02 Staff Report - Housing Element UpdateMEETING DATE: 11/12/02
ITEM NO. in
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
DATE: November 7, 2002
TO: MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
FROM: DEBRA J. FIGONE, TOWN MANAGER
SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO ADOPT THE HOUSING ELEMENT
UPDATE: FILE # GP-02-01, ND-02-03. APPLICANT: TOWN OF LOS
GATOS
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Open the public hearing;
2. Close the public hearing;
3. Find that the Housing Element update is internally consistent with the General Plan;
4. Make the Negative Declaration;
5. Adopt the Resolution Updating the Housing Element of the General Plan.
BACKGROUND:
The current Housing Element was adopted in 1997. When the General Plan was adopted in July
2000, the 1997 Housing Element was not amended as it was scheduled to be updated in 2002. The
scheduled update commenced in September 2001, and the draft Housing Element Technical
Appendix was released for public review on September 4, 2002. The Housing Program Strategy
including goals, policies and implementations from the Technical Appendix (pages 69 through 80)
will be incorporated in the General Plan update (included as Exhibit A to Attachment 1). The
Technical Appendix will be kept on file as a reference document.
On August 20, 2001 the Town Council authorized the Town Manager to enter into an agreement
with housing consultant, Melanie Shaffer Freitas of Freitas + Freitas. Ms. Shaffer Freitas prepared
the 1997 Housing Element and was successful in getting that document certified by the State. Ms.
Shaffer Freitas worked with staff and the General Plan Committee in preparing the Draft Housing
Element update. An administrative draft Housing Element update was completed in March 2002.
Staff then worked with a four member Sub -Committee of the General Plan Committee in reviewing
PREPARED BY: Bud N. Lortz, Director of Community Development
N:\DEV\SUZANNE\Council\Repons\Pwd. to TC\Housing Element.wpd
Reviewed by: Assistant Town Manager Town Attorney Clerk Finance
Community Development Revised: 11/7/02 2:13 pm
Reformatted: 5/30/02
_,,1!C
t"-Th
PAGE 2
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
November 8, 2002
the proposed goals, policies and implementations. The Town submitted the administrative draft to
the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) in June 2002, and received
comments on July 17, 2002. The draft Housing Element was revised to address the comments from
HCD and was resubmitted to the State on September 5, 2002. During the week of November 4,
2002, staff and the housing consultant have had discussions with HCD about two areas of concern
(see discussion). Staff and the housing consultant have continued to work with the State to achieve
certification of the Housing Element. The housing consultant will be at the Council meeting to make
a brief presentation and to answer any questions the Council may have.
The 45 day public review period for the Draft Housing Element was advertised in the Los Gatos
Weekly Times on September 4, 2002. Informative e-mail messages and a memorandum were sent
to surrounding cities, school districts, housing agencies and churches. The draft document was
posted on the Town's web -site, and is available for review at the Library, Town Clerk's office, and
Community Development Department. The public review period ended on October 21, 2002 at 5:00
pm. No written comments were received.
DISCUSSION:
General discussion on the content of the Draft Housing Element is contained on pages two through
four of the report to the Planning Commission (Attachment 3).
Affordable Housing Study Session
The Council held an affordable housing study session on September 16, 2002. At that meeting,
Council members requested information on the following:
• Comparison of the Town 's planning process with that of other communities.
• Are there areas of the Town's process that can be streamlined.
Attachment 3 is a chart showing general information about the planning process for other
Santa Clara County cities. To clarify the Town's approach the Council may want to consider
adopting a policy about how the Town processes multi -family projects. The policy could
describe what types ofinformation is considered compelling evidence (e.g. recommendations
from the Town's architectural consultant, traffic engineer, arborist or environmental or
geotechnical consultants) to avoid processing delays. Additionally, projects should not be
held up for traffic calming issues that already exist. Rather, a traffic calming study should
be coordinated in accordance with the Town's Traffic Calming Policy. If the Council would
like to see this pursued, staff can be directed to proceed and return with a report including
further analysis of the issue and a draft policy.
PAGE 3
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
November 8, 2002.
• Status of Housing Trust Fund contribution.
The agreement between the Santa Clara County Housing Trust and the Town states that the
funds must be used to increase, improve or preserve affordable housing in the Town
Redevelopment Area within 24 months of execution (April 2003). The Redevelopment
Manager recently contacted the new director of the Housing Trust to begin discussions about
a project. It is likely that the Housing Trust will request an extension to the agreement given
that the 24 month period is only five months away. Staff will keep the Council apprised of
any developments in discussions with the Housing Trust.
• Ownership versus rental units.
The consensus of the Council was to follow the General Plan guideline of maintaining 35%
of the Town's housing stock as rental units. The BMP regulations will be analyzed in 2003,
and may be amended to address rental versus ownership units in addition to several other
components of the ordinance being evaluated.
• Housing types to be encouraged.
It is noted in the draft Housing Element that construction of condominiums has decreased
in recent years due to a decrease in financing options, insurance requirements and
construction defect litigation. If the Council feels it is important to encourage a particular
type of housing such as condominiums, Town staff can play an advocacy role when a
developer approaches the Town about building a multi -family housing project and will
explore ways to provide incentives by amending Town regulations and procedures.
• Achievement of 92% of the Town's Fair Share Housing Allocation (page 68, Attachment 4)
This number is reflective of the Town's achievement, and as such is a positive number. The
92% figure shows a successful completion of housing objectives. There is not a number that
HCD is specifically looking for; the intent is for the Town to assess how it did in the past in
order to determine future housing strategies. Compared to other communities the Town has
been extremely successful.
HCD Review of Revised Housing Element
Upon review of the revised draft Housing Element Technical Appendix, the Department of Housing
& Community Development (HCD) has two remaining areas of concern. Staff and the housing
consultant have had discussions with HCD staff on the following topics:
PAGE 4
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
November 8, 2002
1. Increasing Density of Residential Property
Among the July 2002 comments from HCD was a request that the Town rezone specific
parcels to a higher density in order to meet housing production requirements. Following
discussions with HCD, staff and the housing consultant included a housing program to
rezone at least five acres to higher density. Staff suggested that the wording reflect that the
Town will consider or evaluate rezoning properties to a higher density so that the program
afforded the Town the maximum flexibility in its implementation. The Oka Road area was
identified as a possible location for rezoning of property. Changing the zoning from R-1:8
to RM:5-12 or RM:12-20 would allow for a higher density and provide an opportunity for
development of more affordable housing units. At the September 16 Study Session, the
Council indicated that the wording suggested by staff was appropriate. However, HCD did
not find that proposal acceptable. The State prefers to see specific parcels targeted for
rezoning rather than leaving it unspecified. As an alternative staff has proposed to target the
area within a half mile radius of the proposed Vasona light rail station for possible rezoning
of land to a higher density. The Oka Road sites fall within this area. Attachment 4 is a map
showing the target area. The map will be added to the Technical Appendix, and the language
on page 71 will be modified to address HCD's concern. As shown in Exhibit A to
Attachment 1, it is recommended that the implementing strategy will be worded as follows:
H.I.1.1
Adequate Land Inventory: The Town will ensure that there is sufficient land
available at appropriate zoning catcgorics densities to meet its need for very
low and moderate income households. In order to achieve this, the Town will
assess the progress of the development community in providing very low, low
and moderate income units during the latter part of 2003. If it appears that the
an insufficient number of units are not -being produced as
needed, the Town will consider rezoning up to five acres of vacant land to
within a half mile radius of the future Vasona light rail station to a higher
density (refer to the target area map in the Housing Element Technical
Appendix).
2. Homeless Shelters
The language on page 16 of the draft Housing Element Technical Appendix states that there
are no site or zoning constraints specifically for homeless or transitional housing facilities.
HCD would like to see language added on where such facilities might be allowed with an
approved conditional use permit (CUP) and a statement on prioritization of applications.
Staff suggests modifying the language to page 16 under Site and Zoning Requirements for
Homeless/Transitional Facilities as follows:
PAGE 5
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
November 8, 2002
There are no site or zoning constraints specifically for homeless or transitional housing
facilities in Los Gatos. Residential Care Facilities or group homes are allowed in all
residential zoning districts except RMH, and in office (0) and commercial (C-1, C-2,
CH) zones . A homeless or transitional housing facility
would be considered a group home. Small family group homes (six or fewer persons)
are considered a principle permitted use in residential (RC, HR, R1, RM, RD, R-1D)
zones. They are also allowed in office (0) and commercial(C-1, C-2 and CH) zones with
a conditional use permit . Large family group homes (seven to 12 children or seven to
15 adults) are allowed in the above mentioned zones with a conditional use permit.
At the time this report was distributed to the Council, staff had not received a final
determination from HCD on the proposed language changes to the Technical Appendix.
Staff will report on any new developments in discussions with HCD at the meeting.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
On October 23, 2002 the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the Draft Housing Element.
The Commission recommended that the Council make the Negative Declaration with the following
additions:
1. Any comments received during the review period should be adequately addressed.
The Initial Study and Recommended Negative Declaration were distributed for public review
on October 10, 2002. The 30 day public review period ended on November 11, 2002.
Written correspondence was received from the Santa Clara County Fire Department advising
that mobile home parks may become subject to Uniform Fire Code provisions, and that
changes may be required within the two existing mobile home parks in the Town to meet
minimum fire flow requirements. This comment does not require any modification to the
environmental documents. As of the date of this report, no other comments have been
received on the draft Negative Declaration (Exhibit A of Attachment 2).
2. Clarify requirements for replacing mobile homes if they are removed.
The Commission recommended that a 1:1 replacement be required at the economic level of
the units being eliminated if either of the Town's mobile home parks are redeveloped. If the
Town Council decides that it is appropriate, a policy could be added to the Housing Element
to clarify this issue. The following is suggested wording for an implementing strategy that
could be inserted between H.I.3.1 and H.I.3.2 as shown on Exhibit A of Attachment 1
(subsequent implementing strategies under Issue 3 would be renumbered):
PAGE 6
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
November 8, 2002
H.I.3.2 Mobile Home Park Conversion: If an existing mobile home park is
redeveloped, a 1:1 replacement of units shall be required at the same
economic level of the units being removed.
Time Frame: On -going
Responsible Party: Community Development Department
The Commission then recommended that the Council adopt the Housing Element with the following
modifications (staff response follows each item):
1. Reformat the goals, policies, and implementation strategies to fit the existing General Plan,
Including updating the Introduction using Chapter 8.
Exhibit A of Attachment 1 is the reformatted goals, policies, and implementation strategies
to be incorporated into the General Plan update.
2. Page 20: last sentence, change "wheelchair accessible" to "ADA compliant."
3. Pages 41 and 50: confirm language regarding mixed use in residential zones and whether
it fits the intent.
These changes will be made by the housing consultant.
4. Page 76: consider broadening this policy to include resource conservation and to consider
encouragement of builders of affordable housing to exceed Title 24 energy requirements.
Implementing strategy H.I.2.2 has been revised to include wording encouraging developers
to exceed Title 24 requirements.
5. Change "elderly" to "senior citizen" or other appropriate contemporary language
throughout the document.
This change: has not been made, but staff will look at doing this during the next General
Plan update.
6. Include range of rents paid in addition to median rents.
The housing consultant will add the requested information to the Technical Appendix.
PAGE 7
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
November 8, 2002
CONCLUSION:
The General Plan Committee and Planning Commission recommended approval of the Housing
Element update. It is recommended that the Council make the Negative Declaration and adopt the
Resolution (Attachment 1) updating the Housing Element of the Town of Los Gatos General Plan
by adopting General Plan Amendment GP-02-01 and repealing Resolution 1997-56.
The Housing Element will not need to be resubmitted to the State. If a determination has not been
made on the two remaining concerns before the Council meeting, staff and the housing consultant
will continue to work with HCD to achieve certification of the Housing Element.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:
The Housing Element update is a project as defined under CEQA. No significant environmental
impacts have been identified as a result of the project, and a Mitigated Negative Declaration is
recommended (Exhibit A of Attachment 2).
FISCAL IMPACT:
None at this time. When individual development applications or loan/grant requests are made to the
Town, the fiscal impact will be analyzed.
Attachments:
1. Draft Resolution (two pages with nine page exhibit attached)
2. Report to the Planning Commission dated October 17, 2002, for agenda of October 23, 2002
with Exhibits A & B.
3. Planning process comparison chart (one page)
4. Map of Vasona Junction half mile radius area
5. Draft Housing Element Technical Appendix (92 pages)
Distribution:
Melanie Shaffer Freitas, Freitas + Freitas, 311 Laurent Street, Santa Cruz, CA 95060
RESOLUTION 2002-
RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL
OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
UPDATING THE HOUSING ELEMENT
OF THE LOS GATOS GENERAL PLAN BY ADOPTING
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT GP-02-01
AND REPEALING RESOLUTION 1997-56.
WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code Section 65355, the Town Council conducted
a public hearing for consideration of an update to the Housing Element of the Los Gatos General
Plan on November 12, 2002; and
WHEREAS, during this hearing, the Town Council considered General Plan Amendment
GP-02-01 for the Housing Element update; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and recommended adoption
of the element on October 23, 2002; and
WHEREAS, the General Plan Committee recommended adoption of the element on
September 25, 2002; and
WHEREAS, the Town has in good faith worked with the State Department of Housing and
Community Development in addressing concerns to comply with Government Code Section 65580
et seq; and
WHEREAS, it is anticipated that the State will find the Housing Element in compliance with
Government Code Section 65580 et seq, and will certify the element in November 2002 following
adoption of the element by the Town Council; and
ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLVED, that the Town Council adopts the Housing Element (attached hereto and
marked as Exhibit A) as part of the Los Gatos General Plan (General Plan Amendment GP-02-01)
and recinds Town Council Resolution 1997-56.
FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Town Council finds that the amendment to the General
Plan will not have a significant environmental impact and makes the Negative Declaration.
FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Town Council finds that the Housing Element update is
internally consistent with the various elements of the General Plan
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a special meeting of the Town Council held on the 12`" day
of November, 2002, by the following vote:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
SIGNED: /s/ Randy Attaway
MAYOR OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA
ATTEST:
/s/ Marian V. Cosgrove
CLERK OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA
N:\DEV\RESOS\GP-02-01. wpd
2
3.0 HOUSING
The Housing Element is one of seven required General Plan elements. There
are specific guidelines developed by the State of California for subjects that must
be included in a Housing Element. These guidelines are identified in Article 10.6
of the State of California Government Code. The 2002 Housing Element was
certified by the State Department of Housing and Community Development in
2002.
3.1 INTRODUCTION
The intent of the Town of Los Gatos is to provide adequate housing for Town
citizens, regardless of age, income, race, or ethnic background. The Town
encourages conservation and construction of housing adequate for future
populations and replacement needs, consistent with environmental limitations
and in proper relationship to community facilities, open space and transportation
and small-town character.
The Housing Element establishes policies that will aid Town officials in daily
decision -making and sets forth implementation measures that will assist the
Town in realizing its housing goals.
The Housing Element was developed based on the information contained in the
Housing Element Technical Appendix, dated September 2002.
"A decent home and suitable living environment for all" has been identified as a
goal of the highest priority by the California State Legislature. Recognizing that
local planning programs play a significant role in the pursuit of this statewide
goal; and to assure that local planning effectively implements statewide housing
policy, the Legislature has mandated that all local jurisdictions and counties
include a housing element as part of their adopted General Plan.
The State's General Plan law requires that the Housing Element be updated at
least every five years. The following Housing Element reflects the 2001 regional
housing needs determinations prepared by the Association of Bay Area
Governments (ABAG) which were revised in 1995. The revised ABAG needs
reflects the period from January 1, 1999 to June 30, 2006.
The element establishes goals, policies and programs that provide incentives for
the development of affordable housing in order for the Town to achieve its share
of affordable housing. From 2001 to Spring 2002 the Town approved 283
additional housing units. During the 1999-2002 period, 72 units affordable units
were built or approved. When evaluating the success of the Town's housing
policies, it is important to recognize that the Town has been relatively successful
in producing the Town's "fair share allocation" of low income housing even
though the cost of land is approximately a million dollars per acre.
The updated Housing Element was developed to be consistent with the other
elements of Los Gatos' General Plan. The Town will continue to require that all
residential development proposals, General Plan and Specific Plan amendments
be consistent with the Town's Housing Element.
The development of the Housing Element Technical Appendix involved
numerous meetings of the Town's General Plan Committee over a one year
period. These meetings were open to the public and the agendas were posted
at Town Hall and the Public Library to encourage public participation.
Los Gatos
General Plan
September 2002
EXHIBIT A
Adequate sites
for housing
The review process and adoption of this element included a community meeting,
and public hearings of the Planning Commission and Town Council, all of which
were open to the public for their input. A 45 day public review period was a
advertised in the local newspaper (Los Gatos Weekly -Times), as were the
community meeting and Planning Commission and Town Council public
hearings. All public meeting agendas were posted. Drafts of the Housing
Element Technical Appendix were available at Town Hall, the public library and
on the Town's web site.
3.2 GOALS, POLICIES, IMPLEMENTING STRATEGIES
The following is a summary of the major housing issues identified for the Town
of Los Gatos for the 2002-June 30, 2006 time frame. These issues are listed in
order of priority with the initial issues being the most significant.
ISSUE: 1
Adequate Sites for Housing.
The Town needs to provide adequate sites for 125 dwelling units to meet its 2002-2006
Regional Housing Need. The 125 unit estimate includes 59 very low income units and 66
moderate income units. With opportunities to apply Mixed Use or a density bonus, there
is sufficient land zoned at appropriate densities with infrastructure available to meet the
projected need for very low and moderate income units.
(Goal:
H.G.1.1 Expand the choice of housing opportunities for all economic
segments of the community through a variety of housing types and
sizes, including a mixture of ownership and rental housing.
Policies:
H.P.1.1 Continue to designate sufficient residentially -zoned land at appropriate
densities to provide adequate sites to meet Los Gatos' new construction
need for 2002-2006.
H.P.1.2 Maintain and/or adopt appropriate land use regulations and other
development tools to encourage the development of affordable housing.
Los Gatos
General Plan
September 2002 Page H-2
4: • _
ri.P.1.3 Develop and utilize all available funding resources in order to provide
the maximum amount of affordable housing as feasible.
Implementing Strategies:
H.I.1.1
Adequate Land Inventory: The Town will ensure that there is sufficient
land available at appropriate zoning categories to meet its need for
very low and moderate income households. In order to achieve this,
the Town will assess the progress of the development community in
providing very low income units during the latter part of 2003. If it
appears that an insufficient number of very low, low and moderate
income units are being produced, the Town will consider rezoning up
to five acres of land within a half mile radius of the future Vasona light
rail station to a higher density (refer to the target area map in the
Housing Element Technical Appendix).
Time Frame:
Responsible Party:
2002-2006: Continue to maintain an adequate
land inventory that meets 2002-2006 Regional
Housing Needs goals.
Late 2003: Evaluate need to rezone up to five
acres of vacant or underutilized land to a
higher density and/or apply affordable housing
overlay zone(s).
Community Development Department
H.I.1.2 Density Bonus: Continue to provide up to a 100% density bonus for
developments that include housing for elderly, handicapped and/or
very low and low-income households. Eligibility requirements are as
follows:
A. All housing projects on lots in excess of 40,000 square feet must
be processed as Planned Developments in order to receive a
density bonus.
B. Housing restricted to elderly, handicapped and very low and low
income residents shall be eligible for a density bonus up to
100% of the units permitted by the land use designation as
shown on the land use plan or any specific plan and incentives
based on the State Density Bonus law.
C. Town density bonuses will also be granted for residential
projects that actively facilitate and encourage use of transit or
directly provide transit services to residents.
D. Concessions to the Town's density, traffic and parking
regulations may be granted for mixed -use projects that provide
residential units in non-residential zones.
E. BMP (Below Market Price) units are not included when
calculating density bonuses for a property.
The Town will develop marketing materials that will ensure that Town
staff and developers are aware of the various features of the density
bonus program.
Time Frame:
Responsible Party:
2002-2003: Develop marketing materials
2002-June 30, 2006: Implement program
Community Development Department
Los Gatos
General Plan September 2002 Page H-3
H.I.1.3 Development Standards: Contii we to review and, where feasible,
reduce development standards (e.g. parking requirements, open space
requirements, etc.) for housing developments that will guarantee
affordable units on a long-term basis for low and moderate -income
households.
Time Frame:
2002-June 30, 2006
Responsible Party: Community Development Department
H.I.1.4 Mixed Use Developments:
Encourage mixed -use
developments that provide
affordable housing close to
employment centers and/or
transportation facilities.
Time Frame:
2002-June 30,
2006
Responsible Party: Community
Development Department
H.I.1.5 Below Market Price (BMP) Program: Continue to implement the BMP
Program in order to increase the number of affordable units in the
community. Continue policy that BMP units are counted in addition to
maximum density allowed on a site. Evaluate changing eligibility
criteria to very low and low-income households.
Time Frame: 2002-June 30, 2006
Responsible Party:
Community Development Department
H.I.1.6 Second Unit Program: Revise existing second unit program to
encourage the production of more second units on residential parcels.
Evaluate existing parking, square footage, transfer of credits, and other
requirements to determine whether revisions would encourage the
development of more second units.
Time Frame:
Responsible Party:
2002-2003: Evaluate and Revise Program
2002-June 30, 2006: Implement Program
Community Development Department
H.I.1.7 Consistency with Housing Element/Community Benefit: Continue
policy that all approvals of residential developments of three or more
units must include a finding that the proposed development is
consistent with the Town's Housing Element, and addresses the
Town's housing needs as identified in the Housing Element. Further,
review of potential developments shall include a determination that
affordable units provided beyond the minimum BMP requirements are
to be considered as a significant community benefit.
Time Frame: 2002-June 30, 2006
Responsible Party:
Community Development Department
Los Gatos
General Plan
September 2002 Page H-4
Development
of a f f oraable
housing for
tower and
moderate
income
households
Los Gatos
General Plan
-l.I.1.8 Annual Housing Report: Prepaw an annual housing report for the
review of the Town Council including information on progress made
towards achieving new construction need, affordable housing
conserved/developed, effectiveness of existing programs and
recommendations for improvement. Consult with non-profit providers,
special need providers, and other community resources in preparation
and evaluation of the report.
Time Frame: 2002-June 30, 2006
Responsible Party: Community Development Department
H.1.1.9 Redevelopment Housing Set -Aside Funds/In-Lieu Fees: Develop a
strategy for use of Redevelopment Housing Set -Aside funds and In -
Lieu fees from the BMP Program. Consider the needs as identified in
this Housing Element (e.g. Preservation of At Risk Units, Development
of Units Affordable to Very Low and Low -Income Households, etc.) in
the development of funding conditions and incentives.
Time Frame:
Responsible Party:
2002-January 2003: Develop Funding
Strategy
2002-June 30, 2006: Implement Strategy
Redevelopment Agency
H.I.1.10 Mortgage Credit Certificate (MCC) Program: Continue to encourage
Los Gatos households to participate in MCC and other financial
assistance programs (e.g. Teacher Mortgage Assistance) provided in
the County of Santa Clara.
Time Frame: 2002-June 30, 2006
Responsible Party: County of Santa Clara
Objective: Five households total assisted from
2002-2006
ISSUE: 2
Development of Affordable Housing for Lower and Moderate Income Households.
The most significant new construction need is housing for very low, low and moderate -
income households. Of the 125 projected units needed, all of these units are estimated
to be needed to be affordable to very low and moderate -income households.
Goal:
H.G.2.1 Preserve existing residential opportunities and encourage additional
residential use that is compatible with neighborhood and community.
Policies:
H.P.2.1 Encourage the maintenance and improvement of existing housing units.
H.P2.2 When evaluating new developments, evaluate the impact of
development on the Town's jobs/housing ratio.
H.P.2.3 Encourage residential construction that promotes energy conservation.
September 2002
Page H-5
Impi i tenting Strategies:
H.I2.1 Housing Conservation Program: Continue to provide Housing
Conservation Program assistance to property owners to improve their
housing units. Undertake the following actions to increase program
productivity:
A. Conduct a housing condition survey in neighborhoods with older
housing stock.
B. If needed, redesign program goals and objectives to respond to
results of housing condition survey.
C. Redesign marketing materials and aggressively market program
to potential applicants.
Time Frame: 2002-2003: Conduct housing condition survey
2002-June 30, 2006: Implement program
Responsible Party: Community Services Department
Funding Source: CDBG Funds/Redevelopment Funds
Objective: 10-20 Units Total Rehabilitated from
2002-2006
H.I.2.2 Home Access Program: Continue to support countywide programs,
such as the Home Access Program, that provide assistance with minor
home repairs and accessibility improvements for lower -income
households.
Time Frame: 2002-June 30, 2003
Responsible Party: County of Santa Clara
H.I.2.3 Jobs/Housing Balance: As part of the development review process,
evaluate applications that have significant number of jobs or housing in
regard to the potential impact on the Town's jobs/housing ratio. The
objective is to maintain the Town's 2002 ratio of 1.5 jobs per
household/housing unit. However, the jobs/housing balance shall not
be used as a criteria for denying projects that include affordable housing
opportunities.
Time Frame:
Responsible Party:
Objective:
2002-June 30, 2006
Community Development Department
Maintain 1.5 jobs to household/housing unit
ratio
H.I.2.4 Energy Conservation Opportunities: Continue to enforce Title 24
requirements for energy conservation and evaluate utilizing some of the
other suggestions as identified in Chapter 9 of the Housing Element
technical Appendix to encourage developers to exceed Title 24
requirements.
Time Frame: 2002-June 30, 2006
Responsible Party: Community Development Department
H.l.2.5 Weatherization Program: Support the weatherization program
administered countywide by the county of Santa Clara. This program
assists the very low-income homeowners with weatherization
improvements to their home.
Time Frame: 2002-June 30, 2006
Responsible Party: Community Development Department
Los Gatos
General Plan
September 2002 Page H-6
Preserve a f f oraab[e
housing stock
Los Gatos
General Plan
ISSUE. 3
Conservation of existing housing units.
The Town's existing stock of mobile homes and rental units provides an important resource
for affordable housing. These units need to be preserved. Further, rehabilitation
assistance needs to continue to be made available to property owners of units occupied
by lower income households. The Town also needs to conduct a housing condition survey
in the older areas of the community in order to determine the extent of need for
rehabilitation assistance.
(Goal:
H.G.3.1 Preserve the existing affordable housing stock
Policy:
H.P.3.1 Support preservation and
conservation of existing
housing units that provide
affordable housing
opportunities for Town
residents and workers and
strive to ensure that at least
30% of the housing stock
are rental units.
Implementing Strategies:
H.I.3.1 Mobile Home Preservation: Preserve mobile homes (150 total) and
adopt mobile home park conversion policies to preserve existing
housing opportunities and to ensure the provision of affordable units
similar to the existing park's unit capacity.
Time Frame: 2002-2006: Implement policies
Responsible Party: Community Development Department
Objective: Preserve existing 150 mobile home units
H.I.3.2 Preserve "At Risk" Affordable Housing Units: Monitor the 220 publicly
assisted, multi -family housing units in the Town to ensure that they
retain their affordability status. These developments include Villa
Vasona, The Terraces, Open Doors, Los Gatos Four Plex, 95 Fairview
Plaza and the Los Gatos Creek Village Apartments. Develop a strategy
to retain affordability of units at Villa Vasona, which is scheduled to have
its Section 8 assistance expire in November 2004. A notification
procedure for tenants that will be developed cooperatively between the
Town and the property owner shall be included in the strategy.
Time Frame: 2002-June 30, 2006: Monitor Affordability
Status of Developments
September 2003: Complete strategy to retain
affordability status of Villa Vasona
Funding Sources: Redevelopment Housing Set -Aside Funds,
CDBG and/or HOME Funds, other Federal
and State Funding Resources
Responsible Party: Community Development Department and
Redevelopment Agency
September 2002 Page H-7
Housing
Opportunities
H.I.3.3 Rental Housing Conservation Fuugram: The Town's existing multi-
family, privately owned rental units provide housing opportunities for
households of varied income levels. The Town will continue to
implement Section 29.20.155 of the Zoning Ordinance that addresses
conversions of residential use, Specifically, Section 29.20.155(a)(2) that
requires that any proposed conversion satisfy the housing goals and
policies as set forth in the General Plan.
Time Frame:
Responsible Party:
2002-June 30, 2006: Continue Implementation
of Conversion Policies
Community Development Department
ISSUE: 4
Preservation of "At Risk" Affordable Units.
A significant issue in the 2002-2006 time frame is the expiration of Section 8 subsidies for
the Villa Vasona Development. This 107-unit development provides affordable housing to
elderly and disabled households. The Town needs to monitor the potential expiration in
2004 of these subsidies and, if needed, develop a strategy to preserve the affordability of
the units.
Goal:
H.G.4.1 Ensure that all persons have equal access to housing
opportunities.
Policies:
H.P.4.1 Support housing programs that protect individuals' rights.
H.P.4.2 Continue to provide assistance to service providers of special needs
households such as seniors, disabled and homeless.
Implementing Strategies:
H.I.4.1 Rental Dispute Resolution Program: Continue the administration of the
Rental Dispute Resolution Program and consider revisions as
necessary to make the program as effective as possible in protecting
both tenants and landlords.
Time Frame: 2002-2006
Funding Source: Fees
Responsible Party: Community Services Department
H.I.4.2 Santa Clara County Fair Housing Consortium: Support the efforts of the
Santa Clara County Fair Housing Consortium, which includes the Asian
Law Alliance, Mid -Peninsula Citizens for Fair Housing, Project Fair
Sentinel, and the Mental Health Advocate Program. These
organizations provide resources for Los Gatos residents with
tenant/landlord, housing discrimination and fair housing concerns.
Time Frame: 2002-2006
Responsible Party: County of Santa Clara Urban County Funds
Funding Source: Santa Clara County Fair Housing Consortium
Los Gatos
General Plan September 2002 Page H-8
H.I.4.3 Support for Non -Profit Affordabi., Housing Providers: Recognize and
support the efforts of non-profit affordable housing organizations that
provide housing services in Los Gatos. Encourage the participation of
these providers in developing housing and meeting the affordable
housing needs of Los Gatos households. Non-profit groups will be
invited to work cooperatively with the Town in developing strategies and
actions for affordable housing
Time Frame: 2002-2006
Responsible Party: Community Development Department
H.1.4.4 Homeless: Increased Range of Housing Opportunities: Continue to
support the County of Santa Clara's "Continuum of Care" plan to
provide housing opportunities for homeless households' including
emergency shelter, transitional housing and permanent affordable
housing opportunities.
Time Frame: 2002-2006
Responsible Party: Community Development Department
H.I.4.5 Disabled: Remove constraints and encourage accessible housing in
residential developments: Continue to require "universal design"
features in all new residential developments. Conduct and evaluation
of Town's zoning and development requirements to ensure the removal
of all constraints to providing housing for people with disabilities.
Time Frame: 2002-2003: Conduct Evaluation
Responsible Party: Community Development Department
ISSUE 5:
Management of Housing Programs and Funds.
In addition to implementing the identified goals, policies and programs in this element, the
Town also has existing programs that need to be managed (e.g. Below Market Price
Program) and a significant source of housing funds that needs to be expended (e.g.
Redevelopment Housing Set -Aside funds and In -Lieu funds). The Town needs to ensure
that there is adequate staff support to manage and implement the proposed 2002-2006
housing strategy.
(Goal:
H.G.5.1 Provide adequate management and staffing of affordable
housing funds and programs.
Implementing Strategy:
H.I.5.1 Housing Management: Consider additional staff support for the
management and planning of housing programs and funding for the
Town.
Time Frame: 2002-2003: Develop recommendation and
plan for additional staff support for housing.
Funding Source: Redevelopment Housing Set Aside Funds,
Urban County funds
Responsible Party: Community Development Department and
Redevelopment Agency
Los Gatos
General Plan
September 2002 Page H-9
Date: October 17, 2002
For Agenda Of: October 23, 2002
Agenda Item: 7
REPORT TO: The Planning Commission
FROM: Bud N. Lortz, Director of Community Development
SUBJECT: Housing Element Update
General Plan Amendment GP-02-01
Negative Declaration ND-02-03
FINDINGS:
Public hearing to consider a revised Housing Element of the General Plan
for the Town of Los Gatos. No significant environmental impacts have
been identified as a result of this project, and a Mitigated Negative
Declaration is recommended.
APPLICANT: Town of Los Gatos
• The Planning Commission must find that the Housing Element is
consistent with the other elements of the General Plan if the
recommendation is for approval.
ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT: It has been determined that this project is will not have a significant impact
on the environment and a Negative Declaration has been prepared.
EXHIBITS:
A. Initial Study and Negative Declaration (28 pages total), dated
October 2002
B. California Planning and Zoning Law, Article 10.6, Section 65583,
Housing Element Content
C. Draft Housing Element Technical Appendix, dated September 2002
RECOMMENDATION
SUMMARY: Recommendation to Town Council for adoption.
A. BACKGROUND:
The State Planning and Zoning Law requires the legislative body of each county or city to adopt a
comprehensive long-term general plan for the physical development of that jurisdiction (Article 5,
Section 65300). The General Plan has seven mandated elements, including Housing. Each local
government is required to review its Housing Element as frequently as appropriate, but not less than
every five years.
ATTACHMENT 3
t
The Planning Commission - Page 2
Housing Element Update/GP-02-O 1, ND-02-03
October 23, 2002
Article 10.6, Section 65583 of the Government Code requires the Housing Element to consist of an
identification and analysis of existing and projected housing needs and a statement of goals, policies,
quantified objectives, financial resources and scheduled programs for housing, including rental and
factory -built housing and mobile homes. The element is also required to include projected housing
needs of all economic segments of the community (see Exhibit C).
The current Housing Element was adopted in 1997. When the General Plan was adopted in July
2000, the 1997 Housing Element was not amended as it was scheduled to be updated in 2002. The
scheduled update commenced in September 2001, and the draft Housing Element Technical
Appendix was released for public review on September 4, 2002. The goals, policies and
implementations from the draft will be incorporated into the General Plan (pages 71 through 80).
The Technical Appendix will be kept on file as a reference document.
On August 20, 2001 the Town Council authorized the Town Manager to enter into an agreement
with housing consultant, Melanie Shaffer Freitas of Freitas + Freitas. Ms. Shaffer Freitas prepared
the 1997 Housing Element and was successful in getting that document certified by the State. Ms.
Shaffer Freitas began work in September 2001, and worked with staff and the General Plan
Committee in preparing the Draft Housing Element. An administrative draft Housing Element was
completed in March 2002. Staff worked with a four member Sub -Committee of the General Plan
Committee in reviewing the proposed goals, policies and implementations. The Town submitted the
administrative draft to the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) in
June 2002, and received comments on July 17, 2002. The draft was revised to address the comments
from HCD and was resubmitted to the State on September 5, 2002. A response had not been
received as of the date of this report. The housing consultant will be present at the meeting to make
a brief presentation and to answer any questions the Commission may have.
The 45 day public review period for the Draft Housing Element was advertised in the Los Gatos
Weekly Times on September 4, 2002. Informative e-mail messages and a memorandum were sent
to surrounding cities, school districts, housing agencies and churches. The draft document has been
posted on the Town's web -site, and is available for review at the Library, Town Clerk's office, and
Community Development Department. The public review period will end on October 21, 2002 at
5:00 pm. To date, no written comments have been received.
The Initial Study and Recommended Negative Declaration were distributed for public review on
October 10, 2002. The 30 day public review period will end on November 11, 2002. To date, no
written comments have been received.
B. REMARKS:
The Housing Consultant prepared a table summarizing the proposed housing policies and
implementing programs in the Draft Housing Element (see pages three through six of Exhibit A).
The Planning Commission - Page 3
Housing Element Update/GP-02-01, ND-02-03
October 23, 2002
The three main housing issues that program strategies have been developed for are as follows:
• Adequate sites for housing
The Town needs to provide 132 additional housing units to meet its 2002-2006 Regional
Housing Need. This number has been predetermined by the Association for Bay Area
Governments (ABAG). Of the 132 units, 73 fall into the moderate income category and 59 are
very low income. The conclusion of the Housing Element is that there are adequate sites to
meet the projected housing need. This conclusion is based on the amount of land currently
zoned for medium to high density, the opportunity to develop mixed use projects and the
possibility for density bonuses when a project includes affordable housing.
The Town Council held an affordable housing study session on September 16, 2002. The
Council discussed an implementation program to evaluate the need to rezone up to five acres
to high density. The Council consensus was that the implementing strategy should state that
the Town will evaluate the need to rezone five acres to a higher density, but that the density
range should not be specified. This will allow for more flexibility, a thorough evaluation to be
done, and for public input at such time that a specific parcel of land is proposed to be rezoned.
• Development of affordable housing for lower and moderate income households
The most significant new housing need is for very low, low and moderate income households.
As previously mentioned, all of the 132 projected units are estimated to be needed to be
affordable for very low and moderate income households. At the September 16, 2002 Council
study session, a number of vacant or underutilized sites were mentioned as possible locations
for an affordable housing project. Funds from the Redevelopment Agency Housing Set Aside
and from the BMP In -Lieu Fees are available to use for a future affordable housing project.
• Conservation of existing housing units
The Town's existing stock of mobile homes and rental units provides an important resource for
affordable housing. It is a goal of the Town to preserve these units. Rehabilitation assistance
needs to continue to be available to property owners with units occupied by lower income
residents. The Town also needs to conduct a housing condition survey to determine the extent
of the need for rehabilitation assistance.
To address the three main housing issues, a strategy has been developed that includes goals, policies
and implementation programs. The policies and programs are organized under the following goals:
• Expand the choice of housing opportunities for all economic segments of the community
through a variety of housing types and sizes, including a mixture of ownership and rental units.
The Planning Commission - Page 4
Housing Element Update/GP-02-01, ND-02-03
October 23, 2002
The Town will continue to designate sufficient residentially zoned land at appropriate densities
to meet the new construction need for 2002-2006. The consideration of rezoning up to five
acres of land to a higher density falls under this goal, as does the density bonus and
encouragement of mixed use projects. Continuation of, and review of, the Below Market Price
(BMP) program and secondary dwelling units provisions are also under this goal.
• Preserve existing residential opportunities and encourage additional residential use that is
compatible with neighborhood and community.
Provision of housing conservation assistance to help property owners improve their housing
units, support of County -wide housing assistance programs, and evaluation of the jobs/housing
balance fall under this goal.
• Preserve the existing affordable housing stock.
The existing housing stock needs to continue to be protected. Maintenance of the Town's two
mobile home parks, and preservation of current affordable housing units are key elements of
this goal. A strategy will be developed to retain "at risk" units such as those at Villa Vasona.
• Ensure that all persons have equal access to housing opportunities.
This goal includes implementations for continued administration of the Rental Dispute
Resolution Program, support of non-profit affordable housing organizations, and support of
agencies that assist the homeless and accessible housing.
• Provide adequate management and staffing of affordable housing funds and programs.
The objective is to maintain, and add as needed, staff support for the management and planning
of housing programs and funding.
The Planning Commission should discuss the goals, policies and implementations (pages 70-80 of
Exhibit C), and provide a recommendation to the Town Council on whether they should be adopted
as proposed, or if changes should be made to any language. A special Town Council meeting has
been scheduled for November 12, 2002 for consideration of the Draft Housing Element.
The Planning Commission - Page 5
Housing Element Update/GP-02-01, ND-02-03
October 23, 2002
C. RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the Planning Commission take the following actions:
1. Find that the Housing Element is consistent with the other elements of the General Plan;
2. Forward the draft Housing Element Technical Appendix to the Town Council with a
recommendation that the Council:
a. make the Negative Declaration;
b. approve the General Plan Amendment; and
c. adopt the Housing Element, directing staff to reformat the goals, policies and
implementing strategies to fit the existing General Plan.
ud N. Lortz, Director of O6mmunity Development
Prepared by: Suzanne Davis, Associate Planner
BNL:SD:cb
cc: Melanie Shaffer Freitas, Freitas + Freitas, 311 Laurent Street, Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Regina Falkner, Community Services Director
N:IDEVISUZANNEIPCIREPORTS\HousingElementwpd
Initial Study
Town of Los Gatos
Housing Element Update
Prepared for
Town of Los Gatos
Community Development Department
110 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95031
October 2002
Prepared by
Geier & Geier Consulting, Inc.
P.O. Box 5054
Berkeley, CA 94705-5054
510/644-2535
Exhibit A
Town of Los Gatos
Community Development Department
Environmental Checklist Form
1. Project Title: Town of Los Gatos Housing Element Update
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: Town of Los Gatos
Community Development Department
110 East Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95031
3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Tom Williams, 408/354-6808
4. Project Location: Town of Los Gatos
5. Property Owner: Town of Los Gatos
Community Development Department
110 East Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95031
6. General Plan Designation: Not Applicable
7. Zoning: Not Applicable
8. Description of Project: The updated Housing Element identifies issues, policies, and
implementation measures, which were developed based on the information contained in the
Housing Element Technical Appendix. The Technical Appendix was prepared pursuant to
Article 10.6 of the Government Code, the State Housing Element Law, and addresses issues noted
in Article 10.6 (e.g., evaluation of existing and projected housing needs, review of previous goals
and programs, inventory of sites, identification of housing constraints, development of housing
programs to address needs, and quantifiable objectives for attainment of new construction, etc.).
The Technical Appendix also includes information not required by Article 10.6 but important in
the evaluation of housing needs.
This Initial Study assesses the environmental impacts of the goals, policies and implementation
programs of the Housing Element Technical Appendix, which are also included in the updated
Housing Element. Major housing issues identified for the Town over the 2002-2006 time frame
are listed as follows (in order of significance):
•
Adequate Sites for Housing;
Development of Affordable Housing for Lower and Moderate Income Households;
Conservation of Existing Units;
Preservation of "At Risk" Affordable Units; and
Management of Housing Programs and Funds.
The overall goals of the updated Housing Element are to:
• Expand the choice of housing opportunities for all economic segments of the community
through a variety of housing types and sizes, including a mixture of ownership and rental
housing;
October, 2002 1
Initial Study — Housing Element Update
• Preserve existing residential opportunities and encourage additional residential use that is
compatible with neighborhood and community;
• Preserve the existing affordable housing stock;
• Ensure that all persons have equal access to housing opportunities; and
• Provide adequate management and staffing of affordable housing funds and programs.
The updated Housing Element contains quantifiable housing goals as well as policies and
implementation programs that would achieve these goals. Quantifiable housing goals of the
updated Element are: (1) development of up to 125 new housing units; (2) rehabilitation of ten
to 20 housing units between 2002 and 2006; and (3) preservation of existing affordable units,
including 150 mobile homes and 220 "at risk" units. Since policies and implementation
programs of this Element are intended to achieve these goals, some of these policies and
programs would facilitate new residential development; physical changes to the environment
could be associated with this new development. Table 1 lists the updated Element's policies and
implementation programs, and identifies those that could result in physical changes to the
environment due to new development.
This Initial Study assesses the potential impacts that could result from the development of 125
new residential units in the Town. Table 1 identifies three policies and six implementation
programs that would facilitate development of new residential units. As indicated in Table 1,
Policies 1A and 1B, and Programs 1 through 4 would facilitate new developments of 125 total
units, consisting of 59 units affordable to very low-income households and 66 units affordable to
moderate income households. Policy 1B and Programs 5 and 6 could result in ten to 15 Below
Market Price (BMP) units as well as ten second units in the Town. Policy 1C and Program 10
would provide assistance in the purchase of five newly developed housing units, consequently
inducing incentives for the development of these units as part of the Town's potential housing
supply.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The Los Gatos General Plan 2000 Land Use Map (Figure
2.1 of the General Plan) indicates the general distribution of land uses throughout the Town. The
predominant land use in the Town of Los Gatos is residential with low density residential (single-
family homes) being the predominant type of housing. Medium density residential uses
primarily occur in the downtown area and areas to the north generally between Los Gatos
Boulevard and Santa Cruz Avenue/Winchester Boulevard. The Land Use Plan identifies small
pockets of medium density housing along the northern Town boundary in the Pollard Road and
Los Gatos -Almaden Road vicinities. The Land Use Map specifically designates four areas for
high density residential: (1) an area in the downtown between University Avenue and the State
Route 17 freeway (south of Blossom Hill Road) where apartment units currently exist; (2) The
Terraces, a senior housing development located on the corner of Blossom Hill Road and Cherry
Blossom Lane; (3) The Forbes Mill Condominiums, located between East Main Street and
Highway 17; and (4) The El Gatos Penthouse complex, located at the corner of East Main Street
and College Avenue. In addition, multiple -family residential is allowed in all "commercial" land
use designations, standing alone or as part of mixed -use development, with a conditional use
permit.
10. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation
agreements): State of California, Department of Housing and Community Development.
October, 2002 2
Proposed Housing Element Policies and Implementation Programs
01
g
c)
E O
es
ccs
G, ° E
V') p .fl
N
• — • -
O
0 al
E a)
Q" O
N v0 a)
> a)
ed ct cis o
0 0
0,,- y et
-g.. O 'O
z
7,5
•
x
o
Cr
cel )0
)0
>cz3
N
ti • N
NN
g c
a) —
,o o •-
�
o c o
Density Bonus
6' a) a6i ao
o o -- a0 c0 EE w e
>,, 0 = ac > es = ,s,,3 . . . .0 mE 69 •!.
y O 0 b o .° rA E a) 1.
on cil a) 6'o° o ao ° o,o�awc li B.
* •
'y o o E c, a -c E 4.
co o
ro 3 °0, o Q N w °
o0 a
�"OU° Oa3 w -or , ow ap i
scooV a U
la E a) bn •° a„d>- -o bC .Q.., O O
O 4.4 • C�pcoO.o„❑U°
OC v3005>amFRiEy
Od
(/O] 0
3
a) °qy
Q p U sp. o w X" a) G w N N 75
U •v ..o en .c v W c4"a cOa v� U ° � G� O, C.
for 2002-2006
Initial Study - Housing Element Update
October, 2002
Table 1 (Continued)
Proposed Housing Element Policies and Implementation Programs
Potential Physical Changes
Implementation Program
>,
ii
o
a
Initial Study - Housing Element Update
October, 2002
Table 1 (Continued)
Proposed Housing Element Policies and Implementation Programs
Potential Physical Changes
Implementation Program
•
4-4
w I.
o •C
' 0
c 0
.9
U¢+ m
04
cb,O
cal � 3
Q. o
o
4 0O
O alU 1-4ataf
M W .E
Conservation 0
18. Rental Housin
0
E
o'
•�
a)
a)
0
U
w •
tko
0
0.
0
O
s
19. Rental D
0
4-
4-
0
O_
';r
C
C O
0 0 0
0
04 C.
0 0
> > 0
�,
N'OO N
rental units.
4-
E
tip cA
O
4_,0., 0
bA
crl
O 03
4 :ti
0
a4-
O U
••; a.
Initial Study - Housing Element Update
October, 2002
Table 1 (Continued)
Potential Physical Changes
Implementation Program
0
v
4.1
U .
C.)• .S
O U
0 0
3 6
a>i
.So
.0 C
a.+ 0
O 0
• 04
Affordable Housin
•
0
a)
aa)
1
4-
0
0
0
0
i
.L
0
Accessible Ho
cn
0
0 a
by
O
a4.
• O
cn
w
e
it • EO
x• V)CI4.
• b
0
E
Initial Study - Housing Element Update
October, 2002
(M' n
Initial Study — Housing Element Update
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected:
Proposed policies and programs of the updated Housing Element would not directly result in any
potentially significant impacts on the environment. Specific development proposals that are
facilitated by these policies and programs would have the potential to affect the environment, but the
potential for impacts would vary on a project -by -project basis. Each development project would be
subject to separate environmental review at the time a specific development proposal is made and
project -specific impacts would be evaluated at that time.
Determination: (to be Completed by the Lead Agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
X
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment,
and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the
project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially
significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2)
has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on
attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must
analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately
in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and
(b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the
proposed project, nothing further is required.
Bud N. Lortz, Di
ommunity Development
a/ Io/0
Date
October, 2002 7
Initial Study — Housing Element Update
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources)
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Issues:
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Impact Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
I. Aesthetics - Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
X
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but
not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a state scenic highway?
X
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or
quality of the site and its surroundings?
X
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which
would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the
area?
X
Based on the goals of the updated Housing Element, it is anticipated that 125 housing units would be
developed. Potential aesthetic impacts associated with construction of these units would vary on a
project -by -project basis. Each development project would be subject to separate environmental
review at the time a specific development proposal is made and project -specific aesthetics impacts
would be evaluated at that time.
II. Agriculture Resources — Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland
of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the
maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California Resources
Agency, to non-agricultural use?
X
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
Williamson Act contract?
X
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which,
due to their location or nature, could result in conversion
of Farmland, to non-agricultural use?
X
The updated Housing Element proposes residential uses consistent with the residential land use
designations of the Town's General Plan, and appropriate zoning to implement the policies and
programs of the Element. While the Housing Element's provisions do not conflict with agriculture
use zoning or Williamson Act contracts, and do not specify the conversion of any farmlands to non-
agricultural uses, the effects of constructing 125 new housing units would vary on a project -by -
project basis. Each development project would be subject to separate environment review at the time a
specific development proposal is made, and project -specific constraints would be evaluated at that
time.
October, 2002 8
Initial Study — Housing Element Update
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources)
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Impact Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
III. Air Quality - Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
X
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation?
X
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -
attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient
air quality standard (including releasing emissions, which
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
X
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
X
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial
number of people?
X
Based on goals of the updated Housing Element, it is anticipated that 125 housing units would be
developed. Traffic generated by future developments containing these new units would cumulatively
degrade regional air quality. However, the increase in air emissions associated only with these new
units would not be considered significant based on the Bay Area Air Quality Management District's
(BAAQMD) threshold levels for potential significance.' The BAAQMD threshold level for potential _
significance is 320 single-family residential units. At or above this number of units, traffic generated
by future projects could cumulatively produce air quality problems, and an air quality impact
assessment would need to be prepared and submitted to the BAAQMD for review. There would be
potential for local construction -related or operational air quality impacts due to specific development
projects. Each development project that would include some of these units would be subject to
separate environmental review at the time a specific development proposal is made, and the potential
for project -specific air quality impacts would be evaluated at that time.
IV. Biological Resources - Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or
through habitat modifications, on any species identified
as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local
or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service?
X
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat
or other sensitive natural community identified in local
or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the
California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service?
X
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected
wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool,
coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
X
October, 2002
9
Initial Study — Housing Element Update
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources)
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Impact Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory wildlife
corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery
sites?
X
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
X
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
X
Potential biological impacts associated with construction of 125 new housing units would vary on a
project -by -project basis. Each development project would be subject to separate environment review
at the time a specific development proposal is made, and project -specific biological constraints (e.g.,
presence of rare/endangered species, locally designated species or habitats) would be evaluated at that
time. In addition, the Town's Parks Division of the Parks and Public Works Department would
provide detailed direction and guidance in the mitigation of potential impacts on biological
resources.
V. Cultural Resources - Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of
a historical resource as defined in 15064.5?
X
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of
an archaeological resource pursuant to 15064.5?
X
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological
resource or site or unique geologic feature?
X
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries?
X
The goals of the updated Housing Element, would promote the development of 125 new housing
units. Potential impacts on cultural resources that would be associated with construction of these new
units would vary on a project -by -project basis. Each development project would be subject to
separate environment review at the time a specific development proposal is made, and project -specific
cultural resources impacts would be evaluated at that time.
VI. Geology and Soils - Would the project expose people
or structures to potential substantial adverse effects,
including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
a) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on
the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning
X
Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based
on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
October, 2002
10
Initial Study — Housing Element Update
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources)
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Impact Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
b) Strong seismic ground shaking?
X
c) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction?
X
d) Landslides?
X
e) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
X
f) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or
that would become unstable as a result of the project,
and potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
X
g) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B
of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating
substantial risks to life or property?
X
h) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of
septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste
water?
X
The updated Housing Element would have no direct effects on geological and soils resources.
However, the potential geologic impacts associated with construction of 125 new housing units would
vary on a project -by -project basis. Each development project would be subject to separate
environment review at the time a specific development proposal is made, and project -specific
geologic constraints (e.g., potential for fault rupture, ground shaking, ground failure, subsidence,
expansive soils, etc.) would be evaluated at that time.
VII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials - Would the
project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
X
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
X
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within
one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
X
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
X
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles
of a public airport or public use airport, would the
project result in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area?
X
October, 2002
11
Initial Study — Housing Element Update
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources)
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Impact Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,
would the project result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project area?
X
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
X
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving wildland fires, including where
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where
residences are intermixed with wildlands?
X
Based on goals of the updated Housing Element, it is anticipated that 125 housing units would be
developed. Potential public health risks associated with construction of these new units would vary on
a project -by -project basis. Each development project would be subject to separate environment
review at the time a specific development proposal is made, and project -specific health hazards would
be evaluated at that time.
VIII. Hydrology and Water Quality - Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements?
X
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there
would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of
the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production
rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level
which would not support existing land uses or planned
uses for which permits have been granted)?
X
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the
site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, in a manner which would
result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site?
X
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the
site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the
rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, which
would result in flooding on- or off -site?
X
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed
the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage
systems or provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?
X
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
X
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as
mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood
Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation
map?
X
October, 2002
12
Initial Study — Housing Element Update
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources)
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Impact Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures,
which would impede or redirect flood flows?
X
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as
a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
X
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
X
While the updated Housing Element, would have no direct impacts on hydrological resources or water
quality, the 125 new housing units that would be developed as a result of the Element's
implementation would have potential hydrologic impacts associated with the construction of these
new units, and varying on a project -by -project basis. Each development project would be subject to
separate environment review at the time a specific development proposal is made, and project -specific
hydrologic impacts (e.g., changes in drainage patterns, increased surface runoff, flood hazards, water
quality degradation, etc.) would be evaluated at that time.
IX. Land Use and Planning - Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
X
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project
(including, but not limited to the general plan, specific
plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance)
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
X
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or
natural community conservation plan?
X
General Plan. For residential uses, the General Plan Land Use Element establishes four density ranges
including "High Density Residential." The "High Density" designation allows for multi -family
residential at density range of 12-20 dwellings per net acre, with its objective to provide "quality
housing in close proximity to transit or a business area." Policies and programs of the updated
Housing Element are consistent with this density range. Proposed Policy 1B of the updated Housing
Element encourages higher density affordable housing. In addition, Program 2 of the updated
Housing Element proposes continued provision of a density bonus of up to 100 percent for
developments that include housing for elderly, handicapped, and/or very low and low-income
households. High density residential is also encouraged in the "Mixed Use Commercial" designation
under Program 4 of the updated Housing Element. Multi -family residential is allowed in all
commercial zones and the "Commercial -Industrial" zone, subject to a conditional use permit.
The Land Use Element also includes a "Mobile Home Park" designation (density range 5-12
dwellings per net acre) to encourage the preservation of the existing mobile home parks as a source
of affordable housing. Proposed Policy 3A of the updated Housing Element "supports the
preservation and conservation of existing housing units that provide affordable housing opportunities
for Town residents and workers and strive to ensure that at least 30%of the housing stock are rental
units." This proposed policy and the corresponding Program 16 (Mobile Home Preservation) would
be consistent with the objectives of the Land Use Element's designation.
October, 2002 13
Initial Study — Housing Element Update
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources)
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Impact Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
The Land Use Element contains a Land Use Plan that reflects existing and recommended potential
land uses for the Town. In general, medium density residential uses are designated primarily in the
downtown area and areas to the north between Los Gatos Boulevard and Santa Cruz
Avenue/Winchester Boulevard. The Land Use Plan identifies small pockets of medium density
housing along the northern Town boundary in the Pollard Road and Los Gatos -Almaden Road
vicinities. Based on the Land Use Plan and location of vacant or redevelopable land, opportunities
for developing affordable housing through implementation of updated Housing Element policies
would primarily be in the downtown area and Route 85 vicinity. Land uses in the Route 85 area are
subject to policies specified in the Vasona Light Rail & Route 85 Element (Section 5 of the General
Plan); the consistency of the policies in this specific plan with proposed polices of the updated
Housing Element is discussed below.
The Vasona Light Rail & Route 85 Element identifies two areas where affordable housing
development would be encouraged: (1) for Area 1 (Vasona Junction), Policy V.P.5.2 states that
"Development in this area shall consist of housing that meets the affordable housing goals of the
Town..."; and (2) Area 4 (East Los Gatos Boulevard), which includes Policy V.P.8.2, "encourage
development of residential rental units." Implementing Strategy V.I.8.2 specifies a
rental/affordability preference: "Evaluate proposals with residential uses to assure that the Town's
housing goals are being furthered." In addition, the Town Council adopted Resolution 1991-124 in
1991 on a site located in Area 3.3 (Central Core), which specified an increase in density from 5-12
units per acre to 10-20 units per acre. Although a General Plan amendment would be required, this
resolution does indicate a potential for increasing densities to provide affordable housing. Proposed
policies of the updated Housing Element are consistent with these policies. Policies of both Elements
encourage affordable residential development and mixed use projects with residential uses.
Other Land Use Issues. As indicated in Table 1, Policies 1A and 1B supported by Implementation
Programs 1 through 4, would facilitate new developments consisting of very low and moderate
income housing. Policy 1B would assist the Town in the provision of BMP and second units.
Implementation Programs 5 and 6 promote the development of ten to 15 BMP units and ten second
units, respectively. Policy 1C and Implementation Program 10 (Participation in Mortgage Credit
Certificate program) would assist in the purchase of five newly developed housing units. Specific
projects that are facilitated by these policies and programs would be subject to separate environmental
review and project -specific land use impacts (e.g. potential land use compatibility impacts, impacts on
agricultural resources, and disruption of established communities) would be evaluated at that time.
X. Mineral Resources - Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
X
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally -important
mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
X
The Los Gatos General Plan does not identify any regionally or locally -important mineral resources
in the Town that could be affected by future residential development.
October, 2002
14
Imo'
Initial Study — Housing Element Update
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources)
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Impact Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
XI. Noise - Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in
excess of standards established in the local general plan
or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other
agencies?
X
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
groundbome vibration or groundborne noise levels?
X
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels
in the project vicinity above levels existing without the
project?
X
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
X
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles
of a public airport or public use airport, would the
project expose people residing or working in the project
area to excessive noise levels?
X
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,
would the project expose people residing or working in
the project area to excessive noise levels?
X
Based on goals of the updated Housing Element, it is anticipated that 125 housing units would be
developed. Potential noise impacts associated with construction and occupation of these new units
would vary on a project -by -project basis. Each development project would be subject to separate
environment review at the time a specific development proposal is made, and project -specific noise
impacts or constraints would be evaluated at that time.
XII. Population and Housing — Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either
directly (for example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension
of roads or other infrastructure)?
X
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
X
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
X
Quantifiable housing goals of the updated Housing Element for the four-year period between 2002
and 2006 are: (1) development of up to 125 new housing units; (2) construction of ten to 15 BMP
units; and (3) development of ten second units on existing parcels in the Town. The additional 125
housing units could add approximately 318 persons to the Town's current population of 28,592 as
indicated in the 2000 census. This increase would represent one percent of the Town's 2005
October, 2002
15
Initial Study — Housing Element Update
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources)
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Impact Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
population as projected by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), and this one percent
increase in population would be within ABAG's projected three percent growth rate over the next five
years. Therefore, Plan implementation would not represent a significant increase in local or regional
population. The project's population increase of 318 persons would represent 0.02 percent of Santa
Clara County's 2000 total population of approximately 1.8 million.
Implementation of the updated Housing Element is not expected to induce substantial growth within
the Town. The project's estimated increase of 318 persons, when averaged over the four-year
planning period, would represent a 0.3 percent increase per year. Since 1980, the Town's population
has been increasing at a rate of 0.3 percent annually, and the incremental growth rate associated with
the updated Housing Element could be accommodated within the existing growth rate. For
comparison purposes, Santa Clara County's population growth rate was 50 percent between 1980 and
2000, averaging 2.5 percent annually.
It is unknown whether any existing affordable housing would be lost, but the purpose of the updated
Housing Element is to provide new housing units, rehabilitate existing housing units, and preserve
existing affordable housing units. Policies 2A and 3A of the updated Housing Element help to
maintain the existing number of affordable units through preservation, rehabilitation, or replacement
(refer to Table 1 for specific policies).
XIII. Public Services -
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical
impacts associated with the provision of new or
physically altered governmental facilities, need for new
or physically altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable
service ratios, response times or other performance
objectives for any of the public services:
Fire protection?
X
Police protection?
X
Schools?
X
Parks?
X
Other public facilities?
X
As indicated in Table 1, Policies 1A and 1B, and Programs 1 through 4 would facilitate new
developments of 125 total units, consisting of 59 units affordable to very low-income households and
66 units affordable to moderate income households. Policy 1B and Programs 5 and 6 could result in
development of ten to 15 BMP units as well as ten second units in the Town. Policy 1C and Program
10 would provide assistance in the purchase of five newly developed housing units, inducing the
development of these units as part of the Town's potential housing supply.
Development of these new units would increase demand for public services. However, as indicated by
the Town's General Plan, "Los Gatos is a mature, predominantly built -out community." (page L-1)
Appropriate levels of public services are available throughout the community. Most of the new
October, 2002 16
Initial Study — Housing Element Update
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources)
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Impact Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
development is expected to be infill or redevelopment, occurring in areas that are already developed,
or adjacent to urbanized areas. Therefore, these units would not significantly increase demand for
police, fire, or maintenance services. Each development project that would include some of these units
would be subject to review by the Santa Clara County Fire Department, and Fire Department
requirements would be identified at that time. The school districts charge a school impact fee to
mitigate increased demand for schools resulting from all new residential development. Additionally,
the Safety Element of the Town's General Plan identifies goals, policies, and implementing strategies
to ameliorate natural and urban safety hazards, and to ensure appropriate public services levels for the
community. The Open Space Element provides for improvement measures for public parks and
associated facilities.
XIV. Recreation -
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of
the facility would occur or be accelerated?
X
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require
the construction or expansion of recreational facilities,
which might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
X
Based on goals of the updated Housing Element, it is anticipated that 125 housing units would be
developed. Development of these new units would incrementally increase demand for recreational
facilities. However, most of this new development would be infill, occurring in areas that are already
developed, or adjacent to urbanized areas. In addition, as mentioned in Section XII, Population and
Housing, project -related increases in population would represent approximately 0.3 percent per year
increase in population over the 2002 — 2006 planning period of the updated Housing; this small
population increase would not significantly increase existing or expected future demand on
recreational facilities.
XV. Transportation and Traffic - Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in
relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the
street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either
the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio
on roads, or congestion at intersections)?
X
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of
service standard established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads or highways?
X
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either
an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that
results in substantial safety risks?
X
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
X
October, 2002
17
Initial Study — Housing Element Update
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources)
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Impact Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
X
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity?
X
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)?
X
The goals of the updated Housing Element, would be expected to generate 125 new housing units
from 2002 through 2006. Depending on the size of the residential units, this number of units could
generate 750 to 1,000 trips per day. Assuming future development proposals associated with the 125
additional housing units would be consistent with the existing General Plan land use designations, no
significant cumulative traffic impacts associated with these housing units would be anticipated. The
EIR for the General Plan 2000 indicated that implementation of the General Plan would not result in
a decrease in capacity at any mid -block roadway segment or at any signalized intersections that
would result in a change in level of service.2 However, local traffic impacts could result from such
traffic increases, depending on the locations of new units. The nature and extent of local traffic
impacts would vary on a project -by -project basis. These units would be subject to separate
environment review at the time a specific development proposal is made, and project -specific traffic
impacts (e.g., level of service operation, access problems, traffic or pedestrian safety hazards, etc.)
would be evaluated at that time.
XVI. Utilities and Service Systems — Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
X
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
X
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water
drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
X
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the
project from existing entitlements and resources, or are
new or expanded entitlements needed?
X
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment
provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has
adequate capacity to serve the projects projected demand
in addition to the providers existing commitments?
X
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity
to accommodate the projects solid waste disposal needs?
X
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
X
October, 2002
18
Initial Study — Housing Element Update
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources)
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Impact Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
As described in Section XIII, the updated Housing Element would facilitate the development of new
affordable housing units as well as BMP and second units in the Town. Development of these new
units would increase the demands on existing utilities and services systems. However, most of this new
development would be infill or redevelopment, occurring in areas that are already developed, or
adjacent to urbanized areas. At this time, there are no major infrastructure or delivery issues in Los
Gatos.' However, there are certain areas in Town where water and/or sewer systems are old and require
replacement or upgrade. New developments could be required to upgrade old water and sewer lines as
part of the proposed development. The extent of repairs or improvements would depend on the size
and location of the new residential units. Each development project would be subject to separate
review by the Town and any required upgrading of local infrastructure would be identified by the
Town at that time.
The updated Housing Element indicates that the San Jose Water Company services 95 percent of the
Town. Some areas of the Town, e.g. downtown and areas on the east side of Town, are served by a
relatively old water delivery system, with pipes that need to be replaced. The Town and the San Jose
Water Company are aware of these conditions and the Water Company is developing plans to improve
those lines. Similarly, the sanitary sewer storm drain systems includes facilities that are old and in need
of replacement. The West Valley Sanitation District and the Town, respectively, are responsible for
replacing and upgrading these facilities.
With regard to the adequacy of regional water supply/treatment and wastewater treatment capacities to
accommodate future project -related growth, the new affordable units would result in a population
increase of about one percent of the population projected for Los Gatos by 2020. This small
population increase would not significantly increase future demands on these regional facilities.
Population increases resulting from the development proposals of the Housing Element would remain
within the build -out projections of the 2000 General Plan.
XVII. Mandatory Findings of Significance -
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
X
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection with
the effects of past projects, the effects of other current
projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?
X
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
X
October, 2002
19
Initial Study — Housing Element Update
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources)
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Impact Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
Proposed policies and programs of the updated Housing Element would not directly degrade the
quality of the environment, achieve short-term goals to the disadvantage of long-term productivity, or
significantly affect human beings. Such effects would be project -specific, varying on a project -by -
project basis. Each development project would be subject to separate environmental review at the time
a specific development proposal is made and project -specific impacts would be evaluated at that time.
However, most of this new development would be infill, occurring in areas that are already developed,
or adjacent to urbanized areas. Such locations would be expected to help minimize the potential for
impacts on environmental resources.
This report addresses the potential cumulative impacts that could result from development of these
125 new units throughout the Town of Los Gatos. Since these units would be developed under many
separate development projects as part of future residential and commercial proposals, the incremental
impacts associated with each development proposal will be evaluated under each development's
separate environmental review.
October, 2002 20
Initial Study — Housing Element Update
LIST OF SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES
(Indicated as endnotes under specific issues of Initial Study)
' Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 1999. BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines. December.
z Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates, 2000. General Plan 2000, Los Gatos, CA, Draft
Environmental Impact Report. April 14.
3 Town of Los Gatos, 2002. Town of Los Gatos Housing Element Technical Appendix, 2002-2006.
September.
October, 2002 21
r'
Lead Agency:
NOTICE
Town of Los Gatos
Environmental Impact Review
Recommended Negative Declaration
Town of Los Gatos
Community Development Department
110 East Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95031
Project Title and
Location: Housing Element Update
Town of Los Gatos
Project Description: The updated Housing Element identifies issues, policies, and implementation
measures, which were developed based on the information contained in the Housing Element
Technical Appendix. The Technical Appendix was prepared pursuant to Article 10.6 of the
Government Code, the State Housing Element Law, and addresses issues noted in Article 10.6 (e.g.,
evaluation of existing and projected housing needs, review of previous goals and programs, inventory
of sites, identification of housing constraints, development of housing programs to address needs, and
quantifiable objectives for attainment of new construction, etc.). The Technical Appendix also
includes information not required by Article 10.6 but important in the evaluation of housing needs.
This Initial Study assesses the environmental impacts of the goals, policies and implementation
programs of the Housing Element Technical Appendix, which are also included in the updated
Housing Element. Major housing issues identified for the Town over the 2002-2006 time frame are
listed as follows (in order of significance):
• Adequate Sites for Housing;
• Development of Affordable Housing for Lower and Moderate Income Households;
• Conservation of Existing Units;
• Preservation of "At Risk" Affordable Units; and
• Management of Housing Programs and Funds.
The overall goals of the updated Housing Element are to:
• Expand the choice of housing opportunities for all economic segments of the community
through a variety of housing types and sizes, including a mixture of ownership and rental
housing;
• Preserve existing residential opportunities and encourage additional residential use that is
compatible with neighborhood and community;
• Preserve the existing affordable housing stock;
• Ensure that all persons have equal access to housing opportunities; and
• Provide adequate management and staffing of affordable housing funds and programs.
The updated Housing Element contains quantifiable housing goals as well as policies and
implementation programs that would achieve these goals. Quantifiable housing goals of the updated
Element are: (1) development of up to 125 new housing units; (2) rehabilitation of ten to 20 housing
units between 2002 and 2006; and (3) preservation of existing affordable units, including 150 mobile
homes and 220 "at risk" units. Since policies and implementation programs of this Element are
October, 2002 1
Negative Declaration — Housing Element Update
intended to achieve these goals, some of these policies and programs would facilitate new residential
development; physical changes to the environment could be associated with this new development.
Table 1 of the Initial Study lists the updated Element's policies and implementation programs, and
identifies those that could result in physical changes to the environment due to new development.
This Initial Study assesses the potential impacts that could result from the development of 125 new
residential units in the Town. Table 1 of the Initial Study identifies three policies and six
implementation programs that would facilitate development of new residential units. As indicated in
Table 1 of the Initial Study, Policies 1A and 1B, and Programs 1 through 4 would facilitate new
developments of 125 total units, consisting of 59 units affordable to very low-income households and
66 units affordable to moderate income households. Policy 1B and Programs 5 and 6 could result in
ten to 15 Below Market Price (BMP) units as well as ten second units in the Town. Policy 1C and
Program 10 would provide assistance in the purchase of five newly developed housing units,
consequently inducing incentives for the development of these units as part of the Town's potential
housing supply.
Determination: Proposed policies and programs of the updated Housing Element would not directly
result in any potentially significant impacts on the environment. Specific development proposals that
are facilitated by these policies and programs would have the potential to affect the environment, but
the potential for impacts would vary on a project -by -project basis. Each development project would
be subject to separate environmental review at the time a specific development proposal is made and
project -specific impacts would be evaluated at that time.
Statement of Reasons to Support Finding:
1. Aesthetics: Based on the goals of the updated Housing Element, it is anticipated that 125 housing
units would be developed. Potential aesthetic impacts associated with construction of these units
would vary on a project -by -project basis. Each development project would be subject to separate
environmental review at the time a specific development proposal is made and project -specific
aesthetics impacts would be evaluated at that time.
2. Agriculture Resources: The updated Housing Element proposes residential uses consistent with
the residential land use designations of the Town's General Plan, and appropriate zoning to
implement the policies and programs of the Element. While the Housing Element's provisions do not
conflict with agriculture use zoning or Williamson Act contracts, and do not specify the conversion of
any farmlands to non-agricultural uses, the effects of constructing 125 new housing units would vary
on a project -by -project basis. Each development project would be subject to separate environment
review at the time a specific development proposal is made, and project -specific constraints would be
evaluated at that time.
3. Air Quality: Based on goals of the updated Housing Element, it is anticipated that 125 housing
units would be developed. Traffic generated by future developments containing these new units
would cumulatively degrade regional air quality. However, the increase in air emissions associated
only with these new units would not be considered significant based on the Bay Area Air Quality
Management District's (BAAQMD) threshold levels for potential significance. The BAAQMD
threshold level for potential significance is 320 single-family residential units. At or above this
number of units, traffic generated by future projects could cumulatively produce air quality
problems, and an air quality impact assessment would need to be prepared and submitted to the
BAAQMD for review. There would be potential for local construction -related or operational air
quality impacts due to specific development projects. Each development project that would include
some of these units would be subject to separate environmental review at the time a specific
development proposal is made, and the potential for project -specific air quality impacts would be
evaluated at that time.
4. Biological Resources: Potential biological impacts associated with construction of 125 new
housing units would vary on a project -by -project basis. Each development project would be subject
to separate environment review at the time a specific development proposal is made, and project -
specific biological constraints (e.g., presence of rare/endangered species, locally designated species or
October, 2002 2
r
Negative Declaration — Housing Element Update
habitats) would be evaluated at that time. In addition, the Town's Parks Division of the Parks and
Public Works Department would provide detailed direction and guidance in the mitigation of
potential impacts on biological resources.
5. Cultural Resources: The goals of the updated Housing Element, would promote the development
of 125 new housing units. Potential impacts on cultural resources that would be associated with
construction of these new units would vary on a project -by -project basis. Each development project
would be subject to separate environment review at the time a specific development proposal is made,
and project -specific cultural resources impacts would be evaluated at that time.
6. Geology and Soils: The updated Housing Element would have no direct effects on geological
and soils resources. However, the potential geologic impacts associated with construction of 125 new
housing units would vary on a project -by -project basis. Each development project would be subject
to separate environment review at the time a specific development proposal is made, and project -
specific geologic constraints (e.g., potential for fault rupture, ground shaking, ground failure,
subsidence, expansive soils, etc.) would be evaluated at that time.
7. Hazards and Hazardous Materials: Based on goals of the updated Housing Element, it is
anticipated that 125 housing units would be developed. Potential public health risks associated with
construction of these new units would vary on a project -by -project basis. Each development project
would be subject to separate environment review at the time a specific development proposal is made,
and project -specific health hazards would be evaluated at that time.
S. Hydrology and Water Quality: While the updated Housing Element, would have no direct
impacts on hydrological resources or water quality, the 125 new housing units that would be
developed as a result of the Element's implementation would have potential hydrologic impacts
associated with the construction of these new units, and varying on a project -by -project basis. Each
development project would be subject to separate environment review at the time a specific
development proposal is made, and project -specific hydrologic impacts (e.g., changes in drainage
patterns, increased surface runoff, flood hazards, water quality degradation, etc.) would be evaluated
at that time.
9. Land Use and Planning: General Plan. For residential uses, the General Plan Land Use Element
establishes four density ranges including "High Density Residential." The "High Density"
designation allows for multi -family residential at density range of 12-20 dwellings per net acre, with
its objective to provide "quality housing in close proximity to transit or a business area." Policies
and programs of the updated Housing Element are consistent with this density range. Proposed
Policy 1B of the updated Housing Element encourages higher density affordable housing. In
addition, Program 2 of the updated Housing Element proposes continued provision of a density
bonus of up to 100 percent for developments that include housing for elderly, handicapped, and/or
very low and low-income households. High density residential is also encouraged in the "Mixed Use
Commercial" designation under Program 4 of the updated Housing Element. Multi -family
residential is allowed in all commercial zones and the "Commercial -Industrial" zone, subject to a
conditional use permit.
The Land Use Element also includes a "Mobile Home Park" designation (density range 5-12
dwellings per net acre) to encourage the preservation of the existing mobile home parks as a source
of affordable housing. Proposed Policy 3A of the updated Housing Element "supports the
preservation and conservation of existing housing units that provide affordable housing opportunities
for Town residents and workers and strive to ensure that at least 30%of the housing stock are rental
units." This proposed policy and the corresponding Program 16 (Mobile Home Preservation) would
be consistent with the objectives of the Land Use Element's designation.
The Land Use Element contains a Land Use Plan that reflects existing and recommended potential
land uses for the Town. In general, medium density residential uses are designated primarily in the
downtown area and areas to the north between Los Gatos Boulevard and Santa Cruz
Avenue/Winchester Boulevard. The Land Use Plan identifies small pockets of medium density
housing along the northern Town boundary in the Pollard Road and Los Gatos -Almaden Road
October, 2002 3
n
Negative Declaration — Housing Element Update
vicinities. Based on the Land Use Plan and location of vacant or redevelopable land, opportunities
for developing affordable housing through implementation of updated Housing Element policies
would primarily be in the downtown area and Route 85 vicinity. Land uses in the Route 85 area are
subject to policies specified in the Vasona Light Rail & Route 85 Element (Section 5 of the General
Plan); the consistency of the policies in this specific plan with proposed polices of the updated
Housing Element is discussed below.
The Vasona Light Rail & Route 85 Element identifies two areas where affordable housing
development would be encouraged: (1) for Area 1 (Vasona Junction), Policy V.P.5.2 states that
"Development in this area shall consist of housing that meets the affordable housing goals of the
Town..."; and (2) Area 4 (East Los Gatos Boulevard), which includes Policy V.P.8.2, "encourage
development of residential rental units." Implementing Strategy V.I.8.2 specifies a
rental/affordability preference: "Evaluate proposals with residential uses to assure that the Town's
housing goals are being furthered." In addition, the Town Council adopted Resolution 1991-124 in
1991 on a site located in Area 3.3 (Central Core), which specified an increase in density from 5-12
units per acre to 10-20 units per acre. Although a General Plan amendment would be required, this
resolution does indicate a potential for increasing densities to provide affordable housing. Proposed
policies of the updated Housing Element are consistent with these policies. Policies of both Elements
encourage affordable residential development and mixed use projects with residential uses.
Other Land Use Issues. As indicated in Table 1 of the Initial Study, Policies 1A and 1B supported by
Implementation Programs 1 through 4, would facilitate new developments consisting of very low and
moderate income housing. Policy 1B would assist the Town in the provision of BMP and second
units. Implementation Programs 5 and 6 promote the development of ten to 15 BMP units and ten
second units, respectively. Policy 1C and Implementation Program 10 (Participation in Mortgage
Credit Certificate program) would assist in the purchase of five newly developed housing units.
Specific projects that are facilitated by these policies and programs would be subject to separate
environmental review and project -specific land use impacts (e.g. potential land use compatibility
impacts, impacts on agricultural resources, and disruption of established communities) would be
evaluated at that time.
10. Mineral Resources: The Los Gatos General Plan does not identify any regionally or locally -
important mineral resources in the Town that could be affected by future residential development.
11. Noise: Based on goals of the updated Housing Element, it is anticipated that 125 housing units
would be developed. Potential noise impacts associated with construction and occupation of these
new units would vary on a project -by -project basis. Each development project would be subject to
separate environment review at the time a specific development proposal is made, and project -specific
noise impacts or constraints would be evaluated at that time.
12. Population and Housing: Quantifiable housing goals of the updated Housing Element for the
four-year period between 2002 and 2006 are: (1) development of up to 125 new housing units; (2)
construction of ten to 15 BMP units; and (3) development of ten second units on existing parcels in
the Town. The additional 125 housing units could add approximately 318 persons to the Town's
current population of 28,592 as indicated in the 2000 census. This increase would represent one
percent of the Town's 2005 population as projected by the Association of Bay Area Governments
(ABAG), and this one percent increase in population would be within ABAG's projected three
percent growth rate over the next five years. Therefore, Plan implementation would not represent a
significant increase in local or regional population. The project's population increase of 318 persons
would represent 0.02 percent of Santa Clara County's 2000 total population of approximately 1.8
million.
Implementation of the updated Housing Element is not expected to induce substantial growth within
the Town. The project's estimated increase of 318 persons, when averaged over the four-year
planning period, would represent a 0.3 percent increase per year. Since 1980, the Town's population
has been increasing at a rate of 0.3 percent annually, and the incremental growth rate associated with
the updated Housing Element could be accommodated within the existing growth rate. For
October, 2002 4
Negative Declaration — Housing Element Update
comparison purposes, Santa Clara County's population growth rate was 50 percent between 1980 and
2000, averaging 2.5 percent annually.
It is unknown whether any existing affordable housing would be lost, but the purpose of the updated
Housing Element is to provide new housing units, rehabilitate existing housing units, and preserve
existing affordable housing units. Policies 2A and 3A of the updated Housing Element help to
maintain the existing number of affordable units through preservation, rehabilitation, or replacement
(refer to Table 1 of the Initial Study for specific policies).
13. Public Services: As indicated in Table 1 of the Initial Study, Policies 1A and 1B, and Programs 1
through 4 would facilitate new developments of 125 total units, consisting of 59 units affordable to
very low-income households and 66 units affordable to moderate income households. Policy 1B and
Programs 5 and 6 could result in development of ten to 15 BMP units as well as ten second units in
the Town. Policy 1C and Program 10 would provide assistance in the purchase of five newly
developed housing units, inducing the development of these units as part of the Town's potential
housing supply.
Development of these new units would increase demand for public services. However, as indicated by
the Town's General Plan, "Los Gatos is a mature, predominantly built -out community." (page L-1)
Appropriate levels of public services are available throughout the community. Most of the new
development is expected to be infill or redevelopment, occurring in areas that are already developed,
or adjacent to urbanized areas. Therefore, these units would not significantly increase demand for
police, fire, or maintenance services. Each development project that would include some of these units
would be subject to review by the Santa Clara County Fire Department, and Fire Department
requirements would be identified at that time. The school districts charge a school impact fee to
mitigate increased demand for schools resulting from all new residential development. Additionally,
the Safety Element of the Town's General Plan identifies goals, policies, and implementing strategies
to ameliorate natural and urban safety hazards, and to ensure appropriate public services levels for the
community. The Open Space Element provides for improvement measures for public parks and
associated facilities.
14. Recreation: Based on goals of the updated Housing Element, it is anticipated that 125 housing
units would be developed. Development of these new units would incrementally increase demand for
recreational facilities. However, most of this new development would be infill, occurring in areas that
are already developed, or adjacent to urbanized areas. In addition, as mentioned in Section XII,
Population and Housing, project -related increases in population would represent approximately 0.3
percent per year increase in population over the 2002 — 2006 planning period of the updated
Housing; this small population increase would not significantly increase existing or expected future
demand on recreational facilities.
15. Transportation and Traffic: The goals of the updated Housing Element, would be expected to
generate 125 new housing units from 2002 through 2006. Depending on the size of the residential
units, this number of units could generate 750 to 1,000 trips per day. Assuming future development
proposals associated with the 125 additional housing units would be consistent with the existing
General Plan land use designations, no significant cumulative traffic impacts associated with these
housing units would be anticipated. The EIR for the General Plan 2000 indicated that
implementation of the General Plan would not result in a decrease in capacity at any mid -block
roadway segment or at any signalized intersections that would result in a change in level of service.
However, local traffic impacts could result from such traffic increases, depending on the locations of
new units. The nature and extent of local traffic impacts would vary on a project -by -project basis.
These units would be subject to separate environment review at the time a specific development
proposal is made, and project -specific traffic impacts (e.g., level of service operation, access problems,
traffic or pedestrian safety hazards, etc.) would be evaluated at that time.
16. Utilities and Service Systems: As described in Section XIII, the updated Housing Element would
facilitate the development of new affordable housing units as well as BMP and second units in the
Town. Development of these new units would increase the demands on existing utilities and services
systems. However, most of this new development would be infill or redevelopment, occurring in areas
October, 2002 5
Negative Declaration — Housing Element Update
that are already developed, or adjacent to urbanized areas. At this time, there are no major
infrastructure or delivery issues in Los Gatos. However, there are certain areas in Town where water
and/or sewer systems are old and require replacement or upgrade. New developments could be
required to upgrade old water and sewer lines as part of the proposed development. The extent of
repairs or improvements would depend on the size and location of the new residential units. Each
development project would be subject to separate review by the Town and any required upgrading of
local infrastructure would be identified by the Town at that time.
The updated Housing Element indicates that the San Jose Water Company services 95 percent of the
Town. Some areas of the Town, e.g. downtown and areas on the east side of Town, are served by a
relatively old water delivery system, with pipes that need to be replaced. The Town and the San Jose
Water Company are aware of these conditions and the Water Company is developing plans to improve
those lines. Similarly, the sanitary sewer storm drain systems includes facilities that are old and in need
of replacement. The West Valley Sanitation District and the Town, respectively, are responsible for
replacing and upgrading these facilities.
With regard to the adequacy of regional water supply/treatment and wastewater treatment capacities to
accommodate future project -related growth, the new affordable units would result in a population
increase of about one percent of the population projected for Los Gatos by 2020. This small
population increase would not significantly increase future demands on these regional facilities.
Population increases resulting from the development proposals of the Housing Element would remain
within the build -out projections of the 2000 General Plan.
17. Mandatory Findings of Significance: Proposed policies and programs of the updated Housing
Element would not directly degrade the quality of the environment, achieve short-term goals to the
disadvantage of long-term productivity, or significantly affect human beings. Such effects would be
project -specific, varying on a project -by -project basis. Each development project would be subject to
separate environmental review at the time a specific development proposal is made and project -
specific impacts would be evaluated at that time. However, most of this new development would be
infill, occurring in areas that are already developed, or adjacent to urbanized areas. Such locations
would be expected to help minimize the potential for impacts on environmental resources.
The Initial Study addresses the potential cumulative impacts that could result from development of
these 125 new units throughout the Town of Los Gatos. Since these units would be developed under
many separate development projects as part of future residential and commercial proposals, the
incremental impacts associated with each development proposal will be evaluated under each
development's separate environmental review.
Copies of the Initial Study used to make the above recommendation are on file and available for
public inspection during regular business hours at the Town Community Development Department,
110 East Main Street, Los Gatos, California.
Date
Bud N. Lortz, Di.: tor of ommunity Development
October, 2002 6
The Planning and Zoning Law
ria, as modified for California, and grazing land. "Grazing lan•
means land on which the existing vegetation, whether grn
naturally or through management, is suitable for graz or
browsing of livestock.
(4) "Amount of land converted to agricultural use" means
those lands which were brought into agricultural use o reestab-
lished in agricultural use and were not shown as agric tural land
on Important Farmland Series maps maintained by the Depart-
ment of Conservation in the most recent biennial eport.
(5) "Amount of land converted from agricul al use" means
those lands which were permanently converteor committed to
urban or other nonagricultural uses and were hown as agricul-
tural land on Important Farmland Series mas maintained by the
Department of Conservation and in the ost recent biennial
report.
(c) Beginning August I, 1986, an,, continuing biennially
thereafter, the Department of Conserv. ion shall update and send
counties copies of Important Farm . nd Series maps. Counties
may review the maps and notify t - department within 90 days
of any changes in agricultural la' d pursuant to subdivision (b)
that occurred during the previou fiscal year, and note and request
correction of any discrepanci-. or errors in the classification of
agricultural lands on the map.. The department shall make those
corrections requested by co + nties. The department shall provide
staff assistance, as availab e, to collect or acquire information on
the amount of land con erted to, or from, agricultural use for
those counties for whi Important Farmland Series maps exist.
(d) The Departme t of Conservation may also acquire any
supplemental infon ation which becomes available from new
soil surveys and e ablish comparable baseline data for counties
not included in t e 1984 baseline, and shall report on the data
pursuant to thi section. The Department of Conservation may
prepare Inte Farmland maps to supplement the Important
Farmland S- 'es maps.
(e) The egislature finds that the purpose of the Important
Farmlan. Series map and the Interim Farmland maps is not to
conside' the economic viability of agricultural lands or their
curren designation in the general plan. The purpose of the maps
is Milted to the preparation of an inventory of agricultural lands,
as �effined in this chapter, as well as land already committed to
fi sure urban or other nonagricultural purposes.
(Amended by Stats. 1983, Ch. 924; Amended by Stats. 1985,
Ch. 1342; Amended by Stats. 1986, Ch. 1053)
Article 10.6. Housing Elements
65580. The Legislature finds and declares as follows:
(a) The availability of housing is of vital statewide importance,
and the early attainment of decent housing and a suitable living
environment for every California family is a priority of the
highest order.
(b) The early attainment of this goal requires the cooperative
participation of government and the private sector in an effort tc
expand housing opportunities and accommodate the housing
needs of Californians of all economic levels.
(c) The provision of housing affordable to low -and moderate -
income households requires the cooperation of all levels of
govemment.
(d) Local and state governments have a responsibility to use the
powers vested in them to facilitate the improvement and devel-
opment of housing to make adequate provision for the housing
needs of all economic segments of the communit;.
(e) The Legislature recognizes that in carrying o ot this respon-
sibility, each local government also has the responsibility to
consider economic, environmental, and fiscal factors and com-
munity goals set forth in the general plan and to cooperate with
other local governments and the state in addressing regional
housing needs.
(Added by Stats. 1980, Ch. 1143)
65581. It is the intent of the Legislature in enacting this article:
(a) To assure that counties and cities recogrize their respon-
sibilities in contributing to the attainment of the state housing
goal.
(b) To assure that counties and cities will prepare and imple-
ment housing elements which, along with federal and state
programs, will move toward attainment of the state housing goal.
(c) To recognize that each locality is best capable of determin-
ing what efforts are required by it to contribute ro the a ttaimnent
of the state housing goal, provided such a determination is
compatible with the state housing
goal and regional housing needs.
(d) To ensure that each local government cooperates with other
local governments in order to address regional housing needs.
(Added by Stats. 1980, Ch. 1143.)
65582. As used in this article:
(a) "Community," "locality,'' "local government," or "juris-
diction" means a city. city and county, or county.
(b) "Council or governments" means a single or multicounty
council created by ajoint powers agreement pursuant to Chapter
5 (commencing with Section 6500) of Division 1 of Title 1.
(c) "Department" means the Department of Housing and
Community Development.
(d) "Housing element" or "element" means the housing ele-
ment of the community's general plan, as re:_aired pursuant to
this article and subdivision (c) cf Section 65302.
(e) "Low -and moderate -income households" means persons
and families of low or moderate incomes as defined by Section
50093 of the Health and Safety Code.
(Added by Stats. 1980, C1/2.1143; Amended by Stats, 1989, Ch.
1140; Amended by Slats. 1990, Ch. 1441.)
65583. The housing element shall consist of an identification
and analysis of existing and projected housing needs and a
statement of goals, policies, quantified objectives, financial
resources, and scheduled programs for the preservation, im-
provement, and development of housing. The housing element
shall identify adequate sites for housing, including rental hous-
ing, factory -built housing, and ntobiiehomes, and shall make
adequate provision for the existing and projected needs of all
economic segments of the community. The element shall contain
all of the following:
(a) An assessment of housing needs and an inventory of
resources and constraints relevant to the meeting of these needs.
The assessment and inventory shall include the following:
(I) An analysis of population and employment trends and
1998 Planning, Zcnir:g,
Exhbiit B
The Planning and Zoning Law
documentation of projections and a quantification of the locality's
existing and projected housing needs for all income levels. These
existing and projected needs shall include the locality's share of
the regional housing need in accordance with Section 65584.
(2) An analysis and documentation of household characteris-
tics, including level of payment compared to ability to pay,
housing characteristics, including overcrowding, and housing
stock condition.
(3) An inventory of land suitable for residential development,
including vacant sites and sites having potential for redevelop-
ment, and an analysis of the relationship of zoning and public
facilities and services to these sites.
(4) An analysis of potential and actual governmental con-
straints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of
housing for all income levels, including land use controls, build-
ing codes and their enforcement, site improvements, fees and
other exactions required of developers, and local processing and
permit procedures. The analysis shall also demonstrate local
efforts to remove governmental constraints that hinder the local-
ity from meeting its share of the regional housing need in
accordance with Section 65584.
(5) An analysis of potential and actual nongovernmental con-
straints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of
housing for all income levels, including the availability offinanc-
ing, the price of land, and the cost of construction.
(6) An analysis of any special housing needs, such as those of
the handicapped, elderly, large families, farmworkers, families
with female heads of households, and families and persons in
need of emergency shelter.
(7) An analysis of opportunities for energy conservation with
respect to residential development.
(8) An analysis of existing assisted housing developments that
are eligible to change from low-income housing uses during the
next 10 years due to termination of subsidy contracts, mortgage
prepayment, or expiration of restrictions on use. "Assisted hous-
ing developments," for the purpose of this section, shall mean
multifamily rental housing that receives governmental assistance
under federal programs listed in subdivision (a) of Section
65863.10, state and local multifamily revenue bond programs,
local redevelopment programs, the federal Community Develop-
ment Block Grant Program, or local in -lieu fees. "Assisted
housing developments" shall also include multifamily rental
units that were developed pursuant to a local inclusionary hous-
ing program or used to qualify for a density bonus pursuant to
Section 65916.
(A) The analysis shall include a listing of each development by
project name and address, the type of governmental assistance
received, the earliest possible date of change from low-income
use and the total number of elderly and nonelderly units that could
be lost from the locality's low-income housing stock in each year
during the 10-year period. For purposes of state and federally
funded projects, the analysis required by this subparagraph need
only contain information available on a statewide basis.
(B) The analysis shall estimate the total cost of producing new
rental housing that is comparable in size and rent levels, to
replace the units that could change from low-income use, and an
estimated cost of preserving the assisted housing developments.
This cost analysis for replacement housing may be done aggre-
gately for each five-year period and does not have to contain a
project by project cost estimate.
(C) The analysis shall identify public and private nonprofit
corporations known to the local government which have Iegal
and managerial capacity to acquire and manage these housing
developments.
(D) The analysis shall identify and consider the use of all
federal, state, and local financing and subsidy programs which
can be used to preserve, for lower income households, the
assisted housing developments, identified in this paragraph,
including, but not limited to, federal Community De elopment
Block Grant Program funds, tax increment funds received by a
redevelopment agency of the community, and administrative
fees received by a housing authority operating within the com-
munity. In considering the use of these financing and subsidy
programs, the analysis shall identify the amounts of funds under
each available program which have not been legally obligated for
other purposes and which could be available for use in preserving
assisted housing developments.
(b) (1) A statement of the community's aoais. quantified
objectives, and policies relative to the maintenance, preserva-
tion, improvement, and development of housing.
(2) It is recognized that the total hosing nerds identified
pursuant to subdivision (a) may exceed available resources and
the community's ability to satisfy this need within the content of
the general plan requirements outlined in Article 5 (commencing
with Section 65300). Under these circumstances. the quantified
objectives need not be identical to the total housing needs. The
quantified objectives shall establish the maximum number of
housing units by income category that can be constructed, reha-
bilitated, and conserved over a five-year time period.
(c) A program which sets forth a five-year schedule of actions
the local government is undertaking or intends to undertake to
implement the policies and achieve the goals and ,abiccti es of
the housing element through the administration of land use and
development controls, provision of regulatory concessions and
incentives, and the utilization of appropriate federal and state
financing and subsidy programs when available aod the utiliza-
tion of moneys in a Low and Moderate Income Ilouslog Fund of
an agency if the locality has established a redevelopment project
area pursuant to the Community Redevelopment Law (Division
24 (commencing with Section 33000) of the Health and Safety
Code). In order to make adequate provision for the housing needs
of all economic segments of the community, the program steal l do
all of the following:
(1) Identify adequate sites which will be made available
through appropriate zoning and development standards and with
public services and facilities rieedey to facilitate and encourage
the development of a variety of types of housing for all income
levels, including multifamily rental housing, factory -built hous-
ing, mobilehornes, emergency shelters, and transitional housing
in order to meet the community's housing goals as identified in
subdivision (b). Where the inventory of sites, pursuant to para-
graph (3) of subdivision (a), does not identify adequate sites to
accommodate the need for groups oall household income levels
pursuant to Section 65584, the program shall provide for suffi-
48 • 1998 Planning, Zoning, and Development Laws
The Planning and Zoning Law
cient sites with zoning that permits owner -occupied and rental
multifamily residential use by right, including density and devel-
opment standards that could accommodate and facilitate the
feasibility of housing for very Iow and low-income households.
For purposes of this paragraph, the phrase "use by right" shall
mean the use does not require a conditional use permit, except
when the proposed project is a mixed -use project involving both
commercial and residential uses. Use by right for all rental
multifamily residential housing shall be provided in accordance
with subdivision (f) of Section 65589.5.
(2) Assist in the development of adequate housing to meet the
needs of low- and moderate -income households.
(3) Address and, where appropriate and legally possible,
remove governmental constraints to the maintenance, improve-
ment, and development of housing.
(4) Conserve and improve the condition of the existing afford-
able housing stock, which may include addressing ways to
mitigate the loss of dwelling units demolished by public or
private action.
(5) Promote housing opportunities for all persons regardless of
race, religion, sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin, or
color.
(6) (A) Preserve for lower income households the assisted
housing developments identified pursuant to paragraph (8) of
subdivision (a). The program for preservation of the assisted
housing developments shall utilize, to the extent necessary, all
available federal, state, and local financing and subsidy programs
identified in paragraph (8) of subdivision (a), except where a
community has other urgent needs for which alternative funding
sources are not available. The program may include strategies
that involve local regulation and technical assistance.
(B) The program shall include an identification of the agencies
and officials responsible for the implementation of the various
actions and the means by which consistency will be achieved
with other general plan elements and community goals. The local
government shall make a diligent effort to achieve public partici-
pation of all economic segments of the community in the devel-
opment of the housing element, and the program shall describe
this effort.
(d) The analysis and program for preserving assisted housing
developments required by the amendments to this section en-
acted by the Statutes of 1989 shall be adopted as an amendment
to the housing element by July 1, 1992.
(e) Failure of the department to review and report its findings
pursuant to Section 65585 to the local government between July
1, 1992, and the next periodic review and revision required by
Section 65588, concerning the housing element amendment
required by the amendments to this section by the Statutes of
1989, shall not be used as a basis for allocation or denial of any
housing assistance administered pursuant to Part 2 (commencing
with Section 50400) of Division 31 of the Health and Safety
Code.
(Amended by Stats. 1984, Ch. 1691. Effective October 1, 1984;
Amended by Stats. 1986, Ch. 1383; Amended by Stats. 1989, Ch.
1451; Amended by Stats. 1991, Ch. 889. See notes immediately
following and note following Section 65589.7)
Note: Stats. 1984, Ch. 1691, also reads:
SEC. 1. The Legislature finds and declares that because of
economic, physical, and mental conditions that are beyond their
control, thousands of individuals and families in California are
homeless. Churches, local governments, and nonprofit organiza-
tions providing assistance to the homeless have been over-
whelmed by a new class of homeless: families with children,
individuals with employable skills, and formerly middle-class
families and individuals with long work histories.
The programs provided by the state, local, and federal govern-
ments, and by private institutions, have been unable to meet
existing needs and further action is necessary. The Legislature
finds and declares that two levels of housing assistance are
needed: an emergency fund to supplennont temporary shelter
programs, and a fund to facilitate the preservation of existing
housing and the creation of new housing units affordable to very
low income households. It is in the public interest for the State of
California to provide this assistance.
The Legislature further finds and declares that there is a need
for more information on the numbers of homeless and the causes
of homelessness, and for systematic exploration ofmore compre-
hensive solutions to the problem. Both local and state govern-
ment have a role to play in identifying, understanding, and
devising solutions to the problem of homelessness.
Note: Stats. 1986, Ch. 1383, also reads:
SEC. 3. The amendments to paragraph (1) of subdivision (c) of
Section 65583 of the Government Code made by the act adding
this section during the 1986 Regular Session of the Legislature
shall require an identification of sites for emergency shelters and
transitional housing by January 1,1988, or by the next periodic
review of a housing element pursuant to Section 65588 of the
Government Code, whichever is later, in order to give local
governments adequate time to plans for, and to assist in the
development of, housing for homeless persons, if it is determined
that there is a need for emergency shelter pursuant to paragraph
(6) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583 of the Government Code.
65583.1. (a) The Department of Rousing and Community
Development, in evaluating a propos. d or adopted housing
element for consistency with state law, may allow a local govern-
ment to identify adequate sites, as required pursuant to Section
65583, by a variety of methods, including, but not limited to,
redesignation of property to a more intense land use category and
increasing the density allowed within one or more categories.
Nothing in this section reduces a local government's responsibil-
ity to identify, by income category, the Loud number of sites for
residential development as required by this article
(b) Sites that contain permanent housing units located on a
military base undergoing closure or conversion may be identified
as an adequate site provided the housing element demonstrates
that the housing units will be available for occupancy by house-
holds within the planning period of the element. Not sites
containing housing units scheduled or planned for demolition or
conversion to nonresidential uses shall qualify as an adequate
site.
Any city, city and county, or county usi ,g this sot. d ivision shall
address the progress in meeting this section i, t!:c reports pro-
vided pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of Section
65400.
1998 Planning, 'Lowing, and Development Laws • 49
I*
i" - n``, 'ice r s. s
City
Project Type/Size
Typical Processing Time
Campbell
Planned Development
20 unit project example
12 months
Campbell
small project (4-5 units)
six months
Cupertino
any size project
two months minimum' 2
Los Altos
Planned Development3
three months minimum
Mountain View
large project
three months minimum2
Santa Clara
Planned Development3
120 day minimum (4 mos.)
Saratoga
Planned Development3
12 months
Sunnyvale
large project
(more than 9 units)4
six to eight months2
Sunnyvale
small project (4-9 units)
three to four months
'Includes architectural review
2Staff work with applicants in advance of submittal not counted as part of processing time
3Architecture & Site application can be concurrent with Planned Development application
'Special studies such as acoustical or traffic analysis typically required; this extends the process
N:\DEV\SUZANNE1Housing Element\Multi-Family Table.wpd
ATTACHMENT 4
r
•
eAv'! apb\
ATTACHMENT 5
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
SEPTEMBER 2002
ATTACHMENT 6
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL APPENDIX
2002-2006
Adopted by Town Council:
HOUSING ELEMENT PREPARED BY:
MELANIE SHAFFER FREITAS
FREITAS + FREITAS, ENGINEERING AND PLANNING CONSULTANTS
311 LAURENT STREET
SANTA CRUZ, CALIFORNIA 95060
(831) 471-9942
i
Town of Los Gatos
TOWN COUNCIL
RANDY ATTAWAY, MAYOR
SANDY DECKER, VICE MAYOR
STEVE GLICKMAN
STEVE BLANTON
DOE PIRZYNSKI
PLANNING COMMISSION
LEE QUINTANA, CHAIR
PHIL MICCICHE
PAUL Du Bois
JEANNE DREXEL
MORRIS TREVITHICK
MIKE BURKE
GENERAL PLAN HOUSING SUB -COMMITTEE
Sandy Decker
Joe Pirzynski
Mark Weiner
Jo Zientek
DEBRAJ. FIGONE, TOWN MANAGER
BUD N. LORTZ, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
SUZANNE DAVIS, ASSOCIATE PLANNER
JENNIFER CASTILLO, ASSISTANT PLANNER
DEBORAH UNGO-MCCORMICK, CONTRACT PLANNER
MARTY WOODWORTH, REDEVELOPMENT MANAGER
REGINA FALKNER, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES
TOWN OF Los GATOS
HOUSING ELEMENT
2002-2006
15 "�? . ;ef�Xrza?:�a:asx: ? sA � 03,75 "� Ta? 113ri s f i1 arat s.° ".M^
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary 1
1. Introduction 3
2. Housing Needs Assessment 5
Population Information 5
Population Data 5
Future Population Growth 6
Population by Ethnicity 7
Population by Age 7
Population and Employment Projections 8
Household Information 8
Current and Projected Households 8
Household Size 9
Households by Income Level 9
Households Overpaying For Housing 12
Household Tenure 13
Households With Special Needs 14
Housing Stock Data 21
Housing Units by Type 21
Vacancy Rates 22
Age of Housing 22
Housing Condition 23
Cost of Housing and Affordability 24
3. Projected Housing Needs 29
New Construction Need: 1999-2006 29
Estimate of Need (1999-2006) 29
Household Need by Income Level 9
Adjusted New Construction Need: 2002-2006 30
Housing Need by Income Level, Adjusted 2002-2006 1
Conservation of Affordable Units 33
Description and Identification of Potential "At -Risk" Projects 33
Cost Analysis of Preserving "At Risk" Units i
Resources for Preservation 38
Quantified Objectives and Program Efforts for "At Risk"Units 38
4. Housing Constraints 39
Governmental Constraints 39
A. Land Use Controls 39
B. Local Housing Programs 43
C. Infrastructure Capacity 44
D. Governmental Fees 45
E. Processing Time 46
F. Building Codes 46
G. Parking Requirements 47
Market Constraints 47
Producing Affordable Housing in Today's Market 47
5. Resource Inventory 49
Land Inventory 49
Financial Resources 50
Local Financial Resources 50
Federal Resources (CDBG and HOME Funds) 52
Other State/Federal/Local Financial Resources 52
6. Affordable Housing Opportunities 54
Town Housing Programs 54
Affordable Housing Unit Inventory 56
7. Review of 1997 Housing Element 59
Effectiveness of Element 59
Progress in Implementation 68
Appropriateness of Goals, Objectives and Policies 69
8. Housing Program Strategy 71
9. Energy Conservation Opportunities 84
Energy Conservation and Residential Development 84
10. Public Participation 87
Public Participation Process 87
11. Consistency With General Plan 88
12. Appendix Materials 89
A. Reference Materials/Organizations 90
B. Vacant Land Inventory: No Infrastructure Constraints 91
C. Underutilized Land Inventory: No Infrastructure Constraints 93
E
ECUT VE SUMMA
1. Los GATOS' POPULATION IS EXPECTED TO INCREASE BY 9 % DURING THE 2000-2020
TIME FRAME (PAGE 6).
ABAG (Association of Bay Area Governments) estimates that the
population of the Town and its Sphere of Influence will increase by
approximately 2,500-3,000 persons in the next 20 years.
2. IN 2000, THE TOWN HAD A 1.5 JOBS/HOUSING RATIO (PAGE 8).
The 1.5 ratio indicates that t the Town is producing an appropriate number
of jobs for the residents of the community. The Town will endeavor to
continue this ratio as it approves new residential or job -producing
developments.
3. HOUSING COSTS ARE EXPENSIVE IN LOS GATOS (PAGES 24-28).
Los Gatos is one of the most expensive housing markets in the Bay Area.
In December 2001, the median price for a single-family, detached home in
Los Gatos was $948,000. Average rent for a multi -family unit was $1883
per month.
4. THERE WERE A TOTAL OF 72 AFFORDABLE UNITS APPROVED/BUILT BETWEEN 1999-
2002 (PAGE 31).
In 1999-2000, the Los Gatos Creek Village Apartments were built and
occupied. This 12-unit development for very low-income households has
affordability restrictions that will remain in place until 2049. The Town has
also approved 1 unit to be constructed by Habitat for Humanity for a very
low-income household. Further, the Town approved 59 BMP (Below
Market Price) units between 2000-2002. These units will double the
number of BMP units in the Town's inventory.
5. IN ORDER TO MEET ITS REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS FOR 2002-2006, THE TOWN WILL NEED
TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE SITES FOR LOWER AND MODERATE INCOME HOUSING (PAGE 32) .
It is estimated that the Town will need to ensure adequate land at
appropriate zoning for 132 additional housing units between 2002-2006.
6. THE 2002-2006 HOUSING PROGRAM STRATEGY INCLUDES 24 PROGE:AMS AND 5 GOAI s
TO ADDRESS Los GATOS' HOUSING NEEDS (PAGE 69)
The 2002-2006 Housing Program Strategy includes specific goal,,
program actions and quantified objectives, where appropriate, to merit
housing needs. One of the more significant program actions is to ensure
that the affordability restrictions at Villa Vasona are monitrxed prior to their
November 2004 expiration date.
This page intentionally left blank.
2
4.4
CT ON
The Housing Element is one of seven elements required to be included in the
Town's General Plan. There are specific guidelines developed by the State of
California for subjects that must be included in a Housing Element. These
guidelines are identified in Article 10.6 of the State of California Government
Code.
In very simple terms, Article 10.6 specifies that Housing Elements must evaluate
the current housing market in a community and then identify programs that will
meet housing needs. The following information is required to be included in a
Housing Element:
• Evaluation of existing housing needs;
• Estimates of projected housing needs;
• Review of previous Housing Element goals and programs;
• Inventory of adequate sites for housing and evaluation of infrastructure
condition and requirements;
• Identification of constraints on housing, including governmental as well
as non -governmental constraints;
• Housing program strategy to address identified needs; and
• Quantifiable objectives for attainment of new construction,
rehabilitation and conservation housing needs.
The Town's previous Housing Element was completed in 1997 and was certified
by the State as being in compliance with State Housing Element law. The 2002-
2006 Housing Element represents an update of the 1997 Housing Element.
The 2002-2006 Housing Element contains the most current information in regard
to Los Gatos' housing market as of Winter 2001. Unfortunately, only a very
limited amount of 2000 U.S. Census data was available at the time this Element
was prepared. Therefore, 1990 U.S. Census data is sometimes cited but as
much as possible, is updated with more recent source information.
SEPTEMBER 2002
3
This page intentionally left blank.
4
2 O
USING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
4�s
PULATEOtl V NFORMA ]
k l
POPULATEON DATA
The Town of Los Gatos was incorporated in 1887. The population of Los Gatos
has changed considerably since the Town's incorporation. In 1890, the U.S.
Census indicated that the population of the Town was 1,652 persons. From
1890-1950, the population varied between a total 2,000-4,000 persons.
However, similar to many other California communities, Los Gatos experienced a
tremendous growth spurt during the post World War II era. From 1950-1960, the
population almost doubled. But the most significant increase was during 1960-
1970 when the population increased from 9,026 persons to 22,613 persons. In
the last three decades, the population has remained fairly stable. In 1980, there
were 26,906 persons and the 2000 U.S. Census indicated that the population
had increased only slightly to a total of 28,592 persons.
ILLUSTRATION #I: TOWN OF LOS GATOS - POPULATION BY YEAR
1950-2000
35,000
30,000
z 25,000
20,000
12 ® 15,000
10,000
5,000
0
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
SOURCE: U.S. CENSUS: 1950- 2000
SEPTEMBER 2002 5
aft
FUTURE POPULATION GROWTH
Los Gatos is located in Santa Clara County, which has the most population of
any county in the San Francisco Bay region. Santa Clara County is expected to
continue to be the most populous county in the future. According to estimates
prepared by ABAG (Association of Bay Area Governments), Santa Clara County
is expected to increase from 1,755,300 persons in 2000 to 2,016,700 persons in
2020. This is a 14.8% increase in the 20-year period. ABAG has projected that
the population of Los Gatos and its sphere of influence (Lexington Hills) will
increase by approximately 9% during the 2000-2020 time frame. This would
represent an additional 2,500-3,000 persons during that time period.
ILLUSTRATION #2: COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
ESTIMATED POPULATION INCREASE, 2000-2020
Santa Clara
Morgan Hill
Monte Sereno
Cupertino
Mountain View
San Jose
Campbell
Los Altos
LOS GATOS
Los Altos Hills
Palo Alto
0% 5% 10% 15%
20%
25%
30% 35%
Source: Proiections 2000 Association of Bay Area Governments, December 1999 p.66
6
CHAPTER 2: HOU.,.dG NEEDS ASSESSMENT
POPULATION BY ETHNICITY
Los Gatos' population is primarily white and non -Hispanic. The only significant
racial group is Hispanic/Latino, which represented 5.2% of the town's population
in the 2000 U.S. Census. The next significant racial group was Black or African
American, which represented less than 1% of the total population.
POPULATION BY AGE
The population distribution of Los Gatos in 2000 indicated that over 76% of the
community was 21 years of age and older. In fact, the age groups over 21 years
of age have increased proportionally in the last several decades while the
younger population cohorts of 20 years or Tess have decreased. This "aging" of
the population is also evident by the change in median age in the Town. In 1970,
the median age was 30.3 years; in 2000, the median age was 41.2 years.
ILLUSTRATION #3: TOWN OF Los GATOS- POPULATION BY AGE
1970 —2000
Under 18 Years
I970
2000
CHANGE
8,097
(34%)
973
(4%)
6,052
(21.2%)
556
(2%)
- 2,045
(-12.8%)
- 417
(-2%)
18-20 Years
21-64 Years
11,993
17,600
+5,607
(51%)
(61.5%)
(+10.5%)
65+ Years
2,672
4,384
+1,712
(11%)
(15.3%)
(+4.3%)
TOTAL
23,735
28,592
(100%)
(100%)
;<
Source: U.S. Census, 1970 and 2000
SEPTEMBER 2002 7
POPULATEON AND EMPLOYMENT P OJECT11ONS
In 2000, ABAG estimated that there were 20,870 jobs in Los Gatos. Using
ABAG's estimated number of households for the same time period, the
jobs/housing ratio in Los Gatos was approximately 1.5 jobs per household. This
is an appropriate jobs/housing ratio and indicates that the Town is producing an
appropriate number of jobs for the residents of the community.
In looking toward the future, ABAG estimates that there will be an increase of
2,080 jobs in Los Gatos by 2020. This represents a 10% increase over the 2000
base of 20,870 jobs. Approximately 57% of these jobs are forecast to be in the
service sector and the remainder scattered throughout the retail, manufacturing
and other job sectors. Service jobs are traditionally low -paying jobs and
households employed in this sector typically have lower than average wages.
This definitely has an impact on the range of housing opportunities available to
these jobholders.
Further, while the total jobs are expected to increase by 10% between 2000-
2020, the number of households is only expected to increase by 6% in Los Gatos
for that same time period. If these figures do prove to be correct, the
jobs/housing ratio could be affected with the Town producing more jobs than
housing units. This increased pressure for housing, coupled with the wage rates
expected for many of the new jobs, could have an additional effect on housing
supply and costs. The Town will need to monitor its job production during the
next two decades and strive to maintain a healthy jobs/housing balance.
HOUSEHOLD
CURRENT AND PROJECTED OUSEHOLDS
For purposes of evaluating housing supply and demand, it is helpful to translate
information from population figures into household data. The U.S. Bureau of the
Census defines a household as all persons who occupy a housing unit, which
may include single persons living alone, families related through marriage or
blood, and unrelated individuals living together. Persons living in retirement or
convalescent homes, dormitories, or other group living situations are not
considered households.
8
CHAPTER 2: HOU....4G NEEDS ASSESSMENT
In 2000, there were 11,988 households in Los Gatos (U.S. Census estimates).
Of those households, 61 % were in family households and the remaining 39%
were in non -family households. Of those non -family households, 76% were
individuals living alone.
HOUSEHOLD SIZE
Household size is an interesting indicator of changes in population or use of
housing. An increase in household size can indicate a greater number of large
families or a trend toward overcrowded housing units. A decrease in household
size, on the other hand, may reflect a greater number of elderly or single person
households or a decrease in family size.
Los Gatos' average household size has not changed significantly during the last
decade. In 1990, the average household size was 2.36 persons per household;
in 2000, the average household size had decreased very slightly to 2.33 persons
per household. As would be expected, the average household size of owner -
occupied units in Los Gatos is 2.54 persons while the average household size for
renter -occupied units is 1.92 persons. (2000 U.S. Census estimates)
Because the Town's household size has not changed in any significant manner
and is not expected to in the future, change in household size does not appear to
be an indicator of any significant housing trend in the Town.
HOUSEHOLDS := Y INCOME LEVEL
In 2000, the mean income in Los Gatos was estimated to be $12.6,600 per
household.' Household incomes are expected to increase, with the mean
household income in Los Gatos predicted to be $138,200 in 2005 and $147,600
in 2010.2
Of the 15 incorporated communities in Santa Clara County, Los Gatos had the
5th highest estimated household income. The chart on the following page
(Illustration #4) compares the mean household incomes for the Santa Clara
communities.
1 Projections 2000, ABAG December 1999, p.79
2 Ibid.
SEPTEMBER 2002
9
ILLUSTRATION #4: COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
MEAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME, 2000
Ran.k
• .
1
Community
Los Altos Hills
Mean Estimated
Household income
in 2000
$250,500
2
Monte Sereno
$220,900
3
Saratoga
$184,500
4
Los Altos
$ 1 59,300
r Irw
n n. n,.,,
.,,t ,{,f
_
—A
.{:k. a. .s.+
1 ] -T ry;'y�..5 i�, _
• C`iE r
ye, �,
• .o x...,
.,K
,a_,
i,•
hr
w, 'St b Y
i`d
A,y
J e
a
8t�^
6
Cupertino
$110,200
7
Palo Alto
$ 1 07, 1 00
8
Morgan Hill
$90,700
9
Milpitas
$85,200
10
Sunnyvale
$82,300
11
Mountain View
$78,100
1 2
San Jose
$76,600
13
Campbell
$74,200
14
Santa Clara
$72,600
1 5
Gilroy
$67,500
Source: Projections 2000 Association of Bay Area Governments,
December 1999 p.225
When reviewing household income information, it is helpful to evaluate the
proportion of households by income level. Typically, households are defined as
very low income, low income, and moderate income. All remaining households
then are considered above -moderate or upper income. Typically, programs with
federal funding or requirements are available only to the very low and low-income
10
CHAPTER 2: HOUS,IJG NEEDS ASSESSMENT
household levels. Housing programs utilizing State Redevelopment tax
increment funds are applicable to the very tow and low-income categories as well
as moderate income. Listed on the following chart (Illustration #5) are the
maximum household incomes by household size that are used by federal, state
and local programs to determine eligibility for housing assistance in Los Gatos.
The categories are determined by the average household income as a
percentage of median income for the area. For example, the very low-income
household category has a maximum income qualification of $33,600 for a one -
person household.
ILLUSTRATION #5: MAXIMUM HOUSEHOLD INCOME LEVELS,
JANUARY 2002
INCOME
CATEGORY
1
Person
2
Persons
3
Persons
4
Persons
Very Low
$33,600
$38,400
$43,200
$48,000
Low
$51,950
$59,400
$66,800
$74,250
Moderate
$80,650
$92,150
$103,700
$115,200
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development,
Income Limits: County of Santa Clara, 2002
Unfortunately, at the time that this Housing Element document was prepared, the
2000 U.S. Census data was not yet available regarding specific household
income levels for the Town. Therefore, 1990 Census data is the most recent
data and is used to estimate the percentage and number of households by
income level in the Town. Using 1990 U.S. Census data, approximately 15.4%
of Los Gatos' households were considered to be very low income and another
6.5% were identified as low income. Moderate -income households represented
22% of the Town's total households. The table on the following page illustrates
those percentage proportions applied to the total households in Los Gatos in
2000. It is important to note that the 1990 data uses the federal definition of
moderate income, which includes households at 81-95% of median income. This
is different from the State definition, which includes households at 81-120% of
median income.
SEPTEMBER 2002 11
ILLUSTRATION #6: HOUSEHOLDS BY INCOME LEVEL
(ESTIMATED FOR 2000)
56.I%
Above
Moderate
Income
15.4 %
Very Low
Income
6.5% Low
Income
.4404111
22% Moderate
Income
Very
Low
Low
Income
Moderate
Income
Above
Moderate
Town
Total
1,846
(15.4%)
779
(6.5%)
2,638
(22%)
6,725
(56.1%)
11,988
(100%)
Sources Household Income Distributions: 1990 U.S. Census
Number of Households: 2000 U.S. Census
The illustration above indicates that an estimated 21.9% of Los Gatos'
households are very low or low-income. These households would typically have
the most difficulty in securing affordable housing and may be "overpaying" for
their housing.
HOUSEHOLDS OVE P YHIG Fo, Hi UMG
Using state and federal definitions, a household is considered to be "overpaying"
for housing when they spend more than 30% of their annual income on housing
costs. Lower income households typically "overpay" for housing more than
moderate and above moderate -income households. In fact, as the household
12
CHAPTER 2: HOU.,..IG NEEDS ASSESSMENT
income levels decrease, the percentage of households `overpaying" for housing
typically increase.
ILLUSTRATION #7: HOUSEHOLDS OVERPAYING FOR HOUSING BY
INCOME LEVEL, TOWN OF Los GATOS (1990)
■ Renters Overpaying for Housing
®Homeowners Overpaying for Housing
Percentage of
Households 40%
Overpaying 20%
0o/Q L
Very Low Low -Income
Income Households
Households
Source: U.S. Census, 1990
The most recent data regarding overpaying is from the 1990 U.S. Census.
According to that data, 33% of all homeowners and 40% of all renters in Los
Gatos were paying more than 30% of their income for housing costs. However,
when the information is evaluated by household income, the percentages
increase significantly. As the chart above illustrates, 78% of very low-income
renters were overpaying for housing and 71% of low-income renters were
overpaying. For homeowners, 53% of very low-income owners were overpaying
and 45% of low-income owners were paying more than 30% of their income for
housing.
HOUSEHOLD TENURE
Household tenure (owner occupied or renter occupied) is an imporiant
characteristic to review in evaluating housing supply and demand. Communities
need to have an adequate supply of units available both for rent and for sate in
SEPTEMBER 2002 13
order to accommodate a range of households with varying incomes, family sizes
and composition, life styles, etc.
In Los Gatos, the majority of housing units are owner -occupied. Of all occupied
units in the 2000 U.S. Census, 65% were owner -occupied or 7,827 households.
The remaining 35% were renter -occupied units (4,161 households). This is only
a slight change from the 1990 data, which indicated 64% owners and 36%
renters. Los Gatos has traditionally had a goal of 35% of the housing stock being
renter -occupied. The 2000 Census data indicate that the Town's housing stock
continues to reflect the desired percentage goal of 35%.
Los Gatos' percentage of homeowner units is only slightly higher than the
percentage for the County and the State. In 2000, the percentage of homeowner
units in Santa Clara County was 59.8%. The rate for the State of California in
2000 was 56.9% of all households were homeowners.
HOUSEHOLDS WITH SPECIAL NEEDS
Within each community, there may be certain sub -populations that have special
housing needs. For purposes of this Housing Element, following are the
households that have been identified as having special housing needs:
1. Homeless Households
2. Overcrowded Households
3. Single Parent Households
4. Elderly Households
5. Disabled (Physical and Mental) Households
Farm worker households are also typically considered to be households with
special needs. However, a review of all available data for the Town of Los Gatos
indicates that there are not a substantial number of farm worker households
within the Town and, consequently, they are not identified specifically as a group
with special needs. The 1990 U.S. Census data identified less than 1.5% of the
Town's labor force employed in farming or agricultural work. Information from the
State Employment Development Department (EDD) was also reviewed and
indicated no significant number of workers employed in the agricultural sector in
Los Gatos.
9. Homeless Households
Homelessness is a housing issue that has become a significant social concern in
recent years. The number of homeless persons in the Bay Area has increased in
the last decade for a number of reasons. These include the decrease in federal
14
CHAPTER 2: HOu:,..iG NEEDS ASSESSMENT
housing funds, the high cost of available housing, the increasing number of
mentally ill individuals living on their own, persons with substance abuse
problems, women and children fleeing family violence and the lack of family
support networks in today's fast paced society.
As part of the County of Santa Clara "Urban County," Los Gatos was included in
a 1999 survey of homeless individuals. That survey identified 20,000 episodes of
homelessness in Santa Clara County. This was an increase from the 1995
survey that identified 16,000 episodes of homelessness in the County. It is
important to note that an individual or household could have more than one
episode of homelessness in a year.
The 1999 survey did not specifically identify the number of homeless in Los
Gatos. However, some of the more significant data from the countywide survey
concluded:
• There were twice as many males as females in the homeless
population.
• The majority (79%) of homeless were individuals who were either
single, divorced, widowed or separated. Homeless adults with
children represented 21 % of the survey respondents.
• The number of working homeless was 34%.
• Approximately 73% of the homeless listed Santa Clara County as
their last place of residence before becoming homeless.
• The major reasons individuals gave for becoming homeless were:
1. lack of a job (21%),
2. lack of affordable housing (17%),
3. lack of money (14%), and
4. drug and/or substance abuse (8%).
Most of the visible homeless in the County are the "urban" homeless. Suburban
communities, such as Los Gatos, do not have the visible homeless but may have
invisible homeless who may be camping along creeks or living in their cars for
limited periods of time. Representatives of the Town's Police Department
estimated that there were on average less than 5 persons known to be homeless
at any one time in Los Gatos. This would include people visibly identified as
potentially homeless but, of course, does not include persons living in their cars
or camping in hidden locations.
Resources Available: Homeless Households
There are no emergency or transitional shelters in the Town of Los Gatos. The
Town does participate, however, in the Santa Clara County Collaborative on
Housing and Homeless Issues. The Collaborative follows a "Continuum of Care"
SEPTEMBER 2002
1�;
approach in addressing the needs of homeless persons. Basically, the continuum
consists of the following steps in providing homeless resources:
i). Prevention Services
ii) Emergency Shelter
iii) Transitional and Permanent Affordable Housing
The Town contributes financially to supporting facilities that meet the objectives
of the County's "Continuum of Care." For example, the Town has contributed
CDBG funds towards the construction costs of HomeSafe and Sobrato Living
Center in Santa Clara. These facilities provide emergency, transitional and
permanent affordable housing opportunities.
There are additional limited resources in the Town for homeless individuals or
persons threatened with homelessness. Vouchers for food and shelter are
available on a limited basis from the Salvation Army. There are also food pantries
at several of the local churches in the community, such St. Mary's and St. Luke's
churches.
Site and Zoning Requirements for Homeless/Transitional Facilities
There are no site or zoning constraints specifically for homeless or transitional
housing facilities in Los Gatos. Residential Care Facilities or Group Homes are
allowed in all districts (except RMH) with a conditional use permit.
2. Overcrowded and Large Family Households
Overcrowded households are defined as households in which there is more than
one person per room in the living structure (usually "room" is defined as any
room in the structure except for kitchen and bathrooms). According to the 1990
U.S. Census, approximately 221 units or 1.8% of the Town's total occupied
housing units were overcrowded with more than 1.1 persons per room. Renter
households had a higher incidence of overcrowding than owner households. Of
the 221 total overcrowded units, 61 units were owner occupied and renters
occupied the remaining 160 units.
In regard to age of the residential structure, overcrowded households are found
in both older as well as newer housing units in the Town. While 83% of the
overcrowded households live in units that were built after 1940, this proportion
reflects the fact that 78% of the units in the Town were built after 1940.
Therefore, the age of the housing unit is not statistically significant in regard to
overcrowded households in Los Gatos.
16
CHAPTER 2: HOUa+NG NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Households do not typically choose to be overcrowded but end up in that
situation either because they cannot afford a housing unit that is appropriate in
size to their needs or there is not a sufficient supply of 3+ bedroom units.
Traditionally, large households (households of 5 or more persons) have difficulty
in securing and/or affording housing units of 3 or more bedrooms. Large renter
families, in particular, have difficulty in finding rental housing stock that is both
appropriate for their household size and affordable. The 1990 data indicate that
there were 719 households in Los Gatos that had 5 or more persons. However,
in Los Gatos, the majority of the households with 5 or more persons are owner -
occupied households. Approximately 83% of households with 5 or more persons,
or 596 households total, were homeowner households. Therefore, the
assumption is that these are probably family households with 3 or more children
at home and that the units they have chosen to buy are appropriately sized for
their household. Overcrowded households then do not appear to be a significant
housing issue in Los Gatos at this time.
3. Single Parent Households
There were a total of 11,323 households in Los Gatos according to the 1990
census data and, of these 11,323 households; approximately 7,269 were "family"
households. Single parent households represented 8% of all family households.
There were 590 single parent households in 1990: 116 single parent households
were headed by a male parent and 474 had a female head of household. Single
parent household as used in this document is defined as a family household with
one or more children under the age of 18 years and headed by either a female or
male head of household, with no spouse present.
Lower household income is one of the more significant factors affecting single
parent households. For example, of all married couples with children under the
age of 18 years in Los Gatos, less than VA of the households had incomes
below the poverty level according to 1990 U.S. Census data. However, 13% of all
single parent households with children had incomes, which were less than the
poverty level. Limited household income levels affect the ability of these
households to locate affordable housing and, consequently, this is one of the
more significant housing problems of this household category.
Resources Available to Single Parent Households
There are no housing developments in Los Gatos that are specifically reserved
for single parent households. However, the 64 unit "Open Doors" rental
development is available to single parent households, as v:,-;ll as c;ther
households.
SEPTEMBER 2002
17
Catholic Charities also offers a shared housing program for single parent
households in Santa Clara County. The program provides information and
assistance in "matching" single parent households in suitable living
arrangements.
4. Elderly Individuals and Households
The percentage of elderly persons in the Town of Los Gatos has increased
slightly over the last three decades. In 1970, elderly (persons age 65 years and
older) comprised 11 % of the population but, by 2000, that percentage had
increased to 15% of the total population. The total number of elderly persons
ages 65 and over residing in Los Gatos in 2000 was 4,384 persons.
Approximately 24% of all Los Gatos households in 2000 included at least one
individual of 65 years or older. Approximately 69% of all Los Gatos elderly
householders are homeowners and the remaining 31% are renters (1990 data).
ABAG has provided projections for age distributions from 2000-2020 for the
region. These estimates indicate that the 65+ years population will increase by
almost 90% during that time period. The population of persons 85+ years is
expected to almost double in size with two-thirds of that population estimated to
be female. These large increases in percentage and number of older adults in
our population indicate that there will be an even greater demand for a range of
housing opportunities such as independent living facilities, assisted housing or
congregate care facilities, group homes, etc.
Santa Clara County's 2000 "Consolidated Plan" (p. 26) document identifies the
following critical service areas for seniors:
• protective services for vulnerable elders,
• legal services,
• mental health services,
• affordable and supported senior housing,
• language -related services, and
• in -home services and primary health care services.
The Urban County program has provided supportive service funding for senior
and frail seniors to the following organizations: Catholic Charities Long Term
Care Ombudsman Program, Independent Aging, Live Oak Adult Day Care
Center, Live Oak Senior Nutrition and Service Center, San Jose State University
Foundation (The Health Place), Second Harvest Food Bank and Senior Adults
Legal Assistance. The Town's housing conservation program also provides
assistance to low-income seniors and the County -funded Economic and Social
Opportunities Program assists low-income seniors by providing funding for
18
CHAPTER 2: HOL_AG NEEDS ASSESSMENT
i
1
weatherization, removal of architectural barriers to the home and minor home
repairs. The County has also funded Project Match, which provided shared
housing services for elderly households. On an annual average, Project MATCH
has helped 27 Los Gatos households each year in securing affordable shared
housing arrangements. However, as of December 31, 2001, Project Match was
forced to discontinue services due to lack of funding.
•
r r1IeE �S::i.
Pool:A
+
C6'3ZT�9gn8 9$���a� . e�zyQSxslSe71ofk3° +e�tp �R,...
e4�+ ";fir., _
w
The elderly couple, pictured above in front of Villa Vasona, has lived there
since 1986.
Resources Available to Elderly Individuals and Households
There are several affordable housing opportunities in Los Gatos specifically
designed for lower income elderly households. These include:
1. Villa Vasona, 626 W. Parr Avenue
This facility provides 107 units for elderly and handicapped households.
1 2. Los Gatos Four-Plex, 221-227 Nicholson Avenue
Owned by Mid Peninsula Housing Coalition, this facility
consists of four one -bedroom apartments for lower income elderly.
I3. Terraces of Los Gatos, 800 Blossom Hill Road
A licensed residential care facility for the elderly and a retirement
Icommunity care facility, this development provides 29 housing units and
services at reduced rates to eligible senior citizens.
SEPTEMBER 2002
19
5. Disabled Households
Disabled households include households who have family members that are
disabled because of physical handicaps or because of mental illness or disability.
It is possible that some individuals have both a physical and mental disability but
census data does not provide that level of specificity. According to the 1990 U.S.
Census data, there were 820 persons ages 16-64 years in Los Gatos who had a
disability, which affected mobility or self -care. Of these, 545 persons had a
disability, which affected their ability to work. Census information is not available
about the type of household they live in, their income level or how their disability
affects their housing needs. Generally, persons with disabilities have lower
incomes especially if their disability affects their ability to work. Housing that is
affordable is a -high priority for these individuals.
In Santa Clara County, the San Andreas Regional Center provides support
services for disabled households but housing costs are usually the responsibility
of the individual. For most individuals with developmental disabilities, the
average range of SSI payment in 2000-2001 was approximately $600-700 per
month. With this level of income, finding affordable housing is very problematic.
Mobility impaired persons are also often in need of affordable housing. In
addition, the person with a mobility limitation typically requires housing that is
physically accessible. Examples of accessibility in housing include widened
doorways and hallways, ramps leading to doorways, modifications to bathrooms
and kitchens (lowered countertops, grab bars, adjustable shower heads, etc.)
and special sensory devices (smoke alarms, light switches, etc.).
Resources Available to Disabled Households
• Silicon Valley Independent Living Center in Santa Clara:
Provides services to developmentally disabled adults.
• Mental Health Advocacy Project:
Provides fair housing services to individuals with mental illness or
mental disability.
• Shelter Plus Care Program
Provides rental assistance linked with supportive services for the
most difficult to house homeless population, including those with a
disability.
For physically challenged individuals, there are some housing units in Los Gatos
specifically designed to be handicapped accessible. Villa Vasona has 107 units
total, of which 9 units are accessible for physically handicapped individuals.
Further, the Town of Los Gatos requires all newly constructed residential units to
be wheelchair accessible.
20
CHAPTER 2: HOU..,,JG NEEDS ASSESSMENT
HOUSING T CK DATA
HOUSING UNITS
v TYPE
In the last decade between 1990-2000, approximately 55 units were added
annually to Los Gatos' housing stock. In 1990, there were 11,822 housing units
in Los Gatos. The 2000 U.S. Census data indicated that this figure had
increased to 12,367 total housing units, or an increase of 545 units during the 10-
year period.
The -majority-of housing units in the Town are single-family units: -In-2000,
approximately 71 % of the total housing stock was single-family units with 80% of
those units being single-family, detached units and the remainder were single-
family attached (i.e. condominium and town home units). Multi -family
developments of 5 or more units represented 20% of the housing stock and
multi -family units in structures of 2-4 units comprised 8% of the housing stock.
Mobile homes represented 1% of the total housing stock in 2000.
ILLUSTRATION #8: HOUSING STOCK BY TYPE,
TOWN OF Los GATOS JANUARY 2000
80%
60%
Percentage of 40%
Total Stock
20%
0%
2-4
Units
(8%)
Mobile
Homes
(1%)
Source: State of California, Department of Finance Population
And Housing Estimates, January 1, 2000
The 2000 U.S. Census data also indicated that 65% of the housing units in the Town
were owner -occupied and 35% were renter -occupied. This is only a slight change
from the 1990 U.S. Census data, when 64% of the Town's units were owner -
occupied and 36% were renter -occupied.
SEPTEMBER 2002 21
VACANCY RATES
The vacancy rate in a community indicates the percentage of units that are vacant
and for sale/rent at any one time. Low vacancy rates (typically defined as anything
Tess than 3% for homeowner units and 5% or less for renter units) can indicate a
tight housing market with few vacant units which then creates a high demand for
those vacant units.
Data from the 2000 U.S. Census indicate that a total of 379 units were vacant out of
a total housing stock of 12,367 units. This reflects an overall vacancy rate of 3.1 %.
The census data then identified the owner -occupancy rate as Tess than 1 % and the
renter -occupancy rate at 2.3%. Both of these rates are considered very low vacancy
rates and indicate a housing market with a strong demand for units.
AGE OF HOUSING
At the time that this Housing Element document was written, 2000 U.S. Census data
was not yet available regarding age of housing. Using 1990 U.S. Census data and
January 2000 data from the California Department of Finance, the following
estimates of age of housing were developed. This data indicates that approximately
37% of the Town's housing stock was built prior to 1959 and, at the time this report
was written, was over 40 years of age.
ILLUSTRATION #9: AGE OF HOUSING STOCK (ESTIMATES)
TOWN OF Los GATOS, JANUARY 2000
Year
Built
Number
of Units
Percent
of Total
1949 or earlier
2,366
19%
1950-1959
2,196
18%
1960-1969
3,459
28%
1970-1979
2,713
22%
1980-1989
1,088
8%
1990-1999
545
5%
TOTAL
12,367
100%
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1990 Census
State of California, Department of Finance, January 2000
22
CHAPTER 2: HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
HOUSING CONDITION
In determining housing condition, there are several levels of analysis that a
community can utilize. A general overview of the condition of the housing stock can
often be determined by looking at census data indicators such as the age of housing
or the lack of complete plumbing facilities in a unit. The next level of analysis is
usually a "windshield survey" of the housing units in which the exterior condition of
housing units is assessed. A third, more detailed and more costly analysis is a
thorough house -by -house interior and exterior analysis of housing condition.
During 1983-84, the Town did conduct a comprehensive housing stock condition
survey. Over a one-year period, approximately 90% of the Town's housing stock
was_ evaluated. _.T_he__survey__results _at _that time__indicated__there._were 433_units_(or_.
4.5% of the total stock surveyed) that were suitable for rehabilitation. Another 8 units
were identified as so substandard that replacement rather than rehabilitation would
be required.
It is important to note also that the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake affected many
residential units in Los Gatos. The Town monitored the rehabilitation of
approximately 785 residential buildings, distributing over $3,000,000 in State funds
and $300,000 in private funds. Approximately 72% of those units needed chimney
repairs, 27.5% required foundation repair or reconstruction and the remaining units
(0.5%) were found to be in need of demolition.
In 1992, the Town adopted "Residential Guidelines for Pre-1941 Structures."
These guidelines are designed to assist property owners who are considering
building alterations, remodeling or new construction of residences. In addition to
these guidelines, the Town has provided financial and technical assistance for
housing rehabilitation since 1976. This assistance is provided through the Town's
Housing Conservation Program (HCP) to low and moderate -income households
whose housing units are in need of repair or safety improvements. From 1976-1995,
there were 325 clients assisted through this program. Demand for the program
however has decreased in recent years. From 1997-2001, a total of 7 units have
been rehabilitated. All of these units were owner occupied units.
One issue that was identified during the preparation of this Housing Element was the
need to obtain a more current and complete estimate of the number of units needing
rehabilitation/replacement in the Town of Los Gatos. Therefore, Program #1 1 in
Chapter 8 of this document ("Housing Program Strategy") includes a work program
to update the Town's housing condition survey. It is important to continue to provide
housing rehabilitation assistance for limited income households, especially as the
Town's housing stock continues to age. In order to increase program activity, the
Town should also consider implementing a continuous and systematic marketing
strategy to inform property owners of the availability of the housing conservation
SEPTEMBER 2002
program. Further, the Town might want to target the two mobile home parks in the
Town for more in-depth marketing strategies. The housing conservation program is a
valuable asset in the Town's "tool bag" of resources for conserving existing housing,
especially affordable housing. Therefore, there should be a concerted and
continuous marketing effort to keep residents and property owners informed about
the program.
COST OF HOUSING AND AFFORDABILITY
One of the most important factors in evaluating a community's housing market is the
cost of housing and, even more significant, whether the housing is affordable to
households who live there or would like to live there. Unfortunately, housing costs
have increased in the San Francisco Bay Area in recent years. In fact, the Bay Area
has consistently been ranked as one of the most expensive places to live in the
United States. A poll sponsored by the "San Francisco Chronicle" ("Tales of
Housing, San Francisco Chronicle, November 26, 2000) underscores this issue. In
their poll of San Francisco Bay Area residents, 66% of the respondents stated that
they were unable to afford the type of housing they would like in the Bay Area.
Responses were also categorized by geographic area and, of those respondents
from the Peninsula area, 77% stated that they were unable to afford the type of
housing they would like. In other words, two out of three respondents could not
afford the type of housing they wanted.
Homeownership Costs
The cost of acquiring a home has increased significantly in recent years. In fact, the
appreciation of homes has escalated so rapidly that home sale prices in excess of
$1 million are no longer unusual. Los Gatos has historically been a desirable place
to live and, consequently, home values have always been high in comparison to
other communities in the Santa Clara Valley.
While still expensive, home values in Los Gatos have decreased or stabilized since
the rapid valuation increase that reached a peak in 2000. DataQuick reports that
median prices had decreased by 31 % from December 2000 to December 2001 in
Los Gatos. Still, the median price in December 2001 for a single family detached
home was $948,000 and the median price for a condominium was $497,000.
Rental Costs
While homeownership is out of reach for many low and moderate -income
households, the rental market does not provide many more opportunities. According
to a rental housing survey conducted in Los Gatos of multi -family units in September
2001, the average rent for a multi -family rental unit was $1,883 per month. The
average rent by bedroom size is illustrated in the following chart.
24
CHAPTER 2: HOU,ING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
ILLUSTRATION #10: AVERAGE MULTI -FAMILY RENTAL COSTS,
TOWN OF Los GATOS 2001
Bedroom Size
verage
Monthly Rent
1 Bedroom
$1,769
2 Bedroom/1 Bath
$1,780
2 Bedroom/2 Bath
$2, 098
Average for All Sizes
$1,883
Source: Real Facts, Novato California 2001
The same survey referenced above reviewed rental costs in Los Gatos from
1994 to 2001. The results of that review indicated that the average rent for multi-
family units in Los Gatos doubled during that time period. In 1994 the average
rent was $935 and, by the end of 2001, it was $1,883 per month. From 1999-
2001 alone, the average rent increased by 27%.
ILLUSTRATION #1 l: CHANGE IN AVERAGE MULTI -FAMILY RENTS*
TOWN OF Los GATOS 1994-2001
$2,000.00
a)
>, $1,500.00
c
$1, 000.00
a)
L $500.00
a)
$0.00
1994
1996
LiJ
999
Source: Real Facts, Novato C2Uf&r nia 2001
2001
Los Gatos does have a Rental Dispute Resolution Program that is applicable to
rental units in structures of 3 or more units. Rent increases are limited to the
greater of either a 5% annual increase or 70% of the Consumer Price Index,
SEPTEMBER 2002 26
Rents can be further negotiated, however, if the property is sold or if significant
capital improvements are made to the property. The Town's Community Services
Department administers the program and contracts with Project Sentinel to
provide mediation services for appeals to the program's rent limits.
'IIIIIi11111111lllll , i1111111I111111111 iiiii11 \' ,•
Example of a downtown Los Gatos residential neighborhood.
Housing Cost and Overpaying for Housing
One indicator of the healthiness of a housing market is whether households are
"overpaying" for housing. Overpaying is usually defined as a household that is
paying more than 30% of their income for housing. Once a household starts to
pay more than 30% of income for housing, then it is assumed that there is Tess
money available for other household necessities such as food, transportation,
child care, etc. and, consequently, the household is considered to be paying too
much for housing. The 30% figure is typically used by governmental agencies
as a measure of affordable housing and includes all housing costs. For a renter
household this would include monthly rent and utilities. For a homeowner
26
CHAPTER 2: HOLl...ANG NEEDS ASSESSMENT
household, it typically includes monthly mortgage principal, interest, tax and
insurance payments. While lower income households typically are most at risk
for overpayment of housing, this situation can also affect moderate and above
income households. Due to the spiraling increase in housing costs in California
communities, overpaying for housing has extended into the moderate and above
income categories also.
The chart on page 28 (Illustration #12) demonstrates why there are so many
households overpaying for housing. Using year 2001 data for household
incomes and housing costs, the chart compares the amount of funds that a
household has available for an affordable housing payment (defined as 30% of
monthly income) and compares that amount to average rents in Los Gatos. As
the chart demonstrates, very low-income and low-income households cannot
"afford" the average rental in Los Gatos. For example, a very low-income
household of 4 persons can afford to pay $1,091 per month but the average rent
is $1,883—more than what they can "afford." If this household chose to pay the
market rent of $1,883, they would be paying approximately 52% of their monthly
income for rent. Only the moderate and higher income households can afford
the average rental unit in Los Gatos.
Homeownership without some type of subsidy is also out of the reach of lower
and moderate -income households. The chart on the following page also
indicates the sales prices of a single-family unit that would be affordable to the
average very low, low and moderate -income households. The very low-income
household could only afford to purchase a home with a maximum sales price of
$136,429 and the moderate -income household could only afford a maximum
sales price of $367,696. Neither of these households could afford to purchase
the median priced condominium in Los Gatos, which was $497,000 in Decrn her
2001. And, of course, the December 2001 median priced single-family detached
unit of $948,000 would be completely out of reach for these households.
SEPTEMBER 2002 �;
r
J
m
tt
re
0
Y.
0
Z
4
in
E
O
0
Z
0
Op
2 0
W N
v,
D Vf
= O
u.
O
N J
a
O
a.
Z
OO
V F-
ILLUSTRATION #I2:
SALES PRICE OF A SINGLE-
FAMILY UNIT THAT WOULD BE
AFFORDABLE TO HOUSEHOLD
o)
NI.
(D
CO
r-
d•
Lc)co
N
CO
N
(o
f":
CO
CO
CAN AFFORD
AVERAGE RENT OF
$1883 MONTHLY?
Z
Z
}
30% OF MONTHLY
INCOME (AFFORDABLE
HOUSING PAYMENT) (2)
t-'
0)
Co
r
tf}
(0
N
N
r
69
0)
r
(O
N
d9
INCOME LEVEL MONTHLY
AND HOUSEHOLD INCOME (1)
SIZE
CO
cri
cck
$5,754
CO
0
c
Very Low
Income
Household
(4 Persons)
Low Income
Household
(4 Persons)
Moderate
Income
Household
(4 Persons)
10 •a
N O a)
N O
= E
r its asO L
N � O
>
O C
.
c O
N 4- CO
" a)
O };
t C V
C O E
O O .0 >..
E E >. ca
co L
r a)c3
a ca o
•LE0
JD
Q N -a
E ova
o Qoo
U O L r
.0 a) VO) RT
O
TO
O a)
O .a .z0
�_
c L
a) 0 .
0
a)
'O O°.a
.> V M -
"a Ai r S ai
am m o
U c
JoCa)O2
'a a) co o O
a Earns
0171)- a U o c
a) a)u)a m
v• a
CD acaix
E o `� "�
o Nco O
•- O 0 a)
c‘iL
.C•OD m0 a,C` se0
S
ils .— as
w r N cr.)
O
Z
3e
N OJECTE
HOUSING NEEDS
NEW CO STRUCT ON NEED: 999 2006
According to State Housing Element Guidelines, Housing Elements must include
an analysis of the number of housing units to be built, rehabilitated, and
conserved in order to meet the locality's current and future housing needs.
Following is an analysis of Los Gatos' new construction, rehabilitation and
conservation needs.
ESTIMATE OF NEED (@ 999-2006)
Determining the number of new units needed in a community has been the
responsibility of the regional "Council of Governments" in past years. The State
of California provides population estimates to each regional government in the
State and the regional government then allocates estimated housing units
needed among member communities. ABAG (Association of Bay Area
Governments) is the regional Council of Government that represents Los Gatos
and neighboring communities in the Bay Area. During 1999-2000, ABAG
developed the "Regional Housing Needs Determination" for its member
communities and, on March 15, 2001, the ABAG Board of Directors certified the
final numbers. The estimated number of housing units needed as determined
and certified by ABAG reflect the planning period from January 1, 1999 to June
30, 2006.
According to the certified ABAG estimates, Los Gatos has a need of 402 new
housing units between 1999-2006. This estimate was developed by ABAG
based on various factors including projected population, job growth, land
availability, vacancy rates and replacement housing needs.
H
USEHOLD NEED BY INCOME LEVEL
After determining the number of additional households expected by the end of
the planning period, ABAG further quantified future households by income level.
The goal of this analysis was to distribute lower income households equitably
throughout a region thereby avoiding undue concentrations of very low and low-
income households in one jurisdiction.
For the Town of Los Gatos, the ABAG goal is that 26.6% of all new households
will be lower income (very low and low income) households, or 107 total new
lower income households. The remaining 195 households or 73.4% of the total
SEPTEMBER 2002
29
were estimated to be moderate or above moderate -income households.
exact breakdown of the income groups is as follows:
Very low Income
Low Income
Moderate Income
Above Moderate Income
TOTAL
72 households (17.9%)
35 households ( 8.7%)
97 households (24.1%)
198 households (49.3%)
402 households (100%)
The
The definitions of income used in the ABAG plan reflect the income definitions
used by the State of California. See pages 10-11 in this document for further
descriptions of income determinations.
ADJUSTED NEW CONSTRUCTION NEED: 002-2OO6
The ABAG new construction need was certified in 2001 and reflects the period
from January 1, 1999 to June 30, 2006. Since this Housing Element document
was written and adopted in 2002, it is important to adjust the totals in order to
reflect the units that have been added to the stock between January 1, 1999-
January 1, 2001.
According to data from the Department of Finance (DOF), State of California,
there were 20 units added to the housing stock in Los Gatos from January 1999
to January 2001. In 1999, there were 12,426 units total in Los Gatos and, in
2001, that figure had increased to 12,446 units. From 2001 to Spring 2002,
there were 283 additional units approved/under construction in the Town.
Units Approved/Under Construction January 2001-Spring, 2002
Boyer Lane 25 Units
Vasona Gateway (Sobrato) 135 Units
Terreno de Flores 19 Units
Farley Road West 7 Units
Live Oak Apartments 49 Units
1300 Pollard Road 12 Units
Villa Capri 35 Units
Habitat for Humanity 1 Unit
TOTAL 283 Units
Since the ABAG data reflects the 1999-2006 time period, the new construction
estimate must be adjusted by the number of units added to the housing stock
between 1999-2001 (20 units) and the units approved and/or under construction
30
CHAPTER 3: PROJECTED HOUSING NEEDS
as of Spring 2002 (283 units), a total of 303 units. Therefore, the original 402
unit new construction need as estimated by ABAG needs to be adjusted by 303
units. However, this estimate needs to be further adjusted by housing need by
income level.
HOUSING NEED ,Y [INCOME LEVEL, ADJUSTED 2002-2006
The new construction estimate is composed of different household income
groups as explained previously in this section. In addition to revising the total
new construction estimate, the number of units provided in the 1999-2002 time
frame for very low, low and moderate -income households needs to be identified
and the total adjusted for those units. There were a total of 72 affordable units
approved/built during the 1999-2002 period.
ILLUSTRATION # 13: HOUSING UNITS BUILT/APPROVED,
BY HOUSEHOLD INCOME LEVEL 1999-2002
' HOUSEHOLD INCOME '
LEVEL
AFFORDABLE TO
NCOME
VERY LOW I .:.
}
iOUSEHOLDS } w
` •�. i >f ". %
DEVELOPMENT
Los Gatos Creek
Village Apartments
" STATUS
(SUMMER•2002) . .
Built/Occupied
UNITS
a
12 Units
Habitat for
Humanity
Approved
1 Unit
TOTAL FOR VERY LOW 13 UNITS
t���u:
AFFORDABLE TO
LOW-INCOME
HOUSEHOLDS
Fit y
_ �A
v ' ,,
s
Bella Vista
Built/Occupied
2 BMP Units
The Village
Built/Occupied
1 BMP Unit
Terreno de Flores
Approved
2 BMP (Rentals
4 BMP (Rentals)
7 BMP (Rentals)
Farley Road West
Approved
•
Live OakApts.
Approved
1300 Pollard Road
Under Construction
1 BMP (Rental)
3 BMP (Rentals)
Boyer Lane
Built
Vasona Gateway
(Sobrato Develop.)(Rentals)
Approved
27 BMP
Villa Capri
Approved
2 BMP Units
TOTAL FOR LOW-INCOME 49 UNITS
AFFORD►RLE TO
4401-.:.
MODERATE -INCOME .
HOUSEHOLDS
Bella Vista
Built/Occupied
4 BMP Units
The Village
Built/Occupied
1 BMP Unit
Terreno de Flores
Approved
2 BMP Units
Calle Margarita
Approved
•
1 BMF' Unit
Villa Capri
Approved_
2 BMP Units
TOTAL FOR MODERATE INCOME 10 UNITS �.
TOTAL FOR ALL UNI-6 S 72 UNITS
SEPTEMBER 2002
All of the units identified in Illustration #13 on the previous page have affordability
controls. The BMP (Below Market Price) units have restrictions, which control
their affordability "in perpetuity." Some of the BMP units also include "priorities"
for teachers or public employees; however, the income eligibility and affordability
restrictions remain the same as other BMP units. Habitat for Humanity housing
units also require affordability restrictions that are "in perpetuity." The Los Gatos
Creek Village Apartments have affordability restrictions that are in effect until
2049. These affordable units represent a total of 72 units built/approved between
1999-2002. Therefore, of the total 303 units built/approved from 1999-2002, 72
are affordable to very low, low. or moderate income and the remaining 231 are
above moderate -income units
After adjusting for units built or approved from 1999 to Summer 2002 then, the
revised Regional Housing Need for the Town of Los Gatos from 2002 to June 30,
2006 is 132 units. Of that total, there is a need for 59 very low-income units and
73 moderate -income units.
ILLUSTRATION # 14: REVISED REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS 2002-2006
HOUSEHOLD
INCOME LEVEL
ESTIMATED
NEW UNIT
NEED
(1999-2006)
TOTAL UNITS BUILT
OR APPROVED
(1999-2002)
REVISED NEW UNIT
NEED
(2002-2006)
Very Low
72 Units
13 Units
59 Units
Low
35 Units
49 Units
0 Units
Moderate
97 Units
10 Units (+14 unit
"surplus" of low
income units )- 24
Units
73 Units
Above Moderate
198 Units
231 Units
0 Units
TOTAL
402 Units
267 Units
132 Units
32
CHAPTER 3: PROJECTED HOUSING NEEDS
CONSE'VAT ON 5S`F AFFORD
BLE Uiimm
State Housing Element law requires that all Housing Elements include additional
information regarding the conversion of existing, assisted housing developments
to other non -low income uses (Statutes of 1989, Chapter 1452). This was the
result of concern that many affordable housing developments throughout the
country were going to have affordability restrictions lifted because their
government financing was soon to expire or could be pre -paid. Without the
sanctions imposed due to financing, affordability of the units could no longer be
assured.
Following are the required components to be discussed in an analysis of the
conservation of the "at risk" units in a community.
1. Description and Identification of Potential "At Risk" Projects
• Federally -Assisted Projects
• State and Locally Assisted Projects
2. Cost Analysis of Preserving "At Risk" Units
3. Resources for Preservation
• Public Agencies and Non Profit Housing Corporations
4. Quantified Objectives for "At Risk" Units
GR ESCRIPTION AND IDENTIFICATION OF POTENTIAL ®°rl'zT-RosK" POjECTs
Projects that are subject to an evaluation of their "at risk" potential are listed on
the following pages. The projects are identified according to their primary
funding source.
Federally Assisted Projects:
1. RURAL DEVELOPMENT/FARMERS HOME ADMINISTRATION (FMHA)
There are no Rural Development/Farmers Home Administration assisted units in
the Town of Los Gatos.
2. SECTION 8 ASSISTANCE
VILLA VASONA
Villa Vasona, a 107 unit elderly and handicapped development, is located at 626
W.Parr Avenue. It is owned by PMG Properties and was originally financed with
CDBG (Community Development Block Grant) funds from the Town of Los Gatos
as well as Section 8 New Construction funds. The Section 8 funding provided a
rental subsidy guarantee to all 107 tenants that will expire in November 2004.
SEPTEMBER 2002
33
As part of its agreement with the original owners of Villa Vasona, ownership of
the development was to be transferred to the Town 65 years after the completion
of development (approximately year 2049) for $1.00. Further, the agreement
specifies that there are no rent limits set in the event that Section 8 rent subsidies
expire. The agreement does state that if the subsidy does expire, the
development is to continue renting to elderly and handicapped residents of low
and moderate income, as defined by HUD regulations. As the year 2004
approaches, the Town will need to review this agreement. Specifically, while the
agreement may specify that units have to be rented to low and moderate
households, it is unclear whether the rents will have to be affordable to low and
moderate income households. The affordability of the units is as important as the
occupancy of the units and the continued affordability of the units should be
preserved as much as possible.
Villa Vasona Provides Elderly and Handicapped Housing Opportunities
As the information on the previous page indicates, Villa Vasona is definitely
considered an "at risk" project. Although the agreement appears to state that the
units need to continue to be rented to low and moderate income elderly and
handicapped households, there appears to be no requirement that the rents will
be affordable when the Section 8 subsidy expires in November 2004. This would
34
CHAPTER 3: PROJECTED HOUSING NEEDS
indicate that there needs to be an effort on the part of the owners to renew the
Section 8 subsidy or that there may be a need for some Town assistance to
continue to ensure the affordability of the units. Please see Program #17 in
Chapter 8 of this document for additional information about actions to be taken to
conserve these affordable units.
3. HOME AND CDBG
There are multi -family units funded with CDBG funds in Los Gatos. In all
instances, the units also received local financial assistance. In order to avoid
repetitive text, these units are specifically identified in the narrative that follows,
"State and Local Assistance."
State and Local Assistance
1. SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENTS
The Town's "Below Market Price" Housing Program was first adopted in 1979.
The Program is an Inclusionary Housing program that requires a certain amount
of units or in -lieu fees to be paid for residential development. There are 62 built
and occupied units in the BMP program (including 29 units at The Terraces), with
another 37 BMP units approved as of Spring 2002. Should the owners wish to
sell their units, the resale price is controlled and the units are to be sold to
another income -eligible household. In the past, there were some units that were
released from the program's resale restrictions because of problems with the
original resale calculations. This problem has since been corrected and it is not
anticipated that there will be any further units released from the program's resale
controls.
2. MULTI -FAMILY DEVELOPMENTS
All of the multi -family affordable developments in the Town were financed with a
variety of funding sources. State funding and Low Income Tax Credits were
used as well as Town Redevelopment funds. Further, there was one multi -family
rental development ("The Terraces") that was developed pursuant to the Town's
"Below Market Price" program. Following is a description of the multi -family rental
units in the Town developed with some type of State/local funding source or
requirement.
A. THE TERRACES
800 BLOSSOM HILL ROAD, Los GATOS
The Terraces is a continuing care facility for the elderly. In 1993, the
owners signed an agreement with the Town to provide 29 units at reduced
prices for lower income (80% of median income and below) households.
The agreement required that the units be provided "in perpetuity."
Therefore, these units are not at risk of losing their affordability status.
SEPTEMBER 2002
35
B. OPEN DOORS
634 PARR AVENUE, Los GATOS
Open Doors is a 64-unit rental housing development, managed by Mid -
Peninsula Housing Coalition. The development was financed with Low
Income Tax Credits, state and local financing and other funding sources.
The affordability restrictions of the tax credits do not expire until 2048.
C. Los GATOS FOUR-PLEX
221 NICHOLSON AVENUE, Los GATOS
Mid -Peninsula Housing Coalition also manages this 4-unit development.
The units are occupied by very low income, elderly rental households. It is
important to note that when the Town Council approved
the change in zoning to "Planned Development" (PD) for the Los Gatos
Four-Plex, there were restrictions placed on the property that provided for
the continued use of the housing for low-income elderly. Therefore,
unless the Town approves a change in zoning or in the conditions of the
PD zone, the owners are required to continue the use as housing for low-
income elderly.
D. 95 FAIRVIEW PLAZA, Los GATOS
This is a four-plex development with State and local assistance to help
with the acquisition and rehabilitation costs. There are no on -going project
based rent subsidies. The project at this time is not at risk of losing its
affordability status. The development is managed by Community Housing
Developers.
E. Los GATOS CREEK VILLAGE APARTMENTS,
31 MILES AVENUE, Los GATOS
This 12-unit rental development was built in 2001 and is managed by
Community Housing Developers. Very low-income households occupy all
12 units. Among other funding sources, the development was financed
with Town Redevelopment funds and CDBG funds. Affordability
restrictions do not expire until 2049 (50 year period beginning in 1999).
36
CHAPTER 3: PROJECTED HOUSING NEEDS
ILLUSTRATION # 15: INVENTORY OF PUBLICLY ASSISTED, MULTI -FAMILY UNITS
Town of Los Gatos
Name of Development
Project Type
Governmental Assistance
Is
Development
"At Risk?"
Between
2002-2011?
Villa Vasona
Rental Elderly and
Section 8 Assistance scheduled to
expire in November 2004
Yes
The Terraces
Continuing Care
BMP Agreement to Provide Affordable
Units in Perpetuity
No
Open Doors
Rental Units for
Low Income Tax Credits, State and
Local Assistance
No
Los Gatos Four-Plex
Rental Units for
State and Local Assistance
No
95 Fairview Plaza
Rental Units for
State and Local Assistance
No
Los Gatos Creek Village
Apartments
Rental Units for
Family/Elderly
CDBG and Local Assistance
No
COST ANALYSIS OF PRESERVING "AT Rise UNITS
The cost of replacing existing affordable units is significant. For example, Los
Gatos Creek Village Apartments, a 12-unit development affordable to very low-
income households, was built in 1999. At that time, the development cost per
unit was $163,000. Using the $163,000 figure as a very conservative estimate,
the cost of replacing the 107 unit Villa Vasona development would be ;t least
$17 million dollars.
If just the cost of providing rental subsidies alone were calculated, the expense
would still be significant. For example, a very low-income household of .1 person
should spend no more than $800 per month for housing (using a 30% housing
cost to income ratio for the year 2002). The market rental cost of a 1-bedroom
apartment in 2002 was $1769 per month. Therefore, it would take a $969
subsidy monthly to "write down" the cost of the monthly rental to a level that
would be affordable to a very low-income household. If the subsidy were
provided to all 107 households at Villa Vasona, the minimum cosi would he
$103,683 monthly.
SEPTEMBER 2002
RESOURCES FOR PRESERVATION
Public Agencies
The Town of Los Gatos is fortunate to have an active Redevelopment Agency,
which is committed to preserving and producing affordable housing opportunities.
The Redevelopment Agency manages the Redevelopment Housing Set -Aside
fund which, among other uses, can be used to preserve affordable housing units.
In addition, the Town could utilize CDBG and HOME funds as well as the
Housing In -Lieu Fee fund to assist with preservation activities.
The Housing Authority of County of Santa Clara can also assist in preserving
affordable units that are "at risk."
Non -Profit Agencies
In addition to the two public agencies identified above, Los Gatos is fortunate to
have several active non-profit agencies involved in affordable housing.
Examples of non -profits active in the Town:
Mid -Peninsula Housing Coalition,
Open Doors Associates,
Community Housing Developers, and
Habitat for Humanity.
These non -profits are examples of potential partners that the Town could
approach in preventing affordable units from converting to market rate units.
QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVES AND PROGRAM EFFORTS FOR "AT RISK"UNITS
As part of the objectives of this Housing Element Update, quantified objectives
were established for the construction, rehabilitation and conservation of units
(see page 81, "Housing Program Strategy, 2002-2006"). The specific objective
is the preservation of 220 affordable units. Further, the program section also
includes a program action for the 2002-2003 time frame requiring the Town to
develop a strategy to preserve the affordability of the 107 units at Villa Vasona.
38
4. HOUSING CONSTRAINTS
New housing development can be affected by economic forces in the private
market as well as regulations and policies imposed by public agencies. These
constraints primarily impact the production of new housing but can also affect the
maintenance and/or improvement of existing housing. The discussion below and
on the following pages analyzes both the governmental and non -governmental
("market") constraints that can affect the housing market in Los Gatos.
GOVERNME! TAL CONST ` INTS
Governmental regulations, while intentionally regulating the quality of
development in the community can also, unintentionally, increase the cost of
development and thus the cost of housing. These governmental constraints
include land use controls, building codes and their enforcement, site
improvements, fees, and other exactions required of developers, and local
processing and permit procedures. Land use controls may limit the amount or
density of development, thus increasing the cost per unit. On site and off site
improvements like road improvements, traffic signals on adjacent streets or
sewer improvements may increase an individual project's costs of development.
Processing and permit requirements may delay construction, increasing financing
and/or overhead costs of a development.
A. LAND USE CONTROLS
The Town's General Plan and Zoning Ordinance are the primary tools, which are
used to manage the development of residential units in Los Gatos. The Town's
General Plan allows for residential land use ranging from "Hillside Residential" (a
maximum of 1 unit per acre) to "High Density Residential -Special Use" with a
maximum density of 20+ units per acre.
The Zoning Ordinance is more specific than the General Plan and continues
these same general density parameters but with more detailed residential zone
districts. In specific, the Zoning Ordinance allows for the following residential
zone categories:
1. Resource Conservation (RC)
2. Hillside Residential (HR)
3. Single Family Residential (R-1)
4. Single Family Residential, Downtown (R-1 D)
5. Duplex Residential (R-D)
6. Multiple Family Residential (RM)
7. Mobile Home Residential (RMH)
The table on the following page illustrates the various requirements by
residential zoning district.
SEPTEMBER 2002
ILLUSTRATION # 16: RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS BY ZONING DISTRICT
OTHER
(Note: density ranges
are also dependent on
hillside slope
calculations)
Architecture and Site
approval required for
duplex buildings
Height may exceed 30
feet if the building has
cellar parking
Arch. and Site approval
required except for new
mobile home on an
existing mobile pad.
PARKING PER
UNIT
2 spaces
2 spaces
2 spaces
2 spaces
2 spaces
2 spaces
2 spaces
2 spaces
2 spaces for
single-family
1.5 times
number of units
for du lexes
2 spaces
Resident:
1.5 times the
number of units
Visitor: 1 space
for unit
REAR YARD
SETBACK
25 feet
a
V-
N
20 feet
20 feet
20 feet
25 feet
W
0
W
co
N
25 feet
20 feet
20 feet
20 feet
20 feet
cz
LU re O Q 1j
(n (n U
20 feet
cv
r 8 feet
10 feet
10 feet
12 feet
15 feet
16 feet
Lc)
r 8 feet
o� a)
c6
8 feet
FRONT
YARD
SETBACK
30 feet
30 feet
m
N
m
N
a
N
25 feet
30 feet
30 feet
15 feet
25 feet
m
N
a 0
N
MAXIMUM
HEIGHT
130 feet
30 feet
30 feet
30 feet
30 feet
30 feet
30 feet
30 feet
30 feet
30 feet
30 feet
30 feet
MINIMUM
LOT AREA
20 Acres
40,000 sq.ft.
8,000 sq. ft.
10,000 sq. ft.
12,000 sq. ft.
15,000 sq. ft.
20,000 sq. ft.
30,000 sq. ft.
5,000 sq. ft.
for single-
family
8,000 sq. ft.
for duplexes
8,000 sq. ft.
8,000 sq. ft.
5 acres for
mobile home
zone
DENSITY RANGE
+a.
O
J
1
N
CL
HR-1: 1-5 acres for each unit
HR-2.5: 2.5-10 acres for each
unit
HR-5: 5-40 acres for each unit
HR-20: 20-160 acres for each
unit
iCCCCfkCCCCCC
ONin9O
el
5-8 units per acre
1-5 units per acre
R-M:5-12 5-12 units per acre
R-M: 5-20 5-20 units per acre
Maximum is 12 units per acre
d'
r
d'
LL'
R'
re
_
re
Overlay Zones
There are two overlay zones that apply to residential uses in the Town's Zoning
Ordinance. These are the Planned Development (PD) and the Landmark and
Historic Preservation (LHP) zones. The LHP overlay is applied to those areas of
the Town with special historic or architectural significance. Standards have been
established for alterations, demolitions and reconstruction of structures in these
areas.
The PD Overlay provides for alternative uses and developments more consistent
with site characteristics. The minimum lot size for a PD is 40,000 square feet,
unless the purpose is to provide affordable housing, in which case there is no
minimum site area. When a PD overlay is applied to a residential zone for an
affordable housing development, the affordable housing requirement becomes a
part of the overlay conditions. The PD Overlay is also flexible in regard to other
standards, such as setback and height requirements in order to encourage the
most feasible site design.
Mixed Use development is allowed in any residential zone in the Town and is
processed as a Planned Development. Mixed Use developments have been
approved in several recent developments in Los Gatos. Most notably, the Town
approved the Sobrato development (Vasona Gateway), which included 135
apartment units and a research and development office park. The Town also
approved the Los Gatos Boulevard development that included office uses and
residential apartment and single-family units. In 2002, the Town was developing
a work plan to further refine the Mixed Use requirements in order to encourage
more Mixed Use development.
Code Compliance
The Town enforces building, housing and safety codes through the Code
Compliance program. Upon complaint, the Town will conduct an evaluation of
the viability of the complaint and follow-up will be provided as appropriate. For
those dwelling units built as BMP (Below Market Price) units, there is an annual
compliance audit to ensure that the units continue to meet code requirements.
Secondary Dwelling Units
Secondary dwelling units are residential units in addition to the primary
residential unit on a lot. Los Gatos allows new secondary units as follows:
In RM, R-1D and Planned Development districts, or
a In other residential districts (except RC and HR) in conjunction with a
transfer of secondary dwelling unit credit and a conditional use
permit.
SEPTEMBER 2002
41
ILLUSTRATION # 17: RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
STANDARDS FOR DEVELOPMENT OF SECONDARY
DWELLING UNITS
Type of
Secondary
Unit
Minimum
Lot Size
Maximum
Unit Size
Height
Parking
Interior
10,000 sq. ft.
750 sq. ft.
Unit must be located on
first floor of primary unit
1 space
Attached
12,000 sq. ft.
750 sq. ft.
Unit must be located on
first floor of primary unit
1 space
Detached
15,000 sq. ft.
900 sq. ft.
Maximum of one
story/Not permitted on
second floor of a
detached accessory
unit
2 spaces
Architectural and Site Review is required for all secondary units. Further,
transfer of credit for a secondary unit is only available upon demolition, removal
or conversion in use of an existing secondary unit. Therefore, the "pool" of
potential secondary units is currently limited to the number of existing, legal
secondary units in the Town and the secondary units that could be created in
new residential developments in the RM, R-1 D and PD zones.
As a community becomes "built -out," the use of all available tools to create more
housing units becomes even more important. Secondary dwelling units are an
important tool because they can be provided on already -developed land.
Program #6 in Chapter 8 of this document ("Housing Program Strategy")
suggests that the Town re -consider its Secondary Dwelling Unit program; and, in
particular, evaluate whether the number of secondary units should be controlled
and if there are standards such as minimum lot size or parking requirements that
could be revised to encourage more units.
Residential and Commercial Uses
Residential uses are allowed in all office and commercial zones in the Town with
a conditional use permit.
Density Bonuses
The Town allows up to a 100% density bonus for qualified projects. An example
of this procedure is the approval of the Los Gatos Creek Village Apartments,
which received a 100% density bonus.
42
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING CONSTRAINTS
Constraints Regarding Housing for People with Disabilities and Homeless
The Town's Zoning Code allows small group homes (limited to 6 or fewer
persons) for day care or residential care in all residentially zoned districts without
a use permit. Residential care and day care facilities for 7 or more persons are
allowed in all districts (except RMH) with a conditional use permit. There are no
specific constraints imposed for developments that assist disabled or homeless
households.
The Town encourages accessibility improvements by requiring that certain
"universal design" features be incorporated into all residential projects as a
condition of approval (Town Resolution 1994-61). These requirements include:
1. Wooden backing (no smaller than 2 inches x 8 inches) shall be provided in all
bathroom walls, at water closets, showers and bathtubs, located at 34 inches from
the floor to the center of the backing, suitable for the installation of grab bars.
2. All passage doors shall be at least 32 inches wide on accessible floor.
3. Primary entrance shall have a 36-inch wide door including a 5- foot x 5-foot level
landing, no more than one -inch out of plane with the immediate interior floor level,
with an 18-inch clearance.
The Town will continue to evaluate any potential constraints to the development
or improvement of housing for people with disabilities. See Program #23 in
Chapter 8, which includes an evaluation of the City's Zoning and Development
Standards during 2002-2003 to ensure that all constraints to the development or
improvement of housing for people with disabilities are removed.
E. LOCAL HOUSING PROGRAMS
There are two Town housing programs that could be considered as constraints to
housing. The first program is the Below Market Price (BMP), which facilitates the
development of units affordable to low and moderate income households. The
BMP is applicable to projects of 5 or more units, which are new multifamily rental
projects, residential condominium or planned development subdivisions and
community apartment or residential stock cooperative projects. For projects
containing 5-19 market rate units, BMP units are required at a number equal to
10% of the number of market rate units. Projects of 20-100 market rate units
must produce BMP units according to the following formula: # of BMP units=.225
(total # of market units) - 2.5. Projects in excess of 100 market rate units must
provide BMP units equal to 20% of market rate units. Planned developments with
an underlying zone of HR (Hillside Residential) pay an in -lieu fee instead of
producing actual BMP units.
Rental rates for BMP rental units are established at 80% of the fair niarknt rent
(FMR) limit as determined by HUD. The initial sales price of the owner -occupied
units is determined in consultation between the Town Manager (or delegat•:' and
SEPTEMBER 2002
43
the developer. The maximum sales price is based on household income limits
(ranging between 80-100% of HUD income limits). The initial sales price may
include construction costs and a per unit share of infrastructure, financing and
improvement costs
In evaluating the BMP program in light of the Los Gatos housing market, the
BMP is not considered to be a constraint to the development of market -rate
housing. As the following sections of this chapter explain, the cost of land and the
cost of construction in Los Gatos are more significant constraints to the
development of market rate housing than the BMP. In other words, housing in
Los Gatos is expensive due to land/construction costs as well as the desirability
of Los Gatos as a residential setting within the Santa Clara Valley area. The
BMP's impact on housing costs is minimal compared to these factors. Further,
the BMP units are "bonus" units that are units in addition to the approved density
of a project. Therefore, the developer is allowed to build additional units in
exchange for providing those units at below market costs. Rather than being
considered a constraint to housing, the BMP actually provides an incentive in the
form of additional units that the developer is allowed to provide.
The second Town housing program that needs to be evaluated as a potential
constraint is the Town's Rental Dispute Resolution Program. The Rental Dispute
Resolution Program is contracted out to a Local non-profit, Project Sentinel, for
administration. The Program limits annual rent increases in multi -family rental
properties of 3 or more units to the greater of 5% or 70% of the Consumer Price
Index. However, there is flexibility to this requirement if repairs are made to the
property or upon sale of the property. At this time, the Program is not considered
to be a constraint to housing, especially multi -family housing.
C. INFRASTRUCTURE CAPACITY
There are no major infrastructure capacity or delivery issues in Los Gatos at this
time. There are certain areas of the Town, however, where the sewer and/or
water systems are old and are in need of replacement or upgrade.
The Town's water is primarily supplied by San Jose Water Company. There are
some smaller, private mutual water companies that supply water but they are few
in number. Approximately 95% of the Town is serviced by San Jose Water
Company. There are some areas of the Town, such as parts of the downtown
area and some areas in the east side, where the water delivery system is old and
the piping needs to be replaced. The Town and San Jose Water Company are
44
CHAPTER '+: HOUSING CONSTRAINTS
aware of this situation and the San Jose Water Company is developing plans to
upgrade those lines.
The sanitary sewer system is maintained by the West Valley Sanitation District
and the Town is primarily responsible for the storm drain system. Again, there
are areas in the Town that need some of their sewer lines replaced due to age or
composition of the lines. For example, the downtown area still uses some of the
original main sanitary lines, installed in the 1940s. Restaurants in the downtown
that do not have grease traps contribute to the problems in the sanitary system.
The Sanitation District is working on maintaining these lines and upgrading as
needed.
There are some properties that were annexed into the Town and have pre-
existing septic systems and no connections to sanitary or storm water. This is
especially true for the neighborhoods east of Highway 17, in the Placer Oaks and
Frank Avenue areas. These residential units are allowed to remain on septic
systems until new development is proposed for the property. In regard to traffic
and circulation, the overall circulation system is estimated to be below capacity.
The construction of Route 85, in particular, has alleviated most of the Town's
traffic capacity issues although there are a few intersections that experience
traffic congestion during certain peak hours.
D. GOVERNMENTAL FINES
Governmental fees can add a significant cost to the price of housing. In 1999,
the State of California Department of Housing and Community Development
distributed the report, Pay to Play that analyzed governmental fees in 89 cities
and counties in California. The Town of Los Gatos was one of the communities
surveyed. Listed below is the summary of fees charged by Los Gatos for an infill,
single-family unit.
ILLUSTRATION # 18: TYPICAL FEES: SINGLE FAMILY, INFILL UNIT
TOWN OF Los GATOS, 1999
TYPE OF FEE
AMOUNT
Planning Fees
$3,216
Plan Check, Permit and
Inspection Fees
$6,294
Infrastructure, Impact and
District Fees
$13,389
TOTAL FEES
$22,899
SEPTEMBER 2002
45
The 1999 Report compares individual jurisdiction's fees with neighboring
communities. Listed below are Los Gatos' typical fees as compared to the
average for Bay Area communities. The comparisons indicate that Los Gatos'
fees are lower than the average for other Bay Area communities.
Los Gatos Bay Area Average
lnfiil, Single Family Unit $22,899 $26,819
Single Family Subdivision $23,505 $28,526
Multi -Family, Per Unit $12,148 $18,428
E. PROCESSBNG TIME
The residential development process proceeds through various stages, each of
which requires some form of Town approval. According to Town staff, a typical
single-family infill residential application takes less than 3 months to process. If
the unit is proposed in a hillside residential zone, then the processing time
usually is lengthened to 4-6 months total. In regard to mixed use, two mixed use
projects in 2002 (Sobrato Development and Terreno de Flores) were processed
in 4-6 months, following establishment of zoning densities on the property.
Typical processing steps for a multi -family housing project include:
1. Upon submittal of a PD or subdivision application, the application is distributed to other
Town departments (Planning, Engineering, Parks, Police) and other public agencies for
review (e.g. utility districts, school districts, etc.)
2. Staff reviews/meets with applicant to resolve any concerns or plan deficiencies. Design
issues are discussed at this time also. Arborist review and/or architectural review may be
done concurrently at this time.
3. Development Review Committee (DRC) meeting — once DRC deems application is
complete, it forwards its recommendation to the Planning Commission.
4. Environmental review, traffic impact analysis (and occasionally geotechnical review)
completed as appropriate
5. Story poles placed on project site by applicant.
6. Public hearings with Planning Commission and/or Town Council approval.
The types of issues that usually prolong the processing time are design issues
and neighborhood compatibility. Recently, the Town approved the use of an
architectural consultant to review plans and provide recommendations. It is
anticipated that the use of the consultant will reduce processing time for those
applications that are problematic in regard to design and neighborhood issues.
F. BULDNG COm ES
The Building Codes adopted by the Town of Los Gatos are the Uniform Building
Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, and National Electric
Code. The Town's Building Codes have been adopted in order to prevent unsafe
46
CHAPTER HOUSING CONSTRAINTS
or hazardous building conditions. As such, the Town's codes are a reasonable
and normal enforcement of Town regulations and do not act as a constraint to
the construction or rehabilitation of housing.
G. PARKING REQUI EMENTS
The chart on page 40 of this document identifies parking requirements for various
residential zones. The Town does allow flexibility in these parking requirements,
especially for Planned Developments. Shared parking as well as reduced
parking for elderly and disabled developments have been approved in past
developments. Parking requirements are not considered a constraint to housing.
fieARKET CONSTRAINTS
There are a number of costs involved in the development of housing. These
include land and construction costs, site improvements (streets, sidewalks, etc.),
sales and marketing, financing, and profit. Because these costs are so market
sensitive, it is difficult for a local governmental body to reduce them in any way.
As is true for most Bay Area communities, Los Gatos is an expensive housing
market. Developable land is available but not plentiful. Land costs are
consequently high due to the demand for land. The Construction Industry
Research Board reports that the medium cost per square foot for new residential
construction (including land and overhead cost) was $246 per square foot in
Santa Clara County in 2000.
Developers in Los Gatos report that financing of new residential development is
not a problem. Financing is available and can be provided at reasonable terrns
and conditions. The only residential construction that can potentially be affected
by financing and insurance requirements is condominium construction. Due to
the many lawsuits filed in recent years regarding construction litigation of
condominiums, there has been a decrease in the financing and insurance
available to new condominium developments. This is a statewide problem and
not unique to Los Gatos.
PRODUCING AIFFORDAXLE HOUSING 1N TO [ AY°S ` L RIV-.11"
The expensive land and construction costs in the area also affeci the product►on
of affordable housing. Non-profit developers who build affordable units re;aort
that their costs have escalated in recent years. For example, Community
SEPTEMBER 2002
41
Housing Developers have indicated that the cost in 1999 to build the Los Gatos
Creek Village Apartments was approximately $163,000 per unit. In order to
ensure that the units are affordable to very low-income households,
governmental subsidies were necessary. The Town contributed funds and staff
time to the development. Community Housing Developers report that the Town's
subsidy was $56,250 per unit.
Affordable developments require substantial assistance from local, State and
Federal funding sources. Examples of funding subsidies include Redevelopment
funds, In -lieu fees, CDBG and HOME funds, Below Market Bond financing, Low
Income Housing Tax Credits, California Housing Finance Agency funding,
California Housing and Community Development programs. The provision of
financing or other subsidies to an affordable housing development is necessary
in today's high -cost housing market where land is scarce and construction costs
are expensive.
xYz' 2vL�i'ri 1.,14;-:i5nr, . , 4 .>: w ' r'. 27' it • IS.PAtniri
SUMMARY ANALYSIS OF CONSTRAINTS ON Los GATOS' HOUSING MARKET
Analysis of Land Use Control Constraints:
INFORMATION IN THIS CHAPTER INDICATES THAT THERE ARE LAND USE CONTROLS THAT AFFECT THE
DEVELOPMENT OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS. EXAMPLES OF THESE CONTROLS ARE ZONING REGULATIONS,
PROCESSING TIMES AND FEES. IN REGARD TO PROCESSING TIMES AND FEES, THE TOWN'S AVERAGE
PROCESSING TIME FOR SINGLE FAMILY UNITS AND ITS AVERAGE FEES FOR ALL TYPES OF UNITS ARE
BELOW THOSE OF NEIGHBORING COMMUNITIES. ZONING, ESPECIALLY FOR HILLSIDE PARCELS, IS A
DEFINITE CONSTRAINT TO ADDITIONAL HOUSING BECAUSE MOST OF THE LAND AVAILABLE FOR
DEVELOPMENT IN Los GATOS IS LOCATED IN HILLSIDE RESIDENTIAL AREAS. HOWEVER, THE TOWN
CONSIDERS THE HILLSIDE AREA AS A UNIQUE VISUAL, OPEN SPACE AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE
AND HAS CHOSEN TO CONTROL THE AMOUNT AND TYPE OF HOUSING BUILT IN THOSE AREAS.
THERE IS ONE LAND USE CONTROL ISSUE, HOWEVER, THAT THE TOWN NEEDS TO RE-EVALUATE
DURING THE 2002-2007 PLANNING PERIOD AND THIS ISSUE IS SECONDARY DWELLING UNITS.
SECONDARY DWELLING UNITS:
THE TOWN'S SECONDARY DWELLING UNIT PROGRAM SEVERELY CONTROLS THE
PROVISION OF ADDITIONAL SECONDARY UNITS. UNLESS A TRANSFER DEVELOPMENT
CREDIT IS AVAILABLE, SECONDARY UNITS ARE NOT ALLOWED IN EXISTING R-1 ZONED
AREAS. FURTHER, THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE AS WELL AS THE HEIGHT AND PARKING
LIMITATIONS PROHIBIT CREATIVE USE OF SECONDARY UNITS IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS.
PLEASE SEE PROGRAM #6 IN CHAPTER 8 OF THIS DOCUMENT, WHICH PROPOSES
AN EVALUATION OF THE TOWN'S SECONDARY DWELLING UNIT PROCEDURES.
48
5. RESOURCE lNvENToRY
LAND INVENTORY
In preparation for the 2002-2006 Housing Element, Town staff conducted a study
of vacant and underutilized land that had no infrastructure constraints. The table
below shows the results of that study. The information in the table includes
vacant land availability in relation to the Regional Housing Needs Allocation
(RHNA), as described in pages 29-32 of this document. The Town's RHNA
consists of a very low income and a moderate income housing unit need. The
Town has already met its need for low income and above moderate income
housing for the 2000-2006 time frame.
ILLUSTRATION # 19: PROJECTED HOUSING NEEDS AND LAND AVAILABILITY
(WITH NO INFRASTRUCTURE CONSTRAINTS)
SPRING 2002
HOUSEHOLD
AVAILABLE
DENSITY RANGE
NUMBER OF
SUFFICIENT
INCOME
VACANT AND
THAT COULD BE
POTENTIAL
LAND ZONED
CATEGORY AND
UNDERUTILIZED
PROVIDED AT
UNITS
TO MErT
REGIONAL
LAND
CURRENT
REGIONAL
HOUSING NEED
ZONING/LAND
HOUSING
2002-2006
gIGNATION
NEED?
VERY Low
INCOME
59 Units
0.58 acres
12-20 units
per acre/
high density
3-10 Units
YES
(RM:12-20)
26.23 acres
5-12 units
per
acre/medium
density
131-315
Units
MODERATE
INCOME
(R-M: 5-12
and R1-D)
73 Units
412 acres
1-5 units/ low
density
322 Units
(HR and R:1
Zones)
TOTALS:
132 UNITs
438.81
acres
.1._._.._a._.
— 647 Units
456
..._
SEPTEMBER 2002
49
As the table on the previous page illustrates, there is sufficient land with
infrastructure to accommodate the Town's RHNA for the 2002-2006 time frame.
The very low income need of land suitable for 59 additional units can be met
through the existing land zoned at high and medium density. There is ample
evidence from previously approved developments that the Town can provide high
density housing in the medium density zone as well as the high density zones.
For example, the Vasona Gateway (Sobrato development) approved in 2002 was
for a mixed -use development with 135 residential units. The "effective" density
for the residential land only was 30 units per acre. Mixed use development is
allowed on any residentially zoned land in the Town, especially medium and high
density land. It is important to note that 27 of the total 135 units in Vasona
Gateway are "Below Market Price" (BMP) rental units for very low and low
income households. Another development approved in 2002, Terreno de Flores,
is a 19 unit project with a density of 13.7 units per acre, of which 2 units will be
BMP very low and low income rental units. In addition to using the Mixed Use
designation to provide higher density developments, the Town has also
successfully used density bonuses. The Los Gatos Creek Village development
was granted a 100% density bonus for a parcel (less than an acre in size) that
was zoned for medium density, 5-12 units per acre. The entire development
consists of rental units affordable to very low income households.
The Town will monitor the development community's progress in providing very
low income housing units. Program #1 in Chapter 8 of this document specifies
that the Town will review the production of very low income units in relation to its
RHNA goal in late 2003. If it does not appear that the units are being produced
as needed, the Town will consider rezoning at least 5 acres of medium density
land to a higher density or apply an affordable housing overlay zone in order to
address the very low income housing need.
The moderate income RHNA need of 73 units can easily be achieved through
land currently zoned medium density. Even if the existing vacant land is
developed at the lower range of 5 units per acre, there is sufficient land to
accommodate both the moderate income and the remaining very low income
need. (For further information regarding vacant/underutilized land in the Town,
please see Appendices B and C of this document.)
Y NANC AL ! ESOURC S
LOCAL FINANCIAL RESOURCES
The most significant source of housing funds controlled locally is the Town's
Redevelopment Housing Set -Aside funds. As required by State law, the
Redevelopment Agency "sets aside" 20% of tax increment revenues to be used
to increase the supply of low and moderate income housing in the community.
50
CHAPTER 5: hLSOURCE INVENTORY
The Town's "Five Year Affordabie Housing Production Plan", completed in 1999,
estimates that 14 affordable units will be required to meet Redevelopment
requirements between 1995-2004. The total number of affordable units needed
during the "life" of the Redevelopment Project Area is 23 units from 1995-2032.
In 1997-98, the Agency provided financial assistance to Community Housing
Developers to develop the 12-unit Los Gatos Creek Village Apartments on Miles
Avenue. As of Spring 2002, the Town's Redevelopment Housing Fund had a
balance of approximately $1.8 million dollars. The illustration below provides an
estimate of the fund's revenues for the period between 2002-2006.
ILLUSTRATION # 20: REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY HOUSING SET ASIDE FUNDS,
ESTIMATES FOR 200 I -2006
2
2001-2002
2002-2003
2003-2004
2004-2005
2005-2006
SOURCE
Fund
Balance
$1,215, 140
Tax
Increment
Revenue
$ 681,530
$741,912
$787,950
$823,043
$859,330
TOTAL
$1, 896, 670
The table above provides an estimate of the annual amount of funds expected to
be generated from 2001-2006. The Agency expects to utilize these funds on an
annual basis by providing assistance for affordable housing production and
paying administrative expenses. At the time that this Housing Element document
was adopted, there were no plans for the use of the housing funds for a specific
development or project. However, it is anticipated that, within the time frame of
this Housing Element, the Agency will provide assistance to developers (non
profit or for profit) for developments that meet the following Agency guidelines
(from "Five Year Affordable Housing Production Plan", Page 9):
1. Redevelopment Housing Funds shall be used to assist the construction of new units
for very low and low/moderate income households or to "buy down" the affordability
level of existing BMP units.
2. Redevelopment Housing Funds will be provided as either an amortized or deferred
payment loan.
3. The units must meet the basic occupancy and affordability provisions specified in the
Town's Redevelopment Implementation Plan.
4. All units created or subsidized using Redevelopment Housing Funds shall remain
affordable for the longest feasible time but in no case fewer than 55 years for rental
housing and 45 years for owner -occupied housing.
5. Redevelopment Housing Funds shall be used for development of affordable units on
property located within the Redevelopment Project Area.
SEPTEMBER 2002 51
In 2001, the Town's Agency executed an agreement with the Housing Trust of
Santa Clara County in which the Town contributed $250,000 in Redevelopment
funds to the Trust. In return, the Trust agreed to provide funds for one or more
affordable housing projects in Los Gatos. At the time this Housing Element was
prepared, housing proposals were still being evaluated and there were no
specific projects identified for the use of these funds.
In addition to Redevelopment Housing Funds, the Town also collects in -lieu fees
from the BMP program. As of Spring 2002, the balance in that fund was
estimated to be approximately $1.4 million dollars. The Town intends to combine
this fund with Redevelopment Housing Fund monies in providing assistance to
developers and/or providers of affordable housing. In Fall 2002, the Town is
planning an affordable housing strategy session that will include a discussion of
specific uses of the Redevelopment funds and in -lieu fees so that any
expenditures reflect the goals of the 2002-2006 Housing Element.
FEDERAL RESOURCES (CDBG AND HOME FUNDS)
The Town of Los Gatos also is eligible to receive federal CDBG and HOME funds
through their participation in the Urban County and Consortium of Santa Clara
County. These federal funds are awarded on an annual basis to the County and
are used by member communities for affordable housing activities. For example,
CDBG funds were provided to the Los Gatos Creek Village Apartments on Miles
Avenue and these funds are also used to fund the Town's Housing Conservation
Program for housing- rehabilitation activities.
OTHER STATE/FEDERAULOCAL FINANCIAL RESOURCES
In addition to the funding sources identified above, the Town also has access to
other funding resources as appropriate. These funding sources are typically
used on a project -by -project basis and are not secure, annual funding sources
such as CDBG, HOME and Redevelopment housing set -aside funds. These
financial resources include:
1. State of California, Department of Housing and Community Development
loan and grant programs,
2. Califomia Housing Finance Agency financial assistance programs,
3. Federal/State Low Income Housing Tax Credits,
4. Federal Home Loan Bank, Affordable Housing Program,
5. Mortgage Credit Certificates
6. Housing Trust Fund of Santa Clara County, and
7. Second/Third Mortgage Financing for Teachers in certain school districts.
52
6e FF •1 " to LE Ha USN ,!. PPORTUN DIES
This chapter of the Housing Element summarizes the current range of affordable
housing opportunities in Los Gatos. Information is included on housing program
administered by the Town of Los Gatos as well as an inventory of affordable
housing developments.
TOWN H®USONG PROGRAMS
1. Below Market Price (BMP) Program
The Town of Los Gatos was one of the first communities in California to adopt an
Inclusionary Housing Zoning Ordinance in 1979. Since its adoption, the Town
has implemented the Ordinance through the "Below Market Price" program. The
BMP Program requires that a certain number of units in new residential
developments be designated for low and moderate -income occupancy. The
exact number of units required depends on the type and size of the development.
For example, projects of 5-19 market rate units must provide a number of BMP
units equal to 10% of the market rate units. Projects between 5-10 units may
contribute an in -lieu fee instead of constructing actual units. BMP ownership
units are initially sold at affordable prices to low and moderate -income persons
and certain restrictions are recorded with the grant deed to ensure that there will
be continued occupancy and ownership of the unit by low and moderate -income
persons. The deed restrictions are designed to ensure that the units, even on
resale, will remain affordable. When a BMP owner wishes to sell the unit, he or
she must give the Town the right of first refusal to purchase it. The Town has six
months in which to find a new purchaser.
As of Spring 2002, there were 62 units in the Town's inventory of BMP units.
However, another 60 BMP,Teacher units had been approved but not yet built. If
these units are built, the Town's inventory of BMP units will be approximately 122
total units. The Housing Authority of the County of Santa Clara manages the
BMP program for the Town.
2. Density Bonus Program
The Town's Density Bonus Program provides a density bonus of up to 100% of
the units permitted by the land use designation for housing restricted to seniors,
disabled persons, very low and low-income households. From 1985-90, 115
density bonus units were approved. From 1990-96, 27 additional units were
approved because of the density bonus program. During the period from 1996-
2002, the Town approved residential density bonuses in the Los Gatos Creek
Village Apartments, the Open Doors development and the Sobrato development.
SEPTEMBER 2002
53
3. Redevelopment Housing Funds
In 1991, the Town adopted a Redevelopment Plan for the Central Los Gatos
area and, in 1992, began implementation activities in that area. According to
State law, approximately 20% of tax increment funds generated in a
Redevelopment area are to be used for affordable housing.
The 20% tax increment funds are an important housing revenue source for a
local community. Communities have a great deal of flexibility in using those funds
as compared to State or Federal housing funds which may have detailed
eligibility and use restrictions. The fund's balance as of Spring 2002 was
approximately $1.8 million dollars. It is expected that there will be additional
annual increases to the fund from 2002-2006. The chart on page 51 of this
document describes the amount of housing funds estimated from 2001-2006.
The Town's Redevelopment Agency expects to utilize fund resources for the
development and/or provision of affordable housing opportunities.
4. In -Lieu Fee Fund
As required by the Town's BMP Program, certain residential developments must
either built affordable units or contribute to the Town's BMP In -Lieu Fee fund. As
of Spring 2002, the In -Lieu Fee fund had a balance of approximately $1.4 million
dollars. Similar to Redevelopment Housing Funds, the monies in this fund are to
be used for the development or provision of affordable housing opportunities.
5. Housing Conservation Program
In 1976, the Town initiated a program that was designed to assist in the
rehabilitation of housing units occupied by lower income households. The
program has continued to operate since 1976 and currently the Town provides
both financial and technical assistance to owners of units occupied by lower
income households. The Town provides both loans and grants to assist in
financing repairs to correct health or building code violations, handicap
accessibility modifications, earthquake safety or alleviate overcrowded situations
through additional bedrooms or baths.
6. Rental Dispute Resolution Program
The Rent Resolution Program monitors rent increases in multi -family housing
development in the Town. The administration of the program is contracted out to
a Local non-profit organization, Project Sentinel.
54
CHAPTER 6: AFFORDABLE ..JUSING OPPORTUNITIES
Generally, rent increases are limited annually to the greater of 5% or 70% of the
Consumer Price Index for that year. However, if repairs are made to the property
or if the property is sold, additional rent increase can be allowed. Staff at Project
Sentinel work with property owners in determining appropriate rent increases.
Further, staff can also provide information and mediation services in regard to
certain type of tenant -landlord issues.
Open Doors is a 64 Unit Affordable Housing Development in Los Gatos
AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT INVENTORY
In addition to the housing programs identified on the previous pages, the
affordable housing opportunities in Los Gatos include units spFcifLcaIi,
designated in developments for very low, low and moderate -income households.
The table on the following page summarizes these units by name, type and
household income level.
SEPTEMBER 2002
55
MODERATE INCOME
Below Market Rate Units:
Forbes Mill Private _ Owner Occupied 0 3 0
Arro Yo Rinconada Private Owner Occupied 3
C)
N
e—
r
A—
C)
0
0
0
Other Affordable Units
O
O
O
0
0
52 13
Low INCOME
CV
0
0
0
N
A
N
29
N
N
0
At
V'
0
0
VERY LOW
INCOME
0
0
0
0
0
CD
0
CI
v
0
0
ti
0
CI
OQ
NAME OWNERSHIP TYPE OF AFFORDABLE UNIT
Owner Occupied
Owner Occupied
Owner Occupied
Owner Occupied
Owner Occupied
Owner Occupied
Owner Occupied
Renter Occupied: Elderly
Renter Occupied
Renter Occupied
Renter Occupied: Elderly
Renter Occupied
Renter Occupied
Renter Occupied: Elderly and
Handicapped
Renter Occupied
TOTALS
m
RS
>
n)
C33
>
a)
co
>
m
m
>
-L
m
co
>
L.
Private
Private
American Baptist Home
Private
m
io
>
.`
Mid -Peninsula Housing
Community Housing
Developers
Mid -Peninsula Housing
PMG Properties
Community Housing
Developers
Courtstyle
Pollard Oaks
Fni intain I ana
j .t
_
C
s C
C
_ F-
Bella Vista
Tha Village
c
a)
0
to
{) 0
0E-
. O
- _i
0
CO
N
..c
F-
ui
a
Q
.c
Y
a)
al
a
Y
R
0
U.
C
C
C
—
Los Gatos Fourplex
95 Fairview Plaza
Open Doors
Villa Vasona
Los Gatos Creek Village
Apartments
7. REVIEW OF 1997
USING ELEMENT
The Town's previous Housing Element was adopted in 1997. In order to
effectively plan for the future, it is important to reflect back on the goals of the
1997 Element and to identify those areas where progress was made and those
areas where additional effort is needed_ In fact, the State Housing Element
guidelines require communities to evaluate their previous Housing Element
according to the following criteria:
• Effectiveness of Element,
• Progress in Implementation, and
• Appropriateness of Goals, Objectives and Policies.
EFFECTIVENESS OF ELEMENT
The Town's 1997 Housing Element identified the following goals:
1. To improve the choice of housing opportunities for senior citizens, families
and singles and for all income groups through a variety of housing types .end
sizes, including a mixture of ownership and rental housing.
2. To preserve existing moderately priced and historically significant housing.
3. To improve the quality of existing housing and prevent blight.
4. To eliminate racial, lack of handicapped accessibility and all offer forms of
discrimination that prevent free choice in housing.
5. To make infrastructure projects and residential and nonresidential
developments be compatible with environmental quality and energy
conservation.
6. To reduce the homeless population.
7. To provide housing affordable to people who work in the Town.
In order to achieve these goals, the 1997 Element listed a snries of pf.) ieies and
programs that would help to achieve the goals. They tables on the following
pages identify the policies and programs from the 1997 Element. The tables
SEPTEMBER 2002
�7
then also include a description of the actions that were taken from 1996-2001
and the progress that was achieved in addressing the 1997 goals and policies.
The Los Gatos Creek Village Apartments (Miles Avenue) were completed
with Town assistance during the 1996-2001 Housing Element time frame.
It should be noted that the 1997 Housing Element projected a 4-year time frame
for implementation of the housing program policies and goals. The time frame
projected was 1996-99 because it was anticipated that the Housing Element
would be updated in 1999. However, the deadline to update the Element in 1999
was later extended by the California Department of Housing and Community
Development in order to provide enough time for ABAG to revise the Regional
Housing Needs Allocation plan for the area. The deadline for all of the ABAG
jurisdictions to revise their Housing Elements was extended to December 30,
2001. Therefore, the goals and objectives as listed in the following tables were
originally expected to be achieved between 1996-99 but the accomplishments as
listed were actually achieved during the time period from 1996-2001.
58
CHAPTER 7: REVIEW OF .i 97 HOUSING ELEMENT
ILLUSTRATION # 22: PROGRESS IN ACHIEVING 1997 HOUSING
POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (I 996-200 I)
POLICY
IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM
ACCOMPLISHMENTS (1996-2001)
COMMENTS
1. Developments
restricted for
occupancy byThe
P y
senior citizens,
handicapped or
persons in the
very low and low
income groups
shall be eligible
for a density
bonus of up to
100% of the units
permitted by the
land use
designation as
shown on the
land use plan or
any specific plan.
1. Density Bonus
Town will continue the
Density Bonus Program
allowing 100% density
bonus for qualified
Projects.
The Town Council approved density
bonuses for the Open Doors development
and the Sobrato Development (in early
2002). Further, the Council also approved
a 100% density bonus for the Los Gatos
Creek Village Apartments, which was
completed in 2001.
Continue Policy
in 2002-2006
Time Frame with
following
changes:
a) Ensure that
staff and
developers
are aware of
density bonus
b) Develop
marketing
materials for
development
community
2. The Town will
consider
reductions in
standards for
affordable
housing
developments.
2. Development
Standards
The e Town will continue to
review and, where feasible
reduce development
standards (e.g. parking,
open space) for affordable
Development standards were reduced for
the Los Gatos Creek Village Apartments.
The Council also approved exceptions to
the maximum height limitation for the
Sobrato Development.
Continue Policy
in 2002-2006
Time Frame
3. The Town will
consider Housing
Element and
Technical
Appendix goals,
policies and
needs when
reviewing
residential
applications of 3
or more units.
3. Consistency with
Housing Element and
Housing Element
Technical Appendix
All approvals of residential
developments of 3 or more
units must include a finding
that the proposed
development is consistent
with the Town's Housing
Element and addresses
the Town's Housing needs
as identified in the Element
and Technical Appendix.
All residential applications of 3 or more
units from 1997-2001 contained a finding
that the development was consistent with
the Town's Housing Element.
Continue Policy
in 2002-2006
Time Frame
SEPTEMBER 2002
59
POLICY
IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM
ACCOMPLISHMENTS (1996-2001)
COMMENTS
4. The town shall
support the
mixing of
residential uses
with other non -the
residential uses.
New residential
units will be
encouraged with
commercial uses
on the same site.
Existing
residential uses
in non-residential
areas shall be
allowed to remain
when certain
conditions are
met.
4. New Residential uses
in Commercial Areas
The Town shall encourage
mixing of residential
uses with commercial
uses.
5. Existing Residential
Uses in Non -Residential
Areas
From 1996-2001, the Town Council
approved several mixed use developments
including:
a) Los Gatos Boulevard/Terreno de
Flores development, which includes
14,000 square feet of office space and
19 residential units
b) Sobrato Development, which includes
a 288,000 square foot research
building and 135 apartments.
Existing residential uses were allowed to
remain in non-residential areas.
Continue Policy
in 2002-2006
Time Frame
Continue Policy
in 2002-2006
Time Frame
5. Higher density,
affordable
housing shall beof
encouraged
throughout the
Town.
6. Infill and Rezoning
Policies
The Town shall approve
mixed -use development at
high density or rezone
sufficient acreage to RM:5-
20 as needed in order to
meet the very (ow and low-
income need as identified
in Illustration #16 of the
Housing Element Technical
Appendix. The Town will
also adopt a policy that
specifies that any rezoning
of non-residential land to
residential land shall only
be approved if the site is
rezoned for higher density
use.
The Town has approved mixed -use
developments through the Planned
Development process. The Los Gatos
Boulevard/Terreno de Flores and Sobrato
developments mentioned above are two
examples.
Illustration #16 in the 1997 Housing
Element identified the following very low
and low income needs for 1996-99:
Very Low 45 Units
Low: 44 Units
A total of 13 very low income and 12
low-income units have either been
approved or constructed at the time that
this Housing Element was written.
The Town has
been supportive
mixed -use
development and
will continue this
policy in the
future.
60
CHAPTER 7: REVIEW OF 11797 HOUSING ELEMENT
POLICY
IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM
ACCOMPLISHMENTS (1996-2001)
COMMENTS
6. Smaller,
moderate cost,
quality housing
units shall be
encouraged and
the expansion of
existing homes
will be limited.
7. Housing Unit Size and
Neighborhood
Compatibility
The Town will continue to
use Floor Area Ratio
(FAR) in order to control
the size of dwelling units in
relation to the lot and
surrounding
neighborhood. The Town
will consider the feasibility
of adopting a Residential
Demolition Ordinance.
The Town continues to consider FAR
through the Zoning Ordinance provisions (
Sec. 29.40.075. In January 1998, the
Town also amended the "Residential
Development Standards for AD Single
Family and Two Family Dwellings." Those
standards establish guidelines for site and
neighborhood compatibility including
building size and mass. Demolition of
existing residences is also included in the
Standards. It should also be noted that
demolition of historic structures is
controlled by the Ordinances for specific
Historic Districts in the Town.
Continue Policy
in 2002-2006
Time Frame
7. The
conversion of
existing rental
projects to
condominium
ownership shall
be discouraged in
order to maintain
the stock of
available rental
units.
8. The Town shall
attempt to
maintain a range
of 30-35% of the
total Town
dwelling units as
rental units.
8. Condominium
Conversion Ordinance
The Town shall formalize
its policies regarding the
conversion of apartments
to condominiums by
adapting a Condominium
Conversion Ordinance.
The Town's Zoning Ordinance effectively
prohibits the conversion of apartments due
to parking and open space requirements.
The Town has achieved this objective.
The 2000 U.S. Census data indicate that
35% of the Town's housing stock was
renter -occupied.
Since rental
housing often
times provides a
more affordable
source of
housing
opportunities, it
is important to
p
preserve the
existing housing
stock. The Town
will implement
the Rental
Housing
Preservation
Program for the
2002-2006 time
frame.
9. Secondary
units shall be
allowed subject
to restrictions on
lot size, floor
area, density and
occupancy.
9. Secondary Dwelling
Unit Ordinance
The Town will evaluate the
Secondary Dwelling Unit
Ordinance to determine if
revisions are appropriate.
Secondary dwelling unit provisions are
contained in Division 7 of the Town's
Zoning Ordinance. There has been nc
evaluation of Division 7 or revision of
Secondary Unit requirements from 1996-
2001.
Ensure that the
evaluation of
Secondary Unit
requirements is a
high priority wort,
task for the 2002-
2006 time frame.
SEPTEMBER 2002
EMI
elilMtla,kP
POLICY
IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM
ACCOMPLISHMENTS (1996-2001)
COMMENTS
10. The Town
shall discourage
the conversion of
mobile home
parks into other
uses that would
reduce the
availability of
comparably
priced housing
units.
10. Mobile Home Park
Ordinance
The Town will continue to
administer the Mobile
Home Park Ordinance and
will revise the Ordinance
to specify that any
proposal to convert a
mobile home park to a
residential development
shall provide at least as
many low cost housing
units as could be
accommodated within the
existing park's capacity.
There were no mobile home park
conversions during the 1996-2001 time
period. (There are two mobile home parks
in Los Gatos.) The Mobile Home Park
Ordinance was not revised during the time
period.
Revise Mobile
Home Park
Ordinance to
ensure the
provision of
affordable units
similar to the
existing park's
unit capacity.
11. The Town
shall utilize
to
preserve and
improve the
quality of existing
housing and
eliminate blight.
11. Housing
Conservation Program
The Town will continue to
provide financial and
technical assistance to
lower income households.
Special efforts will be
made to market the
program to the Town's
mobile home parks as well
as other prospective
applicants.
Objective: 6 Households
Assisted Annually
Objective Partially Achieved
The Town needs
to update its
housing
condition
information by
undertaking an
evaluation of
housing
conditions in the
older housing
stock. Once the
units have been
identified that
need
rehabilitation
assistance, more
aggressive
marketing should
be undertaken.
From 1997-2001, the Housing
Conservation Program assisted a total of 7
households. The 1996-99 objective was to
assist 6 households annually. Therefore,
the program only partially achieved its
stated objectives.
12. The Town
shall encourage
increased
opportunities for
home ownership
but not at the
expense of the
availability of
multiple rental
unit construction.
12. Mortgage Credit
Certificate Program
(MCC)
The Town shall continue
to participate in the
Mortgage Credit
Certificate Program.
Objective: 5 Households
Assisted Annually
Objective Partially Achieved
Continue to
support MCC
Program and
related programs
for Teacher
Certificates and
First Time
Homebuyers as
offered by the
County of Santa
Clara.
From 1997-2001, there were four Mortgage
Credit Certificates (MCC) issued for homes
purchased in Los Gatos.
As of Spring 2002, the maximum sales
price for a MCC unit is $410,000. This
maximum has precluded most purchasers
of units in Los Gatos from qualifying for a
MCC.
62
CHAPTER 7: REVIEW OF :a._ 97 HOUSING ELEMENT
POLICY
IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM
ACCOMPLISHMENTS (1996-2001)
COMMENTS
13. The Town
shall encourage
the provision of
new units for
ownership and
13. Below Market Price
(BMP) Program
The Town shall continue
to implement the BMP
The Town has continued to implement the
P
The Town has not
program and shall
BMP program through the 1996-2001
revised eligibility
rental by low and
moderate -income
households.
implement the following
revisions:
period.
criteria for the
BMP program.
The Town will be
14. New and
a) If necessary, the Town
Objective Achieved
holding a
existing dwelling
will exercise its "right
Housing
units for
of first refusal" to
From 1996 2001, there were 8 BMP units
Affordability
ownership and
purchase BMP units
added to the housing stock (Bella Vista
The
Study Session in
rental by very
that may have resale
and Village). In addition, $1.2 million
Fall 2002 and will
low, low and
prices that exceed tow
dollars in In -Lieu Fees were collected
study this issue
moderate -income
households shall
be dispersed
throughout the
Town.
or moderate -income
affordability limits.
b) The Town will
consider revising the
income eligibility so
that future BMP units
are affordable only to
households with
incomes at or below
during the time period.
then.
80% of median
income.
c) The Town will
continue to monitor
the existing inventory
of BMP units,
especially rental units.
Objective:
5 BMP Units
.
$
$400,000 in In -Lieu Fees
14. Affordable Housing
The Town did not establish a separate
The Town will
Fund
Affordable Housing Fund but, rather, used
continue to utilize
The Town will utilize the
various funding resources (Redevelopment
all funding
Affordable Housing Fund
housing set -aside funds, In -Lieu Fees and
resources for
to provide financial
CDBG) to assist affordable housing.
affordable
assistance to developers
who develop affordable
Objective Achieved
housing
assistance and
housing.
In 2000-2001, the Town provided financial
assistance to the Los Gatos Creek Village
development in
the 2002-2006
Objective:
15 total new units assisted
Apartments, a 12-unit project of which very
low-income households occupy all units.
time frame.
In addition, the Town also contributed
CDBG funds to assist with 25-unit
HomeSafe transitional housing and 50-unit
Sobrato Living Center (transitional,
permanent and emergency housing) Both
of these developments are located in
Santa Clara but are available to Los Gatos
residents.
SEPTEMBER 2002
6,71
POLICY
IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM
ACCOMPLISHMENTS (1996-2001)
COMMENTS
13. The Town
shall encourage
the provision of
new units for
ownership and
rental by low and
moderate -income
households.
(Continued)
14. New and
existing dwelling
units for
ownership and
rental by very
low, low and
moderate -income
households shall
be dispersed
throughout the
Town.
(Continued)
15. Redevelopment
Housing Program
The Town will continue to
implement the
Redevelopment Housing
Program and to allocate
housing tax increment
funds to the Affordable
Housing Fund. Any
Redevelopment funds
expended shall be used in
the following proportions:
31% - very low income
31% - low income
38% - very low, low or
moderate income
Approximately $538,500 was provided to
the Los Gatos Creek Village Apartments, a
12-unit apartment in which very low -
income households occupy all units.
In late 2001, the position of
Redevelopment Manager was filled. With
this new staff person, the Town expects
increased Redevelopment, especially
housing, activity.
16. Surplus Lands
Program
The Town will monitor the
disposal of any surplus
public lands and consider
the use of those lands for
affordable housing.
There were no surplus sites available
during the time frame of the Element.
17. Affordable Housing
Program Staffing
The Town will evaluate the
need to create a staff
position that will co-
ordinate all of the Town's
affordable housing policies
and programs and be
responsible for the
monitoring of those
programs.
See accomplishments in #15 above. The
job duties of the Redevelopment Manager
position include supervision of the Town's
affordable housing programs.
15. The Town will
make every effort
to preserve the
existing supply of
affordable
housing units.
16. At Risk Preservation
Program
The Town will work with
the owners of the three
housing developments in
the Town that are at risk of
losing government
subsidies which enable
them to be affordable.
Two of the three developments, Villa
Vasona and Los Gatos Fourplex, are still
under affordability restrictions. However,
the third development, Hartin House, did
lose its affordability restrictions and the
units are no longer affordable.
64
CHAPTER 7: REVIEW OF J.497 HOUSING ELEMENT
POLICY
IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM
ACCOMPLISHMENTS (1996-2001)
COMMENTS
16. The Town
shall encourage
landlords and
tenants to work
together to
develop rental
rates fair to the
needs of both
parties.
19. Rental Resolution
Program
The Town shall continue to
operate the Rental
Resolution Program and
will conduct a bi-annual
review of the program and
will revise the program if
The Town continues to operate this
program but has re -named it the "Rental
Dispute Resolution Program."
Continue to fund
Rental Dispute
Resolution
Program.
17. The Town
shall continue its
participation in
regional and
countywide
housing efforts in
cooperation with
the federal and
state
governments to
develop realistic
programs to
provide housing
for very low and
low-income
families.
20. Coordinate Housing
Programs
The Town shall continue to
review and coordinate
county, regional, state and
federal programs for the
p g
satisfaction of housing
needs in the Town.
The Town participates as a member of the
HOME consortium of Santa Clara County
and the CDBG Urban County program.
Further, Town staff also participates in the
Santa Clara County Housing Task Force.
Continue
participation in
County programs
and coordination
of other
governmental
resources.
18. The Town
shall work with
other agencies to
provide housing
or other
appropriate
p
assistance for the
homeless
population.
21. Homeless Assistance
Program
The Town will continue to
work in a co -coordinated
manner with Santa Clara
County in developing a
continuum of resources
available to homeless
households.
As part of the Santa Clara County
Continuum of Care plan, the Town
contributes CDBG funds to emergency,
transitional and permanent housing
developments in Santa Clara County.
Further, the Town's Community Services
Department coordinates services from non -
profit groups (Second Harvest Food Bank,
Catholic Charities, Live Oak Senior Center,
etc.) that assist households at risk of
homelessness.
Continue to
participate in the
County
Continuum of
Care process.
19. The Town
shall assist in the
provision of equal
housing
opportunities for
all households
regardless of
race, age, sex,
marital status,
ethnic
background or
other arbitrary
factors.
22. Fair Housing
Information
The Town will continue to
provide fair housing,
tenant -landlord mediation
services and housing
information.
The Town continued to fund non-profit
agencies that provided fair housing
counseling and information services.
Continue to fund
fair housing
activities.
SEPTEMBER 2002
65
Example of new construction, infill development in Spring 2002.
(Boyer Lane)
P OGRESS IN iMPLEMENTAT ON
To assess the Town's progress in implementing the 1997 Housing Element, the
following key areas were reviewed.
1. Production of Housing
The 1997 Housing Element identified a need for new construction of 144
units. From January 1, 1996 to January 1, 2000, there were 132 housing
units added to the Town's housing stock. Therefore, it would appear that
92°/0 of the Town's new construction need was achieved from 1996-2000.
However, the 1997 new construction need specifically identifies units that
would be affordable as follows:
45 - Units Affordable to Very Low Income Households
44 - Units Affordable to Low Income Households
55 - Units Affordable to Moderate Income Households
144 - TOTAL UNITS
66
CHAPTER 7: REVIEW OF , g7 HOUSING ELEMENT
ILLUSTRATION # 23: UNITS PRODUCED BY INCOME LEVEL 1996-2000
Household Income
1997 Housing
Element
Objective
Units
Produced
1996-2000
% Achieved
Very Low Income
45
12
27%
Low Income
44
3
7%
Moderate Income
55
5
9%
Above Moderate
Income
0
112
----
TOTAL
144
132
92%
The 12 units of very low-income housing were developed at the Los Gatos
Creek Village Apartments (Miles Avenue). The low-income units include 2 at
Bella Vista and 1 at the Village. The moderate -income units include 4 units at
Bella Vista and 1 unit at the Village. As the table above demonstrates, the
Town did not achieve its objectives for very low, low or moderate -income
housing during the 1997 Housing Element time frame.
2. Preservation of "At Risk" Units
Two "at risk" affordable housing developments were preserved during the
planning period (Villa Vasona and the Los Gatos Fourplex). Unfortunately,
the Hartin House lost its affordability restrictions during the same time period.
3. Rehabilitation of Existing Units
The Town had established a goal of rehabilitating 6 units annually or 24 units
total during the time frame of the 1997 Housing Element. However, the
number of units actually rehabilitated from 1996-2001 was 7 units total.
Therefore, the program did not achieve its objective.
PPROP ATENE OF OALS, OBJECTIVES AN
i OLUC E
Earlier in this chapter (page 57), the goals from the 1997 Housing Element were
identified. These goals are still appropriate for the 2002-200(} time frame.
However, the language of the goals will be modified to more specifically respond
to the housing environment in Los Gatos in 2002. The following chapter. Chapter
8, identifies the goals, policies and programs for the 2002-2006 time period.
SEPTEMBER 2002
67
' 'F e, t950CS1 X'<t &eMr.1 . °? . i.
SUMMARY
THE TOWN ACHIEVED 92% OF ITS QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVES FOR
NEW CONSTRUCTION OF UNITS DURING THE 1996-2000 TIME
FRAME. HOWEVER, THE TOWN DID NOT ACHIEVE ITS NEW
CONSTRUCTION OBJECTIVES FOR UNITS AFFORDABLE TO VERY
LOW, LOW INCOME AND MODERATE INCOME HOUSEHOLDS. THIS
WAS PARTIALLY DUE TO THE FACT THAT LOS GATOS IS ONE OF
THE MOST EXPENSIVE HOUSING MARKETS IN THE SAN
FRANCISCO BAY AREA AND, INDEED, THE NATION. FURTHER,
HOUSING PRICES ESCALATED DRAMATICALLY, ESPECIALLY
DURING THE 1998-2000 TIME PERIOD. THIS SITUATION
MADE IT ESPECIALLY DIFFICULT TO DEVELOP HOUSING,
ESPECIALLY AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVES WERE ONLY PARTIALLY ACHIEVED IN
REGARD TO PRESERVATION OF AFFORDABLE, AT -RISK UNITS
AND REHABILITATION OF THE EXISTING HOUSING STOCK.
68
CHAPTER 8: HOUSII.0 PROGRAM STRATEGY
4)
®USING
OGRAM STRATEGY
This chapter of the Housing Element describes the strategy that will be followed
in order to address the housing issues and needs previously identified in this
document. The strategy consists of goals, policies and programs for the time
frame of 2002-June 30, 2006. Included in the description of each housing
program are a proposed time frame, responsible party, financial resources and
quantified objectives, where appropriate.
SIGNIFICANT HOUSING ISSUES
Adequate Sites for Housing:
The Town needs to provide adequate sites for 132 dwelling units to
meet its 2002-2006 Regional Housing Need. The 132 unit estimate
includes 59 very low income units and 73 moderate income units.
With the opportunities to apply Mixed Use or a density bonus, there
is sufficient land zoned at appropriate densities with infrastructure
available to meet the projected need for very low and moderate
income units.
Development of Affordable Housing for Lower and Moderate
Income Households:
The most significant new construction need is housing for very kw,
low and moderate -income households. Of the 132 projected units
needed, all of these units are estimated to be needed to be
affordable to very low and moderate -income households.
Conservation of Existing Units:
The Town's existing stock of mobile homes and rental units provides
an important resource for affordable housing. These units need to
be preserved. Further, rehabilitation assistance needs to continue
to be made available to property owners of units occupied by lower
income households. The Town also needs to conduct a hour^ng
condition survey in the older areas of the community in o (IE i° to
determine the extent of need for rehabilitation assistance.
SEPTEMBER 2002 €E
Preservation of 'At Risk" Affordable Units
Another significant issue in the 2002-2006 time frame is the
expiration of Section 8 subsidies for the Villa Vasona development.
This 107-unit development provides affordable housing to elderly
and disabled households. The Town needs to monitor the potential
expiration in 2004 of these subsidies and, if needed, develop a
strategy to preserve the affordability of the units.
Management of Housing Programs and Funds
The goals, policies and programs identified in the following pages
include many proposed actions that will be the responsibility of the
Community Development Department and/or Redevelopment
Agency. In addition to implementing these actions, the Town also
has existing programs that need to be managed (e.g. Below Market
Rate Program) and a significant source of housing funds that needs
to be expended (e.g. Redevelopment Housing Set -aside funds and In -
Lieu fee funds). The Town needs to ensure that there is adequate
staff support to manage and implement the proposed 2002-2006
housing strategy.
In order to address the housing issues identified above, a housing strategy of
goals, policies and programs for 2002-2006 has been developed. This strategy
is described on the following pages. The policies and programs are organized
according to the following five general goals:
GOAL 1: EXPAND THE CHOICE OF HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES FOR ALL ECONOMIC SEGMENTS OF THE
COMMUNITY THROUGH A VARIETY OF HOUSING TYPES AND SIZES, INCLUDING A MIXTURE
OF OWNERSHIP AND RENTAL HOUSING.
GOAL 2: PRESERVE EXISTING RESIDENTIAL OPPORTUNITIES AND ENCOURAGE ADDITIONAL
RESIDENTIAL USE THAT IS COMPATIBLE WITH NEIGHBORHOOD AND COMMUNITY.
GOAL 3: PRESERVE THE EXISTING AFFORDABLE HOUSING STOCK
GOAL 4: ENSURE THAT ALL PERSONS HAVE EQUAL ACCESS TO HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES
GOAL 5: PROVIDE ADEQUATE MANAGEMENT AND STAFFING OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING FUNDS AND
PROGRAMS
70
CHAPTER 8: HOUS►i.G PROGRAM STRATEGY
GOAL 1: EXPAND THE CHOICE OF HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES FOR ALL ECONOMIC
SEGMENTS OF THE COMMUNITY THROUGH A VARIETY OF HOUSING TYPES AND SIZES,
INCLUDING A MIXTURE OF OWNERSHIP AND RENTAL HOUSING.
POLICY IA: CONTINUE TO DESIGNATE SUFFICIENT RESIDENTIALLY -ZONED LAND AT APPROPRIATE
DENSITIES TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE SITES TO MEET Los GATOS' NEW CONSTRUCTION NEED
FOR 2002-2006.
Implementation Program:
1 El Adequate Land Inventory
The Town will ensure that there is land available at appropriate
zoning categories to meet its need for very low and moderate
income households, as identified in Illustration #19 on page 49. In
order to achieve this, the Town will assess the progress of the
development community in providing very low income units during
the latter part of 2003. If it appears that the very low income units
are not being produced as needed, the Town will consider rezoning
up to 5 acres of vaca t land to RM:12-20 units per acre and/or
applying an affordable housing overlay zone(s).
Time Frame:
2002-2006:
Late 2003:
Continue to maintain an adequate land inventory that
meets 2002-2006 Regional Housing Needs goals.
Evaluate need to rezone up to 5 acres of R-1 or
RM:5-12 vacant land to RM: 12-20 units per acre
and/or apply affordable housing overlay zone(s).
Responsible Party: Community Development Department
Objective: Maintain a Land Inventory, which will provide sites
that accommodate the following:
Units Affordable to Very Low Income 59 Units
Units Affordable to Moderate Income 73 Units
Total Need: 132 Units
POLICY 1B: MAINTAIN AND/OR ADOPT APPROPRIATE LAND USE REGULATIONS AND OTHER
DEVELOPMENT TOOLS TO ENCOURAGE THE DEVELOPMENT OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
2 0 Density Bonus
Continue to provide up to a 100% density bonus for developments
that include housing for elderly, handicapped and/or very low and
low-income households. Eligibility requirements are as follows:
SEPTEMBER 2002
71
• All housing projects on Tots in excess of 40,000 square feet
must be processed as Planned Developments in order to
receive a density bonus.
• Housing restricted to elderly, handicapped and very low and
low income residents shall be eligible for a density bonus
up to 100% of the units permitted by the land use
designation as shown on the land use plan or any specific
plan and incentives based on the State Density Bonus law.
• Town density bonuses will also be granted for residential
projects that actively facilitate and encourage use of transit
or directly provide transit services to residents.
• Concessions to the Town's density, traffic and parking
regulations may be granted for mixed -use projects that
provide residential units in non-residential zones.
• BMP (Below Market Price) units are not included when
calculating density bonuses for a property.
The Town will develop marketing materials that will ensure that
Town staff and developers are aware of the various features of the
density bonus program.
Time Frame:
2002-2003 Develop marketing materials
2002-June 30, 2006 Implement Program
Responsible Party: Community Development Department
3 Mr, Development Standards
Continue to review and, where feasible, reduce development
standards (e.g. parking requirements, open space requirements,
etc.) for housing developments that will guarantee affordable units
on a long-term basis for low and moderate -income households.
Time Frame: 2002-June 30, 2006
Responsible Party: Community Development Department
4 10 Mixed Use Developments
Encourage mixed -use developments that provide affordable
housing close to employment centers and/or transportation
facilities.
Time Frame: 2002-June 30, 2006
Responsible Party: Community Development Department
72
CHAPTER 8: HOUSI1 PROGRAM STRATEGY
5 EN Below Market Price (BUM) Program
Continue to implement the BMP Program in order to increase the
number of affordable units in the community. Continue policy that
BMP units are counted in addition to maximum density allowed on
a site. At the Housing Affordability Study Session in Fall 2002,
evaluate changing eligibility criteria to very low and low-income
households.
Time Frame:
Responsible Party:
Objective:
2002-June 30, 2006
Community Services Department
10-15 Total BMP Units from 2002-2006
6 Second Unit Program
Revise existing second unit program to encourage the production of
more second units on residential parcels. Evaluate existing
parking, square footage, transfer of credits and other requirements
to determine whether revisions would encourage the development
of more second units.
Time Frame:
2002-2003
2002-June 30, 2006
Responsible Party:
Objective:
Evaluate and Revise Program
Implement Program
Community Development Department
10 Total New Second Units from
2002-2006
7 El Consistency with Housing Element/Community Benefit
Continue policy that all approvals of residential developments of 3
or more units must include a finding that the proposed development
is consistent with the Town's Housing Element and addresses the
Town's housing needs as identified in the Housing Element.
Further, review of potential developments shall include a
determination that affordable units provided beyond the minimum
BMP requirements are to be considered as a significant community
benefit.
Time Frame: 2002-June 30, 2006
Responsible Party: Community Development Department
SEPTEMBER 2002
73
0
8 El
Annual Housing Report
Prepare an annual housing report for the review of the Town
Council including information on progress made towards achieving
new construction need, affordable housing conserved/developed,
effectiveness of existing programs and recommendations for
improvement. Consult with non-profit providers, special need
providers and other community resources in the preparation and
evaluation of the report.
Time Frame: 2002-June 30, 2006
Responsible Party: Community Development Department
POLICY IC: DEVELOP AND UTILIZE ALL AVAILABLE FUNDING RESOURCES IN ORDER To PROVIDE THE
MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING As FEASIBLE.
74
implementation Programs:
9 E Redevelopment Housing Set -Aside Funds/In-Lieu Fees
Develop a strategy for use of Redevelopment Housing Set -Aside
funds and In -Lieu fees from the BMP Program. Consider the needs
as identified in this Housing Element (e.g. Preservation of At Risk
Units, Development of Units Affordable to Very Low and Low -
Income Households, etc.) in the development of funding conditions
and incentives.
Time Frame:
2002- January, 2003
2002-June 30, 2006
Responsible Party:
Develop Funding Strategy
Implement Strategy
Redevelopment Agency
10 B Mortgage Credit Certificate (MCC) Program
Continue to encourage Los Gatos households to participate in MCC
and other financial assistance programs (e.g. Teacher Mortgage
Assistance) provided in the County of Santa Clara.
Time Frame: 2002-June 30, 2006
Responsible Party: County of Santa Clara
Objective: 5 Households Total Assisted from
2002-2006
CHAPTER 8: HOUSIN... PROGRAM STRATEGY
GOAL 2: PRESERVE EXISTING RESIDENTIAL OPPORTUNITIES AND ENCOURAGE
ADDITIONAL RESIDENTIAL USE THAT QS COMPATIBLE WITH
NEIGHBORHOOD AND CCrVIMUNITY.
POLICY 2A: ENCOURAGE THE MAINTENANCE AND IMPROVEMENT OF EXISTING HOUSING UNITS.
Implementation Programs:
11 El Housing Conservation Program
Continue to provide Housing Conservation Program assistance to
property owners to improve their housing units. Undertake the
following actions to increase program productivity:
• Conduct a housing condition survey in neighborhoods with
older housing stock.
• If needed, redesign program goals and objectives to
respond to results of housing condition survey.
• Redesign marketing materials and aggressively market
program to potential applicants.
Time Frame:
2002-2003
2002-June 30, 2006
Conduct housing condition
survey
Implement Program
Responsible Party: Community Services Department
Funding Source: CDBG Funds/Redevelopment Funds
Objective: 10-20 Units Total Rehabilitated from
2002-2006
12 Hme Access Prgram
Continue to support countywide programs, such as the Home
Access Program, which provides assistance with minor home
repairs and accessibility improvements for lower -income
households.
Time Frame: 2002-June 30, 2006
Responsible Party: County of Santa Clara
SEPTEMBER 2002
75
POLICY 2B: WHEN EVALUATING NEW DEVELOPMENTS, EVALUATE IMPACT OF DEVELOPMENT ON
TOWN'S JOBS/HOUSING RATIO.
Implementation Programs:
13 ' Jobs/Housing Balance
As part of the development review process, evaluate applications
that have significant number of jobs or housing in regard to the
potential impact on the Town's jobs/housing ratio. The objective is
to maintain the Town's 2002 ratio of 1.5 jobs per
household/housing unit. However, the jobs/housing balance shall
not be used as a criteria for denying projects that include affordable
housing opportunities.
Time Frame: 2002-June 30, 2006
Responsible Party: Community Development Department
Objective: Maintain 1.5 jobs to household/housing
unit ratio
POLICY 2C: ENCOURAGE RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION WHICH PROMOTES ENERGY CONSERVATION.
14 Energy Conservation Opportunities
Continue to enforce Title 24 requirements for energy conservation
and evaluate utilizing some of the other suggestions as identified in
Chapter 9 of this document.
Time Frame: 2002-June 30, 2006
Responsible Party: Community Development Department
15 E Weatherization Program
Support the weatherization program administered countywide by
the County of Santa Clara. This program assists very low-income
homeowners with weatherization improvements to their home.
Time Frame: 2002-June 30, 2006
Responsible Party: Community Development Department
76
CHAPTER 8: HOUSIh.. PROGRAM STRATEGY
GOB .L 3: PRESERVE THE EXISTING AFFORDABLE HOUSING STOCK
POLICY 3A: SUPPORT THE PRESERVATION AND CONSERVATION OF EXISTING HOUSING UNITS THAT
PROVIDE AFFORDABLE HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES FOR TOWN RESIDENTS AND WORKERS
AND STRIVE TO ENSURE THAT AT LEAST 30% OF THE HOUSING STOCK ARE RENTAL
UNITS.
Implementation Programs:
16 Mobile Home Preservation
Preserve existing mobile homes (150 mobile homes total) and
adopt mobile home park conversion policies to preserve existing
housing opportunities and to ensure the provision of affordable
units similar to the existing park's unit capacity.
Time Frame:
2002-2006
Responsible Party:
Objective:
Implement policies
Community Development Department
Preserve existing 150 mobile home
units.
17 M Preserve "At Risk" Affordable Housing Units
Monitor the 220 publicly assisted, multi -family housing units in the
Town to ensure that they retain their affordability status. These
developments include Villa Vasona, The Terraces, Open Doors,
Los Gatos Four Plex, 95 Fairview Plaza and the Los Gatos Creek
Village Apartments. Develop a strategy to retain affordability of
units at Villa Vasona, which is scheduled to have its Section 8
assistance expire in November 2004. Included in that strategy will
be a notification procedure for tenants that will be developed
cooperatively between the Town and the property owner.
Time Frame:
2002-June 30, 2006 Monitor Affordability Status of
Developments
September 2003 Complete strategy to retain
affordability status of Villa Vasona
Funding Sources: Redevelopment Housing Set -Aside
Funds, CDBG and/or HOME funds,
other Federal and State Funding
Resources
SEPTEMBER 2002 ��
Responsible Party:
Objective:
Community Development Department
and Redevelopment Agency
Preserve existing 220 units
of affordable, multi -family housing.
18 Rental Housing Conservation Program
The Town's existing multi -family, privately owned rental units provide
housing opportunities for households of varied income levels. The Town
will continue to implement Section 29.20.155 of the Zoning Ordinance
that addresses conversions of residential use. Specifically, Section
29.20.155(a) (2) that requires that any proposed conversion satisfy the
housing goals and policies as set forth in the General Plan.
Time Frame:
2002-June 30, 2006 Continue Implementation of
Conservation Policies
Responsible Party: Community Development Department
78
CHAPTER 8: HOUSINu PROGRAM STRATEGY
GOAL 4: ENSURE THAT ALL PERSONS HAVE EQUAL ACCESS TO HOUSING
OPPORTUNITIES
POLICY 4A: SUPPORT HOUSING PROGRAMS THAT PROTECT INDIVIDUALS' RIGHTS
Implementation Programs:
19 El Rental Dispute Resolution Program
Continue the administration of the Rental Dispute Resolution
Program and consider revisions as necessary to make the program
as effective as possible in protecting both tenants and landlords.
Time Frame: 2002-2006
Funding Source: Fees
Responsible Party: Community Services Department
20 111 Santa Clara County Fair Housing Consortium
Support the efforts of the Santa Clara County Fair Housing
Consortium, which includes the Asian Law Alliance, Mid -Peninsula
Citizens for Fair Housing, Project Sentinel and the Mental Health
Advocates Program. These organizations provide resources for
Los Gatos residents with tenant/landlord, housing discrimination
and fair housing concerns.
Time Frame: 2002-2006
Funding Source: County of Santa Clara Urban County Funds
Responsible Party: Santa Clara County Fair Housing Consortium
POLICY 4B: CONTINUE TO PROVIDE ASSISTANCE TO SERVICE PROVIDERS OF SPECIAL NEEDS
HOUSEHOLDS SUCH As SENIORS, DISABLED AND HOMELESS.
Implementation Programs:
21 M Support for Non -Profit Affordable Housing Providers
Recognize and support the efforts of non-profit affordable housing
organizations that provide housing services in Los Gatos.
Encourage the participation of these providers in developing
housing and meeting the affordable housing needs of Los Gatos
households. Non-profit groups will be invited to work cooperatively
SEPTEMBER 2002
79
with the Town in developing strategies and actions for affordable
housing, such as the Town's Fall 2002 affordable housing strategy
session and the Housing Element 2002-2006 Update process.
Time Frame: 2002-2006
Responsible Party: Community Development Department
22 E Homeless: Increased Range of Housing Opportunities
Continue to support the County of Santa Clara's "Continuum of
Care" plan to provide housing opportunities for homeless
households; including emergency shelters, transitional housing and
permanent affordable housing opportunities.
Time Frame: 2002-2006
Responsible Party: Community Development Department
23 Disabled: Remove Constraints and Encourage Accessible
Housing In Residential Developments
Continue to require "universal design" features in all new residential
developments. Conduct an evaluation of Town's zoning and
development requirements to ensure the removal of all constraints
to providing housing for people with disabilities.
Time Frame: 2002-2003: Conduct Evaluation
Responsible Party: Community Development Department
GOAL 5: PROVIDE ADEQUATE MANAGEMENT AND STAFFING OF AFFORDABLE
HOUSING FUNDS AND PROGRAMS
24 El Housing Management
Consider additional staff support for the management and planning
of housing programs and funding in the Town.
Time Frame:
2002-2003 Develop recommendation and plan for
additional staff support for housing.
Funding Source:
Responsible Party:
80
Redevelopment Housing Set Aside
Funds, Urban County funds
Community Development Department
and Redevelopment Agency
CHAPTER 8: HOUSING PROGRAM STRATEGY
LLJ
H
V
W
tG
0
o W O'O
0
Li N
r:
Z 0
O
N
of >-
`Co
ct
-
f z
rg
CL
z c�
o Z
p
g o
J
MODERATE
73 Units 1. Adequate Land Inventory
5. Below Market Rate program
6. Second Unit Program
10. Mortgage Credit Certificate
Program
11. Housing Conservation Program
16. Mobile Home Preservation
17. Preservation of "At Risk" Units
10-15 Units
10 Units
5 Units
10-20 Units Rehabilitated
150 Mobile Homes Preserved
220 Affordable Units Preserved
TYPE OF ACTIVITY
ADEQUATE
SITES
W
m C5 2
a z a
0 N et
0 0 0
_ c
Q
z
0 O
z a
f
o w
= z
0
PRESERVATION
OF•
AFFORDABLE
HOUSING
T"
CO
SEPTEMBER 2002
9. ENERGY CONSERVATION OPPORTUNITIES
ENERGY CONSERVAT 1 N AND RES1 ENTML
DEVELOPMENT
Energy conservation is achieved at both the local and individual level. During the
planning and development process, there are many opportunities for local
governments to support energy efficient models. Such proven methods include:
• Enforce the State of California Title 24 laws — state energy efficiency
standards for residential and nonresidential buildings. New subdivision
areas should adhere to the California Subdivision Map Act, which requires
consideration of maximum natural heating and cooling features, including
solar power. Additionally, building codes inspectors should be credentialed
from the California Building Officials Training Institute, ensuring they are
familiar with all energy efficiency models.
• Preserve and encourage planting trees in neighborhoods to provide shade
in summer and reduce heat Toss in winter. Successful methods include
placing trees to the west and northwest of houses to shade from the hot
summer sun and grouping trees to protect them from harsh elements and
support their longevity. Trees can reduce air temperatures 5-10° F from
shading and evapotranspiration (water in leaves converting into vapor,
cooling the air).
• Encourage energy efficient landscaping for resource conservation by
developing guidelines that emphasize proper irrigation techniques and
sustainable landscaping (organic fertilizers and pesticides).
• Consider light-colored surfacing on pavements and rooftops to reduce
heat absorption. New materials for shingled rooftops and paved roadways
are being developed that reflect more sunlight and last longer.
• In future street development, encourage narrower street widths to reduce
pavement area and allow more room for roadside trees and greenery.
• Work with builders and developers to place houses in optimal area on site,
with regard to sun and natural breezes.
• Promote the construction of energy efficient new homes with assistance
from the Energy Star Homes Program (supported by the EPA and DOE).
Energy Star homes reduce energy consumption by 30% by using energy
82
CHAPTER 9: _NERGY CONSERVATION
efficient lighting, ventilation, windows, and replacing electricity with natural
gas where appropriate.
• Provide incentives to retrofit older homes with energy efficient features
before resale or major remodeling.
• Encourage pool covers and solar pool heating systems in place of
conventional methods in residential areas.
• Encourage solar energy and other renewable resources.
ENERGY CONSERVATION AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Energy efficiency opportunities are an important consideration in
affordable housing planning and analysis. High energy costs for low-
income and fixed -income households directly affect the affordability
of both rental units and home ownership. As basic energy is an
inelastic housing cost, the ability to provide conservation assistance is
especially critical.
?i: /.?r�,:.'.il'��Y:.a1..f5:4.y v.?r,y •� 'R54�ea:r�srs,�. �•l.'�riT�{.: ":S+i.'�1`�
For individuals and households, there are programs available to help
conserve energy and reduce energy costs. The Town of Los Gatos can
promote and provide assistance for households to access the
following opportunities:
Low -Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP)
Low-income households (less than 60% of the State Median Income
Level) qualify for financial assistance and free housing renovations to
offset their energy costs. Funded by the Department of Health and
Human Services, the LIHEAP Block Grant provides two services,
weatherization assistance and financial assistance.
• The Weatherization Program provides homes with free
weatherization services to conserve energy, including attic
insulation, weather-stripping, minor housing repairs, and related
energy conservation measures_
• The Homes Energy Assistance Program (HEAP) provides
financial assistance to pay the energy bills. The average
payment within the State of California is $182 per household
per year.
SEPTEMBER 2002 83
Energy Efficient Mortgages (EEM)
Homebuyers that purchase energy efficient homes or renovate
houses to conserve energy qualify for special mortgage benefits
through EEMs. Determined by results from the Home Energy Rating
System (HERS), home loans may include energy improvement costs
reducing homeowner's utility bills. The California Home Energy
Efficient Rating System (CHEERS) is a local HERS and is supported by
PG&E, lending institutions, and building associations.
Relief for Energy Assistance Through Community Help (REACH)
Sponsored by Pacific Gas and Electric and administered by the
Salvation Army, REACH provides energy assistance to low-income
customers. Households that do not qualify for HEAP or another
alternative assistance program may receive a one-time payment aid
for energy costs. In the last 18 years, REACH has assisted 369,000
households in Northern California with more than $56 million in total
aid.
84
�a >:U LAC ti'ARTICIPAT ON
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROCESS
During the update of the 2002-2006 Housing Element, the Town encouraged the
participation of all economic segments of the community, especially lower -
income and special needs households. A brief description of that process is
included below:
1. Information to General Community
Public hearings on the draft 2002-2006 Housing Element were publicized
with a display ad in the local newspaper, the "Los Gatos Weekly Times."
Further, written information was posted at community meeting places
including the Library, Town Hall and Neighborhood Center.
Copies of the draft Housing Element document were also made available
at the community meeting places identified above. Further, the draft
document was also posted on the Town's web site.
2. Information to Special Needs and Lower Income Households
The Town conducted an outreach effort to those non-profit groups that
represented special need and lower income households in the community.
Written notices regarding the public hearings were sent to the non-profit
groups and representatives were invited to comment on the draft Housing
Element document. In addition, an outreach effort was made to local
churches and neighborhood groups. Finally, the Town's Community
Services Commission was encouraged to respond and comment on the
draft Housing Element also.
3. Public Comments/Responses to Draft Document
All public comments/responses to the draft Housing Element will be
summarized and included in the final copy of the 2002-2006 Housing
Element.
4. Public Review Time Line
May 8, 2002: General Plan Committee, Study Session on Draft Document
September 25, 2002: General Plan Committee , Review of Draft
Document
October 9, 2002: Planning Commission Public Hearing
October 21, 2002: Town Council Public Hearing
SEPTEMBER 2002
85
I i i o CONSISTENCY ITH GENERAL PLAN
At the time that the Housing Element was adopted (2002), the Housing Element
was consistent with other Elements of the current General Plan. However, at the
same time that the Housing Element was being revised in 2002, the Town was in
the process of updating the rest of the General Plan Dements.
During the 2002 General Plan Update process, the Town will review proposed
revisions to all Elements of the General Plan to determine whether they are
consistent with the 2002-2006 Housing Element. The Town will ensure that any
adopted revisions to the General Plan during the update process are consistent
with the 2002-2006 Housing Element.
During the 2002-2006 period of the Housing Element, the Town will also ensure
that any further revisions to the General Plan, Redevelopment Plan, Capital
Improvement Plan, and Zoning Ordinance are consistent with the adopted
Housing Element.
86
1 2. APPEN
DC ATER AL
A. Reference Materials/Organizations
B. Vacant Land Inventory: No Infrastructure Constraints
C. Underutilized Land Inventory: No Infrastructure Constraints
SEPTEMBER 2002
87
A. REFERENCE MATERMISIORGANiZATIONS
Area Agencies on Aging (Alameda County, Contra Costa County, Santa Clara
County, San Mateo County and San Francisco County), "Coming of Age in the
Bay Area," 1999
California Budget Project, "Locked Out: California's Affordable Housing Crisis",
May 2000
Housing California, The Long Wait: A Critical Shortage of Housing in California
April 2000
State of California, Department of Housing and Community Development
Raising the Roof: California Housing Development Projections and Constraints
May 2000
www.hcd.ca.gov/hpd/hrc/rtr/
State of California, Department of Housing and Community Development Pay to
Play 1999
www.hcd.ca.gov/hpd/hrc/rtr/
State of California, Department of Housing and Community Development The
State of California's Housing Markets 1990-97 January 1999
www.hcd.ca.gov/hpd/hrc/plan/shp
Town of Los Gatos, "Five Year Affordable Housing Production Plan, July 1, 1999-
June 30, 2004"
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG)
vwwv.abag.ca.gov
State of California, Department of Finance
www.dof.ca.gov
State of California, Department of Housing and Community Development
www.hcd.ca.gov
State of California, Department of Rehabilitation
www.dor.ca.gov
State of California, Employment Development Department
www.edd.ca.gov
88
<0
Mr-
N
Uri
O
A
y,
'a .--,
vs 1:3
>
a 2
ag
a a
(O
ci
LC)
O
ti
p
(0
O
(O
O
(0
O
CO
O
M
e-
cv
rj
N
m rli
>,- C
U U O
Q7
>
c C
O OU
O 0 O
01
.J U U
Single-, two- and
multiple family units;
Residential condo;
Same as above,
except no apartment
hotel or boarding
house
Same as above plus
apartment hotel and
boarding house
Same as above plus
apartment hotel and
boardin house
Same as above
except no apartment
hotel.
TOTAL
Single-family dwelling; Two-
family dwelling; Small family day
care home; Residential care
facility.
Office, administrative,
professional, medical, dental,
optical and other professional
non -retail uses.
Retail, personal service, limited
manufacturing associated with
on -site sales.
Same as above, plus office
activities and single-family and
two-family in conjunction with
other permitted uses.
Commercial service, retail uses
Light industrial uses
Medium Density
5-12 units per acre
5-20 units per acre
12-20 units per acre
Office Professional; Public
Neighborhood Commercial
Central Business District
Highway Commercial
Light Industrial; Service
Commercial
4-
V
w
,.y)
,- 0
ttf
u++
y
Q 'a
y
��
N
r
O
N
6
fi
N
N
Non- Residential
Districts
0
N--N
U
U
U
-J
1
1-
Z
1-
Z
0
U
LLd
CZ
F"
u
D
re
LL.
A
Z
ce
0
LLd
4
ESTIMATED
UNITS
N
to
N'1
0
T
T
^
--
Same as above 0.18 1
Same as above 6.54 33-78
# OF ACRES
N
N
N
112.98
1.0
O)
N
22.46
a-
0
LA
i
N
0
CONDITIONAL USES
Public buildings,
schools; parks; golf
courses; churches;
private recreation;
large group homes
Same as above
Same as above
Same as above
Same as above
Same as above
Same as above
Same as above
PERMITTED USES
Single-family detached dwelling
per lot; small -family day home,
Agriculture, except commercial
greenhouses, nurseries
Same as above
Same as above
Same as above
Same as above
Same as above
Same as above
Same as above
Single-family dwelling; Two-
family dwelling; Small family day
care home; Residential care
facility.
IZONING GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION
Hillside Residential
Hillside Residential
Hillside Residential
Low Density. 0-5
Low Density, 0-5
Low Density, 0-5
Low Density, 0-5
Medium Density
0-5 units per acre
5-12 units per acre
Single Family
Residential District
NR-1
t
(4
. i
1.0
th
i
CP
T
0
T
T
th
N
T
T
th
0
N
T
N
One and Two Family
Residence District
RD
R1-D (Downtown Zone)
C. UNDERUTILIZED LAND INVENTORY: NO INFRASTRUCTURE CONSTRAINTS
0
.2 sa .
w -o-
O
N
O
to
O
a-
to
CN!
20 l
20.37
I-(")
(.0
6
N
4
in
T—
V
00
Q
Q
O
,—
0
.-
00
0 0
000
0 0 0
O
O
O
O
Public buildings,
schools; parks; golf
courses; churches;
private recreation;
large group homes
Same as above
Same as above
Same as above
Same as above
Same as above
Same as above
Same as above
Same as above
Same as above
Large recycling
collection facilities;
condo conversion
Single-, two- and
multiple family units;
Residential condo;
Same as above,
except no apartment
Single-family detached dwelling
per lot; small -family day home,
Agriculture, except commercial
greenhouses, nurseries
Same as above
Same as above
Same as above
Same as above
Same as above
Same as above
Same as above
Single-family dwelling; Two-
family dwelling; Small family day
care home; Residential care
facility.
Single-family dwelling; Two-
family dwelling; Small family day
care home; Residential care
facility,
Office, administrative,
professional, medical, dental,
optical and other professional
non -retail uses.
Retail, personal service, limited I
manufacturing associated with
General Plan
Designations
Hillside Residential
Hillside Residential
Hillside Residential
Low Density, 0-5
Low Density, 0-5
Low Density, 0-5
Low Density, 0-5
Medium Density
0-5 units per acre
5-12 units per acre
Medium Density
5-12 units per acre
5-20 units per acre
12-20 units per acre
Office Professional; Public
Neighborhood Commercial
Single Family
Residential District
e-
22Zricith
in
nj
Lc)c.o.
O
7
N
7
0
N
th
One and Two Family
Residence District
RD
R1-D (Downtown Zone)
Multiple Family
Residential District
R-M: 5-12
R-M: 5-20
R-M: 12-20
Non- Residential
Districts
0
C.S
ITOTAL "15 f Alti
O
O
c
T
O
W
o
c
c
hotel or boarding
house
Same as above plus
apartment hotel and
boarding house
Same as above plus
apartment hotel and
boarding house
Same as above
except no apartment
hotel.
on -site sales.
Same as above, plus office
activities and single-family and
two-family in conjunction with
other permitted uses.
Same as above, except no
residential unless by conditional
use permit.
C-2 Central Business District
CH Commercial Highway
LM Low Density Manufacturing:
Light Industrial
Open Space; Agriculture,
Mixed Use Commercial (North
Forty Areal
0
CC
RESOLUTION 2002- 178
RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL
OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
UPDATING THE HOUSING ELEMENT
OF THE LOS GATOS GENERAL PLAN BY ADOPTING
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT GP-02-01
AND REPEALING RESOLUTION 1997-56.
WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code Section 65355, the Town Council conducted
a public hearing for consideration of an update to the Housing Element of the Los Gatos General
Plan on November 12, 2002; and
WHEREAS, during this hearing, the Town Council considered General Plan Amendment
GP-02-01 for the Housing Element update; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and recommended adoption
of the element on October 23, 2002; and
WHEREAS, the General Plan Committee recommended adoption of the element on
September 25, 2002; and
WHEREAS, the Town has in good faith worked with the State Department of Housing and
Community Development in addressing concerns to comply with Government Code Section 65580
et seq; and
WHEREAS, it is anticipated that the State will find the Housing Element in compliance with
Government Code Section 65580 et seq, and will certify the element in November 2002 following
adoption of the element by the Town Council; and
RESOLVED, that the Town Council adopts the Housing Element (attached hereto and
marked as Exhibit A) as part of the Los Gatos General Plan (General Plan Amendment GP-02-01)
and recinds Town Council Resolution 1997-56.
FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Town Council finds that the amendment to the General
Plan will not have a significant environmental impact and makes the Negative Declaration.
FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Town Council finds that the Housing Element update is
internally consistent with the various elements of the General Plan
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a special meeting of the Town Council held on the 12`' day
of November, 2002, by the following vote:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
AYES: Sandy Decker, Steve Glickman, Joe Pirzinski,
Mayor Randy Attaway
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Steven Blanton
ABSTAIN: None
SIGNED:
ATTEST:
ciA
CLERK OF THE TOWN OF LOS1fiATOS
LOS GATOS. CALIFORNIA
MAYOR OF TOWN OS GATOS
LOS GATO , CALIFO
2
Town Council Minutes November 11, 2002
Redevelopment Agency Los Gatos, California
GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT/RESOLUTION 2002-178/PUBLIC HEARING (02.38)
Mayor Attaway announced that this was the time and place so noted for public hearing to consider
a revised Housing Element of the General Plan for the Town of Los Gatos. No significant
environmental impacts have been identified as a result of this project, and a Negative Declaration is
recommended. General Plan Amendment GP-02-01. Negative Declaration ND-02-03. Applicant:
Town of Los Gatos.
Bud Lortz, Community Development Director, gave an overview of the work that has been done to
prepare the revised Housing Element of the General Plan. He spoke of meeting the State
requirements in order to achieve compliance and certification.
Melanie Schaffer-Frietas, Planning Consultant, gave an overview of the Housing Element update
process and issues involved with compliance with State Law.
The following people from the audience addressed this issue:
Chris Ray, Board Member for Project Match, supplies Senior Group Residences within this program.
They develop single family homes into efficient and cost effective affordable housing for seniors with
low incomes. This program keeps seniors in neighborhood settings, reduces loneliness issues,
strengthens socialization opportunities, offers case management services, and helps keep seniors
independent for as long as possible.
Bob Campbell, Executive Director for Project Match, spoke of partnerships with local jurisdictions
foundations, housing trusts, and private donations. They locate bargain homes in the community and
re-hab them for the needs of the program and participants.
Bill Hirschman, asked Council to make a commitment to making affordable housing more available
in our community and to discontinue attempts to circumvent the States mandates for municipalities
to plan for and supply affordable housing in their jurisdictions.
No one else from the audience addressed this subject.
Motion by Mr. Glickman, seconded by Mr. Pirzynski, to close the public hearing. Carried
unanimously.
Council Comments:
Mrs. Decker spoke of the work that has been done over the years in support of these programs so that
the Town is in compliance with the State mandates. Mr. Lortz explained the process that has been
followed and noted issues that would be addressed to make the process more easily followed.
Mr Pirzynski spoke of the senior community and of being aware of the changing demographics and
the ability to keep abreast of these figures. Mr. Lortz explained the issues that are being studied by
the Community Development Department in the attempt to keep a current portfolio of available
affordable housing units in both the purchasable and rental programs.
Motion be Mr. Glickman, seconded by Mr. Pirzynski, to close the public hearing. Carried by a vote
of 4 ayes. Mr. Blanton absent.
N:1CLK\A MARIAN'S FILE1MM111202-Special-Architectural Review Process and Hong Element.wpd
Town Council Minutes November 11, 2002
Redevelopment Agency Los Gatos, California
GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT/RESOLUTION 2002-178/PUBLIC HEARING/CONT.
Motion by Mr. Attaway, seconded by Mr. Pirzynski, that Council finds the Housing Element Update
is internally consistent with the General Plan, making the Negative Declaration and adopting
Resolution 2002-178 entitled, RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS UPDATING
THE HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE LOS GATOS GENERAL PLAN BY ADOPTING THE
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT GP-02-01 AND REPEALING RESOLUTION 1997-56.
Carried by a vote of 4 ayes. Mr. Blanton absent.
COUNCIL MATTERS (03.28)
Newly elected Council Members:
Mayor Attaway congratulated the winners of the election who are Mr. Pirzynski, Ms McNutt and Mr.
Wasserman.
Flag Poles in the Town Plaza:
Mayor Attaway noted that the subject of the newly placed flag poles in the Town Plaza would be
placed on a future agenda for further Council discussion and consideration.
MANAGER MATTERS (04.28)
DOWNTOWN STREET REPAIR PLANS FOR SANTA CRUZ AVENUE (04.41)
John Curtis, Public Works Director, discussed the option of an interim street resurfacing project
between Main and Elm and asked Council's consideration as to how to proceed given the business
community's support and good weather.
Council Consensus to move forward with the project after the holiday season. Council would also
like staff to work closely with the business community on the timing of the project.
ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Attaway closed this evening's meeting at 8:30 p.m.
ATTEST
Petra Baker
Deputy Town Clerk
tsI:1CLK\A MARIAN'S FILE IMM 111202-Special-Architectural Review Process and [bang Element.wpd
11:
_ „ •
. • • .• .
•
•
. . '
. • 7
• ".
s • • 11;:rr, •
=
'• -
•
';-t-z • •