FAR) and density, which create all sorts of barriers to Missing Middle
Housing.
For starters, Missing Middle Housing (MMH) is intended to be part of low-rise
residential neighborhoods, which are typically zoned as “single-family residential”
in conventional zoning. However, because MMH contains multiple units, it is, by
definition, not allowed in single-family zones. On the other hand, most multifamily
zones in conventional codes allow much bigger buildings (taller and wider) and
also typically encourage lot aggregation and large suburban garden apartment
buildings. The environments created by these zones are not what Missing Middle
Housing is intended for.
In addition, density-based zoning doesn’t work with the blended densities that are
typical in neighborhoods where Missing Middle Housing thrives. MMH are similar
in form and scale to detached single-family homes, but because they include
more units, they often vary dramatically in their densities, making them
impossible to regulate with a density-based system. For example, a bungalow
court can have densities of up to 35 dwelling units per acre even though the
buildings are only one story tall, because the size of each cottage is only 25 feet
by 30 feet. So if a zoning district sets a maximum density of 20 dwelling units per
acre, it would not allow the bungalow court type. On the other hand, if the zoning
district has a maximum density of 35 dwelling units per acre with few or no
additional form standards, every builder/developer will max out a lot with a large,
out-of-scale apartment building, rather than building the bungalow court the
neighborhood would prefer.
And one more thing: density-based zoning treats all units the same regardless of
size. This means that a 3,500-square-foot unit is considered the same as a 600-
square-foot unit for calculations such as density, parking and open space, thus
discouraging much-needed smaller units. For example, a fourplex with four 600sf
units would require four times the parking and open space as a 2,400sf detached
single-family home, even though the size of the building is the same, typically
making the fourplex infeasible to fit on a typical lot.
This Alameda, CA neighborhood has several Missing Middle
housing types on each block.
The Alternative: Form-Based Coding
Form-Based Coding is a proven alternative to conventional zoning that effectively
regulates Missing Middle Housing. Form-Based Codes (FBCs) remove barriers
and incentivize Missing Middle Housing in appropriate locations in a community.
FBCs represent a paradigm shift in the way that we regulate the built
environment, using physical form rather than a separation of uses as the
organizing principal, to create predictable, built results and a high-quality public
realm.
The Form-Based Approach to Regulating Missing
Middle Housing
Regulating Missing Middle Housing starts by defining a range of housing types
appropriate for the community based on the community’s existing physical
patterns, climate, and other considerations, as part of the early Community
Character Analysis phase of a planning and Form-Based Coding project.
A building types page from Cincinnati’s Form-Based
Code
Then for each form-based zone, a specific range of housing types is allowed
based on the intention for the neighborhood. For example, in a walkable
neighborhood, single-family-detached homes, bungalow courts, and side-by-side
duplexes may be allowed, or in a slightly more urban walkable neighborhood,
bungalow courts, side-by-side duplexes, stacked duplexes, fourplexes, and small
multiplexes might be allowed.
A zone from the Cincinnati’s Form-Based Code
In addition for each type, there are typically supplemental form standards that are
regulated to allow some of the individual aspects of certain MMH types while
preventing overbuilding in terms of height and bulk. For example, a bungalow
court type typically allows for more units, but has a maximum height of 1–1.5
stories, a maximum building footprint/unit size of around 800 square feet and a
minimum size of courtyard. A Form-Based Code can regulate these fine-grained
details, such that on a 100′ by 100′ lot, two fourplexes or a bungalow court with
eight small, one-story units could be allowed, but not a single, larger eight-unit
apartment building.
For these reasons and more, Form-Based Coding is the most effective way to
enable Missing Middle Housing.
The small multiplex building type from Cincinnati’s
Form-Based Code
“I want to thank you for your great work on Missing Middle Housing! It has been
useful in my current research on policy reforms to support more affordable infill
development in Victoria, B.C., and informing my report ‘Affordable Accessible
Housing in a Dynamic City.’”
— Todd Litman, Victoria Transport Policy Institute
For more information about Form-Based
Codes, see:
• Form-Based Codes: A Guide to Planners,
Urban Designers, Municipalities, and
Developers,
by Daniel Parolek, Karen Parolek, and Paul
C. Crawford
• Form-Based Codes Institute
Form-Based Codes with Building Types to
Reference:
• Cincinnati, OH (And read this blog
post about the project)
• Mesa, AZ (Article 6: Form-Based Code)
• Livermore, CA
Or find out about our Form-Based Coding
services
Illustration of the variety of places regulated by Flagstaff’s
Form-Based Code
ATTACHMENT 5
From: jeff bedolla <jpaulbedolla@yahoo.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2019 4:34 PM
To: Jennifer Armer <JArmer@losgatosca.gov>
Subject: Re: General Plan Update Survey
Hi Jennifer,
I was jogging on the trail a little while ago and I thought of something to say.
You said my comments would be put in the review process. That doesn't sound
like a good answer to me, so I needed to protest. And my protest takes the form
of a request for an explanation of why the question about multi-modal projects
was put in such a way that viewpoints against multi-modal projects are not
solicited. The question says 'how important', not what do you think of it. By
protesting this way, I can get direct communication from someone. That goes to
my criticism of your help so far. The review process you spoke of is a general
catch-all for comments relating to the question as put. But my challenge goes
back one level deeper in the policy formation process. The review process is
built on the same assumption that the question itself is, so it is not the proper
way of addressing my concerns. The Town can still go forward with multi-
modal projects, but I want to be on record as having initiated public
discussion. I feel that has been missing since multi-modal projects began. If I
asked people, I'll bet a lot of them would say they don't like them. Good
projects require good input.
Jeff
From: John Shepardson <shepardsonlaw@me.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2019 1:19 PM
To: Steven Leonardis <SLeonardis@losgatosca.gov>; Marcia Jensen <MJensen@losgatosca.gov>; Marico
Sayoc <MSayoc@losgatosca.gov>; BSpector <BSpector@losgatosca.gov>; Rob Rennie
<RRennie@losgatosca.gov>; Laurel Prevetti <LPrevetti@losgatosca.gov>
Subject: (Climate Change and General Plan)
Group:
Does the General Plan cite Climate Change as an urgent or emergency situation?
If not, I do suggest that such language be included.
1. "The issue is not over science. All parties agree that fossil fuels have led to
global warming and ocean rise and will continue to do so, and that eventually the
navigable waters of the
2. United States will intrude upon Oakland and San Francisco.” (emphasis added)
3.
https://apnews.com/365152873b564c178b99bb7f3eeff32b
In Monday’s ruling, the judge said he accepted the “vast
scientific consensus” that the combustion of
fossil fuels has contributed to global warming and rising sea levels. (emphasis
added)
http://blogs2.law.columbia.edu/climate-change-litigation/wp-content/uploads/sites/16/case-
documents/2018/20180323_docket-317-cv-06011_exhibit-1.pdf
http://blogs2.law.columbia.edu/climate-change-litigation/wp-content/uploads/sites/16/case-
documents/2018/20180323_docket-317-cv-06011_exhibit-2.pdf
http://blogs2.law.columbia.edu/climate-change-litigation/wp-content/uploads/sites/16/case-
documents/2018/20180323_docket-317-cv-06011_exhibit-3.pdf
http://blogs2.law.columbia.edu/climate-change-litigation/wp-content/uploads/sites/16/case-
documents/2018/20180323_docket-317-cv-06011_exhibit-4.pdf
John Shepardson
shepardsonlaw@me.com
United States District CourtFor the Northern District of California1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CITY OF OAKLAND, a Municipal Corporation, and
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
acting by and through Oakland City Attorney
BARBARA J. PARKER,
Plaintiffs,
v.
BP P.L.C., a public limited company of England and
Wales, CHEVRON CORPORATION, a Delaware
corporation, CONOCOPHILLIPS, a Delaware
corporation, EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION, a
New Jersey corporation, ROYAL DUTCH SHELL
PLC, a public limited company of England and
Wales, and DOES 1 through 10,
Defendants
/
AND RELATED CASE.
/
No. C 17-06011 WHA
and
No. C 17-06012 WHA
ORDER GRANTING
MOTION TO DISMISS
AMENDED COMPLAINTS
INTRODUCTION
In these “global warming” actions asserting claims for public nuisance, defendants move
to dismiss for failure to state a claim. For the following reasons, the motion is GRANTED.
STATEMENT
These actions arise out of a vital function of our atmosphere — its thermostat function —
that is, keeping the temperature of our planet within a habitable range. The atmosphere hosts
water vapor and certain trace gases without which heat at Earth’s surface would excessively
radiate into space, leaving our planet too cold for life. One of those trace gases is carbon dioxide,
Case 3:17-cv-06011-WHA Document 283 Filed 06/25/18 Page 1 of 16
United States District CourtFor the Northern District of California1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1 Our case involves all greenhouse gases, including methane, but “[c]arbon dioxide is by far the most
important greenhouse gas” (Amd. Compls. ¶ 74).
2 In 1859–1861, Tyndall discovered that the main gases in the atmosphere, nitrogen and oxygen, were
transparent to infrared radiation but that carbon dioxide was opaque, meaning carbon dioxide absorbed infrared
radiation. Tyndall recognized that carbon dioxide kept Earth warmer than would be the case without it. John
Tyndall, On the Absorption and Radiation of Heat by Gases and Vapours, and on the Physical Connexion of
Radiation, Absorption, and Conduction, 151 Phil. Trans. Royal Soc’y London 1 (1861).
2
a gas produced by, among other things, animal and human respiration, volcanoes and, more
significantly here, combustion of fossil fuels like oil and natural gas. As heat radiates skyward,
some of it passes close enough to molecules of carbon dioxide to be absorbed. These molecules
then re-radiate the energy in all directions, including back toward Earth’s surface. The more
carbon dioxide in the air, the more this absorption and re-radiation process warms the surface. It
turns out that even trace amounts of carbon dioxide in the air suffice to warm the atmosphere.1
The science dates back 120 years. In 1896, building on the findings by Irish scientist (and
mountaineer) John Tyndall that carbon dioxide absorbed heat (whereas oxygen and nitrogen did
not), Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius published calculations that connected increases in the
air’s carbon dioxide with increased global temperatures. Arrhenius, however, had no concern
over global warming. Rather, his focus remained solving the mystery of the ice ages and their
causes (Amd. Compls. ¶ 76; Svante Arrhenius, On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air Upon
the Temperature of the Ground, 41 Phil. Mag. & J. Sci. 237 (1896)).2
In 1938, scientist Guy Stewart Callendar published graphs plotting the warming of Earth
using temperature records from around the world. One graph showed a 0.07 Centigrade rise in
the mean temperatures of the planet from 1910 to 1930, while another showed a six to
eight-percent rise in carbon dioxide in the air over the same period. Given Tyndall’s earlier
finding, Callendar concluded that one rise had caused the other, namely that more carbon dioxide
had trapped more heat and caused the temperature to rise. Callendar, like Arrhenius, was not
alarmed over the possibility of global warming. Guy S. Callendar, The Artificial Production of
Carbon Dioxide and Its Influence on Temperature, 64 Q. J. Royal Meteorological Soc’y 223
(1938).
Case 3:17-cv-06011-WHA Document 283 Filed 06/25/18 Page 2 of 16
United States District CourtFor the Northern District of California1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
In 1957, oceanographer Roger Revelle and chemist Hans Suess published a critique of a
then prevailing view that the oceans would absorb excessive airborne carbon dioxide and thus
reduce the risk of an atmospheric buildup of carbon dioxide. Referring to the ongoing
combustion of fossil fuels and release of carbon dioxide, they concluded: “[h]uman beings are
now carrying out a large scale geophysical experiment of a kind that could not have happened in
the past nor be reproduced in the future” (Amd. Compls. ¶ 77).
Revelle later obtained funding to measure the buildup of carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere, arranging for scientist Charles David Keeling to reside on Mauna Loa in Hawaii to
measure and graph the real-time concentrations of carbon dioxide. This project produced the
famous Keeling Curve, a graph that shows a steady rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide, year after
year, like clockwork (id. ¶ 78; see also NOAA, EARTH SYSTEMS RESEARCH LABORATORY,
GLOBAL MONITORING DIVISION, https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/full.html (last
visited June 15, 2018)).
From this brief history up to the Sixties, it would be wrong to conclude that scientists had
sounded alarm bells for global warming. Arrhenius was more concerned with global cooling than
warming. Revelle said a large-scale, one-time experiment was in progress, but he sounded no
alarm bells at the time.
But alarm bells over climate change eventually did sound. In 1988, the United Nations
established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (“IPCC”). Its main objective was to
prepare — based on the best available scientific information — periodic assessments regarding all
aspects of climate change, with a view of formulating realistic response strategies. The IPCC had
three working groups: Working Group I assessed the scientific aspects of climate change,
Working Group II assessed the vulnerability and adaptation of socioeconomic and natural systems
to climate change, and Working Group III assessed the mitigation options for limiting greenhouse
gas emissions (Amd. Compls. ¶¶ 82–86).
The IPCC completed its first assessment report in 1990. The report made a persuasive
case for anthropogenic interference with the climate system, and each subsequent report (about
five to six years apart) incorporated advancements in measurements, observations, and modeling
Case 3:17-cv-06011-WHA Document 283 Filed 06/25/18 Page 3 of 16
United States District CourtFor the Northern District of California1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 3 The IPCC anticipates the release of a special report in October 2018 and the sixth assessment report
in 2021.
4
— and each presented a more precise picture of how our climate has changed, and what has
changed it. The fifth assessment report, released in 2013, was abundantly clear:
Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the
observed changes are unprecedented over decades and millennia. The atmosphere
and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, sea level
has risen, and the concentrations of greenhouse gases have increased.
The report was also clear as to the cause, stating that it was “extremely likely” that “human
influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century”
(ibid.).3
The science acknowledges that causes beyond the burning of fossil fuels are also at work.
Deforestation has been and remains a significant contributor to the rise in carbon dioxide. Others
include volcanoes and wildfires in greater numbers. Nevertheless, even acknowledging these
other contributions, climate scientists are in vast consensus that the combustion of fossil fuels has,
in and of itself, materially increased carbon dioxide levels, which in turn has materially increased
the median temperature of the planet, which in turn has accelerated ice melt and raised (and
continues to raise) the sea level.
In sum, in the last 120 years, the amount of carbon dioxide (and methane) in the air has
increased, with most of the increase having come in recent decades. During that time, the median
temperature of Earth has increased 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit. Glaciers around the world have been
shrinking. Ice sheets over Greenland and Antarctica have been melting. The sea level has risen
by about seven centimeters since 1993 (about seven to eight inches since 1900). As our globe
warms and the seas rise, coastal lands in Oakland and San Francisco will, without erection of
seawalls and other infrastructure, eventually become submerged by the navigable waters of the
United States (id. ¶¶ 86–90, 124–36).
Defendants Chevron Corporation, Exxon Mobil Corporation, BP p.l.c., Royal Dutch Shell
plc, and ConocoPhillips are the five largest investor-owned (as opposed to state-owned)
producers of fossil fuels in the world, as measured by the greenhouse gas emissions allegedly
generated from the use of the fossil fuels they have produced. They are the first (Chevron),
Case 3:17-cv-06011-WHA Document 283 Filed 06/25/18 Page 4 of 16
United States District CourtFor the Northern District of California1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 4 All docket numbers herein refer to the docket in Case No. 17-cv-06011-WHA.
5
second (Exxon), fourth (BP), sixth (Shell) and ninth (ConocoPhillips) largest cumulative
producers of fossil fuels worldwide and are collectively responsible for over eleven percent of all
carbon dioxide and methane pollution that has accumulated in the atmosphere since the Industrial
Revolution (id. ¶ 94).
Defendants have allegedly long known the threat fossil fuels pose to the global climate.
Nonetheless, they continued to extract and produce them in massive amounts while engaging in
widespread advertising and communications campaigns meant to promote the sale of fossil fuels.
These campaigns portrayed fossil fuels as environmentally responsible and essential to human
well-being and downplayed the risks of global warming by emphasizing the uncertainties of
climate science or attacking the credibility of climate scientists (id. ¶¶ 95–123).
In September 2017, Oakland and San Francisco commenced these actions in state court.
The original complaints each asserted a single claim for public nuisance under California law.
After defendants removed the actions to this district, an order dated February 27, 2018, denied
plaintiffs’ motions to remand (Dkt. Nos. 1, 134).4
Given the international scope of plaintiffs’ claims and that the very instrumentality of the
anticipated coastal flooding is uniquely federal — namely, the navigable waters of the United
States — one threshold issue presented by these cases was whether federal common law should
govern (rather than state law). The February 27 order concluded:
Plaintiffs’ claims for public nuisance, though pled as state-law claims, depend on a
global complex of geophysical cause and effect involving all nations of the planet
(and the oceans and atmosphere). It necessarily involves the relationships between
the United States and all other nations. It demands to be governed by as universal
a rule of apportioning responsibility as is available. This order does not address
whether (or not) plaintiffs have stated claims for relief. But plaintiffs’ claims, if
any, are governed by federal common law. Federal jurisdiction is therefore proper.
Plaintiffs have since amended their complaints to plead a separate claim for public
nuisance under federal common law. The amended complaints also substituted defendant
ConocoPhillips for its subsidiary, ConocoPhillips Company, and added the City of Oakland and
the City and County of San Francisco as plaintiffs to the federal nuisance claims, among other
Case 3:17-cv-06011-WHA Document 283 Filed 06/25/18 Page 5 of 16
United States District CourtFor the Northern District of California1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5 At the Court’s invitation, the United States submitted an amicus brief on the question of whether or
not (and the extent to which) federal common law affords the relief requested by plaintiffs. The Attorneys
General of eighteen States also submitted amicus briefs (Dkt. Nos. 224, 236, 245).
6
additions. On March 21, to standing room only, counsel and their experts conducted a science
tutorial for the undersigned judge. Defendants now move to dismiss the amended complaints for
failure to state a claim (Dkt. Nos. 174, 199, 225). This order follows full briefing, oral argument,
and supplemental briefing.5
ANALYSIS
The issue is not over science. All parties agree that fossil fuels have led to global
warming and ocean rise and will continue to do so, and that eventually the navigable waters of the
United States will intrude upon Oakland and San Francisco. The issue is a legal one — whether
these producers of fossil fuels should pay for anticipated harm that will eventually flow from a
rise in sea level.
The sole claim for relief is for “public nuisance,” a claim governed by federal common
law. The specific nuisance is global-warming induced sea level rise. Plaintiffs’ theory, to repeat,
is that defendants’ sale of fossil fuels leads to their eventual combustion, which leads to more
carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which leads to more global warming and consequent ocean
rise.
The scope of plaintiffs’ theory is breathtaking. It would reach the sale of fossil fuels
anywhere in the world, including all past and otherwise lawful sales, where the seller knew that
the combustion of fossil fuels contributed to the phenomenon of global warming. While these
actions are brought against the first, second, fourth, sixth and ninth largest producers of fossil
fuels, anyone who supplied fossil fuels with knowledge of the problem would be liable. At one
point, counsel seemed to limit liability to those who had promoted allegedly phony science to
deny climate change. But at oral argument, plaintiffs’ counsel clarified that any such promotion
remained merely a “plus factor.” Their theory rests on the sweeping proposition that otherwise
Case 3:17-cv-06011-WHA Document 283 Filed 06/25/18 Page 6 of 16
United States District CourtFor the Northern District of California1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6 This clarification seems to have been aimed at avoiding the Noerr-Pennington doctrine and other free
speech issues inherent in predicating liability on publications designed to influence public policy. See E. R. R.
Presidents Conference v. Noerr Motor Freight, Inc., 365 U.S. 127 (1961); United Mine Workers v. Pennington,
381 U.S. 657 (1965).
7 Although plaintiffs analogize these actions to earlier lawsuits against “Big Tobacco,” only one court
has ever sustained a public nuisance theory against a tobacco company. Evans v. Lorillard Tobacco Co., No.
04-2840A, 2007 WL 796175 (Mass. Super. Ct. Feb. 7, 2007). Every other court to reach the issue, however,
has rejected a public nuisance theory. See, e.g., Allegheny Gen. Hosp. v. Phillip Morris, 228 F.3d 429, 446 (3d
Cir. 2000); Texas v. Am. Tobacco Co., 14 F. Supp. 2d 956, 972–73 (E.D. Tex. 1997).
7
lawful and everyday sales of fossil fuels, combined with an awareness that greenhouse gas
emissions lead to increased global temperatures, constitute a public nuisance.6
A public nuisance under federal common law, both sides agree, is an “unreasonable
interference with a right common to the general public,” as set forth in the Restatement (Second)
of Torts § 821B(1) (1979). Putting aside momentarily the important issue of displacement, a
successful public nuisance claim therefore requires proof that a defendant’s activity unreasonably
interferes with the use or enjoyment of a public right and thereby causes the public-at-large
substantial and widespread harm. Native Vill. of Kivalina v. ExxonMobil Corp., 696 F.3d 849,
855 (9th Cir. 2012) (citing Missouri v. Illinois, 200 U.S. 496, 521 (1906)).
No plaintiff has ever succeeded in bringing a nuisance claim based on global warming.
But courts that have addressed such claims, as well as the parties here, have turned to the
Restatement to analyze whether the common law tort of nuisance can be applied in this context.7
Section 821B of the Restatement sets forth three tests for whether an interference with a
public right is unreasonable:
(a) Whether the conduct involves a significant interference with the public
health, the public safety, the public peace, the public comfort or the public
convenience, or
(b) whether the conduct is proscribed by a statute, ordinance or
administrative regulation, or
(c) whether the conduct is of a continuing nature or has produced a
permanent or long-lasting effect, and, as the actor knows or has reason to
know, has a significant effect upon the public right.
To be held liable for a public nuisance, a defendant’s interference with a public right can
either be intentional, or unintentional and otherwise actionable under principles controlling
liability for negligence, recklessness, or abnormally dangerous activities. Restatement § 821B
Case 3:17-cv-06011-WHA Document 283 Filed 06/25/18 Page 7 of 16
United States District CourtFor the Northern District of California1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
8 Another problem involves timing. Although plaintiffs allege that global warming has already caused
sea level rise, Oakland and San Francisco have yet to build a seawall or other infrastructure for which they seek
reimbursement. The United States Army Corps of Engineers has already proposed projects to address the
problem and is likely to help protect plaintiffs’ property and residents. Oakland and San Francisco may
8
cmt. e. Where, as alleged here, the interference is intentional, “it must also be unreasonable.”
Ibid. This determination, in turn, involves “the weighing of the gravity of the harm against the
utility of the conduct,” guidance for which is set forth in Sections 826 through 831 of the
Restatement. Ibid. If the interference was unintentional, the principles governing negligence,
recklessness, or abnormally dangerous activities also “embody in some degree the concept of
unreasonableness.” Ibid.
The commentary to Sections 826 through 831 explain, among other things, that “in
determining whether the gravity of the interference with the public right outweighs the utility of
the actor’s conduct, it is necessary to consider the extent and character of the interference, the
social value that the law attaches to it, the character of the locality involved and the burden of
avoiding the harm placed upon members of the public.” Id. at § 827 cmt. a. Relatedly, in
evaluating the utility of the conduct, “it is necessary to consider the social value that the law
attaches to the primary purpose of the conduct, the suitability of the conduct to the character of
the locality and the impracticality of preventing or avoiding the invasion.” Id. at § 828 cmt. a.
With respect to balancing the social utility against the gravity of the anticipated harm, it is
true that carbon dioxide released from fossil fuels has caused (and will continue to cause) global
warming. But against that negative, we must weigh this positive: our industrial revolution and the
development of our modern world has literally been fueled by oil and coal. Without those fuels,
virtually all of our monumental progress would have been impossible. All of us have benefitted.
Having reaped the benefit of that historic progress, would it really be fair to now ignore our own
responsibility in the use of fossil fuels and place the blame for global warming on those who
supplied what we demanded? Is it really fair, in light of those benefits, to say that the sale of
fossil fuels was unreasonable?
This order recognizes but does not resolve these questions, for there is a more direct
resolution from the Supreme Court and our court of appeals, next considered.8
Case 3:17-cv-06011-WHA Document 283 Filed 06/25/18 Page 8 of 16
United States District CourtFor the Northern District of California1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
eventually incur expense over and above federal outlays, but that is neither certain nor imminent. If and when
those expense items are actually incurred, defendants will still be in business and will be good for any liability.
Requiring them to pay now into an anticipatory “abatement fund” would be like walking to the pay window
before the race is over.
9
1. DISPLACEMENT.
The Supreme Court has held that the Clean Air Act and the EPA’s authority thereunder to
set emission standards have displaced federal common law nuisance claims to enjoin a
defendant’s emission of greenhouse gases. Am. Elec. Power Co., Inc. v. Connecticut, 564 U.S.
410 (2011) (“AEP”). In Kivalina, our court of appeals extended the Clean Air Act displacement
rule to claims for damages based on an oil producer’s past emissions. 696 F.3d 849. In other
words, Congress has vested in the EPA the problem of greenhouse gases and has given it plenary
authority to solve the problem at the point of emissions.
Here, by contrast, defendants stand accused, not for their own emissions of greenhouse
gases, but for their sale of fossil fuels to those who eventually burn the fuel. Is this distinction
enough to avoid displacement under AEP and Kivalina? The harm alleged by our plaintiffs
remains a harm caused by fossil fuel emissions, not the mere extraction or even sale of fossil
fuels. This order holds that, were this the only distinction, AEP and Kivalina would still apply. If
an oil producer cannot be sued under the federal common law for their own emissions, a fortiori
they cannot be sued for someone else’s.
The amended complaints, however, add another dimension not addressed in AEP or
Kivalina, namely that the conduct and emissions contributing to the nuisance arise outside the
United States, although their ill effects reach within the United States. Specifically, emissions
from the use of defendants’ fossil fuels abroad send greenhouse gases into our atmosphere, warm
our globe, melt its ice, raise sea levels, and, via the navigable waters of the United States, threaten
coastal flooding in Oakland and San Francisco. The February 27 order concluded that because
plaintiffs’ nuisance claims centered on defendants’ placement of fossil fuels into the flow of
international commerce, and because foreign emissions are out of the EPA and Clean Air Act’s
reach, the Clean Air Act did not necessarily displace plaintiffs’ federal common law claims.
Case 3:17-cv-06011-WHA Document 283 Filed 06/25/18 Page 9 of 16
United States District CourtFor the Northern District of California1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
10
Nevertheless, these claims are foreclosed by the need for federal courts to defer to the legislative
and executive branches when it comes to such international problems, as now explained.
2. INTERFERENCE WITH SEPARATION OF POWERS AND FOREIGN POLICY.
The Supreme Court has given us caution in formulating new claims under federal common
law. Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692 (2004). Sosa and earlier decisions “cast doubt on
the authority of courts to extend or create private causes of action even in the realm of domestic
law, where [the Supreme Court] has ‘recently and repeatedly said that a decision to create a
private right of action is one better left to legislative judgment in the great majority of cases.’”
Jesner v. Arab Bank, PLC, 138 S. Ct. 1386, 1402 (2018) (citing Sosa, 542 U.S. at 727). The
Supreme Court has also “remain[ed] mindful that it does not have the creative power akin to that
vested in Congress.” AEP, 564 U.S. at 422. One consideration weighing in favor of judicial
caution is where “modern indications of congressional understanding of the judicial role in the
field have not affirmatively encouraged greater judicial creativity.” Sosa, 542 U.S. at 728.
As explained above, plaintiffs’ claims require a balancing of policy concerns — including
the harmful effects of greenhouse gas emissions, our industrialized society’s dependence on fossil
fuels, and national security. Through the Clean Air Act, Congress “entrust[ed] such complex
balancing to the EPA in the first instance, in combination with state regulators.” AEP, 564 U.S. at
427. And, not long ago, the problem wasn’t too much oil, but too little, and our national policy
emphasized the urgency of reducing dependence on foreign oil. In enacting the Energy Policy
Act of 1992, for example, Congress expressed that it was “the goal of the United States in
carrying out energy supply and energy conservation research and development . . . to strengthen
national energy security by reducing dependence on imported oil.” 42 U.S.C. § 13401. In our
industrialized and modern society, we needed (and still need) oil and gas to fuel power plants,
vehicles, planes, trains, ships, equipment, homes and factories. Our industrial revolution and our
modern nation, to repeat, have been fueled by fossil fuels.
In light of AEP, plaintiffs shift their focus to sales of fossil fuels worldwide, beyond the
reach of the EPA and the Clean Air Act. This shift to foreign lands, however, runs counter to
another cautionary restriction, the presumption against extraterritoriality. The Supreme Court has
Case 3:17-cv-06011-WHA Document 283 Filed 06/25/18 Page 10 of 16
United States District CourtFor the Northern District of California1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
11
cautioned that where recognizing a new claim for relief under federal common law could affect
foreign relations, courts should be “particularly wary of impinging on the discretion of the
Legislative and Executive Branches in managing foreign affairs.” Sosa, 542 U.S. at 727. In
Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 569 U.S. 108 (2013), the Supreme Court held that the
principles underlying the presumption against extraterritoriality also constrain courts considering
claims brought under the Alien Tort Statute. The presumption “serves to protect against
unintended clashes between our laws and those of other nations” and “helps ensure that the
Judiciary does not erroneously adopt an interpretation of U.S. law that carries foreign policy
consequences not clearly intended by the political branches.” Id. at 115–16 (citations and internal
quotation marks omitted). While courts “typically apply the presumption to discern whether an
Act of Congress regulating conduct applies abroad,” Kiobel recognized that “the danger of
unwarranted judicial interference in the conduct of foreign policy is magnified” where “the
question is not what Congress has done but instead what courts may do.” Id. at 116. And where
a claim “reaches conduct within the territory of another sovereign,” concerns of “unwarranted
judicial interference” in foreign policy “are all the more pressing.” Id. at 117. Importantly, “[t]he
political branches, not the Judiciary, have the responsibility and institutional capacity to weigh
foreign-policy concerns.” Jesner, 138 S. Ct. at 1403.
Here, plaintiffs seek to impose liability on five companies for their production and sale of
fossil fuels worldwide. These claims — through which plaintiffs request billions of dollars to
abate the localized effects of an inherently global phenomenon — undoubtedly implicate the
interests of countless governments, both foreign and domestic. The challenged conduct is, as far
as the complaints allege, lawful in every nation. And, as the United States aptly notes, many
foreign governments actively support the very activities targeted by plaintiffs’ claims (USA
Amicus Br. at 18). Nevertheless, plaintiffs would have a single judge or jury in California impose
an abatement fund as a result of such overseas behavior. Because this relief would effectively
allow plaintiffs to govern conduct and control energy policy on foreign soil, we must exercise
great caution.
Case 3:17-cv-06011-WHA Document 283 Filed 06/25/18 Page 11 of 16
United States District CourtFor the Northern District of California1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
12
Global warming is already the subject of international agreements. The United States is
also engaged in active discussions with other countries as to whether and how climate change
should be addressed through a coordinated framework (ibid.). The Montreal Protocol on
Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, signed by 197 countries to eliminate
chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), demonstrates that global cooperation can work, even if getting there
remains difficult. Everyone has contributed to the problem of global warming and everyone will
suffer the consequences — the classic scenario for a legislative or international solution.
This order fully accepts the vast scientific consensus that the combustion of fossil fuels
has materially increased atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, which in turn has increased the
median temperature of the planet and accelerated sea level rise. But questions of how to
appropriately balance these worldwide negatives against the worldwide positives of the energy
itself, and of how to allocate the pluses and minuses among the nations of the world, demand the
expertise of our environmental agencies, our diplomats, our Executive, and at least the Senate.
Nuisance suits in various United States judicial districts regarding conduct worldwide are far less
likely to solve the problem and, indeed, could interfere with reaching a worldwide consensus.
Plaintiffs argue against this result on several grounds. First, plaintiffs argue that
adjudication of plaintiffs’ claims would not infringe on the role of the political branches because
the undersigned judge need not weigh or consider the social utility of defendants’ conduct. The
commentary to Section 826 of the Restatement explains that in some scenarios harm may be “so
severe” that the conduct becomes unreasonable “as a matter of law,” and that in such situations
monetary recovery is available “regardless of the utility of the activity in the abstract.”
Restatement § 826 cmt. b. Plaintiffs similarly rely on Section 829A, which provides:
An intentional invasion of another’s interest in the use and enjoyment of land is
unreasonable if the harm resulting from the invasion is severe and greater than the
other should be required to bear without compensation.
Plaintiffs claim that the harm alleged in these actions is “undeniably severe” such that
global warming constitutes a nuisance as a matter of law. But in AEP, the Supreme Court
addressed public nuisance claims based on similar allegations of harm, and nonetheless cautioned
that policy questions concerning global warming require an “informed assessment of competing
Case 3:17-cv-06011-WHA Document 283 Filed 06/25/18 Page 12 of 16
United States District CourtFor the Northern District of California1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
13
interests” and that “[a]long with the environmental benefit potentially achievable, our Nation’s
energy needs and the possibility of economic disruption must weigh in the balance.” 564 U.S. at
427.
Plaintiffs next cite to Section 821B, comment i (entitled “Action for damages
distinguished from one for injunction”) which provides:
In determining whether to award damages, the court’s task is to decide whether it
is unreasonable to engage in the conduct without paying for the harm done.
Although a general activity may have great utility it may still be unreasonable to
inflict the harm without compensating for it. In an action for injunction the
question is whether the activity itself is so unreasonable that it must be stopped. It
may be reasonable to continue an important activity if payment is made for the
harm it is causing, but unreasonable to continue it without paying.
This question of reasonableness nevertheless falls squarely within the type of balancing
best left to Congress (or diplomacy). Judge Martin Jenkins rejected a similar argument in People
of the State of California v. General Motors Corp., No. 06-cv-05755, 2007 WL 2726871 (N.D.
Cal. Sept. 17, 2007). There, the State of California sued several automakers for contributing to
global warming. California argued that because it sought damages, resolution of its federal
common law public nuisance claim would not require the district court to determine whether the
defendants’ actions had been unreasonable, but rather whether the interference suffered by
California was unreasonable. Id. at *8. Judge Jenkins disagreed that this distinction would allow
him to avoid making policy determinations, explaining that “regardless of the relief sought, the
Court is left to make an initial decision as to what is unreasonable in the context of carbon
dioxide emissions.” Ibid. So too here.
Finally, plaintiffs point to Section 826, which provides:
An intentional invasion of another’s interest in the use and enjoyment of land is
unreasonable if (a) the gravity of the harm outweighs the utility of the actor’s
conduct, or (b) the harm caused by the conduct is serious and the financial burden
of compensating for this and similar harm to others would not make the
continuation of the conduct not feasible.
Plaintiffs claim that they can be compensated pursuant to subsection (b), which does not require
weighing the utility of defendants’ conduct. The commentary to this section is clear, however,
that “[i]f imposition of this financial burden would make continuation of the activity not feasible,
the weighing process for determining unreasonableness is similar to that in a suit for injunction.”
Case 3:17-cv-06011-WHA Document 283 Filed 06/25/18 Page 13 of 16
United States District CourtFor the Northern District of California1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
9 The parties have identified seven similar actions brought by cities and counties across the country.
Cty. of San Mateo v. Chevron Corp., et al., No. 17-cv-4929 (N.D. Cal.); City of Imperial Beach v. Chevron
Corp., et al., No. 17-cv-4934 (N.D. Cal.); Cty. of Marin v. Chevron Corp., et al., No. 17-cv-4935 (N.D. Cal.);
Cty. of Santa Cruz v. Chevron Corp., et al., No. 18-cv-450 (N.D. Cal.); City of Santa Cruz v. Chevron Corp., et
al., No. 18-cv-458 (N.D. Cal.); City of Richmond v. Chevron Corp., et al., No. 18-cv-732 (N.D. Cal.); City of
New York v. BP P.L.C., et al., No. 18-cv-182 (S.D.N.Y.); King Cty. v. BP P.L.C., et al., No. 18-2-11859-0 (Sup.
Ct. King Cty., Wash.).
14
Restatement § 826 cmt. f. In these actions alone, two plaintiffs seek billions of dollars each in the
form of an abatement fund. It seems a near certainty that judgments in favor of the plaintiffs who
have brought similar nuisance claims based on identical conduct (let alone those plaintiffs who
have yet to file suit) would make the continuation of defendants’ fossil fuel production “not
feasible.” This order accordingly disagrees that it could ignore the public benefits derived from
defendants’ conduct in adjudicating plaintiffs’ claims. In the aggregate, the adjustment of
conflicting pros and cons ought to be left to Congress or diplomacy.9
Second, plaintiffs point to the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit’s decision in AEP,
where the court held that a global-warming nuisance claim did not present non-justiciable
political questions, a conclusion affirmed by an equally-divided Supreme Court. AEP, 564 U.S.
at 420 n.6. As previously explained, however, AEP addressed different claims. To be sure, the
Second Circuit disagreed that it had been asked “to fashion a comprehensive and far-reaching
solution to global climate change, a task that arguably falls within the purview of the political
branches.” Connecticut v. Am. Elec. Power Co., 582 F.3d 309, 325 (2d Cir. 2009), rev’d on other
grounds, 564 U.S. 410 (2011). But in doing so, the court highlighted that the plaintiffs there
sought only to limit emissions from six domestic coal-fired electricity plants, and that “[a]
decision by a single federal court concerning a common law of nuisance cause of action, brought
by domestic plaintiffs against domestic companies for domestic conduct, does not establish a
national or international emissions policy (assuming that emissions caps are even put into
place).” Ibid. (emphasis in original). Here, the claims are plainly not so limited.
Third, plaintiffs argue that Sosa and its progeny are not instructive because those
decisions arose in the context of the Alien Tort Statute. The Alien Tort Statute simply provides
that “[t]he district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action by an alien for a tort
only, committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. §
Case 3:17-cv-06011-WHA Document 283 Filed 06/25/18 Page 14 of 16
United States District CourtFor the Northern District of California1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
15
1350. “The statute provides district courts with jurisdiction to hear certain claims, but does not
expressly provide any causes of action.” Kiobel, 569 U.S. at 114–15. This grant of jurisdiction is
“read as having been enacted on the understanding that the common law would provide a cause of
action for [a] modest number of international law violations.” Sosa, 542 U.S. at 724. Federal
courts may therefore “recognize private claims [for such violations] under federal common law.”
Id. at 732. The broader point made by the Supreme Court in these decisions is that federal courts
should exercise great caution before fashioning federal common law in areas touching on foreign
affairs. For the reasons explained above, such concerns of caution are squarely presented here.
The federal common law claims must be dismissed.
* * *
The foregoing disposes of the federal common law claims in their entirety. The amended
complaints also assert a state law claim for public nuisance. For the reasons stated in the
February 27 order denying remand, however, plaintiffs’ nuisance claims must stand or fall under
federal common law. Accordingly, plaintiffs’ state law claims must also be dismissed.
CONCLUSION
It may seem peculiar that an earlier order refused to remand this action to state court on
the ground that plaintiffs’ claims were necessarily governed by federal law, while the current
order concludes that federal common law should not be extended to provide relief. There is,
however, no inconsistency. It remains proper for the scope of plaintiffs’ claims to be decided
under federal law, given the international reach of the alleged wrong and given that the
instrumentality of the alleged harm is the navigable waters of the United States. Although the
scope of plaintiffs’ claims is determined by federal law, there are sound reasons why regulation of
the worldwide problem of global warming should be determined by our political branches, not by
our judiciary.
In sum, this order accepts the science behind global warming. So do both sides. The
dangers raised in the complaints are very real. But those dangers are worldwide. Their causes are
worldwide. The benefits of fossil fuels are worldwide. The problem deserves a solution on a
more vast scale than can be supplied by a district judge or jury in a public nuisance case. While it
Case 3:17-cv-06011-WHA Document 283 Filed 06/25/18 Page 15 of 16
United States District CourtFor the Northern District of California1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
16
remains true that our federal courts have authority to fashion common law remedies for claims
based on global warming, courts must also respect and defer to the other co-equal branches of
government when the problem at hand clearly deserves a solution best addressed by those
branches. The Court will stay its hand in favor of solutions by the legislative and executive
branches. For the reasons stated, defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 25, 2018. WILLIAM ALSUPUNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 3:17-cv-06011-WHA Document 283 Filed 06/25/18 Page 16 of 16
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank