Exhibit 26 - Public Comments Received Between 1101 a.m., Wednesday, April 30, 2025, and 1100 a.m., Friday, October 24, 2025From: Javier Zaldivar
Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2025 11:36 AM
To: Planning <Planning@losgatosca.gov>
Cc: Lourdes Gonzalez
Subject: Support for north 40 phase 2
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
Please see the attached support letter.
I can be reached at . Thank you.
Javier Zaldivar
Executive Director
San Andreas Regional Center
A message from jz's iPhone
EXHIBIT 26
April 29, 2025
Via
email:planning@losgatosca.gov
April 28, 2025
Re: April 30, 2025 Public Comment Item #1
Dear Planning Commissioners,
I am writing on behalf of San Andreas Regional Center to express my strong support for the
North 40 Phase II Development, particularly the inclusion of affordable housing and
designated units for adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD).
San Andreas Regional Center (SARC) is funded by the State of California to serve people with
Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities as required by the Lanterman Developmental
Disabilities Act. Our service area includes Santa Clara County and the Town of Los Gatos.
The purpose of this letter is to support the advancement of the North 40 Phase II
Development as this project will include 16 apartments subject to a preference for extremely
low income people with developmental disabilities. On a daily basis, SARC’s Service
Coordinators must address the impact of the lack of permanent supportive housing for people
with developmental disabilities in Los Gatos. More than 100 people with developmental
disabilities, including families who live in Los Gatos have been referred by SARC to Housing
Choices for help finding affordable housing.
Although SARC is not able to pay for residents’ actual housing costs, we are funded to provide
a variety of services that help residents with developmental disabilities live successfully in
integrated housing in the community. In addition to funding on-site housing support services
provided by Housing Choices, SARC will provide a variety of other services depending on the
Individual Program Plan of each resident, including, for example, Independent Living,
Supported Living, Community Day Programs, Employment Services and Behavioral Support.
The need is urgent. Many other local families are aging and worry about what will happen to
their loved ones with disabilities in the future.
I urge the Planning Commission to approve this development and ensure that the IDD-
designated units and affordable housing components are preserved and prioritized as the
project moves forward.
Please contact me if I can provide any further information.
Javier Zaldivar
Executive Director
San Andreas Regional Center
From: Lucas, Jennifer@SCDD
Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2025 11:44 AM
To: Planning <Planning@losgatosca.gov>
Cc: Lucas, Jennifer@SCDD
Subject: Item #1 - Letter of support for North 40 Phase II Development
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
Dear Planning Commissioners,
Please find my letter of support regarding Item #1 for tonight’s Commission
meeting.
Thank you,
Jennifer Lucas (she/her)
Manager, Central Coast Office
State Council on Developmental Disabilities
www.scdd.ca.gov
Make your voice count. Share your story
today: bit.ly/scddmedicaid
Stay informed and sign up for our newsletter!
Page 2
The majority of adults with IDD continue to live with their aging parents and caregivers. Many
families are grappling with the difficult question of what will happen to their adult children with
disabilities when they are no longer able to provide care. This project offers both a housing
solution and peace of mind. In fact, the Los Gatos Union High School District’s post-secondary
program serves around 30 students with disabilities—several of whom age out each year with
no clear next step. North 40 Phase II provides that critical next step.
In addition to being socially responsible, this development plays a pivotal legal role. It supports
Los Gatos in meeting its Housing Element obligations and complying with SB 330. Approving
this project helps the town avoid risk of state intervention, such as the builder’s remedy, while
maintaining local control and alignment with state priorities for affordable, accessible, and
inclusive housing.
We urge the Planning Commission to approve this development and ensure that the IDD-
designated units and affordable housing components are preserved and prioritized as the
project moves forward.
Thank you for your commitment in addressing the urgent need for affordable and inclusive
housing in our community. Please contact me if I can provide any additional information in
support of this project.
Respectfully submitted,
Jennifer Lucas
Regional Manager, Central Coast Office
CA State Council on Developmental Disabilities
2580 N. First Street, Ste. 240
San Jose, CA 95131
From: Sara Grignon
Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2025 1:42 PM
To: Planning <Planning@losgatosca.gov>
Subject: April 30, 2025 Public Comment Item #1
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
Please find the attached public comment for tonight’s meeting.
Thank you,
Sara
Sara Grignon • Central District Director
Hope Services
30 Las Colinas Ln San Jose, CA 95119-1212
College of Adaptive Arts
Swenson Flagship Campus at West Valley College
14000 Fruitvale Ave., Saratoga CA 95070 | info@collegeofadaptivearts.org | 408-538-3809
Re: April 30, 2025 Public Comment Item #1
Dear Planning Commissioners,
I am writing on behalf of College of Adaptive Arts to express my strong support for the
North 40 Phase II Development, particularly the inclusion of affordable housing and
designated units for adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD).
College of Adaptive Arts provides an equitable and lifelong collegiate experience for
adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Our college sees first-hand how
important it is for the students to have access to affordable and inclusive housing. It
gives them so much pride and independence to become successful contributing citizens
in our community.
The proposal delivers on Los Gatos’ commitment to affordable housing. After
years of market-rate development, it is refreshing to see meaningful progress toward
housing for all income levels. This project directly responds to the town’s long-standing
necessity of creating more inclusive and accessible housing opportunities.
The inclusion of at least 16 units for individuals with IDD is especially critical.
Adults with IDD often face some of the steepest barriers to housing access, despite their
strong ties to our community. This project offers them the chance to live independently
with dignity, near their families and the services they rely on. These are residents who
grew up here, attended our schools, and now deserve the opportunity to thrive in their
hometown. Additionally, these individuals would receive onsite support from Housing
Choices, a vendor of San Andreas Regional Center, to ensure they are stable in their
unit. These services are different than their individual supportive services such as
Independent Living Services and Supported Living Services.
People with developmental disabilities have the legal right to live in community-based
settings, not institutions, under the Lanterman Act and the Americans with Disabilities
Act (ADA). Without affordable housing like Los Gatos North 40 Phase II, many
individuals with IDD cannot fully enjoy these rights.
This project plays a critical role in ensuring the Town of Los Gatos meets its legal
obligations under state housing law, including compliance with its certified
Housing Element and Senate Bill 330 (SB 330). Approval of the North 40 Phase II
development provides a clear demonstration to the California Department of Housing
and Community Development (HCD) that Los Gatos is taking thoughtful steps to fulfill its
affordable housing obligations. Advancing this project reduces the risk of state
intervention, such as the imposition of the builder’s remedy, and strengthens the Town’s
College of Adaptive Arts
Swenson Flagship Campus at West Valley College
14000 Fruitvale Ave., Saratoga CA 95070 | info@collegeofadaptivearts.org | 408-538-3809
position in maintaining local land use authority while aligning with state priorities for fair,
inclusive, and accessible housing.
The need is urgent. Many other local families are aging and worry about what will
happen to their loved ones with disabilities in the future.
I urge the Planning Commission to approve this development and ensure that the IDD-
designated units and affordable housing components are preserved and prioritized as
the project moves forward.
Thank you for your commitment in addressing the urgent need for affordable and
inclusive housing in our community.
Sincerely,
DeAnna Pursai
Co-founder & Director of Development and Community Outreach
From: noreply@civicplus.com <noreply@civicplus.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 1, 2025 9:55 PM
To: Planning <Planning@losgatosca.gov>
Subject: Online Form Submission #15863 for Community Development Contact Form
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
Community Development Contact Form
First Name Field not completed.
Last Name Field not completed.
Email Address
(Required)
Phone Number Field not completed.
Tell Us About Your
Inquiry (Required)
Comment Regarding A Planning Project
Address/APN you are
inquiring About
(Required)
143-151 E. Main St
Message (Required) Letter to Council requesting EIR for SB 330 projects
Add An Attachment if
applicable
scan0789.pdf
Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser.
From: Gopi Ayer <>
Sent: Sunday, May 4, 2025 4:50 PM
To: Planning <Planning@losgatosca.gov>
Subject: Public comment, Project North 40, reservation of units for IDD
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
Subject: April 30, 2025, Public Comment Item #1
Dear Planning Commissioners,
I am writing to express my strong support for the North 40 Phase 2 Development,
particularly the inclusion of affordable housing and designated units for adults with
intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD). As a resident and advocate who cares
deeply about housing equity and community inclusion, I believe this project is an essential
step forward for Los Gatos.
The proposal delivers on Los Gatos’ commitment to affordable housing.
After years of market-rate development, it is refreshing to see meaningful progress toward housing
for all income levels. This project directly responds to the town’s long-standing necessity of
creating more inclusive and accessible housing opportunities.
Adults with IDD often face some of the steepest barriers to housing access, despite their
strong ties to our community. This project offers them the chance to live independently
with dignity, near their families and the services they rely on. These are residents who grew
up here, attended our schools, and now deserve the opportunity to thrive in their
hometown.
As the parent of an adult with IDD, I have seen him and his small group of friends thrive in
Los Gatos, intimate with its geography and comfortable with the choices offered. It is
imperative that we find appropriate housing for these people who are a part of the fabric of
Los Gatos community.
This project plays a critical role in ensuring the Town of Los Gatos meets its legal obligations
under state housing law, including compliance with its certified Housing Element and Senate
Bill 330 (SB 330).
Advancing this project reduces the risk of state intervention, such as the imposition of the builder’s
remedy, and strengthens the Town’s position in maintaining local land use authority while aligning
with state priorities for fair, inclusive, and accessible housing.
The need is urgent. Many other local families are aging and worry about what will happen to
their loved ones with disabilities in the future.
I urge the Planning Commission to approve this development and ensure that the IDD-
designated units and affordable housing components are preserved and prioritized as the
project moves forward.
Thank you for your thoughtful consideration and your service to the community.
Sincerely,
Gopi Ayer
Mandeep Ayer
From: Noa Sklar
Sent: Saturday, May 3, 2025 5:33 PM
To: Planning <Planning@losgatosca.gov>
Cc: Gia Pham
Subject: From the mother of Romi
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
Dear Planning Commissioners
I am writing to express my strong support for the North 40 Phase 2 Development, particularly the
inclusion of affordable housing and designated units for adults with intellectual and developmental
disabilities (IDD). As a resident and advocate who cares deeply about housing equity and community
inclusion, I believe this project is an essential step forward for Los Gatos.
The proposal delivers on Los Gatos’ commitment to affordable housing. After years of market-rate
development, it is refreshing to see meaningful progress toward housing for all income levels. This project
directly responds to the town’s long-standing necessity of creating more inclusive and accessible housing
opportunities.
Adults with IDD often face some of the steepest barriers to housing access, despite their strong ties to our
community. This project offers them the chance to live independently with dignity, near their families and
the services they rely on. These are residents who grew up here, attended our schools, and now deserve
the opportunity to thrive in their hometown.
My daughter Romi is 22 y/o native to Los Gatos , she is on the autism spectrum. It’s been a lifelong of
struggle, but she made the best out of it - she is even graduating college and hoping to become a
productive member of society. (She already is). With that being said, it’s time for her to
move out of my house to begin and independent life yet I would still like to keep her
nearby in Los Gatos for obvious reasons, but the prices are ridiculous! We must must
have affordable living options for our special kids as a priority ! By the way - 16 units is
not enough! It should be at least double as there are many kids with different kind of
disabilities in Los Gatos.
This project plays a critical role in ensuring the Town of Los Gatos meets its legal obligations
under state housing law, including compliance with its certified Housing Element and Senate Bill
330 (SB 330). Advancing this project reduces the risk of state intervention, such as the imposition of the
builder’s remedy, and strengthens the Town’s position in maintaining local land use authority while
aligning with state priorities for fair, inclusive, and accessible housing.
The need is urgent. Many other local families are aging and worry about what will happen to their loved
ones with disabilities in the future.
I urge the Planning Commission to approve this development and ensure that the IDD-designated units
and affordable housing components are preserved and prioritized as the project moves forward.
Thank you for your thoughtful consideration and your service to the community.
Sincerely,
Noa and Abraham Sklar
Los Gatos
Sent from my iPhone
From:
To:Joel Paulson
Cc:Town Manager; Gabrielle Whelan
Subject:Fwd: Legal and Policy Issues Related to Grosvenor N40 Phase II
Date:Sunday, May 4, 2025 10:10:38 PM
Attachments:image.png
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
To: Joel Paulson, Director of Community DevelopmentFrom: Los Gatos Community AllianceDate: May 5, 2025 EMAIL 2
Subject: Summary of Legal and Policy Issues Related to Grosvenor N40 Phase II ProjectThis memorandum outlines critical legal and planning concerns regarding the GrosvenorN40 Phase II project, which purports to comply with objective development standardsunder SB 330 and the Town’s Housing Element. Based on our analysis, the project raisessignificant inconsistencies with applicable zoning, density, and affordability requirementsand merits clarification from the California Department of Housing and CommunityDevelopment (HCD).
1. Vesting Under a Non-Certified Housing ElementThe applicant claims the project vested on April 18, 2023, based on the Housing Elementadopted by the Town on January 30, 2023. However, HCD issued a formal determination onApril 14, 2023, finding that the element did not comply with State Housing Law. UnderGovernment Code § 65589.5(o), a housing element must be legally 'in effect' to vestdevelopment standards. Because the January 30, 2023 element lacked HCD certification, itwas not in effect at the time of vesting and cannot serve as a valid basis for entitlement.Importantly, self-certification of a housing element contravenes state law and carries nolegal effect under the Housing Element Law.
2. Applicable Zoning Standards at Time of VestingAs of April 18, 2023, the operative zoning was that established under the 2020 General PlanLand Use Element, which capped residential density at 20 dwelling units per gross acre. Theproject proposes 28.75 DU/acre and therefore exceeded the applicable density standard. Asa result, the project was not compliant with objective zoning on the vesting date and is notentitled to SB 330’s five-hearing limit (Gov. Code § 65905.5(a)).
3. Inconsistency with the Certified 2040 Housing ElementThe applicant ambiguously refers to compliance with 'the Housing Element' withoutclarifying whether it means the uncertified January 2023 version or the certified 2040Housing Element adopted July 10, 2024. The certified element designates the site for aminimum density of 30 DU/acre and assumes 464 units. The proposed 450 units at 28.75DU/acre fall short of this minimum and are therefore inconsistent with adopted policy.
4. Affordable Housing CommitmentsThe certified Housing Element allocates 273 very low- and low-income units to the projectsite. The applicant proposes only 77 such units. Moreover, the Planning Directoracknowledged on April 30, 2025, that affordability targets for other parcels are unlikely tobe met. Under Gov. Code §§ 65863(b)(2)(B) and 65863(e), the Town may require theproject to meet full affordability allocations or amend the site inventory to maintain RHNAcompliance.
5. Separate Projects for BMP ComplianceOf the 77 affordable units proposed, 67 units are being transferred to Eden Housing, whichwill separately finance, construct, and manage them. The two components will proceed onindependent timelines with distinct contractors and funding mechanisms. Eden Housingmust obtain approximately $45 million from various federal, state, and local sources inorder to finance construction of the 67 units. There are no guarantees that such funding willbe secured. This arrangement constitutes two separate projects. Under the Town’s BMPordinance, the Grosvenor portion must independently meet its affordability obligations.However, it includes only 10 affordable units out of 383 market-rate units—well below the20% requirement (75 units).
6. CEQA Compliance and Need for New EIRThe project cannot legally tier from the 2040 General Plan EIR due to substantial newinformation and changes in policy. The Town Council has formally repealed the Land Useand Community Design elements of the 2040 General Plan—two foundational componentsof the EIR’s analysis. Additionally, multiple Builder’s Remedy projects have emerged thatwere not studied in the original EIR. Under CEQA Guidelines §§ 15162 and 15163, theseconstitute significant new information requiring a full project-specific EnvironmentalImpact Report (EIR) to evaluate cumulative impacts including traffic, GHG emissions,infrastructure, and community character.
7. Builder’s Remedy EligibilityThe applicant claims the project is eligible for the Builder’s Remedy but argues it need notinvoke it due to compliance with the Housing Element. This is misleading. As noted inComment 1, the January 30, 2023 Housing Element was not certified by HCD and cannotserve as a legal basis for compliance, meaning the project is, in substance, a Builder’sRemedy proposal. However, its eligibility is also questionable. If the project is correctlyviewed as two separate developments—one by Grosvenor and the other by EdenHousing—then the Grosvenor portion alone does not meet the 13% very low-incomeaffordability threshold required to qualify under the Builder’s Remedy. Absent thisthreshold, the project cannot lawfully claim Builder’s Remedy protections underGovernment Code § 65589.5(d).
Conclusion and Request for HCD Technical Assistance:
Given the unresolved issues related to vesting, zoning consistency, Housing Elementcompliance, CEQA, and potential misapplication of the Builder’s Remedy, we strongly urgethe Town of Los Gatos to request formal technical assistance from HCD. This review shouldclarify which standards applied as of the vesting date, confirm whether the Builder’sRemedy is properly invoked, and assess whether affordability and density commitmentsalign with state housing law. Seeking HCD guidance will help ensure the Town’s decisionsare legally sound and transparent to the public.
Los Gatos Community Alliance Facts Matter; Transparency Matters; Honesty Matters
www.lgca.townInfo@lgca.town
From:
To:Joel Paulson
Cc:Town Manager; Gabrielle Whelan; ; Bridgette Falconio;
Subject:Los Gatos North Forty - Phase II (HCD reference number HAU0001928)
Date:Sunday, June 29, 2025 12:42:19 PM
Attachments:image.png
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
Mr. Joel Paulson
Director of Community Planning
Town of Los Gatos
110 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Subject: Classification of Eden Housing Component as a Separate Project under HAA and SDBL
Dear Mr. Paulson,
On behalf of the Los Gatos Community Alliance, I respectfully request that the Town of Los Gatos classifythe 1.25-acre affordable housing component, to be developed by Eden Housing within the 450-unitGrosvenor project (North 40 Phase II) in the North 40 Specific Plan area, as a separate project underCalifornia’s Housing Accountability Act (HAA) (Government Code § 65589.5) and State Density BonusLaw (SDBL) (Government Code § 65915). The following arguments, supported by the 9 separate APNparcels listed in the housing element site inventory, demonstrate that the Eden Housing component is adistinct project, despite the single application and CEQA review. Grosvenor’s claim of a single integratedproject appears motivated to meet the Below Market Price (BMP) ordinance (20% of market-rate units) byincluding the 67 Eden Housing units (77 ÷ 373 = 20.6%), avoiding additional affordable units on the 14.4-acre parcels.
Legal Subdivision via Deeded Land Transfer and 9-Parcel Structure
The 1.25-acre parcel will be deeded to Eden Housing with a separate title, constituting a legal subdivision
under the Subdivision Map Act (Government Code § 66410 et seq.). The North 40 Phase II site’s division
into 9 separate APN parcels, listed individually in the housing element site inventory, confirms the 1.25
acres as a distinct parcel, enabling Eden Housing to independently own, develop, and manage the 67
affordable units (plus one manager unit).
Summary: The deeded title and 9-parcel structure establish legal subdivision, supporting a separate
project.
Non-SDBL Donation Enhances Separation
The donation of the 1.25-acre parcel, not under SDBL (§ 65915), is a contribution of land value for Eden
Housing’s expertise, reducing regulatory linkage to the Grosvenor project. This independent transaction
allows Eden Housing to operate without SDBL-related coordination, aligning with HCD’s recognition of
parcel-specific evaluations (HCD Housing Element Site Inventory Guidebook, 2023).
Summary: The non-SDBL donation positions the 1.25 acres as a standalone partnership, reinforcing
separation.
Independent Financing Structure
Eden Housing will finance the 67 units separately, likely through Low-Income Housing Tax Credits
(LIHTC) and conventional financing, distinct from the Grosvenor project’s funding for the 383 units. TCAC
Regulations (§ 10325(c)(1)) and HCD’s Multifamily Housing Program Guidelines (§ 7304) prioritize fee
title ownership, which the deeded parcel satisfies, establishing a distinct operational scope.
Summary: Independent financing supports the 1.25 acres as a separate project with its own funding.
Separate Development Timeline
The 1.25-acre component will follow a distinct timeline driven by LIHTC cycles, differing from the
Grosvenor project’s schedule. The non-SDBL donation reinforces this temporal separation, aligning with
HAA and SDBL’s recognition of independent projects.
Summary: A separate timeline establishes the 1.25 acres as a distinct project with independent execution.
Independent Management
Eden Housing will manage the 67 units independently, with distinct affordability restrictions and tenant
protocols, separate from the Grosvenor project’s components. This operational independence supports
the standalone status under HAA (§ 65589.5(d)(5)(A)).
Summary: Independent management positions the 1.25 acres as a separate project with distinct
operations.
Compliance with Housing Element Density RequirementsThe 1.25-acre parcel achieves 53.6 du/ac (67 units ÷ 1.25 acres), exceeding the housing element’s 30du/ac minimum (per the December 15, 2022, HCD letter to Watsonville). The 9-parcel structure indicatesHCD recognizes the 1.25 acres as a distinct RHNA site, fulfilling lower-income housing obligations(Health and Safety Code § 50079.5), unlike the 14.4 acres (26.6 du/ac).
Summary: Density compliance and 9-parcel recognition support the 1.25 acres as a separate RHNAproject.
Addressing Unified Application and CEQA Review
The single application and North 40 EIR reflect coordination, but the deeded title, non-SDBL donation,
and 9-parcel structure enable separate entitlements. CEQA allows distinct reviews for subdivided parcels
(Guidelines § 15378), outweighing the unified process.
Summary: The unified application is outweighed by factors enabling separate entitlements.
Grosvenor’s Motivation to Claim Integration
Grosvenor’s claim of integration aims to meet the BMP ordinance’s 20% affordability requirement for
market-rate units (77 ÷ 373 = 20.6%) by including the 67 Eden units. If separated, the Grosvenor parcels
(10 ÷ 373 = 2.68%) require ~75 additional affordable units, supporting separate evaluation to uphold BMP
compliance.
Summary: Grosvenor’s BMP motivation reinforces the need to treat the 1.25 acres as a separate project.
Conclusion and Request
The deeded title, non-SDBL donation, independent financing, separate timeline, independent
management, density compliance, and 9-parcel structure demonstrate that the Eden Housing component
is a separate project under HAA and SDBL. Grosvenor’s BMP strategy underscores the need for
separate evaluation. We request the Town assess the 1.25-acre parcel independently, potentially
approving it apart from the non-compliant Grosvenor project (28.75 du/ac). Please provide the housing
element site inventory, parcel map, donation agreement, entitlement records, financing details, and
timeline to confirm this structure. We appreciate your consideration and are available to discuss further.
Sincerely,
Jak Van Nada on behalf of theLos Gatos Community Alliance Facts Matter; Transparency Matters; Honesty Matters
www.lgca.tow
From:
To:Joel Paulson
Cc:Town Manager; Gabrielle Whelan;
Subject:North 40, Phase II
Date:Sunday, July 20, 2025 7:50:50 PM
Attachments:image.png
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
September 20, 2025
Dear Mr. Paulson,
On behalf of the Los Gatos Community Alliance, we urge the Town to require Grosvenor toprovide reasonable documentation supporting its request for two concessions under theState Density Bonus Law (SDBL) for the North 40 Phase II project. These concessionsappear to benefit 17 market-rate townhome buildings along the site’s western and northernedges—structures not directly tied to the 67-unit affordable Building G1 being developedby Eden Housing or the 10 affordable units in mixed-use Building E1.
Under Government Code § 65915, subdivisions (d)(1)(A) and (k), concessions must resultin identifiable and actual cost reductions necessary to provide affordable housing.Concessions that merely increase profitability or reduce the cost of market-ratedevelopment do not meet this statutory requirement. In this case, Grosvenor has notdemonstrated how the requested concessions materially reduce costs associated with theaffordable units, particularly when those units are in separately financed and developedbuildings.
Grosvenor has cited HCD’s October 12, 2022, letter to the City of Elk Grove. However, thefacts of that case involved a single integrated building—the Oak RoseApartments—containing both affordable and market-rate units. HCD found that the City hadimproperly denied a concession for ground-floor residential use by failing to considerconstruction costs and foregone rental income. That situation differs materially from North40 Phase II, where the affordable and market-rate components are physically, financially,and operationally separate.
The Elk Grove letter does not waive the statutory requirement that concessions produceactual cost savings tied to affordability. Nor does it alter the legal burden on developers topresent documentation justifying such concessions. As confirmed by Schreiber v. City of LosAngeles (2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 549, local governments may reject concessions notsupported by evidence of cost reductions for affordable units, provided their denial is basedon substantial evidence.
We respectfully request that the Town uphold the integrity of the SDBL by requiringGrosvenor to substantiate its concession requests with documentation showing direct costsavings associated with the affordable housing components. Doing so ensures transparency,compliance, and the effective implementation of the SDBL’s affordability objectives.
Please feel free to contact us should you have questions or wish to discuss this further.
Sincerely,
Jak Van Nada - on behalf of,Los Gatos Community Alliance Facts Matter; Transparency Matters; Honesty Matters www.lgca.town
From:
To:Joel Paulson
Cc:Town Manager; Gabrielle Whelan;
Subject:RE: Inapplicability of Prior CEQA Documents to the North 40 Phase II Final Transportation Study (Hexagon,February 18, 2025)
Date:Tuesday, June 24, 2025 4:30:58 PM
Attachments:image.png
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
June 24, 2025
Joel PaulsonDirector of Community DevelopmentTown of Los Gatos110 E. Main StreetLos Gatos, CA 95030
RE: Inapplicability of Prior CEQA Documents to the North 40 Phase II Final Transportation Study(Hexagon, February 18, 2025)
Dear Mr. Paulson:
On behalf of the Los Gatos Community Alliance, we submit the following commentsregarding the North 40 Phase II Final Transportation Study, prepared by HexagonTransportation Consultants and dated February 18, 2025. We respectfully challenge theconclusion that no further environmental review under the California EnvironmentalQuality Act (CEQA) is required for the proposed development based on outdated and legallyinsufficient environmental documents.
Specifically, the transportation study improperly relies on the 2040 General PlanEnvironmental Impact Report (EIR) and the North 40 Specific Plan EIR, both of which nolonger reflect the current land use policy framework, CEQA transportation standards, or theactual development conditions within the Town. Our concerns are outlined below.
1. The 2040 General Plan EIR Is No Longer a Valid Tiering DocumentThe 2040 General Plan EIR cannot lawfully serve as a tiering document for CEQA purposesbecause the 2040 Land Use Element on which it was based has been repealed. In November2023, the Town Council formally rescinded the 2040 Land Use and Community DesignElements and adopted the 2020 General Plan Land Use Element, which introducedsignificantly different development patterns, densities, and land use designations.Moreover, at the time the 2040 General Plan EIR was prepared, the 2023–2031 HousingElement had not yet been drafted, let alone adopted or certified by the CaliforniaDepartment of Housing and Community Development (HCD). Consequently, the HousingElement—and the Housing Element Overlay Zone (HEOZ) that was created to meet theTown’s RHNA obligations—was not analyzed in the 2040 General Plan EIR.
The HEOZ materially increased allowable residential densities in specific, concentratedlocations, including areas along Los Gatos Boulevard, in order to accommodate the Town’sRHNA obligations. This pattern of focused high-density development is fundamentallydifferent from the more evenly distributed, town-wide growth pattern assumed and
analyzed in the 2040 General Plan EIR.
CEQA Guidelines §§ 15152 and 15168 permit tiering only when the subsequent projectremains within the scope of a valid prior EIR. When the foundational planning assumptionsare no longer in effect—and where a major new planning program such as the HEOZ wasnot evaluated—the associated EIR becomes legally and factually inapplicable. Therefore, theTown may not rely on the 2040 General Plan EIR to satisfy CEQA for the North 40 Phase IIproject.
2. The North 40 Specific Plan EIR Is Outdated and Noncompliant with Current CEQA StandardsThe North 40 Specific Plan EIR is similarly outdated and legally deficient. It was prepared prior to the enactment of CEQA Guidelines § 15064.3, which mandates the use of VehicleMiles Traveled (VMT)—not Level of Service (LOS)—as the metric for analyzingtransportation impacts under CEQA.
Because the North 40 EIR does not evaluate VMT impacts, it fails to meet current CEQArequirements. Additionally, the transportation assumptions in the North 40 EIR no longerreflect existing or reasonably foreseeable development in the area, rendering its tripprojections and mitigation measures obsolete.
3. The Town’s Failure to Adopt a Certified Housing Element Triggered Builder’s RemedyThe Town failed to adopt a state-certified Housing Element by January 31, 2023, as requiredby state law. This triggered the Builder’s Remedy under the Housing Accountability Act,which limits the Town’s ability to deny or condition qualifying housing proposals.
As a result, the Town has received multiple Builder’s Remedy applications proposingsignificantly higher residential densities than those analyzed in either the 2040 GeneralPlan EIR or the North 40 Specific Plan EIR. These applications are clustered primarily alongLos Gatos Boulevard, including in proximity to the North 40 project area. The Phase IItransportation study fails to account for this fundamental change in development intensityand pattern.
4. The Cumulative Impacts of Builder’s Remedy Projects Have Not Been AnalyzedCEQA requires a cumulative impacts analysis under Guidelines § 15130 to evaluate whethera proposed project, when considered together with other foreseeable development, wouldcause significant environmental effects. The Phase II study fails to analyze or evenacknowledge the cumulative impacts of high-density Builder’s Remedy projects nowpending along Los Gatos Boulevard.
Given the proximity of these projects to North 40 Phase II, their combined impacts on VMT,traffic congestion, and circulation conditions are both foreseeable and substantial. Withoutthis analysis, the Town lacks a legally adequate basis to conclude that the Phase II projectwill not result in new or more severe transportation impacts than those previouslyanalyzed.
5. Actual Development Exceeds Prior Assumptions and Maximums Established by the North 40Specific Plan and General Plan EIRsThe actual and proposed development within the North 40 area now substantially exceedsboth the assumptions analyzed in the North 40 Specific Plan EIR and 2040 General Plan EIR,as well as the development caps established by the North 40 Specific Plan itself.The adopted North 40 Specific Plan allows for a maximum of 270 residential units, alongwith up to 250,000 square feet of office or hotel uses and 400,000 square feet of othercommercial uses.
Notably, even the two higher-density alternatives studied in the North 40 Specific Plan EIRevaluated a maximum of only 364 residential units. The current scale of developmentsignificantly exceeds the scope of any scenario considered in the environmental review.
Specifically:
Phase I has already delivered 320 residential units and approximately 57,500 squarefeet of commercial space;Phase II proposes an additional 450 residential units, along with approximately15,000 square feet of retail and 3,000 square feet of civic space; A Builder’s Remedy application for 14849 Los Gatos Boulevard proposes 117additional units; andThe remaining undeveloped parcels within the Specific Plan Area, as identified in theHousing Element site inventory, are assumed to accommodate another 103 units.
This results in a cumulative total of 990 residential units proposed or constructed—nearlythree times the amount allowed under the Specific Plan and far beyond what was studied inany of the project alternatives.
Neither the North 40 Specific Plan EIR nor the 2040 General Plan EIR evaluated theenvironmental impacts, particularly transportation and Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), ofthis scale or intensity of development. Because this level of development materially exceedsprior planning assumptions, the Town is required to prepare a subsequent or supplementalEIR under CEQA Guidelines § 15162, with a specific focus on cumulative impacts fromnearly 1,000 residential units now planned for the area.
Conclusion:The Town of Los Gatos cannot rely on either the 2040 General Plan EIR or the North 40Specific Plan EIR to satisfy its CEQA obligations for the North 40 Phase II project. The repealof the 2040 Land Use Element; the outdated transportation metrics in the North 40 EIR; theunexamined impacts of the HEOZ; and the pending high-density Builder’s Remedyapplications clustered along Los Gatos Boulevard each independently necessitatepreparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR under CEQA Guidelines § 15162.
We urge the Town to revise its CEQA approach to ensure full compliance with legalrequirements for environmental analysis, transparency, and public review.
Sincerely,
Los Gatos Community Alliance Facts Matter; Transparency Matters; Honesty Matters
www.lgca.town
From:
To:Gabrielle Whelan
Cc:Town Manager; Joel Paulson;
Subject:Re: Legal Effect of Non-Compliant Housing Element Adopted January 30, 2023
Date:Monday, July 14, 2025 9:04:31 AM
Attachments:image.png
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
MEMORANDUM
To: Gabrielle Whelan, Town AttorneyFrom: Los Gatos Community AllianceDate: July 13, 2025
Re: Legal Effect of Non-Compliant Housing Element Adopted January 30, 2023, onDevelopment Applications Deemed Complete April 18, 2023, Including Applicability ofGovernment Code § 65589.5(o)
I. IssueCan a development application deemed complete on April 18, 2023, lawfully rely on theTown’s January 30, 2023, adopted housing element, which HCD determined to be out ofcompliance on April 14, 2023—including through any vesting claims under GovernmentCode § 65589.5(o)?
II. Short AnswerNo. A housing element deemed non-compliant by HCD lacks legal effect for purposes ofvesting or development consistency. Government Code § 65589.5(o) only permits vesting in“valid” standards—those that were in effect and legally enforceable at the time ofapplication. The April 14, 2023, HCD determination renders the January 30, 2023, elementpresumptively invalid, barring reliance on it. Under AB 1886 and existing law, this invaliditytriggers the builder’s remedy, not vested zoning rights based on the defective housingelement.
III. Key Facts
The Town adopted a new housing element on January 30, 2023.
On April 14, 2023, HCD issued a formal determination that the element was not in substantialcompliance with Housing Element Law.The development application was deemed complete on April 18, 2023.The applicant asserts a vested right based on the adopted but non-compliant element’s
provisions, presumably citing Government Code § 65589.5(o).
IV. Legal Analysis
A. HCD Compliance is Determinative Under State LawUnder California law, an adopted housing element has no legal effect unless it is insubstantial compliance with the Housing Element Law. That compliance must beaffirmatively determined by HCD. (Gov. Code § 65585(f); see also Fonseca v. City of Gilroy(2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 1174, 1182.) The courts have consistently rejected the doctrine of“self-certification.” (See also La Cañada Flintridge v. HCD, 2023.)
Moreover, AB 2023 (effective Jan. 1, 2024) codifies a rebuttable presumption that a non-compliant housing element is invalid for all legal purposes, including zoning consistencyand CEQA tiering. This presumption applies retroactively to pending applications that seekto rely on elements found out of compliance by HCD.
B.Vesting Requires a Valid Legal Framework at Time of ApplicationUnder Government Code § 65589.5(o), applicants vest in the “standards and criteria” ineffect at the time a complete application is submitted. However, those standards must belawfully enforceable. The Town’s general plan—of which the housing element is amandatory component—was legally deficient as of April 14, 2023. That deficiency rendersthe entire general plan internally inconsistent and legally inadequate. (See LesherCommunications, Inc. v. City of Walnut Creek (1990) 52 Cal.3d 531, 544.)
C.Government Code § 65589.55 (AB 1886) Clarifies Applicable Vesting LawAB 1886, enacted as Government Code § 65589.55, provides: “A housing element or amendmentshall be considered in substantial compliance... only if the element or amendment was insubstantial compliance, as determined by the department or a court of competent jurisdiction,when a preliminary application... was submitted.” (§ 65589.55(a))
“This section does not constitute a change in, but is declaratory of, existing law.” (§65589.55(b))
This confirms that a developer cannot rely on a non-compliant housing element to assertvested rights under § 65589.5(o). Because HCD’s April 14, 2023, finding applies retroactively to the date of preliminary application, no legal vesting occurred. The correct consequence is that the project qualifies under the builder’s remedy, not under the terms of the invalid element.
D. Zoning in Effect at Time of Application Controls Base DensityGiven that the Housing Element cannot be relied upon, the Town must fall back on thezoning regulations in effect as of April 18, 2023—which permitted a maximum of 20dwelling units per acre. This figure governs both consistency determinations andcalculations of base density under the State Density Bonus Law (Gov. Code § 65915(f)).Courts and HCD technical assistance letters confirm that density bonus calculations must begrounded in lawfully adopted and enforceable zoning.
E. Conclusion and Recommendations
Because the January 30, 2023, Housing Element was not in substantial compliance at thetime of application, it cannot form the basis for vesting, project consistency, or densitybonus calculations. The Town must evaluate the application against the prior zoningstandards—namely, 20 units per acre—and not any provisions of the invalid element.
Accordingly:1. The applicant cannot claim vested rights under § 65589.5(o) based on the January 2023Housing Element.2. The application should be analyzed under zoning in effect as of April 18, 2023.3. The applicable base density for the purposes of any density bonus is 20 du/acre.4. The builder’s remedy, rather than vested rights, governs any entitlement claims arisingfrom the Town’s lapse in Housing Element compliance.
We respectfully urge the Town to withhold any discretionary action until HCD responds tothe pending Technical Assistance Request submitted by the Los Gatos Community Alliance.
We remain available to provide further analysis or assistance as needed.
Sincerely,
Jak Van Nada - in behalf of Los Gatos Community Alliance Facts Matter; Transparency Matters; Honesty Matters
www.lgca.town
Rebuttal to FAQ Response 3 – Differing Definitions of Density
The Town’s position that different standards apply for Housing Element compliance (“gross
lot area”) versus state Density Bonus Law (“gross acreage”) introduces an unnecessary andimpermissible duality. Both statutory frameworks—Housing Element Law and the DensityBonus Law—share a common goal of maximizing residential production. Artificiallyreducing site capacity in the Housing Element by using a narrower, undefined metric suchas “gross lot area” directly contradicts the state’s intent and may invalidate the HousingElement inventory under HCD review.
HCD guidance repeatedly emphasizes that methodological consistency is necessary acrossdensity calculations to ensure transparent and enforceable RHNA compliance. Deviatingfrom the statewide standard frustrates these objectives and potentially results in siteinventories being rejected for undercounting development potential.
Rebuttal to FAQ Response 4 – RHNA and “No Net Loss” Compliance
The FAQ fails to acknowledge the significant shortfall in affordable housing units proposedin the North 40 Phase II project relative to the site’s assumptions in the certified HousingElement. The Housing Element assumed 474 total units, including 365 affordable unitsacross all income categories. In contrast, the proposed project includes only approximately77 affordable units, a reduction of nearly 80% in low- and moderate-income capacity.Under Government Code § 65863 (“No Net Loss”), the Town bears the burden ofdemonstrating that adequate capacity remains across all income levels. General assertionsof adequate sites are insufficient. The Town must specifically identify developable parcels,by income category, that can accommodate the lost capacity within the 6th cycle. If itcannot, it must rezone equivalent sites within 180 days or risk enforcement by HCD or theAttorney General. The Town’s failure to assess or disclose these shortfalls in the FAQundermines the credibility of its RHNA compliance.
Rebuttal to FAQ Response 5 – Vesting to an Uncertified Housing Element
The suggestion that the North 40 project vested to the January 30, 2023 Housing Elementsimply because it was “adopted” misstates the law. Vesting under SB 330 and GovernmentCode § 65589.5(o) depends not just on timing, but on legal enforceability. A HousingElement that has not been found in substantial compliance with state law by HCD or a courtis not enforceable for purposes of denying or regulating Builder’s Remedy projects.The Town cannot pick and choose when to treat the element as enforceable. If the elementwas noncompliant for Builder’s Remedy purposes, it is likewise invalid for vestingdevelopment standards under SB 330. To hold otherwise creates a legal contradiction andinvites litigation challenging the Town’s selective enforcement.
Rebuttal to FAQ Response 6 – Inadequate CEQA Review
While the FAQ acknowledges that an Initial Study is being prepared under CEQA, this stepalone is inadequate given the project’s scale, policy implications, and departure from whatwas analyzed in the 2040 General Plan EIR. CEQA requires a Subsequent or SupplementalEIR when new information or substantial changes—such as density changes, increasedenvironmental impacts, or cumulative effects—arise that were not addressed in the prioranalysis
Given the concentration of SB 330 and Builder’s Remedy projects in Los Gatos and the TownCouncil’s own admission that cumulative impacts must be studied, the Initial Study shouldbe followed by a full EIR to comply with CEQA and avoid piecemealing.
Conclusion
The Town’s FAQ attempts to rationalize inconsistencies in how it interprets and applies
state housing law, density calculations, and RHNA compliance. However, thoseinterpretations fall short under scrutiny of statutory language, HCD guidance, and legal
precedent. To resolve these disputes, it is essential that the Town seek formal technicalassistance from HCD and refrain from advancing or approving development projects that
rest on legally questionable assumptions.
Let's not lose site of one of the most important objectives of the Housing Element was toincrease the number of affordable units in Los Gatos. Unfortunately, it seems that we arebeing met with resistance from the Town. We are perplexed in that we seem to be arguing against the very parties whom all wanted more affordable housing early on in the process.
Jak Van Nada - Los Gatos Community Alliance Facts Matter; Transparency Matters; Honesty Matters
www.lgca.town
June 8, 2025
California Department of Housing and Community Development
Attn: Housing Accountability Unit
2020 W. El Camino Avenue
Sacramento, CA 95833
Re: Request for Technical Assistance – North 40 Phase II Project in Town of Los Gatos
Dear Housing Accountability Unit:
On behalf of concerned stakeholders and community members, we respectfully request
technical assistance from the California Department of Housing and Community
Development (HCD) regarding the proposed North 40 Phase II development project
(Architecture and Site Application S-23-031, Subdivision Application M-23-005) located
at 14859 Los Gatos Blvd and 16270 Burton Road in the Town of Los Gatos, Santa
Clara County.
The North 40 Phase II project is currently under review by the Town, and the first public
hearing before the Planning Commission occurred on April 30, 2025. We are requesting
this technical assistance to aid the Town in its timely decision-making and ensure
proper application of state housing laws.
This request arises due to unresolved legal and policy questions about the project’s
compliance with state housing laws, including the Housing Accountability Act (HAA),
State Density Bonus Law (SDBL), and Government Code Section 65589.5(o).
Specifically, we seek clarification on the following six issues:
1. Applicability of the January 31, 2023 Housing Element
The applicant contends that the Town’s January 31, 2023 Housing Element governs this
project because it was formally adopted and in effect when the applicant submitted its
preliminary application on April 18, 2023. The applicant cites Government Code §
65589.5(o), which allows housing projects to vest under the ordinances, policies, and
standards in effect on the date of the preliminary application.
However, we request HCD’s guidance on whether a housing element that had been
adopted by the Town but already found noncompliant by HCD prior to the preliminary
application date qualifies as an “ordinance, policy, or standard” under Government
Code § 65589.5(o) for vesting purposes.
Specifically:
On April 14, 2023, HCD issued a letter stating that the Town’s January 31, 2023
Housing Element did not substantially comply with State Housing Element Law
and required revisions.
The Town submitted multiple revisions in response to HCD’s comments.
On May 3, 2024, HCD issued a letter indicating it would certify the Town’s
revised Housing Element once adopted.
The Town adopted a revised Housing Element on June 4, 2024.
HCD certified the Housing Element on July 10, 2024.
HCD has emphasized that jurisdictions do not have the authority to “self-certify”
Housing Elements; state certification is required for legal effect. Because the January
31, 2023 element had already been deemed noncompliant before the preliminary
application was submitted, it is unclear whether the project may lawfully rely upon it for
purposes of vesting rights.
We therefore request HCD’s guidance as to whether the applicant may rely on the
noncompliant January 2023 Housing Element, or whether the project must be reviewed
under Builder’s Remedy provisions due to the lack of a certified element at the time of
application.
2. Applicable Zoning at Time of Application
The preliminary application was deemed complete on April 18, 2023. At that time, the
zoning for the project site was governed by the North 40 Specific Plan (NF-SP), which
allowed a maximum density of 20 dwelling units per acre.
In December 2023, the Town adopted a zoning ordinance that amended the Town Code
to replace the Affordable Housing Overlay Zone (AHOZ) with a new Housing Element
Overlay Zone (HEOZ). The HEOZ included the North 40 Specific Plan area and
implemented Housing Element site inventory assumptions allowing higher residential
densities.
We seek HCD’s technical assistance to determine whether the project may rely on the
subsequently adopted HEOZ, or whether Government Code § 65589.5(o) limits the
project to the development standards—including density limits—in effect at the time the
preliminary application was filed.
3. Status as a Single or Separate Housing Development Under State Law
The project proposes 450 units, but these are divided between two distinct components:
Grosvenor proposes to develop 383 units (373 market rate and 10 affordable).
Eden Housing, a separate nonprofit developer, is proposed to construct 67
affordable units on a 1.25-acre parcel that will be donated by Grosvenor.
There is no enforceable agreement between the developers to carry out these projects
as a single development. The Eden Housing component is contingent upon securing
separate financing and would be independently managed. We request HCD’s guidance
on whether this constitutes a single integrated housing development under the HAA and
SDBL, or whether these must be treated as two separate developments.
This distinction is important because Grosvenor’s portion alone falls below the13%
affordability threshold for Builder’s Remedy and below the minimum affordability needed
for SDBL incentives.
4. Use of Net Acreage to Satisfy Minimum Density and Site Capacity
The applicant claims the project meets the Housing Element’s minimum density
requirement of 30 dwelling units per acre by proposing 450 units on a net acreage of
14.47 acres, which excludes public streets and infrastructure. This results in a claimed
density of 31.1 du/ac. However, the actual gross acreage of the site is 15.65 acres,
which yields a density of only 28.8 du/ac—below the minimum required.
The adopted Housing Element includes a specific definition of residential density:
Density. Residential developments are regulated by an allowed density range
(minimum and maximum) measured in “dwelling units per acre.” Residential
density is calculated by dividing the number of housing units on the site (excluding
accessory units) by the gross lot area.
This definition mandates the use of gross acreage, not net, for calculating consistency
with minimum and maximum density limits.
State law is equally clear. Government Code § 65915(f) provides that base density
under the State Density Bonus Law must be calculated using gross acreage. HCD’s
December 2022 letter to the City of Watsonville further clarifies:
Gross acreage includes all land owned in fee, including land encumbered by
easements for public roads, utilities, or rights-of-way.
Areas set aside for future infrastructure, easements, slopes, wetlands, or
dedications must still be included in the gross acreage calculation.
Assessor parcel maps are not reliable for this purpose; legal land surveys must be
used to capture the full gross parcel.
Government Code § 65915(r) requires that the SDBL be interpreted liberally in
favor of producing the maximum number of housing units.
Applied here:
Grosvenor proposes 383 units on 14.40 acres = 26.6 du/ac
Eden Housing proposes 67 units on 1.25 acres = 53.6 du/ac
Total project = 450 units on 15.65 acres = 28.8 du/ac
A-1
ATTACHMENT A
14859 Los Gatos Blvd and 16270 Burton Road
(APN 424-07-009, -053, -081, -094, -095, -115, -116, and -052)
Architecture and Site Application S-23-031
Subdivision Application M-23-005
Proposed Density Bonus Concessions, Waivers, and Parking Reductions
Although the Project meets many of the General Plan policies, including the land use and density
designated in the Housing Element, and the guidelines of the North 40 Specific Plan, the
Applicant seeks incentives or concessions, waivers, and parking reductions pursuant to the State
Density Bonus Law (Gov. Code § 65915).
The Project will dedicate 77 of its 450 units to be rented to lower income households, as defined
in Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code at a monthly cost that is an affordable rent, as
defined in Section 50053 of the Health and Safety Code. Note that this level of affordability
equals 21 percent of the Project’s market rate units, which exceeds the affordability requirements
in the Town’s BMP Ordinance. In addition, by providing this level of affordability, the Project
is entitled to the following benefits under State Density Bonus Law:
• A density bonus of 30.5% above the otherwise maximum allowable residential density
(Gov. Code § 65915(f)(1);
• Two incentives or concessions (Gov. Code § 65915(d)(2)(B); for purposes of the State
Density Bonus Law, the terms “incentives” and “concessions” are interchangeable, and
this summary will use “concession” going forward);
• Waivers or reductions for “any development standard that will have the effect of
physically precluding the construction of a development” that provides enough affordable
housing to qualify for the State Bonus Law (Gov. Code § 65915(e)); and
• Minimum parking requirements, inclusive of guest parking and including parking
provided in uncovered or tandem spaces, that do not exceed specified ratios. (Gov. Code
§ 65915(p).)
As detailed below, the Applicant proposes to use the State Density Bonus Law’s concessions,
rs, and parking reduction benefits to allow the development of the Project d I
addition, the Applicant reserves the right to modify the request to include different or additional
concessions and waivers if needed to address additional applicable development standards.
Concessions
1. Allow residential uses on the ground floor of buildings. Section 2.5.10c of the North 40
Specific Plan prohibits residential uses on the ground floor of buildings in the Northern District,
which covers the Project site. Because the Housing Element designates the Project site as a site
that is suitable for very low, low‐, or moderate‐income households at a residential density of at
least 30 du/ac, inconsistency with this zoning standard is not a basis to deny the Project under
Government Code section 65589.5(d)(5)(A). Accordingly, we do not believe that this standard is
A-2
applicable to the Project. However, to the extent it applies, the Project proponent requests a
concession to allow residential uses on the ground floor of buildings.
Although portions of the Project incorporate commercial elements, it is not financially feasible to
develop commercial spaces on the ground floor of all the buildings on the Project site. Therefore,
eliminating this development standard will result in cost savings to help provide the level of
affordability proposed.1
2. Potential Reduction in Private Open Space. (Townhomes only) The Town adopted
“Objective Design Standards for Qualifying Multi‐Family and Mixed‐Use Residential
Development” that applies to multi‐family and residential mixed‐use developments. Objective
Design Standard A.11.1.b requires each ground floor dwelling unit to have a minimum of 120
square feet of usable private recreation space. As currently designed, the Townhomes satisfy this
requirement through the provision of private roof decks. However, to reduce construction costs,
it may be necessary for the Project to remove some or all of the roof decks before submitting for
building permits, which would cause the Project to fall short of the open space standard.
Therefore, the Project requests a concession to remove private roof decks from the design at the
Applicant’s election to result in cost savings to help provide the level of affordability proposed.
Waivers
When considering the following proposed waivers, it is important to remember that “[i]n no case
may [the Town] apply any development standard that will have the effect of physically
precluding the construction of a development [that qualifies for the State Density Bonus Law] at
the densities” allowed and with the requested concessions. (See Gov. Code, § 65915(e)(1).)
Cases have confirmed that once a project qualifies for a density bonus, “the law provides a
developer with broad discretion to design projects with additional amenities even if doing so
would conflict with local development standards.” (Bankers Hill 150 v. City of San Diego (2022)
74 Cal.App.5th 755, 774-75; see also Wollmer v. City of Berkeley (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 1329,
1346–1347 [waivers must be granted even though redesigning thee project to decrease amenities
would reduce the need for waivers].)
1. Increased Maximum Height. Section 2.5.2 of the North 40 Specific Plan and referenced in
Policy LU5 sets a maximum building height of 30 feet across the Project site and Section
2 5 7(b) sets a maximum building height of 25 feet for buildings located within 50 feet of Los
Gatos Boulevard. The Project requires a waiver to allow the Affordable Multifamily (Building
G) units to achieve a maximum height of 63 feet measured from the lowest natural grade to
highest roof surface or 61 feet when measured from the proposed grade, and the town home units
to achieve a maximum height of 49 feet when measured from the lowest natural grade or 44 feet
when measured from lowest proposed grade, and the Mixed‐Income Multifamily (Building E)
units to achieve a maximum height of 100 feet from when measured from the lowest natural
grade to the highest roof surface or approximately 94 feet when measured from the lowest
1 See HCD Notice of Violation to City of Elk Grove (October 12, 2022), which concludes that allowing residential
ground floor development in mixed use areas that otherwise require ground floor commercial uses results in actual
and identifiable cost reductions such that refusal to approve a concession would violate the State Density Bonus
Law.
A-3
proposed grade. It should be noted that Building E is approximately 89 feet when measured from
Los Gatos Boulevard and that detailed measurements are included in the updated architectural
sheets in the attached revised drawings (Planning Comments 18, 27 and 29). The Specific Plan’s
development standards do not accommodate the Project’s proposed density, which is allowed
pursuant to the adopted Housing Element. Increased height is necessary for each proposed
building typology to accommodate the proposed unit count and necessary parking facilities
across the Project site.2, 3
2. Modified Street Sections. Section 4.13.3 of the North 40 Specific Plan defines a 40’ road
section for Section 6d of North A Street with two 12’ drive lanes and two 8’ parking lanes. The
Project proposes wider sidewalks, bicycle lanes, and reduced lane widths; accommodating all of
the proposed facilities in the street would require additional right of way that would reduce the
amount of developable area for buildings, resulting in a lower unit count. Therefore, the Project
proponent requests a waiver from the required street section dimensions.
3. Deviations from Objective Design Standards. The Project has been designed to comply with as
many of the Objective Design Standards as feasible while meeting the unit count called for in the
Housing Element; however, to physically fit the Project as designed at the density allowed, the
following standards must be waived:
• A.2.1. (100% affordable multifamily housing, townhomes, and commercial buildings
only) Short-term bicycle parking cannot be accommodated within 50' of each building
entry while maintaining adequate space for residential density and proposed open space.
In the alternative, the project distributes bike parking throughout the site to balance even
distribution and convenience, while also supporting active community use.
• A.2.2. (100% affordable multifamily housing, mixed-use multifamily, and townhomes)
Long-term bicycle parking is provided at one space per unit. To maintain adequate space
for residential density and proposed open space, short-term bicycle parking is provided at
a ratio of one space per 2,000 square feet of non-residential floor area.
• A.3.4.e. (100% affordable multifamily housing and mixed-use multifamily only) To
maintain adequate space for residential density and proposed open space, long‐term
bicycle spaces are proposed to be accommodated with stacked parking. Although the
proposed bicycle racks would not meet the Objective Design Standards’ dimensions, a
reduction is necessary to provide adequate long-term bicycle parking without reducing
the Project’s residential density.
• A.5.1. (Commercial building only) The project is designed to prioritize the pedestrian
experience and active ground-floor retail uses where the buildings have frontage on C1
Street, D4 Street, and the Pedestrian Paseo, which is proposed as a Project amenity
serving the public and future Project residents. It is necessary to locate surface parking
2 In some cases, the height waivers proposed may exceed the more precise heights shown on the architectural plans.
We propose rounding the height up to nearest foot to allow for some variance between the current plans and final
construction plans.
3 See HCD Notice of Violation to City and County of San Francisco (December 29, 2022), which concludes that it is
a violation of the State Density Bonus Law to approve a project subject to a condition of approval that the applicant
reduce the height proposed as a waiver.
A-4
between the buildings and Los Gatos Boulevard, otherwise the Project would need to be
redesigned to remove the proposed amenity or reduce its residential density.
• A.6.3, (Mixed-use multifamily only) The multifamily building has a parking structure,
and a pedestrian access gate cannot be provided without redesigning the Project and
affecting its density. Pedestrians can access the exterior by using an elevator, corridor or
stairs.
• A.10.2. (Mixed-use multifamily and townhomes only) The Project requires a new
unbroken retaining wall between C5 Street and the neighboring property so long as the
adjacent grade remains lower than the Project Site’s grade to support development at the
permitted density.
• A.11.1.b. (100% affordable multifamily housing and mixed-use multifamily only) The
100% affordable multifamily building cannot accommodate balconies and cannot meet
the private open space requirements while maintaining the unit count. The mixed-use
multifamily building can accommodate balconies on only 49% of the units (126 units)
without reducing Project density.
• A.12.1. (Mixed-use multifamily and commercial buildings only) The Project proposes a
Paseo to connect Los Gatos Boulevard to the Meadow, which would house the ground
floor retail consistent with the Project’s first concession request and serve as a Project
amenity serving the public and future Project residents. Providing 75 percent of any
street-facing façade would require a Project redesign to remove the proposed amenity and
conflict with its concession request.
• B.1.1. (Townhomes only) The primary street-facing façade of the townhomes complies
with B1.1.1b, c, and f. However, since each facade of the townhomes faces a street,
depending on siting, it is not possible for the townhomes to comply with the requirement
that all street-facing facades incorporate three of the identified design solutions.
• B.1.2. (100% affordable multifamily housing and mixed-use multifamily only) An upper-
story setback would reduce the density of the Project.
• B.3.1. (Mixed-use multifamily only) The mixed‐use multifamily building (E1) cannot
comply with the requirement to install horizontal eave breaks every 40 feet of building
façade without redesigning the Project and reducing its density.
• B.4.1. (Townhomes only) Townhomes comply at Front Facade of each building, but
redesigning the Project to differentiate the base of the buildings at the Rear/Garage or
Side Facades would affect the overall residential capacity by reducing the building form
and floor area for the Project’s residential uses.
• B.4.3. (100% affordable multifamily housing and townhomes only) The 100% affordable
multifamily building (6 points) and the townhomes (14 points) cannot reach 16 points
through street‐facing façade plan variation while maintaining the unit count.
• B.4.4. (Townhomes only) The Project proposes the Meadow as an amenity serving the
public and future Project residents. Townhomes H1 and H2 are designed to face the
Meadow rather than the street to activate this project amenity. As a result, the garage
doors on these two townhomes exceed 40 percent of the length of the façade; otherwise,
the Project would need to be designed to modify the proposed amenity or reduce its
residential density.
• B.4.6.b. (Commercial building only) The Project proposes a Paseo to connect Los Gatos
Boulevard to the Meadow, which would house the ground floor retail consistent with the
Project’s first concession request and serve as a Project amenity serving the public and
A-5
future Project residents. To activate the Paseo and accommodate the design of this
Project amenity consistent with the Project’s concession request, the commercial
buildings deviate from the façade requirements.
• B.4.10. (Townhome F3 only) Townhome B3 is adjacent to a single-family use and cannot
be designed to set back five additional feet from the façade plan of the lower floor
without reducing the project’s residential development capacity.
• B.4.11. (Mixed-use multifamily building and townhomes only) The mixed-use
multifamily building’s balconies extend into the airspace beyond the building footprint,
as does the balcony for Townhome F3. This encroachment must be allowed to
accommodate the project’s residential density and open space amenities.
• B.4.13. (Mixed-use multifamily building only) The mixed‐use multifamily building (E1)
cannot comply with the façade requirement without redesigning the Project and reducing
its density.
4. BMP Program Standards. As noted above, because the Project is consistent with the Housing
Element’s designated density for the Property and because it reserves 77 of its units as affordable
to lower income households, the Housing Accountability Act prohibits the Town from denying
the Project based on inconsistencies with zoning standards, including the Town’s BMP Program.
However, to the extent applicable, we request a waiver from the BMP Program requirement to
provide affordable units proportionately in the same unit type mix as the market rate units and to
have the units be dispersed throughout the Property. Because the Project would involve a
partnership with a non‐profit developer to provide affordable housing units using tax credits and
other financing mechanisms that require the affordable units be consolidated, compliance with
the BMP Program requirements would physically preclude development of the Project.
Likewise, requiring larger affordable units would result in few units per building, reducing the
Project’s density.
Parking Reductions
Consistent with the standards established in subdivision (p) of Government Code section 65915,
the Applicant proposes that the mixed-use multifamily housing building and the townhomes be
subject to the following minimum parking ratios, inclusive of guest parking:
• Zero to one bedroom: one onsite parking space;
Two to three bedrooms: one and one‐half onsite parking spaces; and
• Four and more bedrooms: two and one‐half parking spaces.
Note that the 100% affordable multifamily housing building complies with the Town’s parking
standards, which require less parking than the State Density Bonus Law. Therefore, this portion
of the request is not applicable to the affordable housing component of the Project.
From:
To:Town Manager
Cc:Matthew Hudes; Gabrielle Whelan; Joel Paulson
Subject:Requesting Technical Assistance from HCD
Date:Monday, June 9, 2025 4:44:15 PM
Attachments:Request for Technical Assistance - North 40 Phase II Project Final to HCD June 9 2025.pdf
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
Today we filed a request for technical assistance from HCD regarding a number of outstanding policy andlegal issues arising from the North 40 Phase II development application. We have previously suggestedthe Town seek technical assistance from HCD for a number of these issues but to our knowledge norequests have been made. Additionally we have asked the Town for clarification regarding these issuesbut never received a reply. Given the importance of this development application, asking HCD fortechnical assistance seemed extremely prudent.
We are providing you a copy of the request for your files.
Thank you
Los Gatos Community Alliance Facts Matter; Transparency Matters; Honesty Matters
www.lgca.town
From:
To:Gabrielle Whelan
Cc:Town Manager; Joel Paulson;
Subject:Subject: Urgent Clarification Required on Critical Issues from Our 7/8/25 Meeting
Date:Monday, July 14, 2025 8:40:58 AM
Attachments:image.png
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
Dear Gabrielle,
We appreciate the opportunity to engage in a productive discussion during our recent meeting. However, significant
unresolved concerns regarding legal compliance and procedural integrity necessitate further clarification to prevent
serious risks to the Town’s housing obligations and potential legal challenges.
We respectfully request your prompt attention to the following issues raised during our meeting, each of which
carries substantial implications for the Town’s compliance with state housing law and the integrity of the current
project.
1. Use of Net Acreage in Housing Element (HE) Compliance
You indicated that, despite the HE explicitly defining “density” based on “gross lot area,” the Town’s zoning
code permits the use of “net lot area” to determine HE compliance. This apparent prioritization of the zoning
code over the HE’s clear definition raises serious concerns about legal consistency. Could you provide the
precise statutory or legal authority justifying this deviation from the HE’s defined term? Additionally, please
identify the specific zoning code section governing this calculation. The HE’s unambiguous reliance on “gross
lot area” suggests that using “net lot area” undermines the HE’s intent and may expose the Town to legal
scrutiny for non-compliance with state housing requirements.
2. Inconsistency in Density Computation Between HE and SDBL
A glaring inconsistency exists in the applicant’s approach to density calculations, which threatens the project’s
compliance with both the HE and the State Density Bonus Law (SDBL). The applicant proposes using “net
acreage” for HE compliance, aligning with the Town’s zoning code, while relying on “gross acreage” for
SDBL calculations, as permitted under Government Code Section 65915(f)(1). This contradictory
methodology directly conflicts with guidance from the California Department of Housing and Community
Development (HCD). Specifically, HCD’s technical assistance letter to the City of Agoura Hills dated July 26,
2023, unequivocally mandates the use of “gross acreage” for determining base density. By adopting divergent
metrics—net acreage for HE and gross acreage for SDBL—the Town risks establishing a legally indefensible
framework that could invalidate project approvals and invite litigation. Could you explain the Town’s rationale
for tolerating this inconsistency and its divergence from HCD’s clear directive? To safeguard compliance and
avoid legal jeopardy, must density not be uniformly calculated using gross acreage, as HCD recommends, for
both HE and SDBL purposes?
3. Impact on HE Site Inventory and RHNA Obligations
The use of “net lot area” for HE compliance significantly reduces the developable land in the HE site
inventory, jeopardizing the Town’s ability to meet its 6th Cycle Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA).
This approach may trigger “net loss” provisions under state law, as outlined in Government Code Section
65583.2, due to insufficient land capacity to accommodate required housing units. Could you confirm whether
this methodology jeopardizes RHNA compliance and, if so, detail the potential consequences for the certified
HE, including decertification or mandatory corrective actions? Failure to address this issue could undermine
the Town’s housing obligations and erode public trust in its planning process.
4. Reliance on the January 31, 2023 Housing Element
The Town’s continued reliance on the January 31, 2023 HE is deeply problematic and exposes the project to
significant legal risks. HCD’s letter dated April 14, 2023, explicitly found the HE non-compliant with state
housing law, highlighting that Program D of the North 40 Specific Plan fails to commit to a minimum density.
The determination of the N 40 Phase II minimum density is central to our concern. Furthermore, the Town
Council’s adoption findings lack substantial evidence and appear flawed, while HCD’s March 16, 2023 memo
prohibits local jurisdictions from self-certifying their housing elements. Notably, HCD’s April 14, 2023
findings predate the N40 application’s completion on April 18, 2023, amplifying their relevance. Approving
development under this non-compliant HE, which has undergone material subsequent changes, invites third-
party legal challenges that could halt the project and incur significant costs. To mitigate these risks, we
strongly urge the Town to suspend action until HCD provides technical assistance to resolve these
deficiencies.
5. CEQA Review Approach
Substantial changes in circumstances and new information, unaddressed in the 2040 General Plan EIR or the
N40 Specific Plan EIR, cast doubt on the validity of relying on these documents for CEQA compliance. This
gap risks violating CEQA’s requirement for a thorough environmental review, potentially exposing the project
to further legal challenges. Could you detail the Town’s strategy for ensuring full CEQA compliance,
including whether a supplemental or subsequent EIR will be prepared to address these new conditions?
We value your expertise and commitment to addressing these concerns. To avert third-party legal challenges, project
delays, and potential non-compliance with state housing mandates, we strongly urge the Town to refrain from taking
action until HCD provides technical assistance to resolve these critical issues.
Jak Van Nada In Behalf Of: Los Gatos Community Alliance Facts Matter; Transparency Matters; Honesty Matters
www.lgca.town
From:
To:
Cc:; Town Manager; Gabrielle Whelan; Joel Paulson; ;
Matthew Hudes
Subject:Subject: Urgent Request for Technical Assistance – North 40 Phase II (Los Gatos)
Date:Monday, July 28, 2025 8:38:59 PM
Attachments:image.png
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
To:
From: Jak Vannada, Los Gatos Community AllianceDate: July 28, 2025
Email – Urgent Request for Technical Assistance
Dear Mr. Ying,
On behalf of the Los Gatos Community Alliance (LGCA), I write to urgently follow up on ourJune 24, 2025 request for technical assistance regarding the North 40 Phase II project— aproposed 450-unit mixed-use development currently pending before the Town of Los Gatos.Our request raises critical legal questions under the Housing Accountability Act (HAA),State Density Bonus Law (SDBL), and the Permit Streamlining Act (PSA). These issues areessential for ensuring lawful and informed decision-making by the Town’s PlanningCommission.
HCD’s Consolidation of LGCA’s Request
We understand from HCD’s June 26, 2025 response that our request was consolidated intoCase No. HAU 1928, which was initiated by Grosvenor Property Americas through itsattorney, Eric Phillips. While we appreciate the acknowledgment, we are concerned that:
- HCD’s own response admits “the subject matter... is not exactly the same,”
- Yet no direct response has been issued to LGCA’s specific legal concerns, and- Without a written reply, critical guidance is being withheld from both the community and - the Planning Commission.
Timing Concerns
We have learned that HCD does not plan to respond to LGCA’s request until after thePlanning Commission’s next meeting, currently expected in late August. This raises seriousquestions:
How can the Planning Commission fairly and lawfully evaluate the application if HCDwithholds technical guidance until after a vote is taken?
Proceeding without state-level clarification risks a legally flawed decision and increases the
likelihood of litigation, which in turn would delay housing production—contrary to HCD’smission.
Hearing Limit and Process Breakdown
Per Government Code § 65905.5, the Town is limited to five public hearings for this project.One hearing has already occurred, even though:
- The staff report was incomplete,- The independent nature of the Eden Housing component was not adequately addressed, and- The report contained non-CEQA-compliant analysis.
Holding a second hearing without full legal clarity from HCD imposes an unnecessaryburden on both the Commission and the public.
Apparent Inequity in HCD Response Times
By contrast, we note that HCD responded promptly and in detail to a technical assistancerequest submitted by Arielle Harris (Cox Castle) on behalf of SummerHill Homes for theSaratoga Road Project—a smaller, 155-unit development. That response was issued justover four months after the request and addressed narrower PSA and SDBL questions.LGCA’s request is similarly grounded, timely, and highly relevant. It deserves the same levelof attention and transparency.
Our Request
We respectfully urge HCD to issue a separate, written response to LGCA’s June 24, 2025request in advance of the next Planning Commission hearing.This is essential to:
- Ensure legal compliance with state housing laws- Promote transparent and informed public review
- Avoid unnecessary litigation and delays in housing production
Sincerely,
Jak Van NadaLos Gatos Community Alliance
From:
To:Gabrielle Whelan
Cc:; Town Manager; Matthew Hudes; Joel Paulson
Subject:Unequal Treatment of North 40 Phase II Projects – Luxe vs. Grosvenor
Date:Sunday, September 14, 2025 9:03:59 AM
Attachments:image.png
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
September 13, 2025
Re: Unequal Treatment of North 40 Phase II Projects – Luxe vs. Grosvenor
Dear Ms. Whelan:
The Los Gatos Community Alliance (LGCA) is concerned about the inconsistent treatment of two housing projects
in the North 40 Phase II Specific Plan Area:
1. The Luxe Builder’s Remedy project at 14849 Los Gatos Boulevard; and
2. The Grosvenor project at 14859 Los Gatos Boulevard and 16270 Burton Road.
This disparity involves differing baseline density standards and uneven application of the Builder’s Remedy, risking
non-compliance with state law and public trust in the planning process.
1. Application Timing and Housing Element Status
Preliminary application dates determine vesting rights and Builder’s Remedy eligibility:
• Luxe Project: Preliminary application submitted September 13, 2023, invoking Builder’s Remedy.
• Grosvenor Project: Preliminary application deemed submitted April 17, 2023, under SB 330; formal
application submitted September 18, 2023, and deemed complete April 17, 2024.
Both applications preceded the Housing Element’s certification on July 10, 2024. As the January 30, 2023, Housing
Element was uncertified (per HCD’s April 14, 2023, letter), it lacked legal effect under Government Code §§
65589.5(d)(5) and 65589.5(o), as affirmed in California Renters Legal Advocacy and Education Fund v. City of San
Mateo (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 820. Thus, both projects vested under the North 40 Specific Plan’s baseline zoning
during non-compliance.
1. Inconsistent Baseline Density and Acreage Calculations
The Town has applied divergent standards:
• Luxe Project: Correctly evaluated at 20 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) per Town Code § 29.80.510(6)(b),
Table 1B, for C1-HEOZ zoning, using gross acreage consistent with the Housing Element site inventory
• Grosvenor Project: Claims a 30 du/ac baseline, citing the uncertified Housing Element, and uses net acreage
(14.47 acres) to calculate 31.1 du/ac for 450 units. The proper density is 28.7 du/ac when using gross acreage
(450 ÷ 15.65) as called for by the certified Housing Element.
As both projects vested during non-certification, the baseline must be 20 du/ac. While net acreage may bepermissible under local zoning, HCD’s site inventory methodology requires gross acreage for consistency.Grosvenor’s reliance on a higher baseline and net acreage creates unequal treatment.
1. Builder’s Remedy Application
The Town recognizes Luxe as a Builder’s Remedy project, allowing zoning flexibility for qualifying affordableprojects under Government Code § 65589.5. Grosvenor, however, proceeds under the North 40 Plan withoutinvoking Builder’s Remedy, relying on an inapplicable Housing Element density. This disparity is arbitrary, as bothprojects vested during non-compliance and must adhere to the same zoning baseline unless qualifying for Builder’sRemedy or density bonuses under Government Code § 65915.
1. Requested Action
To ensure compliance with state law, LGCA requests that the Town:
1. Confirm both projects use the 20 du/ac baseline under Town Code § 29.80.510(6)(b), Table 1B, and grossacreage for density calculations, consistent with HCD methodology.
2. Apply Builder’s Remedy uniformly to qualifying projects, per Government Code § 65589.5.
Addressing these inconsistencies will mitigate risks of HCD enforcement or litigation and uphold fair planningprocesses. LGCA requests a written response clarifying the Town’s position before further project advancement.
Respectfully submitted,
Jak Van Nada - Los Gatos Community Alliance Facts Matter; Transparency Matters; Honesty Matters
www.lgca.town