Item2.Staff Report with Attachments 1-8
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: 02/16/2023
ITEM NO: 2 TOWN OF LOS GATOS
HOUSING ELEMENT ADVISORY BOARD REPORT
DATE: February 10, 2023
TO: Housing Element Advisory Board
FROM: Joel Paulson, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Review and Discuss the California Department of Housing and Community
Development’s (HCD) Findings/Comment Letter Received by the Town on January
12, 2023, and How the Comments/Findings Will be Addressed.
BACKGROUND:
On December 20, 2022, the Town Council recommended that the current version of the Draft
2023-2031 Housing Element, as submitted to California Department of Housing and Community
Development’s (HCD) on October 14, 2022, be considered for adoption prior to the statutory
deadline of January 31, 2023. In addition, the Town Council recommended that the Sites
Inventory of the Housing Element utilize the minimum density, requiring additional sites to be
added in order to comply with the Town’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) as
determined by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and required buffer
(Attachment 1).
On January 11, 2023, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended the Town Council
adopt the Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element with the revised Sites Inventory Analysis and revised
Sites Inventory Form (Attachment 2). Based on the Town Council’s direction to utilize the
minimum density, two additional sites were added to maintain the RHNA plus buffer. Those sites
include:
• Site C-7 – 15495 Los Gatos Boulevard (APN: 424-22-030); and
• Site C-8 – 15445 Los Gatos Boulevard (APN: 424-19-068).
While the Planning Commission’s recommendation did not include making any additional
modifications at that time, the Commissioners did discuss what additional changes may be
required prior to certification by HCD. One of the Commissioners also provided written
recommendations for changes to be made in the future (Attachment 3).
PAGE 2 OF 3
SUBJECT: Review HCD’s findings/comment letter and how the comments/findings will be
addressed.
DATE: February 10, 2023
BACKGROUND (continued):
On January 12, 2023, the Town received HCD’s findings/comment letter on the Draft Housing
Element (Attachment 4). The findings/comment letter from HCD provides a list of recommended
revisions. In addition, the Town received public comments that were submitted directly to HCD
(Attachment 6). The content of the HCD’s findings/comment letter was similar to neighbori ng
jurisdictions as reviewed by the HEAB at the December 1, 2022, meeting.
On January 30, 2023, the Town Council adopted the 2023-2031 Housing Element with
modifications to the Sites Inventory, finding that it was in substantial compliance with State law
with the revised Sites Inventory Analysis and revised Sites Inventory Form (Attachment 5). The
2023-2031 Housing Element is available online at: https://www.losgatosca.gov/1735/General-
Plan---Housing-Element.
The 2023-2031 Housing Element as adopted by the Town Council on January 30, 2023, is required
to be available to the public for a seven-day review period prior to HCD re-submittal. The seven-
day public review period was from February 3, 2023, to February 10, 2023. HCD requires that a
track change copy and a clean copy of the adopted 2023-2031 Housing Element be available for
viewing during the seven-day review period. In addition, an email was sent to all individuals and
organizations that previously requested notices relating to the Town’s Housing Element.
On February 13, 2023, the Town will submit the adopted 2023-2031 Housing Element to HCD.
Subsequent reviews by HCD will take up to 60 days. A cover letter will be included in the
submittal describing that the Town is in the process of addressing all the remaining comments
found in the January 12, 2023, HCD findings/comment letter and will be resubmitting a revised
Housing Element after all the revisions have been completed.
DISCUSSION:
The purpose of this meeting is to review and discuss HCD’s findings/comment letter and how the
findings/comments will be addressed. Staff has prepared a table breaking the letter into
individual comments and providing the status of the response to each HCD comment
(Attachment 7). Town staff and the consultants continue to work on the majority of the
responses to the HCD findings/comment letter, and items that are still in progress of completion
are noted in Attachment 7.
NEXT STEPS:
HEAB will review a revised Housing Element with responses to the HCD comment letter in mid-
March or early April. Based on the review and a recommendation from the HEAB, a revised
PAGE 3 OF 3
SUBJECT: Review HCD’s findings/comment letter and how the comments/findings will be
addressed.
DATE: February 10, 2023
NEXT STEPS (continued):
Housing Element will be submitted to HCD. Additional, subsequent reviews by HCD will take up to
60 days.
Once HCD determines and communicates that the Town’s Housing Element is ready for
certification, the public hearing process for adoption will occur again with the Planning
Commission making a recommendation and the Town Council making the final decision on
adoption of the Housing Element.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Attachment 8 includes public comments received between 11:01 a.m., Thursday, December 1,
2022, and 11:00 a.m. on Friday, February 10, 2023.
Public comments are encouraged throughout the Housing Element update process and can be
emailed to HEUpdate@losgatosca.gov.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. December 20, 2022, Town Council Meeting Minutes
2. January 11, 2023, Planning Commission Verbatim Meeting Minutes
3. January 11, 2023, Public Comments from a Planning Commissioner
4. January 12, 2023, HCD’s Findings/Comment Letter
5. January 30, 2023, Town Council Meeting Minutes
6. Public Comments Received by HCD
7. Draft Response Table to HCD’s Findings/Comment Letter
8. Public Comments Received Between 11:01 a.m., Thursday, December 1, 2022, and 11:00 a.m.
Friday, February 10, 2023
N:\DEV\HEAB\2021-2023\HEAB Staff Reports and Attachments\2023\02-16-23\Item 2 - Review of HCD comments and discuss possible mods to HE\Item2.Staff Report.docx
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● 408-354-6832
www.losgatosca.gov
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Minutes of the Town Council
December 20, 2022
The Town Council of the Town of Los Gatos conducted a regular meeting in-person and utilizing
teleconferencing means on Tuesday, December 20, 2022 at 7:00 p.m.
MEETING CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:00 P.M.
ROLL CALL
Present: Mayor Maria Ristow, Vice Mayor Mary Badame, Council Member Matthew Hudes,
Council Member Rob Moore, Council Member Rob Rennie.
Absent: None
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Dominic Farwell led the Pledge of Allegiance. The audience was invited to participate.
COUNCIL / MANAGER MATTERS
Council Matters
-Council Member Hudes stated he attended the Senior Service Committee Roadmap
subcommittee meetings, the Finance Commission meeting, and Senior Service Committee
meetings.
-Council Member Rennie stated he attended the Bay Area Air Quality Management District
(BAAQMD) Board meeting, the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Policy Advisory
Committee meeting, Cities Association Holiday Party, the Swearing-In of Assembly Member
Pellerin, the Silicon Valley Clean Energy Risk Oversight Committee meeting, the BAAQMD
Legislative Committee meeting, the Finance Commission meeting, and the Silicon Valley
Clean Energy Board meeting.
-Council Member Moore stated he attended the retirement celebration for Diane Fisher of
the Jewish Community Relations Council.
-Vice Mayor Badame stated she attended the West Valley Sanitation District Authority Board
meeting and observed the December 20th Finance Commission meeting which was
cancelled due to lack of a quorum.
-Mayor Ristow stated she attended the Cities Association Holiday Party, the Silicon Valley
Bike Coalition Open House and Members Party, the Safe Routes to School (SR2S) Volunteer
Luncheon, the Azerbaijani Solidarity Concert, taught Bike Skills to 5th Graders, took a Horse
Drawn Carriage Ride and thanked the Chamber of Commerce, and announced a Hannukah
on Main event to be held on December 22nd at 5 p.m. on the Civic Center Lawn.
ATTACHMENT 1
PAGE 2 OF 5
SUBJECT: Minutes of the Town Council Meeting of December 20, 2022
DATE: January 6, 2023
Manager Matters
- Announced free valet parking service is available through Saturday, December 24.
- Announced Town Administrative Offices will be closed Friday, December 23 and will re-
open on Tuesday, January 3, 2023.
- Announced the Library will be closed December 23-26 and December 30, 2022 - January 2,
2023.
- Announced a new online business license module will be implemented soon, and additional
information is available on the Town website.
CONSENT ITEMS
1. Approve Minutes of the December 6, 2022 Town Council Meeting.
2. Approve Minutes of the December 13, 2022 Town Council Special Meeting.
3. Approve Minutes of the December 13, 2022 Town Council Special Meeting Regarding
Commission Interviews.
4. Adopt a Resolution Reaffirming Resolution 2021-044 and Making Findings Pursuant to
Government Code Section 54953, as Amended by Assembly Bill 361, and, Due to Health and
Safety Concerns for the Public, Authorizing the Use of Hybrid Meetings for the Town Council
and the Continued Use of Virtual Meetings for Boards and Commissions While Town Staff
Makes the Necessary Arrangements to Transition to Hybrid Meetings for All Town Boards,
Commissions, and Committees. RESOLUTION 2022-076
5. Reaffirm the Town Council Code of Conduct Policy.
6. Adopt 2023 Council Committee Appointments.
7. Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR):
a. Receive the Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR) for the Fiscal Year Ended
June 30, 2022, and
b. Adopt a Resolution Confirming June 30, 2022 Fund Balances in Accordance Fiscal Year
2021/22 Final Audit and Town Council General Fund Reserve Policy. RESOLUTION 2022-
077
8. Approve a First Amendment to the Agreement with Turbo Data Systems, Inc. in the Amount
of $110,774 for a Total Amended Agreement Amount Not to Exceed $206,041.54 for a
Three-Year Extension of Parking Citation and Permit Parking Processing Services.
9. Authorize the Continuation of the Business License Late Fee Penalty Suspension into the
2023 Calendar Year.
10. Authorize the Town Manager to Execute an Assignment of Agreement with Bartel
Associates, LLC to Assign the Agreement to Foster and Foster Consulting Actuaries, Inc.
Council Member Hudes pulled item #7.
Opened public comment.
No one spoke.
Closed public comment.
PAGE 3 OF 5
SUBJECT: Minutes of the Town Council Meeting of December 20, 2022
DATE: January 6, 2023
Consent Items – continued
MOTION: Motion by Council Member Rennie to approve items 1-10, exclusive of item 7.
Seconded by Vice Mayor Badame.
VOTE: Motion passes unanimously.
VERBAL COMMUNICATIONS
Chris Wiley
- Requested Council “bury the hatchet” by ripping up a piece of paper with a picture of a
hatchet that was distributed to each Council Member.
LOC
- Commented on hate speech and how to express hurt feelings.
PUBLIC HEARING
11. Consider a Request for a Continuance for an Appeal of a Planning Commission Decision to
Deny a Fence Height Exception Request for Construction of a Six-Foot Fence Located Within
the Required Front Yard Setback and a Vehicular Gate Set Back Less than 18 Feet from the
Edge of the Adjacent Street on Property Zoned R-1:10. APN 523-04-043. PROPERTY
OWNER/APPELLANT: David and Ilana Kohanchi. APPLICANT: Nina Guralnic.
Jennifer Armer, Planning Manager, presented the staff report.
Opened public comment.
No one spoke.
Closed public comment.
Council discussed the item.
MOTION: Motion by Vice Mayor Badame continue an appeal of a Planning Commission
decision to deny a Fence Height Exception request for construction of a Six-Foot
Fence located within the required front yard setback and a vehicular gate set back
less than 18 feet from the edge of the adjacent street on property zoned R-1:10.
APN 523-04-043. PROPERTY OWNER/APPELLANT: David and Ilana Kohanchi.
APPLICANT: Nina Guralnic to a date certain of January 17, 2023 per the appellant’s
request. Seconded by Council Member Moore.
VOTE: Motion passed unanimously.
PAGE 4 OF 5
SUBJECT: Minutes of the Town Council Meeting of December 20, 2022
DATE: January 6, 2023
OTHER BUSINESS
12. Review and Approve the Town’s Response to the 2022 Civil Grand Jury of Santa Clara
County Report Entitled, “If You Only Read the Ballot, You’re Being Duped.”
Gabrielle Whelan, Town Attorney, provided the staff report.
Opened public comment.
No one spoke.
Closed public comment.
Council discussed the item.
MOTION: Motion by Council Member Hudes to revise the proposed response to the Grand
Jury to accept recommendations 1b and 1c and leave the rest of the letter as is.
AMENDMENT: Revise the response to state the Town is planning to implement
recommendation 1c if the County Counsel is open to doing the review, then the
ballot question would be provided for a five-day review, and if no comment is
received within five days, the Town would proceed with its proposed ballot
question. Also, the response to the Grand Jury should include the reasons why the
Town feels this recommendation is unnecessary and under these specific
circumstances, the Town will submit the response. Seconded by Vice Mayor
Badame.
VOTE: Motion passes unanimously.
13. Discuss the Housing Element Update and Provide Direction on Next Steps.
Jocelyn Shoopman, Associate Planner, provided the staff report.
Opened public comment.
No one spoke.
Closed public comment.
Council discussed the item.
PAGE 5 OF 5
SUBJECT: Minutes of the Town Council Meeting of December 20, 2022
DATE: January 6, 2023
Other Business Item #13 – continued
MOTION: Motion by Vice Mayor Badame to bring the Housing Element to the Council for
consideration of adoption before January 31, 2023, and utilize the minimum density
for calculating the residential capacity of the Site Inventory with the understanding
that additional sites may need to be selected to comply with California Housing and
Community Development Department (HCD) requirements. Seconded by Council
Member Rennie.
VOTE: Motion passed unanimously.
Pulled Consent Item #7
7. Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR):
a. Receive the Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR) for the Fiscal Year Ended
June 30, 2022, and
b. Adopt a Resolution Confirming June 30, 2022 Fund Balances in Accordance Fiscal Year
2021/22 Final Audit and Town Council General Fund Reserve Policy.
Arn Andrews, Assistant Town Manager, provided the staff report.
Opened public comment.
Ron Dickel
- Commented on the item and stated the Commissioners reviewed the report and were given
opportunities to make comments.
Closed public comment.
Council discussed the item.
MOTION: Motion by Council Member Rennie to receive the Annual Comprehensive Financial
Report (ACFR) for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2022, as recommended by the
Finance Commission and adopt a resolution confirming June 30, 2022 Fund Balances
in accordance with Fiscal Year 2021/22 Final Audit and Town Council General Fund
Reserve Policy. Seconded by Council Member Moore.
VOTE: Motion passed 3-2. Vice Mayor Badame and Council Member Hudes voted no.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 9:02 p.m.
Respectfully submitted:
_____________________________________
/s/ Jenna De Long, Deputy Clerk
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/11/2023
Item #5, General Plan Amendment
re: Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A P P E A R A N C E S:
Los Gatos Planning
Commissioners:
Melanie Hanssen, Chair
Jeffrey Barnett, Vice Chair
Susan Burnett
Kylie Clark
Kathryn Janoff
Steve Raspe
Emily Thomas
Town Manager: Laurel Prevetti
Community Development
Director:
Joel Paulson
Town Attorney: Gabrielle Whelan
Transcribed by: Vicki L. Blandin
(619) 541-3405
ATTACHMENT 2
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/11/2023
Item #5, General Plan Amendment
re: Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
P R O C E E D I N G S:
CHAIR HANSSEN: We will go ahead to Item 5, and
Item 5 is to consider and make a recommendation to the Town
Council on the Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element. Location:
Town-wide. General Plan Amendment Application: GP-22-003.
Who is doing the Staff Report? Oh, Ms. Walters.
ERIN WALTERS: Thank you so much and good
evening, Commissioners. The Town of Los Gatos is required
to adopt an updated Housing Element for the period covering
2023 to 2031 by January 31st.
Starting in early 2021 the Town worked diligently
to comply to State law with the goal of adopting a Housing
Element prior to January 31st. The deadline is outlined in
Attachment 3 of your report.
Under the Housing Accountability Act, Bay Area
jurisdictions that have not adopted a Housing Element that
is in substantial compliance with the State law by January
31st could be required to approve a residential development,
even if it does not meet local General Plan or zoning
regulations. This is known as the Builder’s Remedy and has
been in the Housing Accountability Act since 1990. For a
project to utilize this it must be a residential
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/11/2023
Item #5, General Plan Amendment
re: Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
development that proposes at least 20% low-income units or
100% moderate-income units. No applications under the
Builder’s Remedy were submitted during the two previous
Housing Element cycles when the Town missed the statutory
deadline for adoption.
Staff recognizes that this current element
housing cycle is unlike any past cycle and any jurisdiction
that adopts a housing element later than January 31st could
be subject to the Builder’s Remedy.
On January 20th of last year the Town Council
recommended that the current version of the Draft Housing
Element as submitted to HCD on October 14th be considered
for adoption prior to the statutory deadline of January
31st.
In addition, the Town Council recommended that
the Sites Inventory of the Housing Element utilize the
minimum density requiring additional sites to be added in
order to comply with the Town’s RHNA and required buffer.
The primary purpose of this item tonight is to
provide a recommendation to Town Council on whether or not
to adopt the Draft Housing Element, which is found in
Attachment 1, with the revised Sites Inventory Analysis,
Exhibit 4, and Revised Site Inventory Form, which is found
in Exhibit 5.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/11/2023
Item #5, General Plan Amendment
re: Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The next steps to complete the goal of adopting
the Housing Element that is in substantial compliance with
State law by the statutory deadline is for Town Council to
consider Planning Commission’s recommendation on the Draft
Housing Element at a special Council meeting on January
30th.
The Town expects to receive a comment letter from
HCD tomorrow. Once the HCD comment letter has been
received, a draft memorandum and Response to HCD Comment
Letter illustrating how each comment has been responded to
and how it is in substantial compliance with State law will
be prepared for future view by the Housing Element Advisory
Board, and then based on that review and recommendation by
HEAB a revised draft will be submitted to HCD. Subsequent
review by HCD will take up to 60 days.
Based on HCD’s second review it is possible that
additional revisions may be required before HCD will
certify the Housing Element, which means Planning
Commission and Town Council hearings for adoption of the
revised Housing Element would need to be conducted again.
There was an addendum circulated on Tuesday with
the Planning Commission’s comments.
This concludes Staff’s report and we are
available for any questions. Thank you.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/11/2023
Item #5, General Plan Amendment
re: Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for your Staff Report.
Since three of us, Commissioner Janoff, Commissioner
Thomas, and I are on the Housing Element Advisory Board as
well as the General Plan Committee, I think Ms. Walters and
the Staff Report went through this but as should have been
clear from the report, this is not intended as a detailed
review of the Draft Housing Element. This is more of a
go/no go thing to prevent us from being subject to the
Builder’s Remedy, and as noted by Ms. Walters, we fully
would anticipate making quite a few revisions based on the
HCD comments.
I will ask if any of you have questions for
Staff? I do, but I wanted to see if any of the rest of you
do. Commissioner Janoff.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Thank you. I understand the
process; I understand what’s happening. Two questions, one
for Staff.
I understand that we received verbal comments. Do
you have any indication based on the verbal comments that
our Draft General Plan is not in insubstantial compliance?
ERIN WALTERS: The verbal comments we received
were that there is additional work to be done, but the term
“substantial compliance” was never brought up or discussed.
It’s really to add to what we have.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/11/2023
Item #5, General Plan Amendment
re: Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Did you get the sense from
that verbal communication that we weren’t on the right
track?
ERIN WALTERS: (Shakes head no.)
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: All right. I know you
didn’t get that kind of feedback precisely, but I was
curious what the sense of the conversation was from Staff’s
point of view?
ERIN WALTERS: We had one meeting. We didn’t
receive any fatal flaw comments, but again, we have not
received the final letter, and again, we anticipate that
hopefully by tomorrow, so from what we’ve learned to date,
we have not heard.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: A second question, if I
might, for our Town Attorney. Would you please advise the
Planning Commission as to your opinion of why it makes
sense for us to proceed with a recommendation for adopting
the draft in advance of the certified Housing Element?
ATTORNEY WHELAN: It’s definitely a policy
decision, but the recommendation to do this is based on the
fact that the deadline to have an adopted Housing Element
is January 31st, and after that date applicants can use the
Builders Remedy to submit an application that would not be
subject to the Town’s planning requirements.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/11/2023
Item #5, General Plan Amendment
re: Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Added to that recommendation is the fact that the
Town has the ability to amend the Housing Element after
it’s been adopted based on feedback that we get from HCD.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: So this is not a kind of
tricky workaround the deadline, this is a reasonable
approach to meeting the deadline with adopting a draft,
understanding that there will be revisions coming following
HCD’s comments?
ATTORNEY WHELAN: Yes, the recommendation is
based on the fact that the Draft Housing Element is very
close. It’s possible HCD will recommend some minor changes,
and the Town would make those minor changes once we have
those recommendations in hand.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: All right, thank you.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Commissioner Thomas.
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Thank you, Chair. I have
two questions.
My first question for Staff is where will we be
able to find the letter when we get it tomorrow?
ERIN WALTERS: That’s an excellent question. It
will be posted online when we receive it. It will be
available to the public and will be on the Town’s dedicated
Housing Element website, as well as our web page.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/11/2023
Item #5, General Plan Amendment
re: Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JOEL PAULSON: I’ll just add that we’ll also
actually send it directly to Town Council and Planning
Commissioners as well.
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Thank you. Perfect. Very
exciting. We’ve been waiting for this letter, I know.
My other question was related to the procedure
for making changes. Obviously, if we forward this approval,
it goes to Town Council, you explained that. If we have to
make changes, will those changes go back to the Housing
Element Advisory Board, then to the Planning Commission,
then to Town Council? Is that the order that it happens?
ERIN WALTERS: I would ask either Ms. Armer or
Mr. Paulson to answer that.
JENNIFER ARMER: I can start by answering that if
the Planning Commission makes a recommendation on this
tonight, or early tomorrow morning, and it wants to include
some recommended changes, that is something that could be
done; but it also is possible that comments will be shared
tonight, for example, those that were included in writing
in the Addendum, and that those will be taken into
consideration when we return to the HEAB for their
consideration of additional changes in response to the HCD
letter.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/11/2023
Item #5, General Plan Amendment
re: Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
So, if you choose as the Planning Commission to
include modifications as part of your recommendation in
this meeting, that could be part of the recommendation, but
it also could just be general comments that we could
consider and bring to the HEAB for their consideration and
recommendation.
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Okay, thank you. I don’t
feel like there are any major, necessary changes, and I
understand. I guess what I’m asking is if this gets
approved before January 31st, but then we do need to make
changes based on our HCD feedback, then it goes back to
HEAB, then back to us, then to the Town Council. The
changes need to be approved at those three levels?
JENNIFER ARMER: Thank you for that
clarification. Yes, the next steps would be to go to HEAB,
and then to submit that revised document to HCD to see
whether it has addressed their comments and whether they
can now certify the Housing Element. If it is certifiable,
then it could be forwarded to Planning Commission for
consideration and recommendation to Town Council.
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Okay, just wanted to
confirm that that was still happening. Okay, thank you.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/11/2023
Item #5, General Plan Amendment
re: Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CHAIR HANSSEN: If you don’t mind, Commissioner
Janoff, I did want to ask a question before I go back to
you.
As a preface statement, on December 1st the
Housing Element Advisory Board—and this is for the benefit
of everyone on the Commission and anyone watching—was able
to review comment letters that came from HCD to other
jurisdictions, for example, Saratoga, but there were
probably eight or nine different jurisdictions, to get an
idea of what we could expect from HCD.
I bring this up to ask the question of Staff,
when we looked at this stuff on December 1st it seemed like
one thing that was very consistent is there were definitely
modifications that have to happen, but I didn’t see in any
of the comment letters where HCD said it could never go and
certify it, it wanted modifications versus scraping
something and having to bring something anew.
Based on the conversation that you guys had in
December on the phone, did you hear anything that would
lead you to believe that we hadn’t followed the process
properly, or was it more like we’re going to have to put in
a lot more detailed information similar to what we saw in
those comment letters? So that’s my question.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/11/2023
Item #5, General Plan Amendment
re: Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JOCELYN SHOOPMAN: Thank you for the question. I
would say our verbal conversation with the HCD reviewer
really mirrored many of those comment letters that HEAB
reviewed in December, and it really was the information is
there, however we may need more narrative to describe it,
more local knowledge, and more data to back that
information up.
CHAIR HANSSEN: That’s where I’m seeing where we
are right now, that there are going to be a lot of changes
that will happen after the 31st whether this is approved or
not, and this is sort of a stopgap thing to buy us some
time until we can get this certified.
Commissioner Janoff.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: I appreciate the comments
that Vice Chair Barnett has offered, and I am thinking that
rather than forward those changes to Council with our
recommendation tonight that they stay with the general
comments so that could go back through the process that
Commissioner Thomas clarified, so that we can consider
those comments with the HEAB and then on to the Planning
Commission, to take it through that process of
modification, if that’s acceptable.
CHAIR HANSSEN: I think that’s a good suggestion,
but let’s see where other comments go.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/11/2023
Item #5, General Plan Amendment
re: Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Commissioner Thomas.
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I agree with that. I think
that’s a really good idea if Vice Chair Barnett is
comfortable with that and feels we discussed or addressed
them enough, because HEAB is going to have to go back and
go over and make modifications and recommend adding more
detail, as Ms. Shoopman said, so I think that’s a good
idea. I think that’s a way to make things more efficient
and streamline the process.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Vice Chair Barnett.
VICE CHAIR BARNETT: Thank you. I first want
thank the members of the GPAC and HEAB for the tremendously
wonderful job that they’ve done. I’ve read through the
entire document, and unfortunately haven’t been able to
monitor the hearings of HEAB as they’ve progressed, but it
is a magnificent document and I’m sure we’re going to get
final approval down the road.
In terms of my recommendation, I’m certainly
comfortable with it being considered at any point that it’s
easily addressed, and I’m certainly mindful of the January
31st deadline. I did have one other suggested change that I
haven’t yet submitted, so that would also be in the way of
a recommendation for consideration down the line.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/11/2023
Item #5, General Plan Amendment
re: Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CHAIR HANSSEN: So it’s not a fatal flaw that
would stand in the way of being able to consider it in
compliance?
VICE CHAIR BARNETT: Absolutely not.
CHAIR HANSSEN: And we’re talking about in
compliance with the process that the State has outlined for
doing the Housing Element.
Ms. Armer.
JENNIFER ARMER: Thank you, Chair. Before the
Planning Commission gets too much into discussion I did
want to suggest that we open up for public comment if
questions of Staff are complete.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Do other Commissioners have
questions of Staff in terms of process or procedure? And by
the way, we will not be going through the entire document;
it will be more like general questions. Okay, nobody else
has any questions; so let’s do that.
We will do Verbal Communications, so any member
of the public is invited to speak on the Housing Element,
and we ask you to limit your comments up to three minutes,
and it looks like we have at least one person.
JENNIFER ARMER: Yes, thank you, it looks like
Rigo Gallardo, and you should be able to unmute now. You
have up to three minutes.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/11/2023
Item #5, General Plan Amendment
re: Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
RIGO GALLARDO: Good evening, Chair and Members
of the Planning Commission. My name Is Rigo Gallardo, I’m a
representative from Carpenter’s Local #405 for Santa Clara
County and I’m speaking on behalf of approximately 39,000
union carpenters, men and women across Northern California,
including 18,000 Santa Clara County residents and members.
Today I’m here to speak on area labor standards,
ones that include a livable wage, healthcare,
apprenticeships, and local hire.
A livable wage with medical and retirement
benefits that allow workers and their families to live in
the communities they work in. This also means those wages
will be reinvested back into local economic community as
they spend their earnings, and their tax dollars will help
fund local schools and government.
A commitment to accredited apprenticeship
programs to guarantee we will continue to have a trained,
skilled, and experienced work force that is able to
complete high-quality projects in a safe and timely manner.
Healthcare is vital in these COVID years and
having healthcare for families is a big necessity. I
believe if you work hard full time you should have access
to healthcare from your employer.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/11/2023
Item #5, General Plan Amendment
re: Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Being able to work where you live as a local hire
allows you to spend more time with your family and be more
involved in your community. My question to you is what are
we doing to implement these area labor standards in our
upcoming projects? Thank you.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for your comments. The
way our Verbal Communications work is we don’t normally
answer questions if you have them during the Verbal
Communications, but I don't know if Staff wants to add
anything to that?
JENNIFER ARMER: No, but we can answer questions
during the discussion.
CHAIR HANSSEN: But if any Commissioners have
questions for Mr. Gallardo, we can do that.
Commissioner Thomas.
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Thank you, Chair. Thank
you, Mr. Gallardo, for staying up late and coming to speak
on stuff that is important to us. I wanted to ask if you
had any specific requests or anything to do with the
decision that we’re going to be making tonight about the
Housing Element, or if your comments are more just general
about some of our policies that we’re dealing with in Town
right now?
RIGO GALLARDO: Just the policies.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/11/2023
Item #5, General Plan Amendment
re: Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Okay, thank you so much.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you, and just know that
your comments are noted and will be circulated to the place
that can help. Thank you.
We have another speaker, Ms. Quintana.
LEE QUINTANA: Wow, thank God this is the last
item on the agenda.
I find this process rather difficult, because it
feels like we’re making comments based on a moving target,
which makes it very difficult to make comments, so I will
focus my comments on the Implementation section, and I do
want to make a few comments.
The Implementation section has over 60
implementation programs, and it seems to me that there are
at least eight items that are subject to the use of BMP
funds. There are also at least five items that have to do
with rehabilitation and repair. There are other groups of
items that have to do with outreach to the public and
outreach to the development community.
It seems to me that as a user-friendly document
it would make a lot of sense to revise the organization of
the Implementation section to focus on areas of common
concern rather than having rehabilitation issues spread out
throughout the document stated in slightly different ways
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/11/2023
Item #5, General Plan Amendment
re: Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
to meet slightly different policies but essentially they’re
all the same, and I think that’s really important.
One other comment I would specifically make is
Habitat for Humanity is mentioned in the Implementation
programs, and I would ask that you recommend to Council
that before they specifically mention HFH they verify with
HFH that they are willing to participate in rehabilitation
and repair programs in Los Gatos, given the fact of the
result of their participation in the Dittos Lane project.
It’s my understanding that HFH has decided that it won’t
touch anything in Los Gatos in the future. Those are my
comments for now.
CHAIR HANSSEN: That’s good information to follow
up on, and as with the General Plan we had a lot of
implementation programs in the General Plan, and so getting
them in a good organization so that people can work from
them is a very good suggestion.
LEE QUINTANA: Do I have any time? I have one
more thing to say.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Oh, do you have more time? Okay.
LEE QUINTANA: I would like to say that also in
the Implementation section I think it needs to be more
specific about what we’re trying to accomplish; not just
rehab this and rehab that from this organization and that
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/11/2023
Item #5, General Plan Amendment
re: Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
organization, but the actual number of rehabs that we’re
aiming for.
The same thing with the BMP funds. It seems like
we don’t have that large a pot of BMP funds that it’s
enough to stretch over eight different programs. I also
think we need to have more specific statements of what the
objectives of these programs are and what we intend to
accomplish by them specifically.
CHAIR HANSSEN: It looks like Commissioner Thomas
has a question for you.
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Hi, Ms. Quintana. Thank you
for staying up late and offering some input. Would you be
willing to submit a list of the categories you feel like
the implementation program should be clumped into so that
HEAB can explore that when this goes through the progress
of the modifications?
LEE QUINTANA: I will be very honest with you. I
have a terrible problem with putting things in writing, and
it is almost to the point of being disabling. I went
through the implementation programs and just looked at
where the funding was coming from and what the topics were
and could easily identify numerous things. I will try, but
I don’t think it’s my responsibility to do that.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/11/2023
Item #5, General Plan Amendment
re: Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: So your opinion in that it
should be organized in a different way. You don’t have an
ideal structure in mind, just that it needs to be organized
in a way that…
LEE QUINTANA: Well, I’ve given you three
examples of specific categories that they could be broken
down in. There are probably other categories that would
need to be added to that.
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I think like giving Staff
and our consultants a little bit of an idea of the
direction that you were thinking about would be helpful,
but no, I agree, that’s not your responsibility. Thank you.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Any other questions for Ms.
Quintana? Thank you again for your comments. Is there
anyone else that would like to speak about the Housing
Element? I’m not seeing any other hands raised, so we can
go back to the Commission.
Our objective is to make a recommendation to
Council. We have only three people out of seven that have
been on the Housing Element, and this is fairly
complicated, so I wanted to see if anyone had any questions
about the process or the document that would help you to
make a recommendation? What we’re looking for is are there
any fatal flaws relative to thinking that this thing has
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/11/2023
Item #5, General Plan Amendment
re: Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
substantial compliance with what is needed for the State.
All right, I don’t see anyone with any questions.
This is like any other hearing though, so if
there are questions for Staff, that’s good, or if you have
comments you’d like to make on the Housing Element and what
we’re trying to do with certification, this would be a good
time to do that, and I don’t think we’re quite ready for a
motion, but maybe.
Commissioner Janoff.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Thank you. Having been
involved with the process gives us a little bit of an
advantage, because we’ve read every word and gone through
that drafting process.
I would like to say that what I believe we are
being asked to do tonight is forward a recommendation for
Town Council to approve the draft. I think I could find
that our draft is in substantial compliance. There was a
great deal of work by Staff, by consultants, we’ve got
public comments, and we’ve followed the guidelines that the
HCD had provided. I think that I can competently say that
this draft is in substantial compliance having worked on
it, not having received any comments back, but I think that
there’s a fairly low risk in our making this recommendation
to Council. We can anticipate that there might be changes
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/11/2023
Item #5, General Plan Amendment
re: Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
coming, as Staff has indicated, but I would not expect
those changes to substantially alter the draft that we have
before us such that our recommendation would be hollow, so
I very much would support making the recommendation to Town
Council that they approve this draft and the associated
documents.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you, Commissioner Janoff.
Commissioner Thomas and then Commissioner Burnett.
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I agree with Commissioner
Janoff’s comments, and as someone that has been sitting on
the Housing Element Advisory Board, I actually wasn’t at
the meeting where we approved this, but I did look at all
the feedback and was keeping up and I do think that this
needs to get forwarded. I’m really happy with the process
that we would be able to modify anything that we need to,
concerns that come up related to HCD and official
certification or not, or acceptance by HCD.
What I really am most concerned about though is
us missing the deadline. As my time on the Planning
Commission, the Housing Element Advisory Board, and the
General Plan Update Committee, I feel like it’s really
important that we meet this deadline.
I attended a couple of online Zoom meetings and
information sessions about the Builder’s Remedy, and I know
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/11/2023
Item #5, General Plan Amendment
re: Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that it hasn’t been used that much in the past, but I went
to some Zoom sessions on some things and there are
contractors, people, and a slew of lawyers that are really,
really, really ready to jump on using the Builder’s Remedy
to get projects pushed through like on February 1st, and
everything is very organized and lined up with a lot of
different organizations and it’s heavy supported by a lot
of people at the State level, I think, because of the
housing crisis.
So I think that from my experience on the
Planning Commission, on the Housing Element Advisory Board,
and the General Plan Committee, I know that for the people
that live in Los Gatos a really, really high priority is
maintaining local control over what gets built where, and
if we don’t certify this, we’re going to lose that control,
and so I think that that’s something that’s really
important. I was pretty surprised at how organized some of
these groups are with being ready and having the resources
to really use the Builder’s Remedy to get some projects
through.
CHAIR HANSSEN: And without local control.
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Yes, and I guess that’s the
most important part; this Builder’s Remedy is we would have
no say. Planning Commission, Town Council, Town Staff would
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/11/2023
Item #5, General Plan Amendment
re: Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
have zero say essentially on what would be built, and so we
would just lose all local control essentially and that, I
know, is really the last thing that a lot of people in Town
want.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for that, Commissioner
Thomas.
Commissioner Burnett.
COMMISSIONER BURNETT: Yes, good evening. It’s
been an interesting evening. Yes, I do agree with
Commissioner Janoff and Commissioner Thomas. I believe this
is a good document and I would definitely be for it and
sending it back to the Town Council. I also like the idea
that two new sites were added, which would help maintain
the RHNA plus a buffer, so I think it would be the correct
decision to send it back to the Town Council as it is.
Thank you.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for the comments.
Commissioner Clark.
COMMISSIONER CLARK: I have a question, and then
I can make some comments. I was wondering how much money is
in the Town Affordable Housing Fund and the BMPP funds? I
had thoughts similar to Ms. Quintana’s about those being
applied to a lot of programs and I was wondering what those
funds look like.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/11/2023
Item #5, General Plan Amendment
re: Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
24
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JOEL PAULSON: Thank you, Commissioner Clark. I
don’t have a number off the top of my head, and there has
been some shifting with some of the funds relating to the
Dittos Lane project, that was about $1.2 million, so I
would assume it’s probably somewhere in the range of about
$2.5 million currently.
COMMISSIONER CLARK: Okay, thank you. I don't
know, maybe something for the Town Council to consider is
whether that is sufficient for all the things that we have
them allocated for.
I don’t have any concrete changes that I’m going
to recommend tonight, I just have a few things that I’d
appreciate being included in comments to the Council when
it’s reviewed, or reviewed by the Housing Element Advisory
Board, in the future.
I think that there’s a lot about preservation and
repair of apartments and things like that, but a big
problem I think we all see on the Planning Commission is
the constant loss of starter homes in our town. If there’s
a home that is relatively affordable and maybe is one or
two bedrooms and is one-story and kind of old, it gets
bought by someone who has the money to afford it and then
it gets turned into a really big home that from then on
nobody will be able to afford, and so we’re losing places
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/11/2023
Item #5, General Plan Amendment
re: Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that people can buy when they want to purchase their first
home, and so I’d like to see something about preservation
of starter homes included.
One idea that I have floated around is something
like if a family buys a property, they aren’t allowed to
demolish the home within their first five years of owning
it or something, so that people with a huge amount of
wealth don’t buy a tiny home in order to demolish it. Just
in general, something along those lines.
And maybe like Policy HE-4.4, which is Naturally
Occurring Affordable Units, because that’s an example of
that.
Also, there is not an implementation program for
Policy HE-2.2, Housing Vouchers, and I think Section 8
vouchers are really important and I really liked seeing
that policy in there, but without an implementation program
nothing really concrete around it will happen, so I think
we should have an implementation program related to that
policy on Section 8 vouchers.
For Program D, the North Forty Specific Plan,
there’s an increase in the maximum density and I think that
we should include an increase in the maximum height as
well, because with the first section of the North Forty
that people are pretty upset with, the height restriction
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/11/2023
Item #5, General Plan Amendment
re: Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
26
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
is definitely part of what made them more expensive I know
from speaking with the builders of the complex. Also part
of the reason why it’s not aesthetically pleasing to a lot
of people is because they built as high as they could and
then couldn’t really add any shape at the top or anything.
So those are the comments. I saw you all taking
notes, so thank you; I appreciate it.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Those are very good comments. I
don't know how much of the Housing Element you got to read,
and the devil is certainly in the details, but one of the
major goals in the Housing Element is preserving the
existing housing stock, so to me that would be a very
important detail that we need to have covered as part of
that goal. And the policies tend to be fairly high-level
too, and sometimes they’re specific, but the implementation
programs is where we would have a lot more details, so
thank you for those very specific suggestions.
COMMISSIONER CLARK: Yes, thank you.
CHAIR HANSSEN: I just wanted to add on to
Commissioner Janoff’s comments that I feel very
comfortable, and even though I’ve been through this
document a million times I felt even more comfortable after
I read the Staff Report, because the way I was looking at
it was it’s not all the way in the details about like what
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/11/2023
Item #5, General Plan Amendment
re: Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
density do you have on what site, it’s the process that we
went through.
One of the things that we had to do in this
Housing Element is add in affirmative fair housing—it’s a
new law in California—and so we have a consultant, and the
consultants worked on that to make sure that we’ve
incorporated all the appropriate language for that. We have
to have the site inventory; that part is done, and we have
to have goals and policies that would lead us to being
successful in meeting our RHNA.
The way I really think this will end up happening
is once we get the comment letter from HCD, and that’s why
I asked about the comment letters comparing this to the
comment letters of the other jurisdictions, because it is
very clear in all those comments that what they really want
is don’t just say I’m going to make affordable housing
happen. I’m just using it as an example. It would be like
I’m going to take these steps to make this project happen
here or this kind of project happen, and so that’s all the
stuff that we would think would come from HCD.
But I feel really comfortable that we went
through this whole process, that we have a good site
inventory that could potentially produce the RHNA, and that
we have the right kinds of goals and policies and it just
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/11/2023
Item #5, General Plan Amendment
re: Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
needs to go to the next level in terms of detail, and I’m
going to guess that when we see HCD’s comments it will be
pretty much like that, and there are certainly some
modifications that have to happen to make sure we’re in
compliance with the State law, because they keep changing,
but those are all modifications.
Other thoughts from the rest of the Commission?
If you don’t have any other concerns we could try a motion
and see if we’re there, and if not, we can keep talking.
Commissioner Raspe.
COMMISSIONER RASPE: Thanks, Chair. I don’t have
any particular concerns. I’ve read the document and I think
you’re right, the devil is in the details and there’s a lot
in there. I’m relying heavily on Staff and the highly
qualified members of this Commission who have spent
countless hours on it, and I think you’ve done a fantastic
job, so I’m comfortable that this document represents our
best current efforts and is suitable to go forward.
I’m also uncomfortable in the knowledge of the
downside if we don’t move forward, what the risks are, and
so I think it behooves us to recommend to Town Council that
we forward the recommendation of approval of this newly
revised Housing Element update.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/11/2023
Item #5, General Plan Amendment
re: Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
29
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CHAIR HANSSEN: Well said, thanks. Commissioner
Janoff.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: That sounded like a motion.
COMMISSIONER RASPE: It is now.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: If it was, then I’ll second
that motion.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Do you want that to be a motion,
Commissioner Raspe?
COMMISSIONER RASPE: Sure. Do you want me to make
it a little more formally?
CHAIR HANSSEN: Sure, why don’t you go ahead?
COMMISSIONER RASPE: I move that we provide to
Town Council a recommendation to adopt the Draft 2023-2031
Housing Element as set forth in Exhibit 1 of our Staff
Report, with revised Sites Inventory Analysis as provided
in Exhibit 4, and a revised Sites Inventory Form as
provided in Exhibit 5.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Excellent. Second? Commissioner
Janoff.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Second.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Any other comments before we
vote? I don’t see any.
Commissioner Thomas.
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Yes.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/11/2023
Item #5, General Plan Amendment
re: Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CHAIR HANSSEN: Commissioner Raspe.
COMMISSIONER RASPE: Yes.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Commissioner Janoff.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Yes.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Commissioner Clark.
COMMISSIONER CLARK: Yes.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Commissioner Burnett.
COMMISSIONER BURNETT: Yes.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Vice Chair Barnett.
VICE CHAIR BARNETT: Yes.
CHAIR HANSSEN: And I vote yes as well, so that
passes unanimously, and since this is a recommendation I’m
just going to clarify with Staff that there are no appeal
rights.
JENNIFER ARMER: That is correct.
(END)
From: Jeffrey Barnett <>
Sent: Saturday, January 7, 2023 3:01:21 PM
To: Jocelyn Shoopman <jshoopman@losgatosca.gov>; Jennifer Armer <JArmer@losgatosca.gov>
Subject: Proposed Revisions to the 2023-2031 Housing Element - Policy HE-6.1, Page 10-38
EXTERNAL SENDER
Dear Jocelyn and Jennifer.
Would you kindly include the attachment as a Desk Item for Agenda Item 5 on Wednesday?
Thanks in advance.
Jeffrey
ATTACHMENT 3
Proposed Changes to the Los Gatos Draft Housing Element 6th Cycle 2023-2031
Policy HE-6.1 Fair Housing Page 10.38.
Current Language:
Support and publicize housing programs that protect individuals’ rights and
enforce fair housing laws prohibiting arbitrary discrimination in the building,
financing, selling or renting of housing on the basis of race, color, ancestry,
religion, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, age, disability/medical condition,
familial status, marital status, source of income or other such factors.
Proposed revisions:
1. After “sexual orientation” add “gender identification or expression”. It may be
covered under the term “sex”, but that is not clear. In CC 51(e)(5), sex is expressly
defined to include gender identification and expression, but this policy does not
completely track Section 51.
2. Add “genetic information”.
3. Add “primary language”.
4. Add “citizenship”.
5. Change disability/medical condition” to “disability, medical condition”.
6. Add “immigration status”
7. Consider adding “military or veteran status”.
8. Change “other factors” to “other arbitrary factors”. Marina Point , Ltd. V.
Wolfson (1982) 30 Cal3rd 721, 736.
These recommendations are based on the following:
A. California Civil Code Section 51:
(a) This section shall be known, and may be cited, as the Unruh Civil Rights Act.
(b) All persons within the jurisdiction of this state are free and equal, and no
matter what their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability,
medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sexual orientation,
citizenship, primary language, or immigration status are entitled to the full and
equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business
establishments of every kind whatsoever.
(c) This section shall not be construed to confer any right or privilege on a person
that is conditioned or limited by law or that is applicable alike to persons of every
sex, color, race, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition ,
marital status, sexual orientation, citizenship, primary language, or immigration
status, or to persons regardless of their genetic information.
(d) Nothing in this section shall be construed to require any construction,
alteration, repair, structural or otherwise, or modification of any sort whatsoever,
beyond that construction, alteration, repair, or modification that is otherwise
required by other provisions of law, to any new or existing establishment, facility,
building, improvement, or any other structure, nor shall anything in this section be
construed to augment, restrict, or alter in any way the authority of the State
Architect to require construction, alteration, repair, or modifications that the State
Architect otherwise possesses pursuant to o ther laws.
(e) For purposes of this section:
(1) “Disability” means any mental or physical disability as defined in Sections
12926 and 12926.1 of the Government Code.
(2) (A) “Genetic information” means, with respect to any individual, information
about any of the following:
(i) The individual’s genetic tests.
(ii) The genetic tests of family members of the individual.
(iii) The manifestation of a disease or disorder in family members of the
individual.
(B) “Genetic information” includes any request for, or receipt of, genetic services,
or participation in clinical research that includes genetic services, by an individual
or any family member of the individual.
(C) “Genetic information” does not include information about the sex or age of any
individual.
(3) “Medical condition” has the same meaning as defined in subdivision (i) of
Section 12926 of the Government Code.
(4) “Religion” includes all aspects of religious belief, observance, and practice.
(5) “Sex” includes, but is not limited to, pregnancy, childbirth, or medical
conditions related to pregnancy or childbirth. “Sex” also includes, but is not
limited to, a person’s gender. “Gender” means sex and includes a person’s gender
identity and gender expression. “Gender expression” means a person’s gender-
related appearance and behavior whether or not stereotypically associated with the
person’s assigned sex at birth.
(6) “Sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical
condition, genetic information, marital status, sexual orientation, citizenship,
primary language, or immigration status” includes a perception that the person has
any particular characteristic or characteristics within the listed categories or that
the person is associated with a person who has, or is perceived to have, any
particular characteristic or characteristics within the listed categories.
(7) “Sexual orientation” has the same meaning as defined in subdivision (s) of
Section 12926 of the Government Code.
(f) A violation of the right of any individual under the federal Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-336) shall also constitute a violation of
this section.
(g) Verification of immigration status and any discrimination based upon verified
immigration status, where required by federal law, shall not constitute a violation
of this section.
B. Government Code Section 1139.8(a)(2): “California’s robust
nondiscrimination laws include protections on the basis of sexual orientation,
gender identity and gender expression, among other characteristics”.
C. Government Code 12920:
“Further, the practice of discrimination because of race, color, religion, sex,
gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, marital status,
national origin, ancestry, familial status, source of income, disability, veteran or
military status, or genetic information in housing accommodations is declared to be
against public policy.
D. AFFH Report, Appendix A at Page 65
A.6 Fair Housing Enforcement and Outreach Capacity
“This section discusses fair housing legal cases and inquiries, fair housing
protections and enforcement, and outreach capacity. Fair housing legal cases and
inquiries. California fair housing law extends beyond the protections in the Federal
Fair Housing Act (FHA). In addition to FHA protected classes—race, color,
ancestry/national origin, religion, disability, sex, and familial status—California
law offers protections for age, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression,
genetic information, marital status, military or veteran status, and source of income
(including Federal housing assistance vouchers).
E. https://calcivilrights.ca.gov/housing/#whoBody:
California law protects individuals from illegal discrimination by housing
providers based on the following:
Race, color
Ancestry, national origin
Citizenship, immigration status
Primary language*
Age
Religion
Disability, mental or physical
Sex, gender
Sexual orientation
Gender identity, gender expression
Genetic information
Marital status
Familial status
Source of income
Military or veteran status
F. Protection against discrimination on the basis of gender identification or
expression is also present in laws found in the Education Code, Insurance Code,
Welfare and Institutions Code and the Health and Safety Code.
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, CONSUMER SERVICES AND HOUSING AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT
2020 W. El Camino Avenue, Suite 500
Sacramento, CA 95833
(916) 263-2911 / FAX (916) 263-7453
www.hcd.ca.gov
January 12, 2023
Joel Paulson, Director
Community Development Department
Town of Los Gatos
110 E Main Street,
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Dear Joel Paulson:
RE: Town of Los Gatos’ 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Draft Housing Element
Thank you for submitting the Town of Los Gatos draft housing element received for
review on October 14, 2022. Pursuant to Government Code section 65585, subdivision
(b), the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) is
reporting the results of its review. In addition, HCD considered comments from YIMBY
Law and Greenbelt Alliance, Kylie Clark, Silicon Valley@Home and Campaign for Fair
Housing Elements and YIMBY Law, pursuant to Government Code section 65585,
subdivision (c).
The draft element addresses many statutory requirements; however, revisions will be
necessary to comply with State Housing Element Law (Article 10.6 of the Gov. Code).
The enclosed Appendix describes the revisions needed to comply with State Housing
Element Law.
For your information, pursuant to Assembly Bill 1398 (Chapter 358, Statutes of 2021), if
a local government fails to adopt a compliant housing element within 120 days of the
statutory deadline (January 31, 2023), then any rezoning to make prior identified sites
available or accommodate the regional housing needs allocation pursuant to
Government Code sections 65583, subdivision (c) and 65583.2, subdivision (c), shall be
completed no later than one year from the statutory deadline. Please be aware, if the
Town fails to adopt a compliant housing element within one year from the statutory
deadline, the element cannot be found in substantial compliance until any necessary
rezones are completed.
Several federal, state, and regional funding programs consider housing element
compliance as an eligibility or ranking criteria. For example, the CalTrans Senate Bill
(SB) 1 Sustainable Communities grant; the Strategic Growth Council and HCD’s
Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities programs; and HCD’s Permanent
Local Housing Allocation consider housing element compliance and/or annual reporting
ATTACHMENT 4
Joel Paulson, Director
Page 2
requirements pursuant to Government Code section 65400. With a compliant housing
element, the Town will meet housing element requirements for these and other funding
sources.
For your information, some general plan element updates are triggered by housing
element adoption. HCD reminds the Town to consider timing provisions and welcomes
the opportunity to provide assistance. For information, please see the Technical
Advisories issued by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research at:
https://www.opr.ca.gov/planning/general-plan/guidelines.html.
HCD appreciates your hard work provided in the housing element update. We are
committed to assisting the Town in addressing all statutory requirements of State
Housing Element Law. If you have any questions or need additional technical
assistance, please contact Jose Armando Jauregui, of our staff, at
jose.jauregui@hcd.ca.gov .
Sincerely,
Paul McDougall
Senior Program Manager
Enclosure
Town of Los Gatos 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Draft Housing Element Page 1
January 12, 2023
APPENDIX
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
The following changes are necessary to bring the Town’s housing element into compliance
with Article 10.6 of the Government Code. Accompanying each recommended change, we cite
the supporting section of the Government Code.
Housing element technical assistance information is available on HCD’s website at
https://www.hcd.ca.gov/planning-and-community-development/hcd-memos. Among other
resources, the housing element section contains HCD’s latest technical assistance tool,
Building Blocks for Effective Housing Elements (Building Blocks), available at
https://www.hcd.ca.gov/planning-and-community-development/housing-elements/building-
blocks and includes the Government Code addressing State Housing Element Law and other
resources.
A. Review and Revision
Review the previous element to evaluate the appropriateness, effectiveness, and progress
in implementation, and reflect the results of this review in the revised element. (Gov. Code,
§ 65588 (a) and (b).)
The review requirement is one of the most important features of the element update. The
review of past programs should describe progress in implementation of previous actions,
including results compared to objectives and evaluate the effectiveness of actions to make
appropriate adjustments in the current planning period. In the most cases, the element
does not describe any progress in implementation and particularly housing related
outcomes and then simply concludes to continue or modify programs. For example, the
prior element had a program to implement the below market rate program and evaluate the
program as a constraint. The element reports the program was implemented. There is no
discussion of outcomes or an evaluation of constraints. Then, the element concludes the
program will be modified but the new program does not appear to adjust on past efforts.
The element must fully describe past commitments, progress in implementation, evaluate
effectiveness and then discuss appropriate adjustments in the current planning period.
In addition, the element must provide an evaluation of the cumulative effectiveness of past
goals, policies, and related actions in meeting the housing needs of special needs
populations (e.g., elderly, persons with disabilities, large households, female-headed
households, farmworkers, and persons experiencing homelessness) and revise programs
as appropriate.
B. Housing Needs, Resources, and Constraints
1. Affirmatively further[ing] fair housing in accordance with Chapter 15 (commencing with
Section 8899.50) of Division 1 of Title 2…shall include an assessment of fair housing in
the jurisdiction. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(10)(A).)
Town of Los Gatos 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Draft Housing Element Page 2
January 12, 2023
Regional Level Patterns and Trends: While the element includes several maps and
tables and reports data, it generally must evaluate the data and especially at a regional
level, comparing the Town to the broader region. This is particularly important since the
Town appears far different from the rest of the region. The analysis should address all
components of the assessment of fair housing (e.g., segregation and integration,
disparities in access to opportunity) and should focus on race, income, and overall
access to opportunity). The analysis should address trends and incorporate local data
and knowledge and other relevant factors (See below).
Income and Racial Concentration of Affluence (RCAA): The element briefly mentions
incomes in the Town compared to the region and notes it is safe to speculate the Town
has neighborhoods that are RCAAs; however, the entire Town is a RCAA and the
element should incorporate this information. Please see HCD’s Affirmatively Furthering
Fair Housing (AFFH) Data Viewer at https://affh-data-resources-cahcd.hub.arcgis.com/.
The element should include specific analysis of income and RCAA at a regional level
(Town compared to the broader region). The analysis should at least address trends,
conditions, coincidence with other fair housing factors (e.g., race, highest resource,
overpayment), effectiveness or absence of past strategies (e.g., lack of publicly assisted
housing and lack of multifamily zoning), local data and knowledge and other relevant
factors. The element must add or modify meaningful programs based on the outcomes
of this analysis, including actions to improve housing mobility within and beyond Town
boundaries.
Disparities in Access to Opportunity: While the element provided a general analysis of
opportunity areas, and high-level conclusions about the Town’s disparities in access to
opportunity, it should analyze trends and patterns related to access to transportation on
a local and regional level.
Disproportionate Housing Needs, Including Displacement Risk: The element includes
some information on cost burden and overcrowding but should also discuss local
patterns of housing conditions. For example, the element should discuss areas of the
Town where proportions of housing units needing rehabilitation may be higher than
other areas and may utilize local knowledge such as qualitative information from code
enforcement staff.
Identified Sites and Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH): The element must
include data on the location of regional housing need allocation (RHNA) sites by income
group relative to all fair housing components. The analysis should address the number
of units by income group and location, any isolation of the RHNA by income group,
magnitude of the impact on existing concentrations of socio- economic characteristics
and discuss how the sites improve fair housing conditions. The analysis should be
supported by local data and knowledge and other relevant factors and programs should
be added or modified as appropriate to promote inclusive and equitable communities.
Local Data and Knowledge: The element must include local data, knowledge, and other
relevant factors to discuss and analyze any unique attributes about the Town related to
Town of Los Gatos 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Draft Housing Element Page 3
January 12, 2023
fair housing issues. The element should complement federal, state, and regional data
with local data and knowledge where appropriate to capture emerging trends and
issues, including utilizing knowledge from local and regional advocates and service
providers, Town staff and related local and County planning documents.
Other Relevant Factors: While the element includes some general background on
exclusionary practices, it should relate these situations to the Town and complement
data and mapping with other relevant factors that contribute to fair housing issues in the
Town. For instance, the element can analyze historical land use; zoning and barriers to
housing choices such as past denials of affordable housing, local land use initiatives or
proposed referendums; investment practices; seeking investment or lack of seeking
investment to promote affordability and inclusion; information about
redlining/greenlining, restrictive covenants and other discriminatory practices; land use
related lawsuits; local land use initiatives; demographic trends, or other information that
complements the state and federal data.
Contributing Factors to Fair Housing Issues: Upon a complete AFFH analysis, the
element must assess and prioritize contributing factors to fair housing issues and add or
modify programs as appropriate.
2. Include an analysis and documentation of household characteristics, including level of
payment compared to ability to pay, housing characteristics, including overcrowding,
and housing stock condition. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(2).)
Housing Conditions: The element provides some information on age of the housing
stock. However, it must estimate the number of units in need of rehabilitation and
replacement. For example, the analysis could include estimates from a recent
windshield survey or sampling, estimates from the code enforcement agency, or
information from knowledgeable organizations. For additional information, see the
Building Blocks at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/planning-and-community-
development/housing-elements/building-blocks/housing-stock-characteristics.
3. An inventory of land suitable and available for residential development, including vacant
sites and sites having realistic and demonstrated potential for redevelopment during the
planning period to meet the locality’s housing need for a designated income level, and
an analysis of the relationship of zoning and public facilities and services to these sites.
(Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(3).)
Pipeline Projects: The element includes a list of 176 units through pipeline projects on
page D-38. While the element may utilize pipeline and potential development projects
toward the RHNA, it must also demonstrate their affordability and availability in the
planning period. Affordability must be demonstrated based on actual sales price, rent
level or other mechanisms ensuring affordability (e.g., deed restrictions). Availability
should account for the likelihood of project completion in the planning period and should
address the status, necessary steps to issue permits, any barriers to development and
other relevant factors.
Town of Los Gatos 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Draft Housing Element Page 4
January 12, 2023
Sites Inventory: The element must clarify what the allowable density is for the North
Forty Specific Plan identified in Table A. The inventory indicates sites zoned under the
North Forty Specific Plan where the minimum and maximum densities is the same (i.e.,
30 units per acre). If the densities are the same, the element should include a specific
analysis of the range as a potential constraint.
Realistic Capacity: The element must include a methodology for calculating the realistic
residential capacity of identified sites. The methodology must be adjusted as necessary,
based on the land use controls and site improvements and typical densities of existing
or approved residential developments at a similar affordability level in that jurisdiction.
For example, the element could clearly list other recent projects, the zone, acreage,
built density, allowable density, level of affordability and presence of exceptions such as
a density bonus.
In addition, the element must also account for the likelihood of 100 percent
nonresidential development. The element lists recent trends for residential development
in non-residential zones but should also consider the development activity of 100
percent nonresidential uses. For example, the element could analyze all development
activity in these nonresidential zones, how often residential development occurs and
adjust residential capacity calculations, policies, and programs accordingly. This
analysis may incorporate any proposed policies such as residential performance
standards and prohibition of commercial uses.
Nonvacant Sites: The element must include an analysis demonstrating the potential for
additional development on nonvacant sites. The element generally provides a
description of the properties like location and whether the property owner submitted an
interest form but does not describe the results of the form or why the property might
redevelop in the planning period. To address this requirement, the element should
address the extent to which existing uses may constitute an impediment to additional
residential development, the Town’s past experience with converting existing uses to
higher density residential development, the current market demand for the existing use,
an analysis of any existing leases or other contracts that would perpetuate the existing
use or prevent redevelopment of the site for additional residential development,
development trends, market conditions, and regulatory or other incentives or standards
to encourage additional residential development on these sites.
For your information, if the housing element relies upon nonvacant sites to
accommodate more than 50 percent of the RHNA for lower-income households the
housing element must demonstrate existing uses are not an impediment to additional
residential development and will likely discontinue in the planning period. (Gov. Code, §
65583.2, subd. (g)(2).) Absent findings (e.g., adoption resolution) based on substantial
evidence, the existing uses will be presumed to impede additional residential
development and will not be utilized toward demonstrating adequate sites to
accommodate the RHNA.
Replacement Housing Requirements: The element identifies sites with existing
residential uses. Absent a replacement housing program, these sites are not adequate
sites to accommodate lower-income households. The replacement housing program
Town of Los Gatos 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Draft Housing Element Page 5
January 12, 2023
that has the same requirements as set forth in Government Code section 65915,
subdivision (c), paragraph (3). The housing element must be revised to include such
analysis and a program, if necessary.
Small Sites: The element identifies several sites smaller than a half-acre. Sites
smaller than a half-acre in size are deemed inadequate to accommodate housing for
lower-income housing unless it is demonstrated that sites of equivalent size and
affordability were successfully developed during the prior planning period or other
evidence demonstrates the suitability of the sites to accommodate housing for lower-
income households, including programs as appropriate.
Zoning for Lower-Income Households: The element must demonstrate zoning
appropriate to accommodate housing for lower-income households. The sites inventory
includes zones with densities of 14 to 22 units per acre (Medium Density Residential R-
M) that allocate units for lower income. However, the element does not include an
analysis evaluating the adequacy of the R-M zone to encourage and facilitate the
development of units affordable to lower-income households. For communities with
densities that meet specific standards (allow at least 30 units per acre for Los Gatos),
no analysis is required. Otherwise, the element must include an analysis based on,
including but not limited to, factors such as market demand, financial feasibility and
development experience within identified zones demonstrating how the adopted
densities can accommodate housing for lower-income households.
SB 9 Sites: The element identifies SB 9 as a strategy to accommodate the part of the
Town’s RHNA. To support these assumptions, the analysis must include experience,
trends and market conditions that allow lot splits. The analysis must also include a
nonvacant sites analysis demonstrating the affordability, likelihood of redevelopment and
the existing use will not constitute as an impediment for additional residential use. The
analysis should describe how the Town determined eligible properties, whether the
assumed lots will have turnover, if the properties are easy to subdivide, and the condition
of the existing structures or other relevant factors indicating additional development
potential. The analysis should also describe interest from property owners as well as
experience. The analysis should provide support for the assumption of eligible properties
being developed within the planning period. Based on the outcomes of this analysis, the
element should add or modify programs to establish zoning and development standards
early in the planning period and implement incentives to encourage and facilitate
development as well as monitor development every two years with and identify additional
sites within six months if assumptions are not being met. The element should support this
analysis with local information such as local developer or owner interest to utilize zoning
and incentives established through SB 9.
Availability of Infrastructure: The element must demonstrate sufficient existing or
planned water and sewer capacity to accommodate the Town’s RHNA for the planning
period.
Zoning for a Variety of Housing Types:
Town of Los Gatos 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Draft Housing Element Page 6
January 12, 2023
• Transitional and Supportive Housing: Transitional housing and supportive
housing are permitted as a residential use and only subject to those restrictions
that apply to other residential dwellings of the same type in the same zone. The
element must demonstrate compliance with this requirement or include a
program if necessary.
• Permanent Supportive Housing: By right permanent supportive housing shall be
a use by-right in zones where multifamily and mixed uses are permitted,
including nonresidential zones permitting multifamily uses pursuant to
Government Code section 65651. The element must demonstrate compliance
with this requirement and include programs as appropriate.
• Employee Housing: The element should clarify if there are any zones that allow
agriculture uses. If there are zones that allow agriculture uses, then the town
must comply with California Health and Safety Code Section 17021.6. Section
17021.6 requires employee housing consisting of no more than 12 units or 36
beds to be permitted in the same manner as other agricultural uses in the same
zone.
• Manufactured Housing: The element must demonstrate zoning permits
manufactured housing on a permanent foundation in the same manner and in the
same zone as a conventional or stick-built structures are permitted (Government
Code Section 65852.3) or add or modify programs as appropriate.
Electronic Sites Inventory: For your information, pursuant to Government Code section
65583.3, the Town must submit an electronic sites inventory with its adopted housing
element. The Town must utilize standards, forms, and definitions adopted by HCD.
Please see HCD’s housing element webpage at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/planning-and-
community-development/housing-elements for a copy of the form and instructions. The
Town can reach out to HCD at sitesinventory@hcd.ca.gov for technical assistance.
4. An analysis of potential and actual governmental constraints upon the maintenance,
improvement, or development of housing for all income levels, including the types of
housing identified in paragraph (1) of subdivision (c), and for persons with disabilities as
identified in the analysis pursuant to paragraph (7), including land use controls, building
codes and their enforcement, site improvements, fees and other exactions required of
developers, and local processing and permit procedures... (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd.
(a)(5).)
Land Use Controls: The element must identify and analyze all relevant land use controls
impacts as potential constraints on a variety of housing types. For example, the element
should analyze all development standards by zoning district for impacts on housing
costs and ability to achieve maximum densities. The element should also discuss any
local initiatives, referendums, moratoriums or other mechanisms (existing or proposed)
that impact housing supply, cost, feasibility, timing and ability to achieve maximum
densities. In addition, the analysis should specifically address the development
standards in the North Forty Specific Plan, Mixed Use Commercial, and the High-
Density Residential zone. The analysis must evaluate the cumulative impacts of land
use controls on the cost and supply of housing, including the ability to achieve
Town of Los Gatos 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Draft Housing Element Page 7
January 12, 2023
maximum densities. The Town could engage the development community to assist with
this analysis.
Fees and Exaction: While the element lists the total fees per units for single-family and
multifamily development, it should also list the fees that comprise that total and
particularly impact fees then evaluate those total fees for impacts on development
costs.
Local Processing and Permit Procedures: The element must describe and analyze the
types of permits, extent of discretionary review including required approval findings,
number of public hearings and processing time required for a typical single family and
multifamily development that meets zoning requirements.
Housing for Persons with Disabilities: The element indicates the Town adopted a
procedure for requesting reasonable accommodation for persons with disabilities (p. C-
23) and describes the procedure; however, the element should address criteria related
to: “There would be no impact on surrounding uses” and include a program to address
the constraint. In addition, residential care facilities for seven or more require a
conditional use permit (CUP). The element should evaluate the CUP as a constraint and
add a program to allow group homes in all residential zones with an objective and
certain process similar to other residential uses.
Density Bonus: The element states the Town adopted a state density bonus program in
June 2012. The Town’s current density bonus program should be reviewed for
compliance with current State Density Bonus Law (SDBL). (Gov. Code, § 65915.). The
element should include a program to update density bonus program. Program V is
conducting a study to evaluate the existing Density Bonus Ordinance and recommend
changes to increase the number of units constructed, however it should specifically
commit to update the ordinance in compliance with state law.
Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance: The element mentions the Town’s inclusionary zoning
ordinance, but it must also analyze the Town’s inclusionary housing requirements,
including its impacts as potential constraints on the development of housing for all
income levels. The analysis must evaluate the inclusionary broader policy’s
implementation framework, including the percentage of new residential construction that
is dedicated to affordable housing, the types of options and incentives offered,
relationships with SDBL and any other factors that may impact housing costs.
Zoning and Fees Transparency: The element must clarify its compliance with new
transparency requirements for posting all zoning, development standards and fees for
each parcel on the jurisdiction’s website.
5. Analyze any special housing needs such as elderly; persons with disabilities, including a
developmental disability; large families; farmworkers; families with female heads of
households; and families and persons in need of emergency shelter. (Gov. Code, §
65583, subd. (a)(7).)
Town of Los Gatos 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Draft Housing Element Page 8
January 12, 2023
Special Housing Needs: While the element quantifies some of the Town’s special needs
populations, it must also estimate the number of persons experiencing homelessness in
the Town. In addition, the element reports data but must also analyze the special
housing needs. For a complete analysis of each population group, the element should
quantify the needs, evaluate trends and characteristics (e.g., tenure, income) of housing
needs, discuss disproportionate challenges faced by the population, the existing
resources to meet those needs, assess any gaps in resources or effectiveness of past
strategies, describe the magnitude of the remaining need and appropriate propose
policies and programs.
For additional information and a sample analysis, see the Building Blocks at
https://www.hcd.ca.gov/planning-and-community-development/housing-
elements/building-blocks.
C. Housing Programs
1. Include a program which sets forth a schedule of actions during the planning period,
each with a timeline for implementation, which may recognize that certain programs are
ongoing, such that there will be beneficial impacts of the programs within the planning
period, that the local government is undertaking or intends to undertake to implement
the policies and achieve the goals and objectives of the Housing Element... (Gov. Code,
§ 65583, subd. (c).)
To have a beneficial impact in the planning period and achieve the goals and objectives
of the housing element, programs should have specific commitment toward housing
outcomes and discrete and early timing (e.g., at least annually or by Jan 2025).
Examples of programs to be revised include:
• Program K Small Multi-Unit Housing: The Program should include a timeline
of when zoning code will be updated.
• M Lot Consolidation: The Program should include a quantification of
approximately how many lot consolidations the town plans to facilitate.
• Program R Development Impact and Permit Fees: The Program should
include a completion timeline.
• Program S Affordable Housing Development: The Program should include
quantification of approximately how many units will be incentivized.
• Program T Purchase Affordability Covenants in Existing Apartments: The
element should clarify the timeline to establish and implement the program
(e.g., by 2024 and at least annually).
• Program AC Housing Opportunities for Persons Living with Disabilities: The
Program must include a completion timeframe.
• Program AK Housing Conditions Survey: Program should be revised to include a
specific timeline for when the housing condition survey will be conducted.
Additionally, the element should describe how often funding will be applied for (e.g.,
annually).
Town of Los Gatos 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Draft Housing Element Page 9
January 12, 2023
• Program AR CDBG and Other Housing Rehabilitation Programs: The Program
should clarify how often the Town will participate in the County of Santa Clara
Community Development Block Grant Joint Powers Authority (e.g. annually,
biannually).
• AS Countywide Home Repair Programs: The Program should include a
numerical target (e.g., how many minor home repairs).
• AU Residential Rehabilitation Program: The Program should include a
timeline commitment.
2. Identify actions that will be taken to make sites available during the planning period with
appropriate zoning and development standards and with services and facilities to
accommodate that portion of the city’s or county’s share of the regional housing need
for each income level that could not be accommodated on sites identified in the
inventory completed pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) without rezoning, and
to comply with the requirements of Government Code section 65584.09. Sites shall be
identified as needed to facilitate and encourage the development of a variety of types of
housing for all income levels, including multifamily rental housing, factory-built housing,
mobilehomes, housing for agricultural employees, supportive housing, single-room
occupancy units, emergency shelters, and transitional housing. (Gov. Code, § 65583,
subd. (c)(1).)
As noted in Finding B3, the element does not include a complete site analysis;
therefore, the adequacy of sites and zoning were not established. Based on the results
of a complete sites inventory and analysis, the Town may need to add or revise
programs to address a shortfall of sites or zoning available to encourage a variety of
housing types. In addition, the element should be revised as follows:
Program D Additional Housing Capacity: Currently the element identifies a shortfall of
adequate sites to accommodate the RHNA within the planning period. Program D
appears to be intended to rezone sites to accommodate a shortfall of sites for the lower-
income- RHNA. However, the Program must be revised to meet all requirements
pursuant to Government Code section 65583.2, subdivisions (h) and (i). For example,
the Program must commit to permit owner-occupied and rental multifamily uses by-right
(without discretionary action) for developments in which 20 percent or more of the units
are affordable to lower-income households.
Replacement Housing Requirements: The housing element must include a program to
provide replacement housing. (Gov. Code, § 65583.2, subd. (g)(3).) The replacement
housing program must adhere to the same requirements as set forth in Government
Code section 65915, subdivision (c), paragraph (3).
3. The Housing Element shall contain programs which assist in the development of
adequate housing to meet the needs of extremely low-, very low-, low- and moderate-
income households. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(2).)
Program S (Affordable Housing Development): While the program targets extremely low
income and other special needs groups, it should also include very low- and low-income
Town of Los Gatos 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Draft Housing Element Page 10
January 12, 2023
households. The Program should be revised to include outcome-oriented commitments
such as annual outreach with developers and identification of development or housing
opportunities.
4. Address and, where appropriate and legally possible, remove governmental and
nongovernmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of
housing, including housing for all income levels and housing for persons with
disabilities. The program shall remove constraints to, and provide reasonable
accommodations for housing designed for, intended for occupancy by, or with
supportive services for, persons with disabilities. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(3).)
As noted in Finding B4, the element requires a complete analysis of potential
governmental constraints. Depending upon the results of that analysis, the Town may
need to revise or add programs and address and remove or mitigate any identified
constraints.
5. Promote and affirmatively further fair housing opportunities and promote housing
throughout the community or communities for all persons regardless of race, religion,
sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin, color, familial status, or disability, and other
characteristics... (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(5).)
As noted in Finding B1, the element requires a complete AFFH analysis. Depending
upon the results of that analysis, the Town may need to revise or add or modify goals
and actions. Goals and actions must specifically respond to the analysis and to the
identified and prioritized contributing factors to fair housing issues and must be
significant and meaningful enough to overcome identified patterns and trends. Actions
must have specific commitment, milestones, geographic targeting and metrics or
numerical targets and, as appropriate, address housing mobility enhancement, new
housing choices and affordability in higher opportunity or higher income areas, place-
based strategies for community revitalization and displacement protection. For example,
the element must add significant and meaningful housing mobility actions to overcome
the existing patterns in the Town related to the broader region.
6. Develop a plan that incentivizes and promotes the creation of accessory dwelling units
that can be offered at affordable rent... (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(7).)
Program U Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU): While the element includes a program to
incentivize ADU development by waiving fees when an ADU is deed restricted for very
low-, and low-income households, it should also provide other incentives that incentivize
and promote the creation of ADUs that can be offered at affordable rent. The element
could consider other ADU incentives such as exploring and pursuing funding, modifying
development standards, and reducing fees beyond state law, pre-approved plans, and
homeowner/applicant assistance tools. Finally, the program should commit to monitor
the production and affordability of ADUs (e.g., every other year) and make adjustments,
if necessary, by a date certain (e.g., within six months).
Town of Los Gatos 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Draft Housing Element Page 11
January 12, 2023
D. Quantified Objectives
Establish the number of housing units, by income level, that can be constructed,
rehabilitated, and conserved over a five-year time frame. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (b)(1
& 2).)
The element did not address this requirement. The element must include quantified
objectives to establish an estimate of housing units by income category, including
extremely low-income households, that can be constructed, rehabilitated, and conserved
over the planning period.
E. Public Participation
Local governments shall make a diligent effort to achieve public participation of all
economic segments of the community in the development of the Housing Element, and the
element shall describe this effort. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd.(c)(9).)
While the element described various efforts to achieve public participation in the
preparation of the housing element update, it should also describe how comments were
considered and incorporated into the element.
Public participation in the development, adoption and implementation of the housing
element is essential to effective housing planning. During the housing element revision
process, the Town must continue to engage the community, especially organizations that
represent lower-income and special needs households, including local neighborhood
groups and commenters on this review such as Silicon Valley@Home, by making
information regularly available while considering and incorporating comments where
appropriate. Please be aware, any revisions to the element must be posted on the local
government’s website and to email a link to all individuals and organizations that have
previously requested notices relating to the local government’s housing element at least
seven days before submitting to HCD.
F. General Plan Consistency
The Housing Element shall describe the means by which consistency will be achieved with
other general plan elements and community goals. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(7).)
The Town must discuss how internal consistency will be maintained and achieved with
other elements of the general plan throughout the planning period.
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● 408-354-6832
www.losgatosca.gov
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Minutes of the Town Council – Special Meeting
January 30, 2023
The Town Council of the Town of Los Gatos conducted a special meeting in-person and utilizing
teleconferencing means on Tuesday, January 30, 2023, at 7:00 p.m. to consider adoption of a
2023-2031 Housing Element.
MEETING CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:02 P.M.
ROLL CALL
Present: Mayor Maria Ristow, Vice Mayor Mary Badame, Council Member Matthew Hudes,
Council Member Rob Moore, Council Member Rob Rennie
Absent: None
PUBLIC HEARING
1.Consider the Adoption of the Los Gatos 2023-2031 Housing Element. An Environmental
Analysis Based on the Previously Certified 2040 General Plan Final Environmental Impact
Report has been Prepared for the Los Gatos 2023-2031 Housing Element. Location: Town-
wide. Applicant: Town of Los Gatos. General Plan Amendment Application GP-22-003.
RESOLUTION 2023-006
Erin Walters, Associate Planner, provided the staff report.
Opened public comment.
Lee Fagot
-Commented on concerns and spoke in opposition of the item.
Lee Quintana
-Commented on concerns and spoke in opposition of the item.
Rene Baez, NorCal Carpenters Unit
-Commented on labor requirements for housing construction and requested Council
consider adding apprentice program, healthcare, and local hire requirements.
Jak Van Nada, Los Gatos Community Alliance
-Commented on concerns and spoke in opposition of the item.
Closed public comment.
ATTACHMENT 5
PAGE 2 OF 2 SUBJECT: DRAFT Minutes of the Town Council Special Meeting of January 30, 2023 DATE: January 30, 2023
Public Hearing Item #1 – continued
Council discussed the item.
Recess 8:42 p.m.
Reconvene 8:55 p.m.
MOTION: Motion by Council Member Moore to adopt the revised resolution (Attachment 16)
to adopt the Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element with the revised site inventory
analysis and sites inventory form. Seconded by Mayor Ristow.
VOTE: Motion passes 4-0-1. Vice Mayor Badame abstained.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 9:09 p.m.
Respectfully submitted:
_____________________________________
Jenna De Long, Deputy Clerk
Public Comments received by HCD between
April 21, 2022, and November 18, 2022, and
reference in HCD finding/comment letter
dated January 12, 2023.
ATTACHMENT 6
April 21, 2022
Dear Los Gatos City Council:
We are writing on behalf of YIMBY Law and Greenbelt Alliance regarding Los Gatos’s 6th Cycle Housing
Element Update. YIMBY Law is a legal nonprofit working to make housing in California more accessible and
affordable through enforcement of state law. Greenbelt Alliance is an environmental nonprofit working to en‐
sure that the Bay Area’s lands and communities are resilient to a changing climate.
We are writing to remind you of Los Gatos's obligation to include sufficient sites in your upcoming Housing
Element to accommodate your Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) of 1,993 units.
In the Annual Progress Reports that Los Gatos submitted to HCD, we observe the following trend of housing
units permitted in the last four years:
Year Housing units permitted
2018 25
2019 31
2020 180
2021 225
Average, 2018-2021 115
To meet the 6th cycle RHNA target, the rate of new housing permits in Los Gatos would need to increase
from 115 units per year in 2018-2021 to 249 units per year in the next 8 years. This is a 116% increase from re‐
cent years. If the current pace were to continue, Los Gatos would meet only 46% of its new housing target.
Based on these trends, it is unlikely that Los Gatos’s existing realistic zoning capacity is sufficient to meet its
6th cycle RHNA target. According to HCD’s Housing Element Site Inventory Guidebook, housing elements
must analyze the realistic capacity of their sites, which may include considerations of “[l]ocal or regional track
records”, “past production trends”, and “the rate at which similar parcels were developed during the previous
planning period”. A housing element that does not include a significant rezoning component is therefore un‐
likely to be compliant with state law.
We urge Los Gatos to include a major rezoning component in its Housing Element—a rezoning large enough
to close the gap between recent housing production trends and the RHNA target. The rezoning should be
within existing communities and should comply with the city’s obligation to Affirmatively Further Fair Hous‐
ing. We also urge Los Gatos to ease any other constraints, such as discretionary approval processes or impact
fees, that may impede the rate of development on your city's housing sites.
Thank you,
Sid Kapur, East Bay YIMBY
Rafa Sonnenfeld, YIMBY Law (rafa@yimbylaw.org)
Zoe Siegel, Greenbelt Alliance (zsiegel@greenbelt.org)
August 04, 2022
Dear Los Gatos City Council:
We are writing on behalf of South Bay YIMBY regarding Los Gatos’s 6th Cycle Housing
Element Update. As a regional pro-housing advocacy group, South Bay YIMBY works to
ensure cities adopt housing elements that are fair, realistic, and lawful.
Per §8899.50(a)(1) of state code, Los Gatos's housing element must affirmatively further
fair housing, which entails 'taking meaningful actions... that overcome patterns of segreg‐
ation.'
The City of Los Gatos is uniquely positioned to affirmatively further fair housing, as Los
Gatos is a wealthy, exclusionary city that researchers with the Othering and Belonging In‐
stitute at UC Berkeley identify as highly segregated from the rest of the Bay Area. This so‐
cioeconomic segregation is caused by the exclusionary cost of housing in your community,
where an average home, as of April 30th, costs $2,926,000, which is only affordable to
someone earning a salary of $452,000, meaning only the richest 2% of households
can afford to settle down in your community. To put a finer point on the level of afflu‐
ence in your city, the average home in your city costs more than French castles. It is thus
no coincidence that your city is 64% whiter than the rest of the Bay, as well as 87% less
black than the rest of the Bay Area.
In a 2021 report entitled 'Exclusionary Zoning: Its Effect on Racial Discrimination in the
Housing Market,' economic advisors for the White House outline how exclusionary zoning,
like yours, causes segregation. Your exclusionary zoning pushes low income children to
live in less resourced areas, which begets worse life outcomes from health to income. The
research is clear: exclusionary zoning violates your duty to further fair housing.
To take meaningful actions that overcome patterns of segregation, we recommend you:
1. End apartment bans in high opportunity areas. This will give middle and working
class families the opportunity to share in the resources your rich neighborhoods enjoy. As
of 2020, your city banned apartments in over 93.6% of residential areas , including
in 96.7% of high opportunity residential areas.
2. Accommodate 3423 low income homes in your site inventory. While substantially
larger than the floor of 847 low income homes required by RHNA, 3423 is the number of
homes required to bring the proportion of low income families in your city in line with the
rest of the Bay Area. While this number is large enough to be politically challenging, it will
always be politically challenging to overcome segregation, as AFFH requires.
Thank you,
Salim Damerdji, South Bay YIMBY
Keith Diggs, YIMBY Law
Campaign for Fair Housing Elements
fairhousingelements.org
The Town of Los Gatos
Via email:HEUpdate@losgatosca.gov
Cc:HousingElements@hcd.ca.gov
September 27, 2022
Re: Los Gatos’s Draft Housing Element
To the Town of Los Gatos:
YIMBY Law appreciates the Town’s recognition that “densification is the only practical
solution to providing [its] fair share of future housing.” (Los Gatos Draft Housing
Element, pp.10-22, D-41.) The Town is correct that it (and the region) will become “less
competitive” if it fails to stem the housing crisis (id.p.10-2); the South Bay’s shrinking
population warns us that its decline may have begun. Los Gatos effectively failed to
produce any multifamily housing in the 2010s; overall home production peaked six
decades ago. (Id.pp.B-22 to -23.) The Town must address this humanitarian disaster
by throwing out the constraints it created to produce it. (Gov. Code § 65583(c)(3).)
We reject the Californian planning folklore that towns like Los Gatos are “largely built
out.” (Contra Draft, pp.10-22, D-41.) This just isn’t true.Vast swathes of Los Gatos are
zoned R-1, with building illegal on half of any lot (see id.p.C-1), and the Town enforces
wasteful lot sizes far beyond any household’s wildest needs (id.p.C-4; cf.id.p.A-9
[euphemizing lot sizes as “generous”]). The Town also charges thousands of dollars
just to redraw the imaginary lines that prevent homes from being built. (Id.p.C-13.)
State law requires none of this. It does require that affordable housing in Los Gatos be
allowed to develop at at least 30 homes per acre (HCD Default Densities, p.18), and we
call for the Town’s affordable-housing overlay (Draft, p.C-5) to be raised to at least that
level. Better still, legalize density across the Town. Similarly, the Town should exceed
what SB 9 already requires with respect to lot splits. (See id.pp.10-22.) Doing so would
show that Policies HE-1.2, -1.7, and -6.5 are serious. (Id.pp.10-24, -28.)
Besides density, processing time is a major known contributor to the housing
shortage. We thank the Town for publishing that it takes 1–1½ years to permit an
approved multifamily development. (Id.p.C-20.) While this is on par with other Santa
Clara County jurisdictions (id.p.C-19), there’s no inherent reason the process should
take so long: safe, dense, and affordable cities preexist our modern approval
processes by millennia. Be bold and dismantle any nonsafety design standards.
Finally, we appreciate the Town’s confirmation that the owners of several opportunity
sites “ha[ve] expressed interest in residential redevelopment.” (See id.pp.D-2 to -36.)
It appears, however, that the owners of many other sites have not. (See ibid.) We
question whether it is in fact realistic that those sites will see housing in this cycle.
We look forward to the City’s next draft. Please contact me with questions.
Sincerely,
Keith Diggs
Housing Elements Advocacy Manager, YIMBY Law
keith@yimbylaw.org
Campaign for Fair Housing Elements
fairhousingelements.org 2
September 30, 2022
RE: Housing Element
Page 2 of 7
350 W. Julian Street, Building 5, San José, CA 95110
408.780.8411 • www.svathome.org • info@siliconvalleyathome.org
about how adequate the targeted outreach was to tenants. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) requires
jurisdictions to do targeted outreach to groups that generally do not access traditional public venues, or receive
notifications through commonly used channels. The responsibility for robust and meaningful two-way engagement
with all stakeholders goes beyond simply inviting them into the existing process.
We recommend that the Town take the opportunity to reengage and expand on prior community
engagement efforts to facilitate a meaningful two-way engagement with all stakeholders to collect
input on the current Draft. This process should include a thorough documentation of prior input on
housing needs and proposed solutions and a clear record of input received through this additional
engagement. These discussions should more clearly inform the housing needs assessment, the
constraints analysis, and the policies and programs proposed in response.
The Draft states that the data packet supplied by ABAG was the basis for decisions about housing goals, policies, and
implementation programs. This approach fails to meet the central expectation of the Housing Element Update process
to integrate a process of consultation and reengagement with the community to fully understand and respond to their
housing needs. HCD’s guidance documents clearly require substantive incorporation of local knowledge into
jurisdictions’ foundational understanding of their residents’ housing needs, and policies and programs to be
responsive to those needs. This is the purpose of the requirement for robust outreach and engagement. We believe
much of this local perspective has been collected.
We recommend that the Town reassess the components of the Housing Element to integrate local
knowledge gained through robust outreach and community engagement along with data as the
foundation for decisions about housing goals, policies, and implementation programs.
Los Gatos’ recently adopted General Plan demonstrates that there is real momentum and community support to
address racial injustice, but concrete policies and programs to build on this discussion and respond to the real
community interest have not been identified in the Housing Element process. Without an articulation of the
connection between policy goals and racial segregation or disproportionate housing need for protected classes, the
community’s intent cannot translate into change. It would be tragic, and a real missed opportunity, for less to come of
that work than it deserves.
We recommend that the Town identify and clearly articulate the connection between policy goals and
implementation programs, and racial segregation or disproportionate housing needs for protected
classes.
Anti-displacement Policies and Programs to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing
The Town is in a unique position of having an existing landlord/tenant mediation and arbitration ordinance. The rent
dispute ordinance applies to rentals on properties of 3 or more units and on rent increases at 70% of CPI or 5%.
Increases below 5% are considered valid and cannot be disputed. A landlord seeking an increase above 5% must justify
the increase if disputed with “pass-through” and other operational costs, but would be capped at 10%. This is a
program that is contracted out to Project Sentinel. We are pleased that the continuation of this program has been
included in the current Draft Housing Element document. However, we are unaware of any assessment of the success
of this ordinance. We generally have found that mediation and arbitration programs have a limited impact on
preventing displacement, but do acknowledge that the ordinance is unique. We believe that the protections extended
September 30, 2022
RE: Housing Element
Page 3 of 7
350 W. Julian Street, Building 5, San José, CA 95110
408.780.8411 • www.svathome.org • info@siliconvalleyathome.org
under the existing ordinance should be augmented through additional programs or policies, to provide stability to
tenants.
Earlier this year, SV@Home sent a letter outlining anti-displacement policies the Town could adopt to affirmatively
further fair housing (AFFH). Some of the policies that SV@Home discussed include:
• Rent Survey Program: this will enable metrics for the Town to determine the efficacy of the mediation and
arbitration ordinance, identify patterns of displacement, and consider effective policies to address the needs
identified;
• Tenant Relocation Assistance: this program can help bridge the gap of moving expenses if a tenant is evicted
for a no-fault cause, such as the redevelopment of an existing rental community. It can also serve as a tool to
mitigate the costs of displacement prompted by a rent increase above a fixed percentage; and
• Tenant Resource Center: this program would help the Town achieve its stated goals of reaching more
displacement-impacted populations to ensure they have access to the services they need (i.e. the existing
rental assistance) while creating a safe location for tenants and landlords to access the mediation and
arbitration ordinance, and other policies and programs as they are developed.
We recommend that the Town of Los Gatos build upon its existing mediation and arbitration
ordinance to add policies such as a rent survey program, tenant relocation assistance, and a tenant
resource center. A clear timeline and process for development of these, or other renter protections,
should be set to ensure that the impact will be measurable within the 6th Cycle.
The Town is proposing policies to acquire both private market housing and subsidized housing with expiring
affordability restrictions. This would require significant financial resources for acquisition and rehabilitation, and we
do not find an explicit mechanism to provide these resources in the current Draft. In our earlier correspondence
outlining potential anti-displacement policies to fulfill AFFH requirements, we noted the potential to build a robust
preservation program around a Community Opportunity to Purchase Act (COPA).
We recommend that the Town of Los Gatos outline a strategy for expanding local affordable housing
development resources. This strategy should begin with a clear list of options to consider, a target
goal for funds to be generated, and a timeline for implementation as required.
Meeting RHNA Levels and Housing Opportunity Sites Inventory
The Town’s updated General Plan was a significant undertaking, and we believe a turning point in the approach that
Los Gatos takes towards responding to the housing needs of the Town and its role in the region. Los Gatos is a net
importer of employees. The new General Plan outlines significant steps to increase the number of new homes in the
Town, including significant changes to land use designations that will allow for increased densities and the
construction of multi-family housing. Much of this detailed land use work remains in progress, but we are confident
that the plan will be implemented.
Based on our initial analysis we have concerns with the Town’s Sites Inventory. These are described below.
Insufficient Density in North 40 Specific Plan Area and Throughout the Sites Inventory
We are pleased to see that the Town will accommodate roughly 12 percent of its lower-income capacity to the North
40 Specific Plan area. Although there have been ongoing community discussions about this important specific plan, we
September 30, 2022
RE: Housing Element
Page 4 of 7
350 W. Julian Street, Building 5, San José, CA 95110
408.780.8411 • www.svathome.org • info@siliconvalleyathome.org
are aware of the richness of the area and the community’s intent to celebrate its agricultural heritage and hillside
views. We acknowledge the Town's efforts to balance the area’s small town history and character with the local, and
regional importance of increased residential density and affordable housing in the decade ahead. We are concerned,
however, that the North 40 Specific Plan’s N-40 zoning designation only allows for between 13 and 22 dwelling units
per acre, which is well below the required Mullin density minimum of 30 dwelling units per acre per HCD’s Housing
Element Sites Inventory Guidebook.
In fact, approximately 63 percent of lower-income sites in the entire inventory currently do not meet this minimum
density requirement. We know that under the recently adopted General Plan update there are significant plans to
upzone portions of the Town, nonetheless, we are concerned that there will remain sites zoned at lower densities
than required.
We recommend that the Town rezone all lower-income sites zoned with densities under 30 dwelling
units per acre to allow for the HCD-required minimum density of 30 dwelling units per acre.
Overstatement of ADU Production Expectations
Appendix D estimates that 200 new ADUs will be built during the RHNA cycle, and that 40 percent of these (80 ADUs)
will count towards the Town’s lower-income obligations. This amounts to over 9 percent of the total combined very-
low and low-income units, and just under 20 percent of the total low-income category alone.
These forecasts are likely based on the ADU calculation methodology provided to Bay Area cities by the Association of
Bay Area Governments (ABAG). While we understand why cities are using this guidance in their Housing Element
planning process, we believe that this methodology is flawed in two ways: 1) it assumes significantly lower rents than
unpublished local studies have shown and we have found in our analysis that the ABAG methodology subsequently
credits far more units to affordable goals than is warranted, and 2) it assumes that all ADUs are used as primary
residences, rather than home offices, guest rooms, or play spaces for children. Together, these failings lead to a
significant overstatement of ADU impact.
Policies HE-1.7, HE-2.6, and HE-6.5, together with program U, are intended to incentivize with minimal public subsidy
the production of lower-income ADUs to meet RHNA targets. We acknowledge the Town’s plan to waive building
permit fees for deed-restricted lower-income ADUs under program U. However, Program U, including all the
aforementioned ADU-related policies need to be assessed for their potential effectiveness, analyzed against current
and past development trends, and incorporate input from single-family homeowners. Without this, the effectiveness
of the proposed policies and programs are uncertain.
We recommend that the Town schedule an analysis to adequately assess the projected lower-income
ADU production and that a system for tracking ADU production and rents be incorporated into annual
HE reporting. This would allow for adjustments in current assumptions and provide an opportunity to
assess the impact of the proposed policies.
We do note the inclusion of the General Plan land use policy 1.2, as an important step towards facilitating increased
intensity of existing land use patterns. This is an important commitment given the nature of residential areas in the
Town, and would similarly benefit from a scheduled review of its impact.
September 30, 2022
RE: Housing Element
Page 5 of 7
350 W. Julian Street, Building 5, San José, CA 95110
408.780.8411 • www.svathome.org • info@siliconvalleyathome.org
Methodology and Supporting Analysis of the Sites Inventory Fail to Conform to HCD Standards
The Housing Element Sites Inventory Guidebook produced by HCD, along with supplemental resources provided by
the Association of Bay Area Governments have a number of requirements and recommendations for lower-income
sites. These requirements are very specific for non-vacant parcels identified as lower-income opportunity sites.
Although we found detailed descriptions of several non-vacant sites, and we acknowledge the important effort
undertaken through the General Plan process, we believe the draft does not meet key requirements including:
1. Include an explanation of the methodology used to select sites and their development potential;
2. Provide substantial evidence that indicates existing non-residential use will be discontinued or will not be an
impediment to future residential development;
3. Demonstrate that there is clear developer interest in redeveloping each site, including consolidating parcels
for housing, within the planning period;
4. Clearly describe how the realistic capacity calculations were used to determine the number of units that can
be reasonably developed on a site, and
5. Incorporate potential constraints (e.g. environmental, parking, open space, parcel shape etc.) into the
inventory’s realistic capacity calculations consistent with the Guidebook.
Given the absence in the draft of alternative approaches to addressing these requirements, these details need to be
provided on a site-by-site basis in the Sites Inventory.
We also note that approximately 24 percent of the new sites (totaling 211 units) identified for lower-income capacity
are projected to accommodate fewer than 50 units. According to the Housing Element Sites Inventory Guidebook,
lower-income sites that do not have 50 to 150 units make them less competitive for State and Federal resources to
build affordable housing. The viability of financing affordable housing is of utmost importance. If the reasonable
likelihood of adequately funding sites for lower-income units is low, then they should either have their realistic
capacity assumptions heavily discounted across the inventory, or be removed from the Sites Inventory and be
replaced with sites that could accommodate 50-150 unit developments.
We do acknowledge that the Town has prioritized an effort to expand the number of larger, two- and three-bedroom,
affordable apartments to support the needs of families. This is an important commitment, even if it may mean fewer
apartments in total.
We recommend the Sites Inventory provide a more comprehensive site-specific analysis as described
above. We also suggest either heavily discounting the realistic capacity of sites that would produce
less than 50 lower-income units or identifying alternative sites that would produce 50 or more
affordable units so that they can be more competitive for external funding.
Governmental and Non-Governmental Constraints
The Constraints Assessment in the current Draft generally describes the Town’s development review processes and
standards rather than providing the required analysis of their cumulative impact on the supply and affordability of
housing. For example, there are of course a full menu of taxes and fees which may vary significantly, making it difficult
to assess their impact on the costs to development. There are also significant off-site improvement requirements that
are costly. The cumulative impact of these factors, and other administrative processes, should be assessed as a
potential governmental constraint on development. Market rate development in Los Gatos benefits from very high
September 30, 2022
RE: Housing Element
Page 7 of 7
350 W. Julian Street, Building 5, San José, CA 95110
408.780.8411 • www.svathome.org • info@siliconvalleyathome.org
SV@Home values its partnership with the Town of Los Gatos and it is in that spirit that we provide our feedback on
the Draft Housing Element. We welcome the opportunity to engage in an ongoing dialogue as the Draft Housing
Element moves through cycles of review and revision, with the shared goal of addressing the Town’s urgent housing
need by boosting production of homes at all income levels, preserving existing affordable homes, and protecting the
families in them.
Sincerely,
Regina Celestin Williams
Executive Director
From: Kylie Clark <>
Sent: Friday, November 18, 2022 4:42 PM
To: Housing Elements@HCD <HousingElements@hcd.ca.gov>
Subject: Los Gatos General Plan Referendum
Hello,
I hope this email finds you well! Thank you so much for all of the work you are doing on the Housing
Element. As someone who does housing work in a lot of anti-housing cities, I really appreciate the work
you are doing to resolve our state's housing crisis. I'm a Los Gatos Planning Commissioner, but I am
writing to you just as a concerned citizen.
I am reaching out to make sure you are aware of a referendum [losgatosca.gov] that was recently signed
by enough Los Gatos voters to be placed on the ballot. The referendum suspends the town's Land Use
and Community Design Elements in our General Plan, which was approved by our Town Council in the
last few months. The referendum was fully paid for and passed by a few rich white anti-housing men in
our town (they paid the signature gatherers $10 per signature).
The justification for this referendum is their opposition to our planned housing numbers, as we went
above the state mandate (which makes sense, as this is our General Plan looking 20 years out, not just
planning for this 8-year HE cycle). The anti-housing group is claiming that the town will build 12,000 new
units in the next 8 years (haha I wish).
I have a lot of questions about this referendum, including whether it is even lawful, as it places land use
on the ballot, meaning if the town wanted to make any future changes to our land use we would have to
take it to the voters. It also might cause some serious problems with our Housing Element, as obviously
our Land Use Element is closely tied to it.
I wanted to make y'all aware of this and to see if you would be able to support our town in any way. We
put a lot of work into our General Plan, and these are very strong elements. I would hate to see them
reformed to allow for less housing just because of a few upset rich residents.
Thank you so much!
In community,
Kylie
(Pronouns: she, her, hers)
Yes, We Live on Ohlone Land. But What Does That Mean? [thebolditalic.com]
------
Kylie Clark
Community organizer, nonprofit professional
|
From: David Kellogg <>
Sent: Friday, November 18, 2022 5:07 PM
To: Housing Elements@HCD <HousingElements@hcd.ca.gov>
Subject: Public Comment on Housing Element
Nov 18, 2022
On behalf of David Kellogg (a Contra Costa County resident), 350 Contra Costa, Greenbelt
Alliance, CaRLA, Scott O’Neil (a resident of Palo Alto), Watson Ladd (a resident of Berkeley),
Marven Normal (a resident of San Bernadino), Dara Dadachanji (a resident of San Francisco),
and George Grohwin (a resident of San Francisco), we provide the following comment on the
Housing Element from LOS GATOS.
Issue
• The Housing Element from LOS GATOS fails to adequately analyze compliance with one
of the state’s fundamental streamlining laws.
• Under PRC 21080.1 & 21080.2, a lead agency must determine if a housing development
is exempt from CEQA within 30 days of completeness, or if an EIR or other CEQA
document will be required.
• For CEQA-exempt housing, this CEQA determination then triggers a 60-day approval
clock (with deemed approved remedies) under the Permit Streamlining Act. Thus, if
state housing laws were followed, CEQA-exempt housing projects should generally
receive approvals in about 120 days.
1. 30 days to determine completeness
2. 30 days for CEQA review
3. 60 days for approval.
• LOS GATOS does not appear to issue determinations of CEQA-exemption within 30 days
of completeness. As a result, builders and the public are denied the right to the timely
approval of housing. Additionally, the builders are forced into an unreasonable
bargaining position, as they lack the “deemed approved” options they should have. This
improperly empowers jurisdictions to treat builders arbitrarily in the entitlement
process.
• Moreover, LOS GATOS has no apparent good-faith basis for delaying CEQA-exemption
determinations beyond the allowance of Public Resources Code 21080.1 & 21080.2. In
the vast majority of instances, these exemptions are uncontested and straightforward.
Recommendation
• The Housing Element from LOS GATOS should include an analysis of compliance in its
approval process with PRC 21080.1 & 21080.2.
• The Housing Element from LOS GATOS should add a program to specify (i) who is
responsible for making the CEQA determination of PRC 21080.1, specify (ii) that their
decision will be made within the timeframe permitted by PRC 21080.2, and specify that
(iii), when they determine a project is exempt from CEQA, their determination triggers
the Permit Streamlining Act (PSA) 60-day deadline (Gov. Code 65950(a)(5)). If existing
local practices or regulations are incompatible with these state laws, the program
should commit to enacting reforms necessary to achieve compliance within a
reasonable and definite timeline.
HCD Technical Assistance Letter
• The CEQA issues mentioned herein are discussed in the June 3, 2022 Technical
Assistance letter sent to Berkeley by Shannan West, Housing Accountability Unit Chief
(copy included below).
• In the letter, HCD notes that Berkeley had been issuing “recommendations” of CEQA-
exemption and that the actual “determinations” were made more than 30 days beyond
the completeness date. HCD notes that such practice was in violation of PRC 21080.1 &
21080.2 and “may act as a governmental constraint on housing.”
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
Response to HCD Comment Letter: Page 1
ATTACHMENT 7
HCD 1/12/23 Comments on Draft Housing Element with Responses
Comment
Number HCD Comment (1/12/23 Letter) Response
1 A. Review and Revision
Review the previous element to evaluate the appropriateness,
effectiveness, and progress in implementation, and reflect the
results of this review in the revised element. (Gov. Code, §65588
(a) and (b).)
The review requirement is one of the most important features of
the element update. The review of past programs should describe
progress in implementation of previous actions, including results
compared to objectives and evaluate the effectiveness of actions
to make appropriate adjustments in the current planning period.
In the most cases, the element does not describe any progress in
implementation and particularly housing related outcomes and
then simply concludes to continue or modify programs. For
example, the prior element had a program to implement the
below market rate program and evaluate the program as a
constraint. The element reports the program was implemented.
There is no discussion of outcomes or an evaluation of
constraints. Then, the element concludes the program will be
modified but the new program does not appear to adjust on past
efforts. The element must fully describe past commitments,
progress in implementation, evaluate effectiveness and then
discuss appropriate adjustments in the current planning period.
In addition, the element must provide an evaluation of the
cumulative effectiveness of past goals, policies, and related actions in
meeting the housing needs of special needs populations (e.g.,
elderly, persons with disabilities, large households, female-headed
households, farmworkers, and persons experiencing homelessness)
and revise programs as appropriate.
Additional details to be added
to the evaluation in the
“Achievements/Effectiveness”
column of Table E-1 along
with additional objective
performance metrics in the
new implementation
programs.
2 B. Housing Needs, Resources, and Constraints
1. Affirmatively further[ing] fair housing in accordance with
Chapter 15 (commencing with Section 8899.50) of Division 1 of
Title 2…shall include an assessment of fair housing in the
jurisdiction. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(10)(A).)
Regional Level Patterns and Trends: While the element includes
several maps and tables and reports data, it generally must evaluate
the data and especially at a regional level, comparing the Town to
the broader region. This is particularly important since the Town
appears far different from the rest of the region. The analysis should
address all components of the assessment of fair housing (e.g.,
segregation and integration, disparities in access to opportunity) and
should focus on race, income, and overall access to opportunity). The
Additional analysis to be
completed by the Town’s
consultant.
Response to HCD Comment Letter: Page 2
analysis should address trends and incorporate local data and
knowledge and other relevant factors (See below).
3 Income and Racial Concentration of Affluence (RCAA): The element
briefly mentions incomes in the Town compared to the region and
notes it is safe to speculate the Town has neighborhoods that are
RCAAs; however, the entire Town is a RCAA and the element should
incorporate this information. Please see HCD’s Affirmatively
Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) Data Viewer at https://affh-data-
resources-cahcd.hub.arcgis.com/. The element should include
specific analysis of income and RCAA at a regional level (Town
compared to the broader region). The analysis should at least
address trends, conditions, coincidence with other fair housing
factors (e.g., race, highest resource, overpayment), effectiveness or
absence of past strategies (e.g., lack of publicly assisted housing and
lack of multifamily zoning), local data and knowledge and other
relevant factors. The element must add or modify meaningful
programs based on the outcomes of this analysis, including actions to
improve housing mobility within and beyond Town boundaries.
Additional analysis to be
completed by the Town’s
consultant.
4 Disparities in Access to Opportunity: While the element provided a
general analysis of opportunity areas, and high-level conclusions
about the Town’s disparities in access to opportunity, it should
analyze trends and patterns related to access to transportation on a
local and regional level.
Additional analysis and
mapping to be added in
Appendix D, Sites Inventory
Analysis, with details of
distance to public transit lines
and schools.
5 Disproportionate Housing Needs, Including Displacement Risk: The
element includes some information on cost burden and
overcrowding but should also discuss local patterns of housing
conditions. For example, the element should discuss areas of the
Town where proportions of housing units needing rehabilitation may
be higher than other areas and may utilize local knowledge such as
qualitative information from code enforcement staff.
Additional analysis and local
knowledge to be added in
consultation with Code
Compliance staff.
6 Identified Sites and Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH): The
element must include data on the location of regional housing need
allocation (RHNA) sites by income group relative to all fair housing
components. The analysis should address the number of units by
income group and location, any isolation of the RHNA by income
group, magnitude of the impact on existing concentrations of socio-
economic characteristics and discuss how the sites improve fair
housing conditions. The analysis should be supported by local data
and knowledge and other relevant factors and programs should be
added or modified as appropriate to promote inclusive and equitable
communities.
Additional analysis and local
knowledge to be added in
Appendix A.
7 Local Data and Knowledge: The element must include local data,
knowledge, and other relevant factors to discuss and analyze any
unique attributes about the Town related to fair housing issues. The
element should complement federal, state, and regional data with
local data and knowledge where appropriate to capture emerging
trends and issues, including utilizing knowledge from local and
regional advocates and service providers, Town staff and related
Additional analysis and local
knowledge to be added.
Response to HCD Comment Letter: Page 3
local and County planning documents.
8 Other Relevant Factors: While the element includes some general
background on exclusionary practices, it should relate these
situations to the Town and complement data and mapping with
other relevant factors that contribute to fair housing issues in the
Town. For instance, the element can analyze historical land use;
zoning and barriers to housing choices such as past denials of
affordable housing, local land use initiatives or proposed
referendums; investment practices; seeking investment or lack of
seeking investment to promote affordability and inclusion;
information about redlining/greenlining, restrictive covenants and
other discriminatory practices; land use related lawsuits; local land
use initiatives; demographic trends, or other information that
complements the state and federal data.
Additional background
information to be
added, including
narrative from the
Racial, Social, and
Environmental Justice
Element of the 2040
General Plan.
9 Contributing Factors Fair Housing Issues: Upon a complete AFFH
analysis, the element must assess and prioritize contributing factors
to fair housing issues and add or modify programs as appropriate.
Additional analysis to be
completed by the Town’s
consultant.
10 2. Include an analysis and documentation of household
characteristics, including level of payment compared to ability to
pay, housing characteristics, including overcrowding, and housing
stock condition. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(2).)
Housing Conditions: The element provides some information on age
of the housing stock. However, it must estimate the number of units
in need of rehabilitation and replacement. For example, the analysis
could include estimates from a recent windshield survey or sampling,
estimates from the code enforcement agency, or information from
knowledgeable organizations. For additional information, see the
Building Blocks at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/planning-and-community-
development/housing-elements/building-blocks/housing-stock-
characteristics.
Additional analysis and local
knowledge to be added.
11 3. An inventory of land suitable and available for residential
development, including vacant sites and sites having realistic and
demonstrated potential for redevelopment during the planning
period to meet the locality’s housing need for a designated
income level, and an analysis of the relationship of zoning and
public facilities and services to these sites. (Gov. Code, § 65583,
subd. (a)(3).)
Pipeline Projects: The element includes a list of 176 units through
pipeline projects on page D-38. While the element may utilize
pipeline and potential development projects toward the RHNA, it
must also demonstrate their affordability and availability in the
planning period. Affordability must be demonstrated based on actual
sales price, rent level or other mechanisms ensuring affordability
(e.g., deed restrictions). Availability should account for the likelihood
of project completion in the planning period and should address the
status, necessary steps to issue permits, any barriers to development
and other relevant factors.
Additional details and
specificity to be added on
the status of the projects
listed as Pipeline Projects.
Response to HCD Comment Letter: Page 4
12 Sites Inventory: The element must clarify what the allowable density
is for the North Forty Specific Plan identified in Table A. The
inventory indicates sites zoned under the North Forty Specific Plan
where the minimum and maximum densities is the same (i.e., 30
units per acre). If the densities are the same, the element should
include a specific analysis of the range as a potential constraint.
Modification to
Implementation Program D to
be added.
13 Realistic Capacity: The element must include a methodology for
calculating the realistic residential capacity of identified sites. The
methodology must be adjusted as necessary, based on the land use
controls and site improvements and typical densities of existing or
approved residential developments at a similar affordability level in
that jurisdiction. For example, the element could clearly list other
recent projects, the zone, acreage, built density, allowable density,
level of affordability and presence of exceptions such as a density
bonus. In addition, the element must also account for the likelihood
of 100 percent nonresidential development. The element lists recent
trends for residential development in non-residential zones but
should also consider the development activity of 100 percent
nonresidential uses. For example, the element could analyze all
development activity in these nonresidential zones, how often
residential development occurs and adjust residential capacity
calculations, policies, and programs accordingly. This analysis may
incorporate any proposed policies such as residential performance
standards and prohibition of commercial uses.
Modifications to Appendix D
and Appendix H to utilize the
minimum density completed
per the direction of the Town
Council on December 20,
2022.
14 Nonvacant Sites: The element must include an analysis
demonstrating the potential for additional development on
nonvacant sites. The element generally provides a description of
the properties like location and whether the property owner
submitted an interest form but does not describe the results of
the form or why the property might redevelop in the planning
period. To address this requirement, the element should address
the extent to which existing uses may constitute an impediment
to additional residential development, the Town’s past
experience with converting existing uses to higher density
residential development, the current market demand for the
existing use, an analysis of any existing leases or other contracts
that would perpetuate the existing use or prevent redevelopment
of the site for additional residential development, development
trends, market conditions, and regulatory or other incentives or
standards to encourage additional residential development on
these sites.
For your information, if the housing element relies upon nonvacant
sites to accommodate more than 50 percent of the RHNA for lower-
income households the housing element must demonstrate existing
uses are not an impediment to additional residential development
and will likely discontinue in the planning period. (Gov. Code, §
65583.2, subd. (g)(2).) Absent findings (e.g., adoption resolution)
based on substantial evidence, the existing uses will be presumed to
Modifications to Appendix D
and Appendix H to utilize the
minimum density completed
per the direction of the Town
Council on December 20,
2022.
Response to HCD Comment Letter: Page 5
impede additional residential development and will not be utilized
toward demonstrating adequate sites to accommodate the RHNA.
15 Replacement Housing Requirements: The element identifies sites
with existing residential uses. Absent a replacement housing
program, these sites are not adequate sites to accommodate lower-
income households. The replacement housing program that has the
same requirements as set forth in Government Code section 65915,
subdivision (c), paragraph (3). The housing element must be revised
to include such analysis and a program, if necessary.
Add an implementation
program for replacement
housing.
16 Small Sites: The element identifies several sites smaller than a half-
acre. Sites smaller than a half-acre in size are deemed inadequate to
accommodate housing for lower-income housing unless it is
demonstrated that sites of equivalent size and affordability were
successfully developed during the prior planning period or other
evidence demonstrates the suitability of the sites to accommodate
housing for lower-income households, including programs as
appropriate.
Additional explanation and
analysis to be added.
17 Zoning for Lower-Income Households: The element must
demonstrate zoning appropriate to accommodate housing for lower-
income households. The sites inventory includes zones with densities
of 14 to 22 units per acre (Medium Density Residential R-M) that
allocate units for lower income. However, the element does not
include an analysis evaluating the adequacy of the R-M zone to
encourage and facilitate the development of units affordable to
lower-income households. For communities with densities that meet
specific standards (allow at least 30 units per acre for Los Gatos), no
analysis is required. Otherwise, the element must include an analysis
based on, including but not limited to, factors such as market
demand, financial feasibility and development experience within
identified zones demonstrating how the adopted densities can
accommodate housing for lower-income households.
Additional explanation and
analysis of the Town’s
Inclusionary Ordinance to be
added.
18 SB 9 Sites: The element identifies SB 9 as a strategy to accommodate
the part of the Town’s RHNA. To support these assumptions, the
analysis must include experience, trends and market conditions that
allow lot splits. The analysis must also include a nonvacant sites
analysis demonstrating the affordability, likelihood of redevelopment
and the existing use will not constitute as an impediment for
additional residential use. The analysis should describe how the
Town determined eligible properties, whether the assumed lots will
have turnover, if the properties are easy to subdivide, and the
condition of the existing structures or other relevant factors
indicating additional development potential. The analysis should also
describe interest from property owners as well as experience. The
analysis should provide support for the assumption of eligible
properties being developed within the planning period. Based on the
outcomes of this analysis, the element should add or modify
programs to establish zoning and development standards early in the
planning period and implement incentives to encourage and
facilitate development as well as monitor development every two
Additional details and
specificity to be added to
explain basis for number of
units estimated to be built
under SB 9.
Response to HCD Comment Letter: Page 6
years with and identify additional sites within six months if
assumptions are not being met. The element should support this
analysis with local information such as local developer or owner
interest to utilize zoning and incentives established through SB 9.
19 Availability of Infrastructure: The element must demonstrate
sufficient existing or planned water and sewer capacity to
accommodate the Town’s RHNA for the planning period.
Additional discussion from
the 2040 General Plan
Environmental Impact Report
to be added.
20 Zoning for a Variety of Housing Types:
• Transitional and Supportive Housing: Transitional housing and
supportive housing are permitted as a residential use and
only subject to those restrictions that apply to other
residential dwellings of the same type in the same zone. The
element must demonstrate compliance with this requirement
or include a program if necessary.
• Permanent Supportive Housing: By right permanent
supportive housing shall be a use by-right in zones where
multifamily and mixed uses are permitted, including
nonresidential zones permitting multifamily uses pursuant to
Government Code section 65651. The element must
demonstrate compliance with this requirement and include
programs as appropriate.
• Employee Housing: The element should clarify if there are any
zones that allow agriculture uses. If there are zones that
allow agriculture uses, then the town must comply with
California Health and Safety Code Section 17021.6. Section
17021.6 requires employee housing consisting of no more
than 12 units or 36 beds to be permitted in the same manner
as other agricultural uses in the same zone.
• Manufactured Housing: The element must demonstrate
zoning permits manufactured housing on a permanent
foundation in the same manner and in the same zone as a
conventional or stick-built structures are permitted
(Government Code Section 65852.3) or add or modify
programs as appropriate
Add the additional housing
types, where applicable, to
Implementation Program BF.
21 Electronic Sites Inventory: For your information, pursuant to
Government Code section 65583.3, the Town must submit an
electronic sites inventory with its adopted housing element. The
Town must utilize standards, forms, and definitions adopted by HCD.
Please see HCD’s housing element webpage at
https://www.hcd.ca.gov/planning-and-community-
development/housing-elements for a copy of the form and
instructions. The Town can reach out to HCD at
sitesinventory@hcd.ca.gov for technical assistance.
Provided as part of the HCD
submittal. No response
needed.
22 4. An analysis of potential and actual governmental constraints
upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing
for all income levels, including the types of housing identified in
paragraph (1) of subdivision (c), and for persons with disabilities
as identified in the analysis pursuant to paragraph (7), including
Additional narrative and
analysis to be added
describing the intent of
Implementation Program BF.
Response to HCD Comment Letter: Page 7
land use controls, building codes and their enforcement, site
improvements, fees and other exactions required of developers,
and local processing and permit procedures... (Gov. Code, §
65583, subd. (a)(5).)
Land Use Controls: The element must identify and analyze all
relevant land use controls impacts as potential constraints on a
variety of housing types. For example, the element should analyze all
development standards by zoning district for impacts on housing
costs and ability to achieve maximum densities. The element should
also discuss any local initiatives, referendums, moratoriums or other
mechanisms (existing or proposed) that impact housing supply, cost,
feasibility, timing and ability to achieve maximum densities. In
addition, the analysis should specifically address the development
standards in the North Forty Specific Plan, Mixed Use Commercial,
and the High-Density Residential zone. The analysis must evaluate
the cumulative impacts of land use controls on the cost and supply of
housing, including the ability to achieve maximum densities. The
Town could engage the development community to assist with this
analysis.
23 Fees and Exaction: While the element lists the total fees per units for
single-family and multifamily development, it should also list the fees
that comprise that total and particularly impact fees then evaluate
those total fees for impacts on development costs.
Additional details regarding
Building Permits and impact
fees to be added.
24 Local Processing and Permit Procedures: The element must describe
and analyze the types of permits, extent of discretionary review
including required approval findings, number of public hearings and
processing time required for a typical single family and multifamily
development that meets zoning requirements.
Additional analysis and
specificity of discretionary
review to be added.
25 Housing for Persons with Disabilities: The element indicates the
Town adopted a procedure for requesting reasonable
accommodation for persons with disabilities (p. C-23) and describes
the procedure; however, the element should address criteria related
to: “There would be no impact on surrounding uses” and include a
program to address the constraint. In addition, residential care
facilities for seven or more require a conditional use permit (CUP).
The element should evaluate the CUP as a constraint and add a
program to allow group homes in all residential zones with an
objective and certain process similar to other residential uses.
Add an implementation
program to allow group
homes in all residential zones
by right.
26 Density Bonus: The element states the Town adopted a state density
bonus program in June 2012. The Town’s current density bonus
program should be reviewed for compliance with current State
Density Bonus Law (SDBL). (Gov. Code, § 65915.). The element
should include a program to update density bonus program. Program
V is conducting a study to evaluate the existing Density Bonus
Ordinance and recommend changes to increase the number of units
constructed, however it should specifically commit to update the
ordinance in compliance with state law.
Add an implementation
program to amend the
Density Bonus Ordinance.
27 Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance: The element mentions the Town’s Additional explanation and
Response to HCD Comment Letter: Page 8
inclusionary zoning ordinance, but it must also analyze the Town’s
inclusionary housing requirements, including its impacts as potential
constraints on the development of housing for all income levels. The
analysis must evaluate the inclusionary broader policy’s
implementation framework, including the percentage of new
residential construction that is dedicated to affordable housing, the
types of options and incentives offered, relationships with SDBL and
any other factors that may impact housing costs.
analysis of the Town’s
Inclusionary Ordinance to be
added.
28 Zoning and Fees Transparency: The element must clarify its
compliance with new transparency requirements for posting all
zoning, development standards and fees for each parcel on the
jurisdiction’s website.
Additional detail on the
Town’s compliance with
transparency requirements to
be added.
29 5. Analyze any special housing needs such as elderly; persons with
disabilities, including a developmental disability; large families;
farmworkers; families with female heads of households; and
families and persons in need of emergency shelter. (Gov. Code, §
65583, subd. (a)(7).)
Special Housing Needs: While the element quantifies some of the
Town’s special needs populations, it must also estimate the
number of persons experiencing homelessness in the Town. In
addition, the element reports data but must also analyze the
special housing needs. For a complete analysis of each population
group, the element should quantify the needs, evaluate trends
and characteristics (e.g., tenure, income) of housing needs,
discuss disproportionate challenges faced by the population, the
existing resources to meet those needs, assess any gaps in
resources or effectiveness of past strategies, describe the
magnitude of the remaining need and appropriate propose
policies and programs.
For additional information and a sample analysis, see the Building
Blocks at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/planning-and-community-
development/housing-elements/building-blocks.
Additional analysis to be
completed by the Town’s
consultant.
30 C. Housing Programs
1. Include a program which sets forth a schedule of actions during
the planning period, each with a timeline for implementation,
which may recognize that certain programs are ongoing, such
that there will be beneficial impacts of the programs within the
planning period, that the local government is undertaking or
intends to undertake to implement the policies and achieve the
goals and objectives of the Housing Element... (Gov. Code, §
65583, subd. (c).)
To have a beneficial impact in the planning period and achieve
the goals and objectives of the housing element, programs should
have specific commitment toward housing outcomes and discrete
and early timing (e.g., at least annually or by Jan 2025). Examples
of programs to be revised include:
Modification to Section 10.6,
Implementation Programs to
include a quantified objective
and performance metric,
where applicable.
Response to HCD Comment Letter: Page 9
• Program K, Small Multi-Unit Housing: The Program should
include a timeline of when zoning code will be updated.
• M Lot Consolidation: The Program should include a
quantification of approximately how many lot consolidations
the town plans to facilitate.
• Program R, Development Impact and Permit Fees: The
Program should include a completion timeline.
• Program S, Affordable Housing Development: The Program
should include quantification of approximately how many
units will be incentivized.
• Program T, Purchase Affordability Covenants in Existing
Apartments: The element should clarify the timeline to
establish and implement the program (e.g., by 2024 and at
least annually).
• Program AC, Housing Opportunities for Persons Living with
Disabilities: The Program must include a completion
timeframe.
• Program AK, Housing Conditions Survey: Program should be
revised to include a specific timeline for when the housing
condition survey will be conducted. Additionally, the element
should describe how often funding will be applied for (e.g.,
annually).
• Program AR, CDBG and Other Housing Rehabilitation
Programs: The Program should clarify how often the Town
will participate in the County of Santa Clara Community
Development Block Grant Joint Powers Authority (e.g.
annually, biannually).
• Program AS, Countywide Home Repair Programs: The
Program should include a numerical target (e.g., how many
minor home repairs).
Program AU, Residential Rehabilitation Program: The Program should
include a timeline commitment.
31 2. Identify actions that will be taken to make sites available
during the planning period with appropriate zoning and
development standards and with services and facilities to
accommodate that portion of the city’s or county’s share of the
regional housing need for each income level that could not be
accommodated on sites identified in the inventory completed
pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) without rezoning, and
to comply with the requirements of Government Code section
65584.09. Sites shall be identified as needed to facilitate and
encourage the development of a variety of types of housing for all
income levels, including multifamily rental housing, factory-built
housing, mobilehomes, housing for agricultural employees,
supportive housing, single-room occupancy units, emergency
shelters, and transitional housing. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd.
(c)(1).)
As noted in Finding B3, the element does not include a complete site
Additional explanation of the
Sites Inventory in Appendix D
and Appendix H to be added.
Response to HCD Comment Letter: Page 10
analysis; therefore, the adequacy of sites and zoning were not
established. Based on the results of a complete sites inventory and
analysis, the Town may need to add or revise programs to address a
shortfall of sites or zoning available to encourage a variety of housing
types. In addition, the element should be revised as follows:
32 Program D Additional Housing Capacity: Currently the element
identifies a shortfall of adequate sites to accommodate the RHNA
within the planning period. Program D appears to be intended to
rezone sites to accommodate a shortfall of sites for the lower-
income- RHNA. However, the Program must be revised to meet all
requirements pursuant to Government Code section 65583.2,
subdivisions (h) and (i). For example, the Program must commit to
permit owner-occupied and rental multifamily uses by-right (without
discretionary action) for developments in which 20 percent or more
of the units are affordable to lower-income households.
Modify Implementation
Program BH to include 12
additional sites that were
previously identified in past
housing elements.
33 Replacement Housing Requirements: The housing element must
include a program to provide replacement housing. (Gov. Code, §
65583.2, subd. (g)(3).) The replacement housing program must
adhere to the same requirements as set forth in Government Code
section 65915, subdivision (c), paragraph (3).
Add an implementation
program to provide
replacement housing
pursuant to State law.
34 3. The Housing Element shall contain programs which assist in the
development of adequate housing to meet the needs of extremely
low-, very low-, low- and moderate-income households. (Gov.
Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(2).)
Program S (Affordable Housing Development): While the program
targets extremely low income and other special needs groups, it
should also include very low- and low-income households. The
Program should be revised to include outcome-oriented
commitments such as annual outreach with developers and
identification of development or housing opportunities.
Modify Implementation
Program S to add very low-
and moderate-incomes.
35 4. Address and, where appropriate and legally possible, remove
governmental and nongovernmental constraints to the
maintenance, improvement, and development of housing,
including housing for all income levels and housing for persons
with disabilities. The program shall remove constraints to, and
provide reasonable accommodations for housing designed for,
intended for occupancy by, or with supportive services for,
persons with disabilities. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(3).)
As noted in Finding B4, the element requires a complete analysis of
potential governmental constraints. Depending upon the results of
that analysis, the Town may need to revise or add programs and
address and remove or mitigate any identified constraints.
Additional explanation of
the intent of
Implementation BF to be
added.
36 5. Promote and affirmatively further fair housing opportunities
and promote housing throughout the community or communities
for all persons regardless of race, religion, sex, marital status,
ancestry, national origin, color, familial status, or disability, and
other characteristics... (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(5).)
Add a new implementation
program based on AFFH
analysis results.
Response to HCD Comment Letter: Page 11
As noted in Finding B1, the element requires a complete AFFH
analysis. Depending upon the results of that analysis, the Town may
need to revise or add or modify goals and actions. Goals and actions
must specifically respond to the analysis and to the identified and
prioritized contributing factors to fair housing issues and must be
significant and meaningful enough to overcome identified patterns
and trends. Actions must have specific commitment, milestones,
geographic targeting and metrics or numerical targets and, as
appropriate, address housing mobility enhancement, new housing
choices and affordability in higher opportunity or higher income
areas, place-based strategies for community revitalization and
displacement protection. For example, the element must add
significant and meaningful housing mobility actions to overcome the
existing patterns in the Town related to the broader region.
37 6. Develop a plan that incentivizes and promotes the creation of
accessory dwelling units that can be offered at affordable rent...
(Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(7).)
Program U Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU): While the element
includes a program to incentivize ADU development by waiving fees
when an ADU is deed restricted for very low-, and low-income
households, it should also provide other incentives that incentivize
and promote the creation of ADUs that can be offered at affordable
rent. The element could consider other ADU incentives such as
exploring and pursuing funding, modifying development standards,
and reducing fees beyond state law, pre-approved plans, and
homeowner/applicant assistance tools. Finally, the program should
commit to monitor the production and affordability of ADUs (e.g.,
every other year) and make adjustments, if necessary, by a date
certain (e.g., within six months).
Modifications to
Implementation Program
U to be completed.
38 D. Quantified Objectives
Establish the number of housing units, by income level, that can
be constructed, rehabilitated, and conserved over a five-year
time frame. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (b)(1 & 2).)
The element did not address this requirement. The element must
include quantified objectives to establish an estimate of housing
units by income category, including extremely low-income
households, that can be constructed, rehabilitated, and conserved
over the planning period.
Modification to Section 10.6,
Implementation Programs to
include a quantified objective
and performance metric.
39 E. Public Participation
Local governments shall make a diligent effort to achieve public
participation of all economic segments of the community in the
development of the Housing Element, and the element shall
describe this effort. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd.(c)(9).)
While the element described various efforts to achieve public
participation in the preparation of the housing element update, it
Additional details and
explanation of public
participation efforts to be
added.
Response to HCD Comment Letter: Page 12
should also describe how comments were considered and
incorporated into the element. Public participation in the
development, adoption and implementation of the housing
element is essential to effective housing planning. During the
housing element revision process, the Town must continue to
engage the community, especially organizations that represent
lower-income and special needs households, including local
neighborhood groups and commenters on this review such as
Silicon Valley@Home, by making information regularly available
while considering and incorporating comments where
appropriate. Please be aware, any revisions to the element must
be posted on the local government’s website and to email a link to
all individuals and organizations that have previously requested
notices relating to the local government’s housing element at
least seven days before submitting to HCD.
40 F. General Plan Consistency
The Housing Element shall describe the means by which
consistency will be achieved with other general plan elements and
community goals. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(7).)
The Town must discuss how internal consistency will be maintained
and achieved with other elements of the general plan throughout the
planning period.
Additional explanation of
the Housing Element’s
consistency with other
elements of the General
Plan to be completed.
From: Jeffrey Barnett <>
Sent: Friday, February 3, 2023 2:57 PM
To: Housing Element <HEUpdate@losgatosca.gov>
Subject: Proposed Revisions to the Housing Element - HE-6.1
Dear Friends.
I previously suggested certain changes to Policy HE-6.1 in the Housing Element to make more
complete the list of classes protected against discrimination. The modifications were presented to
the Planning Commission as an Addendum Report for the January 11th Meeting. During the
Planning Commission hearing I agreed to defer consideration of these proposed revisions to a
date following the January 31st deadline for Council submission of the Element to HCD.
I propose consideration now of my suggestions as part of the current review.
A slightly modified version of the Desk Item is attached.
Thank you in advance.
Jeffrey A. Barnett
ATTACHMENT 8
Proposed Changes to the Los Gatos Draft Housing Element 6th Cycle 2023-2031
Policy HE-6.1 Fair Housing Page 10.38.
Current Language:
Support and publicize housing programs that protect individuals’ rights and enforce fair housing laws
prohibiting arbitrary discrimination in the building, financing, selling or renting of housing on the basis of
race, color, ancestry, religion, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, age, disability/medical condition,
familial status, marital status, source of income or other such factors.
Proposed revisions:
1.After “sexual orientation” add “gender identification or expression”.
2.Add “genetic information”.
3.Add “primary language”.
4.Add “citizenship”.
5.Change disability/medical condition” to “disability, medical condition”.
6.Add “immigration status”
7.Add “military or veteran status”.
8.Change “other factors” to “other arbitrary factors”. Marina Point , Ltd. V. Wolfson (1982) 30 Cal3rd
721, 736.
These recommendations are based on the following:
A.California Civil Code Section 51:
(a)This section shall be known, and may be cited, as the Unruh Civil Rights Act.
(b)All persons within the jurisdiction of this state are free and equal, and no matter what their sex, race,
color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status,
sexual orientation, citizenship, primary language, or immigration status are entitled to the full and equal
accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every
kind whatsoever.
(c)This section shall not be construed to confer any right or privilege on a person that is conditioned or
limited by law or that is applicable alike to persons of every sex, color, race, religion, ancestry, national
origin, disability, medical condition, marital status, sexual orientation, citizenship, primary language, or
immigration status, or to persons regardless of their genetic information.
(d)Nothing in this section shall be construed to require any construction, alteration, repair, structural or
otherwise, or modification of any sort whatsoever, beyond that construction, alteration, repair, or
modification that is otherwise required by other provisions of law, to any new or existing establishment,
facility, building, improvement, or any other structure, nor shall anything in this section be construed to
augment, restrict, or alter in any way the authority of the State Architect to require construction,
alteration, repair, or modifications that the State Architect otherwise possesses pursuant to other laws.
(e)For purposes of this section:
(1)“Disability” means any mental or physical disability as defined in Sections 12926 and 12926.1 of the
Government Code.
(2)(A) “Genetic information” means, with respect to any individual, information about any of the
following:
(i)The individual’s genetic tests.
(ii)The genetic tests of family members of the individual.
(iii)The manifestation of a disease or disorder in family members of the individual.
(B)“Genetic information” includes any request for, or receipt of, genetic services, or participation in
clinical research that includes genetic services, by an individual or any family member of the individual.
(C)“Genetic information” does not include information about the sex or age of any individual.
(3)“Medical condition” has the same meaning as defined in subdivision (i) of Section 12926 of the
Government Code.
(4)“Religion” includes all aspects of religious belief, observance, and practice.
(5)“Sex” includes, but is not limited to, pregnancy, childbirth, or medical conditions related to
pregnancy or childbirth. “Sex” also includes, but is not limited to, a person’s gender. “Gender” means
sex and includes a person’s gender identity and gender expression. “Gender expression” means a
person’s gender-related appearance and behavior whether or not stereotypically associated with the
person’s assigned sex at birth.
(6)“Sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, genetic information,
marital status, sexual orientation, citizenship, primary language, or immigration status” includes a
perception that the person has any particular characteristic or characteristics within the listed categories
or that the person is associated with a person who has, or is perceived to have, any particular
characteristic or characteristics within the listed categories.
(7)“Sexual orientation” has the same meaning as defined in subdivision (s) of Section 12926 of the
Government Code.
(f)A violation of the right of any individual under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
(Public Law 101-336) shall also constitute a violation of this section.
(g)Verification of immigration status and any discrimination based upon verified immigration status,
where required by federal law, shall not constitute a violation of this section.
B.Government Code Section 1139.8(a)(2): “California’s robust nondiscrimination laws include
protections on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression, among other
characteristics”.
C.Government Code 12920:
“Further, the practice of discrimination because of race, color, religion, sex, gender, gender identity,
gender expression, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, ancestry, familial status, source of
income, disability, veteran or military status, or genetic information in housing accommodations is
declared to be against public policy.
D.AFFH Report, Appendix A at Page 65
A.6 Fair Housing Enforcement and Outreach Capacity
“This section discusses fair housing legal cases and inquiries, fair housing protections and enforcement,
and outreach capacity. Fair housing legal cases and inquiries. California fair housing law extends beyond
the protections in the Federal Fair Housing Act (FHA). In addition to FHA protected classes—race, color,
ancestry/national origin, religion, disability, sex, and familial status—California law offers protections for
age, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, genetic information, marital status, military or
veteran status, and source of income (including Federal housing assistance vouchers).
E. https://calcivilrights.ca.gov/housing/#whoBody:
California law protects individuals from illegal discrimination by housing providers based on the
following:
Race, color
Ancestry, national origin
Citizenship, immigration status
Primary language*
Age
Religion
Disability, mental or physical
Sex, gender
Sexual orientation
Gender identity, gender expression
Genetic information
Marital status
Familial status
Source of income
Military or veteran status
F. Protection against discrimination on the basis of gender identification or expression is also present in
laws found in the Education Code, Insurance Code, Welfare and Institutions Code and the Health and
Safety Code.
From: Linda Swenberg <>
Sent: Friday, February 3, 2023 11:48 AM
To: Housing Element <HEUpdate@losgatosca.gov>
Subject: Error in Housing element
On page 10-6 above the table, the document states:
Figures 10-2 and 10-3 identify HCD Fair Housing Inquiries by bias for the period 2013 through 2021 and
a list of Fair Housing Assistance organizations within Santa Clara County. Figure 10-2 shows that a total
of eight fair housing inquiries for Los Gatos were submitted with two submittals citing race as a bias and
six cases citing no specific bias.
This is an error and needs to be corrected. There were no cases citing race as a bias according to the
table. There were two cases citing, familial status as a bias.
Linda Swenberg
, Los Gatos, CA 95032
-----Original Message-----
From: Jennifer Liebthal <>
Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2023 6:11 AM
To: Housing Element <HEUpdate@losgatosca.gov>
Subject: Re: 1/30 public hearing on 405 Alberto Way - feedback
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
On more important concern, I just found the proposed height of 50ft. This not only block our views of
the mountains but is also not in character with the neighborhood.
I implore the town to require them to stay at the 35 ft height limit !
Thank you,
Jennifer
>On Jan 28, 2023, at 8:56 AM, Jennifer Liebthal <> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I would like to provide some feedback on the public hearing for 405 Álberto Way on January 30th as I
can not attend in person due to being out of town.
>
> I own a home/condo at 420 Alberto Way. My home face is this development. The first comment I
have is regarding parking. I noticed that there was between 108 and 132 on site parking spaces some of
which are actually street parking for this development of 54 units. I believe the requirement is 1.5
parking spots plus one guest parking spot per dwelling which would be 162. Parking on our street is very
limited, and we can’t afford to lose any more of that parking. I would encourage the towns require more
parking or less dwellings on the property.
>
> I was looking through all the links, and for some reason could not find any pictures of how the units
would sit on the property. Is this something that is available? Will there be open space as part of this
development?
>
> Thanks,
> Jennifer
From: Rick Van Hoesen
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2023 10:53 AM
To: Clerk <Clerk@losgatosca.gov>
Cc: Maria Ristow <MRistow@losgatosca.gov>; Mary Badame <MBadame@losgatosca.gov>; Matthew
Hudes <MHudes@losgatosca.gov>; Rob Rennie <RRennie@losgatosca.gov>; Rob Moore
<RMoore@losgatosca.gov>
Subject: Public Comment Item #1
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
To the Town Clerk: please include the attached letter with the materials for the Town Council meeting
scheduled for tomorrow - January 31 2023.
Thank you.
pg. 1 of 2
January 30, 2023
To the Town Council:
We are writing out of deep concern regarding the legality and appropriateness of the actions being
proposed by the Planning Commission (PC) and Town Staff (Staff) for the Town Council meeting on
January 31, 2023 with respect to the Town’s Housing Element.
On January 11, 2023, the Planning Commission forwarded to the Town Council a recommendation to
adopt the Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element that it previously submitted to the California Housing and
Community Development Department (HCD) on October 14, 2022. The PC made its recommendation
on January 11 in full knowledge that it would receive HCD’s written comments no later than the very
next day - January 12.
It was no surprise that HCD’s written comments included the finding that, “revisions will be necessary
to comply with State Housing Element Law.” Virtually every other city had received such a finding in
response to first submissions, and the Planning Commission was aware of other submissions and HCD
comment letters.
This finding triggers the provisions of California Code Sections 65585 (e) and (f). Those paragraphs read
as follows (emphasis and [comments] added):
(e) Prior to the adoption of its draft element or draft amendment, the legislative body [Town
Council] shall consider the findings made by the department [HCD]. If the department's findings
are not available within the time limits set by this section, the legislative body may act without
them.
(f) If the department finds that the draft element or draft amendment does not substantially
comply with the requirements of this article, the legislative body shall take one of the following
actions:
(1) Change the draft element or draft amendment to substantially comply with the
requirements of this article.
(2) Adopt the draft element or draft amendment without changes. The legislative body shall
include in its resolution of adoption written findings which explain the reasons the legislative
body believes that the draft element or draft amendment substantially complies with the
requirements of this article despite the findings of the department.
So to be clear:
•HCD made a finding that the draft Housing Element submitted to the TC by the Planning
Commission and Town Staff does not comply with the requirements of the law.
•The Town Council is therefore legally required to either:
January 30, 2023
Los Gatos Community Alliance pg. 2 of 2
o change the draft housing element to comply with the law before adopting it, or
alternatively to
o set forth a detailed explanation explaining the reasons it believes the housing element
complies with the law despite HCD’s finding to the contrary.
•The Planning Commission and Town Staff are recommending to the Town Council that it take
neither of these legally required actions, and instead has proposed a resolution to adopt the
draft housing element essentially unchanged from when it was submitted to HCD in October
(with some changes to the site inventory.) The resolution being proposed by the Town Staff
contains the completely misleading and untrue assertion that the draft Housing Element
substantially complies with Housing element law. How do we know this assertion is untrue?
o Because – as mentioned above – the HCD letter says, “revisions will be necessary to
comply with State Housing Element Law.” And because the same HCD letter sets forth
multiple reasons why the draft Housing Element fails to comply with Housing Element
law. None of these reasons are rebutted in the draft resolution before the Town
Council.
o Furthermore, the Town Staff and Planning Commission have already said they plan to
continue working on the Housing Element in response to the HCD letter, in order to
bring the Housing Element into compliance with the HCD comments and Housing
Element law. If the Housing Element is already in compliance, then why is there a need
to continue working on it?
There are several potential legal consequences for taking this non-legal action, but setting those aside, it
is mind-boggling to consider that the Town Staff and Planning Commission have placed before the Town
Council a recommendation to take an action that is clearly not legally permissible.
Please do the right thing and reject the flawed recommendation to adopt a legally deficient Housing
Element. It would not only place the Town in legal jeopardy, it would subject the Town to potentially
severe financial sanctions.
Rick Van Hoesen
For the Los Gatos Community Alliance
From: <>
Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2023 10:57 AM
To: Janette Judd <jjudd@losgatosca.gov>; Town Manager <Manager@losgatosca.gov>; Wendy Wood
<WWood@losgatosca.gov>; Matthew Hudes <MHudes@losgatosca.gov>; Rob Rennie
<RRennie@losgatosca.gov>; Mary Badame <MBadame@losgatosca.gov>; Rob Moore
<>; Maria Ristow <MRistow@losgatosca.gov>; Joel Paulson
<jpaulson@losgatosca.gov>
Subject: For Council Meeting 1-30-23 Re: Housing Element
Honorable: Mayor Maria Ristow, Vice-Chair Badame, Councilmembers and Staff.
Re: Housing Element Advisory Board
Attached is a copy of the 3/22/22 letter from our attorney with our recommendations sent to
the Housing Element Advisory Board. Our recommendation to complete the HE so as to not be
up against the wall on the 31st, was rejected. Briefly, the letter follows the path as listed below
for those who may not have had the time to read the letter back in March. As you are now
approaching the final deadline, in all sincerity, we wish you the best of luck. We realize that
there were at least two if not more paths you could have taken. In the end, we all love the
Town and want the Town to continue to move forward. We also acknowledge all of the time
and hard work you have put into this document by all parties.
Comments Regarding Proposed 2040 General Plan
1. Background
2. The Town Should Focus First On Updating Its Housing Element, Which Will Guide
And Shape Any Other Updates To The General Plan
3. When Resumed, the Proposed Plan Should Be Modified to Reflect the Housing
Element Update and Other Changes.
A.Restore Existing Low Density Residential Development Standards
B. Add Low-Medium Density Residential in Appropriate Locations
C. Amend Permitted Intensities Allowed in Central Business District
D. Make Other Changes As Needed to Accommodate The Town’s Assigned
RHNA
Los Gatos Community Alliance
Facts Matter; Transparency Matters; Honesty Matters
www.lgca.town
Matthew D. Francois
Direct Dial: (650) 798-5669
E-mail: mfrancois@rutan.com
March 22, 2022
Rutan & Tucker, LLP | 455 Market Street, Suite 1870
San Francisco, CA 94105 | 650-263-7900 | Fax 650-263-7901
Orange County | Palo Alto | San Francisco | www.rutan.com
2696/037011-0001
17552494.5 a03/22/22
VIA E-MAIL [PlanningComment@losgatosca.gov]
Honorable Melanie Hanssen, Chair
and Members of the Planning Commission
Town of Los Gatos
110 E. Main St.
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Re: Comments Regarding Proposed 2040 General Plan
Dear Chair Hanssen and Members of the Planning Commission:
We write on behalf of the Los Gatos Community Alliance (“LGCA”), a group of concerned
citizens, in regard to the Proposed 2040 General Plan (the “Proposed Plan”).1 In previous
correspondence to the Town of Los Gatos (the “Town”), LGCA expressed its significant concerns
with the Proposed Plan’s major upzoning of every residential and commercial land use district in the
Town, potentially resulting in up to 75,000 new housing units and 45 million square feet of new
commercial development.2 We pointed out how such intensification violated the California
Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) as it was not studied in the environmental impact report
(“EIR”) prepared by the Town for the Proposed Plan. We also explained that such intensification
was entirely unnecessary to accommodate the 1,993 additional housing units needed per the Town’s
Regional Housing Needs Allocation (“RHNA”).
By January 2023, the Town Council must adopt a Housing Element which includes an
inventory of sites suitable and available for residential development to meet the Town’s RHNA.
Given the pending statutory deadline and in light of LGCA’s substantial concerns with the Proposed
Plan, the Town should focus first on updating its Housing Element. The housing sites inventory will
provide critical information to determine what area(s) of the Town, if any, need to be re-designated
in the General Plan to meet the RHNA. Updating the General Plan prior to and apart from updating
the Housing Element is tantamount to putting the cart before the horse.
1 Members and/or supporters of LGCA include: former Mayor Joanne Benjamin, former Mayor
Sandy Decker, former Mayor Tom Ferrito, former Mayor Steve Rice, former Mayor Barbara
Spector, former County Superintendent of Schools Colleen Wilcox, Tim Lundell, Phil Koen, Don
Livinghouse, Sandra Livinghouse, Lee Fagot, Ann Ravel, Rob Stump, Rick Van Hoesen, and Jak
Vannada.
2 See September 13, 2021 and January 5, 2022 letters from Matthew Francois to Jennifer Armer.
Honorable Melanie Hanssen, Chair and
Members of the Planning Commission
March 22, 2022
Page 2
2696/037011-0001
17552494.5 a03/22/22
1.Background.
In terms of background, the current 2020 General Plan planned for 1,600 additional units to
be constructed between 2009 and 2020. The majority of these units—some 1,423 units—were
projected to be developed on the Housing Element opportunity sites and the North Forty Specific
Plan area. We understand that of the 1,600 additional units projected, only approximately 500 have
been built thus far. This leaves capacity for approximately 1,100 additional units with no changes
whatsoever to existing residential densities.
When the Town began the process of updating the 2020 General Plan, Staff acknowledged
that “the existing General Plan is serving the community well,” and that the Proposed Plan “provides
the opportunity to refine the General Plan, address emerging trends and recent State laws, and
consider new issues.” (Staff Report to the Town Council, November 17, 2020, p. 5; see also General
Plan Update, September 2019 [further noting that the General Plan update effort was “intended to
be a fine-tuning of the existing General Plan, rather than a comprehensive overhaul of the
document.”].)
A December 2019 Land Use Alternatives Report prepared by Town Staff presented four
growth alternatives (labeled A-D) with net new housing ranging from 1,156 to 3,176 units.3 At its
April 7, 2020 meeting, the Town Council approved Land Use Alternative C. That alternative called
for 2,303 additional housing units. At the November 17, 2020 Town Council meeting,
Councilmembers indicated that new housing should be focused in Community Place Districts
without increasing the allowed densities in Low Density Residential areas or changing the
Downtown/Central Business District.
The Draft EIR (“DEIR”) for the Proposed Plan states that one of the Proposed Plan’s “central
objectives” is to achieve the RHNA figure assigned to the Town. (DEIR, pp. 2-7, 6-1.) The RHNA
figure assigned to the Town is 1,993 units. Yet, the DEIR then proceeds to analyze 3,738 dwelling
units—nearly double the assumed RHNA figure. In reality, the Proposed Plan, with its increased
densities across almost all land use designations, could enable development of tens of thousands of
new housing units. This growth was not acknowledged let alone factored into the DEIR, as legally
required.
In its December 2, 2021 report to the Town Council on the Proposed Plan, Staff noted that
the Planning Commission had the authority to recommend a lower housing number than that studied
and assumed in the DEIR, with commensurate changes to the Proposed Plan. Staff also indicated
that the report to the Planning Commission would include an option for approximately 2,000 units
with associated modifications needed to the Proposed Plan to achieve this lower housing capacity.
3 The Land Use Alternatives report also identified the range of likely market demand for new
housing between 2020 and 2040 to be approximately 1,500-2,000 dwelling units.
Honorable Melanie Hanssen, Chair and
Members of the Planning Commission
March 22, 2022
Page 3
2696/037011-0001
17552494.5 a03/22/22
In December 2021, the Association of Bay Area Governments (“ABAG”) approved its final
RHNA Plan for Bay Area cities. Under that Plan, the Town will need to identify housing sites for
1,993 units. As is typical, the Town’s allocation is separated into four income categories: Very Low:
537 units, Low: 310 units, Moderate: 320 units, and Above Moderate: 826 units. ABAG’s RHNA
Plan was approved by the State Department of Housing & Community Development (“HCD”) on
January 12, 2022.
2.The Town Should Focus First On Updating Its Housing Element, Which Will Guide
And Shape Any Other Updates To The General Plan.
Unlike the General Plan update, the Town is under a statutory deadline to submit the updated
Housing Element to HCD by January 2023. On June 15, 2021, the Town Council retained EMC
Planning Group to prepare the Housing Element update. In its Scope of Services, EMC states that
it will rely on the Town Council’s Preferred Land Use Alternative C, which proposes residential
development of 2,303 additional units to be located primarily in Community Place Districts.
By law, the Housing Element update must include an inventory of land suitable and available
for residential development to meet the Town’s regional housing need by income level. (Gov. Code
§§ 65583, 65583.2.) “Suitable” means the parcel is zoned appropriately for residential development
and has available infrastructure and is not environmentally constrained. (Id.) “Available” means
that the site has a likelihood for development during the Housing Element planning period. (Id.) If
the housing sites inventory demonstrates that there are insufficient sites to accommodate the housing
allocation for each income category, the inventory must identify potential sites for rezoning and a
program to effectuate such rezoning early in the 2023-2031 planning period. Per the schedule
included in its Scope of Services, EMC stated that the housing sites inventory would be completed
by Winter 2021-2022.
The Town must update the Housing Element by January 31, 2023 and submit it to HCD for
certification. If the Town does not secure HCD certification of its Housing Element within that
required timeframe, it could become ineligible for state and regional funding programs, be placed
on an accelerated Housing Element cycle, and/or face legal challenges. (Gov. Code §§ 65585,
65588, and 65889.11.)
The Town’s website devoted to the Housing Element update refers simply to the formation
of the Housing Element Advisory Board, with no documents, information on meetings, or updates
concerning a critical statutory deadline that is less than 12 months away.4 Other Bay Area cities
have been laser-focused on updating their Housing Elements. For instance, since May 2021, the
City of Palo Alto held over a dozen meetings on its Housing Element update, and the Palo Alto City
Council recently provided feedback on the housing sites inventory.
4 https://www.losgatosca.gov/2711/Housing-Element-Advisory-Board
Honorable Melanie Hanssen, Chair and
Members of the Planning Commission
March 22, 2022
Page 4
2696/037011-0001
17552494.5 a03/22/22
The Town should follow both common sense and the lead of other cities and focus now on
updating its Housing Element. Doing so will guide and provide critical information for the Proposed
Plan. Updating the General Plan prior to and apart from updating the Housing Element is tantamount
to putting the cart before the horse.
3.When Resumed, the Proposed Plan Should Be Modified to Reflect the Housing
Element Update and Other Changes.
Once the Housing Element update has been adopted by the Town Council and certified by
the State, the Proposed Plan should be updated to reflect it. Other recommended changes to the
Proposed Plan are detailed below.
A.Restore Existing Low Density Residential Development Standards.
For lands designated Low Density Residential, the current General Plan allows for single-
family development at densities of up to 5 units per acre. The Proposed Plan would more than double
the permitted densities, allowing for development of up to 12 units per acre. No change in land use
designation or densities should be made to the Low Density Residential land use category.
First, no such changes are needed to meet the Town’s RHNA figure. Higher density
development is already provided for in other areas, such as Community Place Districts. Further, the
densities proposed in Low Density Residential areas (up to 12 units per acre) would not count toward
the Town’s fair share of affordable housing. (Gov. Code § 65583.2(c)(3)(B) [requiring densities of
at least 20 units per acre to be deemed appropriate to accommodate housing for lower income
households].)
Second, state law has already added density to low density residential areas. Senate Bill 9,
which took effect on January 1, 2022, allows for up to four units per single family residential lot.
The Town has enacted an urgency ordinance to implement Senate Bill 9. Adding further density to
single-family neighborhoods would not be appropriate as such areas are generally not in close
proximity to public transit, employment, or commercial services. Local upzoning on top of state
upzoning would also be contrary to policies in the Proposed Plan that emphasize maintaining and
enhancing a sense of place in residential neighborhoods and requiring new construction to be
compatible with existing neighborhoods. (See, e.g., Proposed Plan, Goals LU-5 and LU-17 and
Policies LU-2.1, LU-4.1, and LU-5.8.)
Third, given the relatively high land costs, much higher development densities are required
to achieve the unit development economics to incentivize the production of duplexes and triplexes.
The desired development would not likely ever materialize given the high land cost. The resulting
housing would instead likely consist of denser, single-family detached housing that is market rate
and not affordable.
Honorable Melanie Hanssen, Chair and
Members of the Planning Commission
March 22, 2022
Page 5
2696/037011-0001
17552494.5 a03/22/22
B.Add Low-Medium Density Residential in Appropriate Locations.
The Proposed Plan contains policies that encourage development of “missing middle”
housing. (Cf. Proposed Plan, Policies LU-1.2, LU-3.5, and LU-5.1; see also Proposed Plan, pp. 3-5
to 3-6.) The Proposed Plan describes missing middle housing as “multiple units on a single parcel
(whether attached or detached) that are compatible in scale and form with detached single-family
homes.” (Proposed Plan, p. 3-3.) The plan goes on to state that common missing middle housing
types include, among others, duplexes, triplexes, and townhomes. (Id.)
To encourage the development of this type of housing, the Town should establish a new
Low-Medium Density Residential land use category that allows for the development of duplexes
and triplexes at a density range of between 6 and 13 dwelling units per acre. The City of Campbell
has a similar land use designation in its General Plan, which it describes as consisting generally of
duplexes, small apartment buildings, and small lot, single-family detached homes. This new land
use designation would be between Low Density Residential, designed for single-family residential
development, and Medium Density Residential, designed for multiple-family residential
development. Staff could identify appropriate sites in Community Place Districts for this new land
use designation.
C.Amend Permitted Intensities Allowed in Central Business District.
As currently written, the Proposed Plan would change the permitted floor area ratio (“FAR”)
in the Central Business District (“CBD”) from 0.6 to 2.0 and allow for residential densities of 20-30
units per acre. This change would increase allowed intensities in Los Gatos’s unique and charming
Downtown by over 200 percent. Such a change would conflict with policies emphasizing the small-
scale retail development envisioned in the CBD district that is consistent with the Town’s identity,
character, and style. (Cf. Proposed Plan, Policies LU-8.2, LU-8.3, LU-9.1, and LU-9.4.) Such high
density development could threaten the commercial viability of the Downtown area.
The City of Campbell limits FAR in its Central Commercial (“CC”) district to 1.25. Similar
to Los Gatos’s CBD district, Campbell’s CC district is intended to promote retail commercial uses
on the ground floor with office or other uses on upper floors. The Town should likewise limit FAR
in the CBD to 1.25.
D.Make Other Changes As Needed to Accommodate The Town’s Assigned
RHNA.
In addition to the above changes, the Town should modify land use designations and densities
so that build-out under the Proposed Plan would accommodate no more than approximately 2,300
units. This figure reflects the Town’s RHNA of 1,993 units, plus a 15 percent buffer. It also reflects
the economic demand and the City Council’s preferred land use alternative. By proceeding with
Honorable Melanie Hanssen, Chair and
Members of the Planning Commission
March 22, 2022
Page 6
2696/037011-0001
17552494.5 a03/22/22
this reasonable growth figure, the Town could ensure that development is phased and does not
outpace necessary infrastructure and service improvements.
The current Proposed Plan allows for the development potential of nearly 75,000 housing
units at maximum allowable densities. There is no need to maximize densities in each and every
residential and commercial land use category to achieve the Town’s RHNA and doing so would
fundamentally change the nature and character of the entire Town. This underscores why the
Housing Element update and its critical housing sites inventory should precede any further work on
the Proposed Plan.
********************
We respectfully ask the Town to focus first on the Housing Element update prior to
considering the Proposed Plan or any other General Plan update. The Housing Element update will
provide critical information on what area(s), if any, need to be re-designated in the General Plan to
accommodate the Town’s projected housing growth. Once the Housing Element update has been
finalized, the Proposed Plan should be revised to reflect it as well as the other recommended changes
detailed above.
Thank you for your consideration of LGCA’s views on these important matters. Please do
not hesitate to contact the undersigned with any questions concerning this correspondence.
Very truly yours,
RUTAN & TUCKER, LLP
Matthew D. Francois
cc (via e-mail):
Honorable Rob Rennie, Mayor, and Members of the Town Council
Laurel Prevetti, Town Manager
Joel Paulson, Community Development Director
Robert Schultz, Town Attorney