Item2.Staff Report with Attachments 1-3
PREPARED BY: Jocelyn Shoopman and Erin Walters
Associate Planner and Associate Planner
110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● 408-354-6832
www.losgatosca.gov
MEETING DATE: 08/24/2023
ITEM NO: 2 TOWN OF LOS GATOS
HOUSING ELEMENT ADVISORY BOARD REPORT
DATE: August 18, 2023
TO: Housing Element Advisory Board
FROM: Joel Paulson, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Review and Discuss Portions of the Town’s Interim Working Draft Revised
Housing Element Addressing the California Department of Housing and
Community Development’s (HCD) Findings/Comment Letter Received by the
Town on May 30, 2023.
BACKGROUND:
The following is a summary of public meetings and formal HCD comment letters received on the
Housing Element in 2023:
• January 12, 2023 – Town received a HCD findings/comment letter (Attachment 1).
• January 30, 2023 – Town Council adopted the 2023-2031 Housing Element with
modifications to the Sites Inventory.
• February 3 to 10, 2023 – Seven-day public review period for the 2023-2031 Housing Element
as adopted by the Town Council on January 30, 2023.
• February 13, 2023 – Town submitted the adopted 2023-2031 Housing Element to HCD. A
cover letter was included in the submittal describing that the Town was in the process of
addressing all the remaining comments found in the HCD findings/comment letter and
would be resubmitting a Draft Revised Housing Element after all the revisions were
completed. The cover letter and submittal documents are available online at:
https://www.losgatosca.gov/HousingElement.
• February 16, 2023 – The Housing Element Advisory Board (HEAB) met to review and discuss
the HCD findings/comment letter, and how the comments and findings would be addressed.
• March 16, 2023 – The HEAB reviewed the Draft Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element which
included modifications to the Town Council adopted 2023-2031 Housing Element in
response to the January 12, 2023, HCD comments.
PAGE 2 OF 6
SUBJECT: Review and Discuss Portions of the Town’s Interim Working Draft Revised
Housing Element
DATE: August 18, 2023
BACKGROUND (continued):
• March 23 to 30, 2023 – Seven-day public review period for the Draft Revised 2023-2031
Housing Element as recommended by the HEAB.
• March 31, 2023 – The Town submitted the Draft Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element to HCD
for review. The March 31, 2023, cover letter, and submittal documents are available online
at: https://www.losgatosca.gov/HousingElement.
• April 4, 2023 – The Town Council reviewed and discussed the Draft Revised 2023-2031
Housing Element as submitted to the HCD on March 31, 2023.
• April 14, 2023 – The Town received a HCD findings/comment letter on the adopted Housing
Element that was submitted to HCD on February 13, 2023 (Attachment 2).
• April 21, 2023, and May 10, 2023 – Staff met with the Town’s HCD reviewer to discuss the
March 31, 2023 resubmittal and to receive preliminary feedback.
• May 30, 2023 – The Town received a HCD findings/comment letter on the Draft Revised
Housing Element. The findings/comment letter is in reference to the Town’s Draft Revised
Housing Element submitted to HCD on March 31, 2023. HCD determined that the Town’s
Draft Revised Housing Element addresses many statutory requirements, but identified
revisions necessary to comply with State Housing Element law (Attachment 3).
On June 15, 2023, the HEAB held a meeting to review and discuss the HCD findings/comment
letter, and how the comments and findings could be addressed. The HEAB discussed and
provided direction to staff including, but not limited to: continue to look to neighboring
jurisdictions who have received certification from HCD as examples to address HCD’s May 31,
2023, findings/comment letter; schedule monthly HEAB meetings until the Housing Element
receives certification by HCD; and include a Housing Element Timeline on the Town’s Housing
Element webpage.
On June 20, 2023, Town Staff met with the Town’s HCD reviewer to discuss and receive
clarification on HCD’s May 31, 2023, findings/comment letter. The HCD reviewer provided
some clarification on the AFFH findings/comments. The HCD reviewer also provided examples
from the City of Torrance, Rolling Hills, and Rolling Hills Estates on housing programs that
address AFFH. The City of Corona was provided as an example of how AFFH Site Analysis was
addressed. Staff has forwarded this information to the Town’s AFFH consultant, Root Policy
Research, as they continue their work on addressing HCD’s AFFH findings/comments.
On July 20, 2023, the HEAB met to review and discuss portions of the Town’s Interim Working
Draft Revised Housing Element.
On August 15, 2023, the Town Council received and discussed a status update on the 2023-2031
Housing Element process.
PAGE 3 OF 6
SUBJECT: Review and Discuss Portions of the Town’s Interim Working Draft Revised
Housing Element
DATE: August 18, 2023
DISCUSSION:
The purpose of this meeting is to review and discuss the progress in making modifications to the
Interim Working Draft Revised Housing Element to address HCD’s May 30, 2023,
findings/comment letter.
The initial review and revision efforts of the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)
consultant, Root Policy, and the Housing Element consultant, Veronica Tam and Associates Inc.,
were focused on two subject areas:
1. Providing additional AFFH analysis and mapping; and
2. An evaluation of the Sites Inventory.
A summary of this work to date is provided below.
A. AFFH Analysis
The Town’s AFFH Consultant, Root Policy, has provided revisions in track changes to
Appendix A, in response comments #1 through 3, and #5 of HCD’s May 30, 2023, comment
letter. A partial interim working draft response memorandum can be found in Attachment
1. The proposed revisions by Root Policy in Appendix A (Attachment 2) are shown in yellow
highlighted track changes to differentiate from proposed revisions made by staff and
presented to the HEAB as part of the July 20, 2023, meeting packet.
Additionally, there is also work progressing in the areas of constraints, conn ecting the new
AFFH data to existing implementation programs, and other outstanding comments from
HCD that is expected to be brought to the HEAB for review and discussion in late
September.
B. Sites Inventory Analysis
The Town’s Housing Consultant, Veronica Tam and Associates Inc., has conducted an
evaluation of the Town’s Sites Inventory and is in the process of preparing a more robust
justification for the Town’s claim that the sites could redevelop with housing in the next
eight years.
The sites on the Sites Inventory were analyzed on the following items:
Suitability of Nonvacant Sites
1. Review of sites with existing uses, examining the characteristics of existing uses (age,
floor area ratio, improvement-to-land value, single vs. multi-story), and whether such
PAGE 4 OF 6
SUBJECT: Review and Discuss Portions of the Town’s Interim Working Draft Revised
Housing Element
DATE: August 18, 2023
DISCUSSION (continued):
characteristics are conducive to future redevelopment;
2. Edits to the Draft Revised Housing Element (in progress) to strengthen the rationale for
the potential of redevelopment; and
3. Refinement of the sites capacity (in progress), netting out the existing units – as the
Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) capacity accepts net new units only.
Credits/Progress towards RHNA
1. The RHNA projection period started on June 30, 2022. Therefore, units created
(approved, finaled, permitted, or under construction) since then can be credited toward
the sixth cycle RHNA. The units created between June 30, 2022, and June 30, 2023, will
be added to the unit summary (in progress) in addition to the pipeline projects included
in the Draft Revised Housing Element.
2. Edits to the pipeline projects are in progress of being adjusted to reflect a net increase.
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU)
1. The income and affordability distribution of the ADU’s are in progress of being modified
according to the Association of Bay Area Government’s pre-approved survey.
Senate Bill 9 Units (SB 9)
The consultant has reviewed the Town’s methodology for estimating the total number of
housing units that would be built within the eight-year planning period through the
provisions of SB 9 and found the estimate to be adequate. In response to HCD’s comment
#11 the consultant is in the process of completing the following analysis:
• It has been identified that there are 6,940 parcels in single-family zones that have a
parcel size over 5,000 square feet (a conservative estimate compared to the minimum
State requirement of 2,500 square feet) eligible for a lot split. To estimate the number
of parcels with potential for urban lot split, the parcels with the following factors were
removed:
o Existing lot coverage (equal to or greater than 40 percent). Estimated by dividing
building area by the number of stories;
o Existence of a home built prior to 1941; and
o The improvement to land value ratio (greater than 1.0 and therefore improvements
are worth more than the land). Similar to the age of the structure, as older homes
that are worth less than the land may be financially more conducive to lot splits.
PAGE 5 OF 6
SUBJECT: Review and Discuss Portions of the Town’s Interim Working Draft Revised
Housing Element
DATE: August 18, 2023
DISCUSSION (continued):
Overall, the SB 9 parcel analysis has identified 2,971 parcels. The projection of 12 new units
produced annually (96 units over the eight-year period) represents the potential
participation of less than 0.5 percent of probable parcels and therefore has been found to
be a fairly conservative estimate.
After conducting these areas of analysis and with the strengthened discussions of the
suitability of nonvacant sites, the consultant believes that the Sites Inventory will meet
HCD’s requirements.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Attachment 3 includes public comments received between 11:01 a.m., Thursday, July 20, 2023,
and 11:00 a.m. Friday, August 18, 2023.
Public comments are encouraged throughout the Housing Element update process and can be
emailed to HEUpdate@losgatosca.gov.
At the last HEAB meeting during verbal communications a representative of the Northern
California Carpenters Union Local 405 provided comments also reflected in Attachment 3.
Staff has included draft policy and implementation program language below for the HEAB’s
consideration based on language from the City of Foster City 2023-2031 Housing Element
Update, Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element, and 2023-2031 Redwood City Housing
Element.
Draft Policy:
• Local Labor – Encourage developers and contractors to evaluate hiring local labor, hiring
from, or constituting to apprenticeship programs, increasing resources for labor
compliance, and providing living wages.
Draft Implementation Program:
• Local Labor Program List – Establish and post a list of local labor unions and apprenticeship
programs on the Town’s website and encourage the developers and contractors to hire
local labor.
NEXT STEPS:
Town staff and the housing consultant have scheduled a meeting with Paul McDougall, HCD
Senior Program Manager and the Town’s HCD reviewer for the first week for September to lay
out our proposed methods for addressing the remaining comments, with the anticipation that
PAGE 6 OF 6
SUBJECT: Review and Discuss Portions of the Town’s Interim Working Draft Revised
Housing Element
DATE: August 18, 2023
NEXT STEPS (continued):
this conversation will allow the consultant to provide the HEAB with a high level of confidence
and most of the needed revisions at their next meeting in late September prior to resubmittal
to HCD.
Staff will return to HEAB after completing additional modifications to the Draft Revised Housing
Element for review and discussion. Based on the review and a recommendation from the HEAB,
the latest Draft Revised Housing Element would then be available to the public for a seven -day
review period as required by Assembly Bill 215. HCD requires that a track change copy and a
clean copy of the Draft Revised Housing Element be available for viewing during the seven-day
review period. In addition, an email will be sent to all individuals and organizations that
previously requested notices relating to the Town’s Housing Element Update.
Following the seven-day review period, the Town will resubmit to HCD for review. Subsequent
review by HCD will take up to 60 days. Based on the experience of neighboring jurisdictions,
HCD could issue an additional comment letter. Once HCD determines and communicates that
the Town’s Draft Revised 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.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Partial Interim Working Draft Response Memorandum to HCD’s Findings Comment Table
2. Draft Revised Appendix A
3. Public Comments Received between 11:01 a.m., Thursday, July 20, 2023, and 11:00 a.m.
Friday, August 18, 2023
ATTACHMENT 1
Partial May 30, 2023, HCD Comments on Draft Revised Housing Element with Responses
Town’s Interim Working Draft Revised Housing Element – August 2023
Comment
Number
HCD Comment Response
Los Altos Hills
Page Reference *
Campbell Page
Reference **
#1 A. 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: The element includes
some data and analysis regarding different patterns for
various socio-economic characteristics (race and income).
However, a complete analysis should analyze this data for
patterns and trends at the regional level, comparing the
locality to the broader region, including integration and
segregation (race, income, disability, and familial status),
disparities in access to opportunity (education, environmental,
transportation, economic), and disproportionate housing
needs (cost burdened, overcrowded, substandard housing
conditions, homelessness, and displacement risks). Please see
HCD's January 12, 2023 review for additional information.
Throughout Appendix A, new regional maps
were added and bullets before each map
were included to describe the local and
regional similarities and differences.
The following protected classes were added
to the analysis of Section A.8 on page A-34:
race and ethnicity, disability, income and
poverty, and familial status (households with
children, married couples, female
householders, and residents living alone).
Additional analysis of economic opportunity
was expanded to include access to jobs via
transit and car, which were then connected
to the region and concentrated areas of
poverty/protected classes staring on page A-
76.
Education was expanded to include student
demographics and special needs
(socioeconomically disadvantaged and
homeless students) on page A-82.
Graduation rates were also added to identify
disparities in access to postsecondary
education by race/ethnicity and disability
status on page A-82.
Environmental opportunity was enhanced by
analyzing environmental hazards and risks at
the county and regional levels and compared
to identified concentrations in Section A.9
starting on page A-69.
Disproportionate housing needs in Section
Refer to pages 84,
118, and 124.
Refer to page
H.II-46.
Comment
Number
HCD Comment Response
Los Altos Hills
Page Reference *
Campbell Page
Reference **
A.10 on page A-101 was expanded with local
and regional analyses/maps of substandard
units, cost burden by tenure, and
overcrowding.
Analysis and maps of homelessness was
expanded starting on page A-134 to include
point in time data and local and regional
maps.
Analysis and maps of displacement was
expanded to include displacement risk by
area median income and disaster-driven
displacement at the local and regional level
starting on page A-138.
#2 Income and Racial Concentration of Affluence (RCAA): The
element states that a RCAA does not exist; however, the Town
is predominantly a high resource category according to
TCAC/HCD Opportunity Maps and is predominantly higher
income. These patterns differ from the surrounding region
and the element should include specific analysis of the Town
compared to the region and should formulate policies and
programs to promote an inclusive community. For example,
the Town should consider additional actions (not limited to
the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) to promote
housing mobility and improve new housing opportunities
throughout the Town.
New maps regarding RCAA’s by census tract
and regionally were added starting on page
A-66.
Starting on page A-4 analysis and maps
regarding segregation and areas of poverty
were added to the assessment including:
housing types, residential development
patterns, and proposed policies and programs
to address these causes.
Refer to page
101.
Refer to page
H.II-84.
#3 Disparities in Access to Opportunity: While the element was
revised to include the distances between public schools for
each site to a public transit line, it must also evaluate and
compare concentrations of protected groups with access to
transportation options. In addition, it must also analyze any
disproportionate transportation needs for members of
protected classes.
The analysis of transportation was expanded
to include the location of high-quality transit
areas/stops in the town and region on page
A-84. These locations were then compared
to identified concentrations of protected
groups and poverty. Access to transportation
was also analyzed through the percentage of
household income being spent on housing
and transportation to identify disparities by
income groups.
Refer to page
107.
Refer to page
H.II-57.
#5 Local Data, Knowledge and Other Relevant Factors:
The element included some information about regional
history, referenced stakeholder comments and discussed the
Analysis and maps of historical redlining
practices in the County were added using
HCD’s Homeowner Loan Corporation
Refer to page
103.
Refer to page
H.II-47.
Comment
Number
HCD Comment Response
Los Altos Hills
Page Reference *
Campbell Page
Reference **
location of assisted projects and housing choice vouchers.
However, the element needs to provide information and
analysis that relates, supports, or supplements the existing
analysis, fair housing conclusions, or contributing factors. The
element must consider other relevant factors that have
contributed to certain fair housing conditions. This analysis
must consider information that is unique to the Town or
region; such as governmental and nongovernmental actions;
historical land use and zoning practices (e.g., past
redlining/Greenlining, restrictive covenants, planning
documents, etc.); disparities in investment to specific
communities including transportation investments; seeking
investment or lack thereof to promote affordability and
inclusion; local initiatives, or other information that may have
impeded housing choices and mobility.
Redlining Grade maps for 2021 starting on
page A-11.
* A copy of the Town of Los Altos Hills 2023-2031 Housing Element, 6th Cycle Housing Plan is available online at:
https://www.losaltoshills.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/6107/LAH_HEU_Revised-04-10-23-Updated-4-20-23
**A copy of the City of Campbell 6th Cycle 2023-2031 Housing Element HCD Revised Submittal, Fourth Draft is available online at:
https://www.campbellca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/20007/4th-HCD-Submittal-Draft-of-the-6th-Cycle-Housing-Element---Redlines
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Report A
APPENDIX
ATTACHMENT 2
Appendix A. AFFH Report
August March 2023 Appendix A A-1
A.1 What is AFFH?
The State of California’s 2018 Assembly Bill (AB 686) requires that all public agencies in the state affirmatively
further fair housing (AFFH) beginning January 1, 2019. Public agencies receiving funding from the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) are also required to demonstrate their commitment to
AFFH. The Federal obligation stems from the fair housing component of the Federal Civil Rights Act mandating
Federal fund recipients to take “meaningful actions” to address segregation and related barriers to fair housing
choice.
AB 686 requires all public agencies to “administer programs and activities relating to housing and community
development in a manner that affirmatively furthers fair housing and take no action inconsistent with this
obligation.”1
AB 686 also makes changes to Housing Element Law to incorporate requirements of AFFH as part of the Housing
Element and General Plan to include an analysis of fair housing outreach and capacity, integration and
segregation, access to opportunity, disparate housing needs, and current fair housing practices.
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
“Affirmatively furthering fair housing” means taking meaningful actions, in addition to
combating discrimination, that overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities
free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity based on protected characteristics.
Specifically, affirmatively furthering fair housing means taking meaningful actions that, taken
together, address significant disparities in housing needs and in access to opportunity, replacing
segregated living patterns with truly integrated and balanced living patterns, transforming racially
and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty into areas of opportunity, and fostering and
maintaining compliance with civil rights and fair housing laws. The duty to affirmatively further fair
housing extends to all of a public agency’s activities and programs relating to housing and
community development. (Gov. Code, § 8899.50, subd.(a)(1).)”
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development Guidance, 2021, page 14.
Analysis of the 5th Cycle Housing Element
Goals of the Previous Housing Element
Many of the goals, policies, and programs that were presented in the 5th Cycle Housing Element are still
applicable to the current 6th Cycle Housing Element. Some of the goals, policies, and programs included in this
Housing Element serve as a continuation of policies identified within the previous Housing Element; whereas,
others are new and concentrate more on promoting AFFH. The following are a list of goals from the 5th Cycle
Housing Element:
Goal HOU-1: Expand the choice of housing opportunities for all economic segments of the community
by supporting the development of affordable housing in a variety of types and sizes, including a
mixture of ownership and rental housing.
Goal HOU-2: Maintain and/or adopt appropriate land use regulations and other development tools to
encourage the development of affordable housing that is compatible with the neighborhood and the
community.
1 California Department of Housing and Community Development Guidance, 2021, page 9.
HCD Revised Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
A-2 Appendix A August March 2023
Goal HOU-3: Preserve existing residential opportunities, including the existing affordable housing
stock.
Goal HOU-4: Ensure that all persons have equal access to housing opportunities.
Goal HOU-5: Retain and expand affordable housing opportunities for seniors.
Goal HOU-6: Mitigate Town governmental constraints to affordable and special needs housing
development.
Goal HOU-7: Encourage residential construction that promotes green building and energy
conservation practices.
Goal HOU-8: Ensure that the Town has sufficient resources and takes appropriate measures to
implement the Housing Element.
Goal HOU-9: Maintain the Town’s 2005 jobs-to-household ratio of 1.5 jobs per household.
The goals listed above are still applicable and support producing, providing, and retaining housing within the
Town. The goals of the 6th Cycle Housing Element have refined the goals of the 5th Cycle Housing Element to
state six clear goals that complement the polices and implementation programs, further strengthening the Town’s
housing goals.
Production of Housing
The 5th Cycle Housing Element identified a Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) of 619 housing units in
Los Gatos between January 1, 2015, and January 31, 2023. The RHNA was divided into the following income
categories:
100 units affordable to extremely low-income households.
101 units affordable to very low-income households.
112 units affordable to low-income households.
132 units affordable to moderate-income households.
174 units affordable to above moderate-income households.
During the 2015–2023 planning period, as of December 31, 2022, 683 new units were added to the Town’s
housing stock, achieving approximately 110 percent of the Town’s RHNA. Units affordable to moderate- and
lower-income households that were created during the planning period include density bonus senior rental units
(North Forty Phase I), an attached condominium (Union Avenue), detached townhomes (Knowles Avenue)
produced through the BMP program, and accessory dwelling units. The Town exceeded the required housing
units per RHNA in the moderate and above moderate-income categories; however, fell short in the very low- and
low-income categories. Many of the goals, policies, and programs added and modified in this document have the
goal and objective of increasing the total production of very low- and low-income category housing units during
the 6th Housing Element cycle. For a deeper analysis of the previous Housing Element Update, refer to Appendix
E.
Meaningful Steps towards AFFH
The Town’s overarching goal of furthering AFFH and creating more housing opportunities has made a
concentrated effort to assist the most vulnerable populations. These vulnerable populations include, but are not
limited to: the elderly; large households; extremely low income households; individuals experiencing
homelessness; and individuals with disabilities. Many of the programs identified in this 6 th Cycle Housing Element
are designed to create a measurable impact on the affordable housing options provided to the afore-mentioned
populations. These policies include:
Implementation Program J: Helping Seniors Program
Implementation Program L: Rental Housing for Large Families
Implementation Program P: Funds for Development for Extremely Low Income (ELI) Households
Implementation Program Q: Habitat for Humanity Home Repair Program
Appendix A. AFFH Report
August March 2023 Appendix A A-3
Implementation Program Z: Increased Range of Housing Opportunities for the Homeless
Implementation Program AB: Accessibility Design Features
Implementation Program AC: Housing Opportunities for Persons Living with Disabilities
Implementation Program AD: Special Needs Housing
Implementation Program AF: Rental Assistance for Persons with Developmental Challenges
Implementation Program AG: Supportive Services for the Homeless
Implementation Program AH: Stabilize Rents
The Town of Los Gatos implements these programs through funding allocation or through partnerships with other
local organizations and jurisdictions.
A.2 History of Segregation in the Region
The United States’ oldest cities have a history of mandating segregated living patterns and Northern California
cities are no exception. ABAG, in its recent Fair Housing Equity Assessment, attributes segregation in the Bay
Area to historically discriminatory practices, highlighting redlining and discriminatory mortgage approvals as well
as “structural inequities” in society, and “self-segregation” (i.e., preferences to live near similar people).
Researcher Richard Rothstein’s 2017 book The Color of Law: A Forgotten History of How Our Government
Segregated America chronicles how the public sector contributed to the segregation that exists today. Rothstein
highlights several significant developments in the Bay Area region that played a large role in where the region’s
non-White residents settled.
In 1955, builders began developing workforce housing for the Ford Corporation’s plant in the Bay Area, including
Santa Clara County. Initially the units were segregated as no one would sell to the local Black/African American
workers. The American Friends Service Committee (AFSC) worked to find builders who would build integrated
subdivisions. Unfortunately, after four purchased plots were subsequently rezoned to prevent integrated housing,
the original builder quit. After multiple additional iterations, Black/African American workers had “become so
discouraged about finding housing opportunities” that they began carpooling from outside cities such as
Richmond2.
A 2018 Berkeley publication titled, Racial Segregation in the San Francisco Bay Area, describes Los Gatos
among the “most segregated, heavily white cities in the county” with Santa Clara County containing “no truly
integrated city”3. The study also delved into the history of segregation, highlighting 1960s-era laws and practices
connected to urban renewal projects that displaced established communities of color. This was coupled with the
building of transportation infrastructure that resulted in a net loss of affordable housing due to a lack of one-for-
one replacement. Figure A-1 through Figure A-7 illustrate the demographic distribution within Santa Clara
County.
History of Segregation in the Region
This history of segregation in the region is important not only to understand how residential
settlement patterns came about, but, more importantly, to explain differences in housing
opportunity among residents today. In sum, not all residents had the ability to build housing
wealth or achieve economic opportunity. This historically unequal playing field in part determines
why residents have different housing needs today.
2 Source: book The Color of Law: A Forgotten History of How Our Government Segregated America by Richard Rothstein, p 121.
3 Racial Segregation in the San Francisco Bay Area, Part 1 | Othering & Belonging Institute (berkeley.edu)
HCD Revised Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
A-4 Appendix A August March 2023
In addition to historical discriminatory practices that embedded segregation into living patterns throughout the Bay
Area, it’s also necessary to recognize the historical impacts of colonization and genocide on Indigenous
populations and how the effects of those atrocities are still being felt today. The original inhabitants of present-
day San Mateo County are the Ramaytush Ohlone, who have “…lived on the San Francisco Peninsula for
thousands of years and continue to live here as respectful stewards of the land”4. However, “[d]ue to the
devastating policies and practices of a succession of explorers, missionaries, settlers, and various levels of
government over the centuries since European expansion, the Ramaytush Ohlone lost the vast majority of their
population as well as their land”5. The lasting influence of these policies and practices have contributed directly to
the disparate housing and economic outcomes collectively experienced by Native populations today 6.
The timeline of major Federal Acts and court decisions related to fair housing choice and zoning and land use
appears on the following page.
As shown in the timeline, exclusive zoning practices were common in the early 1900s. Courts struck down only
the most discriminatory and allowed those that would be considered today to have a “disparate impact” on
classes protected by the Fair Housing Act. For example, the 1926 case Village of Euclid v. Amber Realty Co.
(272 U.S. 365) supported the segregation of residential, business, and industrial uses, justifying separation by
characterizing apartment buildings as “mere parasite(s)” with the potential to “utterly destroy” the character and
desirability of neighborhoods. At that time, multifamily apartments were the only housing options for people of
color, including immigrants.
The Federal Fair Housing Act was not enacted until nearly 60 years after the first racial Zoning Ordinances
appeared in U.S. cities. This coincided with a shift away from Federal control over low-income housing toward
locally-tailored approaches (block grants) and market-oriented choice (Section 8 subsidies), the latter of which is
only effective when adequate affordable rental units are available.
Racial covenants were used across the United States, and though they are now illegal, the language remains in
many property records. A homeowner may not even know that their deed includes a racial covenant, it is easily
missed in the paperwork that comes with buying a home.
This section illustrates the demographic distribution of residents in Los Gatos and Santa Clara County compared
to the Bay Area region. These analyses offer important in-sight on patterns of segregation and integration as well
as equitable access to opportunity for residents across the Bay Area. Primary findings from these comparative
analyses are bulleted and provided before figures/maps.
Figures A-1 and A-2 show the percent of non-White residents by block group in Los Gatos and the region in 2020.
Key differences between Santa Clara County and the Bay Area include:
Los Gatos is far less diverse than surrounding cities and the county overall: of census tracts with non-
White residents, groups comprise less than half of the total resident population. Saratoga and Cupertino
follow different patterns with non-White residents comprising more than 60 percent of the population in
particular tracts.
Areas of Santa Clara County with the largest share of non-White residents include San Jose, Sunnyvale,
and Santa Clara, all of which have census tracts where non-White residents comprise up to 100 percent of
the total resident population.
4 https://www.smcoe.org/for-communities/indigenous-people-of-san-mateo-county.html
5 https://www.smcoe.org/for-communities/indigenous-people-of-san-mateo-county.html
6 https://www.americanprogress.org/article/systemic-inequality-displacement-exclusion-segregation/
Appendix A. AFFH Report
August March 2023 Appendix A A-5
These trends are similar for the region overall though non-White groups are significantly more likely to live
in San Francisco, Daly City, Palo Alto, San Leandro, Hayward, and Fremont. There are similar
concentrations in South San Francisco and Redwood City.
Figure A-1. Racial Demographics by Block Group, Los Gatos, 2020
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer.
HCD Revised Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
A-6 Appendix A August March 2023
Figure A-12 Regional Racial Demographics by Block Group, 2020
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer
Appendix A. AFFH Report
August March 2023 Appendix A A-7
Figure A-3 shows census tracts in Los Gatos where Asian residents are the predominant population. As shown in
the map, Los Gatos has no predominantly Asian census tracts. Comparatively, Saratoga has Asian majority
census tracts with a sizeable gap between 10 percent and 50 percent.
Figure A-3 Asian Majority Census Tracts, Los Gatos, 2018
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer.
HCD Revised Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
A-8 Appendix A August March 2023
In line with these trends, there are no census tracts in Los Gatos where Hispanic or Latino residents are the
predominant population similar to census tracts surrounding communities (Figure A-4).
Figure A-4 Hispanic Majority Census Tracts, Los Gatos, 2018
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer
Appendix A. AFFH Report
August March 2023 Appendix A A-9
Figures A-5 and A-6 show racial segregation and integration patterns in 2010 and 2020 for Los Gatos and Santa
Clara County. Key differences between Los Gatos and the county include:
Los Gatos has not changed since 2010 while surrounding areas have experienced substantial shifts in
racial segregation trends. This is particularly notable in Saratoga which shifted from high White
segregation to high POC segregation.
The number of census tracts that are racially integrated increased over the last decade, the majority of
which are located around Campbell and Santa Clara.
Los Gatos was the only town in Santa Clara County where all census tracts are highly segregated for
White residents in both 2010 and 2020.
HCD Revised Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
A-10 Appendix A August March 2023
Figure A-5. Racial Segregation/Integration by Census Tract, Los Gatos and Santa Clara County, 2010
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer.
Appendix A. AFFH Report
August March 2023 Appendix A A-11
Figure A-6. Racial Segregation/Integration by Census Tract, Los Gatos and Santa Clara County, 2020
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer.
Figure A-7 illustrates the Home Owners’ Loan Corporation (HOLC) redlining grades for Santa Clara County.
Created during the New Deal Era, the HOLC established a neighborhood ranking system known as redlining to
reflect the demographic and socioeconomic composition of varying neighborhoods across cities in California.
Maps and neighborhood ratings set the rules for real estate practice: with support from the federal government,
HCD Revised Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
A-12 Appendix A August March 2023
many banks used the grading system for mortgages and denied approval in areas with the lowest grade.7 These
practices made it nearly impossible for individuals in these areas to transition to homeownership. In Santa Clara
County, grades were largely assigned to neighborhoods in Santa Clara and San Jose with grades ranging
between B (still desirable) and D (hazardous). Los Gatos was not formed when the HOLC maps were active and,
as such, redlining grade maps do not exist.
Figure A-7. HOLC Redlining Grade, Santa Clara County, 2021
Source: University of Richmond and California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer.
7 University of Richmond’s Digital Scholarship Lab and HCD, 2021.
Appendix A. AFFH Report
August March 2023 Appendix A A-13
Current patterns and trends of segregation and integration in Los Gatos, Santa Clara County, and the Bay Area
are provided by race and ethnicity, disability status, median household income, and familial status in the following
sections.
HCD Revised Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
A-14 Appendix A August March 2023
Major Public and Legal Actions that Influence Fair Access to Housing
Appendix A. AFFH Report
August March 2023 Appendix A A-15
A.3 Town History
Los Gatos is located at the base of the Santa Cruz Mountains at the southwest edge of Santa Clara County and
approximately 50 miles south of San Francisco. The natural landscape includes picturesque hillsides, creeks,
and valley flatlands. Los Gatos is in an area once occupied by Indigenous People, which extends from the point
where the San Joaquin and Sacramento rivers flow into the San Francisco Bay to Point Sur, with the interior
Coastal Ranges most likely constituting the inland boundary. The Indigenous People lived sustainably in the area
rich with fertile soils, abundant wildlife, and other natural resources. Before colonization, Indigenous People lived
in base camps of tule-reed houses and seasonal specialized camps. Indigenous People ate food gained by
hunting, gathering, and fishing. Mussels were particularly important to their diet, as well as sea mammals and
acorns.
Seven Franciscan missions were built in Indigenous People's territory in the late 1700s, and all Indigenous People
were eventually forced into the mission system. After the establishment of the missions, the population of
Indigenous People of this area was decimated from roughly 10,000 people in 1770 to 1,300 in 1814. In 1973, the
population of Indigenous People of this area was estimated at fewer than 300 after what is widely cited as a
genocide. The descendants of Indigenous People of this area united in 1971 and have since arranged political
and cultural organizations to revitalize, maintain, and pass on their culture.
In 1839, El Rancho de Los Gatos was established by a Mexican land grant and was so named because of the
large number of mountain lions in the area. Agriculture and timber harvesting were mainstays of the local
economy. In 1854, James Alexander Forbes built a flour mill along Los Gatos Creek. In 1860, the first hotel was
opened to provide a stage stop on a toll road between San Jose and Santa Cruz. The railroad reached Los
Gatos in 1878, catalyzing residential and commercial growth. By 1887, the population had grown to 1,500 and
the Los Gatos community voted to incorporate.
Because of its distance from other centers of population, Los Gatos developed as a complete community
including residential, business, and industrial elements. Today, Los Gatos is part of the Silicon Valley and its fast-
paced economy. Los Gatos has more than 3,000 businesses with a full range of services for its approximate
30,000 residents. The Town is a destination for visitors who are attracted to its small-town feel, beautiful natural
setting, recreation opportunities, restaurants, and specialty shopping within a pedestrian friendly, historic
downtown setting.
As with many of its neighboring jurisdictions, the historic land use patterns of Los Gatos – predominantly single-
family housing around a downtown core – is discriminatory by nature.8 The Town’s land use and zoning policies
have traditionally limited housing types allowed in the Town to medium to low density residential, favoring single-
family detached projects.
Racially restrictive covenants and property deed restrictions were popular in the 1920s. Though no longer in
effect, these covenants have lasting impacts on the racial and ethnic makeup of the Town. However, the effect of
the racial covenants has diminished with time, and the Town has gone from approximately 86 percent White in
2000 to approximately 72 percent White in 2020. The increasing diversity of the Town indicates that impacts of
racial covenants are decreasing and the primary factors limiting housing mobility and choice in the Town currently
are household wealth, low density zoning, and high housing costs. Los Gatos will rezone approximately 87 acres
with a Housing Element Overlay Zone (HEOZ) to allow for higher densities to encourage mixed-use and multi-
8 “Single-family zoning emerged and replaced race-based zoning as a tool for segregating communities by restricting more affordable housing options,
such as apartments or condominiums.” Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing: Guidance for All Public Entities and for Housing Elements (HCD: April 2021)
p. 6, available at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/communitydevelopment/affh/docs/affh_document_final_4-27-2021.pdf
HCD Revised Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
A-16 Appendix A August March 2023
family development. The HEOZ, along with ADUs, and SB 9 will accommodate the Town’s need for lower and
moderate-income housing.
A.34 Report Content and Organization
This Fair Housing Assessment follows the April 2021 State of California State Guidance for AFFH.
Section I. Fair Housing Enforcement and Outreach Capacity reviews lawsuits/enforcement
actions/complaints against the jurisdiction; compliance with State fair housing laws and regulations; and
jurisdictional capacity to conduct fair housing outreach and education.
Section II. Integration and Segregation identifies areas of concentrated segregation, degrees of segregation,
and the groups that experience the highest levels of segregation
Section III. Access to Opportunity examines differences in access to education, economic development, and
healthy environments.
Section IV. Disparate Housing Needs identifies which groups have disproportionate housing needs including
displacement risk.
Section V. Contributing Factors and Fair Housing Action Plan identifies the primary factors contributing to
fair housing challenges and the Plan for taking meaningful actions to improve access to housing and economic
opportunity.
Appendices
Map and Data packet, including Fair Housing Organizations in Santa Clara County mission, services, and
contact information
State Fair Housing Laws and Regulations, summary of key State laws and regulations related to mitigating
housing discrimination and expanding housing choice
A.45 Primary Findings
This section summarizes the primary findings from the Fair Housing Assessment for Los Gatos including the
following sections: fair housing enforcement and outreach capacity, integration and segregation, access to
opportunity, disparate housing needs, and contributing factors and the Town’s Fair Housing Action Plan.
Population growth trends in Los Gatos are significantly lower than the county and regional index rates.
The Town has grown 15 percent since 1990, while Santa Clara County grew by 31 percent.
Los Gatos diverges from the county and region overall in racial composition with more than double the
county share of non-Hispanic White population (72 percent versus 32 percent for Santa Clara County).
Yet Los Gatos’ residents have grown more racially diverse since 2000 with the non-Hispanic white
population declining by 14 percentage points and Asian residents increasing in population from eight
percent to 15 percent in 2019.
Conversely, the types of households in Los Gatos mirror the county and are similar to the Bay Area with 58
percent married couples (57 percent in Santa Clara County and 51 percent in the Bay Area). Household
size is in line with the county, except for five or more person households, for which Los Gatos has a
smaller share.
Los Gatos has a higher share of high-income earners (greater than 100 percent AMI) than the county and
Bay Area (65 percent versus 55 percent and 52 percent respectively). Accounting for race and ethnicity,
Asian households are much more likely to comprise high income earners (72 percent), especially when
compared to Black/African American and Hispanic households (50 percent and 46 percent, respectively).
Appendix A. AFFH Report
August March 2023 Appendix A A-17
In 2015, the income segregation in Los Gatos between lower-income residents and other residents was
higher than the average value for Bay Area jurisdictions. Segregation also exists among racial groups, yet
is slowly declining.
Poverty rates are minimal but do vary across races and ethnicities with Hispanic residents experiencing
the highest poverty rate (although still a very low six percent) and Black/African Americans the lowest (0.7
percent).
The job to household ratio for Los Gatos tracks closely with Bay Area and is lower than Santa Clara
County’s, indicating that Los Gatos is less of a commuter Town than surrounding jurisdictions with much
higher job to household ratios. This differs, however, by wage, with jobs to household ratios much higher
for low wage workers who cannot afford to live in the Town. Los Gatos has twice as many jobs as
households for low wage jobs.
Los Gatos’ housing opportunities are limited by pricing, and both rental and home values are higher than
the county median. Eighty-three percent of houses are valued at more than one million dollars; Zillow
reports Los Gatos’ market average value at more than three million dollars. The average value of homes
in Los Gatos is 63 percent higher than the County’s 1.3-million-dollar average value. Sixty-three percent of
rentals charge 2,000 dollars or more a month, compared to 56 percent in Santa Clara County. Los Gatos
does not have any public housing and only a small portion of the Town contains any Housing Choice
Voucher usage, a minimal 0-5 percent.
Nearly three-quarters of the Town’s housing are single-family units.
Housing cost burden in Los Gatos is lower than nearby cities but differs by race and ethnicity, and by
tenure (renters/owners). Asian households experience the lowest rates of cost burden (30 percent) in the
Town, followed by non-Hispanic White households (31 percent). This is followed by Black/African
American household (34 percent) and Hispanic households (37 percent). Other/Multiple Race households
(45 percent) are the most likely to be cost burdened (45 percent). Owners experience cost burden at a
lower rate (28 percent) than renters (42 percent).
Mortgage denial rates vary little by race and ethnicity, with 55 percent to 65 percent of loans originated.
Other than Asian applicants, however, applications from non-White applicants are very low in numbers.
Saratoga Elementary School, Los Gatos Union Elementary School, and Los Gatos-Saratoga Union High
School Districts serve the majority of Los Gatos residents. The most up-to-date performance rankings
show that the Los Gatos-Saratoga high school with very few Black/African American or Native American
students. Asian students experienced higher educational outcomes compared to other students, scoring
93.8 percent in a 2019 College/Career Indicator metric. White and Hispanic students scored 71 percent
and 64.6 percent, respectively.
A.56 Contributing Factors and Fair Housing Issues
The disparities in housing choice and access to opportunity discussed above stem from historical actions in the
broader region, socioeconomic factors that have limited employment and income growth among non-White and
Hispanic residents, and a shortage of housing units built to accommodate growth.
Fair Housing Issue
Los Gatos’ very low production of affordable and market rate housing limits housing choices of all
but the highest income households.
HCD Revised Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
A-18 Appendix A August March 2023
Contributing factors:
Since 2010, Los Gatos’ population has increased, while not producing the amount of housing units to
match the population growth. This lack of production has exacerbated an already tight housing market.
The lack of production is due to land costs, construction costs, availability of land, availability of financing,
duration of permitting process, cost of permitting process, and environmental constraints.
To address this issue, the 6th Cycle Housing Element includes Implementation Program B:
“Large Site Program” and Implementation Program D: “Additional Housing Capacity”, along with
other implementation programs, as a means to increase affordable housing production.
The housing that was added in Los Gatos between 2015 and 2019 was largely priced for above moderate-
income households. Only 1.5 percent of housing permits approved were for low- or very-low-income
housing. The lack of production of low- or very-low-income housing units is due to high land costs, high
construction costs, limited availability of land, limited availability of financing, duration of permitting
process, cost of permitting process, and lack of incentives.
Under the 6th Cycle Housing Element, the Town will improve the Below Market Price (BMP)
Program by conducting a study to evaluate the existing BMP Program and recommend changes
to the program to increase the number of units constructed.
Fair Housing Issue
Los Gatos’ lack of affordable housing has a disproportionate impact on low- and moderate-income
households who are more likely to be households of color. As such, Los Gatos lacks racial and
ethnic diversity relative to the County overall.
Contributing factors:
Black or African American and Hispanic residents typically work lower wage jobs, stemming from historical
employment discrimination and lack of access to quality educational environments. These jobs do not
support the Town’s very high housing costs.
Low wage jobs are necessary to support higher wage industries. Los Gatos’ employment growth has not
been adequately supported by affordable housing development. As such, there are twice as many low
wage jobs as residents in Los Gatos who work those jobs.
To address these particular contributing factors, the 6th Cycle Housing Element includes
Implementation Program BI: “Affirmative Marketing” to work with affordable and market rate
housing developers to ensure that affordable housing is affirmatively marketed to households with
disproportionate housing needs, including Hispanic and Black households who work in and live
outside of Los Gatos (e.g., materials in Spanish and English, distributed through employers). The
Town will notify a broad representation of the community to solicit ideas for housing strategies
when they are discussed at Planning Commission or Town Council meetings.
Fair Housing Issue
Los Gatos’ households are segregated by income, and income segregation is higher in the Town
than in other Bay Area jurisdictions.
Appendix A. AFFH Report
August March 2023 Appendix A A-19
Contributing factors:
Lack of affordable housing overall is due to the high percentage of above moderate rate single-family
housing stock in Town.
The Town will address this issue by allocating a percentage of the Town Affordable Housing
(Below Market Price) Fund to subsidize housing for extremely low-income households as
identified in Implementation Program P.
Segregation of the limited affordable housing in Town is predominately located in the central portion of
Town due to a limited area of where multi-family dwelling units are permitted.
The Town will use “Affirmative Marketing” strategies, as described in Implementation Program BI,
to work with affordable and market rate housing developers to ensure that affordable housing is
affirmatively marketed to households with disproportionate housing needs, including Hispanic and
Black households who work in and live outside of Los Gatos (e.g., materials in Spanish and
English, distributed through employers). The Town will also amend its Zoning Ordinance in order
to increase the development of affordable housing.
Fair Housing Issue
Los Gatos feeds to high performing schools, yet, except for Asian students, students of color
cannot take advantage of these learning opportunities because they cannot afford to live in Los
Gatos.
Contributing factors:
Lack of affordable housing overall due to high land costs, high construction costs, limited availability of
land, limited availability of financing, duration of permitting process, cost of permitting process, and lack of
incentives.
The Town will address this issue by allocating a percentage of the Town’s Affordable Housing
(Below Market Program) Fund to subsidize housing for extremely low-income households and by
including housing development sites on the Sites Inventory in all areas of Town.
Other Contributing Factors
Historic Land Use Practices
The Town was incorporated in 1887, has an approximate population of 30,000 and is 11.5 square miles. The
Town originally developed at a distance from other population centers and therefore evolved as an independent
community having residential, commercial, and industrial areas. The economics of the Town have changed from
the wheat farming, milling, logging, orchard, and cannery businesses in the 19th and early 20th centuries to the
suburban, high tech, and visitor destination businesses of today. The rapid increase in home values over the past
decades have resulted in some of the most expensive property values in the country.
Opposition to Housing Development
A portion of the Town’s identity is maintaining its small-town character and feel. This can manifest itself in
opposition to development of higher density housing or a variety of housing types other than from single
family housing. The most common responses from the Renter’s Survey for enhancing housing opportunities in
Los Gatos was the creation of a variety of housing types for all income levels Town-wide and through mixed-use
development (refer to Section B.6 of Appendix B). Historic and contemporary attitudes of opposition to new
HCD Revised Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
A-20 Appendix A August March 2023
housing development may have made it difficult to develop more dense housing projects in the past.
Implementation Program BE proposes to provide education on the problems and needs of affordable housing as
a means of changing negative attitudes towards the provision of affordable housing.
A.67 Fair Housing Enforcement and Outreach Capacity
This section discusses fair housing legal cases and inquiries, fair housing protections and enforcement, and
outreach capacity. Figure A-8 provides a summary of fair housing complaints and inquiries in Los Gatos and the
County.
Nationally, the National Fair Housing Alliance (NFHA) reported a “negligible” decrease in the number of
complaints filed between 2019 and 2020. The primary bases for complaints nationally of disability (55 percent)
were represented in Santa Clara County at a much lower rate (16 percent). Familial status represented eight
percent of complaints nationally, similar to the six percent of cases in the County. Figure A-11 and Figure A-12
show the share of population by disability status within Santa Clara County and the distribution by census tract,
respectively.
NFHA identifies three significant trends in 2020 that are relevant for this AFFH:
First, fair lending cases referred to the Department of Justice from Federal banking regulators has been
declining, indicating that State and local government entities may want to play a larger role in examining
fair lending barriers to homeownership.
Second, NFHA identified a significant increase in the number of complaints of harassment - 1,071
complaints in 2020 compared to 761 in 2019.
Finally, NFHA found that 73 percent of all fair housing complaints in 2020 were processed by private fair
housing organizations, rather than State, local, and Federal government agencies, reinforcing the need for
local, active fair housing organizations and increased funding for such organizations 9.
9 https://nationalfairhousing.org/2021/07/29/annual-fair-housing-report-shows-increase-in-housing-harassment/
Appendix A. AFFH Report
August March 2023 Appendix A A-21
Figure A-8 Fair Housing Complaints and Inquiries in Los Gatos and Santa Clara County
Source: Root Policy Research
Outreach and capacity. Santa Clara County, including Los Gatos, has a number of organizations dedicated to
assisting residents with legal services related to housing discrimination and general housing disputes. These
organizations are listed in Figure I-1 of the map and data appendix.
The Town also maintains a resource guide that highlights service providers across multiple categories focused on
housing and quality of life for underserved members of the community10. Additionally, the Town provides links
and email addresses for citizens to participate in the ongoing Housing Element Update process, including links to
the agendas and staff reports for the Housing Element Advisory Board (HEAB) meetings.
Finally, the Town has a strong statement about inclusivity and directly addresses hate speech on its website 11.
Compliance with State law. Los Gatos is compliant with the following State laws that promote fair and affordable
housing. The Town has not been alleged or found in violation of the following:
10 Los-Gatos-Housing-Resources-Guide (losgatosca.gov)
11 https://www.losgatosca.gov/2604/Becoming-an-Inclusive-Community
HCD Revised Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
A-22 Appendix A August March 2023
Housing Accountability Act (Gov. Code. Section 65589.5) requiring adoption of a Housing Element and
compliance with RHNA allocations;
No Net Loss Law (Gov. Code Section 65863) requiring that adequate sites be maintained to
accommodate unmet RHNA allocations;
Least Cost Zoning Law (Gov. Code. Section 65913.1);
Excessive Subdivision Standards Law (Gov. Code. Section 65913.2); and
Limits on Growth Controls Law (Gov. Code. Section 65589.5).
Housing specific policies enacted locally:
Los Gatos offers a density bonus program to comply with State law;
It also has an affordable housing overlay zone; however, that zone applies to one property only;
The Town allows relative diverse type of housing in residential zones. However, minimum lot area for
duplexes is quite generous (8,000 square feet). The Town could add flexibility for affordable duplexes,
particularly in areas near and within downtown;
The Town requires that development of Accessory Dwelling Units under Town incentive programs be
affordable, and deed restricted to 80 percent AMI households; and
The Town’s Below Market Price program requirements apply to developments of five units and more and
require between 10 percent and 20 percent of units to be affordable to low- and moderate-income
households. In-lieu fees are only allowed in limited circumstances, which prioritizes unit development.
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).
The California Department of Fair Employment in Housing (DFEH) was established in 1980 and is now the largest
civil rights agency in the United States. According to their website, DFEH’s mission is, “to protect the people of
California from unlawful discrimination in employment, housing and public accommodations (businesses) and
from hate violence and human trafficking in accordance with the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA),
Unruh Civil Rights Act, Disabled Persons Act, and Ralph Civil Rights Act”12.
DFEH receives, evaluates, and investigates fair housing complaints. DFEH plays a particularly significant role in
investigating fair housing complaints against protected classes that are not included in Federal legislation and,
therefore, not investigated by HUD. DFEH’s website provides detailed instructions for filing a complaint, the
complaint process, appealing a decision, and other frequently asked questions13. Fair housing complaints can
also be submitted to HUD for investigation.
Additionally, Santa Clara County has a number of local resource and enforcement organizations:
Project Sentinel: Assists with housing discrimination, mortgage foreclosures, rental issues, and more.
12 https://www.dfeh.ca.gov/aboutdfeh/
13 https://www.dfeh.ca.gov/complaintprocess/
Appendix A. AFFH Report
August March 2023 Appendix A A-23
Housing and Economic Rights Advocates (HERA) provides legal and advocacy for vulnerable Californians
facing discrimination and economic abuses.
Bay Area Legal Aid engages in broad advocacy focused on helping low-income Bay Area residents lead
stable lives, including housing stability.
The Law Foundation of Silicon Valley provides legal advocacy for social change with a focus on finding
stable homes for low-income residents.
Senior Adults Legal Assistance is a law office dedicated to supporting elder residents obtain independent
living.
From 2013 to 2021, 391 fair housing complaints in Santa Clara County were filed with the U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) or Fair Housing Advocates of Northern California (FHANC). Most of the
county’s valid complaints cited disability status as the bias. Of these complaints, 69 percent were considered
valid and proceeded to actionable responses. Los Gatos had eight total Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity
(FHEO) complaints and less than 0.5 FHEO inquiries.
and Figure A-9 illustrates the inquiries by city, with Los Gatos at less than 0.5. Figure A-10 illustrates FHEO
Cases of Disability Bias in the County in 2020 and shows that Los Gatos and the region experienced 40-65
percent disability bias in FHEO cases in 2020. Compared to receiving less than 25 percent FHEO complaints
between 2013-2021, this may be indicative of a recent rise in a lack of accessible housing in the local housing
market.
Figures A-9 and A-10 show the number of FHEO complaints in Los Gatos and the region overall. Key differences
between county and regional trends are summarized below.
According to HUD, between 2013 and 2022, there were less than one FHEO inquiry in Los Gatos similar to
surrounding cities including Saratoga, Cupertino, and Campbell.
For the region, FHEO inquiries are largely concentrated near San Francisco, Concord, Santa Cruz, and
Fairfield, all of which show up to five FHEO inquiries.
The largest number of inquiries were located near Fairfield and Antioch with five to ten FHEO inquiries.
HCD Revised Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
A-24 Appendix A August March 2023
Figure A-9. FHEO Inquiries by City, Los Gatos, 2022
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer.
Appendix A. AFFH Report
August March 2023 Appendix A A-25
Figure A-10. FHEO Inquiries, Bay Area Region, 2022
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer.
Figures A-11 and A-12 show FHEO cases in Los Gatos and the Bay Area. Trends in Los Gatos are similar to the
region overall though Watsonville had a comparatively larger number of FHEO cases at more than 20 cases
between 2013 and 2022.
HCD Revised Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
A-26 Appendix A August March 2023
Figure A-11. FHEO Cases by City, Los Gatos, 2022
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer.
Appendix A. AFFH Report
August March 2023 Appendix A A-27
Figure A-12. FHEO Cases, Bay Area Region, 2022
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer.
HCD Revised Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
A-28 Appendix A August March 2023
Figure A-13 illustrates FHEO Cases of Disability Bias in Los Gatos and surrounding cities in 2020. As shown in
the figure, Los Gatos and Santa Clara County experienced 40 percent to 65 percent disability bias in FHEO
cases during this time. This compares to less than 25 percent of FHEO complaints between 2013-2021, which
may be indicative of a recent rise in a lack of accessible housing in the local housing market.
Figure A-13. FHEO Cases – Disability Bias by County, Los Gatos, 2020
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer.
Appendix A. AFFH Report
August March 2023 Appendix A A-29
A.7 Existing Affordable Housing Assets
Publicly-Assisted Housing. According to the California Department of Housing and Community Development
AFFH Data Viewer (HCD data viewer), Los Gatos does not have any public housing buildings (Figure A-1314).
There is a significant lack of subsidized housing units in Los Gatos and neighboring communities including
Saratoga and Cupertino. Subsidized units are concentrated north and east of Los Gatos as well as San Jose
(Figure A-14).
Figure A-14 Subsidized Housing, Los Gatos and the Region, (CHPC, 2023)
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer
HCD Revised Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
A-30 Appendix A August March 2023
Figure A-15 shows the distribution of public housing in Los Gatos and surrounding communities of which there
are zero public housing buildings.
Figure A-15 Public Housing Buildings, Los Gatos, 2021
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer
Very few residents in Los Gatos are voucher holders. The only census tract with available data shows less than
five percent of residents having a housing voucher (Figure A-16). These patterns could be related to the Town’s
smaller population of low- income residents who need and quality for vouchers and or voucher discrimination.
Patterns of voucher discrimination correlate with the number of FHEO cases and inquiries for disability bias in Los
Gatos.
Appendix A. AFFH Report
August March 2023 Appendix A A-31
Figure A-16 Housing Choice Vouchers by Census Tract, Los Gatos, 2021
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer
Los Gatos, along with Saratoga, Cupertino, Sunnyvale, and Campbell have no emergency shelter housing
available (Figure A-17). There are a few emergency shelters in San Jose and Santa Clara, but the region is
generally limited in emergency shelter housing overall.
HCD Revised Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
A-32 Appendix A August March 2023
Figure A-17 Emergency Shelter Housing, Los Gatos, (HUD, 2021)
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer
Figure A-18 shows HUD’s Housing Inventory Count (HIC) for Los Gatos and surrounding areas. In 2021, Los
Gatos and neighboring areas had up to 2,500 beds for special needs populations, persons experiencing
Appendix A. AFFH Report
August March 2023 Appendix A A-33
homelessness, and or persons at-risk of homelessness. This is promising for Los Gatos given the high cost of
housing across Los Gatos and the Bay Area.
Figure A-18 Housing Inventory Count, Los Gatos and Santa Clara County, (HUD, 2021)
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer
HCD Revised Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
A-34 Appendix A August March 2023
A.78 Integration and Segregation
This section discusses integration and segregation of the population by protected classes including race and
ethnicity, disability status, familial status, and income status. The section concludes with an analysis of racially
and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty and affluence. Figure A-15 19 provides a summary of segregation
and integration in Los Gatos and the County.
Integration and Segregation
“Integration generally means a condition in which there is not a high concentration of persons of
a particular race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national origin, or having a disability or a
particular type of disability when compared to a broader geographic area.
Segregation generally means a condition in which there is a high concentration of persons of a
particular race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national origin, or having a disability or a type of
disability in a particular geographic area when compared to a broader geographic area.”
Figure A-1519 Segregation and Integration, Los Gatos and Santa Clara County
Source: Root Policy Research
Town
Appendix A. AFFH Report
August March 2023 Appendix A A-35
Race and ethnicity. Los Gatos differs from the county and Bay Area overall for its relatively high proportion of
residents identifying as non-Hispanic White (72 percent in Los Gatos compared to 32 percent in Santa Clara
County) and small Hispanic population (eight percent in Los Gatos and 25 percent in the county) (Figure A-16).
Los Gatos’ proportion of Black/African American and Other and mixed-race residents is less proportional to
the County and the Bay Area overall (Figure A-2016).
Los Gatos’ residents have grown more racially diverse since 2000 largely due to growth in Asian and
Hispanic residents (Figure B-4).
Older residents are less racially diverse than other age groups, with 87 percent of the population older than
65 years identifying as White compared to 77 percent of those aged 18 to 24 and 75 percent of children
less than 18 years old. The main shift is the inclusion of more diverse populations in younger age groups,
especially among Asian/API and Other/Multiple race residents (Figure B-3).
Poverty rates are very low for all residents including residents of color. Black/African American have the
lowest poverty rate at less than 1 percent. The highest poverty rate was 6.1 percent among Hispanic
residents (Figure B-13).
Figure A-1620 Population by Race in the Region
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Geospatially, almost all census tracts in Los Gatos have a predominantly White population . Figures A-21 and A-
22 show the predominant population by census tract in Los Gatos and the Bay Area region for 2021. Los Gatos
is predominantly White and comparatively less diverse than Santa Clara County and the Bay Area. Key regional
differences include the following:
Communities in Saratoga, Cupertino, and San Jose are more diverse with larger populations of Asian and
Hispanic or Latino residents.
15%
37%
27%
6%
72%32%39%
4%
4%5%
8%
25%24%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
100.0%
Los Gatos Santa Clara
County
Bay AreaPercent of PopulationHispanic or Latinx
Other Race or Multiple
Races, Non-Hispanic
White, Non-Hispanic
Black or African
American, Non-Hispanic
Asian / API, Non-Hispanic
American Indian or Alaska
Native, Non-Hispanic
HCD Revised Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
A-36 Appendix A August March 2023
Hispanic or Latino residents are largely concentrated in East Palo Alto, Redwood City, and San Jose
census tracts. These concentrations could be influenced by a range of factors particularly discriminatory
redlining practices and affordability challenges.
Very few census tracts in the region show Black or African American residents as the predominant
population. These tracts are located north of South San Francisco and around Sa Leandro.
Figure A-21. Predominant Population by Census Tract, Los Gatos, 2021
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer.
Appendix A. AFFH Report
August March 2023 Appendix A A-37
Figure A-22. Predominant Populations in the Region by Census Tract, 2021
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer.
HCD Revised Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
A-38 Appendix A August March 2023
Compared with neighboring Monte Sereno, Los Gatos has a more varied neighborhood composition map and a
more even dispersion of residents of varied races and ethnicities, see Figure A-5 above. Overall, the Town has
low to moderate diversity (Figure A-6 and Figure A-7 above).
The Town’s diversity index has improved since 2010 due to changes in racial and ethnic diversity in the northern
and eastern portions of Town, but constraints on development in the form of zoning restrictions and discretionary
permit reviews have slowed this progress. The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), working with UC
Merced, created a 2021 report on segregation in Los Gatos that measured racial and income segregation within
the community. This report, in its entirety, can be found in Appendix G. That report utilized several common
measures of segregation:
The Dissimilarity Index, or DI, is a common tool that measures segregation in a community. DI is an index
that measures the degree to which two distinct groups are evenly distributed across a geographic area. DI
represents the percentage of a group’s population that would have to move for each area in the county to
have the same percentage of that group as the county overall. DI values range from zero to 100, where
zero is perfect integration and 100 is complete segregation. Dissimilarity index values between zero and
39 generally indicate low segregation, values between 40 and 54 generally indicate moderate segregation,
and values between 55 and 100 generally indicate a high level of segregation.
The isolation index is interpreted as the probability that a randomly drawn minority resident shares an area
with a member of the same minority, it ranges from zero to 100 and higher values of isolation tend to
indicate higher levels of segregation.
ABAG’s assessed measures of segregation above highlighted White residents as the most segregated in Los
Gatos. White residents are more likely than any other racial group to live in a neighborhood where they are
unlikely to come into contact with other racial groups. However, White residents are becoming less isolated over
time, and segregation in Los Gatos is decreasing.
Figure A-22 shows the diversity index by block group for Los Gatos in 2010. During this time, Los Gatos had a
low diversity score with few census tracts assigned indexes of 40 to 55. Campbell is far more diverse than Los
Gatos with census tracts showing higher diversity indexes.
Appendix A. AFFH Report
August March 2023 Appendix A A-39
Figure A-22 Diversity Index by Block Group, Los Gatos, 2010
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer.
Figure A-23 shows diversity index by block group for Los Gatos in 2018. Diversity in Los Gatos has remained low;
however, census tracts with higher diversity indexes in 2010 shifted to the eastern edge of the town by 2018.
HCD Revised Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
A-40 Appendix A August March 2023
Figure A-23. Diversity Index by Block Group, Los Gatos, 2018
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer.
Compared with neighboring Monte Sereno, Los Gatos has a more varied neighborhood composition map and a
more even dispersion of residents of varied races and ethnicities. Figure A-24 shows neighborhood segregation
by census tract in Los Gatos in 2019. The majority of census tracts in the town are Asian-White though census
tracts located in the western portions of Los Gatos have neighborhoods with White segregation. This is
Appendix A. AFFH Report
August March 2023 Appendix A A-41
substantially different from segregation in Campbell’s neighborhoods which show most neighborhoods as
segregated by three racial/ethnic groups.
Figure A-24. Neighborhood Segregation by Census Tract, Los Gatos, 2019
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer.
HCD Revised Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
A-42 Appendix A August March 2023
Segregation by income increased between 2010 and 2015. In 2015, the income segregation in Los Gatos
between lower-income residents and other residents was higher than the average value for Bay Area jurisdictions.
Disability status. The share of the population living with at least one disability is nine percent in Los Gatos
compared to eight percent in Santa Clara County (Figure A-1125). Roughly a third of census tracts in Los Gatos
contain 10 percent to 20 percent of persons with a disability, higher than most of the surrounding jurisdictions .
(Figure A-9 above).
Figure A-25. Share of Population by Disability Status, Los Gatos and the Region, 2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook.
Figures A-26 and A-27 illustrate the distribution of disabled persons in Los Gatos and the region overall. The Los
Gatos community has a very small percentage of residents living with disabilities at less than 10 percent meaning
there are no concentrations of disability in the town. Regional trends compared to Los Gatos are summarized
below.
San Francisco has the largest concentration of disabled persons at more than 40 percent.
Saratoga follows similar trends as Los Gatos, only one census tract in the town shows disabled residents
as comprising 10 percent to 20 percent of the total population.
Surrounding cities have disabled residents ranging from less than ten percent to 20 percent of the total
population though San Jose has one tract where residents with a disability comprise 20 percent to 30
percent of the total population.
Appendix A. AFFH Report
August March 2023 Appendix A A-43
Figure A-26. Population with a Disability by Census Tract, Los Gatos, 2021
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer.
HCD Revised Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
A-44 Appendix A August March 2023
Figure A-27. Population with a Disability by Census Tract, Bay Area Region, 2021
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer.
Appendix A. AFFH Report
August March 2023 Appendix A A-45
Familial status. Familial status can indicate specific housing needs and preferences. A larger number of non-
family or single person households indicates a higher share of seniors living alone, young adults living alone or
with roommates, and unmarried partners. Higher shares of nonfamily households indicate an increased need for
one- and two-bedroom units.
Los Gatos’ households are as likely to be three to four person households (34 percent) as two person households
(35 percent). Compared to the county and Bay Area overall, Los Gatos mirrors the share of one person
households (26 percent compared to 20 percent in the county and 25 percent for the Bay Area). Married couple
households were the majority household type (58 percent) and 31 percent of all households have at least one
child under the age of 18. The share of single persons and female-headed households mirror the makeup in the
Bay Area. The Town has no concentrations of adults living alone, suggesting that access to in-home services
and care for single, older adults is less critical for Los Gatos than some surrounding communities within the
county. However, the Town’s age distribution has shifted upwards since 2000 (Appendix B, Figure B-2) and
these accommodations may grow in demand if older adults, 55 and older, in Los Gatos age in place.
Los Gatos’ married couples overwhelmingly own housing: seventy-seven percent of married couple families in the
Town own their homes. Renters are more likely to occupy studios and one- and two-bedroom units than owners
(Appendix B, Figure B-36), and owners are more likely to be occupying three to four- and 5 or more-bedroom
units. Owners and renters are equally as likely to live alone.
Understanding household composition is critical for Los Gatos’ planning efforts as households with children often
have unique needs compared to households without children. Figures A-28 and A-29 illustrate the distribution of
households by the number of children in married couple households in Los Gatos and across the region. Primary
findings presented in the figures include:
Almost all children in Los Gatos live in married couple households, similar to Saratoga and Cupertino.
Campbell and San Jose follow different trends than Los Gatos with census tracts showing only 20 percent
to 60 percent of children living in married couple households.
Regional trends are similar to that in Los Gatos and Santa Clara County though Redwood City has a lower
percentage of children in these households.
HCD Revised Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
A-46 Appendix A August March 2023
Figure A-28. Children in Married Couple Households by Census Tract, Los Gatos, 2021
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer.
Appendix A. AFFH Report
August March 2023 Appendix A A-47
Figure A-29. Children in Married Couple Households, Bay Area Region,, 2021
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer.
HCD Revised Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
A-48 Appendix A August March 2023
Figures A-30 and A-31 show the percent of children living with a female householder and no spouse in Los Gatos
and the region. Less than 20 percent of children in Los Gatos live in a household with a female householder in
line with Saratoga and Cupertino. Regional differences are summarized below.
San Jose has a comparatively larger number of children living in households with a female householder
compared to surrounding communities though there is one census tract in Campbell where 60 percent to
80 percent of children are living in households with a female householder and no spouse.
For the region overall, female householders with children are largely concentrated around San Francisco,
San Mateo, Redwood City, San Leandro, and Hayward.
Concentrations in San Mateo and Redwood City could be related to comparatively lower housing prices as
households with one earner are more likely to have lower incomes.
Appendix A. AFFH Report
August March 2023 Appendix A A-49
Figure A-30. Children in Female Householder Households by Census Tract, Los Gatos, 2021
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer.
HCD Revised Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
A-50 Appendix A August March 2023
Figure A-31. Children in Female Householder Households by Census Tract, Bay Area Region, 2021
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer.
Appendix A. AFFH Report
August March 2023 Appendix A A-51
Figures A-32 and A-33 show the percentage of residents living with their spouse in Los Gatos and the region.
Primary findings presented in the figures include:
More than 60 percent of the population in Los Gatos lives with a spouse. Only one census tract in the town
shows 40 percent to 60 percent of the population living with a spouse. Comparatively larger households
with married couples is likely related to the large number of households in Los Gatos with incomes above
$175,000.
Trends in Los Gatos are similar in Cupertino and Saratoga, though Saratoga does not have any census
tracts with less than 60 percent of the population living with a spouse.
For the region overall, there is more diversity in household types, specifically in San Jose where several
census tracts show less than 20 percent of the population living with a spouse.
The greatest regional concentration of these households are located near Sunnyvale and Livermore with
80 percent to 100 percent of residents living with a spouse.
HCD Revised Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
A-52 Appendix A August March 2023
Figure A-32. Percent of Population Living with Spouse by Census Tract, Los Gatos, 2021
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer.
Appendix A. AFFH Report
August March 2023 Appendix A A-53
Figure A-33. Population Living with Spouse, Bay Area Region, 2021
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer.
HCD Revised Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
A-54 Appendix A August March 2023
Figures A-34 and A-35 present the distribution of residents living alone in Los Gatos and the region. Very few
residents live alone in Los Gatos: the majority of the town shows less than 20 percent of residents living alone
though there is one census tract were 20 percent to 40 percent of the population live alone. Primary findings from
the county and regional analysis are summarized below.
Saratoga and Cupertino are in line with Los Gatos though both cities have a lower percentage of residents
living alone at less than 20 percent. San Jose has a comparatively larger population living alone though it
is still less than half of residents.
The distribution of residents living alone in Los Gatos is similar to the region overall, excluding cities near
the Bay. In San Francisco, residents are more likely to live alone with one census tract showing almost all
residents living alone.
The difference between Los Gatos and San Francisco is likely the result of San Francisco’s larger supply
of housing units that are not single-family detached homes as well as living costs. In other words,
residents living alone are more likely to be able to afford a unit in the Bay Area than Los Gatos and
surrounding communities.
Appendix A. AFFH Report
August March 2023 Appendix A A-55
Figure A-34. Percent of Population Living Alone by Census Tract, Los Gatos, 2021
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer.
HCD Revised Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
A-56 Appendix A August March 2023
Figure A-35. Percent of Population Living Alone in the Region, 2021
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer.
Appendix A. AFFH Report
August March 2023 Appendix A A-57
Household income. Los Gatos’ households are higher-income than the county and Bay Area overall: 65 percent
of Los Gatos households earn more than 100 percent of the AMI, compared to 55 percent for the county and 52
percent for the Bay Area (Appendix B, Figure B-11). Every block group in Los Gatos with available data has a
median household income of $125,000 or more (Figure A-17). In the Town, Hispanic or Latinx and Other Race or
Multiple Races (Hispanic and Non-Hispanic) residents experience the highest rates of poverty, followed by White
(Hispanic and Non-Hispanic) residents (Figure B-13).
Figures A-36 and A-37 show the distribution of households by median household income for 2021 in Los Gatos
and the region overall. As shown in the figure below, the majority of Los Gatos households have incomes above
$175,000. Households with incomes between $125,000 and $175,000 are concentrated in the town’s inner
census tracts which could suggest patterns of income segregation. This could be related to lower housing prices
in these areas. Primary findings from the comparative analysis are summarized below.
Income distribution in Los Gatos is similar to Cupertino though more diverse than Saratoga which does not
have a concentration of households with median incomes below $175,000. This is particularly important
for these cities as many households may need to leave the area for more affordable housing options,
especially as housing prices continue to increase.
San Jose is the only city in the region to have income diverse households. Census tracts in San Jose
have households with median incomes at less than $55,000 with other tracts ranging from $55,000 to
$120,000.
HCD Revised Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
A-58 Appendix A August March 2023
Figure A-36. Median Income by Census Tract, Los Gatos, 2021
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer.
Appendix A. AFFH Report
August March 2023 Appendix A A-59
Figure A-37. Regional Median Income by Census Tract, 2021
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer.
HCD Revised Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
A-60 Appendix A August March 2023
The southern strip of Los Gatos houses a population in which 10 to 20 percent of the people are living in
poverty. All of the immediate surrounding areas have less than 10 percent of the population living in poverty,
with the percentages increasing slightly in North East in San Jose area, as shown in Figures A-38 and A-39.
Primary findings from the regional analysis are summarized below.
Poverty is concentrated in the southern portions of Los Gatos with 10 percent to 20 percent of the total
resident population experiencing poverty. These patterns suggest that income segregation is occurring
across Los Gatos.
Stanford, East Palo Alto, Santa Clara, and San Jose have comparatively larger concentrations of residents
living in poverty compared to the region overall.
Saratoga, Campbell, and the majority of Cupertino do not have any poverty concentrations with less than
ten percent of residents below the poverty level. This is expected given the large number of households
with incomes above $175,000.
Appendix A. AFFH Report
August March 2023 Appendix A A-61
Figure A-38. Poverty Status by Census Tract, Los Gatos, 2021
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer.
HCD Revised Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
A-62 Appendix A August March 2023
Figure A-39. Regional Poverty by Census Tract, 2021
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer.
Appendix A. AFFH Report
August March 2023 Appendix A A-63
Racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty and affluence. Racially Concentrated Area of Poverty or an
Ethnically Concentrated Area of Poverty (R/ECAP) and Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence (RCAAs)
represent opposing ends of the segregation spectrum from racially or ethnically segregated areas with high
poverty rates to affluent predominantly White neighborhoods. Historically, HUD has paid particular attention to
R/ECAPs as a focus of policy and obligations to AFFH. Recent research out of the University of Minnesota
Humphrey School of Public Affairs argues for the inclusion of RCAAs to acknowledge current and past policies
that created and perpetuate these areas of high opportunity and exclusion 14.
It is important to note that R/ECAPs and RCAAs are not areas of focus because of racial and ethnic
concentrations alone. This study recognizes that racial and ethnic clusters can be a part of fair housing choice if
they occur in a non-discriminatory market. Rather, R/ECAPs are meant to identify areas where residents may
have historically faced discrimination and continue to be challenged by limited economic opportunity, and
conversely, RCAAs are meant to identify areas of particular advantage and exclusion.
R/ECAPs
HCD and HUD’s definition of a Racially/Ethnically Concentrated Area of Poverty is:
A census tract that has a non-White population of 50 percent or more (majority-minority)
or, for non-urban areas, 20 percent, AND a poverty rate of 40 percent or more; OR
A census tract that has a non-white population of 50 percent or more (majority-minority)
AND the poverty rate is three times the average tract poverty rate for the County,
whichever is lower.
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development Guidance, 2021.
For this study, the poverty threshold used to qualify a tract as an R/ECAP was three times the average census
tract poverty rate countywide, or 22.5 percent. Similar to many jurisdictions in Santa Clara County, there are no
census tracts in Los Gatos that qualify as R/ECAPs. R/ECAPs in the County are all located in San Jose (Figure
A-1840).
14 Goetz, E. G., Damiano, A., & Williams, R. A. (2019). Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence: A Preliminary Investigation. Cityscape: A Journal of Policy
Development and Research, 21(1), 99–124
HCD Revised Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
A-64 Appendix A August March 2023
Figure A-1840 R/ECAPS, Santa Clara County
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer
Appendix A. AFFH Report
August March 2023 Appendix A A-65
RCAAs. An RCAA is a census tract (1) with a percentage of its total White population that is 1.25 times
higher than the average percentage of the COG region’s White population; and (2) has a median income
that is 2 times higher than the COG Area Median Income (AMI). Generally, these are understood to be
neighborhoods in which there are both high concentrations of non-Hispanic White households and high
household income rates. As shown in Figure A-19, when comparing Los Gatos to the surrounding county and
region, it is safe to speculate that the Town has more RCAAs than other communities, the county, and the region.
The majority of the Town is located within an RCAA with the exception of census tract 5067.03 located in the
northern portion of the Town, north of Interstate Highway 85 and west of California State Route 17.
This documents that Los Gatos is largely an area of affluence and does not have any areas of concentrated
poverty. Much of the root causes associated with this demographic trend are related to the type of housing stock
that is available in Los Gatos, which has typically consisted of single family detached homes and lower density
multi-family development. In order to address and remedy these root causes that have led to a historic pattern of
exclusion, the Town’s 2023-2031 Housing Element sets forth concrete actions to address longstanding fair
housing issues. The Town will created a new Housing Element Overlay Zone, allowing for increased
development standards such as density, height, and floor area that will increase the diversity of housing types and
increase affordable housing supply. In addition, the Town will implement multiple programs that will support
affordable housing development, including modification to the Town’s Inclusionary Ordinance and amendment of
the Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance and State Density Bonus Ordinance. The Town is implementing
programs that will increase housing diversity in its single-family neighborhood areas, including promotion of ADUs
and allowance for lot splits and duplexes in accordance with SB 9. Implementation Programs BB and BL are
proposed to monitor units produced through SB 9. The SB 9 programs, along with the Sites Inventory seek to
integrate affordable units into these concentrated areas of affluence.
Figures A-41 and A-42 show RCAAs in Los Gatos and the region. Los Gatos a racially concentrated area of
affluence (RCAA). Saratoga only has few census tracts identified as RCAAs similar to Southern San Jose and
parts of Campbell. Cupertino, Santa Clara, and Sunnyvale have no areas with a high enough concentration of
racial affluence to be identified as an RCAA. These trends are similar to the region overall which shows several
census tracts as an RCAA.
HCD Revised Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
A-66 Appendix A August March 2023
Figure A-41 Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence by Census Tract, Los Gatos, 2019
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer
Appendix A. AFFH Report
August March 2023 Appendix A A-67
Figure A-42. Regional RCAAs, 2019
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer.
HCD Revised Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
A-68 Appendix A August March 2023
A.89 Access to Opportunity
This section discusses disparities in access to opportunity among protected classes including access to quality
education, employment, and environment. Figure A-20 43 provides a summary of access to opportunity
demographics in Los Gatos and the County.
Figure A-43. Access to Opportunity in Los Gatos and Santa Clara County
Source: Root Policy Research.
Appendix A. AFFH Report
August March 2023 Appendix A A-69
Access to Opportunity
“Access to opportunity is a concept to approximate place-based characteristics linked to critical
life outcomes. Access to opportunity oftentimes means both improving the quality of life for
residents of low-income communities, as well as supporting mobility and access to ‘high resource’
neighborhoods. This encompasses education, employment, economic development, safe and
decent housing, low rates of violent crime, transportation, and other opportunities, including
recreation, food and healthy environment (air, water, safe neighborhood, safety from
environmental hazards, social services, and cultural institutions).”
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development Guidance, 2021, page 34.
The California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) in collaboration with HCD developed a series of
opportunity maps that help to identify areas of the community with good or poor access to opportunity for
residents. These maps were developed to align funding allocations with the goal of improving outcomes for low-
income residents, particularly children.
Figure A-44 illustrates TCAC Opportunity Areas across the region. The opportunity maps highlight areas of
highest resource, high resource, moderate resource, moderate resource (rapidly changing), low resource and
high segregation and poverty. TCAC provides opportunity maps for access to opportunity in quality education,
employment, transportation, and environment. Opportunity scores are presented on a scale from zero to one and
the higher the number, the more positive the outcomes.
Figures A-44 and A-45 show the TCAC Opportunity Score for Los Gatos and the region in 2023. Los Gatos is
scored as an area with the highest resources, similar to surrounding areas. Primary findings among the region
include:
Los Gatos is considered to be a high resource area (or highest resource area), similar neighboring cities
including Saratoga and Cupertino. These trends are likely the result of higher household incomes in these
areas.
Campbell and San Jose follow different trends: a few census tracts in Campbell are highest resource areas
though much of the city ranges from moderate to high resource. San Jose has a large number of census
tracts that are of low resources. Very few census tracts are scored as the highest resource area.
Only one census tract in San Jose was scored as high segregation and poverty. A few areas in San
Francisco and San Leandro also have high segregation and poverty.
Across the region, the highest resource areas are located along the western coast and spans from San
Mateo to Los Gatos. South San Francisco and Redwood City (in part) have lower opportunity scores.
These patterns are likely related to the median household incomes in the region: areas with lower
resources are more likely to have lower incomes than households earning over $175,000 in Los Gatos and
neighboring communities.
HCD Revised Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
A-70 Appendix A August March 2023
Figure A-2144 TCAC Opportunity Areas Composite Score by Census Tract, Los Gatos, 20212023
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer.
Appendix A. AFFH Report
August March 2023 Appendix A A-71
Figure A-45 Regional COG Geography TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map by Census Tract, (HDC, 2023)
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer.
HCD Revised Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
A-72 Appendix A August March 2023
TCAC’s economic opportunity score comprises poverty, adult educational attainment, employment, job proximity,
and median home value for Los Gatos. Figure A-22 46 illustrates the population living in high resource areas by
race in Los Gatos.
Figure A-2246 Population Living in High Resource Areas by Race
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook, California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC)/California Housing and Community Development
(HCD), Opportunity Maps (2020); U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B03002
Economic opportunity. Economic outcomes are an important indicator in identifying economic disparities
including job access and career development (among others). This section provides employment and job
growth, economic opportunity scores for Los Gatos and the region as well as job proximity analyses.
The job to household ratio for Los Gatos is in line with the Bay Area but lower than Santa Clara County’s
(Appendix B, Figure B-8), indicating that Los Gatos is less of a commuter town than surrounding jurisdictions with
much higher job to household ratios. This differs, however, by wage (Figure B-7), with jobs to household ratios
much higher for low wage workers who cannot afford to live in the Town. Los Gatos has twice as many jobs as
workers for low wage jobs.
Notably, Los Gatos had 19,843 jobs in 2018 compared to 14,573 job holders (Appendix B, Figure B-5),
indicating a healthy job market for local residents and a need for in-commuting to fill the unoccupied jobs.
Most jobs in Los Gatos are in Financial and Professional Services and Health and Educational Services .
Unemployment in Los Gatos is five percent, below the county and area averages (Appendix B, Figure B-
10).
16%
70%
9%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Low Resource
or High
Segregation
and Poverty
Area
Moderate
Resource Area
High/Highest
Resource AreaPercent of PopulationHispanic or Latinx
Other Race or Multiple
Races, Non-Hispanic
White, Non-Hispanic
Black or African American,
Non-Hispanic
Asian / API, Non-Hispanic
American Indian or Alaska
Native, Non-Hispanic
Appendix A. AFFH Report
August March 2023 Appendix A A-73
Similar to the resource opportunity map, Figure A-47 shows a concentration of economic opportunities in
Saratoga and Cupertino. Opportunity is also concentrated in Los Gatos, though there are some areas with less
positive economic outcomes than other areas in the town. However, the area generally benefits from positive
economic opportunity, in contrast to San Jose, which showcases large economic opportunity disparity. Key
differences between regional trends and Santa Clara County are summarized below.
While many cities in Santa Clara County have positive economic outcomes, San Jose has a large
concentration in the middle of the city where residents have less positive economic outcomes.
Sunnyvale, Cupertino, and Saratoga residents are more likely than other county and regional residents to
have the most positive economic outcomes which is likely related to higher household incomes in these
areas.
For the region overall, less positive economic outcomes are concentrated near San Leandro, Redwood
City, Vallejo, Concord, Livermore, Gilroy, Antioch, and Watsonville. This could be related to numerous
factors including job proximity, jobs available in the area, and or less resources available for economic
development.
Very degrees of economic opportunity scores suggest disparities in accessing employment. Los Gatos
and other cities located in Santa Clara County will need to address these disparities through policies and
programs focusing on the economic development for lower income households.
HCD Revised Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
A-74 Appendix A August March 2023
Figure A-47 COG Geography TCAC/HDC Opportunity Map – Economic Score (HCD, 2023)
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer.
Appendix A. AFFH Report
August March 2023 Appendix A A-75
Figure A-48. Regional COG Geography TCAC/HDC Opportunity Map – Economic Score, 2023
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer.
HCD Revised Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
A-76 Appendix A August March 2023
Job proximity is one of the most important indicators of equal economic opportunity. Based on the economic
opportunity score illustrated above, Figure A-49 is unsurprising. Jobs accessible by transit lines are concentrated
in San Jose, Sunnyvale and parts of Santa Clara and Campbell, all of which have larger transit systems for
residents. For the areas without data, Saratoga and Los Gatos have a comparatively smaller share of jobs
accessible to residents by transit rides less than 45 minutes long. These findings are presented in Figure A-49
along with a regional analysis in Figure A-50. Key similarities and differences are outlined below.
In Santa Clara County, Sunnyvale, Campbell, San Jose, and communities located east of Los Gatos have
the largest number of jobs accessible by a 45 minute transit ride. Residents living near Almaden
Quicksilver County Park have substantially few job opportunities accessible by transit.
In the region, jobs accessible by transit are mainly concentrated in San Francisco, Oakland, Daly City, and
communities located south of Palo Alto. This is likely the result of more transit systems available to
residents as these are larger cities than that in Santa Clara County with more job opportunities
concentrated where residents live.
There are fewer jobs accessible in the northern parts of the region specifically in Vallejo, Stockton,
Livermore, and Salinas though this is likely due to being more remote from areas with high concentrations
of job opportunities for workers.
Appendix A. AFFH Report
August March 2023 Appendix A A-77
Figure A-49. Jobs Within a 45 Minute Transit Ride by Block Group, Los Gatos, 2018
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer.
HCD Revised Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
A-78 Appendix A August March 2023
Figure A-50. Regional Jobs Within a 45 Minute Transit Ride by Block Group, 2018
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer.
Appendix A. AFFH Report
August March 2023 Appendix A A-79
Expanding on the above analyses, Figures A-51 and A-52 show the number of jobs accessible by a 45- minute
drive in Los Gatos and the region. Primary findings include:
Los Gatos and Saratoga have less jobs available to residents that are accessible by a 45-minute drive
than other cities in Santa Clara County suggesting that residents in these areas have long commutes and
or do not have equal access to a wide range of jobs located elsewhere.
Sunnyvale, Santa Clara, Campbell, and San Jose (in part) have the largest concentration of jobs
accessible within a 45-minute drive. Mountain View and Cupertino follow similar patterns as well.
Regional patterns are similar to that shown above with the greatest concentration of jobs located in San
Francisco, Oakland, San Leandro, San Mateo, and communities around Fremont.
HCD Revised Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
A-80 Appendix A August March 2023
Figure A-41 Jobs Within a 45 Minute Drive by Block Group, Los Gatos, (Smart Locations Database,
2018)
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer.
Appendix A. AFFH Report
August March 2023 Appendix A A-81
Figure A-42. Regional Jobs Within a 45 Minute Drive by Block Group, 2018
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer.
HCD Revised Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
A-82 Appendix A August March 2023
Education. Los Gatos is served by the Los Gatos-Saratoga Union High School District, the Los Gatos Union
Elementary School, the Saratoga Elementary School Districts, Loma Prieta Joint Union Elementary, and Lakeside
Joint School District. The most complete data, due to halted data collection during the COVID pandemic, was
from 2019 and highlights a 97.7 percent graduation rate among all students in the Los Gatos-Saratoga Union high
school, a small increase over 2018 (97.1 percent). When broken down by race/ethnicity, Asian students
graduated at a slightly higher rate of 98 percent, while Hispanic and White students graduated at 95 percent and
96.5 percent respectively. There were not enough African American students enrolled to provide accurate data
(less than 11 total). The lowest graduation rate was among students with a disability, yet still relatively high at 88
percent.
The Los Gatos Union Elementary served 2,710 students in 2021, down from 3,024 from 2019, the last year with
complete data. White students accounted for 64 percent of the student body, with Asian (19 percent) and
Hispanic students (9 percent) accounting for the majority of the remainder. The school included four percent
socioeconomically disadvantaged students, one homeless student, and seven percent students with a disability.
Saratoga Elementary had 1,657 students in 2021 and 1,765 in 2019. At Saratoga, 57 percent of students are
Asian and White students accounted for 26 percent and Hispanic students another six percent. Saratoga
Elementary served a student population with 11 percent disabilities, two percent socioeconomically
disadvantaged, and no homeless students.
TCAC’s education score is based on math proficiency, reading proficiency, high school graduation rates, and the
student poverty rate and are presented on a scale from zero to one where higher numbers suggest more positive
education outcomes. As shown in Figure A-43, all census tracts in Los Gatos show residents as having the most
positive educational outcomes similar to Saratoga. Campbell has a mix of outcomes ranging from 0.25 to greater
than 0.75.
Appendix A. AFFH Report
August March 2023 Appendix A A-83
Figure A-2343. TCAC Opportunity Areas Education Score by Census Tract, Los Gatos, 2021
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer.
HCD Revised Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
A-84 Appendix A August March 2023
Transportation. Transportation is heavily linked with housing choice opportunity as well as equal access to
employment and quality education. High quality and accessible transit stops grant individuals without access to
a vehicle and or individuals unable to drive the ability to get to work. Figures A-44 and A-45 show the number
and distribution of high quality transit stops in Los Gatos and the region.
Los Gatos and Saratoga are both lacking in high quality, accessible transit stops. Most the region has more
transit stops throughout their communities, the worst being Los Gatos with just a couple stops up North.
Primary findings from the local and regional analysis are provided below.
There are very few high quality transit stops located in Los Gatos. For those available to town residents,
these stops are largely concentrated on the northern edges of the town. Conversely, Sunnyvale and San
Jose have a large number of quality transit stops for residents.
Saratoga follows similar patterns though there are multiple stops located near West Valley College and the
outer edges of the city. Campbell has numerous transit stops of high quality and are distributed relatively
evenly.
Transportation in Los Gatos trails behind the region substantially. High quality transit stops are
concentrated along the coasts of the Bay Area specifically San Francisco, San Mateo, Redwood City,
Oakland, San Leandro, and Fremont. This could be related to high density in these areas and or the
number of jobs available (among others).
Appendix A. AFFH Report
August March 2023 Appendix A A-85
Figure A-44. High Quality Transit Stops, Los Gatos, 2022
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer.
HCD Revised Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
A-86 Appendix A August March 2023
Figure A-45. High Quality Transit Stops In the Region, 2022
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer.
Appendix A. AFFH Report
August March 2023 Appendix A A-87
Figures A-46 and A-47 map high quality transit areas in Los Gatos and the region. Given the primary findings
presented above, it’s unsurprising that most areas North of Los Gatos have high quality public transit. Los
Gatos, along with Southern San Jose and parts of Saratoga and Cupertino lack enough transit systems to be
high quality transit areas. For the region overall, high quality transit areas are concentrated in cities with
several transit stops of high quality.
Figure A-46 High Quality Transit Areas, Los Gatos, 2022)
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer
HCD Revised Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
A-88 Appendix A August March 2023
Figure A-47. High Quality Transit Areas In the Region, 2022
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer.
Appendix A. AFFH Report
August March 2023 Appendix A A-89
Figures A-48 and A-49 show the housing and transportation index by block group for Los Gatos and the region.
Indexes are based on the percentage of household income spent on housing and transportation. Higher
percentages indicate cost burden and severe cost burden among households in the town and region. Key
similarities and differences shown in the maps include:
Most households in Los Gatos spend between 50 percent and 75 percent of their income on housing and
transportation. These households are mainly concentrated on the eastern and southern portions of the
town, similar to Saratoga. There is only one census tract in Los Gatos with households spending 30
percent or less of their income on housing and transportation.
Trends in Los Gatos and Saratoga differ from Santa Clara County overall. Households in the county are
more likely to be spending 30 percent (or less) to 50 percent of their income on housing and transportation.
These differences may be the result of Los Gatos and Saratoga’s high housing prices and limited options
for public transportation which often provide a more affordable transportation option than owning a vehicle.
Households spending between 50 percent and 75 percent of their income on housing and transportation
are concentrated along the coast from San Mateo to Watsonville. Households in Tracy, Napa, and
Watsonville are spending more than 75 percent of their income on housing and transportation costs.
HCD Revised Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
A-90 Appendix A August March 2023
Figure A-48. Housing and Transportation Index by Block Group, Los Gatos, 2022
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer.
Appendix A. AFFH Report
August March 2023 Appendix A A-91
Figure A-49. Regional Housing and Transportation Index by Block Group, 2022
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer.
HCD Revised Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
A-92 Appendix A August March 2023
Environment. TCAC’s opportunity areas environmental scores are based on the CalEnviroScreen four indicators,
which identify areas disproportionately vulnerable to pollution sources such as ozone, PM2.5, diesel PM,
pesticides, toxic release, traffic, cleanup sites, groundwater threats, hazardous waste, impaired water bodies, and
solid waste sites.
Three-quarters of Los Gatos scores low on positive environmental outcomes, with no census tracts in the Town
scoring over 0.5 out of one (Figure A-5024). Los Gatos almost uniformly had the lowest possible scores
according to the CalEnviroScreen metric for 2021 meaning the town has more positive environmental factors.
Figure A-5024 CalEnviroScreen 4.0, Los Gatos
Source: California Office and Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, CalEnviroScreen Maps and Data.
Figure A-51 shows the CalEnviroScreen score for the Bay Area region which shows areas with more negative
environmental factors near San Francisco, Oakland, San Leandro, Vallejo, and Fairfield.
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer.
Appendix A. AFFH Report
August March 2023 Appendix A A-93
Figure A-51. Regional CalEnviroScreen 4.0 by Census Tract, 2021
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer.
HCD Revised Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
A-94 Appendix A August March 2023
Developed by the Public Health Alliance of Southern California (PHASC), the Healthy Places Index (HPI) is based
on 25 community characteristics in eight categories including economic, social, education, transportation,
neighborhood conditions, housing, clean environment, and healthcare.15
As shown in Figure A-52, Los Gatos scores high on the HPI meaning residents in the town have more healthy
communities and outcomes. This is similar to much of the region excluding census tracts near Vallejo, Redwood
City, San Francisco, Oakland, San Leandro, and San Jose (Figure A-53).
Figure A-5225 California Healthy Places Index, Los Gatos
Source: Public Health Alliance of Southern California, California Healthy Places Index.
15 https://healthyplacesindex.org/about/
Appendix A. AFFH Report
August March 2023 Appendix A A-95
Figure A-53. Healthy Places Index In the Region, 2022
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer.
HCD Revised Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
A-96 Appendix A August March 2023
Figure A-54 shows fire hazard severity zones as identified by CalFire for the region. As shown in the figure, much
of the region is at risk specifically in Santa Clara County and cities including San Mateo, Redwood City, and
Oakland. These patterns are particularly important for the Bay Area region especially as climate change worsens.
Figure A-54. Regional Fire Hazard Severity Zones, 2022
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer.
Appendix A. AFFH Report
August March 2023 Appendix A A-97
Disparities in access to opportunity. All residents live in highly resourced areas, regardless of race or ethnicity
(Figure A-22). Los Gatos and other surrounding areas are entirely high opportunity jurisdictions.
The Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) provided by the Center for Disease Control (CDC) ranks census tracts based
on their ability to respond to a disaster and includes four themes of socioeconomic status, household composition,
race or ethnicity, and housing and transportation. Figure A-26 55 illustrates SVI across the region and Figure A-
27 56 provides a closer look at SVI within Los Gatos, showing no neighborhoods are ill equipped to respond to
disasters.
Figure A-2655 CDC/ATSDR Social Vulnerability Index 2020, Santa Clara County
Source: CDC/ATSDR/GRASP, US Census Bureau, Esri StreetMapTM Premium
HCD Revised Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
A-98 Appendix A August March 2023
Figure A-2756 Social Vulnerability Index by Census Tract, 2020, Los Gatos, 2018
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer
Appendix A. AFFH Report
August March 2023 Appendix A A-99
Los Gatos does not have any disadvantaged communities as defined under SB 535 as, “the top 25 percent
scoring areas from CalEnviroScreen along with other areas with high amounts of pollution and low populations.”16.
However, there are disadvantaged communities in Santa Clara County and across the region. Disadvantaged
communities are mainly concentrated in Sunnyvale, San Jose, Oakland, and San Leandro (Figure A-57).
16 https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/sb535
HCD Revised Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
A-100 Appendix A August March 2023
Figure A-57. SB 535 Disadvantaged Communities In the Region, 2022
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer.
Disparities specific to the population living with a disability. Nine percent of the population in Los Gatos is living
with at least one disability, compared to eight percent in the county. The most common disabilities in Los Gatos
are ambulatory (4.8 percent), independent living difficulty (4.3 percent), and hearing difficulty (3.6 percent).
Appendix A. AFFH Report
August March 2023 Appendix A A-101
For the population 65 and over, the share of the population with ambulatory difficulties increases to 18.4 percent,
independent living difficulty increase to 15.2 percent, and hearing difficulty was 13.8 percent. 15 percent of
residents with a disability were unemployed in 2019, while only four percent unemployment for residents without a
disability. Of the population of residents in Los Gatos that are between the ages of 18 and 64, and live with one
or more disabilities, approximately 12.5 percent earned an income that was below the poverty level.
Living with one or more disabilities may create challenges in terms of accessibility to transportation, supportive
services, and accessible housing units. The Town recognizes these challenges and intends to: allocate funds
towards rehabilitating existing units to become more accessible; continue enforcing the “Reasonable
Accommodations Ordinance;” promote accessibility design features; and create other housing opportunities for
persons living with disabilities.
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development Guidance, 2021, page 36.
A.910 Disproportionate Housing Needs
This section discusses disparate housing needs for protected classes including cost burden and severe cost
burden, overcrowding, substandard housing conditions, homelessness, displacement, and other considerations.
Figure A-528 provides a summary of disproportionate housing needs in Los Gatos and the County.
Disproportionate Housing Needs
“Disproportionate housing needs generally refers to a condition in which there are significant
disparities in the proportion of members of a protected class experiencing a category of housing
need when compared to the proportion of members of any other relevant groups, or the total
population experiencing that category of housing need in the applicable geographic area. For
purposes of this definition, categories of housing need are based on such factors as cost burden
and severe cost burden, overcrowding, homelessness, and substandard housing conditions.”
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development Guidance, 2021, page 39.
Disability
“Disability types include hearing difficulty, vision difficulty, cognitive difficulty, ambulatory
difficulty, self-care difficulty, and independent living difficulty.”
HCD Revised Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
A-102 Appendix A August March 2023
Figure A-528 Disproportionate Housing Needs in Los Gatos and Santa Clara County
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer
Town
Town
Town
Appendix A. AFFH Report
August March 2023 Appendix A A-103
Housing Needs. Since 2015, the housing that has received permits to accommodate growth has almost
exclusively been priced for the higher incomes, with only two units permitted for low-income households and none
for very low-income households.
The vast majority of the Town’s homes were built between 1940 and 1979 (69 percent). After this period,
housing production slowed, with only three percent of units built since 2010.
Los Gatos housing is becoming more limited by type with 76 percent single-family units, up from 71
percent in 2010. Multifamily housing, with five or more units, made up the second highest category of units
(18 percent); there were sixty-four mobile/manufactured homes in Los Gatos 17.
Eighty-four percent of owner-occupied homes in Los Gatos are valued over one million dollars with another
39 percent valued above two million dollars. This compares to 48 percent for the county and 35 percent
for the Bay Area overall (Appendix B, Figure B-23). According to the Zillow Home Value Index, home
values in Los Gatos are 63 percent higher than home values for the county and almost double the cost of
housing in the Bay Area (Appendix B, Figure B-24).
Rents in Los Gatos are most likely to be at least $2,000 per month (63 percent); 24 percent rent for $3,000
per month. While the Town’s rental costs higher than in the county, the trend of increasing rental costs
matches the changes in the county and Bay Area overall.
Special needs of individuals with disabilities vary depending on the particular disability. For example, the
needs of a blind person differ greatly from those of a person confined to a wheelchair. Special facilities,
such as ramps, elevators, or specially designed restrooms necessary for wheelchair access are
architectural features needed to make dwellings suitable for persons confined to wheelchairs. Special
features needed by ambulatory persons constrained by other disabilities may not be architectural; rather,
these might be simple alternatives to conventional dwelling units or furnishings and appliances that make
ordinary tasks of housekeeping and home life less trying and more enjoyable. In families, the needs of
persons with disabilities, in terms of special features, are fewer than those of a single person.
Nevertheless, a person with a disability in a family would still have special needs. Special architectural
features could be valuable in giving this person greater independence, dignity, and quality of living.
The 2015-2019 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data indicates there were approximately
2,255 extremely low- and very low-income households living in Los Gatos. Extremely low-income households are
those that earn less than 30 percent of the median family income (MFI). Very low-income households are those
that earn 50 percent or less of the MFI. There are approximately 1,320 extremely low-income households in Los
Gatos (owners and renters). Table A-1 provides data characterizing affordability and cost burden by income
group. A total of 670 extremely low-income households in Los Gatos are living in renter-occupied housing units
with at least one of the four housing problems. The housing problems identified by CHAS include the following:
Units with physical defects (lacking complete kitchen or bathroom);
Overcrowded conditions (housing units with more than one person per room);
Housing cost burden, including utilities, exceeding 30 percent of gross income; or
Severe housing cost burdens, including utilities, exceeding 50 percent of gross income.
For renter-occupied units, extremely low-income households occupied the most units (670) with at least one
housing problem. In contrast, owners earning an above moderate-income occupied the most housing units (820)
with at least one housing problem. As the income level increases for owner-occupied units, the number of
housing units with housing problems decreases with the exception of above moderate-income households.
17 Housing Needs Data Report: Los Gatos, ABAG/MTC Staff and Baird + Driskell Community Planning, 2021.
HCD Revised Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
A-104 Appendix A August March 2023
Above moderate-income households show a sudden increase in the number of units with at least one housing
problem. This may be an indicator of cost burden among above moderate-income households.
Table A-1 Housing Problems for all Households by Tenure, Los Gatos
Income by Housing Problem Household has at least 1
of 4 Housing Problems
Household has none of the 4
Housing Problems or Cost Burden
not available, no other problems
Owners
Less-than or = 30% MFI 485 110
>30% to less-than or = 50% MFI 250 275
>50% to less-than or = 80% MFI 280 355
>80% to less-than or = 100% MFI 290 340
>100% MFI 820 4,635
Total 2,130 5,710
Renters
Less-than or = 30% MFI 670 55
>30% to less-than or = 50% MFI 315 95
>50% to less-than or = 80% MFI 400 165
>80% to less-than or = 100% MFI 305 225
>100% MFI 290 1,725
Total 1,980 2,260
*The four housing problems are: incomplete kitchen facilities, incomplete plumbing facilities, more than 1 person per room, and cost burden greater
than 30 percent.
**The four severe housing problems are: incomplete kitchen facilities, incomplete plumbing facilities, more than 1.5 persons per room, and cost
burden greater than 50 percent.
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) 2013-2017.
Note: MFI = HUD Median Family Income, this is the median family income calculated by HUD for each jurisdiction, to determine Fair Market Rents
(FMRs) and income limits for HUD programs. MFI will not necessary be the same as other calculations of median incomes (such as Census
number), due to a series of adjustments that are made.
Appendix A. AFFH Report
August March 2023 Appendix A A-105
The projected RHNA for extremely low-income households was based on the assumption that 50 percent of very
low-income households qualify as extremely low-income households.18 The very low-income housing need is 537
housing units, which allows the Town to estimate 268 housing units as the extremely low-income housing need.
To address the needs of extremely low-income households, the Town will adopt housing programs to facilitate the
construction of affordable and supportive housing for extremely low-income households. Programs that will
directly impact extremely low-income households include:
Implementation Program P: Funds for Development for Extremely Low-Income (ELI) Households;
Implementation Program Q: Habitat for Humanity Home Repair Program; and
Implementation Program S: Affordable Housing Development.
All housing policies and programs can be found in Section 10.6 of the Housing Element.
Cost burden and severe cost burden. Cost burden occurs when household spend more than 30 percent of their
gross household income on housing costs. Despite Los Gatos’ comparably high housing costs, cost burden,
which occurs when households spend more than 30 percent of their gross income on housing costs andrates of
cost burden are slightly better than the County and Bay Area (Figure A-5929). This is indicative of a market with
high barriers to entry meaning households need higher incomes to live in Los Gatos and surrounding areas .
Figure A-5929 Overpayment (Cost Burden) by Jurisdiction, 2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Cost burden does vary by tenure (renter or ownership) in Los Gatos, Figure A-3060 with more renters
experiencing cost burden and severe cost burden than owners. Renters experience a greater share of all forms
of cost burden while owners experienced less of a cost burden. Figure A-31 and Figure A-32 illustrate cost
burden by tenure and by census tract in Los Gatos, respectively.
Figure A-31, Cost Burden for Renter Households shows concentrations of cost burden are split between 20-40
percent cost burden and 40-60 percent cost burden, with the 40-60 percent concentration in the northwest region
of the Town. Similarly, Figure A-32, Cost Burden for Homeowners reveals owner households experience the
nearly the same levels of concentration in the same areas.
18 https://www.hcd.ca.gov/planning-and-community-development/housing-elements/building-blocks/extremely-low-income-housing-needs
HCD Revised Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
A-106 Appendix A August March 2023
Figure A-3060 Overpayment (Cost Burden) by Tenure, Los Gatos, 2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Figures A-61 and A-62 map the distribution of cost burdened renters overpaying for their housing in Los Gatos
and the region overall. Key findings at the town, county, and regional levels include:
There is only one census tract in Los Gatos where less than 20 percent of renters are overpaying for their
housing. The rest of the town ranges between 20 percent to 60 percent of cost burdened renters. These
patterns are relatively similar to Saratoga but far different from Campbell and San Jose where most renters
are cost burdened.
In Santa Clara County, San Jose has a comparatively larger share of cost burdened renters with multiple
census tracts showing 60 percent to 80 percent of renters as cost burdened. This could be related to San
Jose’s comparatively low household income.
The region overall follows similar trends though cost burden is substantially more prominent among renters
in Napa, Vallejo, Fairfield, Concord, Oakland, Santa Cruz, and Watsonville. These trends are unsurprising
given rising housing costs across the Bay Area.
Appendix A. AFFH Report
August March 2023 Appendix A A-107
Figure A-61. Overpayment (Cost Burden) by Renters by Census Tract, Los Gatos, 2021
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer.
HCD Revised Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
A-108 Appendix A August March 2023
Figure A-62. Overpayment (Cost Burden) by Renters In the Region by Census Tract, 2021
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer.
Appendix A. AFFH Report
August March 2023 Appendix A A-109
Figures A-63 and A-64 show cost burden by owner households in Los Gatos and the region. As shown in the
maps:
Census tracts in Los Gatos with the smallest concentration of cost burdened renters has the largest
concentration of homeowners overpaying for their housing.
Homeowners are more likely to be cost burdened in Los Gatos than surrounding areas, excluding San
Jose which has a census tract where more than 80 percent of owners are cost burdened.
Homeowners are cost burdened across the Bay Area region specifically in San Francisco, Redwood City,
Watsonville, Santa Cruz, and areas neighboring Stockton and Tracy.
These patterns indicate a widespread housing affordability problem where owners are occupying units they
cannot afford. Exacerbated by rising housing costs, owners across the region are at a greater risk of
displacement and or long-term housing instability.
HCD Revised Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
A-110 Appendix A August March 2023
Figure A-63. Overpayment (Cost Burden) by Homeowners by Census Tract, Los Gatos, 2021
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer.
Appendix A. AFFH Report
August March 2023 Appendix A A-111
Figure A-64 Overpayment (Cost Burden) by Homeowners In the Region (ACS, 2017-2021)
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer
HCD Revised Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
A-112 Appendix A August March 2023
Figure A-6533 illustrates the Location Affordability Index (LAI) for Los Gatos, which is an indicator of housing
and transportation costs at the neighborhood level. The Town’s LAI suggests that the majority of residents are
estimated to spend between $2,000 and $2,500 per month on housing and transportation costs combined.
When comparing cost burden for renter households by census tract (Figure A-31) and LAI (Figure A-33), it can
be inferred that concentrations of renter cost burden are highest (40-60 percent concentration) where LAI are
actually lower (estimated to spend less than $2,000). As stated earlier, this is indicative of a market with high
barriers to entry.
Appendix A. AFFH Report
August March 2023 Appendix A A-113
Figure A-3365 Location Affordability Index by Census Tract, Los Gatos, Households, 2019
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer
HCD Revised Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
A-114 Appendix A August March 2023
Cost burden by income in Los Gatos decreases for each increase in earned income (AMI category) with a vast
difference between the highest and lowest income groups (Figure A-3466). Seventy-eight percent of the lowest
income group (zero percent to 30 percent of AMI) pay more than 50 percent of their gross household incomes in
housing costs.
Figure A-3466 Overpayment (Cost Burden) by AMI, Los Gatos, 2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
The lack of publicly subsidized housing and opportunity for use of Housing Choice Vouchers limits the ability of
low-income households (who are typically cost burdened) to live in the Town (Figure A-14).
There is consistency in housing cost burden in Los Gatos by race and ethnicity. All households have similar
shares of residents paying less than 30 percent of their income on housing. Hispanic and Black/African American
residents were the only groups to experience a greater percentage of households spending 50 percent or more of
their income than 30 percent to 50 percent of their income, indicating larger shares of extreme cost burdens , see
Figure A-35. .
Appendix A. AFFH Report
August March 2023 Appendix A A-115
Figure A-6735 Overpayment (Cost Burden) by Race and Ethnicity, Los Gatos, 2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
When analyzing cost burden by family size in Los Gatos, households with five or more persons experience less
cost burden (22 percent) compared to all other household types (35 percent) (Figure A-7236).
Figure A-6836 Overpayment (Cost Burden) by Family Size, Los Gatos, 2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Overcrowding. The vast majority of households (97 percent) in Los Gatos are not overcrowded (less than the
County and Bay Area) as indicated by more than one occupant per room (Figure A-7338). Renter households are
more likely to be overcrowded, with approximately four percent of renter households with more than one occupant
per room (Figure A-6938).
HCD Revised Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
A-116 Appendix A August March 2023
Figure A-6937 Occupants per Room by Jurisdiction, 2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Figure A-7038 Occupants per Room by Tenure, Los Gatos, 2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Hispanic residents experience the highest rates of overcrowding (Figure A-7139). The rest of the Town’s
population experiences approximately 2 percent to 3.5 percent overcrowding.
Appendix A. AFFH Report
August March 2023 Appendix A A-117
Figure A-7139 Overcrowding by Race and Ethnicity, Los Gatos, 2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Figure A-7240 illustrates occupants per room by AMI in Los Gatos. In Los Gatos, moderate-income
households experience the highest rate of overcrowding (1.7 percent) followed by low-income households (0.9
percent) and extremely low-income households (0.9 percent). Moreover, extremely low-income households
report only experiencing overcrowded housing conditions (0.9 percent). This may be an indicator of limited
housing options for extremely low-income households in the Town.
Figure A-7240 Occupants per Room by AMI, Los Gatos, 2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
HCD Revised Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
A-118 Appendix A August March 2023
Figures A-4173 and A-74 , Overcrowded Households by Census Tract, illustrates the percentage of overcrowded
households in Los Gatos and the Bay Area region, revealing approximately eight percent overcrowding in the
Town (equivalent to the statewide average). Lost Gatos and surrounding areas of Campbell, Saratoga and most
of Cupertino have similar rates of overcrowding at less than 5 percent of the total resident population.
Percentages of overcrowding groware higher in San Jose and Santa Clara census tracts along with a few areas in
Sunnyvale.
Key findings from the regional analysis include:
Overcrowding is most prominent in areas near Oakland, San Leandro, Redwood City, San Jose, Stockton,
and Watsonville.
San Francisco has surprisingly lower rates of overcrowding in line with Los Gatos and Santa Clara County
(in part). This could be the result of larger units available to residents and or high household incomes in
these areas. With more income, households are able to rent/purchase larger homes that meet their size
needs.
Appendix A. AFFH Report
August March 2023 Appendix A A-119
Figure A-73 Overcrowding by Census Tract, Los Gatos, Regional Map (ACS, 2017-2021)
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer
HCD Revised Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
A-120 Appendix A August March 2023
Figure A-74. Regional Overcrowding by Census Tract, 2021
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer
Appendix A. AFFH Report
August March 2023 Appendix A A-121
Given patterns of overcrowding in Los Gatos and the county, Ssevere overcrowding is most notable in San
Jose, Santa Clara, and parts of Sunnyvale. These areas overlap with areas that have greatest shares of
overcrowding. Less than five percent of households in Los Gatos, Saratoga, Campbell and the immediate
surrounding areas are severely overcrowded.
These findings are consistent with the Bay Area overall with the largest concentration of severely overcrowded
households located in San Rafael followed by areas in San Francisco, Oakland, San Jose, and Watsonville.
HCD Revised Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
A-122 Appendix A August March 2023
Figure A-75 Severe Overcrowding by Census Tract, Los Gatos, (ACS, 2017-2021)
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer
Appendix A. AFFH Report
August March 2023 Appendix A A-123
Figure A-76. Serve Overcrowding by Census Tract In the Region, 2021
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer.
HCD Revised Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
A-124 Appendix A August March 2023
Los Gatos does not have a large area occupied by a high percentage of renters. There are fewer renters in
Saratoga with only one section of Saratoga with 20 percent to 40 percent of residents being renters. San Jose,
Sunnyvale, Santa Clara, and Campbell all have higher percentages of renters than Los Gatos.
Figure A-77 Renter Occupied Housing Units (ACS, 2017-2021)
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer
Appendix A. AFFH Report
August March 2023 Appendix A A-125
Substandard housing. Data on housing condition are limited, with the most consistent data available across
jurisdictions found in the American Community Survey (ACS), which captures units in substandard condition as
self-reported in Census surveys. Renters in Los Gatos report living in substandard housing in 5.5 percent of
housing units, with the more units lacking complete kitchen facilities (4.1 percent). As shown in Figure A-4278,
about 0.4 percent of owner households are lacking complete kitchens and 0.6 percent lack complete plumbing.
Figure A-7842 Percent of Units Lacking Complete Kitchen and Plumbing Facilities, Los Gatos, 2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Figures A-79 and A-80 show the percent of units lacking complete plumbing facilities in Los Gatos and the region.
Primary findings and regional differences are summarized below.
Only one census tract in Los Gatos show two to five percent of units as lacking complete plumbing
facilities. Less than two percent of units lack complete plumbing for the rest of the town.
Campbell follows similar trends as Los Gatos with one census tract having a larger supply of units without
complete plumbing. Saratoga and Cupertino have no concentrations of such units with less than two
percent of units lacking plumbing across both cities.
Regional trends are similar to Santa Clara County: very few census tracts have a large supply of units
lacking complete plumbing. Comparatively greater concentrations are located in Sunnyvale, San Jose,
Santa Cruz, San Francisco, and Brentwood.
HCD Revised Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
A-126 Appendix A August March 2023
Figure A-79. Percent of Units Lacking Complete Plumbing by Census Tract, Los Gatos, 2021
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer.
Appendix A. AFFH Report
August March 2023 Appendix A A-127
Figure A-80. Units Lacking Complete Plumbing In the Region by Census Tract, 2021
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer.
HCD Revised Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
A-128 Appendix A August March 2023
Expanding on the analysis above, Figures A-81 and A-82 show the percent of units lacking complete kitchen
facilities in Los Gatos and the region. Importantly, the only census tract in Los Gatos with units that lack complete
plumbing is also the only tract to have a higher percentage of units lacking complete kitchen facilities at around
five percent to ten percent of units. This is a greater share than Saratoga and similar to Campbell. Primary
findings illustrated in the following maps include:
There is one census tract located east of Campbell where ten percent to fifteen percent of units lack
complete kitchen facilities. Despite having less than two percent of units without plumbing, multiple census
tracts in Cupertino have a greater supply of units without complete kitchens.
San Francisco is the only city in the region to have a census tract where more than 15 percent of units lack
complete kitchen facilities. Areas with higher shares of these units are located near Redwood City,
Sunnyvale, San Jose, Fremont, and Concord.
Appendix A. AFFH Report
August March 2023 Appendix A A-129
Figure A-81. Percent of Units Lacking Complete Kitchens by Census Tract, Los Gatos, 2021
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer.
HCD Revised Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
A-130 Appendix A August March 2023
Figure A-82. Units Lacking Complete Kitchens In the Region by Census Tract, 2021
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer.
Appendix A. AFFH Report
August March 2023 Appendix A A-131
Patterns of substandard housing conditions (e.g., lacking complete plumbing/kitchen facilities) across Santa Clara
County and the Bay Area region are supported by the large number of housing units built before 1960. Figures A-
83 and A-84 show the distribution of units built before 1960 in the county and region. As shown in the maps
below:
Census tracts in Los Gatos with concentrations of substandard units have a comparatively larger supply of
units built before 1960 at between 40 percent and 60 percent of total units. This contrasts with most of
Saratoga, which has a smaller supply of older units.
Census tracts in Santa Clara and San Jose have older units: nearly all units in these tracts were built in or
before 1960.
Compared to the Bay Area region, Santa Clara County has a smaller supply of units built before 1960
though the housing of housing does vary across the region. The largest concentrations of old units are in
San Francisco, San Mateo, Redwood City, Oakland, and San Leandro.
HCD Revised Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
A-132 Appendix A August March 2023
Figure A-83. Age of Structures by Census Tract, Los Gatos, 2021
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer.
Appendix A. AFFH Report
August March 2023 Appendix A A-133
Figure A-84. Age of Structures In the Region by Census Tract, 2021
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer.
Homelessness. In 2019, 9,706 people were experiencing homelessness in the County during the one-day count
(point-in-time), with only 18 percent of people in emergency or transitional shelter while the remaining 82 percent
HCD Revised Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
A-134 Appendix A August March 2023
were unsheltered. In Los Gatos the count was 16, all of whom were unsheltered. In 2022 the number of
homeless counted in Los Gatos increased to 58. The majority of unsheltered people experiencing homelessness
were in households without children. The majority of people in transitional housing were in households with
children or people without children, as shown in Figure A-8543.
Figure A-8543 Homelessness by Household Type and Shelter Status, Santa Clara County, 2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Figures A-86 and A-87 illustrate HUD’s Point In Time (PIT) Count for 2021 in Los Gatos and the Bay Area. Given
the region’s housing costs which continue to increase, it is unsurprising that more than 5,000 people in most
Santa Clara County communities are homeless. For the region overall, San Francisco and cities across the Bay
have the largest concentrations of individuals experiencing homelessness. Homelessness is less concentrated in
areas near San Mateo, Redwood City, Santa Cruz, and Watsonville, all of which have a homeless population of
up to 1,000 people.
Sheltered - Emergency Shelter 7 377 696
Sheltered - Transitional Housing 3 301 400
Unsheltered 266 243 7,413
People in
Households
Solely Children
People in
Households
with Adults
and Children
People in
Households
Without
Children
Appendix A. AFFH Report
August March 2023 Appendix A A-135
Figure A-86. Point In Time Count by CoC Level, Los Gatos, 2021
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer.
HCD Revised Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
A-136 Appendix A August March 2023
Figure A-87. Regional Point In Time Count by CoC Level, 2021
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer.
Homelessness in Los Gatos may grow in the coming years if there are no affordable options for low-income
residents, especially given the town’s small supply of affordable housing, shelters, and transitional housing units.
Appendix A. AFFH Report
August March 2023 Appendix A A-137
Displacement. According to the Sensitive Communities map of vulnerable communities, one area north of
Highway 9 and west of Highway 17 were vulnerable to displacement (Figure A-27). The Town has 169 assisted
units, but all were rated as low risk of conversion.
Displacement Sensitive Communities
“According to the Urban Displacement Project, communities were designated sensitive if they met
the following criteria:
They currently have populations vulnerable to displacement in the event of increased
redevelopment and drastic shifts in housing cost. Vulnerability is defined as:
Share of very low-income residents is above 20 percent, 2017
AND the tract meets two of the following criteria:
Share of renters is above 40 percent, 2017
Share of people of color is above 50 percent, 2017
Share of very low-income households (50 percent AMI or below) that are severely rent
burdened households is above the county median, 2017
They or areas in close proximity have been experiencing displacement pressures.
Displacement pressure is defined as:
Percent change in rent above county median for rent increases, 2012-2017
OR
Difference between tract median rent and median rent for surrounding tracts above median
for all tracts in county (rent gap), 2017”
Source: https://www.sensitivecommunities.org/.
Residents in Santa Clara County are at low risk of displacement, excluding households in San Jose which has
several census tracts at elevated, high, or extreme displacement risk. This is in line with displacement risks in
Los Gatos and surrounding cities specifically Cupertino, Saratoga, and Campbell (in part). These findings are
illustrated in Figure A-88.
HCD Revised Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
A-138 Appendix A August March 2023
Figure A-88. Estimated Displacement Risk – Overall Displacement by Census Tract, Los Gatos, 2022
Source: University of California Berkely (UCB) Urban Displacement Project and California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH
Data Viewer.
Figure A-89 shows displacement risk for households across the Bay Area as identified by the University of
California Berkely Urban Displacement Project. As shown in the figure, households in several cities are at the
highest risk for displacement specifically Richmond, Oakland, Hayward, San Francisco (and South San
Francisco), Daly City, Redwood City, and Palo Alto. Berkely has one census tract at elevated, high, or extremely
displacement risk though this may be driven by the city’s large college population.
Appendix A. AFFH Report
August March 2023 Appendix A A-139
Figure A-89. Regional Estimated Displacement Risk – Overall Displacement by Census Tract, 2022
Source: University of California Berkely (UCB) Urban Displacement Project and California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH
Data Viewer.
Figures A-90 and A-91 show risk of displacement for households with incomes at or below 50 percent Area
Median Income (AMI) in Los Gatos and the Bay Area. Similar to overall displacement, households with incomes
at or below 50 percent AMI in Los Gatos are at lower risk, consistent with surrounding cities. San Jose is the only
HCD Revised Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
A-140 Appendix A August March 2023
city to have a high concentration of at-risk households which is likely related to the city’s larger population of lower
income households. As shown throughout the report, households need incomes above 50 percent AMI to live in
Los Gatos without being cost burdened or homeless.
These patterns are consistent with most of the region though key differences exist in San Francisco and adjacent
cities where displacement is a high risk for households at this income level. This is most notable in San
Francisco, Richmond, Oakland, and part of Daly City.
Appendix A. AFFH Report
August March 2023 Appendix A A-141
Figure A-90 Estimated Displacement Risk – 0 – 50% AMI by Census Tract, Los Gatos, 2022
Source: University of California Berkely (UCB) Urban Displacement Project and California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH
Data Viewer.
HCD Revised Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
A-142 Appendix A August March 2023
Figure A-91. Regional Estimated Displacement Risk – 0 – 50% AMI by Census Tract, 2022
Source: University of California Berkely (UCB) Urban Displacement Project and California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH
Data Viewer.
Figures A-92 and A-93 show risk of displacement for households with incomes at or between 50 percent and 80
percent AMI in Los Gatos and the region. Risk of displacement for these households are similar for lower income
households in both Santa Clara County and the Bay Area. This is likely related to rising housing prices across the
region that has made it increasingly difficult for households in this income range to keep their housing .
Appendix A. AFFH Report
August March 2023 Appendix A A-143
Figure A-92 Estimated Displacement Risk – 50%-80% AMI by Census Tract, Los Gatos, (UCB, Urban
Displacement Project 2022)
Source: University of California Berkely (UCB) Urban Displacement Project and California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH
Data Viewer.
HCD Revised Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
A-144 Appendix A August March 2023
Figure A-93. Regional Estimated Displacement Risk – 50%-80% AMI by Census Tract, 2022
Source: University of California Berkely (UCB) Urban Displacement Project and California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH
Data Viewer.
Access to mortgage loans. In many communities, disparities by race and ethnicity are prevalent for home
mortgage applications, particularly in denial rates. This is less true in Los Gatos (Figure A-9444). Mortgage
Appendix A. AFFH Report
August March 2023 Appendix A A-145
denial rates range from 17 percent to 25 percent. American Indian or Alaska Native, Non-Hispanic and
Black/African American residents experienced the next highest rejection rate at 25 percent and 22 percent.
Figure A-944 Mortgage Applications and Acceptance by Race, 2018 and 2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook, Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council's (FFIEC) Home Mortgage Disclosure Act
loan/application register (LAR) files.
A.1011 Distribution of Sites Inventory
The proposed housing sites in the Sites Inventory are well distributed to increase opportunities throughout the
Town. In addition, Accessory Dwelling Units and Senate Bill 9 units have been distributed throughout the Town,
where single-family neighborhoods are the most prominent housing type.
Potential Effects on Segregation and Integration
While Los Gatos does not have significant segregation issues within the Town, from a broader regional
perspective, providing increased lower-income housing opportunities in a high resource community like Los Gatos
will help overcome Countywide and regional patterns of segregation, disparate impacts for impacted racial and
ethnic groups, and foster more inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity.
11%
25%15%
22%
17%18%17%
25%
13%
11%
12%14%11%
25%
5%5%
25%
66%56%65%59%64%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
American
Indian or
Alaska
Native, Non-
Hispanic
Asian / API,
Non-Hispanic
Black or
African
American,
Non-Hispanic
White, Non-
Hispanic
Hispanic or
Latinx
UnknownLoan ApplicationsLoan originated
File closed for incompleteness
Application withdrawn by applicant
Application denied
Application approved but not accepted
HCD Revised Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
A-146 Appendix A August March 2023
Housing opportunities in Los Gatos are limited by the pricing of both rental and market rate units. Additionally,
approximately three-quarters of the housing in Town are single-family units, further reducing housing
opportunities for smaller sized rental units. Sites proposed for very low- and low-income units have been
distributed evenly throughout the Town and will not result in dense areas of income segregation.
Potential Effects on Access to Opportunity
The Town-wide distribution of housing sites will provide housing options for lower income households to choose
housing that is close to amenities and services, such as parks, schools, transit, or other features (refer to
Appendix D, Sites Inventory Analysis). The sites in the Sites Inventory do not saturate one specific set of income
category in a specific location, rather they are spread throughout the Town. The sites in the Sites Inventory are
spread throughout Town and were selected for their proximity to Town services and amenities, such as parks,
high quality schools, shopping, and local Valley Transportation Authority bus transit that links to regional light rail
transit.
In evaluating the selected sites from a broader, Countywide perspective, providing increased lower income
housing opportunities in a high resource community such as Los Gatos will help overcome Countywide and
regional patterns of disparate impacts for impacted racial and ethnic groups by providing more affordable housing
choices near desirable resources such as employment and high-quality education. This will allow for more
inclusive communities that are free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity.
Potential Effects on Disproportionate Housing Needs
“Disproportionate housing needs generally refers to a condition in which there are significant disparities in the
proportion of members of a protected class experiencing a category of housing need when compared to the
proportion of members of any other relevant groups, or the total population experiencing that category of housing
need in the applicable geographic area. For purposes of this definition, categories of housing need are based on
such factors as cost burden and severe cost burden, overcrowding, homelessness, and substandard housing
conditions.”19
Overpayment for housing is a significant challenge for low-income residents in Town. Cost burden does vary by
tenure (renter or ownership) in Los Gatos. Renters tend to experience a greater share of all forms of cost burden
while owners experienced less of a cost burden. When analyzing cost burden by family size, households with five
or more persons experience less cost burden compared to all other household types.
Housing cost burden in Los Gatos is lower than nearby cities, but differs by race and ethnicity and by tenure
(renters or owners). Asian households experience the lowest rates of cost burden (30 percent) in the Town,
followed by non-Hispanic White households (31 percent). This is followed by Black/African American household
(34 percent) and Hispanic households (37 percent). Other/Multiple Race households (45 percent) are the most
likely to be cost burdened (45 percent). Owners experience cost burden at a lower rate (28 percent) than renters
(42 percent). This may be likely due to the relatively high cost of living in Los Gatos and the greater Bay Area
region.
The quantity and Town-wide distribution of affordable housing within the Sites Inventory will concentrate on the
disproportionate housing needs by providing affordable housing dispersed throughout the Town, nearby high
need services and amenities.
19 California Department of Housing and Community Development Guidance, 2021, page 39.
From: Alberto Lustre <
Sent: Friday, July 21, 2023 1:43 PM
To: Erin Walters <EWalters@losgatosca.gov>; Housing Element <HEUpdate@losgatosca.gov>
Cc: Douglas M. Chesshire <
Subject: Housing Element-Labor Standards
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
Dear Mrs. Walters,
My name is Alberto Lustre with the Northern California carpenters union local 405, I was the
person that spoke on the Housing Element Advisory Board meeting on July 20th. I want
to thank you and the rest of the board for give me the opportunity to speak on the housing
element and showing interest in the labor language that we publicized. I have attached the
adopted Housing Elements Documents for the cities of Redwood City, Foster City and Menlo
Park.
Regards,
Alberto Lustre
Field Representative
Nor Cal Carpenters Union
ATTACHMENT 3
From: Alberto Lustre <
Sent: Tuesday, August 8, 2023 6:04:45 PM
To: Maria Ristow <MRistow@losgatosca.gov>
Subject: Hard Hat Ordinance and Housing Element language
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
Dear Mrs. Ristow,
My name is Alberto Lustre with the Northern California carpenters union local 405, I was the
person that spoke on the council meeting on August 8. I want to thank for give me the
opportunity to speak on the public comment and showing interest in the labor language that
we publicized. I have attached the adopted Housing Elements Documents for the cities
of Redwood City, Foster City and Menlo Park, also County of San Mateo and Daily have also
Adopted similar language to their housing element. I have also included the Hard Hat
Ordinance for the city of Berkely.
We would love a chance to sit and have a conversation about some of the projects that
carpenters are currently working on , if possible can please send a couple days either next
week or the following week that will work for you, myself and my senior agent will love to meet
with you.
Regards,
Alberto Lustre
Field Representative
Nor Cal Carpenters Union
Ordinance No. 7,861-N.S.Page 1 of 10
ORDINANCE NO. 7,861-N.S.
ADDING CHAPTER 13.107 TO THE BERKELEY MUNICIPAL CODE ESTABLISHING
HEALTHCARE AND APPRENTICESHIP STANDARDS FOR PRIVATE
DEVELOPMENT
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Berkeley as follows:
Section 1. That Chapter 13.107 is hereby added to the Berkeley Municipal Code as
follows:
ESTABLISHING HEALTHCARE AND APPRENTICESHIP STANDARDS FOR
PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT
13.107.010 Title
13.107.020 Purpose
13.107.030 Definitions
13.107.040 Apprenticeship Requirements
13.107.050 Required Health Care Expenditures
13.107.060 Required Applicant and Contractor Statements
13.107.070 Notice and Publishing
13.107.080 Retaliation Prohibited
13.107.090 Retention of Records
13.107.110 City Access
13.107.111 Implementation and Enforcement
13.107.112 City Undertaking Limited Promotion of General Welfare
13.107.113 No Preemption of Higher Standards
13.107.114 City Manager Regulations
13.107.115 Severability
13.107.010 Title.
This Ordinance shall be known as the Helping Achieve Responsible Development with
Healthcare and Apprenticeship Training Standards (“HARD HATS”) Ordinance.
Page 1 of 10
Ordinance No. 7,861-N.S.Page 2 of 10
13.107.020 Purpose.
The purpose of this Chapter is to address the shortage of qualified construction workers,
rising labor costs, and to refine labor standards in the local construction industry. These
measures are intended to improve the recruitment, training, and retention of skilled
construction workers.
The requirements of this Chapter ensure that larger projects within the City are awarded
to contractors that participate in high quality, industry-proven apprenticeship programs,
and that apprentices working under such contracts are competently trained.
The requirements of this Chapter also enhance the good health of construction workers
working in the City, thereby increasing the pool of labor available to complete current and
future projects, including City public works projects for which the City contracts on a
regular basis.
Together, the requirements of this Chapter will help promote the retention and growth of
a skilled labor pool in the construction industry that can live as well as work in the City.
13.107.030 Definitions.
"Applicant" shall mean any individual, person, firm, partnership, association, joint venture,
corporation, entity, combination of entities or authorized representative thereof, who
undertakes, proposes and/or applies to the City for, a Covered Project.
“Apprenticeable Craft or Trade” is defined in California Labor Code section 1777.5.
“Contractor” shall mean contractors or subcontractors of any tier that have contracted to
perform work on the Covered Project in excess of ½ of one percent of the total Cost of
the Covered Project.
“Cost of the Covered Project” shall mean the amount determined by the Chief Building
Official for purposes of setting the building permit fee in accordance with the most recent
building valuation date specified in the building permit fees section of the resolution
establishing fees and charges as adopted by the City Council.
“Covered Project” shall mean a private development project within City limits consisting
of construction, alteration, or demolition of 50,000 square feet or more of floor area which
has not received its final permits, variances, approvals and/or other entitlements by the
effective date of this Ordinance.
“Covered Construction Worker” shall mean any construction worker employed by the
Contractor at any time over the duration of the Covered Project.
“City” shall mean the City of Berkeley and any implementing department or official.
Page 2 of 10
Ordinance No. 7,861-N.S.Page 3 of 10
“Health Care Expenditures” shall mean the amount calculated by multiplying the number
of hours worked by a Covered Construction Worker on the Covered Project by the hourly
Health Care Expenditure Rate.
“Health Care Expenditure Rate” shall mean the rate determined annually from the City of
Berkeley Health and Dental Plan Monthly Premium Rates for the Kaiser HSA-Qualified
Deductible HMO Plan, or a successor plan, for the applicable fiscal year. The Health Care
Expenditure Rate shall be prorated on an hourly basis, and arrived at by dividing the total
monthly premium for the Kaiser HSA-Qualified Deductible HMO Plan, or a successor
plan, by one hundred and fifty (150), the typical number of hours worked in a month by a
construction worker.
“Joint Labor-Management Apprenticeship Program” shall mean an apprenticeship
program jointly managed and administered by both a union and contractor or contractor
association, and (i) approved by the State of California’s Division of Apprenticeship
Standards; (ii) registered with the U.S. Department of Labor; or (iii) registered with a State
Apprenticeship Agency granted authority by the U.S. Department of Labor to register
apprenticeship programs for federal purposes, pursuant to 29 CFR Part 29.
“Project Labor Agreement” shall mean a pre-hire collective bargaining agreement with
one or more labor organizations that establishes the terms and conditions of employment
for a specific construction project.
“Repeat Offender” shall mean an Applicant, Contractor, or entity that has received three
or more violations of this Chapter within the last 24 months.
13.107.040 Apprenticeship Requirements
a. During the duration of the Covered Project, each Contractor shall do at least one of the
following:
i. participate in a Joint Labor-Management Apprenticeship Program;
ii. participate in an apprenticeship program approved by the State of California
Division of Apprenticeship Standards that has a graduation rate of 50% or higher and has
graduated an average of at least thirty (30) apprentices annually for the five (5) years
immediately preceding the start of construction date on the Covered Project. The
Contractor will also maintain at least the ratio of apprentices required by California Labor
Code section 1777.5 for the duration of the Covered Project. Any change in program
participation must be immediately provided to the City; or
iii. make hourly contributions on a monthly basis to the California Apprenticeship
Council for every hour worked by any Covered Construction Worker in any
Apprenticeable Craft or Trade on the Covered Project of at least the apprenticeship
contribution rate for the classification of “plumber, pipefitter, steamfitter” in Alameda
County.
Page 3 of 10
Ordinance No. 7,861-N.S.Page 4 of 10
b. A Contractor without Covered Construction Worker employees shall comply with this
Section by showing a contractual obligation that its subcontractors comply with this
Section.
c. Contributions to an apprenticeship program or the California Apprenticeship Council
shall not be credited towards compliance with BMC Chapter 13.99 (Minimum Wage).
d. Applicant shall ensure that the Apprenticeship requirement in this Section is included
in all construction contracts for the performance of the Covered Project.
13.107.050 Health Care Expenditures
a. Prequalification: In order to be prequalified, each Contractor will sign and submit to the
City a statement stipulating to and providing documented proof that the Contractor and
its subcontractors, have provided Health Care Expenditures to or on behalf of each
Covered Construction Worker for the 180 consecutive day period prior to the submission
of the prequalification documents (“Contractor Prequalification Questionnaire”). This
requirement is in addition to the regular hourly wages paid to its employees.
In the case of a Contractor that has employed no Covered Construction Workers for the
180 consecutive day period prior to the submission of the prequalification documents,
said Contractor shall show a contractual obligation that its subcontractors provide Health
Care Expenditures to or on behalf of each Covered Construction Worker employee for
the 180 consecutive day period.
b. Covered Project Duration: For purposes of the Covered Project, each Contractor shall
make Health Care Expenditures to or on behalf of each Covered Construction Worker, in
addition to their regular hourly wages, during periods of employment on the Covered
Project (and sign a statement certifying that it will do so as part of the Contractor
Prequalification Questionnaire).
In the case of a Contractor that will employ no Covered Construction Workers on the
Covered Project, said Contractor shall show a contractual obligation that its
subcontractors will provide Health Care Expenditures on behalf of each Covered
Construction Worker for the duration of the Covered Project.
A Contractor shall make Health Care Expenditures on behalf of the Covered Construction
Workers employed by its subcontractors in the event said subcontractors fail to make
required Health Care Expenditures.
c. Health Care Expenditures may be made to: (1) a health plan in which the Covered
Construction Worker is enrolled at the Health Care Expenditure Rate; (2) a Covered
Construction Worker’s health savings account at the Health Care Expenditure Rate;
and/or (3) a Covered Construction Worker in the form of cash at one and a half (1.5) times
the rate of the Health Care Expenditure Rate.
Page 4 of 10
Ordinance No. 7,861-N.S.Page 5 of 10
d. Health Care Expenditures shall not be credited towards compliance with BMC Chapter
13.99 (Minimum Wage).
e. The Applicant shall ensure that the Health Care Expenditures requirements in this
Section are included in all construction contracts for the performance of the Covered
Project.
13.107.060 Required Applicant and Contractor Statements
A declaration must be signed by the Applicant at the time of permit issuance for the
Covered Project, attesting to compliance with this Chapter under penalty of perjury
(“Applicant Declaration”). By signing the Applicant Declaration, the Applicant commits to
ensuring that all Contractors on the Covered Project have and will comply with the
Apprenticeship and Health Care Expenditures requirements of this Ordinance, including
by ensuring that all contracts for the performance of the Covered Project so require,
requiring all Contractors complete the statements established by this Section, and
submitting all Contractor statements to the City within seven (7) days of receipt.
Prior to executing their contract for the Covered Project, but no later than seven (7)
calendar days before their first day of work on the Covered Project, each Contractor will
sign and submit to the Applicant a statement stipulating that on the Covered Project it will
comply with the Apprenticeship and Health Care Expenditures as set forth in this Chapter
during the duration of the Covered Project, and that it has met the Health Care
Expenditures prequalification requirements (“Contractor Prequalification Questionnaire”).
Within 30 calendar days of completing their work on the Project each Contractor must
sign and submit to the Applicant a statement certifying that it complied with the
Apprenticeship and Health Care Expenditures requirements of this Chapter (“Contractor
Satisfaction Statement”).
Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the Covered Project, the Applicant shall
sign and submit to the City a certification that all Contractors on the Covered Project
satisfied the Apprenticeship and Health Care Expenditures requirements of this
Ordinance (“Applicant Certification of Compliance”).
13.107.070 Notice and Posting
a. The City shall publish and make available to Contractors a notice in English, Spanish,
and any other primary languages as determined by City staff, for posting by Contractors
in the workplace informing Covered Construction Workers of their rights under this
Chapter (“Sample Notice”).
b. A Contractor shall give written notification to each current Covered Construction
Worker and to each new Covered Construction Worker at time of hire of their rights under
this Chapter. The notification shall be in English and Spanish, and any other primary
languages as determined by City staff, and shall also be posted prominently in areas at
Page 5 of 10
Ordinance No. 7,861-N.S.Page 6 of 10
the work site where it will be seen by all Covered Construction Workers. Failure to post
such notice shall render the Contractor subject to administrative citation, pursuant to the
provisions of this Chapter. A Contractor’s use of the City’s Sample Notices shall constitute
compliance with this Section.
13.107.080 Retaliation Prohibited
A Contractor shall not discharge, reduce the compensation of, discriminate against, or
take any adverse employment action against a worker, including discipline, suspension,
transfer or assignment to a lesser position in terms of job classification, job security, or
other condition of employment, reduction of hours or denial of additional hours, informing
another employer that the person has engaged in activities protected by this Chapter, or
reporting or threatening to report the actual or suspected citizenship or immigration status
of an employee, former worker or family member to a federal, state or local agency, for
making a complaint to the City, participating in any of the City’s proceedings, using any
civil remedies to enforce their rights, or otherwise asserting their rights under this Chapter.
Within one hundred twenty (120) days of a Contractor being notified of such activity, it
shall be unlawful for the Contractor to discharge any workers who engaged in such activity
unless the Contractor has clear and convincing evidence of just cause for such discharge.
13.107.090 Retention of Records
Applicants and Contractors shall maintain the following records for the Covered Project
at least three (3) years after receiving approved final inspection:
1) Applicant Declaration;
2) Contractor Prequalification Questionnaires;
3) Contractor Satisfaction Statements certifying compliance with the Health Care
Expenditures and Apprenticeship requirements (Sections 13.107.040 and .050) of
this Chapter;
4) Records reflecting Contractors’ compliance with the Health Care Expenditures and
Apprenticeship requirements (Sections 13.107.040 and .050) of this Chapter,
including records of names of all Covered Construction Workers, dates those
workers worked for the Contractor, and Health Care Expenditures the Contractor
made to or on behalf of those workers; and
5) Applicant Certification of Compliance.
13.107.110 City Access
Applicant and Contractors shall permit access to Covered Project work sites and relevant
records for authorized City representatives for the purpose of monitoring compliance with
this Chapter and investigating worker complaints of noncompliance. Access to records
will be provided within a reasonable amount of time of the City’s request, but no longer
than 30 days. Failure to provide access to records may be subject to City enforcement as
permitted in Section 13.107.111.
Page 6 of 10
Ordinance No. 7,861-N.S.Page 7 of 10
13.107.111 Implementation and Enforcement
a. Issuance and Revocation of Permits
The City shall issue permits for the Covered Project only where an Applicant meets the
requirements of this Ordinance and submits the Applicant Declaration. The City shall
include conditions of approval requiring compliance with this Chapter for all permits
issued for Covered Projects. The City may revoke or modify the applicable permits for the
Covered Project pursuant to Section 23.404.080 where an Applicant or Contractor is out
of compliance with this Ordinance.
b. Community Benefits Agreement Exception
If a Covered Project is covered by a Project Labor Agreement (or community workforce
agreement or similar labor agreement) with the local Building and Construction Trades
Council, Contractors will be deemed in compliance with this Chapter.
c. Collective Bargaining Agreement Exception
A Contractor that is signatory to a valid collective bargaining agreement with a labor union
that requires participation in a state-approved apprenticeship program and the provision
of health care expenditures to all construction craft employees shall be deemed in
compliance with this Chapter.
d. City Enforcement.
The City may take appropriate enforcement action to ensure compliance with this
Chapter, including issuing an administrative citation pursuant to Chapter 1.28 of the
Berkeley Municipal Code. The City may issue a citation to any Contractor or Applicantthat
has not complied with the requirements of this Chapter, including but not limited to, the
following violations:
(1) failing to post the required notice (Section 13.107.070);
(2) refusing to or not providing timely access to records or work sites (Section
13.107.110);
(3) failing to submit or submitting a false or misleading Applicant Declarations, Contractor
Prequalification Questionnaires, Contractor Satisfaction Statements, and/or Applicant
Certificates of Compliance (Section 13.107.060) ; and/or
(4) failing to comply with the Apprenticeship and/or Health Care Expenditures
requirements of this Chapter (Sections 13.107.040 and 13.107.050).
The fine shall vary based on the provisions of this Chapter violated, but may be up to a
maximum of $5,000/month per Covered Construction Worker during the period of the
violation.
Page 7 of 10
Ordinance No. 7,861-N.S.Page 8 of 10
In the event that any person identifies a Contractor or Applicant on a Covered Project not
complying with this Ordinance as required, the person may file a complaint with the City.
Complaints shall be made on a form prepared by the City and made available through the
City’s website. Upon receipt of such a complaint, the City shall investigate the complaint
and, if a violation is found, issue a citation to the Applicant and/or the Contractor. The
citation will give the Applicant and/or Contractor ten (10) days to correct the violation.
If a Contractor or Applicant subject to a citation does not correct the violation within ten
(10) days, the City shall issue a penalty of $1,000 per calendar day for the first calendar
week, increasing to $2,500 per calendar day for successive calendar weeks.
If the Contractor or Applicant has received a citation or has otherwise been penalized
under this Ordinance, within the prior twelve (12) months, the penalty shall be $2,000 per
calendar day for the first calendar week, increasing to $3,500 per calendar day for
successive calendar weeks. If a subcontractor receives a citation under this Ordinance,
the prime contractor shall be jointly and severally liable for the penalty.
d. Private Right of Action.
A Covered Construction Worker, or a joint labor-management committee established
pursuant to the federal Labor Management Cooperation Act of 1978 (29 U.S.C. sec.
175a) on a Covered Construction Worker’s behalf, may bring a civil action in a court of
competent jurisdiction against the Contractor (and in the case of a Repeat Offender, the
Applicant or Contractor who contracted with the Repeat Offender) violating this Chapter
and, upon prevailing, shall be awarded reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs and shall be
entitled to such legal or equitable relief as may be appropriate to remedy the violation
including, without limitation, the payment of Health Care Expenditures that may have
been unlawfully withheld and/or injunctive relief. Nothing in this Chapter creates a private
right of action or otherwise authorizes legal action against the City, its officers, agents, or
employees, for failure to enforce these provisions.
e. Repeat Offender List.
The City shall review the complaints filed under this Ordinance on a monthly basis to
determine if any person or entity has received three or more violations of the Ordinance
within the last 24 months. Any such person or entity shall be designated a Repeat
Offender and be placed on a public list available on the City of Berkeley’s website and
shall be prohibited from working on future Covered Projects for a period of 24 months
from their most recent violation. The City shall provide a notice of Repeat Offender
designation through personal service, or by registered mail, postage prepaid, addressed
to the person or entity’s address on file with the City.
If, after being designated a Repeat Offender, the Repeat Offender again violates the
Ordinance as determined by the City or the Superior Court, then the Applicant or
Contractor who contracted with the Repeat Offender shall be jointly and severally liable
Page 8 of 10
Ordinance No. 7,861-N.S.Page 9 of 10
for any and all penalties, damages, or other financial obligations incurred by the Repeat
Offender.
Any person or entity shall be entitled to appeal the City’s decision to place it on the Repeat
Offender List by filing a written notice of appeal with the City Manager within ten days
from the date the notice of Repeat Offender designation is mailed. The appeal shall clearly
and concisely set forth the grounds upon which it is based. If the permittee files a timely
request for appeal, a hearing shall be held before the City Manager or their designee. The
decision of the City Manager or their designee shall be final.
13.107.112 City Undertaking Limited Promotion of General Welfare
In undertaking the adoption and enforcement of this Chapter, the City is undertaking only
to promote the general welfare. The City is not assuming, nor is it imposing on its officers
and workers, an obligation for breach of which it is liable in money damages to any person
who claims that such breach proximately caused injury. This Chapter does not create a
legally enforceable right by any member of the public against the City.
13.107.113 No Preemption of Higher Standards
The purpose of this Chapter is to ensure minimum labor standards. This Chapter does
not preempt or prevent the establishment of superior employment standards or the
expansion of coverage by ordinance, resolution, contract, or any other action of the City.
13.107.114 City Manager Regulations
The City Manager may promulgate regulations for the administration and enforcement of
this Chapter.
13.107.115 Severability
If any part or provision of this Chapter, or the application of this Chapter to any person or
circumstance, is held invalid, the remainder of this Chapter, including the application of
such part or provision to other persons or circumstances, shall not be affected by such a
holding and shall continue in full force and effect. To this end, the provisions of this
Chapter are severable.
Section 2. Effective Date
The effective date of this Ordinance shall be January 1, 2024.
Section 3. Copies of this Ordinance shall be posted for two days prior to adoption in the
display case located near the walkway in front of the Maudelle Shirek Building, 2134
Martin Luther King Jr. Way. Within 15 days of adoption, copies of this Ordinance shall be
filed at each branch of the Berkeley Public Library and the title shall be published in a
newspaper of general circulation.
Page 9 of 10
Ordinance No. 7,861-N.S.Page 10 of 10
At a special meeting of the Council of the City of Berkeley held on May 2, 2023,
this Ordinance was passed to print and ordered published by posting by the following
vote:
Ayes: Bartlett, Hahn, Harrison, Humbert, Robinson, Taplin, and Arreguin.
Noes: None.
Abstain: Kesarwani.
Absent: Wengraf.
Page 10 of 10
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank