Los Gatos City Council
January 13, 2026

ITEM NO. 1.

A-6
II. Staff Report Clarifications
A. No Further Environmental Review is Required to Comply with CEQA.

In the “Subject” line on page 1 of the staff report and in the header of Exhibit 22, the staff report says, “Additional Environmental Review is Necessary Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.” We believe this is a typographical error, because the staff report’s analysis and the Initial Study prepared by the Town both demonstrate that no additional environmental review is required. We support this finding, and request that the Town correct the errant references that suggest additional CEQA review is required.

The record contains substantial evidence to support the conclusion that the Project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). The Town prepared and certified a complete EIR that analyzes the impacts of developing projects with the land uses and densities allowed under the 2040 General Plan. Although the land use element of the 2040 General Plan has been rescinded, its analysis is directly relevant and applicable to the Project.

The 2040 General Plan EIR is fully certified, and its conclusions with respect to environmental impacts of future development remain valid. When the Town adopted its Housing Element, the Town’s Environmental Analysis relied on the certified 2040 General Plan EIR to conclude that development consistent with the Housing Element would not have environmental impacts beyond what were analyzed in the 2040 General Plan EIR. Likewise, the Town’s zoning ordinance amendments, including the HEOZ, rely on the 2040 General Plan EIR to comply with CEQA.

The Project includes the exact land uses and density that the Town planned for the Project Site via the Housing Element and the HEOZ, and what the Town analyzed in its EIR.

Various technical studies (air quality, health risk, greenhouse gas, noise, and utilities, among others) have been prepared by technical experts to further demonstrate that the Project would not result in any new or more severe impacts than the Town already analyzed in its prior EIR.

Because the Project is consistent with the Town’s land use and density designations, and because it would not result in any new or more severe environmental impacts than were analyzed in the Town’s certified EIR, it is exempt from further CEQA review under the “Community Plan Exemption.” (Pub. Resources Code § 21083.3; CEQA Guidelines [Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14] § 15183.)
The Community Plan Exemption expressly states that “[i]f a significant offsite or cumulative impact was adequately discussed in the prior EIR, then [Section 15183] may be used as a basis for excluding further analysis of that offsite or cumulative impact.” (CEQA Guidelines § 15183(j).) As discussed below, the Project is consistent with the adopted plans and certified environmental documents, including the 2040 General Plan EIR. The 2040 General Plan EIR analyzed the potential cumulative impacts of each CEQA topic area, and there is no evidence that the Project would result in new or more severe cumulative impacts. Thus, no further cumulative impacts analysis is required.

Attached as Exhibit B is a Supplemental VMT Analysis for the North 40 Phase II Master Plan prepared by technical expert Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc., dated September 11, 2025 (“VMT Memo”). The VMT Memo supplements and reinforces the Town’s conclusion

ITEM NO. 1.

A-7
that the Project would have a less than significant effect on VMT, by demonstrating that even if the Project were analyzed separately and apart from the 2040 General Plan EIR, the Project would not result in a Project-specific or cumulative significant VMT effect according to the Town’s VMT impact criteria. These conclusions support the Town’s conclusions that the Project would not result in any new or more severe transportation impacts (including cumulative impacts) than the Town already analyzed in the 2040 General Plan EIR.

B. The Project is Protected by the HAA as amended by AB 1893.

On page 4 of the staff report, the analysis states that to be “a housing development affordable to lower- or moderate- income households” as defined by the HAA, the project must provide 20 percent of the total units to be sold or rented to lower income households and that the sales prices or rental units cannot exceed 30 percent of 60 percent of area median income. This reflects the version of the HAA that existed prior to January 1, 2025, but it does not correctly reflect the current standards applicable to the Project. On pages 6 and 7 of the staff report, the old version of the HAA findings for denial are presented, and the staff report states “the applicant for this project has not chosen to invoke the provisions of AB 1893. Therefore, the findings enumerated above are the ones that remain relevant to this project.” This is also incorrect.

After AB 1893’s amendments to the HAA took effect on January 1, 2025, the Applicant sent the Town an updated Project description, adjusting the Project to conform with the HAA’s now-current requirements. As defined by the HAA, “a housing development affordable to loweror moderate- income households” includes “a housing development project in which at least 13 percent of the total units, as defined in subparagraph (A) of paragraph (8) of subdivision (o) of Section 65915, are dedicated to lower income households, as defined in Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code.” (Gov. Code § 65589.5(h)(3)(C)(i)(III).) Therefore, the Project only needs to provide 13% of its units as affordable to be eligible for HAA protections, and rents may exceed 30 percent of 60 percent of area median income as provided in the Health and Safety Code. In addition, the applicable HAA findings are as reflected in Section I.D of this letter rather than what is included the staff report.

We ask that these references be clarified for the record. Fortunately, none of these changes affect the staff report’s ultimate conclusion: the Project is consistent with all applicable development standards. We agree with this conclusion, and offer the following supplemental analysis in support of the staff report’s conclusions.

The Town adopted the North 40 Specific Plan in 2015, which designates the Project Site for commercial and office uses. In connection with its adoption of the North 40 Specific Plan, the Town prepared and certified the North 40 Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (“North 40 Specific Plan EIR”), which includes site-specific environmental analysis. The North 40 Specific Plan remains in place and defines the Project Site’s base zoning through the NF-SP zoning designation.

The Los Gatos Town Council adopted the Town of Los Gatos California 2040 General Plan (“2040 General Plan”) and certified the 2040 General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (“2040 General Plan EIR”) on June 30, 2022. The 2040 General Plan redesignated the

ITEM NO. 1.

A-8
Project Site to allow mixed-use multifamily development at 30 du/ac on the Project Site, and the impacts of this development potential were included in the 2040 General Plan EIR’s environmental analysis.

After the Town adopted the 2040 General Plan, Town voters filed a referendum petition to prevent the land use and community design elements from taking effect. On April 2, 2024, the Town Council voted to rescind the land use element and community design elements of the 2040 General Plan. Therefore, the land use and community design element of the 2020 General Plan are currently in effect, along with the remaining elements of the 2040 General Plan. The 2040 General Plan EIR was never challenged, and its analysis of the environmental effects associated with developing with Project Site with residential uses at 30 du/ac remains both valid and relevant.

The Town adopted the first version of its Sixth Cycle Housing Element Update on January 31, 2023, which was adopted and in effect when the Applicant submitted its SB 330 preliminary application for the Project. The Town subsequently revised and re-adopted its Housing Element Update, with the final version certified by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”) on July 10, 2024. Both the initial Housing Element that was adopted and in effect when the Applicant submitted its SB 330 preliminary application for the Project and the re-adopted Housing Element Update designate the Project Site for residential uses with a minimum density of 30 du/ac.3 In connection with the adoption of
each version of its Housing Element, the Town relied on the certified 2040 General Plan EIR, releasing an Environmental Assessment that demonstrates that the land use designations and densities permitted by these regulations were fully analyzed in the 2040 General Plan EIR, and no further environmental review was required to comply with CEQA.

The Town adopted the Housing Element Overlay Zone (“HEOZ”) on March 5, 2024, which designates the Project Site for mixed-use residential development at a density range of 30 to 40 du/ac, with other development standards applicable as defined in the North 40 Specific Plan. As it did in connection with the adoption of the Housing Element, the Town relied on the certified 2040 General Plan EIR when it adopted the HEOZ, finding that development of the uses and densities allowed by the HEOZ would not result in any new or more severe environmental impacts than the 2040 General Plan EIR analyzed. The Project is consistent with the land use designation and density standards of the HEOZ, which were fully analyzed in the 2040 General Plan EIR.

Although the Project is consistent with the Housing Element and zoning land use and density designations for the Project Site, it is not consistent with the land use designation from the 2020 General Plan or the North 40 Specific Plan. However, the Applicant proposes to provide 77 of the Project’s 450 dwelling units at rents affordable to lower income households as defined in Health and Safety Code section 50079.5. Therefore, the Project is “housing for very low, low, or moderate-income households” as defined in the HAA. (Gov. Code § 65589.5(h)(3).) In addition, the Project is consistent with the Housing Element [both the 3 By virtue of filing a complete preliminary application pursuant to Government Code section 65941.1, the Applicant has a vested right to proceed with the Project under the development standards, policies, and fees that were in place as of April 18, 2023.

ITEM NO. 1.

A-9
version in place at the time of the Applicant’s preliminary application and the version certified by HCD and currently in effect] and zoning land use and density designations for the Project Site. Because the Town identified the Project Site “as suitable or available for very low, low-, or moderate-income households” in its Housing Element, and the Project is consistent with the Housing Element’s specified density, the Town may not “disapprove or conditionally approve” the Project, notwithstanding potential inconsistencies with the Town’s “zoning ordinance [including the North 40 Specific Plan] and general plan land use designation.” (Gov. Code § 65589.5(d)(5)(A).) This means that the Town’s Housing Element overrides the 2020 General Plan and the North 40 Specific Plan’s requirements as applied to the Project.

As a separate and independent basis to find the Project is consistent with all applicable development standards, note that the Housing Accountability Act says that “[a]ny project that complies with [paragraph 6 of subdivision (f) of Section 65589.5] shall be deemed consistent, compliant, and in conformity with an applicable plan . . . for all purposes, and shall not be considered or treated as a nonconforming lot, use, or structure for any purpose.”4 (Gov. Code §
65589.5(f)(6)(D)(iii).) Paragraph (6) of subdivision (f) applies to projects that meet the HAA’s definition of a “builder’s remedy project.” The Project meets each definitional criterion specified in Government Code section 65589.5(h)(11) as follows:
• As detailed above, the Project is a housing development project that provides housing for very low, low-, or moderate-income households. • On the date the Project submitted a complete preliminary application, the Town did not have a Housing Element that HCD certified as in substantial compliance with state housing element law.
• The Project’s density of 31.1 du/ac does not exceed the density that is the greater of 45 du/ac, three times the density specified in the General Plan, or the density specified for the Project Site in the Town’s Housing Element. • The Project is not located within one-half mile of a commuter rail station and its density of 31.1 du/ac exceeds a minimum density of 15 du/ac. • The Project Site does not abut a site where more than one-third of the square footage on the site has been used, within the past three years, by a heavy industrial use, or a Title V industrial use.

Therefore, the HAA deems the Project consistent with all applicable Town development standards for all purposes, including CEQA. (Gov. Code § 65589.5(f)(6)(D)(iii).) 4 HCD has opined that projects deemed consistent with standards under Gov. Code § 65589.5(f)(6)(D)(iii) are eligible for CEQA exemptions that require consistency with applicable plans and policies. See HCD’s February 7, 2025, letter to the City of San José re: AB 1893 Builder’s Remedy and CEQA Class 32 Infill Exemption available here: https://www hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-and-community/HAU/sanjose-hau-1359-ta-ab1893- 02062025.pdf.)

ITEM NO. 1.

A-10
C. Replacement Housing Obligations
The Applicant agrees and acknowledges that the Housing Crisis Act requires it to replace “protected units” currently located on the Project Site in the Project and to provide relocation benefits to existing tenants. As has been discussed with Town staff previously, the Applicant has already retained an expert relocation consultant to begin the process of assessing tenant housing needs and analyzing necessary relocation benefits.

In the staff report, condition of approval 7.a would require the Applicant to fund a relocation consultant hired by the Town. We ask that the condition acknowledge that the Applicant’s consultant – Autotemp Services – is acceptable to the Town so that tenants will not have to work with a new set of consultants when discussing their housing needs and contributing data towards a relocation benefits plan.

III. Public Comments Do Not Identify a Basis for Additional Delay or Denial.

The staff report includes numerous public comments from the Los Gatos Community Alliance (“LGCA”) questioning the Town’s approach to CEQA compliance, the Project’s consistency with standards, the Town’s calculations related to Project density, and whether the Project is one housing development project or two separate projects. As discussed above, the Town has fully complied with CEQA, and its conclusions with respect to the Project’s environmental impacts are supported by substantial evidence. In addition, we agree with the Town’s conclusion that the Project is consistent with applicable standards. Other LGCA comments are addressed below.

A. LGCA Confuses Housing Element Certification with the Housing Element’s Effective Date.

Many of LGCA’s comments assert that the Project cannot be consistent with the Housing Element, because HCD had not yet certified the Housing Element as meeting all state law requirements as of the Project’s preliminary application date. However, this argument is based on the faulty premise that a local policy document, such as the Housing Element, cannot take effect until HCD certifies it. These are two separate concepts.

Because HCD had not certified the Town’s Housing Element that was adopted and in effect when the Applicant submitted its preliminary application, it is correct that the Housing Element is presumed not to comply with the State Housing Element Law’s requirements. (Gov.

Code § 65589.3.) This means the Town was subject to the “builder’s remedy” at the time the Applicant submitted its preliminary application. (Id. at §65585.03.) However, HCD’s certification does not affect whether the Housing Element was adopted and in effect. Therefore, the Town’s adopted land use and density designations of 30 du/ac of multifamily housing were in effect when the Applicant submitted its preliminary application, notwithstanding the fact that the Town subsequently made other, unrelated changes to its Housing Element to obtain HCD certification.

However, even assuming for the sake of argument that the Housing Element were not valid or in effect when the Project was deemed complete, this would not change any of the Town’s conclusions. It simply means that the Project is protected by the builder’s remedy, and

ITEM NO. 1.

A-11
that the Project is therefore deemed consistent with Town standards for all purposes. (Gov. Code § 65589.5(f)(6)(D)(iii).) Regardless of whether the Housing Element was in effect and the Project is consistent with its designation, or whether the builder’s remedy simply deems the Project consistent with such standards, the result is the same: there is no legal basis to deny the Project as proposed.

B. The Town Has Correctly Calculated the Project’s Density.

The Housing Element Site Inventory requires a minimum density of 30 dwelling units per acre (30 du/acre), and the Project proposes 450 units on 14.47 acres, resulting in a density of

31.1 du/ac.

LGCA alleges that the Town improperly calculated density based on net acreage, and that the Project’s density is actually 28.7 du/ac when using gross acreage (450 units ÷ 15.65 acres) “as called for by the certified Housing Element.” LGCA claims that because the Housing Element Site Inventory uses a gross acreage standard, the Project must also use a gross acreage standard for consistency.

The Housing Element provides the following regarding density calculations: “Residential developments are regulated by an allowed density range (minimum and maximum) measured in “dwelling units per acre.” Residential development is calculated by dividing the number of housing units on the site (excluding accessory units) by the ‘gross lot area.’” Section 29.10.020 of the Los Gatos Municipal Code defines “lot area” as “[t]he total horizontal lot area included within lot lines, except as otherwise provided in the chapter, and excluding land required for public dedication and any land determined to be riparian habitat.” As defined, “lot area” excludes land required for public dedication. According to the Town, “Gross lot area” means the total “lot area” and cannot be any greater than “lot area.”5 Here, a portion of the land is being dedicated for public use, which means that this portion of land is excluded from the Project’s “lot area” under the Town’s definition.

Accordingly, it is appropriate for the Town to divide the number of units by the lot area (excluding lands required for public dedication) to arrive at the du/ac standard. This is precisely the methodology the Town has employed to reach a gross density figure of 31.1 du/ac.6

Moreover, this approach is consistent with the Town’s established patterns and practices, as this was the same methodology used to calculate the gross density for Phase I of the North 40.

LGCA also claims that because the Project vested during the Town’s period of Housing Element non-compliance, the appropriate density baseline is 20 du/ac, “based on the North 40 Specific Plan’s baseline zoning during non-compliance.” This is not correct. As addressed above, because HCD had not certified the Town’s Housing Element that was adopted and in effect when the Applicant submitted its preliminary application, that Housing Element is 5 See https://www.losgatosca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/43002/North-40- FAQS#:~:text=The%20Town%20is%20using%201,with%20the%20Town's%20Housing%20Element. 6 This figure includes the Meadow and all non-public internal streets and parking areas, which would be excluded from a net density calculation. The Project’s net density would be significantly higher than the 31.1 du/ac gross density figure used.

ITEM NO. 1.

A-12
presumed not to comply with the State Housing Element Law’s requirements. (Gov. Code § 65589.3.) However, this does not mean that the Housing Element was not adopted, nor does it affect whether its policies were in effect at the time of the preliminary application. Therefore, reference to the adopted Housing Element is proper.

Regardless, even if LGCA’s theory were correct, the North 40 Specific Plan would not be applicable. Because the Town had not yet received HCD certification of its Housing Element, the Town was subject to the builder’s remedy at the time the Applicant submitted its preliminary application. (Id. at §65585.03.) Under the HAA, a builder’s remedy project must have a minimum density of 15 du/ac and a maximum density of the greater of 45 du/ac, three times the density specified in the General Plan, or the density specified for the Project Site in the Town’s Housing Element. (Id. at § 65589.5(h)(11)(C)-(D).) Here, the Project’s 450 units satisfies the builder’s remedy density definition, so the Project would be permitted as proposed even if LGCA’s theory of how to calculate density were correct.

C. The Project Is One Development Project, Not Two Separate Projects.

LGCA asserts that the Applicant has proposed two separate projects: the market-rate portion of the Project, and the affordable housing portion of the Project. Per an email from LGCA dated September 20, 2025, one of LGCA’s bases for this assertion is that the Project’s requested concessions “appear to benefit 17 market-rate townhome buildings along the site’s western and northern edges—structures not directly tied to the 67-unit affordable Building G1 being developed by Eden Housing or the 10 affordable units in mixed-use Building E1.” LGCA misunderstands the nature of the Project and of development in general. Here, the Project Site is under common ownership. All phases of the Project, including the townhomes, the mixed-income multifamily building, and the 100% affordable building, are the subject of one development application, and they share common access, infrastructure, and utilities. Although it is true that different entities may be responsible for constructing the Project’s different phases over various phases, this does not transform the single, integrated Project into multiple development projects. Each component of the Project is a direct, reasonably foreseeable consequence of the other components, and no part of the Project can proceed independently from the others.

As is customary in the affordable housing space, the affordable housing portion of the Project will be constructed by a specialist in that sector of the market. The Applicant’s affordable housing development partner is Eden Housing, a non-profit affordable housing developer with over 55 years of experience in building affordable housing, including the affordable housing component of Phase I of the North 40. Their participation helps the Project deliver the affordable housing component most efficiently, and the Project’s investment of land and infrastructure valued in the tens of millions of dollars will enable Eden to leverage other funding sources to provide a greater number of affordable housing units at deeper affordability levels than the Town otherwise requires.

As to the Project’s SDBL concessions and waivers, HCD has issued technical advice indicating that the affordable housing portion of a project may be phased or treated separately from the market rate portion of the project:

ITEM NO. 1.

A-13
• “The SDBL can be used to modify or waive provisions of an inclusionary ordinance. For example, a mixed-income project that relies on tax credits may need to waive a requirement that affordable units be dispersed among the marketrate units. This is because tax credits and other affordable housing funding programs sometimes require the affordable units to be consolidated within a single building or on a separate parcel.” (West Hollywood Letter of Technical Assistance, September 2, 2022.)
• “[T]he SDBL does not contain an across-the-board requirement that the design quality or attributes of the affordable units match those of the market-rate units (i.e., a comparability requirement pertaining to floor area, bedroom count, interior finishes, etc.), nor does it require that the affordable units be physically dispersed among the market-rate units (i.e., a dispersal requirement) for new and existing units. In fact, the SDBL suggests the opposite – that “[t]he density bonus shall be permitted in geographic areas of the housing development other than the areas where the units for the lower income households are located.” (Gov. Code, § 65915, subd. (i).)” (El Cajon Letter of Technical Assistance, February 16, 2023.) • “[T]he SDBL does not contain requirements that the bedroom count or the attributes of the new affordable units match those of the new market-rate units (i.e., comparable design, appearance, materials, and finished quality), nor does the law require that affordable units be physically dispersed among the market-rate units. In fact, the SDBL suggests the opposite by explicitly permitting density bonus units (which can be market-rate units) in “geographic areas of the housing development other than the areas where the units for the lower income households are located.” (Santa Clara Letter of Technical Assistance, August 9, 2024.) Therefore, the fact that the Project’s 100% affordable building will be tax-credit funded and constructed by an experienced affordable housing developer does not mean that this Project component is a separate project.
* * *
In sum, (1) the Project is consistent with applicable plans and policies; (2) the Project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to the Community Plan Exemption; (3) the Project is a single development project that will occur in multiple phases; and (4) the Project is eligible for a density bonus, including the requested concessions and waivers, under the State Density Bonus Law. We respectfully request that the Planning Commission recommend the Project to the Town Council for approval, with the modifications and clarifications identified above.

ITEM NO. 1.

EXHIBIT B

ITEM NO. 1.

Memorandum
Date: September 11, 2025
To: Whitney Christopoulos, Grosvenor
From: Michelle Hunt
Daniel Choi
Subject: Supplemental VMT Analysis for the North 40 Phase II Master Plan Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. has completed a supplemental Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis for the North 40 Phase II Master Plan in Los Gatos, California. The housing portion of the project is consistent with the Town’s Housing Element, for which a townwide VMT-impact analysis was prepared. Similarly, the retail and community spaces are consistent with the previously approved North 40 Specific Plan, for which an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared. The project is not required to analyze VMT for environmental clearance, as each component of the project is consistent with previously approved studies. Nevertheless, this supplemental VMT analysis was completed for informational purposes in accordance with the Town of Los Gatos’ Transportation Impact Policy related to VMT.

Background
The Town elected to conduct a complete VMT analysis of the General Plan future year VMT projections based on long-term expectations for air quality and GHG emissions as part of its General Plan EIR, so that it could make specific use of CEQA Statue & Guidelines Section 15183 to streamline project-specific CEQA analysis that is consistent with its General Plan and other Town documents. For the Town of Los Gatos, addressing transportation VMT impacts in the Town General Plan EIR is a useful way of understanding VMT impacts and how VMT reduction should be balanced against other community values related to the environment, social justice, and the community. By conducting a Town-wide VMT impact analysis, the Town is able to develop a program-based VMT mitigation approach. The concept of a ‘program’ approach to impact mitigation is commonly used in a variety of technical subjects, including transportation, air quality, GHG, and habitat. Absent a new program-level VMT mitigation approach, there are limited feasible mitigation options for project sites, and as a result limited ability to reduce VMT. Also, practically speaking, without feasible mitigation, significant VMT impacts would be significant and unavoidable (SAU).

Under these circumstances, a project must prepare an EIR, thus adding time and cost to environmental review compared to an initial study/negative declaration (IS/ND) that relies on streamlining offered in the CEQA Statue & Guidelines.

The Phase II Master Plan project proposes a housing development with a density of 31.3 du/ac.

This is consistent with the newly adopted Housing Element and the HEOZ zoning designation applicable to the project site, which assume residential uses at no less than 30 du/ac. The Town determined that development consistent with the Housing Element and zoning ordinance amendments would not have VMT impacts beyond what were analyzed in the certified 2040 General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Therefore, development of the project would not result in any new significant effects or increase the severity of previously identified transportation

ITEM NO. 1.

North 40 Phase II Supplemental VMT Analysis September 11, 2025 P a g e | 2
effects related to transportation and circulation as compared with the 2040 General Plan EIR, and no subsequent VMT analysis is required. The 2040 GP EIR identified a significant and unavoidable impact (Impact T-2) related to the increase in VMT associated with the development and population growth facilitated by the 2040 General Plan. In accordance with the mitigation measure T-1 identified in the EIR, the project would be required to implement one or more VMT reduction strategies.

The retail and community spaces of the proposed Phase II Master Plan project are supportive of the proposed residential uses and are consistent with the approved North 40 Specific Plan, for which an EIR was previously prepared. Thus, further analysis of the transportation impacts under CEQA is not required.

The project is not required to analyze VMT for environmental clearance, as each component of the project is consistent with previously approved studies. Nevertheless, a VMT analysis was completed for informational purposes in accordance with the Town of Los Gatos’ Transportation Impact Policy related to VMT.

Vehicle Miles Traveled
Methodology
Hexagon ran the latest VTA model for the 2020 base year. Year 2020 is the latest year the VTA model was updated and is typically used for baseline conditions. To isolate the project trips and VMT generated by the project, a separate Transportation Analysis Zone (TAZ) was added to the model’s transportation network where the project is located. The project’s 450 multi-family housing units, the job equivalent of 15,014 square feet of commercial space, and 3,000 square feet of community/civic space were added to the model’s land use database. A complete model run for the project was performed, and the VMT per service population (the sum of the project’s population and jobs) was calculated.

Thresholds of Significance
The Town Council adopted Resolution 2020-045, designating the use of VMT as the metric for conducting transportation analyses pursuant to the CEQA and establishing the thresholds of significance to comply with California Senate Bill 743. The thresholds balance the Town's priorities with respect to competing objectives, including Los Gatos's geographic and transportation context, greenhouse gas reduction goals, interest in achieving the state's greenhouse gas reduction goals, and the latest General Plan goals and policies related to land use mix, economic development, and housing provision. VMT analyses should evaluate a project's VMT impacts based on the thresholds established in the latest Council-adopted resolution. Consistent with State CEQA Guidelines Section 150643, the Town of Los Gatos has adopted the following two thresholds of significance to guide in determining when a land use project will have a significant transportation impact.

Project Generated VMT: A significant impact would occur if the total VMT per service population for the project would exceed a level of 11.3% below the total VMT per service population for the Town of Los Gatos baseline conditions.

Project Effect on VMT: A significant impact would occur if the project increases total (boundary) County-wide VMT by 6.5% compared to baseline conditions.

If either of the above thresholds are exceeded, the project would result in a significant impact.

ITEM NO. 1.

North 40 Phase II Supplemental VMT Analysis September 11, 2025 P a g e | 3
VMT Assessment
The project, with a population of 1,177 residents and 33 jobs, would generate 28,653 daily VMT, resulting in 23.7 VMT per service population. The 2020 base year VMT was calculated from a complete model run by dividing the daily VMT generated by the Town’s land uses (1,651,854) by the service population: (36,948 population + 19,324 jobs = 56,272) = 29.4.

Project Generated VMT: The threshold of significance is 100%-11.3% = 88.7% of the Town’s Daily VMT per service population or 0.887 * 29.4 = 26.1. Since the VMT / service population for the project is 23.7, which is less than 26.1, the project would not exceed this threshold.

Project Effect on VMT: The Countywide total boundary VMT is 37,244,566. The project would add 28,653 VMTs or an increase of 0.0769%, which is less than 6.5% of baseline conditions. Therefore, the project would not exceed this threshold.

Since both the project generated VMT and project effect on VMT criteria are not met, it can be concluded that the project would have a less than significant effect on VMT, according to the Town’s VMT impact criteria.

Cumulative Impacts
The above analysis of project generated VMT is based on VMT per service population, which is a metric framed in terms of efficiency. Such efficiency metrics from multiple developments cannot be summed due to the denominator. Because the project falls below the Town’s efficiency-based impact threshold, is aligned with the Town’s long-term environmental goals as expressed broadly in its General Plan, and is consistent with the residential density expressed in the Town’s Housing Element, the project would have no cumulative impact distinct from the project impact. Accordingly, a finding of a less-than-significant project impact would imply a less than significant cumulative impact.

An analysis of the combined cumulative impact of past, current, and probable future projects may be appropriate for an absolute VMT metric, such as the Countywide total boundary VMT metric, which is the other metric used by the Town to evaluate transportation impacts. Such a CEQA evaluation of future year VMT impacts associated with the proposed Phase II Master Plan project and other cumulative developments was conducted as part of the 2040 General Plan EIR. As stated above, the 2040 General Plan EIR identified a significant and unavoidable impact related to the increase in VMT and adopted a program-based VMT mitigation approach. In accordance with the mitigation measure T-1 identified in the EIR, the project would be required to implement one or more VMT reduction strategies.

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/29/2025, Item #2,
North Forty Phase 2
1 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
A P P E A R A N C E S:

Los Gatos Planning
Commissioners:

Emily Thomas, Chair
Kendra Burch, Vice Chair
Jeffrey Barnett
Susan Burnett
Steve Raspe
Joseph Sordi
Rob Stump
Town Manager: Chris Constantin
Community Development
Director:

Joel Paulson
Town Attorney: Gabrielle Whelan
Transcribed by: Vicki L. Blandin
(619) 541-3405
ATTACHMENT 12

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/29/2025, Item #2,
North Forty Phase 2
2 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
P R O C E E D I N G S:

CHAIR THOMAS: We are going to be moving on to our
public hearings and with Item 1, the only item on our
agenda tonight, which is to consider a request to construct a Mixed-Use residential development (450 units), a Vesting Tentative Map, site improvements requiring a Grading
Permit, and removal of large, protected trees under Senate Bill 330 (SB 330) on property zoned North Forty Specific Plan: Housing Element Overlay Zone. Located at 14859,
14917, 14925, and 16392 Los Gatos Boulevard; 16250, 16260, and 16270 Burton Road; and Assessor Parcel Number 424-07- 116. APNs 424-07-009, -052, -053, -081, -094, -095, -115, and -116. Architecture and Site Application S-23-031 and Subdivision Application M-23-005. Additional environmental review is necessary pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183: Projects Consistent with a Community Plan, General Plan, or Zoning since the proposed project’s environmental impacts were adequately addressed in the 2040 General Plan EIR, as applicable. Property Owner is Yuki Farms, and the Applicant is Grosvenor Property Americas.

Before the Staff Report, can I have a show of
hands from Commissioners that have visited the site? Are

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/29/2025, Item #2,
North Forty Phase 2
3 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
there any disclosures that need to be made? Great. Director Paulson, take it away.

DIRECTOR PAULSON: Thank you, Chair,
Commissioners. As mentioned, this was continued. The
Planning Commission last heard the project on April 30th at a special meeting. At that time the CEQA analysis wasn’t completed. There was a lot of detail regarding the proposed project.

For this evening, I’m going to just high-level
touch on the major components of the project and discuss what is in tonight’s Staff Report, and tonight will be a tag team effort between myself and the Town Attorney.

This project, you laid out the details. It’s
going to contain a Mixed-Use building that is approximately 7,800 square feet of Commercial and 255 Residential units, ten of which will be affordable. The building is seven
stories tall and is nearly 100’.

There is also an affordable housing building that
will have 67 affordable units and one manager unit. That building is five stories tall and approximately 62.5’.

The project also includes 127 townhomes across 17
buildings. Those are three stories in height, ranging from approximately 44’ to nearly 49’.

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/29/2025, Item #2,
North Forty Phase 2
4 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
Lastly, there are two Commercial buildings that
are approximately 7,200 square feet between the two of
them. They are both one-story and between 25’ and 27’.

As mentioned, there is a lot more detail on other
specifics in the April 30th Staff Report. The Staff Report for tonight really has information regarding five topics, which is the Housing Accountability Act; State DensityBonus Law; BMP unit phasing; No Net Loss Law; and CEQA, California Environmental Quality Act. The Town Attorney is going to handle the majority of those. I will touch on the BMP phasing as well as the No Net Loss Law.

The Applicant, as you read in the correspondence,
is requesting a concession to allow the occupancy of 127, the total number of townhomes, without any necessary
triggers for the affordable units. This is a joint effort ultimately. Currently Eden Housing is proposed to build those housing units. The Applicant has provided an
alternative which allows for the 127 units to be built, and then if the affordable housing units aren’t built at that time, then there is an option to put those units in the Mixed-Use apartment building until such time as the
affordable housing building is built, and then those
restrictions could be transferred.

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/29/2025, Item #2,
North Forty Phase 2
5 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
The Applicant explains in their justification
that it is a financial impact for them, and so they are requesting an alternative condition other than what the Town Staff is currently proposing, which is a proportionate 17% throughout construction, which is typical of our
guidelines.

The No Net Loss Law next. The Town is required
through Housing Element law to maintain enough capacity to meet our RHNA in each of the income categories. This
project, along with two other Housing Element projects that the Planning Commission has seen, two of which have been approved by Council, Staff is required to do an analysis based on the remaining sites in the Sites Inventory along with other either proposed and/or approved projects to make sure that those income categories remain whole and don’t go into a deficit. This project, as is illustrated in the
Staff Report, will go into a deficit in the Very Low and the Moderate unit income categories, so there are findings to that effect in the Staff Report.

As previously mentioned, this is an SB 330
project. They are utilizing State Bonus Density Law, which entitles them to two concessions and unlimited waivers; those are outlined. While they meet the definition of a

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/29/2025, Item #2,
North Forty Phase 2
6 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
Builder’s Remedy application, to date they haven’t
necessarily invoked that.

With that, Staff ultimately recommends that the
Planning Commission consider the project. If it finds
merit, there are recommendations on page 15 and 16 of the Staff Report. Should you decide to make a recommendation this evening, there are two addendums for tonight’s meeting as well as a Desk Item.

I wanted to clarify a couple of errors in the
Staff Report. First, the subject line on page 1 for the report erroneously states that additional environmental review is necessary; that’s not the case. It is not
necessary as is referenced throughout the remainder of the report, as well as other documents and legal noticing.

Additionally, there is a reference to three
tables from a previous version of the Staff Report. There is only one table, which is on page 13, so Tables A, B, and C are not in there: it’s simply the table on page 13.

We have with us CEQA consultants, we have Parks
and Public Works Staff, and we’ll have additional
consultants. Ms. Whelan will also introduce before her
presentation outside legal counsel that we have this
evening.

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/29/2025, Item #2,
North Forty Phase 2
7 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
That concludes my portion of the Staff Report and
I’ll turn it over to Ms. Whelan.

ATTORNEY WHELAN: Good evening, Planning
Commissioners. I’m Gabrielle Whelan, the Town Attorney, and I’ve prepared a PowerPoint this evening to talk about the legal considerations associated with this project.

Before I begin, I wanted to let you know that
Nazanin Salehi with the law firm of Goldfarb & Lipman will be available on Zoom to answer any questions that are not related to CEQA, and Christine Crowl with the law firm of Jarvis Fay will be available on Zoom to answer questions that come up with regard to CEQA.

I will begin. There are four major laws that are
implicated with this application.

The first is SB 330, and as Mr. Paulson
mentioned, this is a Senate Bill 330 project, meaning that it submitted a preliminary application that vested it to the development standards that were in place at the time it was complete. Next is the Housing Accountability Act. The third is Density-Bonus Law. The fourth is California
Environmental Quality Act, also known as CEQA, and that’s how I’ll be referring to it throughout the rest of the
presentation.

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/29/2025, Item #2,
North Forty Phase 2
8 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
As I mentioned, Senate Bill 330 authorizes
applicants to submit a preliminary application which vests them to the development standards that are in place at the time that the preliminary application is submitted.

Senate Bill 330 also requires an applicant to
provide replacement units for existing units onsite that are currently occupied by low-income households, or have been occupied by low-income households in the past five years. I believe there are eight residential units on the property right now, and four of those are units that will require replacement.

This project has vested to the development
standards that were in place at the time its preliminary application was submitted.

Next, I’m going to give you an overview of the
Housing Accountability Act. This is codified at Government Code Section 65589.5. It provides that when an applicant is including affordable housing in its project the Town is limited in its ability to deny, reduce the density of, or impose conditions on the projects.

With regard to Conditions of Approval, the act
limits the Town’s ability to impose Conditions of Approval that would render a project infeasible, and the statute defines infeasible to mean capable of being performed.

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/29/2025, Item #2,
North Forty Phase 2
9 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
The first question to ask under the Housing
Accountability Act is whether or not it is an eligible
housing development project, and in order to be eligible the proposed project has to be only Residential, Mixed-Use, or transitional housing. This project qualifies under 1 and 2 because it has certain components that are Residential only, and certain components that are Mixed-Use
developments.

The next question is how can a project be subject
to the Housing Accountability Act, and how much affordable housing does it need to provide? The Housing Accountability Act until recently provided that 20% of the total units need to be available to low-income households, or 100%
available to moderate-income households. There are recent amendments to the Housing Accountability Act that have
lowered the percentage from 20%; however, this applicant is staying with the 20% of the total units being affordable in the planning application.

The Town does have the ability to apply Objective
Development Standards to Housing Accountability Act
projects. In order for it to be an Objective Development Standard it has to be something that is consistent with the Town’s obligation to meet its Regional Housing Needs
Allocation, which we refer to as RHNA, and that’s the

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/29/2025, Item #2,
North Forty Phase 2
10 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
number of housing units that the Town needs to entitle
pursuant to an allocation from the State. Then, the Town needs to apply its Objective Development Standards in such a way to facilitate and accommodate development at the
density that’s permitted on the site and proposed by the development. An Objective Development Standard is something that’s codified; it can’t be subjective. It has to be
verifiable based on a standard that’s written down, and that’s an important factor.

The Housing Accountability Act does impose
penalties for disapproval of eligible projects, and it
defines disapproval to include not only a vote to
disapprove the project, but a failure to comply with the Town’s deadlines for making a decision, or the Town’s
imposition of a Condition of Approval that would render a project infeasible.

We had talked a little bit about the Town’s
ability to impose Objective Development Standards, and I did want to mention that the act prohibits the Town from imposing an Objective Development Standard that would
render the project infeasible.

Then the question of infeasibility. The question
will come up of who has to establish that it’s infeasible, and per the statute the Town bears the burden of

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/29/2025, Item #2,
North Forty Phase 2
11 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
establishing that a Condition of Approval will not render the project infeasible, and the Town needs to use a
“preponderance of evidence” standard, meaning that the Town has weighed the evidence and concluded that the evidence on one side outweighs the evidence on the other.

Under the Housing Accountability Act there are
five reasons that a public agency can deny a project or impose a condition that renders the project infeasible.

The first is that the Town has an adopted Housing
Element that has met its share of RHNA in all of the income categories proposed in the project, and while the Town does have an adopted Housing Element, the Town has not met its share of RHNA in all of the income categories proposed in this project.

The second grounds would be the project would
have a specific adverse impact on public health or safety, and this finding would need to be based on an objective standard that’s been adopted by the Town.

The third potential grounds for denying or
imposing a condition that would render the project
infeasible would be if that condition or denial were
required in order to render the project in compliance with a specific state or federal law, and with projects such as this the state laws that come to mind are State Density

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/29/2025, Item #2,
North Forty Phase 2
12 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
Bonus Law and the SB 330 requirement that replacement
housing for the existing low-income units be provided.

The fourth grounds would be that the project is
located on agricultural land without adequate water or
wastewater. Staff has not identified any facts that render number 4 applicable.

Finally, the Town could deny the project or
impose a condition rendering it infeasible if the Town were to find that the development is inconsistent with both the Zoning Ordinance and a General Plan land use designation and the Town has an adopted Housing Element in substantial compliance with state housing law. However, this finding is not available when a project is consistent with the density that’s been identified in the Housing Element, and as the Staff Report notes, this particular project is consistent with the density that was identified for this site in the Housing Element.

I’m going to pause there before we talk about the
other two laws to see if the Commission has any questions about the Housing Accountability Act, and if you do have questions, I’ll take the first pass, and then if I miss any information, Nazanin Salehi with Goldfarb & Lipman will fill in the remainder.

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/29/2025, Item #2,
North Forty Phase 2
13 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
CHAIR THOMAS: Are there any questions at this
time? Commissioner Barnett.

COMMISSIONER BARNETT: Yes, Ms. Whelan, you
referred to the developers standing on the 20% of units to be sold to lower-income households, but isn’t that 13%? ATTORNEY WHELAN: Under the new law it’s 13%, but
to date this applicant has not chosen to use the new law, they’ve chosen to use the… They have a choice between the prior Builder’s Remedy for the Housing Accountability
Statute and the amended Housing Accountability Act statute.

They elected not to take advantage of the new 13% lower amount.

COMMISSIONER BARNETT: All right, thank you.

CHAIR THOMAS: Any other questions? Okay, thank
you.

ATTORNEY WHELAN: Now we’re going to delve into
State Density Bonus Law. This applicant is using State
Density Bonus Law, which provides that applicants who
provide specified amounts of affordable housing are
eligible for density bonuses, meaning you can build denser than what would be allowed under the Town’s ordinances, or incentives and concessions, or waivers.

This particular applicant is not requesting an
increase in the density on the site; they’re sticking with

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/29/2025, Item #2,
North Forty Phase 2
14 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
the density that was allocated in the Town’s Housing
Element. However, this applicant is seeking incentives and concessions and waivers.

The statute defines incentives and concessions as
reductions in Town development standards, or modifications of Zoning Code requirements. This can include reductions in setback, etc., and this particular applicant is seeking… Actually, I’ll talk about it under waivers.

Approval of Mixed-Use zoning or other incentives
or concessions that results in cost reductions. Again, the burden is on the Town to establish that the requested
incentive or concession would not result in a cost
reduction for the statute.

The Density-Bonus Statute also allows applicants
to seek waivers, and the standard is that they can seek a waiver of a development standard that would have the effect of “physically precluding the development.”
One of the waivers that this applicant is seeking
is a waiver from the Town’s North Forty Specific Plan
requirement that buildings within 50’ of Los Gatos
Boulevard be limited to 25’ in height.

Are there any questions that the Commission has
regarding State Density Bonus Law? Okay.

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/29/2025, Item #2,
North Forty Phase 2
15 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
Finally, I wanted to give an overview of how CEQA
was handled for this project. This project was evaluated pursuant to CEQA Guideline Section 15183, and that’s a
section that authorizes projects to tier from previous
Environmental Impact Reports under specified circumstances.

In order to use Section 15183, a project has to
be consistent with the density that was established by
zoning, a community plan, or general policies for which the EIR was certified.

This project is consistent with the density that
was allocated to this site in the Town’s Housing Element, and the Housing Element relied on the Environmental Impact Report that was prepared for the 2040 General Plan.

Section 15183 does provide that any projectspecific significant impacts which are peculiar to the project or to the site must be analyzed. The Town did
prepare an Initial Study. The conclusion of the Initial Study is that there are no project or site-specific
significant environmental impacts that have not been
studied in the previous EIR. As a result, this project is tiering from the EIR; it was done for the 2040 General
Plan.

I understand that at the earlier meeting there
were questions that came up regarding traffic related to

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/29/2025, Item #2,
North Forty Phase 2
16 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
this project, so I wanted to say that the Town does analyze traffic impacts, but it does it outside of the CEQA
document. The Town analyzed the traffic impact analysis, and we’ve also had a study session regarding the Builder's Remedy, and in that context questions came up about
cumulative impacts of all the planning applications that the Town has received, and so this slide is included to show what other projects were analyzed in connection with this particular North Forty Phase 2 project.

That is my final slide. Are there any questions
on the CEQA information or any of the other information? CHAIR THOMAS: Commissioner Stump.

COMMISSIONER STUMP: Did you say any questions
related to CEQA?
ATTORNEY WHELAN: Any questions on any of the
presentation.

COMMISSIONER STUMP: On the slides, no.

CHAIR THOMAS: Commissioner Sordi.

COMMISSIONER SORDI: Just a general question.

This is bigger picture for me; I’m kind of the newbie
Planning Commissioner here. I know we’ve got a mandate to provide 1,993 housing units between 2023 and 2031. Can you give us a sense of where we stand today with respect to how we’re achieving that goal?

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/29/2025, Item #2,
North Forty Phase 2
17 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
DIRECTOR PAULSON: Let me pull up this Staff
Report really quick and take a look. The table on page 13 will give you an idea of where we’re at. I think we’re 398 units above for above-moderate; we have a deficiency in moderate; we’re a little bit above on low; and then there is a deficiency on very-low. So, if you aggregate those relative to the 1,993, we’re in excess because we have a number of sites that are not Housing Element sites that are currently in the pipeline, so there are a number. I can look and see if I can come up with a general total at this point in time, and then get back to you.

COMMISSIONER SORDI: Okay, thanks.

CHAIR THOMAS: Any other questions for Staff at
this time? Commissioner Sordi.

COMMISSIONER SORDI: Another question; it’s a
little more specific this time. Just really quick with
regard to Condition 6 and going back to Phase 1 North
Forty. I know we had the same master developer, I think the same affordable housing developer. Did we have a condition on that project that required any affordable units to
precede or be blended in somehow with the project?
DIRECTOR PAULSON: There was a trigger associated
with a number of market rate units being granted
Certificates of Use and Occupancy. I want to say the number

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/29/2025, Item #2,
North Forty Phase 2
18 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
originally was 187; that might have been modified further down the line through an agreement with the Town Council, but yes, there was a trigger there.

COMMISSIONER SORDI: Okay, thank you.

CHAIR THOMAS: Commissioner Burnett.

COMMISSIONER BURNETT: Yes, thank you. Question
for Staff. Regarding the Density-Bonus Law, the Applicant, I believe, is seeking and agreeing to build affordable
housing, but is not committing to do so. Am I correct in the readings?
ATTORNEY WHELAN: That’s Town Staff’s assessment
of the situation. Town Staff reads the statute to require that there be a commitment to have built the affordable housing. In the Applicant’s presentation they’ll probably address their reading of the statute, but we currently have a different reading, and as a result, I have contacted HCD to request an opinion.

COMMISSIONER BURNETT: Because that does affect
the waivers and concessions with that, correct?
ATTORNEY WHELAN: That’s true. In order to be
eligible for the incentives, concessions, and waivers one has to have sought and agreed to build affordable housing.

COMMISSIONER BURNETT: Thank you.

CHAIR THOMAS: Commissioner Stump.

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/29/2025, Item #2,
North Forty Phase 2
19 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
COMMISSIONER STUMP: I know we’ve had this
conversation before about the 2040 General Plan EIR and the related environmental analysis, and we know that qualifying projects are definitely wanting to tier off of that plan.

We have had discussion about cumulative impact over time, and certainly the 2040 General Plan EIR could be suspect as far as literally being able to tier to it, because there have been substantial changes since the 2040 General Plan was completed. There are changed circumstances; obviously one of the biggest ones we’ve seen is SB 330/Builder's
Remedy projects that the Town is faced with in the largest development process in its history with a concentration on Los Gatos Boulevard.

Also, if new information becomes available it
would indicate that there should be a supplemental or a new program EIR under CEQA Section 15162. That new information would be cumulative impact from multiple high-density
projects, including projects not on sites identified in the Housing Element Site Inventory, and we have, obviously, a number of those as well.

I guess my basic question would be why is the
2040 General Plan EIR and the related environmental
analysis still considered operative?

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/29/2025, Item #2,
North Forty Phase 2
20 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
ATTORNEY WHELAN: I’ll start, and then I think
after me it would be best if the CEQA consultant came on, and then after that, Christine Crowl who is a CEQA expert.

So, CEQA Section 15183 specifies that a project
can tier off of an EIR that was done for a previous
project, and so it doesn’t matter that elements of the
previous project were rescinded, it’s whether or not the EIR was done that analyzed the impacts of what was planned for in that General Plan, because that’s one question that the Town has been receiving: does it matter that the land use and community design elements were rescinded? Our
answer is no; it matters if the EIR is still effective.

When we were debating using Section 15183, we
asked our CEQA consultant—and I don’t want to speak for her, so she can come on next—but we asked her to analyze whether there were any new impacts that weren’t covered in that existing EIR, and the Town’s conclusion was no, and so I think at this point it would be good to turn it over to the Town’s CEQA consultant.

TERI WISSLER ADAM: Good evening, Chair Thomas
and Commissioners. My name is Teri Wissler Adam; I’m a
principal at EMC Planning Group. We’ve been assisting the Town through the CEQA process for this project as well as others.

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/29/2025, Item #2,
North Forty Phase 2
21 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
I don’t really have much to add to Ms. Whelan’s
comment regarding the applicability of the Certified EIR, just again reiterating that the EIR is still certified.

Certification wasn’t taken away when the land-use element was rescinded. As you know, CEQA is focused on
environmental impacts and the environmental impacts of a particular project, and again, not whether that project is moving forward or not, but we do believe that the approach we used is appropriate for this project.

CHAIR THOMAS: Commissioner Stump, do you have a
follow-up?
COMMISSIONER STUMP: I’ll actually bring a
follow-on. Thank you for that response. It just sort of seems like certified is almost like the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval, saying we certified it, and whether it’s still operative or not, it’s certified. That’s what I got from the response, but I’m going to pass by, because I
don’t want to take us down a rabbit hole.

What I want to revisit is back in April when we
had the Genuine Automotive project before us. One of the stipulations or recommendations that came out of that is that going forward we were going to be looking at
cumulative effects of projects. In fact, the recommendation that went to the Council for their June meeting to approve

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/29/2025, Item #2,
North Forty Phase 2
22 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
that project said that we thought about doing a
supplemental to this EIR, but in lieu of that the Staff was recommending that each project address cumulative impacts.

My question would be is the North Forty exempt from looking at cumulative impacts, or cumulative impacts reviewed as it relates to the North Forty as well? Thank you.

ATTORNEY WHELAN: The Town is requiring each
project to do its own cumulative impact analysis, but we do have to cut off that analysis at a certain point. The point that we use to cut off the analysis is when a Scope of Work is prepared for the environmental work for each project as it comes through, so at the time that the Scope of Work is finalized all reasonably foreseeable projects will be
analyzed. Projects that come in after that Scope of Work was prepared will not be included.

Then, with regard to the work that was done for
North Forty Phase 2, I’d like to turn it back to Ms.

Wissler Adam, if that’s okay.

TERI WISSLER ADAM: Yes, thank you. I have to go
back and look, but I believe our contract on this project is about two years old. The Scope of Work was prepared
right before we got under contract. We did evaluate
cumulative impacts. CEQA allows a couple of different
options for evaluating cumulative impacts. One is a list of

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/29/2025, Item #2,
North Forty Phase 2
23 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
projects, past, current, and reasonably foreseeable,
projects. The other is the development projections and a General Plan EIR. We use the General Plan EIR projections in this particular Initial Study.

DIRECTOR PAULSON: Through the Chair, just
additional… I probably shouldn’t jump in, but I’m going to anyway. I think there needs to be some distinction, because this has been a conversation for a long time. We’ve got the Housing Element that had sites that were evaluated based on the General Plan. We’ve got some sites that have projects that are meeting or near the Housing Element Sites
Inventory from a total number of units. Then we have some other projects that are far exceeding, for instance,
density.

Looking at this from that perspective, the
Housing Element environmental analysis tiered off the
General Plan. This is compliant with that, so from this project’s perspective, it’s not creating any additional impact and has already been studied in one or both of those documents.

I think when we go to look at the environmental
documents and do the Initial Studies for some of these
other ones that are exceeding what was proposed in the
Housing Element, the outcome of that Initial Study probably

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/29/2025, Item #2,
North Forty Phase 2
24 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
ends up in a different path, whether that’s an EIR or an MND. Now, obviously that’s all with a big caveat of the new state laws that just went into effect relating to CEQA on July 1st, but that’s how we’re proceeding with some of these other ones that are above and beyond—and most of the time, well above and beyond—what was studied in the Housing
Element.

COMMISSIONER STUMP: Chair, can I follow-up? I
realized that a list of projects, I believe, for this level of study is not required to be published in the report
itself, or were other projects published in this report and maybe I just overlooked it? Did it identify like the
traffic or the transportation analysis? You just shared, “Look at all these projects that this transportation
analysis took into account.” Is anything similar like that in the Initial Study of the North Forty?
DIRECTOR PAULSON: I would turn to Ms. Wissler
Adam for that. I’ll turn to her at this point.

TERI WISSLER ADAM: Thank you, Mr. Paulson. There
is no list either in the Initial Study or separate from the Initial Study that was considered.

DIRECTOR PAULSON: With the exception of the
Traffic Impact Analysis that you referenced, which

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/29/2025, Item #2,
North Forty Phase 2
25 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
obviously can feed into other areas of air quality, noise, things like that.

ATTORNEY WHELAN: Yes.

COMMISSIONER STUMP: Are we going to have
opportunity to talk about the Transportation Analysis, or would now be the time to ask a question about the
Transportation Analysis?
ATTORNEY WHELAN: My suggestion would be maybe
after public comment.

COMMISSIONER STUMP: Thank you.

CHAIR THOMAS: Commissioner Barnett, do you have
a question?
COMMISSIONER BARNETT: I did.

CHAIR THOMAS: Sorry.

COMMISSIONER BARNETT: I’ll come back to it,
because I want to look at my notes. Thank you.

CHAIR THOMAS: Okay. Does anyone else have any
questions for Staff at this time? Okay, perfect.

We will now open the public portion of the public
hearing on Item 1 and give the Applicant an opportunity to address the Commission for up to five minutes, and then we will take comments from the public. I have Steve Buster, and whoever else on the Applicant team can join you during this time. Thank you.

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/29/2025, Item #2,
North Forty Phase 2
26 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
STEVE BUSTER: You can go to the second slide.

Good evening, members of the Planning Commission. I’m Steve Buster, Senior Vice President of Development for Grosvenor.

It’s been about six months since our last meeting, so we’re happy to be here back in front of you tonight.

I will do a very quick recap of our program,
since it’s been a while, but I plan to spend the majority of my time talking about the heavy infrastructure lift for this site as it relates to delivery of affordable housing, and then we can take questions. This is just a reminder of the important connection between the Phase 1 that has been completed and Phase 2.

Phase 2 of the project is the subject of
tonight’s hearing and consists of 68 units in a 100%
affordable building, which we build by Eden Housing, the same group that built 50 senior affordable units in Phase

1. One-hundred-and-twenty-seven townhomes and 255 multifamily rental units, including ten affordable. Total of 450 units anchored by eight acres of open space, including the Central Meadow.

We have our land use attorney here tonight, Eric
Phillips, who can address specific questions on this, but just in summary, we are in full compliance with the Housing Element, CEQA, and State Density Bonus Law.

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/29/2025, Item #2,
North Forty Phase 2
27 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
I want to take a quick step backward for a minute
to explain how a project of this size and scale actually gets built, because I think many members of the public
probably aren’t accustomed to a project of this size with such elevated levels of infrastructure and utility cost.

For the last five years we have spent millions of
dollars on entitlement costs. That’s architects, engineers, consultants, legal, etc. A very large component of the
total cost is the actual cost to buy the land. Then, we spend millions of dollars designing and engineering the actual backbone infrastructure and utilities. Then, tens and tens of millions of dollars to build the backbone
infrastructure and utilities. Most projects have main
public streets and backbone utilities; we do not yet.

That’s grading, storm drain, sewer, water, electric,
lighting, roads, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, you get the point. Not to mention the Town’s requirements to do offsite improvements to Los Gatos Boulevard, and permits and impact fees, again, totally up to millions of dollars. My point here is that we are going to be approaching $100 million in investment before the first home is even completed.

That brings us to the affordable housing
condition and timing. I understand the Town’s intent,
wanting to ensure the affordable housing gets built. The

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/29/2025, Item #2,
North Forty Phase 2
28 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
best way to ensure the affordable housing is built is to reduce restrictions and let us build the infrastructure.

That will ensure that we can deliver a finished, fully
served pad to Eden as soon as possible. The Town’s current proposal that affordable be built concurrently with the market rate units is infeasible. We need a minimum of 127 homes in order to finance the completion of the backbone infrastructure and then deliver the pad to Eden. Our
proposal to the Town gives you ample security, and gives us ample incentive to complete the remainder of the units.

Number one, only 28% of the units can get a
Certificate of Occupancy before Eden gets financed. Twentyeight percent, that’s it.

Number two, we will commit to completing all of
the infrastructure, that $100 million I talked about, to serve and deliver pads for affordable housing and the
multi-family rental building. Eden will commit to applying for funding at least once per year. If the multi-family building starts before Eden starts, we will provide for the affordable units there until Eden can. We even offered to transfer the finished pad for the affordable to the Town if Eden is unable to perform within a certain amount of time.

So, these are items that I think are more
restrictive than most times we do this in other cities, but

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/29/2025, Item #2,
North Forty Phase 2
29 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
they are more in line with what other cities and towns do to address this issue.

Thank you for your time, and we look forward to
your questions.

CHAIR THOMAS: Thank you. Are there any questions
right now? Commissioner Barnett.

COMMISSIONER BARNETT: Thank you for your
presentation. Would Grosvenor have any objection to a
Condition of Approval that would require the deed to Eden be delivered and recorded prior to the sale of the first unit, the purpose being to assure that that transfer
occurs?
STEVE BUSTER: I need to think about the timing
of that.

ERIC PHILLIPS: Good evening, Planning
Commissioners, my name is Eric Phillips; I’m land use
counsel for Grosvenor and the Applicant team.

That is something we could talk about. What I
would suggest is more common, and that is before we start building any of the infrastructure or the housing units the affordable housing restrictions be recorded against the property, which would require the property could only be used for affordable housing; nothing else could develop there. We certainly agree that should happen first.

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/29/2025, Item #2,
North Forty Phase 2
30 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
The reason that we might not want to transfer the
property to Eden immediately is twofold: One, they will need to receive it in connection with the rest of their financing to show that they can leverage that as part of their commitment; but two, this is a very remote
possibility, but if Eden for some reason is not able to timely deliver the property, we want to still be able to control it and build it ourselves, work with a different partner. I certainly have no expectation that that will be the outcome. We think it is much more likely that Eden will timely deliver, but if we have turned over the property, it actually makes it more complicated to troubleshoot if there is an issue, so that’s just something to think about.

COMMISSIONER BARNETT: A follow-up, if I might? I
don’t recall reading in the Staff Report material that
Grosvenor was offering to transfer the property to the Town under certain circumstances. Can that be elaborated?
ERIC PHILLIPS: That was an offer that we made as
we were discussing the different options with the Town. The Staff Report does talk about some of the concepts that the Town came up with. It does not discuss that we offered
that. We were informed that the Town was not interested in that; they were concerned that it would be too expensive, it would become an administrative burden, and not something

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/29/2025, Item #2,
North Forty Phase 2
31 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
that provided adequate security, so we were advised not to include that in our final proposal and our concession
request, but it is something that we did put out there and offer and discussed at length with the Town.

COMMISSIONER BARNETT: Thank you for that.

CHAIR THOMAS: Do you have another follow-up
question?
COMMISSIONER BARNETT: I’m on a roll here, yes.

CHAIR THOMAS: Okay, go for it.

COMMISSIONER BARNETT: About the 20% versus the
13%, can you clarify that?
ERIC PHILLIPS: Yes, thank you. I’m glad you
asked. It is correct when we originally applied back in 2023 the law required a 20% overall affordability
commitment, and that was part of the original application.

That law changed in January 2025, as the Town Attorney
explained in her presentation, and in March of 2025 the Applicant team did submit an updated application packet that reflected the requirements that go with the new law, so the affordability contribution was reduced from 20% down to 17%. The reason it is higher than the 13% that would be required to qualify as affordable housing under the Housing Accountability Act is that that extra 4% is necessary to be eligible for two concessions under the Density-Bonus.

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/29/2025, Item #2,
North Forty Phase 2
32 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
COMMISSIONER BARNETT: I see. Okay, that’s
helpful. Indulge me for a second to see if I have any
further questions.

If Grosvenor proceeds to put 17% of the houses as
below market into the improvements other than Lot 19, how would that be deed restricted, and how would you handle the subsequent transfer to Building 19?
ERIC PHILLIPS: That’s an excellent question. We
would need a deed restriction that commits both pieces of property to be devoted to affordable housing. What we hope would happen is that we’re able to work with Eden so that they deliver their project first. If they’re not able to do that, if it is delayed and we move forward with the multifamily mixed-income building first; that deed restriction would kick in, it would apply. We would have to provide 17% of the units that have been developed up to that point
within that building, and then once the affordable housing on Lot 19 was fully developed, we could release the
majority of those restrictions. Ten units are going to be affordable in that mixed-income building regardless, but we could release the majority of those units from the
affordability restrictions once they’re able to be replaced within the Eden building.

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/29/2025, Item #2,
North Forty Phase 2
33 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
Then on the flip side, what we think is more
likely to happen, Eden gets its financing, commences
construction first, then the affordability restrictions on the multi-family building would be released for all but those ten units.

COMMISSIONER BARNETT: For all but the ten, yes.

Thanks so much.

CHAIR THOMAS: Commissioner Stump.

COMMISSIONER STUMP: Your presentation was really
helpful to be reminded this is a big project, and we are accustomed in working on affordable housing projects that the affordable housing is integrated and it’s built
concurrently with the projects. Twenty homes, 155 homes, it's built in.

What you’re putting forward, and probably what
your business model is, is a struggle for the Town because it doesn’t allow us to disperse affordable housing across the development. This is going to be rental only, no
opportunity to purchase. I mean, I’m disappointed. I
understand your business position, but I’m disappointed because I’m really interested in seeing people that need affordable housing to be able to purchase affordable
housing instead of just continue as renters.

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/29/2025, Item #2,
North Forty Phase 2
34 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
When we met back in April I think we clearly
communicated that the affordable housing portion of this project could be no risk, that it’s critical to get this affordable housing built. I do realize, in fact I was
really surprised, Mr. Phillips, page A-4 in your letter that you sent today caused me to go wow, and it said that, “In some cases, building affordable housing can take as long as ten years after project approval,” and I sort of fell off my chair at that point in time. I think it also made me realize that this is a big project.

So, I think what we are just really looking for,
and I’ll be really risky here and I’ll use the word
“guarantee,” but we’re trying to find a place that we can work together to guarantee this will happen, that the
affordable housing will happen, and I think that’s really important from the Town of Los Gatos perspective that that affordable housing does get developed, ideally sooner than later everything will click perfectly, but also realize that this may take a lot longer than we expected. So,
anything that can be done on your part to move us towards this that can we do together to make sure that this
affordable housing is guaranteed?
ERIC PHILLIPS: Thank you. I think you’ve brought
up a lot of excellent points and points for comparison, and

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/29/2025, Item #2,
North Forty Phase 2
35 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
I think what you said is quite instructive that this is a large scale development project that is different than when you are building just a 150-unit multi-family building and can disperse all throughout a single project, and
recognizing that difference, I think, is quite important.

Probably the best analogy is Phase 1 of the North
Forty that was developed, and as we heard Community
Development Director Paulson say before, the trigger for Phase 1 was to allow there it was 187 units, which was
close to 60% of the market rate units be developed before requiring the affordable housing, and that was to allow a little flexibility with the financing and the delivery of the timing.

What we’re proposing here, to speak to the exact
interest that you were raising, to guarantee there is a very strong incentive to deliver the affordable housing is to self-limit to only being able to build 28%, less than one-third of the project, before we deliver the affordable housing either on Lot 19 in the 100% affordable building, or in the mixed-income apartment building.

The reason that it's so important in this type of
project to be able to have that flexibility is so that
there can be at least a little bit of market rate
development that can help underwrite all of those

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/29/2025, Item #2,
North Forty Phase 2
36 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
infrastructure costs that Steve Buster was describing that go into such a large-scale project. But because there is such a large investment, building, again, less than 30% of the units up front isn’t enough to make the Applicant team whole after doing all this development.

They will be strongly incentivized to continue
building and to deliver that affordable housing so that they can get to what they really want to build, and Steve didn’t have time to talk about this during his comments, but Grosvenor’s business model is to build, own, and
operate multi-family housing, so ultimately what they want to deliver is that mixed-income, multi-family building, and they’re not going to be able to do that until they’ve
delivered all the affordable housing, so that creates a huge incentive to keep the entire development team working to deliver that.

CHAIR THOMAS: Commissioner Stump, are you good
with that response? Do you have a follow-up?
COMMISSIONER STUMP: My question was kind of your
project phasing. Obviously, you’re talking about 127
townhomes first. Then what?
ERIC PHILLIPS: Do you want to speak to the
phasing?
STEVE BUSTER: Sure.

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/29/2025, Item #2,
North Forty Phase 2
37 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
ERIC PHILLIPS: Steve can talk a little bit about
the way that the market will (inaudible).

COMMISSIONER STUMP: Okay, appreciate that.

STEVE BUSTER: Can you pull up the presentation?
I think it’s probably slide 3. I got it totally wrong. Next one. This should help.

With regard to the phasing, you can see on this
diagram we have streets and infrastructure labeled as
Backbone A, and streets and infrastructure labeled as
Backbone B, so the first thing we will do after acquisition is design engineer all of that work. We will then massgrade the entire site.

After mass-grading we will install that Backbone
A first. That includes a storm drain system that’s required to serve the entire project, so it’s very expensive, one of the reasons it’s very expensive, and that storm drain
system is over by Block G. By installing Backbone A first, that opens up Residential A, and likely Residential C is the first townhome areas that would go first.

Following those projects, hopefully Eden is going
in Block G already, because they will be developed a
vertical ready pad at that point. We would then commence Backbone B, which would open up Residential B, Block E, Block I, and then finally, The Meadow. Does that help?

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/29/2025, Item #2,
North Forty Phase 2
38 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
COMMISSIONER STUMP: Yes, and my follow-up
question would be what portions of these projects are you committing to unconditionally?
STEVE BUSTER: What comes to mind is if I was
applying for a permit to redo my kitchen, and the City said we’ll give you the permit, but you have to redo the
kitchen, I would never agree to that. We can’t guarantee anything. I have no idea what the market is going to be like.

Phase 1 was approved in 2017. SummerHill just
sold their last home a couple of months ago; that’s eight years. You can tell me eight years ago what the market is going to look like, I could tell you when we’re going to phase it all, but you strike when each product type is
feasible and pencils. You can’t guarantee anything is going to happen, but our business is to build, not to sit on
land.

CHAIR THOMAS: Commissioner Stump, do you have a
follow-up? You’re good? Okay, Commissioner Sordi and then I’ll get over here. Thank you.

COMMISSIONER SORDI: Thank you. I wanted to zero
in a little bit more on the timing of the affordable, so it may be a few questions; they may end up going over to Eden.

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/29/2025, Item #2,
North Forty Phase 2
39 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
I wanted to understand a little bit more about
the schedule that you guys have planned to apply for
funding. I know there are application deadlines by round, and then there are decision dates that happen so many
months after, and then there are award dates that happen after that. If you could just give us a little bit more color and detail about how that schedule looks right now.

STEVE BUSTER: Dixie is here from Eden Housing,
and can I just say before she speaks that if there is any doubt about… This is not Steve’s Affordable Housing Group that’s proposed here, this is Eden Housing, which is one of the premier builders in the state and who also has a track record in town here next door. That’s very, very important that this group that performs all up and down the State of California.

DIXIE BAUS: Thank you. Hi, everyone, I’m Dixie
Baus; I’m the Director of Real Estate Development for Eden Housing.

This project, I think, is designed in an optimal
way to where it could fit many different buckets. There are two major buckets of major funding that we’ll be looking at for the tax credits. One is called a 4% tax credit; one is called a 9% tax credit. One is less competitive than the other; size does matter.

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/29/2025, Item #2,
North Forty Phase 2
40 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
In this particular case with all the backbone
infrastructure brought to it, it decreases the cost of the project, making this one very optimal to go either 4% or 9% based on cost alone. We also don’t have to pay for land cost, so that tremendously impacts our viability and
competitiveness for 9%, the same situation we had on Phase

1. We originally began at a 4%; we went for 9%.

Four-percent tax credits are generally taken in
three times a year. That can change from year-to-year based on the allocation schedule of the state. Nine-percent tax credits are generally taken in twice a year, once in Marchish and once in July. At three months after that for the allocation date, and that is when the tax credits are
actually done.

Then we’re on the clock. We get awarded; we have
180 days to close a construction loan and start
construction. One-hundred-and-eighty; that’s nonnegotiable. Our failure to do so mean we’d lose the credits, gain negative points, and be out of business for a period of three years; that’s the penalty for not making those deadlines. Eden has never in its 57 years of
operation missed that deadline.

COMMISSIONER SORDI: If I could follow-up. What
would prevent you from applying now? What are the hurdles

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/29/2025, Item #2,
North Forty Phase 2
41 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
in front of you? Entitlement, I would imagine, is one big hurdle.

DIXIE BAUS: It’s a great hurdle. As a matter of
fact, entitlements, including the approval of the design of the building… You have to be Building Permit ready if
you’re going to get on the clock, but it is a threshold requirement to… We can’t even submit the application to the state, but the state is only the one stop.

In the easiest financial world of affordable
housing finance, which is not easy at all, what you end up doing is you end up creating this layered bunch of
financing, so the county is a partner. We can’t get our commitment for the county until we have entitlements in place.

We do know that the site is a very, very
important site for the County of Santa Clara. It’s a highpriority site, and so they are waiting anxiously to receive my application; they can’t do that until we have an
entitled site.

COMMISSIONER SORDI: Just a quick follow-up. I
know that we’ve been throwing around these numbers like eight years, ten years, or God knows what, but if you were to get entitled, hypothetically, before the end of the
calendar year this year, can you give us a sense of what

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/29/2025, Item #2,
North Forty Phase 2
42 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
the schedule… You’d then have entitlement, you’d have free land, you’d have the track record that Eden has. It kind of sounds like a home run. If all those items were in place by January of 2026, let’s say for the sake of argument, one would be looking at possible groundbreaking for affordable.

Kind of a loaded question.

DIXIE BAUS: Three years on a best-case scenario,
and let me tell you why. It will take one year just to get to the design, the CCEs and DDEs, and get the Building
Permit done, so Building Permit, all of that, we get
underway when it looks good. In this particular case we’re glad that we’re not underway, because the Building Code is going to change in January, so all of that work would have been for naught.

There are some good bits and bad bits about being
off schedule. Let’s just say we’re not going to have a
Building Code change. We get entitled, the first thing that I’m going to do is direct our internal team to go on plans.

Go on plans, because I need to be ready in case we get
lucky.

There are a lot of things that happened at the
federal level a couple of months ago, and that is the 4% tax credit program got a 25%, so we only have to finance 25% of the project with bonds instead of 50%. Now, I can

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/29/2025, Item #2,
North Forty Phase 2
43 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
get into the weeds really here. What that has done—and I was just at a meeting with the director of Tax Credit
Allocation Committee last week—is allowed them to award four times the amount of tax credit projects than they
awarded in the preceding years. Four times the amount. The backlog is huge, and so we know we better be ready. We have got to be ready, because we are likely going to get those tax credits.

ERIC PHILLIPS: I want to elaborate on that for
one second. One advantage that this whole team has had
through the process is having Dixie and the Eden team be involved in designing the unit count and targeting the
affordability. This is not just a concept of affordable housing; this has been planned specifically to maximize the viability for attracting financing. The size of the units, the layout, the population served have all been designed and created to maximize the likelihood that this can be fully financed and delivered in the shortest period of
time. It’s not a hypothetical we think we would like to do this someday; it’s a very real project that’s been
strategically designed with an eye on delivering it, as you are asking.

COMMISSIONER SORDI: Okay, thank you.

CHAIR THOMAS: Commissioner Raspe.

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/29/2025, Item #2,
North Forty Phase 2
44 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
COMMISSIONER RASPE: Thank you, Chair. This is
probably a question best for the lawyer. I think you
probably heard during our Staff presentation a question was posed to Staff regarding affordable housing and its impact to the Density-Bonus, and that is that the waivers,
concessions, and incentives are available if a developer “seeks and agrees,” I think is the phrase, to the
affordable housing. It is the Town’s position, as I
understand it, that there is no agreement. If I could hear your opinion of what an agreement would look like, or if we currently have one.

ERIC PHILLIPS: Yes, you’re exactly right. The
requirements from the State Density Bonus Law are that
there must be a single development application, which we have here. We just talked about all of the unified elements that are under one single development application, and the Applicant must seek and agree to provide the affordable housing.

I think it’s clear that we are seeking approval.

We’ve been working for many years to achieve approval of the ability to deliver this affordable housing. I think under the plain meaning of words “agree to,” we are meeting that standard. As we talked about with Commissioner
Barnett, there would be an Affordable Housing Agreement

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/29/2025, Item #2,
North Forty Phase 2
45 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
that imposes affordability restrictions on the property that ensures that it can only be developed for the
affordable housing uses that we’re talking about when that is literally an agreement to provide the affordable housing and ensures that nothing other than the affordable housing will be built on the portions of this project that are
dedicated for the affordable housing in our proposal.

During the Staff portion of the presentation,
there was the discussion about is there really a commitment to providing the affordable housing? Frankly, I think the answer is yes for the reasons that we already spoke about, that the level of infrastructure and upfront costs, the tens of millions of dollars that Grosvenor is investing that it can only recover after it has delivered the
affordable housing, is that commitment to delivering the affordable housing. Otherwise, it’s just throwing that
money away, frankly.

However, notwithstanding the fact that I think
there is a commitment, I will note that the law does not use the word “commitment,” it says, “seek and agree.” That commitment phrase goes above and beyond what the DensityBonus actually requires, even though, notwithstanding the fact, I think that what we’ve demonstrated is a commitment toward delivering the affordable housing.

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/29/2025, Item #2,
North Forty Phase 2
46 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
It's interesting. HCD has considered this
question in other jurisdictions. They’ve issued a letter to the Town of Loomis, where they found there that an
applicant did not seek and agree to provide affordable
housing, but the facts there are actually quite different from here. There, there was no affordable housing
development partner identified, they hadn’t actually
applied for the affordable housing, and they were looking to build 75% of the market rate units before delivering the affordable housing. Under those facts I can see why maybe it wasn’t seeking and agreeing, but that’s very different than the situation we have here.

COMMISSIONER RASPE: Thank you very much.

CHAIR THOMAS: Commissioner Burnett.

COMMISSIONER BURNETT: Back to costs, I just have
a couple of questions. You were talking about you have
already invested over $100 million in this project, or is that proposed?
STEVE BUSTER: It will approach $100 million once
all the roads, infrastructure, and utilities are all in the ground in the land before we build any homes. We are in the tens of millions of dollars at this point already, and it’s going to get a lot higher.

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/29/2025, Item #2,
North Forty Phase 2
47 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
COMMISSIONER BURNETT: I just wanted to know how
much of the infrastructure you have put in. Have you put in any of the…
STEVE BUSTER: We have not started… Phase 1 is
complete. Phase 2 has not received any infrastructure yet.

COMMISSIONER BURNETT: Okay, thank you.

ERIC PHILLIPS: Because, again, the project has
not been approved. The infrastructure that we’ve shown
isn’t something the Town has approved, so we can’t get
permits and start constructing yet until we get this
approval.

COMMISSIONER BURNETT: Okay, thank you. You’re
sort of summarizing what your costs are going to be then.

CHAIR THOMAS: Commissioner Stump.

COMMISSIONER STUMP: Mr. Phillips, in your
letter, my favorite page, A-4, you did refer to the
language that was part of Phase 1 that said the Town
required the affordable housing to be available and/or
occupied prior to final occupancy issuance for the 187th market rate unit. There is a reference to the resolution.

In other words, 58% of the total 186 out of 320. Phase 1 project will be allowed to be built before the Townrequired affordable units. Is this the kind of structure that you’re willing to agree to for Phase 2?

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/29/2025, Item #2,
North Forty Phase 2
48 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
ERIC PHILLIPS: We’re proposing a much more
restructure structure. If you want to offer me that deal, I will gladly take it. So, yes, what we have requested is more restrictive than that. We are only asking to build 28% of the units before we can…
COMMISSIONER STUMP: I was giving you the example
of what was here.

ERIC PHILLIPS: Exactly, but I think that that
point of comparison is quite helpful.

COMMISSIONER STUMP: Thank you.

CHAIR THOMAS: Commissioner Raspe.

COMMISSIONER RASPE: Thank you, Chair. It seems
to me—and this can be lawyers or anybody—that the issue of phasing seems to be the difficult one that we’re struggling with here, and a lot of that could be solved if the
affordable housing units were scattered throughout the
development as opposed to segregated into a single
structure. My question is was that model ever considered, and if not utilized, could you explain why it’s not
utilized?
ERIC PHILLIPS: Under the current design and at
the current density it is important to have the units
clustered to access all of the financing that Dixie was talking about. In order to use tax credit financing and

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/29/2025, Item #2,
North Forty Phase 2
49 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
leverage county money and other sources, it is necessary to have them be in a single structure. You’re not able to have a distributed housing model.

I will say that before the Town adopted the
Housing Element, when it was still considering what should happen on the North Forty, there was discussion of zoning it at a lower density, even 20 units per acre, for example.

Under that model, which at the time seemed appealing to the development team, it would have been probably a townhome only development that would have been somewhere between 200-300 units on the site, and there it would have been just compliant with the Town’s standard below market rate program; it would have been distributed for sale at
moderate-incomes. With the increase of density that the Town allocated when it adopted the Housing Element, making it go up to a minimum of 30 dwelling units per acre, to get the 450 units on the site it was necessary to increase the density, and then because that changes the cost for how you’re developing, that made us look at different models of how we could deliver the affordable housing.

The upside for that is that by partnering with
someone like Eden Housing and clustering the units, we get more affordable housing than actually the Town would
ordinarily require. We beat the Town’s below market rate

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/29/2025, Item #2,
North Forty Phase 2
50 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
requirements by a few units here, and we’re able to deliver at a lower affordability point. The Town’s standard
requirement is for moderate-income. Here we’re committing to low-income, and depending on the financing sources, it’s quite likely that Eden ultimately will deliver very-lowincome or even deeper affordable, so the Town is going to get those harder to reach low-income and potentially verylow-income units at a greater number because of this clustering.

COMMISSIONER RASPE: Thank you for that very
thorough answer; I appreciate it.

CHAIR THOMAS: Commissioner Stump.

COMMISSIONER STUMP: Just to give a point, I have
two quick questions.

I want to briefly talk about setback. I know this
is one of the waivers that is being requested. On Los Gatos Boulevard the North Forty Specific Plan calls for a setback of 50’ for any building or portions of buildings over 25’ located on Los Gatos Boulevard, and of course that building is expected to be 99’, so well over the 25’. Have you
considered other configurations for that multi-family,
Mixed-Use apartment building, considered any other
configurations as far as the property goes?

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/29/2025, Item #2,
North Forty Phase 2
51 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
STEVE BUSTER: The first part of the answer is in
order to get to the required density in the Housing Element we have to have the height, and The Meadow, the park in the middle, was very, very important to the community when we did our community outreach, so with the park in the middle we had to get the height to get 30 units an acre. That’s number one.

Number two, the actual height of the building on
Los Gatos Boulevard is not going to be 99’; it’s a lot
lower than that, because the elevation, the grade drops.

You go by the site, Los Gatos Boulevard, and then it drops onto the site, so the building is actually recessed lower.

In the back it will be 99’—I think that may be right, I can’t remember—but the front will appear to be much lower than that.

COMMISSIONER STUMP: You know what that height
is?
STEVE BUSTER: I do have an Exhibit in the
appendix of my presentation, if we want to bring it up. I totally forgot, our architect is here. Way better to answer this question.

ARCHITECT: Yes, we took that into consideration.

What we did is on Los Gatos Boulevard the building portion is stepped back to minimize the height, so at one corner of

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/29/2025, Item #2,
North Forty Phase 2
52 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
the building the height from the sidewalk to the top of the parapet is 61’, and another portion is 71’, and roughly in the middle there is an 84’ gap, which is open to the
courtyard, and that’s only one story in height, which is 18’, so the three main building heights along Los Gatos Boulevard, 16’, 18’ that’s 84’ wide, then 71’. Then the building steps back, and actual tallest portion is measured to the top of the elevator mechanical penthouse, which is facing on the other side of the street, and that’s why it’s so much higher, because of the grades decreasing in that area.

COMMISSIONER STUMP: I guess the reason that I
brought it up is because obviously high-rise buildings in Los Gatos are a new thing. Sensitivity related to it, and obviously if you’ve got a building that’s 20’ from
basically at the curb or the street it gives you more of an urban feeling potentially than a suburban feeling with like turning and walking right into a building.

ARCHITECT: That’s correct, and one clarification
to that dimension. From the face of the building to the edge of the curb along Los Gatos Boulevard is actually 38’, not 20’. I’m not sure where that number came from, but it’s actually 38’.

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/29/2025, Item #2,
North Forty Phase 2
53 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
COMMISSIONER STUMP: I’m not either. The other
question I wanted to ask as a follow-on, but this is
different; it’s related to density. As you know, the Town Attorney has asked for a clarification from HCD on this gross lot area, and the gross acreage out at that site is

15.65 acres, and when this gross lot area was applied, I suppose that’s where we got down to the 14.47 acres. Did people on your team arrive at that number? Was this done in concert with the Town’s Staff? How was the number of 14.47 arrived at?
ERIC PHILLIPS: That methodology is derived from
the Town Code, which defines how to calculate density, and then followed the same methodology that was used for Phase 1, so it was developed in concert with Town Staff, then interpreting the code, applying the same techniques that were used in Phase 1, and figuring out what the density here would be.

I will point out that although there is the
subtraction for what we’re calling the “backbone
infrastructure,” those streets that will serve really as public streets, all of the courtyards, the internal
circulation, the parking, the open space, is included in that 14.41 figure, so it does approximate a gross density figure if you’re comparing it to other styles of

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/29/2025, Item #2,
North Forty Phase 2
54 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
development. I think it’s more conservative even than the Town’s code requires, because that would allow you to
subtract out all areas that are deeded for access and
public, and here we’re subtracting much less than that, because that is the direction Town Staff provided and the way it was calculated for Phase 1.

COMMISSIONER STUMP: Then I guess it will be good
to get a confirmation from HCD that that indeed is, I guess I’ll say, appropriate, because other technical assistance would not probably say that’s the way HCD would go.

ERIC PHILLIPS: I’ve certainly seen all of the
comments from the alliance that have raised the same issue, and I will say that the Density-Bonus Statute does call for calculations of density using gross acres. What that means is that we could, if we wanted to, use the 30-dwelling unit per acre standard across the entire 15.1 and use that as our base density, and then add even more units on top of that.

We would be entitled to build more, and that is
the context that HCD has given. It’s technical advice about using gross density in other jurisdictions. It says you must allow an Applicant that wants to build more to use gross density when they’re using Density-Bonus. To me,
that’s a different question than is the Town correctly

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/29/2025, Item #2,
North Forty Phase 2
55 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
interpreting its own codes when it’s not calculating a
Density-Bonus to see what the local code consistency
determination is for how you’ve calculated density?
COMMISSIONER STUMP: So, do I understand you to
say that then you would be open to adding additional units? ERIC PHILLIPS: I said we’d be entitled to.

COMMISSIONER STUMP: Big difference. Okay, thank
you.

CHAIR THOMAS: I have one question. If we could
see the slide deck, the slide of your suggested changes to the Conditions of Approval, because I believe the letter covered these, but this is more succinct.

STEVE BUSTER: More succinct because I wrote it,
not the attorney.

CHAIR THOMAS: That’s fine. I think that we will
want to be able to refer to them. I’m going to take a photo of this so that I can just look at it. Okay, perfect. If anyone else wants to do that, just so we have access to it later.

Then, because we do have a number of members of
the public who are currently yawning and it is getting
late, we will have another opportunity to ask the Applicant team any of our remaining questions, so we will be moving

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/29/2025, Item #2,
North Forty Phase 2
56 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
on to public comment, if that’s okay with everyone. Thank you very much for all of that.

ERIC PHILLIPS: And thank you for all your time.

I appreciate it.

CHAIR THOMAS: Thank you for being so thorough.

We now invite comments from members of the public. If you have not already done so, please fill out a speaker card if you are speaking here in person. If you are on Zoom, now is the time to raise your hand if you would like to make a public comment for this item. When you are called to speak, please state your name and address for the record, or state that you are speaking anonymously, and you will have three minutes to make your comments. The first card I have is for Katherine Mancuso.

KATHERINE MANCUSO: Good evening, everybody.

Thank you for your time tonight.

What hasn’t been mentioned tonight, which is near
and dear to my heart, is my understanding is that some of these units are specifically designated for adults with intellectual disabilities. That’s the part that I’m
interested in, and I wanted to bring a little bit of a
personal shine a light on that piece and need.

My name is Katherine Mancuso; I live on Mulberry
Drive in Los Gatos. My parents moved to Los Gatos in the

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/29/2025, Item #2,
North Forty Phase 2
57 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
early 1950s, I grew up here, my son grew up here, and I was lucky enough to have a great career that allowed me to buy a home here, which allowed my son to be able to grow up here. So, longtime resident of Los Gatos.

My son, at the meeting we came to six months ago,
was 28; he’s now 29. The longer this goes on, the less
affordable everything gets. He’s very high functioning; he works at Amazon part-time, and he also works at
volunteering at some of the food shelters.

He’s been lucky enough to find housing,
affordable, specifically for individuals like himself with some intellectual delay and disabilities, but it's in Santa Clara. The great thing about that is it has given us the opportunity to really experience what that means to an
individual and to a family. He’s just grown exponentially with that experience; I can’t speak to it enough.

I know there has been some conversation about
dispersing these units throughout the entire North Forty.

The way it works in a lot of these developments, and where my son lives in Santa Clara, is it’s all one unit, and that allows them to provide services to individuals, which is very, very helpful. They have a social worker that is there onsite. They have housing people onsite, so if there are issues that come up between the tenant and the site there

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/29/2025, Item #2,
North Forty Phase 2
58 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
is somebody there to help them with that, so providing
services, it’s really handy to have all that stuff in one place.

The hard thing for us as parents is certainly my
son is going to outlive my husband and I, and figuring out his independence and his ability to thrive weighs heavy on us every day. His doctor is in Los Gatos, his dentist is in Los Gatos, his grandmother is in Los Gatos, and his friends are in Los Gatos, and being able to live closer to us and be able to better support him by not driving so much—he doesn’t drive, so Uber expenses are high—it just would mean a tremendous amount, so I really want to encourage you to move this forward as quickly as possible, and really
encourage you to understand the need. He's not unique. He’s got lots and lots of friends. Saratoga-Los Gatos High
School grads that are in a very similar situation.

CHAIR THOMAS: Thank you very much. Are there any
questions for the speaker? No. Thank you for coming again tonight and waiting patiently. The next speaker card I have is for Ali Sapirman. You will have three minutes once you get up here, and I appreciate the phonetic spelling.

ALI SAPIRMAN: Good evening, Chair and
Commissioners. My name is Ali Sapirman, and I’m speaking on

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/29/2025, Item #2,
North Forty Phase 2
59 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
behalf of the Housing Action Coalition in support of the North Forty Phase 2 project.

I live in Santa Clara County, but I’ve been in
Los Angeles for work this week and I drove six hours to return from LA today to be here simply for this hearing. I say that only because of the urgency that we’re facing with this project.

I was disappointed about the previous delay that
this project faced given the importance this project has to the Town and the entire region. North Forty turns about

15.5 acres of underused land into a community with 450
homes, shops, and open space. It includes 77 affordable homes onsite and 1.25 acres donated to Eden Housing, an incredible partner: a fully affordable building with 67 additional homes for families earning 60% of area median income.

In order to meet its state Regional Housing Needs
Allocation, Los Gatos has to plan for 1,993 new homes by 2031, and 847 of those must be affordable for lower- and middle-income households. The North Forty project makes real progress towards that goal and shows that Los Gatos is ready to take housing production seriously.

In terms of density, this project delivers gentle
density. This isn’t a skyscraper, it’s not a high-rise, it

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/29/2025, Item #2,
North Forty Phase 2
60 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
fits really well with the existing neighborhoods and
character. The development is walkable, sustainable, and designed to fit into the Town’s character. It’s a great example of how Los Gatos can add homes and still protect what makes this community so special.

I urge you approve the North Forty Phase 2
project and keep moving the Town closer to meeting its
state housing goals and creating more homes for everyone.

Thank you.

CHAIR THOMAS: Thank you. Do we have any
questions for the speaker? Thank you very much. The next speaker card I have is for Noa Sklar. Thank you.

NOA SKLAR: Hi, I’m Noa Sklar; I’ve lived in Los
Gatos for 28 years.

I actually do not like this project at all, the
whole North Forty Phase 1, Phase 2, and I disagree, the high-rise does not fit in the Los Gatos atmosphere and the flair. We’re losing this Town for greed and such, but with that being said, since I’m just a little person who cannot face the big events that are happening, my daughter, Romi, sitting there, she is neurodivergent.

She grew up in Los Gatos and the excellent
schools. She was a wrestling pro, she represented the
school, and she graduated college. With all her

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/29/2025, Item #2,
North Forty Phase 2
61 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
disabilities she graduated and she’s applying for a
masters, but she’s not ready… She wants to be independent, but where is she going to live? We want her nearby. She grew up here, everything that she’s familiar with is here.

Why should she move to Mountain View or East San Jose when she can be here near us, close to her family?
I urge you, please, since we’re already building
this, allocate enough units, and not a joke amount that you’re offering, much more than what you’re offering, for kids like my daughter, and there are tons of kids like her, neurodivergent, on the spectrum, living here. They might not be people that you know, see really quickly, meaning you’re not exposed to them as much, because we tend to be low key, except me, so please move on with this project for the sake of my daughter and people like her as quickly as you can, and that’s it. Let’s have our kids stay near us and not venture to a faraway land when they can stay in Los Gatos with what they know and what they’re familiar with.

Okay, thank you.

CHAIR THOMAS: Thank you. Any questions for the
speaker? The next card I have is for Romi Sklar.

ROMY SKLAR: Hello, everyone. My name is Romi
Sklar. I am 23 years old and I still live in Los Gatos, but I lived in Los Gatos my whole life, when I was born till

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/29/2025, Item #2,
North Forty Phase 2
62 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
now, and I love living in Los Gatos. My heart is in Los Gatos. I have a lot of friends in Los Gatos, good memories in Los Gatos, my gym, my extracurricular activities, my family.

I am neurodivergent, and I faced some obstacles
in school like academics, slow processing, but I never that stop me. I always persevere, I want to continue
persevering, and I have a lot of friends on the spectrum and other neurodiverse conditions who live in Los Gatos too, and they want to be independent. They still want to live in Los Gatos, like me. I still want to live here, but I want to live close to my parents, just so I can be more independent. I do drive, but like do grocery shopping on my own, independent stuff, and just be close to my parents so they can visit me, or let’s say something happens.

Also, another thing is I can’t afford going far,
it’s expensive, and with the money and everything. My
neurodivergent friends want to be independent like me, but also can’t afford, so please allocate for us neurodivergent individuals to live independently, but in Los Gatos.

I want to say, to conclude, thank you, and if
there are any other thoughts. Again, like I said, I love it here. Los Gatos is my home. Los Gatos is my heart. I went to Los Gatos High School. I graduated from Cal State East

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/29/2025, Item #2,
North Forty Phase 2
63 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
Bay with my BA in human development. I want to live in Los Gatos, but live on my own, but still live close to my
parents and everything.

I’m never going to give up just because I have
autism and mild learning challenges. I’m not giving up. I have a lot of friends in the same boat, and they have
friends; I’m social. But thank you.

CHAIR THOMAS: Thank you very much for sharing
tonight. Very much appreciate that. Do we have any
questions? I think there is one question for you.

COMMISSIONER BARNETT: Given your comments, I
infer that you support the project that’s before the
Planning Commission because you want to have available
housing, and particularly for developmentally challenged people, is that correct?
ROMI SKLAR: Right.

COMMISSIONER BARNETT: Your mother made reference
to not liking the look of the project because of its size.

I was wondering what your opinion is.

ROMI SKLAR: Personally, I have to say that I am
a firm believer that whoever really benefits and needs
housing allocated, whether it’s low-income or people with developmental or neurodiverse conditions, deserve to have housing, because they want to be independent. a lot of

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/29/2025, Item #2,
North Forty Phase 2
64 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
these folks want to live independently, and I’m a believer that we should just… I still want to live in Los Gatos, but live independently.

COMMISSIONER BARNETT: I understand. Thank you so
much for your comments.

ROMI SKLAR: Of course.

CHAIR THOMAS: Thank you. The next card I have is
for Dennise Jauregui.

DENNISE JAUREGUI: Good evening, I am Dennise
Jauregui; I am the Executive Director of Housing Choices, and I’m here to express my strong support for the North Forty Phase 2 project and to respectfully urge the
Commission to approve this project so it can move forward.

North Forty Phase 2 will provide much needed
affordable housing with approximately 25% of the units
designated for individuals with intellectual and
developmental disabilities who are receiving services from San Andreas Regional Center, which is a state-funded
agency.

Housing Choices was founded 28 years ago by
parents of adults with developmental disabilities who were seeking independent living options for their sons and
daughters. They were seeking places and opportunities that were outside of the family home, and since then our mission

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/29/2025, Item #2,
North Forty Phase 2
65 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
has been to open doors for people with developmental
disabilities by creating and supporting quality affordable housing options, ensuring they they’re living in the
communities of their choosing.

The lack of access to affordable housing is the
number one reason adults with developmental disabilities are unable to move out of the family home and are at
greater risk of homelessness when their aging parents and caregivers are no longer able to care for them.

In Los Gatos there are approximately 125 people
with developmental disabilities, approximately 50 of them children, and 75 are adults, living in the family home.

Housing Choices is also a proud partner with Eden
Housing, a respected housing developer across the state.

They are leading in inclusive affordable housing
developments, and Housing Choices has partnered with them in six projects, and counting, all throughout Santa Clara County. Each project is designed to provide safe, stable homes for individuals with developmental disabilities with onsite supportive services, so they’re able to thrive.

Most recently our collaboration with Mitchell
Park Place in Palo Alto is currently in lease-up and
proceeded with no delays. Additionally, all six
developments have continued and with no delays.

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/29/2025, Item #2,
North Forty Phase 2
66 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
Eden Housing’s track record as a trusted missionaligned developer reinforces our shared commitment to inclusive affordable housing. Inclusive projects like North Forty Phase 2 reflect a community where people of all
abilities and backgrounds have the opportunity to thrive, and I urge you to approve this development.

CHAIR THOMAS: Are there any questions for the
speaker? Thank you for your comments. The last speaker card I have is for Gia Pham.

GIA PHAM: Hello, everyone. I guess you could say
that I came to sort of investigate one Los Gatos’ toughest cases, the shortage of affordable housing for people with disabilities.

My name is Gia; I’m the Communications
Coordinator at Housing Choices, a nonprofit that helps
individuals with intellectual and developmental
disabilities find and retain housing. I’d just like to
address some of the claims made in the packet.

First, Los Gatos now has a Certified Housing
Element, so trying to use a brief period of noncompliance to undo the current certification misunderstands the law.

Second, the Town adopted the Housing Element
Overlay Zone and the Housing Element was later, again,
certified, so that gives us that 30-unit density, not 20.

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/29/2025, Item #2,
North Forty Phase 2
67 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
The law requires honoring adopted zoning used to satisfy the RHNA.

Next, there are some arguments about Builder's
Remedy math, but we’re not even using Builder's Remedy
right now, so debating on Builder's Remedy math is
irrelevant, it’s kind of like deciding what umbrella size to use when the raining has already stopped.

Next, this is something that says, “The rejected
Site Inventory can’t be relied on.” Well, no. Once the HCD certifies a Housing Element and the zoning is adopted, the Site Inventory is settled, including our North Forty. So, there are a lot of comments arguing HCD to reconfirm
matters that are already settled by law and basic
sequential logic.

The project delivers exactly what is envisioned
in the current city’s Housing Element and represents a
major opportunity for Los Gatos to advance its affordable housing goals.

The Phase 2 affordable housing parcel will be pad
ready, allowing construction to start quickly once
approved. It will achieve very low AMI affordability levels without requiring Town funding.

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/29/2025, Item #2,
North Forty Phase 2
68 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
The site is also environmentally sound, not
located in a flood zone or a liquefaction area, and
benefits from a separate sewer system.

Most importantly, as many of my fellow advocates
have mentioned, 25% of the affordable units will be
reserved for folks with developmental disabilities, and this is one of the few opportunities for young adults with disabilities to live independently near their families, near jobs, and near support systems. The Los Gatos Union High School District post-secondary program serves about 30 students with disabilities each year, many of whom would age out without housing options, but this would provide and satisfy such.

I’d like to share a few quotes from local
advocates I interviewed. One, “I know people who could
afford such housing if it were made available to them.” “Many want to become independent, but just can’t afford it.” “Los Gatos is a pricy place, and being able to stay in the same community would be great.”
Please approve the project. Thank you.

CHAIR THOMAS: Thank you. Are there any questions
for Ms. Pham? Yes, we have one question. Commissioner
Barnett.

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/29/2025, Item #2,
North Forty Phase 2
69 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
COMMISSIONER BARNETT: My understanding is that
the developer is committed to 16 units for people with
intellectual and developmental disabilities. You mentioned

25. GIA PHAM: Twenty-five percent.

COMMISSIONER BARNETT: Oh, 25%. Thank you. I got
it.

CHAIR THOMAS: Any other questions? No. Thank
you. I have no more speaker cards for people here in the chambers for this item. Are there any hands raised on Zoom, Mr. Paulson?
DIRECTOR PAULSON: Yes, we have a hand raised on
Zoom. Jennifer, you can unmute yourself.

JENNIFER LUCAS: Great, thank you. Good evening,
Commissioners. My name is Jennifer Lucas; I’m the Manager of the California State Council on Developmental
Disabilities Central Coast Office. We cover seven counties, including Santa Clara County. The Council is an independent state agency established in both state and federal law, and we work to ensure that people with developmental
disabilities are fully included in all aspects of their community and are afforded the same rights as all of us.

I’m here to express my strong support for the
North Forty Phase 2 project.

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/29/2025, Item #2,
North Forty Phase 2
70 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
People with intellectual and developmental
disabilities do face barriers in all aspects of life: in school; in employment; in accessing and receiving
healthcare; being part of their community; and in housing, because affordable housing options are virtually
nonexistent.

As a result, the vast majority of people do
continue to live with their aging parents. This has been reiterated countless times, and it’s critical that this fact is understood. Without building affordable housing, the health, safety, and independence of people with
developmental disabilities is at serious risk.

The North Forty Phase 2 project offers a real
solution, a local solution. It fulfilled the Town’s
approved Housing Element. It meets state density
requirements. It creates a pad-ready site for Eden Housing to move forward efficiently once the approvals are granted, and for housing choices, a vendor of San Andreas Regional Center to provide the needed support to those with
developmental disabilities who move in. Every delay or
added restriction drives up the cost and pushes these longawaited homes further out of reach for the people and the families who need them most.

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/29/2025, Item #2,
North Forty Phase 2
71 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
I strongly urge you to make Los Gatos a community
that truly includes all of its residents. As Romi said, Los Gatos is her home and her heart. I respectfully encourage you to send a clear message to your residents that everyone belongs. Thank you.

CHAIR THOMAS: Thank you very much. Are there any
questions for the speaker? Are there any other hands raised on Zoom?
DIRECTOR PAULSON: There are no other hands
raised.

CHAIR THOMAS: I feel like we’re going to have a
lot more questions for the Applicant, and I know it’s kind of weird to take a break now, but is that okay, or no?
ATTORNEY WHELAN: Yes, it fine to take a break.

CHAIR THOMAS: Okay. I think we need a little
stretch break. Do we want to do ten? I want to do ten,
personally. Okay, ten minutes. We will be back in ten
minutes. Thank you all very much, and thank you for
everyone that has stuck it out this far.
(INTERMISSION)
CHAIR THOMAS: We will now be restarting our
meeting, and we are still in the public portion of our
public hearing, and it is now time for the Applicant team to come up and make a closing statement. I’m assuming you

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/29/2025, Item #2,
North Forty Phase 2
72 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
want to. If you don’t want to make a statement, at least come up because I’m sure we still have questions for you.

You will have three minutes if you want to say anything; you do not need to use all of it. Thank you.

ERIC PHILLIPS: We will respect your time, we
won’t take the full three minutes, but we did just want to thank you and the public commenters for your attention and the questions that we’ve already had. In addition to Steve and Dixie and myself, who you’ve already met, we have our transportation engineer, our civil engineer, and our design team, so there are lots of experts here to help answer
questions that there might be about the specifics of the project, which we focused on less so far tonight than we did in our first meeting, as well as some of the inputs that went into the environmental analysis.

There was one point that came up all the way back
to the Staff presentation that I wanted to highlight
relative to the conversation about cumulative impacts. I did want to point out that the Town’s environmental
checklist, the Initial Study that the Town prepared, did look at cumulative impacts. The factors for reopening CEQA process that Commissioner Stump was talking about could involve new cumulative impacts, and that was one of the factors that the Town’s Initial Study looked at and

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/29/2025, Item #2,
North Forty Phase 2
73 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
concluded that that this development would not result in a significant contribution to cumulative impacts, bearing in mind that the General Plan EIR already analyzed the
potential for developing 3,738 new units and the cumulative impact of developing that amount of housing has already been thoroughly analyzed in a full EIR, so I did want to highlight that.

Then, also relate that to the way that the
traffic analysis was done, which does include specific
projects as was discussed, and as Director Paulson
mentioned, that traffic analysis does directly feed into the noise analysis, the air quality analysis, the health risk analysis, and the greenhouse gas emissions analysis that was used as the basis for the Town’s environmental study, so those cumulative impacts have been looked at
here.

With that, I think we’ll leave it for any
questions and respect the time and focusing on the issues that you’d like to cover.

CHAIR THOMAS: Thank you very much. Before I go
to anyone else, I would like to ask a question about
landscaping—I’m sorry, I was saving this until later—which I know we talked about last time, so a little bit. Is

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/29/2025, Item #2,
North Forty Phase 2
74 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
anyone here to be able to answer? Okay, great. I have some questions about some of the tree species choices.

ERIC PHILLIPS: The one technical consultant that
I didn’t list, but he is here, so he’s coming up.

CHAIR THOMAS: I was hoping that someone would be
here to be able to talk about this. Since you don’t know me, my background is in environmental science and local ecology, and I had a couple of questions about some of the plants, especially some of the perimeter trees,
particularly the Coast Redwoods, which I know we even have some outside, but this area.

The Coast Redwoods and the poplar that is being
proposed require a lot of water to do well here, and as we know, that is becoming less and less available, so I was just wondering if there is a possibility of picking
alternative trees that would require less irrigation in the long term in order to stay healthy, especially because it’s going to be right next to a major housing development.

LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: That is an option. I think
we chose those because they were fast growing and we were (inaudible) area, and so I think we were trying to just speak to the landscape that exists in the region already.

But, yes, happy to reconsider. There are certainly other

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/29/2025, Item #2,
North Forty Phase 2
75 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
species that have lower water use, and we’d be happy to do that.

CHAIR THOMAS: I don’t want to waste everyone’s
time here if this is something that you’re open to, but I don't know how else to end up getting things in to be
changed, so I’m just going to ask a couple more questions, and then maybe ask Staff for advice about how to get this moving in the right direction.

Because also for some of the other trees, again,
there are two different types of oaks. One of them is a Coast Live Oak, which we have a lot of, that will do great in that area; but the other is a European Oak, and we have multiple other options, and I noted that one was probably chosen because it’s an evergreen, but Canyon Live Oak is also an evergreen that is a similar size, so I feel like that would probably… Would that be an option that you would see as viable to swap out?
LANDSCRAPE ARCHITECT: I’m certainly open to that
as well, and we could specify only native oak species if that’s a requirement that you would like to codify.

CHAIR THOMAS: Okay, thank you. Then, the one
other tree that I see as a little bit problematic is there are some magnolias, and they can also be very destructive to infrastructure and cause problems with maintenance

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/29/2025, Item #2,
North Forty Phase 2
76 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
overall, so if that’s a possibility to swap those out for something else that is more drought tolerant and does not do as much damage with its roots to the infrastructure.

LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: Absolutely.

CHAIR THOMAS: Seeing that everyone seems to be
somewhat amenable to that, I guess I would ask your team and Staff what would be the best route for making some
recommended changes?
ATTORNEY WHELAN: Our Staff recommendation would
be to add a Condition of Approval that addresses the
landscaping, and so far it would consist of saying that all oaks will be replaced with native oak species, and all
magnolias will be replaced with drought tolerant trees that don’t damage infrastructure.

CHAIR THOMAS: Okay. Yes.

ERIC PHILLIPS: We’re very amenable to that.

Potentially the only friendly amendment I would hope is that if the Condition of Approval were added that we would work with Staff to finalize the plant palette that
accomplishes what the Town Attorney just said, just so
there is an end point to how that decision gets made.

CHAIR THOMAS: Yes. That sounds great. Also, if
this does not continue tonight and it is no longer in front of us, if I wanted to give the Applicant team the feedback,

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/29/2025, Item #2,
North Forty Phase 2
77 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
because that would be more prescriptive in a way that then could be…they could present later on when they go through… You know what I mean? Just to create no extra work. Is that not something that is allowed once it's gone from us and not going to be back here, or no?
ATTORNEY WHELAN: If the Commission is interested
in imposing a requirement, I would recommend adding it to the Condition of Approval.

CHAIR THOMAS: And then beyond the requirement,
just if I had a couple of other suggestions that I think would save money and water and be more appropriate in the long run?
ATTORNEY WHELAN: The Commission has suggestions
only. Those could be made verbally at this meeting.

CHAIR THOMAS: Yes, but I mean like would it be
legal for me after it’s gone from Planning Commission for me to just email them with a change…like the other changes I had got would be…
ATTORNEY WHELAN: My recommendation would be that
the recommendations come from the full Commission, and so you would want to make sure that anything you are proposing to the Applicant had been agreed to by the other
Commissioners, so I think tonight would be appropriate.

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/29/2025, Item #2,
North Forty Phase 2
78 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
CHAIR THOMAS: Okay, thank you. Well, I’ll
summarize them, and then we can discuss it at the end of all of our other things if we want, so we can make it all clear.

Commissioner Burnett did have something related
to that?
COMMISSIONER BURNETT: Thank you. The trees that
are on the perimeter of Highway 17 Phase 1, I don't know what trees they are, but they’re very slow-growing and it’s going to be forever before they hide what’s behind them, let’s say. Are you recommending those same trees for Phase 2? Because they’re not a fast-growing tree.

LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: To be honest, I’m not
entirely sure what was planted in the Phase 1 plans.

COMMISSIONER BURNETT: I could ask our Chair if
she’s familiar with those trees.

CHAIR THOMAS: The ones that are there right now?
COMMISSIONER BURNETT: Yes. I would just
recommend that we have something different. They’re not doing the job they need to do. Chair, do we want to come back to this?
CHAIR THOMAS: Yes, maybe we can ask some other
questions, and then we can come back to the trees later.

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/29/2025, Item #2,
North Forty Phase 2
79 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
Perfect. Vice Chair Burch, and then I’ll get to
Commissioner Stump.

VICE CHAIR BURCH: Thank you. Minor nod about
trees. I do have more of a more procedural question that I think will pertain more to you if you want to come back up while they’re looking to find the trees.

LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: I pulled it up.

VICE CHAIR BURCH: You did? We can wait a second,
then. It’s fine, go ahead.

LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: The ones that we had around
the perimeter were the redwoods and poplars, and those are going to be replaced, and so perhaps as part of the
language to adjust those we could add fast growing for that category as well.

COMMISSIONER BURNETT: Okay, thank you.

VICE CHAIR BURCH: Okay, thank you. I wanted to
go back to a bit of the conversation about when we build some of the affordable units, but my first question is a bit more of understanding about how you guys work and how you structure a project.

As you make it through this process and once the
project is entitled, do you then sell that, or does
Grosvenor maintain control over the construction all the way through to that point?

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/29/2025, Item #2,
North Forty Phase 2
80 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
STEVE BUSTER: It depends on the project, and
we’re not entirely sure how this one will occur. On Phase 1, for instance, we got through the entitlements with
SummerHill, and then SummerHill took over. They were our partner through it, and then they took over the work.

VICE CHAIR BURCH: Correct.

STEVE BUSTER: That could happen here with the
townhome component where we bring in a partner to build the hometowns. Grosvenor has built townhomes before, but it’s not our total expertise, so we like to bring in an expert to do that. Our expertise is more in the multi-family
sector, so what’s really our bread and butter is the multifamily rental, but we haven’t really figured out yet… Once we get entitled, then we’ll go back, finding the best
partners and figure out how to best go forward.

VICE CHAIR BURCH: Okay. Can I ask a couple
follow-ups really quick? Okay, thank you, that kind of
helps.

When you had brought up the slide earlier and you
were taking a look at some of the infrastructure costs and everything, that’s usually done as one package. Does
Grosvenor oversee that level of utilities and
infrastructure, and then perhaps sell it off?

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/29/2025, Item #2,
North Forty Phase 2
81 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
STEVE BUSTER: Again, we have done both where we
will build the backbone of a structure and sell finished lots to a builder, or partner with a builder on finished lots. There are cases where a builder would rather do it themselves, so we would partner with a builder to do that work. So, we’ve done both.

VICE CHAIR BURCH: Okay. So, we took a look at
that slide and you were kind of estimating some high-level costs just for the infrastructure required for the whole lot. One of the things that was noted in here in trying to figure out the timing of what you need to build to make the affordable viable is that without building this 127 it
really makes the other not viable, so obviously $100
million in infrastructure costs is not just for the
affordable, that’s for the entire site.

I’m trying to understand on our side as we take a
look at how we’re going to structure this, how do I
understand what makes this 127 the magic number, and why within then basically most of this is not viable. How do you help me understand that (inaudible) we structure this? STEVE BUSTER: Sure. Another way of summarizing
what the Town’s proposal is, the Town is essentially saying through concurrent development of affordable with market rate that you have to build Eden building first. So, that

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/29/2025, Item #2,
North Forty Phase 2
82 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
one would have to go first, which means Eden would have to build all the infrastructure, so that’s not feasible.

The 127 townhomes will be used to finance the
cost to build the infrastructure. So, let’s just say you go to a bank and you say I’m going to borrow money to go build the infrastructure. They want to know that you can pay off the loan, so how do you do that? Well, you say I pledge 127 lots. I’m going to build those, and once I build the
infrastructure and sell them I will have money to pay the loan down. Does that make sense?
VICE CHAIR BURCH: Yes, of course, which makes
sense. Like I need to get some cash flow in to do this
work. If at that point building these concurrently isn’t ideal, I would recommend to how I would like to see it then is instead we start looking at a completion date for the affordable. I assume as you look at what cashflows you’re looking at costs, there is some level of milestone schedule that has been developed for all of this for you, and
usually you’re going to probably want to build from the back to front so you’re not damaging and redoing work that you’re already done and you’re not driving a dump truck through somebody’s parking lot.

When you look at that at that kind of level, I
would have to assume there’s at least a general idea of

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/29/2025, Item #2,
North Forty Phase 2
83 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
when you would prefer to have that completed. If we could talk that through rather than saying we want this to done concurrently, could we put into the Conditions of Approval this is a date to have this affordable housing built?
STEVE BUSTER: So, a date certain is a guarantee.

We cannot guarantee when anything is going to be built. I can’t guarantee when the infrastructure is going to be
built, or townhomes and apartments. There are no guarantees in our business; any developer would say that. That’s why we can’t agree to a date, because that is essentially a guarantee.

VICE CHAIR BURCH: Okay. That answers my
question.

CHAIR THOMAS: Commissioner Stump.

COMMISSIONER STUMP: I’d like to go back to your
slide on affordable housing Condition of Approval. I’ve got a couple of questions on your bullet. Sean, if you want to bring that up again.

Looking down at the fourth bullet point—I’m just
trying to understand at this point—it says that the multifamily building is commenced before the affordable housing lot, 17% of the units within the multi-family building, again, assuming 255 units as far as the denominator, shall

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/29/2025, Item #2,
North Forty Phase 2
84 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
be provided as BMP units until milestones are met. If my math is correct, that pencils out to 43 units.

STEVE BUSTER: Sort of. Here’s what’s different
about it. What we’re proposing is whatever is built to that point.

COMMISSIONER STUMP: I understand.

STEVE BUSTER: So, if there are townhomes built
and we start the multi-family, we would contain 17% of what has been built to date, so it actually could be higher than that.

COMMISSIONER STUMP: So, townhomes, it doesn’t
really say that though here on the bullet point, but I
understand what you’re saying. There would be townhomes and the multi-family.

ERIC PHILLIPS: And you’re right, it doesn’t say
it on the summary, but if you look at the Density-Bonus request that we submitted—it’s on pages 79 and 80 of the original packet—it has the specific Condition of Approval language written out with all the (inaudible).

COMMISSIONER STUMP: I appreciate that; that’s
helpful. I’ve got a question on bullet point 6. Grosvenor’s proposed affordable housing timing meets state housing law requirements and provides the Town with adequate security

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/29/2025, Item #2,
North Forty Phase 2
85 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
for affordable housing delivery. What do you consider to be adequate security?
ERIC PHILLIPS: It’s all the mechanisms that we
were discussing before. The security is, as we were talking about, although the 127 original townhome units are
sufficient to help finance the infrastructure, they’re not sufficient to make Grosvenor whole for the entirety of the project, and so Grosvenor is incentivized to finish the project by building the multi-family building, and it can’t do that until it delivers the affordable housing either in partnership with Eden on their parcel or in the multifamily building, so that secures the delivery of that affordable housing before the bulk of the market rate units can be delivered to the project.

COMMISSIONER STUMP: Again, I’m the guy that
keeps coming back and using the work “guarantee,” and of course we know there are no guarantees in life. So, bottom line, what really nails this down is a guarantee that the affordable units will be built, and again, I realize your worst case is it could take ten years, that that property could sit there vacant for some period of time, people are getting discouraged, and it’s kind of like well, it just didn’t happen. How would we actually ensure that it will happen? What’s the partnership there?

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/29/2025, Item #2,
North Forty Phase 2
86 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
ERIC PHILLIPS: Again, when we heard Dixie from
Eden Housing describe their time frame being potentially as short as three years if the financing all works.

COMMISSIONER STUMP: I understand.

ERIC PHILLIPS: That’s certainly the model that
we’re working towards, but as Steve has said, even the
townhomes, we’re not guaranteeing that we’re going to be able to build those. It’s all very market-dependent, so at this point there are no guarantees that any aspect of the project will be able to be started or completed, but once the construction starts and that money has been spent on the infrastructure, there is a huge financial incentive to complete the project, so that’s what creates that… Again, it’s not a guarantee, but it is a very strong financial incentive and a commitment to finishing the project.

COMMISSIONER STUMP: Can I ask one more question
of Eden Housing? It was very encouraging to hear what
you’re talking about as it relates to, I guess I’ll call it, your market and where you operate. How do you see the climate going forward in that market? Is it positive?
What’s your forecast?
DIXIE BAUS: It is actually positive. We gained—
it won’t sound like a lot—50 basis points in perm debt with a slight decrease in the interest rates, and you don’t

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/29/2025, Item #2,
North Forty Phase 2
87 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
really see that in single-family home ownership, but you do see a big, huge move of the needle when you’re talking
about 78 homes and a multi-million-dollar project. That is significant.

Fifty basis points overnight on a 200-unit
project that I’m modeling up gave us another $5 million, so I’m like hey, let’s keep that going. So, the interest rates are running in the right direction.

The jury is still out on what the tax credit
equity can be right now, but I can tell you that among our other peers, Eden Housing statewide has been getting the most cents on the dollar from our equity investors, and a lot of that has to do with our history and our stability.

We were just rated an S&P 500 rated company, and that is rare for a nonprofit to get rated like that, so that has definitely increased our star power with the big
institutional investors who already gave us top dollar for our credits, so it’s a long-winded way of saying—never give the microphone to a developer—it looks really good, it
really does, and historically the affordable housing
community has done quite well in economic factors like
this.

It will do even better once Steve can get his
market rate project going, but we are very encouraged that

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/29/2025, Item #2,
North Forty Phase 2
88 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
we had a very, very busy 2025, and 2026 looks very insane for us as well. We were just awarded $75 million from the State of California for five of our projects, the most that any developer has gotten in the State of California, and so that will push much more of our projects from dream into reality and shovel set, so we are nimble, we are ready to go, and we are poised to take advantage of the market.

COMMISSIONER STUMP: Thank you.

ERIC PHILLIPS: Dixie said one other thing in the
first response to questions about the increase in tax
credit allocation that’s coming. I loath to invoke national politics these days, but the one potential benefit of
recent tax and infrastructure reform that was adopted
earlier this year is that there was an increased commitment to tax credits, and a significant increase in allocation to tax credits, that will be available for housing development in California, so as much uncertainty as there is in the world, that’s actually one bright spot and an encouraging market signal that there’s going to be even more resources than there has been historically for building going
forward.

CHAIR THOMAS: Thank you, everyone, for being
patient. Commissioner Burnett.

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/29/2025, Item #2,
North Forty Phase 2
89 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
COMMISSIONER BURNETT: Yes, thank you. For Eden.

You have such a great voice and you’re so knowledgeable.

Because affordable housing is such a big issue here, and I don't know if the questions are quite being answered for me, but is there any way you could step up? I mean, because you do major projects, is there any way Eden Housing could help with the infrastructure or take a lead and start your building, your 66 units, to help get this going a little quicker and give the Town a little more satisfaction that this will take place?
DIXIE BAUS: Really good question, and it’s a
question that I asked probably about six months ago. How much would it cost for us to build and really just have our own destiny? And those dollars are really, really
significant. It would add probably, I would say, $12
million to the cost of the affordable housing project, so that’s $12 million that does a couple of things.

Number one, it increases the cost of the
development. Remember when I talked to you about keeping the cost of the development as low as we possibility could to keep ourselves competitive? Anything that drives up cost is going to drive that competitiveness down. Not an
impossibility, it just drives it down.

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/29/2025, Item #2,
North Forty Phase 2
90 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
It also means that we’re going to have to go out
and have some bake sales. There are some real huge economic challenges with our county. We know the county is out of Measure A dollars. We know that there are very little
dollars coming in from the state next year. We know our state budget looks pretty bleak. What doesn’t look bleak is our tax credits, and so what we’ve got to do is keep those costs low, but then in the dream scenario to how can I
finance our own projects, we simply can’t, and that is
because we can’t get the NOI high enough to be able to
afford carrying that kind of debt load, if you will, on a project that will have restricted rents.

COMMISSIONER BURNETT: Thank you.

CHAIR THOMAS: Commissioner Sordi and then
Commissioner Barnett.

COMMISSIONER SORDI: A question maybe for Steve
Buster. Just sitting here thinking about the condition as it’s written now, and I think it basically says on the
Town’s side, Condition 6, apply 17% to any of the units, so presuming the townhomes go first, the question to you would be how a townhome developer that’s going to buy that parcel from you would go about underwriting that and calculating… How would they calculate the hit to the project and what the financial impact would be to that?

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/29/2025, Item #2,
North Forty Phase 2
91 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
STEVE BUSTER: If we were to consider building
affordable townhomes? Is that your question?
COMMISSIONER SORDI: Yes, and part of it is—and
I’m thinking as I go—the awkwardness of having to
(inaudible) it on the very possibility that these would only need to be affordable for a while, and that the
affordable component might evolve its way to another phase of the project seems a little awkward; I just don’t know how they would account for that when they value it.

STEVE BUSTER: We’re not proposing that any of
the townhomes would ever be deemed affordable, because it’s a for-sale product; you couldn’t do it. We’re proposing all 127 will be market rate. It’s the multi-family rental
building that we would contain affordable in, if we needed to, before Eden started.

COMMISSIONER SORDI: But I guess what I’m trying
to get at is, and it’s a little bit of a difficult
question, but the way, I think, the condition is worded now, you would be obligated, if you have to live with the condition and we impose that condition on you, of somehow trying to figure out how to push a 17% affordable component into this 127 townhome project.

ERIC PHILLIPS: Yes, that would be 22 of the
units, so take us down to 105 market rate units, and Steve

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/29/2025, Item #2,
North Forty Phase 2
92 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
can maybe give an even more precise number, but it
basically wipes out the value. Those become zero value
units at that point. You’re lucky if you can recover your construction costs, some of them might be negative value, so it is a direct reduction from 127 units down to 105
units. As Steve was talking about before, that then
directly affects the viability of being able to adequately finance the infrastructure, because we’ll have almost 20% fewer units that can be used as collateral to repay that debt and finance the infrastructure for the project.

COMMISSIONER SORDI: Just a quick follow-up.

There would be no way to convey to the ultimate buyer of those townhomes—and I know it sounds like a weird question, but it is the way the condition is worded—that they would have to live with the 17% affordable component and rent that percentage of those units, but that ultimately, I
don't know, kick the renters out when the affordable
component moves on to a different phase of the project and is operated by somebody else?
ERIC PHILLIPS: No, we talked about that as a
mechanism… You’re right, that is literally the mechanics of that potentially a townhome builder would choose to hold back 20% of its project, then operate as a landlord, rent that out, and evict those tenants, then sell previously

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/29/2025, Item #2,
North Forty Phase 2
93 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
occupied low-income units to try to recapture the value on that, and again, it’s just not a model that we think will viably allow us to build, so the practical implications of that is why we’re so concerned with the viability of the project going forward if that condition is implemented as currently written.

COMMISSIONER SORDI: Okay, thank you. That’s all
I had.

CHAIR THOMAS: Commissioner Barnett.

COMMISSIONER BARNETT: I have two questions.

Apparently the current Staff Report does not include a
condition that the 16 units reserved for intellectual and developmentally disabled persons will be constructed, and I assume that that’s an obligation that you would agree to and include in the conditions?
ERIC PHILLIPS: Yes, we are prepared to see that
incorporated into the Conditions of Approval, that up to 25% of the units within the 100% affordable building can have a dedicated preference for individuals with
intellectual and developmental disabilities, just to make sure that we’re complying with Fair Housing Laws and how that’s marketed, but memorializing that commitment in the Conditions of Approval, we’re very comfortable with that.

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/29/2025, Item #2,
North Forty Phase 2
94 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
ATTORNEY WHELAN: Just one follow-up question. I
understood the proposal to be at least 25%. Is it 25% or up to?
ERIC PHILLIPS: I’m sorry. I said up to, but
you’re right, I misspoke. It’s 25%. Thank you.

COMMISSIONER BARNETT: This may be self-evident,
but I assume that the Applicant is in agreement with all of the conditions set out in paragraphs 3-6 of the Staff
Report related to the BMP, and that’s on pages 27-30.

ERIC PHILLIPS: I thought I had memorized the
entire Staff Report, but I have to actually look at what paragraphs 3-6 are. But I will say with the exception of the condition where we’ve requested the Density-Bonus
concession, we are comfortable with the Conditions of
Approval, with every other Condition of Approval that’s in the packet.

COMMISSIONER BARNETT: It was just the phasing
condition?
ERIC PHILLIPS: Correct. There was the one
condition where we proposed our own wording as part of our Density-Bonus concession, but every other commitment and obligation in the conditions we are comfortable with.

COMMISSIONER BARNETT: Thanks. Those are my
questions.

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/29/2025, Item #2,
North Forty Phase 2
95 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
CHAIR THOMAS: Commissioner Stump.

COMMISSIONER STUMP: If I could, I just want to
confirm the math, because you said that 17% of total units, including townhomes and the multi-family building would be subject to housing affordable units for some temporary
period of time, and so if my math is correct, I think we heard the number already, but that would be 22 call it
credits from the townhomes, and then 43 from the
apartments, so it looks like the max figure would be 65 units.

ERIC PHILLIPS: It could even be 66 due to
rounding, but yes, we’re looking at the same figures.

COMMISSIONER STUMP: I’ll take it. Thank you.

CHAIR THOMAS: Do you have a question,
Commissioner Burnett?
COMMISSIONER BURNETT: Can we have questions for
Staff?
CHAIR THOMAS: Yes, for the Applicant team. I
would just like to follow-up with some of my plants to make sure that it’s amenable, and then we’ll figure it out for the motion later, if there is one. Is that okay?
Some of the 4-B trees, there is a perimeter,
orchard, common space trees, and street trees clumped into different categories. We already talked a little bit about

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/29/2025, Item #2,
North Forty Phase 2
96 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
the perimeter trees, and then for the common open space and orchard trees, are you guys comfortable with removing any of the ones that are not native and replacing them with natives?
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: Absolutely.

CHAIR THOMAS: And then most of the shrubs and
perennials are a mix of significantly drought tolerant
things, but there is one that is invasive, the butterfly bush. I know it’s really beautiful, and it’s confusing that it’s invasive, but it can be, so are we comfortable with asking for that not to be planted?
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: Sure, we can swap that out
for another pollinator species.

CHAIR THOMAS: Great. Thank you very much. I
think that I have enough information. I appreciate and look forward to it, to seeing some big trees there if this
happens. Commissioner Burnett.

COMMISSIONER BURNETT: I have a question again
for the façade on Los Gatos Boulevard. I know you went over the setbacks, and initially I was thinking it’s going to be 20’ versus 50’ that we would like. So, when you were
describing it, it sounded like there’s going to be
stepbacks of different… Could you just go over that again, and do you have a rendering of that?

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/29/2025, Item #2,
North Forty Phase 2
97 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
ARCHITECT: If you can pull up that diagram in
the appendix again.

COMMISSIONER BURNETT: And do you have a
rendering to that?
ARCHITECT: Well, there’s a roof plan that shows
the heights and the stepbacks.

COMMISSIONER BURNETT: Because I know we have now
a building that is 15’ setback, and it looms on Los Gatos Boulevard, so the idea of a building…
ARCHITECT: At the bottom of the page is Los
Gatos Boulevard, and C-5 street is on the right side, and starting from the left the building has multiple setbacks at the top of the building. Lowest pieces are at 61’ high, stepping up to 71’2”, and then 82’. In the middle, there is an 84’ space open to the courtyard, and that zone is 18’ in height. Then the remainder, which is about 207’ long, is 71’ in height, and that is measured from the sidewalk to the top of the roof parapet.

COMMISSIONER BURNETT: I’m talking about the
setback from the sidewalk, or from the street.

ARCHITECT: That dimension from the base of the
building at the ground floor to the street curb is 38’.

That really complies with the Objective Development
Standards for setbacks for buildings.

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/29/2025, Item #2,
North Forty Phase 2
98 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
COMMISSIONER BURNETT: I understand that you’re
asking for a waiver though on that. I understand that it is an objective…
ARCHITECT: Yes, but that was for…
COMMISSIONER BURNETT: …and you have the right to
ask for that, but it’s also…
ARCHITECT: The two dimensions is 37’, and we
are, from a landscaping standpoint, putting an allée of trees in that zone to create a landscape buffer between the street and the building itself, along with the sidewalk.

The existing grades, there is actually a berm and
the side slopes. If Los Gatos Boulevard is at zero
elevation the site slopes downward about 6’ or 7’ through the area facing the open space, and there is kind of a
swale, if you think about, that slopes down, so the
building actually doesn’t come across to touch the
sidewalk, there is an actual slope down into the site,
which helps to create an additional buffer for pedestrians and so forth. I’m not sure if that answers your question.

COMMISSIONER BURNETT: Yes, thank you.

CHAIR THOMAS: Commissioner Raspe.

COMMISSIONER RASPE: Thank you. Sir, before you
sit down, do we have elevations of what the building’s
façade will look like from the Los Gatos Boulevard side?

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/29/2025, Item #2,
North Forty Phase 2
99 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
ARCHITECT: There should be perspectives,
renderings. There it is. That’s where you can see that 84’ zone between the two building masses. That’s the building height of 18’, which is basically a one-story, and that’s where the open space courtyard with pool amenities face onto Los Gatos Boulevard. On the left side there is the paseo; that’s the pedestrian passage that connects to the major open space Meadow in the center of Phase 2, and lined with it are ground-level commercial restaurant uses, along with surface parking, which you don’t see, and another
commercial building off to the left of the image, so that paseo would be lined with commercial and restaurant uses heading down toward the open space.

What we’ve also done is created cantilever
balconies that are recessed and protruding outward to
create additional variations in the massing, various uses of different materials to break up the building facades, and also two-story window expressions to visually lower the building height, and this is where you can see the allée of trees that will help visually buffer the building with Los Gatos Boulevard.

COMMISSIONER RASPE: Thank you, that’s very
helpful.

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/29/2025, Item #2,
North Forty Phase 2
100
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 CHAIR THOMAS: Any other questions at this time
before we close the public portion of this hearing. Okay, thank you very much for answering all of our questions and for all being here. We will now close the public portion of this public meeting, and I invite Commissioners to ask
questions of Staff, provide some comments, and propose some sort of motion at some point. I will start with
Commissioner Barnett and then Commissioner Sordi.

COMMISSIONER BARNETT: Thank you. A question for
Staff. What is the Town’s position with respect to the
points made by the Community Alliance letter to HCD dated October 26th, and potentially a response to that could be agreement with the points raised by Mr. Phillips in his email yesterday, Exhibit 30.

ATTORNEY WHELAN: Is the question whether HCD is
more likely to agree with the Town or with the Alliance versus Mr. Phillips?
COMMISSIONER BARNETT: My question is what is the
Staff’s position with respect to the points made in the Community Alliance letter to HCD?
ATTORNEY WHELAN: Oh, okay. Would you like to go
through each point individually?
COMMISSIONER BARNETT: Yes. If that’s not too
burdensome for you, I’d appreciate that.

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/29/2025, Item #2,
North Forty Phase 2
101
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 ATTORNEY WHELAN: Do you have the page number?
COMMISSIONER BARNETT: Well, it was an email from
yesterday, as I recall. That’s it. Do we have a page number for the addendum?
CHAIR THOMAS: From Addendum 1, Exhibit 27. We’re
all good now? We all have it?
ATTORNEY WHELAN: My understanding of the first
point is it is saying that the project should be evaluated against the Town’s prior 20-units-per-acre standard as
opposed to the 30-units-per-acre standard that’s in the currently adopted Housing Element, and the reason for this position is that the Housing Element that was adopted by the Town on January 30, 2023 was not certified by the state until June of 2024, and so I believe it’s the Alliance’s position that the Town should not be relying on a Housing Element that was not certified by HCD.

It is my opinion that there is a distinction
between certification by HCD, which is a prerequisite for avoiding the Builder's Remedy, as opposed to the Town’s adoption of the Housing Element; and it’s my position, in consultation with outside counsel, that once the Housing Element was adopted by the Town, it became law. Does that answer the question on number one?
COMMISSIONER BARNETT: It does, thank you.

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/29/2025, Item #2,
North Forty Phase 2
102
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 ATTORNEY WHELAN: Then point number two is that
HCD has indicated that it may wait to provide assistance on the questions that have been posed to HCD until after the Planning Commission meeting, which is clear that that
happened, and the letter points out that that’s of concern because SB 330 limits the Town to five public hearings on an SB 330 project, and this will be the Town’s second
public hearing on this project.

I think my comment on that would be the Town is
not in a position to force HCD to respond, or to force HCD to respond within a certain timeframe. And to that end, that’s why I’m offering a legal opinion, and that’s why I’ve consulted with the law firms of Goldfarb & Lipman and Jarvis Fay, and they’re available tonight if you have
additional questions.

Then point number three is stating that Town
Staff has misstated the choice between Housing Element
density and baseline zoning, and the letter states that baseline zoning is 20-dwelling-units-per acre, and allowing this applicant to use the Housing Element that was adopted that provides for 30-dwelling-units-per-acre while using 20-units-per-acre for other projects is unlawful.

I’ll defer to Director Paulson, but my
understanding is that we are using 30-units-per-acre for

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/29/2025, Item #2,
North Forty Phase 2
103
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 all projects that vested to the 30-units-per-acre in the adopted Housing Element as of January 30, 2023. I think there is one project where 20-units-per-acre was used in error, but it is the Town’s position that it should be 30- units-per-acre.

Then, the second part of question number three
also relates to the 30-dwelling-units-per-acre baseline, and it’s discussing that 20-dwelling-units-per-acre should be used, however, it is Town Staff’s position that the
Housing Element took effect on the date that it was
adopted, which was January 30, 2023.

Then, the third part of point number three is
there is an invalid reliance on the Site Inventory for
suitability. The Town asserts the North Forty sites were identified as suitable under Section 65589.5, because they appear in the rejected January 2023 inventory. I think this is asking the same question in a similar way, which is was the Housing Element that was adopted on January 30, 2023 effective? It is Town Staff’s position, in consultation with outside counsel, that it took effect when it was
adopted.

The fourth point discusses harm if HCD does not
act before tonight’s hearing, and it discusses the 30-
dwelling-units-per-acre again, and then it mentions that

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/29/2025, Item #2,
North Forty Phase 2
104
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 the Town should be relying on the Site Inventory that was in the January 30, 2023 Housing Element. It is Town Staff’s position that that Housing Element took effect when it was adopted.

Then the fifth point is requesting that the
Planning Commission have the benefit of HCD’s opinion on these questions.

COMMISSIONER BARNETT: Thank you very much.

CHAIR THOMAS: Commissioner Stump.

COMMISSIONER STUMP: Just to follow-up on this,
and maybe it’s none of my business because it’s the state’s business. Do they get to pick and choose who they respond to?
ATTORNEY WHELAN: We have been in touch with HCD
and they indicated that they step in when they feel that they can be of assistance. They indicated that they were curious to see how the Town’s hearings would go, and then they would make a decision on whether or not to issue an opinion.

COMMISSIONER STUMP: That’s a really frustrating
answer, because it’s almost like a game of chicken. Who is going to flinch first? Go ahead, you go first and we’ll see if we like what you did, and then maybe we’ll consider
responding, or maybe we’ll respond because we don’t like

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/29/2025, Item #2,
North Forty Phase 2
105
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 what you did. So, it’s a frustration on my part; sorry to voice that.

CHAIR THOMAS: Commissioner Sordi.

COMMISSIONER SORDI: I just had a follow-up
question on Grosvenor’s affordable housing Condition of Approval in their proposal, and I think they tried to touch on it a little bit, but I was hoping to hear from Staff. It says, “We offered, but the Town declined, that we transfer the finished infrastructure serving the affordable housing lot to the Town if not commenced within ten years, but it was rejected,” or declined, whatever. I was just curious to know why the Town would decline that offer.

ATTORNEY WHELAN: I do recall that discussion,
and the Town doesn’t have anyone on Staff who would have the ability to get an affordable housing project built
there. It’s just not in the Town’s wheelhouse, and kudos to Eden Housing. It’s just very difficult to get affordable housing built, and so it’s better off in the hands of an expert.

COMMISSIONER SORDI: Got it. Okay, thanks.

CHAIR THOMAS: Commissioner Stump.

COMMISSIONER STUMP: I’m calmed down. My question
would be around this Condition of Approval. What is the best way at this point to proceed? It just doesn’t seem

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/29/2025, Item #2,
North Forty Phase 2
106
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 like we should sit around the table and throw our ideas in and come up with Conditions of Approval. What would Staff recommend as the way to proceed on this?
ATTORNEY WHELAN: One way to proceed would be to
stick with the Staff recommended Condition of Approval that requires the 17% throughout, but also direct Staff to
continue talking with the Applicant about other
alternatives.

If Staff’s proposal seems too restrictive,
another alternative would be to go with the Applicant’s proposal, but put a deadline on construction of the multifamily apartment building, because right now there is no timeline on that.

Those would probably be two ways that the
Commission could move forward.

CHAIR THOMAS: Commissioner Raspe.

COMMISSIONER RASPE: Thanks. I don’t have any
questions, but I can start by throwing some thoughts out there, if that’s acceptable.

CHAIR THOMAS: Yes.

COMMISSIONER RASPE: First of all, I want to
thank everybody for appearing tonight. Half the chamber has left, because of the late hour, but it is clear that this project has inspired a lot of community thought, especially

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/29/2025, Item #2,
North Forty Phase 2
107
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 on the issue of affordable housing, so thanks to all for coming out.

Per my notes, and per the Staff Report, I think
there are four issues really presented, the first having to do with CEQA. I want to defer to better minds than I. I understand we’re relying on the 2040 General Plan EIR. I’m also understanding that it’s part of the environmental
process for this project. Cumulative impacts were examined, and those were reasonably foreseeable projects, so I take comfort in that the CEQA portion of this project has been satisfied.

Similarly, no net loss is issue number two, and I
understand that this project will implicate certain no net loss issues and as a Town we have to find a way through that. I find it to be unavoidable, but I think as a Town we have to acknowledge it.

That leads us then to the two bigger issues, that
is concessions and waivers, and on this point I’m going to respectfully disagree with Counsel. I don’t think we have agreement about the building of affordability yet, and I think that’s largely why we’re having this hearing tonight, to see if we can reach agreement on that issue, which would then trigger the waivers and concessions.

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/29/2025, Item #2,
North Forty Phase 2
108
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 The first concession, I think to me, is a nobrainer: the elimination of the ground floor retail and townhomes. It makes no sense to me to have that portion of the project in there. It should be 100% building, so I
think that concession is a given.

The deviation from the Town’s below market rate
program, which will require everything to be built
concurrently, that’s the big one, and obviously that’s what we’re talking about tonight. Before we came here tonight, I was a firm believer in a concurrent model, that is,
everything had to be built at the same time, but again, part of sitting up here is we have to listen to experts and those who have subject matter expertise, and I think we’ve heard that tonight.

Between Eden Homes and others, it seems to me
that the Town’s model does not work in this situation. That is, we have to find something alternative, and as I sit here tonight and talk to others, I think the developer’s proposal that we have before us on the 17% structure is probably the best we can do. As Commissioner Stump said, I don’t think it’s our job to come up with, and brainstorm perhaps, better ideas; that’s not our business.

This one seems to be a reasonable model with the
proviso, as indicated by the Town Attorney, that there be a

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/29/2025, Item #2,
North Forty Phase 2
109
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 deadline for the construction of the townhomes. I think if we can agree to that concession, then we have an agreement on affordable housing, and then the concessions and the waivers would trigger, which would then trigger the last two issues, the waivers of the setbacks and the heights.

And again, I was really concerned about that.

One-hundred feet sounds really tall on Los Gatos Boulevard.

Having seen the renderings tonight and the way the façade is broken up, it's not a flat wall, it’s set back, there are colors, there are textures, there are windows, there are openings, and there is landscaping, so I am less
concerned about the structure as it is currently presented.

To me, those are the four issues. That’s the way
I see the resolution of them, and I would recommend the project proceed to Town Council with these changes,
specifically to the housing Condition of Approval. Chair, those are my thoughts.

CHAIR THOMAS: Thank you. When you say the 17%,
do you mean adjusting it to the proposal, or what is in the current Condition of Approval?
COMMISSIONER RASPE: No. I would not include the
current Conditions of Approval, I would include the current Condition of Approval that the 17% be incorporated into the

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/29/2025, Item #2,
North Forty Phase 2
110
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 market rate buildings until such time as we’ve reached the thresholds and they roll out, if that makes sense.

CHAIR THOMAS: Vice Chair Burch and then
Commissioner Barnett.

VICE CHAIR BURCH: Actually, a clarification.

You’re saying then as part of that there is a deadline of construction related to that?
COMMISSIONER RASPE: I believe Town Council
recommended that if we were to consider this proposal that incorporated therein be a deadline for construction of the multi-family, is that correct?
ATTORNEY WHELAN: That’s correct.

VICE CHAIR BURCH: And how do we determine what
that would be?
ATTORNEY WHELAN: If the Commission wanted to, it
could reopen the public portion of the hearing to hear from the Applicant on that issue, because I don’t have a good sense of what sort of timeline would be realistic.

COMMISSIONER RASPE: Was that issue discussed
with…
ATTORNEY WHELAN: We floated the idea of a threeyear deadline from the date of pulling the first building permit. At the time we discussed it, that wasn’t workable

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/29/2025, Item #2,
North Forty Phase 2
111
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 for the Applicant, but it would probably be worth
discussing with the Applicant this evening.

COMMISSIONER RASPE: Thank you.

VICE CHAIR BURCH: What happens if that date goes
by though? I would like to understand how this is enforced.

ATTORNEY WHELAN: It would depend on how it was
structured, but it could be no more Building Permits would be issued, or no more Certificates of Occupancy would be issued, or both.

VICE CHAIR BURCH: Okay, thank you.

CHAIR THOMAS: Commissioner Barnett.

COMMISSIONER BARNETT: I would move to reopen the
public hearing to receive input from Grosvenor with respect to the proposed time limit for the building of the multifamily.

CHAIR THOMAS: Do I need to get a second for
that, or can we just open it?
ATTORNEY WHELAN: The Chair can open it.

CHAIR THOMAS: Can I just clarify a few things so
that we can make sure that we’re specific with the
question? I just would like us to look at the difference between this and the current Condition of Approval, because I think that those are our two main options at the moment,

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/29/2025, Item #2,
North Forty Phase 2
112
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 so I would like to do that and give them the opportunity to weigh the difference between those.

ATTORNEY WHELAN: To that end, I recommend
looking at the letter from the Applicant, because I think what was put on the PowerPoint was a summary of their
proposal, and I think it would be good to look at the
actual language of the proposal. I’m looking for that in the Staff Report right now.

DIRECTOR PAULSON: It’s in Exhibit 24, page 2 of
the attachment to that.

CHAIR THOMAS: Okay, thank you.

VICE CHAIR BURCH: You said Exhibit 24, page 2?
DIRECTOR PAULSON: Correct. After the letter,
there is an attachment, and so page 2 starts… At the end there is a beginning of modified conditions that were
proposed. I believe that’s still the recent version.

VICE CHAIR BURCH: Can you confirm the date? Oh,
there you go. Thank you. Can you make that larger?
DIRECTOR PAULSON: And the portion that
references the 17% begins at this last bullet on page 3 and then continues on to page 4, where it outlines those
triggers.

CHAIR THOMAS: Can we all just kind of go back to
the current Conditions of Approval, which are on page…where

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/29/2025, Item #2,
North Forty Phase 2
113
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 this would change? You know, which one would actually change. There’s a lot, so if you can find it.

VICE CHAIR BURCH: Which number? Do we know?
DIRECTOR PAULSON: Condition 6 of Exhibit 23, I
believe.

COMMISSIONER RASPE: It would be page 28 of the
PDF.

CHAIR THOMAS: Yes, okay. So, page 28. We just
have a quick question about the remaining affordable for 55 years. Where does the 55 years come from? Just curious.

ATTORNEY WHELAN: I believe it comes from state
law.

CHAIR THOMAS: State law, okay. I think that what
the Commission is weighing at the moment is keeping
Condition 6 as is, asking the Applicant if they prefer
Condition 6 as is, or their proposed change with some sort of date. Not necessarily a date, but some sort of date
after something, which can be some period of time, and then also with some explanation of what happens after that. Does anyone have any additional comments? Okay.

We would like to reopen the public comment to ask
that question. Would you, as the Applicant team, prefer to keep Condition 6 as is, or would your preference be to

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/29/2025, Item #2,
North Forty Phase 2
114
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 change to the language you preferred, but with an
additional stipulation?
ERIC PHILLIPS: We’ve already spoken about our
concerns with the concurrency requirement; I’m not going to rehash those.

I think we also have similar concerns with the
hard construction start deadline for the same reasons that Steve Buster has already described, so that’s not something that we’re in a position to agree to here tonight.

I would say, since you asked our preference, out
of those two choices, probably would still prefer to keep then the Condition of Approval the way Town Staff has
written it. We’ll continue to discuss with then, but then present this issue again to the Town Council for additional deliberation, because either construct, as we’ve been
discussing it tonight, we have serious concerns about what that would mean for the viability of the project.

CHAIR THOMAS: Are there any clarifying questions
that we need answered related to that? Thank you very much.

Appreciate it. We will now close the public comment period again, and I just want to say that I know that everyone in this room is on the same page, that we want this affordable housing done, and so I just want to say that I really

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/29/2025, Item #2,
North Forty Phase 2
115
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 appreciate it, because it’s been a big effort and a big lift to get this to this point for everyone here.

That being said, because of the type of project
it just seems a little bit difficult to make the finding about the agreement to grant the concessions, because that is tied to the affordable housing, and then part of it
happening before, it’s not as black and white as we all wish it could be, which is understandable, because it’s a big, well planned, multi-layered project.

That being said, I appreciate the willingness to
continue to try to talk to Staff and possibly whether we make a motion, whatever our motion is tonight, to continue that conversation with Staff so that we can come together and the project can happen if it seems fit, and the
affordable housing is a part of it.

Commissioner Sordi, and then Commissioner
Barnett.

COMMISSIONER SORDI: A quick question I guess
from a technical standpoint. What I heard the Applicant say I think is that they’re okay with the condition as it reads right now, the way Staff has written it, so we would be able to make the finding, because the condition stays in place. Would they technically be appealing that condition, accepting the recommendation of the Planning Commission and

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/29/2025, Item #2,
North Forty Phase 2
116
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 then appealing that condition to the Council? I just want to clarify.

DIRECTOR PAULSON: Thank you. That action this
evening is a recommendation. Whenever the Commission
decides to make a recommendation, it’s not an appeal. It just moves forward with the recommendation to the Town
Council.

COMMISSIONER SORDI: Just to follow-up on that,
we can recommend further discussion of a condition, making the findings subject to recommendation of a potential
modification? Just Condition 6 to be determined later?
DIRECTOR PAULSON: I can start, and then the Town
Attorney can jump in, but I think the Applicant was fairly clear: given the choice, they prefer to go forward with the conditions as written, which are also aligned with the
findings as written, from what I recall. Then they would be choosing to have further conversation with Council.

Planning Commission’s action would be taken.

CHAIR THOMAS: I think that Town Council would
have gotten our minutes, heard this discussion, and heard enough about how we felt in order to modify that condition moving forward if there is an agreement or an alternative on the table, but I think that it would be helpful for them if before we make a motion right now we discuss things that

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/29/2025, Item #2,
North Forty Phase 2
117
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 we prefer so that they can make a clear decision and they know what we support. So, who wants to talk about that? Commissioner Barnett.

COMMISSIONER BARNETT: I would like to make a
motion so that we can have further discussion in the
context of that, and I’m going to make that motion at this time.

Starting with Staff, the requests and approvals
that are included in the notice of this hearing, is it
adequate to refer to those by reference rather than
repeating them?
ATTORNEY WHELAN: Yes, it is.

COMMISSIONER BARNETT: With respect to the
matters noted on the Agenda Item 1 for this meeting, I move to recommend to the Town Council to approve each of the requests and applications that are noticed and detailed in Exhibit 22 on page 21 of the Staff Report.

I can make all of the findings and considerations
set out in Exhibit 22 on pages 22-25 of the Staff Report, including the concessions, incentives, and waivers, with the exception of the finding relating to the denial of the State Density Bonus Law and the State Housing
Accountability Act, being Items 1-4 inclusive on pages 23- 24, and instead approve the concession that the BMP units

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/29/2025, Item #2,
North Forty Phase 2
118
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 shall be constructed, and Building Permits and Certificates of Occupancy secured, so that at all times there will be 17% of the residential units with Building Permits and
Certificates of Occupancy are lower-income BMP units.

ATTORNEY WHELAN: It sounds like you’re making a
motion to approve the findings as they are proposed by the Staff, is that correct?
COMMISSIONER BARNETT: Yes. The motion would
include including a covenant or condition in Staff’s
rendering of the condition final draft that include a
covenant that the 16 units dedicated to persons with
intellectual or other developmental disabilities be
recorded prior to the issuance of the first Building
Permit, even though we’ve got that submitted down with the developer, but we can discuss that.

The next one would be with respect to the
landscaping, that the developer considers alternative trees with less water requirements, including native oak trees and an alternative to the magnolia, and work with Staff on the final language for that, and that the common space and orchards must be native, and no butterfly plant. Okay, so we’ve got that.

The motion is based on the approved findings
noted above, and that the Applicant has provided sufficient

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/29/2025, Item #2,
North Forty Phase 2
119
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 proof by the preponderance of the evidence that the belowmarket units will be built. This includes the acceptance of Conditions 5 and 6, again, shown on pages 28-29 of the
Staff Report, which required the Applicant to enter into an affordable housing agreement providing for the ten BMP
units to be constructed and built in E-1 of Lot 18, and the 67 in Building G-1 on Lot 19 with an alternative, but in that always providing at least 17% of the BMP units and the commitment to deed Lot 19 to Eden Housing, which is a
nonprofit public benefit corporation dedicated to
developing BMP housing, are all reasonable assurances of completion of the below-market housing.

I find that the legal argument set forth in Mr.

Phillips’ email yesterday to be insightful and persuasive, including the responses to the positions of the Los Gatos Community Alliance, as well as the comments by our Town Attorney.

I know that many in the Town would envision a
much different project. Our subjective opinions have no place in making the decision tonight on the application, and subjective requests would obviously expose the Town to tremendous economic risks, penalties, and attorney’s fees.

The only question left, and I’ll ask for Staff
input on this, is whether to incorporate the first three

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/29/2025, Item #2,
North Forty Phase 2
120
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 bullet points of the Condition of Approval that was
presented at the meeting tonight.

ATTORNEY WHELAN: That was presented by the
Applicant?
COMMISSIONER BARNETT: Yes, the one that this
slide presented. I think there is overlap.

ATTORNEY WHELAN: It sounds like the Commission
is voting to go with the Staff proposal as the Condition of Approval (inaudible) to the Commission.

COMMISSIONER BARNETT: Okay, let’s not complicate
it. So that constitutes my motion.

ATTORNEY WHELAN: I have one question on the
developmentally disabled. Is this a good time? With regard to the part of the motion about developmentally disabled residents, I would recommend that be added to the end of Condition of Approval 4, and I believe the Applicant agreed to commit that 25% of the units in the 100% affordable
building on Lot 19 will have a preference for
developmentally disabled residents.

COMMISSIONER BARNETT: I’ll be happy to
incorporate that language. I also wanted to add on the
findings that the project common space, The Meadow, and the fact that it will be open to the public are important
factors in recognizing the broader impacts on the community

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/29/2025, Item #2,
North Forty Phase 2
121
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 and making the project more integrated with the Town of Los Gatos. Thank you.

CHAIR THOMAS: Can I have a second? We have a
motion on the table. Yes, but we still need a second, and then we can friendly, I believe.

VICE CHAIR BURCH: I’ll second it.

CHAIR THOMAS: Thank you, and then yes, ask your
question.

VICE CHAIR BURCH: I’d actually like to add a
couple Conditions of Approval if now is the appropriate time. These are more related to construction activities.

I don’t know exactly where this would go. It
doesn’t look like it quite fits under 111, but that there can be no large vehicles idling on Los Gatos Boulevard or Lark Avenue; the preference is that all construction
activities are limited to the construction site; that there can be no large vehicles on any residential streets
surrounding the project; and I don’t know how to do this one, but that any night street work adjacent to residential areas needs to have some type of proper noticing.

Is that acceptable to the Maker of the Motion?
COMMISSIONER BARNETT: Yes, absolutely. I think
those are excellent points.

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/29/2025, Item #2,
North Forty Phase 2
122
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 ATTORNEY WHELAN: My only recommendation is to
define the term “large vehicles.”
VICE CHAIR BURCH: Do you want me to like
(inaudible) the size of a dump truck?
CHAIR THOMAS: I mean, sure, or is this something
that…
VICE CHAIR BURCH: Could Public Works help?
CHAIR THOMAS: Yes, maybe Public Works.

VICE CHAIR BURCH: Or I could just say, “Any
vehicles related to the construction activities are not to idle on Lark Avenue or Los Gatos Boulevard.” I guess I
don’t have to put the word “large,” it could just be any of the construction vehicles. What does Public Works think? TOWN ENGINEER HEAP: Good evening. Thanks for
asking the question. Gary Heap, Public Works. We’re over here discussing this.

Yes, defining a large vehicle, it’s a
construction vehicle. Certainly, the intent is to maintain everything onsite, to not have… I’m trying to think if
there are even any adjacent residential neighborhoods here that aren’t over and across Los Gatos Boulevard, so I’m not sure that we would really necessarily have (inaudible).

VICE CHAIR BURCH: I can tell you on Phase 1 that
any construction vehicles lined up and down Lark Avenue and

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/29/2025, Item #2,
North Forty Phase 2
123
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 on Los Gatos Boulevard starting around 3:00am sometimes and idled, and got out of their trucks and yelled and talked, and I would like to prevent that on this phase, so if I just need to say “construction vehicles” at all are limited to the site, I’m happy to say that.

TOWN ENGINEER HEAP: I was not here during that
phase of construction, but I would guess maybe for large concrete pourers potentially, something like that. And
again, anything that would happen like that would be done under an Encroachment Permit, it would be done under the oversight of Public Works, and we would make sure to put conditions on there that would restrict the types of things that you would be talking about. We wouldn’t let them take a lane of traffic without proper traffic control, and we would make sure things were done and noticed properly and people were aware of whatever was happening.

VICE CHAIR BURCH: Okay, is that somehow going to
get captured on that then so that we can make that an
actionable item that we can reference back to?
TOWN ENGINEER HEAP: I could see language that
would say, “No use of Los Gatos Boulevard for hauling of materials, storage of materials, or idling of trucks
without prior authorization of Public Works Department.”

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/29/2025, Item #2,
North Forty Phase 2
124
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 DIRECTOR PAULSON: I will just add that—I can’t
find it right now—typically Parks & Public Works is dealing with construction management plans, so most of that stuff is built in there. We will make sure that if it is not
expressly in there, to make sure that this direction is also included.

VICE CHAIR BURCH: Thank you.

COMMISSIONER BARNETT: I’ll adopt that as part of
the motion.

CHAIR THOMAS: Okay, perfect. I think that the
only residential is the Phase 1, that is within…not on the other side of Lark Avenue and Los Gatos Boulevard, which is right there.

Can I also ask for a friendly amendment related
to the trees?
COMMISSIONER BARNETT: Of course.

CHAIR THOMAS: The perimeter orchard open space
and street trees be natives, as long as Staff is
comfortable with that. Do you want a list of
recommendations with the caveat of “or to Staff’s
discretion.” Would that be helpful for people, or no?
DIRECTOR PAULSON: I think to the Town Attorney’s
previous comments that if you have something specific in mind, you should enter that now.

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/29/2025, Item #2,
North Forty Phase 2
125
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 CHAIR THOMAS: Okay.

DIRECTOR PAULSON: Otherwise, if you’re
comfortable leaving it more open, then we would work with their landscape team to come up with what we determine to be a suitable solution.

CHAIR THOMAS: I will just list some, and then
have it also be amendable as Town Staff sees appropriate, or up to Town Staff’s discretion.

I think some of the trees that would be
appropriate there would be Foothill Pine Western Red Buds; Bay Laurels, which those are in some the descriptions, but not all of them; Black Cottonwood; Box Elder; Big Leaf
Maple; Holly Leaf Cherry; California Buckeye; Blue Oak; Black Oak; Valley Oak; and Canyon Live Oak; or another
suitable tree that you see fit.

DIRECTOR PAULSON: We’ll work it in as a list of
potential examples.

CHAIR THOMAS: Thank you.

COMMISSIONER BARNETT: I’ll adopt that as well.

CHAIR THOMAS: Okay, thank you. Any other
discussion about this motion? Commissioner Stump.

COMMISSIONER STUMP: I want to say that first I
agree with the majority of what Commissioner Raspe said, I appreciate that, but what I don’t agree with is having us

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/29/2025, Item #2,
North Forty Phase 2
126
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 move forward with standing questions. We’ve heard from our Staff Attorney; we’ve heard from Mr. Phillips, his opinion; we’ve heard an opinion from the Los Gatos Community
Alliance; the ultimate arbiter on these questions is the State of California, and so I guess we can go forward and say we accept what we’ve heard one way or another versus we wait for those questions to be answered by the State of California in some way, shape, or form, and we condition what we do tonight based on the response we receive back from the State of California, because there are things that could come out that could cause us or need to back up.

I guess if you want me to give some examples,
there is about imposing a condition, or maybe that goes away, Attorney Whelan, the request that you’ve made with the State of California on “seeks and agrees,” but we’re also getting a clarification on gross lot area, and you heard Mr. Phillips tonight say if it turned out that the calculation is not supported by HCD, we would then be
entitled to build more units. He didn’t say they wanted to, but he said they’d be entitled.

So, we still have some open questions that I
don’t feel comfortable just launching this thing off to the Town Council with a recommendation. That may be very, very conservative, you can call me that, but I just believe that

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/29/2025, Item #2,
North Forty Phase 2
127
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 this is something that we should get the final arbiter to weigh on these questions that have been asked by our own Staff as well as the community. Thank you.

CHAIR THOMAS: I have one more friendly
amendment. I’m sorry. The removal of the butterfly bush.

DIRECTOR PAULSON: That was included in the
original.

CHAIR THOMAS: Oh, that was. Okay, sorry, I
missed that. I respect Commissioner Stump’s comments;
however, I do have a bit of a different perspective.

First, I thought we had consensus on the gross
lot area situation from the attorney, so can you clarify that?
ATTORNEY WHELAN: I’m in agreement with the
Applicant’s counsel on the definition of gross lot area, but we have had inquiries from members of the public on whether it jibes with State Density Bonus Law, and because there is concern that HCD has written an opinion letter to the City of Agoura Hills saying that the City had
wrongfully applied the wrong lot area to an applicant that wanted a density increase, I see that as a different
question, because this applicant is not seeking a density increase, but we did get a question from the public, and so

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/29/2025, Item #2,
North Forty Phase 2
128
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 I did send an inquiry to HCD to get HCD’s opinion on that question.

CHAIR THOMAS: Okay, thank you. From my
understanding, there is no guarantee that HCD will ever answer any of these questions, and so I think that I am confident in Town Council’s ability to take more steps and be able to make any changes to Conditions of Approval based on the conversations that we’ve had tonight, and the
opinions and the concerns that we’ve expressed with regard to making sure that this affordable housing happens, and I believe that if information comes to light that would
change the situation. I’m confident in their ability to be able to do that, and if they need to have more than one meeting, that is still an option there. But again, that’s why I wanted to make sure that we had on the record what sort of situation would elicit what sort of changes to the Conditions of Approval, etc.

Vice Chair Burch, did you want to say something
too after that? Thank you.

VICE CHAIR BURCH: I guess it is a little bit of
a follow-up to that and to the Town Attorney. If we did get something back from them, and it sounds like they’re going to wait for us and we’re going to wait for them, is there any way for us to even put a condition in place now based

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/29/2025, Item #2,
North Forty Phase 2
129
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 on that? Would it really need to wait for Council since we don’t know what it would contain?
ATTORNEY WHELAN: I think what I heard
Commissioner Stump proposing was that the item be continued to give HCD more time to respond—and I don’t want to put words in your mouth—but not draft a condition to address a different reading of gross lot area, but to wait for the HCD response.

COMMISSIONER STUMP: I probably should have been
moving my lips while you were speaking, because obviously I was not going to make a motion at this point in time, but that would be my recommendation. Again, I say this pained, because we’ve had good sessions with the Applicant, but at the same time my concern is that we need to get this right and not just fire it in and say if something else pops up and HCD does come back and says wait a minute, there are some issues here, we ought to really take the time to fix it here and work with the Applicant to fix it here, and to try to send it off to Council and then have them say why did you send this to us when maybe you did not quite have all the detail and all the answers that you needed to?
So again, I would just sum it up that we need to
really make sure that we get this right. The Los Gatos
Community Alliance has reached out to HCD probably three

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/29/2025, Item #2,
North Forty Phase 2
130
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 times on the same point, to ask for help. Our Town Attorney was good enough, because I asked her at one point in time, “Why aren’t we getting a response?” and she said, “I’d be happy to reach out to HCD,” and that’s when they gave us the response that we’re going to wait to see how the
Planning Commission acts, and that’s a concern for me,
because maybe they don’t want to give advice, I don't know, but I’d like to see that run a little bit longer, but I do not think this needs to run for a long time.

And I don't know, and maybe this would be back to
Staff, how do we encourage a response from HCD? I would think it’s their responsibility, the bloody State of
California, and this is their job for housing. These are valid issues that have been raised and they’re not going to respond to them? So, how would be set a time, a reasonable continuance that’s not sending us three months down the road? I’m certainly not asking for that.

ATTORNEY WHELAN: We have a person who is
assigned to Los Gatos. I’m happy to call that person and ask what the timing of the response would be and if there might be a response and report back to the Commission.

CHAIR THOMAS: I have just a follow-up question
for Commissioner Stump. Just curious, what specific
additional information from HCD do you feel like you need?

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/29/2025, Item #2,
North Forty Phase 2
131
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 What specific question do you need answered in order to make a finding or not?
COMMISSIONER STUMP: I’m just looking for the
authoritative answers to the questions and issues that have been raised by the Staff.

CHAIR THOMAS: Sorry, like what specific
questions?
COMMISSIONER STUMP: Can we impose a Condition of
Approval on the Applicant related to documented agreement? This is the “seek and agree.” The calculation of DensityBonus based on gross acreage confirming that. Whether the math that we used is acceptable to HCD. In other words, we’ve provided really the equivalent of net acreage versus gross acreage. Will they accept our subtraction of certain pieces of parts of land? Gross minus something equals gross still, that’s sort of where we’re at. Do we really have their support?
And then the questions that came from the Los
Gatos Community Alliance. They are asking about the
applicability of the January 30th Housing Element,
applicable zoning at the time of application, the status of a single or separate housing development under state law, meaning are these potentially two separate projects, the affordable housing and otherwise the remainder of the

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/29/2025, Item #2,
North Forty Phase 2
132
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 development? Again, they also have the question of using net acreage to satisfy minimum density compliance with the Town’s BMP Ordinance, and then the land transfer to Eden Housing and how that’s actually going to be affected.

So, those are the open questions or issues.

CHAIR THOMAS: Just to clarify, for the gross lot
area, I would like clarification about how that would
inform any decision making.

COMMISSIONER STUMP: Well, if indeed the HCD came
back and said that we will not accept that, it’s gross, we’re not going to accept gross lot area, that would mean that the Applicant would no longer be at 30-dwelling-unitsper-acre, they would be at 28.75-per-acre, and as you heard Mr. Phillips say, they would be entitled to cure that by adding additional units. Not that they necessarily wanted to do that, but that’s the cure for that potential issue as it relates to density. In fact, in some ways, bring it on.

More housing out there means more affordable housing as well, perhaps.

CHAIR THOMAS: Commissioner Sordi and then
Commissioner Burnett.

COMMISSIONER SORDI: I just want to go on record
as saying I support the motion. I think we have a motion on the table to move forward.

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/29/2025, Item #2,
North Forty Phase 2
133
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 If we had the time to just sit back and ponder
this, and we had multiple hearings and not limited, then that might be one thing, but the Town has to act within five hearings, so if we were to continue, I think we would run the risk of being in the same place, because we have no guarantee that HCD is ever going to respond.

I would think they would be inclined to respond
to the Town Attorney at some point in the near future, but I don’t think they feel compelled to respond to any
community group. If they felt that, I don't know that they have the Staff and that it’s a practical reality for them to be able to respond to everybody who fancies himself as a community group throughout the state, so I wouldn’t count on them responding in detail to a community group. I’m
speaking a little bit from experience, having worked in the City of San Jose and had a fair amount of experience with interactions with HCD in the past.

So, if we were to continue the item, we would end
up moving on to a third hearing, there would only be two left for the Town Council, and we could possibly be in the same place next time. So, with that, I just wanted to go on record as saying I’m very much in favor of supporting the motion and moving the item forward.

CHAIR THOMAS: Commissioner Burnett.

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/29/2025, Item #2,
North Forty Phase 2
134
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 COMMISSIONER BURNETT: Thank you. Because we are
a recommending body to the Town Council, I feel that there are open questions that we don’t have answers to, and I think our role is actually to get those answers before we forward a recommendation to the Town Council.

Our Town Attorney actually addressed HCD as well.

It’s not just the Community Alliance, and I think it’s our responsibility to forward a recommendation that has sought and received the questions and the answers back, and I feel like we probably should and would receive the answers back from HCD regarding these very important issues for this very important development, so I think that’s our role. Our role is to pound out and come up with we’ve crossed all the Ts and dotted all the Is, and now we can send it to the Town Council, because that is our roll, to give them a
product that is pretty much tidied up, so that’s where I’m coming from on this. I think there are too many open
questions still.

CHAIR THOMAS: Would you mind clarifying
specifically what the open questions are and how that
information would help us make a better decision, just so we’re clear?
COMMISSIONER BURNETT: For me, it’s still the
seek and…it’s the commitment to the affordable housing.

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/29/2025, Item #2,
North Forty Phase 2
135
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 That’s where I have most of the issue is in that area, and I think our Town Attorney can address that as well, if she would like.

ATTORNEY WHELAN: I missed the question.

COMMISSIONER BURNETT: My concerns are we have
two sort of conflicting points of view on where we stand on the affordable housing. Are they committed to do the
affordable housing as the project continues on, which seems to be what the State Density Bonus Law says you need to do? I’m not feeling like I’m getting the commitment that makes me comfortable to say yes, we’re good there.

ATTORNEY WHELAN: One way to address that is to
forward the Staff recommended Condition of Approval, and then I guess I will say I have looked at the issue, outside counsel has looked at the issue, and we do think that “seek and agree” means that the Applicant is consenting to
actually provide the affordable housing.

COMMISSIONER BURNETT: A follow-up. So, if we
forward this to the Town Council, then are they going to have to wait, because these are still going to be open
questions? Isn’t that our role to get these questions
answered before we move it forward?

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/29/2025, Item #2,
North Forty Phase 2
136
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 ATTORNEY WHELAN: I guess it depends on if you’re
comfortable with the advice that I’ve provided to date, and if not, then that’s one reason to wait.

DIRECTOR PAULSON: I would just add that the
motion on the table is the Town’s requirement of the 17% throughout the project, so that’s the guarantee that Staff came forward with originally, and so that’s still the path moving forward to the Council.

COMMISSIONER BURNETT: Thank you.

CHAIR THOMAS: Is there any other discussion or
comments? I will call the question. All those in favor, please raise your hand. It passes 5-2, and it is just a recommendation, so there are no appeal rights?
DIRECTOR PAULSON: That’s correct.

CHAIR THOMAS: There’s nothing else related to
this that we need to say? Okay. Thank you, Staff, everyone that was here tonight, Commissioners for the very thorough discussion, and the Applicant team for sticking with us. (END)

ITEM NO. 1.

From: Gia Pham
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2025 2:54 PM
To: Planning <[email protected]>
Subject: October 29, 2025 Special Meeting Public Comment: North 40 Phase 2 [EXTERNAL SENDER]
October 29, 2025
Dear Planning Commissioners,
My name is Gia Pham, and I am the Communications Coordinator at Housing Choices, the nonprofit that will provide direct services for the affordable units dedicated to individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) in the North 40 Phase 2 development.

I am writing to express my strong support for this project and to urge the Commission to approve it without delay so that construction can move forward as planned. There is no reason to delay it. This proposal delivers exactly what was envisioned in the City’s Housing Element and represents an important opportunity for Los Gatos to advance its affordable housing goals. The fewer restrictions placed on the project, the faster these affordable homes can be built.

Delays add cost and risk, as every additional month of postponement increases construction expenses and reduces feasibility. Timely approval will keep the project viable and ensure that the benefits reach families who have been waiting far too long for stable housing.

Housing Choices is proud to partner with Eden Housing, a trusted and mission-driven developer with a strong local track record. Eden successfully completed Phase 1 of the North 40 development on time and with the high quality and integrity the community expects. We have partnered with Eden Housing for years and have created truly remarkable and historically inclusive housing communities - the most recent being Mitchell Park Place in Palo Alto. This development combines project-based vouchers with preferences for individuals with IDD and features close proximity to inclusive parks, schools, and programs, in partnership with AbilityPath for job training and career growth. We know how trustworthy Eden Housing is in delivering on its promise and mission for affordable housing.

The Phase 2 affordable housing parcel will be pad-ready, allowing construction to begin quickly and efficiently once approvals are in place.

The current plans also require no Town funding while simultaneously achieving very low AMI affordability levels, ensuring homes are within reach for households most in need. The ATTACHMENT 13

ITEM NO. 1.
site is also environmentally sound as it is not located in a flood zone or liquefaction area and benefits from a separate sewer system, avoiding issues that affect nearby neighborhoods.

The project is fully compliant with Housing Element standards, meeting the 30-unit-peracre density requirement and reflecting best practices in planning and design. It will create a mixed-income, mixed-use community that integrates affordable homes seamlessly into the broader site plan, with shared outdoor spaces, walkable paths, and a community room that supports interaction and well-being.

Importantly, 25% of the affordable units will be reserved for adults with IDD, addressing one of our region’s most pressing and underrepresented housing needs. Each year, the Los Gatos Union High School District’s post-secondary program serves around 30 students with disabilities, many of whom age out without housing options. Housing Choices also has about 25 active clients urgently searching for housing in Los Gatos. This development offers them a chance to live safely, independently, and close to their families, schools, and vital support networks. For aging parents, it provides peace of mind knowing their adult children will have a stable home in their own community.

As more families with IDD children are priced out of Los Gatos, this project offers a pathway for them to stay connected to neighbors, teachers, and lifelong friends.

Inclusionary developments like North 40 strengthen the fabric of the town by ensuring longtime residents of all abilities are not displaced.

Thank you for your thoughtful consideration and continued leadership. By approving North 40 Phase 2, the Commission will help create a more inclusive, affordable, and resilient Los Gatos that protects and welcomes everyone to call it home.

Warm Regards,
Gia Pham

ITEM NO. 1.

ITEM NO. 1.

ITEM NO. 1.