Item2.DeskItem with Attachment 9
PREPARED BY: ERIN WALTERS AND JOCELYN SHOOPMAN
Associate Planner and Associate Planner
110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● 408-354-6832
www.losgatosca.gov
MEETING DATE: 07/07/2022
ITEM NO: 2
DESK ITEM TOWN OF LOS GATOS
HOUSING ELEMENT ADVISORY BOARD REPORT
DATE: July 7, 2022
TO: Housing Element Advisory Board
FROM: Joel Paulson, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Continue the Review and Discussion of the Draft Goals, Policies, and Programs.
REMARKS:
Attachment 9 contains information provided by a Board Member.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachments Previously Received with the June 16, 2022, Staff Report:
1. Draft Appendix Housing Needs Assessment
2. Draft Appendix Review of Previous Housing Element
3. 2021 Annual Progress Report to HCD
4. Draft Goals, Polices, and Implementation Programs
Attachments Received with the July 7, 2022 Staff Report:
5. Draft Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Assessment Data
6. HEAB Member Comment
Attachments Received with the July 6, 2022 Addendum:
7. Information Provided by a Board Member
8. Public Comments received between 11:01 a.m., Friday, July 1, 2022 and 11:00 a.m.,
Tuesday, July 5, 2022.
Attachments Received with this Desk Item:
9. Information Provided by a Board Member
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
From: Kathryn Janoff >
Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2022 5:35 PM
To: Erin Walters <EWalters@losgatosca.gov>; Jocelyn Shoopman <jshoopman@losgatosca.gov>
Cc: Melanie Hanssen <>; Jennifer Armer <JArmer@losgatosca.gov>; Joel
Paulson <jpaulson@losgatosca.gov>
Subject: Comments on incorporating good material from approved plans into LG's HE
EXTERNAL SENDER
Hi, Erin and Jocelyn:
I'm hoping you can distribute this as a desk item, if not sooner!
Thanks so much,
Kathryn
To the HEAB:
My apologies for sending this as a desk item. But I wanted to get these thoughts on "paper" to you
because it's so much easier to follow than verbal comments. I hope!
General comments
I found the approved plans to be relatively more in-depth than the LG plan. Based on the three
approved plans from Encinitas, Yoruba Linda (YL) and Folsom, it would appear that HCD doesn’t expect
cookie cutter plans. In these three plans, organization of goals, policies and programs is different, but
the details in the goals, policies and programs is consistently thorough. Los Gatos' draft seems light by
comparison (although many of the goals, policies and programs are similar, topically).
I would conclude our organization of goals, policies and programs is okay. But we need to more clear in
goals and policies and much more detailed and in-depth for the programs. Again, our programs read
very general and light compared to both Yoruba Linda and Folsom programs.
Having said that, I would like the HEAB to consider a separate goal on removing government barriers. A
goal on this topic is in all three approved plans, as well as in Campbell and Saratoga draft plans. I
recommend LG does the same. Pull out the policies related to barriers and consider adding those that
work for LG from the YL and Folsom HEs. See YL policies 4.1 (flexible design standards), 4.2 (objective
standards and 4.4 (efficient development processing)
Many policies and programs from YL and Folsom appear to relate to LG, and could borrowed from to
augment and strengthen LG's HE.
Last general comment, Folsom has a program to deal with negative community attitudes (program H-
10). That might be worth discussing for LG's plan.
*************************
Specific comments:
Under LG Goal HE-1:
Consider adding a policy to encourage development at high end of density range (Folsom policy H-1.3)
ATTACHMENT 9
Move HE-1.5 to new goal reducing governmental barriers
Program A: insider adding lot consolidation (YL program 8a) and see more in-depth language Folsom H-
14
Add program to change zoning (see YL program 8) or state somewhere that the new GP up-zones for
denser housing
Consider adding programs to detail specific sites (see Folsom H-14, H-15)
Consider inclusionary housing fees study (Folsom H-9)
Consider removing program H. The commitment by the town should be obvious in the programs (and
this type of focus on staff policy or program generally isn’t in the approved plans).
Program F: consider administrative adjustment process for setbacks (YL program 17) also add more in-
depth language (see YL program 21)
Program G: prioritize infrastructure for affordable housing (Folsom H-18)
Program H: Add more in-depth language. See YL programs 10 (mixed use overlay) and 15 (development
stds and processing procedures) and 19 (SB 35 streamlining) or describe how the new GP supports (in
detail). Also Folsom program H-8 (objective standards for multi-family housing)
HE-2: Preserve, conserve, maintain, improve existing housing stock. These are various terms used in the
approved plans.
HE-2.2 insert: acquisition and improvement
Consider adding policies for code enforcement and preservation of residential buildings with historic or
architectural value (H-4.1 and H-4.2)
Program K (or new) consider adding discussion of govt code 65583.2. Both Folsom (throughout their HE)
and YL, (particular Program 4) cover this code.
New: residential rehab assistance (YL program 1)
Program L: beef up. See YL program 22
Program M: YL program 22, objective qualifications for assistance
Also, consider adding housing choice vouchers (Folsom H-20)
Program N, “Town funding from its BMP monies may contribute. . .” Seems weak
HE-3
HE-3.4 doesn’t seem to belong in this goal, which addresses new housing.
HE-3.5 move to new goal govt barriers
HE 3.6, 3.7, is senior a subset of special needs? Combine?
Consider new policy on repurposing commercial buildings (YL policy 3.3)
Consider adding language about smart growth (see Folsom H-7.2)
Consider adding policies on Housing for large families and permanent supportive housing (Folsom H-5.8
and H-5.9)
Consider Housing options for seniors to remain independent as long as possible and Hmeles housing and
services (YL policies 5.4 and 5.5)
HE-3 programs, consider adding:
Create additional low income housing capacity (Folsom H-2)
Establish standards for transit-oriented development (Folsom H-3)
Program P: More depth needed. See YL program 23
Program Q: More depth needed. See Folsom programs H-4 through H-6, YL programs 12 and 3 yr
requirement to change deed restricted low rents. Consider adding language that "promotes building of
ADUs." (YL Policy 3.7)
Program R: More depth needed.
See YL program 16 and Folsom program H-3
Add Folsom H-12 incentives to build affordable housing
Add Folsom H-7 development impact and permit fees
Program S: More depth needed.
Consider language detail (YL program 9)
Consider adding program for congregational overlay (YL policy 3.5 and program 11)
Program X: consider zoning text amendments (YL program 18)
Goal HE-4: we discussed last meeting, but I would still recommend weaving these concepts into policies
and programs throughout, connecting them more specifically. Approved YL, Folsom and Encinitas do
this.
Include the concept of "Universal design" (YL policy 5.2)
Program AE: see better and detailed language at YL program 7
HE-5
Alternative language: Promote equality in housing options for all residents, including special needs
populations." (YL Goal 5)
Policy HE-5.1: consider expanding (see Folsom H-6.1)
In HE-5 policies, consider adding balance of housing and infill opportunities (Folsom H-6.3 and H-6.4)
Program AF: consider expanding (Folsom H-10) and maybe combining with program AJ
AFFH is too subtly covered. YL has a goal related to AFFH. The other approved plans do not, but cover
AFFH obviously and thoroughly. Consider adding program (see YL program 20)
And consider adding policy or program to pursue govt funding grants for affordable housing (Folsom H-
22)
consider adding "expand existing affordable housing developments" (Folsom H-23)
And Folsom H-24 through H-28 do a good job of addressing maintaining affordable housing.