Loading...
Item2.Memorandum with Attachment 11 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: 12/01/2022 ITEM NO: 2 TOWN OF LOS GATOS HOUSING ELEMENT ADVISORY BOARD REPORT DATE: November 23, 2022 TO: Housing Element Advisory Board FROM: Joel Paulson, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Discuss Anticipated Comments on the Town’s Draft Housing Element Based on Comments Other Jurisdictions Have Received from the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) on Their Draft Housing Elements. REMARKS: The November 17, 2022, HEAB meeting was rescheduled by staff to December 1, 2022, due to the meeting being cancelled as a result of the Town’s website being down and the agenda being unavailable to members of the public. Attachment 11 contains public comments received between 11:01 a.m., Thursday, November 17, 2022, and 11:00 a.m., Wednesday, November 23, 2022. ATTACHMENTS: Previously received with the November 17, 2022, Staff Report: 1. City of Campbell Draft Housing Element HCD Comment Letter 2. City of Dublin Draft Housing Element HCD Comment Letter 3. City of Menlo Park Draft Housing Element HCD Comment Letter 4. City of Mountain View Draft Housing Element HCD Comment Letter 5. City of Redwood City Draft Housing Element HCD Comment Letter 6. City of Saratoga Draft Housing Element HCD Comment Letter 7. City of Sunnyvale Draft Housing Element HCD Comment Letter 8. Public Comments received between 11:01 a.m., Thursday, October 20, 2022, and 11:00 a.m. on Friday, November 11, 2022 Previously received with the November 17, 2022, Addendum Report: 9. Public Comments received between 11:01 a.m., Friday, November 11, 2022, and 11:00 a.m. on Wednesday, November 16, 2022 PAGE 2 OF 2 SUBJECT: Discuss Anticipated Comments on the Town’s Draft Housing Element. DATE: November 23, 2022 Previously received with the November 17, 2022, Desk Item Report: 10. Public Comments received between 11:01 a.m., Wednesday, November 16, 2022, and 11:00 a.m., Thursday, November 17, 2022 Received with this Memorandum 11. Public Comments received between 11:01 a.m., Thursday, November 17, 2022, and 11:00 a.m., Wednesday, November 23, 2022. From: Tyler Williams <> Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2022 11:45 AM To: Housing Element <HEUpdate@losgatosca.gov> Subject: Housing Element Comments EXTERNAL SENDER Hello and a big thank you for your time serving our wonderful charming Town. I was born and raised in Los Gatos going back to 1963. I attended Van Meter, Fisher and good old LGHS. I have a small business here, I have raised my own family in this town and continue to live here and support this community. Growth is such a challenging and polarizing subject in todays environment. I certainly do not agree with the politicians in Sacramento with their growth plans and was shocked to read the initial growth objectives for Los Gatos. There are so many reasons that I am for slowing the growth and building in Los Gatos. First and foremost from an environmental perspective I do not think that our beautiful State can sustain the growth. We have had record droughts here for 6 years, record fire seasons that have never been seen before in California. This has brought absolute fire disasters year after year. I would hate for any part of Los Gatos to sustain any type of fire like our neighbors over in Ben Lomond & Felton did. I think this past summer was the perfect contradiction. One week the State says that we must have electric cars by a certain year, then the very next week they are telling people not to plug in their electric cars as it is too much of a drain on the system during our week of record heat. The environmental impact is just too great to risk. The State has already shown that they cannot sustain any sort of healthy growth. Then we have the impact on our very own community with growth. Every summer you cannot drive through town on the weekends, the people who live downtown can hardly get out of their driveways on certain days due to the traffic constraints. We still do not know the traffic impact the housing development on Lark is going to create. We do not know how much that ugly housing disaster will impact our poor schools. This town was not built for and does not have any sort of infrastructure to absorb large amounts of growth. Why do people love Los Gatos and why do people want to live here? It is the charm of the Town itself, the people of the Town, the excellent schools, the safety people feel when they walk down the streets. My fear that is that growth will negatively impact not only our schools, traffic and our environment. But it will negatively impact the feel of this Town. I am not in favor of any type of growth. We have grown far too much already in just the past 10 years. I would hate to see dear old Los Gatos turn into just another city and lose it luster. Again thank you for your time and efforts, Tyler Williams *please note my new email address ATTACHMENT 11 From: Phil Koen Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2022 7:41 AM To: Laurel Prevetti <LPrevetti@losgatosca.gov>; Joel Paulson <jpaulson@losgatosca.gov>; Gabrielle Whelan <GWhelan@losgatosca.gov> Cc: Melanie Hanssen ; Mary Badame <MBadame@losgatosca.gov>; Maria Ristow <MRistow@losgatosca.gov> Subject: High-rise apartments in Bay Area suburbs? 'Builder's remedy' could make it a possibility EXTERNAL SENDER Hello Laurel, I thought you might find this article interesting. What is the latest approved timeline for the Town to adopt a compliant 6th cycle Housing Element? Will the Town meet the statutory deadline of January 31, 2023? Please advise. I have not seen a project time line published by the HEAB for completion and adoption of the updated Housing Element. Thank you. Phil Koen LGCA https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.mercurynews.com%2F2022 %2F11%2F21%2Fhigh-rise-apartments-in-bay-area-suburbs-builders-remedy-law-could-make-it-a- possibility&amp;data=05%7C01%7Cjpaulson%40losgatosca.gov%7C723e0d52096644c655f708dacd6936 f8%7C6d38cb6747eb4d139e7c523cd7ccecd5%7C0%7C0%7C638048149160188730%7CUnknown%7CT WFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000% 7C%7C%7C&amp;sdata=smsqUms7TYV7HckggDu4IKTzsP7m%2FDOG5YFO7ny%2BP4Y%3D&amp;reserv ed=0 High-rise apartments in Bay Area suburbs? ‘Builder’s remedy’ law could make it a possibility Bay Area cities behind on their state-mandated homebuilding plans could be at risk ALAMEDA, CALIFORNIA – MARCH 23: Development is seen along Clement Avenue from this drone view in Alameda, Calif., on Wednesday, March 23, 2022. The Alameda Marina is being revitalized and restored as The Launch is constructed. This project will include 360 units, including 49 affordable housing units. (Jane Tyska/Bay Area News Group) By ETHAN VARIAN | evarian@bayareanewsgroup.com | Bay Area News Group PUBLISHED: November 21, 2022 at 6:00 a.m. | UPDATED: November 22, 2022 at 7:12 a.m. It’s a NIMBY’s worst nightmare: high-rise apartment buildings going up in suburban neighborhoods — and local officials helpless to halt construction. That scenario could soon become a possibility for Bay Area cities large and small should they fail to convince the state they’re doing enough to help solve a deepening housing crisis. It’s all thanks to a little-used section of state housing law known as the “builder’s remedy.” Uncertainties remain, but the three-decade-old provision could enable developers to push through projects of virtually any size almost anywhere they please, as long as a portion of the building includes affordable units. The builder’s remedy would only apply to Bay Area cities without a state-approved plan to meet their upcoming homebuilding goals, which are updated every eight years. The penalty doesn’t kick in until early next year, but many jurisdictions appear unlikely to have plans ready in time. Housing experts and advocates say that means a surge of proposals may be on the horizon, especially in wealthier areas that have made it challenging to build denser housing, but where developers stand to see higher profits if they can build. “If you’re not going to tell developers where they can build multifamily housing, the state is saying they don’t have to follow your rules,” said San Francisco real estate attorney Daniel Golub, adding he’s received “very substantial interest” about the builder’s remedy in recent months. It’s already starting in Southern California – where over a hundred cities are behind on their housing plans due last year and developers have blitzed a handful of affluent enclaves with builder’s remedy proposals in recent months. That includes more than a dozen high-rise projects in Santa Monica and a 2,300-unit oceanside complex in Redondo Beach. In the Bay Area, cities have until Jan. 31 to get their housing plans certified and stave off a similar outcome. But so far, just two – Alameda and Emeryville – have approvals. However, the growing interest in the builder’s remedy is adding pressure to meet the fast-approaching deadline. A big part of why developers see the provision as a viable option now, despite it being on the books since 1990, appears to be that new state laws and policies have added teeth to the planning process for housing. Homebuilding targets set by the state have doubled or even tripled for many cities. As a whole, the Bay Area is on the hook for approving more than 441,000 units for all income levels over the next decade, representing a 15% increase in the region’s total homes. For the current expiring eight-year cycle, the Bay Area permitted only about 190,000 units, according to state housing data. Of that amount, just 44,000 are for low- or middle-income residents, well under half the combined goal for those income levels. This time around, state officials, including Gov. Gavin Newsom, have made clear they won’t simply rubber-stamp cities’ housing plans, and intend to hold jurisdictions accountable for actually meeting their new goals. The state is threatening fines, withholding affordable housing funding and loss of permitting authority for cities that skirt their housing responsibilities. Paul Campos, a senior vice president with the Bay Area Building Industry Association, said despite the rush of builder’s remedy proposals in Southern California, the provision’s requirement that 20% of units be affordable makes it challenging for projects to actually “pencil out” – developer-speak for “turn enough of a profit to get built.” In part because of that financial reality, Campos said it’s unlikely the Bay Area will see many projects that are drastically larger than what local zoning laws already allow. Instead, he views the provision as a way to “soften or eliminate some heavy-handed local regulations.” For example, developers could add a few stories onto apartment projects to offset city development fees. The type of city where the builder’s remedy makes the most sense, Campos and other experts said, is one where rents are high and developers have often struggled to get large projects across the finish line. Palo Alto, which has a population and median rent level roughly similar to that in Santa Monica, could fit the bill. “(Santa Monica is) encountering now what we very possibly will be in three months,” said Palo Alto Mayor Pat Burt. Burt said Palo Alto is “racing” to finalize its plan for where new housing should be built, but he doesn’t expect to meet the state’s Jan. 31 deadline. It’s unclear what the upscale Silicon Valley suburb, home to Stanford University, would do if faced with a flurry of builder’s remedy applications. Burt expects an eventual court ruling on the Southern California proposals will determine whether Palo Alto would need to approve them. Sonja Trauss, founder of the San Francisco-based housing advocacy group YIMBY Law, which launched an online workshop to help take advantage of the builder’s remedy, acknowledged the scheme has not been legally tested. Potential sticking points include how the state’s strict environmental laws apply and whether a city can deny proposals by essentially self-certifying its housing plan. Another question is whether a builder’s remedy proposal would still be valid if a noncompliant city gets its housing plan certified after the planning and permitting process for the project has already begun. The state housing department has said such projects must go through. Still, Trauss said cities planning on challenging the provision shouldn’t expect an easy victory. “They may go to court, and they could prevail, but it’s definitely going to be a fight,” she said. For some local officials, a brewing clash over the builder’s remedy is only the latest result of what they say are punitive state laws and policies that are wresting away local control and threatening to damage the character of their cities. The specter of largely unrestricted development is creating a sense of urgency to push back. “It’s the responsibility of the state legislature to step in and ensure we don’t witness a drastic overreach,” said Burt.