Desk Item with Attachments 5 through 6.Review and Discuss HCD Comments
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: 09/28/2023
ITEM NO: 2
DESK ITEM
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
HOUSING ELEMENT ADVISORY BOARD REPORT
DATE: September 28, 2023
TO: Housing Element Advisory Board
FROM: Joel Paulson, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Review and Discuss the Town’s 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.
REMARKS:
Attachment 5 contains Board Member comments on the Draft Revised Housing Element.
Attachment 6 contains public comment received between 11:01 a.m., Wednesday, September
27, 2023, and 11:00 a.m., Thursday, September 28, 2023.
ATTACHMENTS*:
Previously received with the September 28, 2023 Staff Report:
1. May 30, 2023, HCD Findings/Comment Letter
2. Response Memorandum to HCD’s Findings Comment Letter
3. Draft Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element, Track Changes
4. Public comments received between 11:01 a.m., Thursday, August 24, 2023, and 11:00 a.m.
Friday, September 22, 2023
Received with this Desk Item Report:
5. Board Member Comments
6. Public Comment received between 11:01 a.m., Wednesday, September 27, 2023, and 11:00
a.m., Thursday, September 28, 2023
*A clean copy of the Draft Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element is available online at:
www.losgatosca.gov/housingelement
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
From: Steve
Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2023 3:13 PM
To : Housing Element <HEUpdate@losgatosca.gov>
Subject: Comments regarding the Drat Revised Housing Element
Housing Element Advisory Board Members,
I believe the “constraints" section of the Appendix D Site Inventory Analysis, should be used to alert
potential developers to major issues that need to be addressed with their development proposals
instead of advising them of the obvious need to demolish existing buildings. These major issues would
include traffic mitigations measures requiring street dedications and improvements and mitigation
measures for noise and air pollution on sites that are adjacent to Highway 17. Examples of affected sites
include Oka Road, the North 40 and on the Los Gatos Lodge and Alberto Way sites.
In the case of the Los Gatos Lodge and Alberto Way sites, there is an opportunity to provide a secondary
vehicular connection from the high school parking lot out to the intersection with Alberto Way.
Currently, the high school parking lot is at the end of a cut de sac. Consequently, students choose to
park on surrounding residential streets and walk to their vehicles, rather than queue up for the long
procession out of the parking lot at the end of the school day. Also, Los Gatos Boulevard regularly backs
up in the morning and afternoon with school traffic because there are limited options into and out of the
high school. The Alberto Way connection would provide an alternative route directly to and from Los
Gatos/Saratoga Road. This alternative would help the school traffic and be critical if the parking lot
and/or surrounding neighborhood needed to be evacuated during an emergency. Similarly Oka Road is a
cul de sac that currently connects to Lark Avenue at an uncontrolled intersection. With new
development it may be necessary to provide a signalized intersection to safely accommodate the exiting
traffic.
Similarly the major concern of residents on Alberto Way will be traffic impacts from any new
development. There may be an opportunity to provide multiple exit lanes out of Alberto Way including a
dedicated freeway lane to relieve queuing backup onto Alberto Way. This improvement would likely
require dedication of right of way and improvements directly affecting the Alberto Way site.
Potential developers should be given the courtesy of an early warning to study and help the Town to
identify and fund the best solutions to minimize traffic impacts from new developments and to address
the noise and air pollution issues for sites adjacent to Highway 17.
Thank you,
Steve Piasecki
ATTACHMENT 5
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
From: Phil Koen
Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2023 9:28 AM
To: Joel Paulson <jpaulson@losgatosca.gov>; Laurel Prevetti <LPrevetti@losgatosca.gov>; Gabrielle
Whelan <GWhelan@losgatosca.gov>; Wendy Wood <WWoo d@losgatosca.gov>
Cc: Rick Van Hoesen
Maria Ristow <MRistow@losgatosca.gov>; Mary Badame <MBadame@losgatosca.gov>; Matthew Hudes
<MHudes@losgatosca.gov>; Rob Rennie <RRennie@losgatosca.gov>; Rob Moore
<RMoore@losgatosca.gov>
Subject: Public Comment on the draft Housing Element 2023-2031 and Agenda Item 2 HEAB Meeting
September 28th
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
Dear Mr. Paulson,
Atached please find a comment leter from the Los Gatos
Community Alliance regarding the Los Gatos 2023-2031 dra�
Housing Element. Would you please include it in the HEAB
mee�ng package so that it can be discussed at tonight’s
mee�ng. This is also a public comment on the dra� Housing
Element.
Thank you for allowing us to provide our comments for you
considera�on.
Phil Koen
ATTACHMENT 6
1
September 28, 2023
Dear Mr. Paulson and Members of the Housing Element Advisory Board,
The Los Gatos Community Alliance is wri�ng to you as a group of concerned residents regarding the dra�
2023-2031 Housing Element which was recently released for the 7-day public comment period. We
understand Staff is aggressively pushing to file a fourth submital as quickly as possible to begin HCD’s
next 60-day review cycle.
This has led to commencing the 7-day public comment this past Friday, 6 days before a HEAB mee�ng
which is scheduled to review and discuss the dra� Housing Element. We believe this is not in the spirit of
maximizing public par�cipa�on because it departs from the Town’s prior approach where the mandatory
public review period commenced a�er the Town Council or the HEAB had publicly reviewed the dra�s.
For many residents, being able to listen to the Town Council’s or HEAB’s discussion will lead to valuable
comments and recommenda�ons. The members of the public become beter informed about a
document they have largely not been involved with, by listening to the delibera�ve process of the Town
Council or HEAB.
Under the current �ming, a�er listening to the HEAB’s discussion, the public will have less than 24 hours
to submit their comments before the closing of the public review period. We find this to be a barrier to
public involvement and runs counter to the goal of maximizing public par�cipa�on. The 7-day public
comment period should commence a�er the HEAB mee�ng, just like it was done for all prior HCD
submissions. We would request that a new 7-day public comment period commence a�er the HEAB
mee�ng to allow concerned residents the opportunity to knowledgeable comment on the proposed
dra�.
Addi�onally, we have several comments that we would urge you to seriously consider and take all
necessary ac�ons to ensure the Housing Element conforms to State Housing Element Law. Below are our
comments for your review.
Comment One – Review and consider the leter previously sent by Rutan and Tucker
On August 22, 2023 our legal advisor, Mathew Francois of the firm Rutan and Tucker, LLP sent you and
Paul McDougal and Jose Armando Jauregui of the State HCD, a very though�ul 7-page leter with
numerous exhibits, which outlined serious concerns the Los Gatos Community Alliance had regarding the
Housing Element Site Inventory and the Housing Element compliance with State Housing Element Law.
We note that in the current dra�, on page 1-115 there is a one paragraph response to this leter.
Frankly, this is not a serious response to the numerous legal issues that were iden�fied and furthermore,
fails to explain how the Town has taken the comments into considera�on in preparing the current dra�.
2
We do not intend here to cover these points again, but rather are resubmi�ng the leter (atachment 1)
as part of the current public comment period with the hope the Town will undertake a serious review
and completely address the numerous legal issues that are discussed.
Comment Two – Make all required revisions to Table 10-3 – RHNA Credits and Site Strategies and
ensure there are sufficient parcels to make up the shor�all in very low and moderate units to meet the
6th cycle RHNA by income category.
The Los Gatos Community Alliance has specific comments regarding Table 10-3. We have taken the
liberty to rearrange Table 10-3 in a format (see atachment 2) more easily understood than the one
presented.
The current dra� of the Housing Element makes the claim that “Los Gatos reasonably expects that a net
capacity total of 2,708 units will be developed”(reference page 10-33). This is shown in Part A of the
schedule on the row marked “total credits and HEOZ sites”. We disagree with this, and address this in
more detail below.
The Table also shows the distribu�on by income category of these “reasonably developed “ units as 743
units (27.4%) Very Low, 421 units (15.5%) Low, 413 units (15.3%) Moderate and 1,131 units (41.8%)
Above Moderate. Furthermore, on page I-39 in response to Harmonie Park’s comment leter (the
developer of site D-1 - North 40 Phase II), the Town states “the distribu�on of affordability levels in the
Site Inventory is an es�mate prepared based on a combina�on of factors including lot size, vacancy,
property owner interest, minimum and maximum density and other development regula�ons”.
Unfortunately, there is no evidence in the dra� Housing Element which supports the “reasonable
expecta�on” that 1,164 units, represen�ng 75% (1,164/1,544) of the es�mated market rate units, will be
below market rate housing. The SB 330 filings associated with parcels B-1 and D-1 reflect substan�ally
less below market units (e.g. property owner interest), and the Town’s own Below Market Program (e.g.
development regula�ons) which mandates a developer of more than 101 units to provide a minimum of
below market rate units equal to 20% of the number of market rate units provide substan�al evidence
that the site inventory es�mate of 1,164 below market rate units is wildly unreasonable and not
supported by any objec�ve evidence in the record.
Developers will not voluntarily exceed the minimum 20% requirement because there is litle economic
incen�ve to produce below market rate units above this threshold. This is confirmed by all SB 330
applica�ons and the inclusion of Program L – Below Market Price Program whose goal is to evaluate the
exis�ng BMP Program to increase the number of BMP units constructed.
And yet the dra� Housing Element ignores this economic reality and unexplainably “reasonably expects”
the number of below market rate units developed will be 75% of the number of market rate units. This is
not a reasonable assump�on and is not supported by any evidence in the record. The site inventory must
be corrected to reflect a reasonable distribu�on of development by income category.
In addi�on to the problem of realis�c income distribu�on of the developed units, Table 10-3 also
contains specific errors which must be corrected. Unfortunately, the sum of the errors results in an
3
overstatement of the es�mated development of below market rate units. Once corrected, the Town does
not meet the 6th cycle RHNA by income category. We will now address each error.
1 – Single Family and Housing units en�tled – June 30, 2022 to January 31, 2023
On D-64 of the Housing Element it is stated that “units that are made available during the RHNA
projec�on period (June 30, 2022 through January 31, 2031) can be credited toward the RHNA”. Table 10-
3 reflects 227 housing units that the Town claims were “finaled, permited, or approved a�er June 30,
2022 or were under construc�on as of June 30, 2022”. Unfortunately, this does not conform to the
instruc�ons in the comment leter HCD issued to ABAG on January 12, 2022 ( see atachment 3).
According to the comment leter, “local governments may take RHNA credit for new units approved,
permited, and/or built beginning from the start date of the RHNA projec�on period, June 30, 2022”. Of
the 227 units 194 units were permited prior to the start date of the projec�on period. This includes the
49 below market rate units on the North 40 Phase 1 parcel (APN 424-07-100). In addi�on, all 194 units
have been included in the 5th cycle results (refer to page E-12) and reported in either the 2020, 2021 or
2022 Annual Progress Reports to HCD. Based on this, all 194 units need to be excluded from Table 10-3
and need to be deducted from the total credits.
2. Projected ADU Affordability
On D-60 of the Housing Element it is disclosed that the income distribu�on for ADU’s is 30% very low,
30% low, 30% moderate and 10% above moderate income. This distribu�on was based on “ABAG’s pre-
approved ADU Affordability Survey”.
We have atached (atachment 4) the referenced survey which in fact was released as a “dra�” survey
prepared by ABAG dated September 8, 2021. While the dra� report was reviewed by HCD, HCD did not
formally accept it and did not raise objec�ons to the conclusions. HCD believed the conclusions were
generally accurate and added that jurisdic�ons should ensure the informa�on reflects local condi�ons.
To that end, HCD stated jurisdic�ons should provide opportunity for stakeholders to comment on any
assump�ons, including affordability assump�ons based on the dra� report. ABAG did not expect to
receive any addi�onal guidance from HCD.
The survey does include a recommenda�on for ADU’s income distribu�on as discussed in the Housing
Element. However, the survey also recommends a more conserva�ve distribu�on for jurisdic�ons with
fair housing concerns, which Los Gatos clearly has. This distribu�on is 5% very low, 30% low, 50%
moderate and 15% above. This distribu�on more accurately reflects open market rentals, excluding units
made available to family and friends. This distribu�on is validated by data in the survey which shows the
following distribu�on of ADU market rate units on the Peninsula – 6% very low, 31% low, 48% moderate
and 15% above.
Lastly, the Town’s actual experience for ADUs permited between June 30, 2022 and January 30, 2023
shows the following income distribu�on – 0% very low, 12% low, 48% moderate and 40% above. Based
on this we believe a more reasonable income distribu�on for ADUs would be 5% very low, 30% low, 50%
moderate and 15% above, which was the recommenda�on for jurisdic�ons with fair housing concerns.
4
Adop�ng this distribu�on would result in 50 units deducted from the very low category and 40 units
added to the moderate category and 10 units added to the above category. We made this adjustment to
Table 10-3.
3. Site B-1 adjustment to reflect SB 330 applica�on
On page D-21 there is a descrip�on of site B-1, the Los Gatos Lodge. The site inventory programmed this
8.81-acre site for 262 units at a planned development density of 30 DU per acre. The income distribu�on
of these units is 86 units very low, 86 units low, 62 units moderate and 28 units above.
The property owner has filed a preliminary SB 330 applica�on which vests the development rights of the
parcel and a final applica�on is expected to be received by January 2, 2024. The SB 330 applica�on calls
for the development of 158 units at a development density of 17.9 DU per acre. It should be pointed out
this development density is materially below the 30 DU minimum density programmed by the HEOZ
zoning. The Housing Element does not discuss the difference in development densi�es and raises
ques�ons regarding Program AQ – Zoning Code Amendments since there is no men�on as to a minimum
allowable development density and appears to be inconsistent with Table C-3 - Proposed HEOZ Densi�es
by underlying Land Use and Zoning Designa�on.
Based on the SB 330 applica�on, it appears that a reasonable development assump�on should be 0 units
very low, 32 units low, 0 units moderate and 126 above for a total of 158 units. This would result in 86
units being deducted from very low units, 54 units being deducted from low units, 62 units being
deducted from moderate, and 98 units being added to above. We made this adjustment to Table 10-3.
4. Site D-1 adjustment to reflect SB 330 applica�on
On page D-35 there is a descrip�on of site D-1, North 40 Phase II. The site inventory programmed this
15.6-acre site for 452 net units at a planned development density of approximately 30 DU per acre. The
income distribu�on of these units is 184 units very low, 89 units low, 92 units moderate and 87 units
above.
The property owner has filed a final SB 330 applica�on which vests the development rights of the parcel.
The SB 330 final applica�on calls for the development of 451 units at a development density of 28.6 DU
per acre. It should be pointed out this development density is below the 30 DU minimum density
programmed by the HEOZ zoning. The Housing Element does not address the difference in development
densi�es and raises a ques�on regarding Program D – Addi�onal Housing Capacity for the North 40
Specific Plan, Program AQ – Zoning Code Amendment and appears to be inconsistent with Table C-3 -
Proposed HEOZ Densi�es by underlying Land Use and Zoning Designa�on.
Based on the SB 330 applica�on, it appears that a reasonable development assump�on should be 0 units
very low, 91 units low, 1 unit moderate and 359 above for a total of 451 units. This would result in 184
units being deducted from very low units, 2 units being added to low, 91 units being deducted from
moderate, and 272 units being added to above. We made this adjustment to Table 10-3.
5. Site I-1 adjustment to reflect SB 330 applica�on
5
On page D-59 there is a descrip�on of site I-1, Alberto Way. The site inventory programmed this 2.15-
acre site for 60 units at a planned development density of approximately 27.9 DU per acre. The income
distribu�on of these units is 0 units very low, 4 units low, 4 units moderate and 52 units above. The site
inventory reflects the preliminary SB 330 applica�on development plan. This is inconsistent with how the
site inventory planned site B-1, which ignored the SB 330 preliminary applica�on.
The property owner has filed a final SB 330 applica�on which vests the development rights of the parcel.
The SB 330 applica�on calls for the development of 52 units at a development density of 24.1 DU per
acre. It should be pointed out this development density is below the 30 DU minimum density
programmed by the HEOZ zoning. The Housing Element does not address the difference in development
densi�es and appears to be inconsistent with Table C-3 - Proposed HEOZ Densi�es by underlying Land
Use and Zoning Designa�on.
Based on the SB 330 applica�on, it appears that a reasonable development assump�on should be 0 units
very low, 8 units low, 0 unit moderate and 44 above for a total of 52 units. This would result in 4 units
being added to low, 4 units being deducted from moderate, and 8 units being deducted from above. We
made this adjustment to Table 10-3.
Summary and Conclusion
Summing all the adjustments noted above, materially reduces the total credits and HEOZ sites shown in
Table 10-3. On an adjusted basis it is reasonably expected that there will be 2,401 units developed
during the 6th cycle. In addi�on, reflec�ng the above adjustments the income distribu�on will be 374
very low units, 373 low units, 295 moderate units and 1,359 above units.
Given this level of development, the Town will fail to meet the 6th cycle RHNA of 537 very low units and
320 moderate units. The adjusted Table 10-3 shows the surplus and deficit for each income category
compared to the 6th cycle RHNA. This result clearly does not meet the desired outcome of Program AS,
which was to provide adequate sites for housing, RHNA rezoning and lower income households on
nonvacant and vacant sites, while providing a 25% buffer. Only the above moderate-income group meets
this program’s goals.
The Housing Elements concluding comment that “the sites iden�fied in this report are sufficient to
accommodate Los Gatos’ Regional Housing Needs Alloca�on for the 6th cycle planning period” is clearly
incorrect. The current dra� as constructed contains numerous errors, which incorrectly inflated the
“reasonable development” es�mate for very low-, low- and moderate-income categories. The sites
inventory does not accommodate a net capacity of 1,971 units but rather a net capacity based on the
developers SB 330 applica�ons of 1,858. Furthermore, the sites inventory does not accommodate a net
capacity of 634 very low income, 357 low income and 340 moderate income units but rather a capacity
of 364 very low, 309 low and 183 moderate income units.
The unmistakable conclusion is the Town must iden�fy more parcels to be included in the site inventory
and rezoned as part of the HEOZ to meet the 6th cycle RHNA by income category. If this is not done, it is
unlikely the HCD will cer�fy this fourth submission.
Thank you for allowing us to provide our comments. At the end of the day, we all want the same thing –
a Housing Element that fully complies with State Housing Law and is cer�fied by HCD as quickly as
possible.
6
Los Gatos Community Alliance
Attachment 2
Part A
Table 10-3 RHNA Credits and Site Strategies VL L M A Total
Entitled/Permitted/Under Construction - Single-Family and Housing Projects 49 0 2 176 227
Entitled/Permitted/Under Construction - ADU's 0 3 11 9 23
Pipeline Projects 0 1 0 190 191
Projected ADU's 60 60 60 20 200
SB 9 Units 0 0 0 96 96
HEOZ Sites 634 357 340 640 1,971
>> Total Credits and HEOZ sites 743 421 413 1,131 2,708
RHNA 537 310 320 826 1,993
Surplus/(Deficit) over RHNA 206 111 93 305 715
% Surplus/(Deficit)38.4 35.8 29.1 36.9 35.9
Part B
Adjusted Table 10-3 RHNA Credits and Site Strategies
Total Credits and HEOZ sites (carry down from Part A)743 421 413 1,131 2,708
Less adjustments:
1) Single Family and Housing Projects units permited and counted in RHNA 5th cycle (49)0 (1)(144)(194)
2) Projected ADU affordability adjustement to reflect market conditions and AFFH Concerns (50)0 40 10 0
3) Site B-1 to conform affordability levels to filed SB 330 application (86)(54)(62)98 (104)
4) Site D-1 to conform affordability levels to filed SB 330 final application (184)2 (91)272 (1)
5) Site I-1 to conform affordability levels to filed SB 330 final application 0 4 (4)(8)(8)
>> Total adjustments (369)(48)(118)228 (307)
Adjusted Total Credits and HEOZ sites 374 373 295 1,359 2,401
RHNA 537 310 320 826 1,993
Surplus/(Deficit) over RHNA (163)63 (25)533 408
% Surplus/(Deficit)(30.4)20.3 (7.8)64.5 20.5
From: Judy L <>
Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2023 11:12 PM
To: Housing Element <HEUpdate@losgatosca.gov>
Subject: Public Comment on Revised Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
To the Housing Element Advisory Board,
Thank you for posting the Revised Draft Housing Element.
I have a few concerns and comments on the draft.
1) Building height in CH zone is limited to 35' per Los Gatos Planning website, which applies to the 401-
409 Alberto Way property. The newest plan for this property is to build 4 floors, so that the building is 50'.
Please consider building only 2 or 3 floors, so that the buildings meet the 35' limit. This will also keep the
small town feel of Los Gatos, because the buildings will match other home properties on Alberto Way
which are only 2 floors.
2) Have you considered working with the owner of the property at Los Gatos Blvd and Los Gatos-
Almaden Rd, near 15600 Los Gatos Blvd? The property no longer has an active business. Using this land
to meet HCD requirements would be ideal. Future homeowners would be walking distance to businesses
and thus more easily support the local economy. By using this land, you can decrease the number of
units built on Los Gatos Lodge property and Alberto Way property. Neighbors near Los Gatos Lodge and
Alberto Way properties will be more agreeable to your plans.
Thank you for reading, and I look forward to hearing your response.
-Judy Lee
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank