Item2.Staff Report with Attachments 1 and 2
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: 09/15/2022
ITEM NO: 2 TOWN OF LOS GATOS
HOUSING ELEMENT ADVISORY BOARD REPORT
DATE: September 9, 2022
TO: Housing Element Advisory Board
FROM: Joel Paulson, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Receive Public Comments on the Initial Public Review Draft 2023-2031 Housing
Element
BACKGROUND:
On August 18, 2022, the Housing Element Advisory Board (HEAB) discussed and reviewed the
Initial Public Review Draft of the 2023-2031 Housing Element and provided staff the following
direction and modifications:
1. Incorporate the suggestions provided in the August 18, 2022, Desk Item Report by
Commissioner Janoff;
2. Add additional context to the introduction section which outlines that the Housing Element
Update process is a State requirement and list the implication s for not complying;
3. Add an Implementation Program to support the creation of affordable housing on land
owned by religious institutions; and
4. Add an Implementation Program to provide the community education on the housing
needs.
The following edits to the Initial Public Review Draft were also identified by staff in the August
17, 2022, Addendum Report:
1. Create a glossary and acronyms;
2. Describe 2040 General Plan policies and programs regarding housing production within the
introduction chapter;
3. Modify Implementation Program AH to include all text;
4. Modify the narrative for Site E-1 on page D-22 to state that the density is 13 dwelling units
per acre;
5. Modify the narrative for Sites E-2 through E-7 on pages D-23 through D-28 to state that the
density is 20 dwelling units per acre;
6. Modify Table D-3 of Appendix D:
PAGE 2 OF 3
SUBJECT: Receive Public Comments on the Initial Public Review Draft 2023-2031
Housing Element
DATE: September 9, 2022
N:\DEV\HEAB\2021-2023\HEAB Staff Reports and Attachments\2022\09-15-2022\Item 2 - Initial Public Review Draft\Item2.Staff Report.docx
BACKGROUND (continued):
a. Modify the total number of units for Site A-2;
b. Modify the total number of units and income distribution for Site E-1;
c. Modify the income distribution for Sites E-2 through E-7; and
d. Modify the resulting income distributions provided in the subtotal of the table.
7. Modify Table D-3 of Appendix D to add a row to the subtotal section for Senate Bill 9
housing unit projections.
Both the Board’s direction and staff’s edits have been incorporated into the following sections of
the Initial Draft of the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update:
• Section 10.1, Introduction;
• Section 10.2, Overview of Housing Needs and Constraints;
• Section 10.3, Site Inventory and Opportunities;
• Section 10.4, Energy and Resource Conservation;
• Section 10.5, Goals and Polices;
• Section 10.6, Implementation Programs;
• Appendix A, Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Reports;
• Appendix B, Housing Needs Assessment;
• Appendix C, Governmental and Non-Governmental Constraints; and
• Appendix D, Vacant and Available Sites.
DISCUSSION:
On August 29, 2022, the Initial Public Review Draft of the 2023-2031 Housing Element was
made available for public review. Written comments on the Initial Public Review Draft can be
submitted through September 27, 2022, by 5:00 p.m. The full document can be viewed at
EngageLosGatosHousing.com.
A 30-day public comment period, followed by at least 10 business days to consider and
incorporate public comments is required before the Town can submit the Initial Draft Housing
Element to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for
preliminary review. The purpose of this meeting is to receive comments on the document from
the public, in addition to further Board member comments.
Attachment 1 contains comments from Board Member Mannina received after the 11:00 a.m.
Desk Item Report deadline for the August 18, 2022, HEAB meeting.
PAGE 3 OF 3
SUBJECT: Receive Public Comments on the Initial Public Review Draft 2023-2031
Housing Element
DATE: September 9, 2022
N:\DEV\HEAB\2021-2023\HEAB Staff Reports and Attachments\2022\09-15-2022\Item 2 - Initial Public Review Draft\Item2.Staff Report.docx
NEXT STEPS:
The public comment period on the Initial Public Review Draft of the Housing Element ends on
September 27, 2022, at 5:00 p.m., followed by at least 10 business days to consider and
incorporate public comments prior to submittal to HCD for their first preliminary review.
Currently, HCD has communicated that the first review can take up to 90 days to complete.
Following HCD review, an updated draft Housing Element addressing HCD comments will be
prepared. Once the draft Housing Element has been updated to address HCD comments, it will
be scheduled for further review by the Board at a future meeting.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Attachment 2 includes public comments received between 11:01 a.m., Thursday, August 18,
2022, and 11:00 a.m. on Friday, September 9, 2022.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Board Member Comments
2. Public Comments received between 11:01 a.m., Thursday, August 18, 2022, and 11:00 a.m.
on Friday, September 9, 2022
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
From: Joe Mannina <>
Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2022 11:45 AM
To: Jennifer Armer <JArmer@losgatosca.gov>
Cc: Erin Walters <EWalters@losgatosca.gov>; Joel Paulson <jpaulson@losgatosca.gov>; Jocelyn
Shoopman <jshoopman@losgatosca.gov>
Subject: Re: Comments on Draft Goals, Policies and Implementation Programs
Hello, see below for a few comments and sorry again for the delay however i was on vacation for the
past week.
1) As a follow up to item 11 below, should order of "implements which policies" column be in
numerical order or in order of relevance? If numerical, sections S,V,W,X,AI and AM should be
reordered.
2) As a follow up to item 12 below, there is still no reference to water conservation however but many
references to resource conservation?
3) AFFH pg A5: Bullet point regarding mortgage denial rates is irrelevant and misleading. Consider
striking it entirely since it downplays an historic national problem that minorities have had getting
mortgages approved.
4) Page 10-32 Section O: Consider changing the word "Establish" to "Evaluate" from title (Establish
A Commercial Linkage Fee).
Hope this helps and look forward to further discussion tonight.
Thanks for all of your help.
Joe Mannina
ATTACHMENT 1
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
ATTACHMENT 2
From: Phil Koen <>
Sent: Sunday, September 4, 2022 11:03 AM
To: Housing Element <HEUpdate@losgatosca.gov>
Cc: Jocelyn Shoopman <jshoopman@losgatosca.gov>; Joel Paulson <jpaulson@losgatosca.gov>
Subject: HE Public comment
Please see the attached document which is page H1-1 from the city of Redwood City’s housing element.
I inadvertently attached the entire Housing Element document to my prior email when I intended to
only send this one page.
I apologize.
Phil Koen
From: Phil Koen <>
Sent: Sunday, September 4, 2022 10:55 AM
To: Housing Element <HEUpdate@losgatosca.gov>
Cc: Jocelyn Shoopman <jshoopman@losgatosca.gov>; Joel Paulson <jpaulson@losgatosca.gov>
Subject: HE Public Comment
In reviewing the Housing Element public draft, Table B-1 on page B-3 does not show the Town’s
estimated population through 2040. Please see the attached document from the City of Redwood City
which was included in their draft 6th Cycle Housing Element.
To provide the public with a complete view and understanding of the estimated population growth,
schedule B-1 should be updated to include the California Department of Finances estimate for the
Town’s 2040 population as reported in the E-5 series.
For ease of reference, the estimated 2040 population for Los Gatos and Santa Clara County are 31,635
and 1,986,340 respectively.
No where in the draft Housing Element is there a projection for the Town’s 2040 population. Since the
Housing Element is an integral part of the 2040 General Plan update, a 2040 projection should be
included to conform with the General Plans 20 year time frame.
Thank you,
Phil Koen
Sent from my iPhone
From: Phil Koen <>
Sent: Sunday, September 4, 2022 10:12 AM
To: Jocelyn Shoopman <jshoopman@losgatosca.gov>; Housing Element <HEUpdate@losgatosca.gov>
Cc: Erin Walters <EWalters@losgatosca.gov>; Jennifer Armer <JArmer@losgatosca.gov>; Joel Paulson
<jpaulson@losgatosca.gov>; Gabrielle Whelan <GWhelan@losgatosca.gov>
Subject: Re: Town of Los Gatos 6th Cycle 2023-2031 Initial Public Review Draft Housing Element Now
Available For Review
Hello Ms. Shoopman,
In reviewing the Initial Public Review Draft Housing Element, it appears the document is incomplete and
contains known errors which were not corrected prior to releasing for public comment.
My question is why has the Town released an incomplete document for public review? How can the
public be properly informed if this draft document contains known errors and omissions? What is the
standard of completeness and accuracy that Town used to determine the draft is actually ready for
public comment?
Thank you.
Phil Koen
Sent from my iPhone
From: Phil Koen <>
Sent: Sunday, September 4, 2022 9:52 AM
To: Housing Element <HEUpdate@losgatosca.gov>
Subject: Fwd: Agenda item #2 - HEAB Meeting August 18, 2022
I am submitting these comments because the public draft HE has not been fully corrected. These
comments were originally submitted on August 17, 2022 to the HEAB.
Thank you.
Phil Koen
Email:
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: Phil Koen <>
Date: August 17, 2022 at 4:47:00 PM GMT+1
To: wwood@losgatosca.gov, Joel Paulson <jpaulson@losgatosca.gov>, , "Rick Van
Hoesen " <>
Cc: Laurel Prevetti <LPrevetti@losgatosca.gov>, gwhelan@losgatosca.gov
Subject: Agenda item #2 - HEAB Meeting August 18, 2022
Dear Members of the HEAB,
Please accept the following comments on the Draft 2023 – 2031 Housing Element
1. Page B-10: The comment at the bottom of the page referencing Figure B-8 and discussing jobs per
employed ratio is incorrect. Figure B-8 shows Jobs-Household ratio and not Jobs-Employed Resident
ratio. Additionally, the comment that the Town of Los Gatos is a “net importer of workers” is misleading.
The Town is a “net importer of workers” only in the low wage category. At the high wage category, the
Town is a “net exporter of workers”. There is a bar bell distribution by wage category and care needs to
be exercised in explaining this distribution. Lastly, the comment that the jobs per employed resident
ratio has increased from 1.32 in 2002 to 1.59 in 2018 is factually incorrect. These are the numbers of
Jobs-Household ratio from schedule POPEMP-13 not the numbers for jobs per employed resident ratio.
2. Page D – 2: Table D-2 has not been completed, yet the data is available in the site inventory analysis.
There are a total of 179 pending units which can be applied to the RHNA. In addition, the Town can
credit the 200 planned ADU toward the RHNA. This brings the remaining RHNA units to 1,913 which
includes a 15% buffer.
3. Pages D-22 – D-30: These pages discuss sites that were previously used in the 5th cycle. According to
the HCD Site Inventory Guidebook, for sites that were used in a prior housing element planning period, a
program requiring rezoning within three years of the beginning of the planning period to allow
residential use by right at specified densities for housing development in which at least 20 percent of
the units are affordable to lower income households must be included in the Housing Element. Does this
requirement apply to these sites?
4. Pages D-40 – D-44: Attached please find an example of the site inventory prepared by the City of
Sunnyvale. Sunnyvale has included in their inventory analysis a realistic buildout density based on
development standards, market trends and recent development to calculate capacity. This complies
with HCD’s requirements to demonstrate that the projected development is likely to occur. Additionally,
the Sunnyvale analysis also includes a redevelopment likelihood which further informs the reader of the
suitability of the identified sites. The Town’s analysis does not contain any such analysis and therefore
most likely overstates the development capacity. Would it be prudent for the Town to revisit the site
selection inventory and include realistic buildout density and redevelopment likelihood in the analysis?
5. Pages D-40 – D-44: It is not clear from these tables if the Town is relying on nonvacant sites to
accommodate 50 percent or more of the RHNA for lower income households. If the Town is relying on
nonvacant sites to accommodate 50 percent or more of its RHNA for lower income households, the
nonvacant site’s existing use is presumed to impede additional residential development, unless the
housing element describes findings based on substantial evidence that the use will likely be
discontinued during the planning period. Has the HEAB been able to determine if the Town is relying on
50 percent or more of the identified nonvacant sites to accommodate RHNA for lower income
households?
6. Page E-3: Table E-1 states for program 1.2 that the Town amended the Town Code to address this
program. While the Town Code was amended, it does not appear that it was amended as specified in
the program 1.2 and further detailed by the Enhanced Second Unit Program on page 19 of the 2015-
2023 Housing Element. The enhanced second unit program for Hillside Residentially zoned lots 5 acres
and greater required “as a prerequisite for obtaining approvals in the Second Unit Program expanded
area, participating homeowners would be required to record a deed restriction on the title record of
properties specifying that the second unit shall be offered at a reduced rent that is affordable to a lower
income renter (i.e. less than 80 percent of AMI) if the unit is occupied by someone other than a member
of the household”. At that time, the Town did not allow second units on any non-conforming residential
lots or in hillside areas. In exchange for allowing such second units, the participating homeowner would
be required to record a deed restriction. The amended Town Code does not appear to include this
prerequisite. The Town Attorney should review the amended Town Code to verify the accuracy of
program 1.2 results.
Lastly, we wish to inform the HEAB as of yesterday afternoon the Los Gatos Community Alliance
delivered to the Town Clerk 3,417 signatures on 159 petitions regarding a Referendum Against a
Resolution Passed by the Town Council. The required number of signatures based upon 10% of 21,978
registered voters is 2,198. 3,147 signatures exceed the minimum number of signatures required in order
to qualify for filing said petition.
Given this development, the HEAB may wish to reconsider the site inventory analysis and include a
rezoning program for the specific sites identified in the site inventory that will allow for development
potential consistent with the Town’s RHNA requirements. We have attached an example of a rezoning
program that was included in the City of Saratoga’s draft Housing Element for your consideration.
We want to thank the HEAB for their hard work and dedication in assisting the Town in preparing the
6th cycle Housing Element.
Thank you for considering our comments.
Los Gatos Community Alliance
From: Mary Pope-Handy <>
Sent: Monday, August 29, 2022 4:51 PM
To: Housing Element <HEUpdate@losgatosca.gov>
Subject: Comments on the LOS GATOS HOUSING ELEMENT
Hello Community Development Department,
Thank you for the time and hard work put into the Los Gatos Housing Element. We do need more
housing, particularly affordable housing, in our town.
I'd like to suggest that in addition to adding residential units, we factor in the health impacts of various
potential locations for housing. A number of the locations specified in the draft are up against busy
streets or even freeways. These locations have health risks associated with them and it would be better
if those areas were not homes.
The EPA has a publication on these health risks (please click on link to get the EPA report). Additional
links:
Living near major roads linked to risk of dementia, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's and MS University of British
Columbia- ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 23 January 2020.
Living near busy road stunts children's lung growth, study says - article in The Guardian (British
publication), with links to the academic studies
Kids living near major roads at higher risk of developmental delays - (American study) ScienceDaily.com
April 9, 2019
Living Near Highways and Air Pollution - Lung.org by the American Lung Association
We do have other options for housing. For example, rather than putting townhomes at Blossom Hill and
Harwood, but them at Harwood and Almond Blossom, where there's far less traffic. Right now there's a
small, empty school sitting there that would be better as a few residences.
The town could also incentivize putting two homes on one lot, or turning a house into a duplex, by
providing tax breaks or other assistance.
It would also make sense to add housing over single story strip malls, particularly as they would be more
set back from busy roads than a gas station would be.
In real estate, the most important factor is always location. We should not aspire to build homes in
locations that are likely to have long term, negative consequences to the health of their occupants. If
homes must be built in those locations, mitigation efforts should include robust air purifiers and sound
buffers such as triple pane windows.
Sincerely,
Mary Pope-Handy
Town resident and Realtor
Mary Pope-Handy
REALTOR®, ABR, AHWD, CIPS, CRS, SRES
|
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank