7 Day Comment Period – Second Comment Letter for HEAB 9-28-23 Meeting


Phil Koen
Fri, Sep 29, 1:45 PM (3 days ago)
to Joel, Laurel, paul.mcdougall@hcd.ca.gov,
jose.jauregui@hca.ca.gov, Gabrielle, me, Rick

Dear Mr. Paulson,

At last night’s HEAB meeting, Staff made the statement that it was appropriate to credit the 6th cycle RHNA with units that are made available during the RHNA projection period (June 30, 2022, through January 31, 2031). The Staff referenced page 5 of the HCD Site Selection Guidebook as the authority for doing this. In reviewing page 5 , the referenced language appears under the heading “Pending, approved, or permitted development”.

On Table 10-3 there is a line item which is labeled “pipeline projects” which is described as “residential development applications that have either been approved or are currently under review and are expected to be built during the 2023-2031 planning period”.  This totals 191 housing units. Comparing this language to the HCD Site Selection Guidebook, it appears the line item fits with the Guidebook’s description for “pending, approved, or permitted development”.

There is another line item in Table 10-3 which is labeled “entitled/permitted/under construction/final since June 30, 2022, to January 31, 2023”. This totals 227 units, which included 49 very low-income units. All these units appear to have been permitted before the current RHNA production period, which commenced on June 30, 2022. This is substantiated by the 2022 Annual Element Progress Report  which shows in addition to the 49 low-income units recorded in 2020, 75 above moderate units were recorded in 2021, 185 above moderate units were recorded in 2021 and 145 above moderate units were recorded in 2022. Many of these units are attributed to parcel APN 424-07-100 which is the North 40 Phase 1 (refer to Table D-7 and the 20220, 2021 and 2022 Annual Element Progress Reports). The date of production is triggered by the permitting date, not the completion date.

As such, it does not appear that any of these 227 units qualify as a credit toward the 6th cycle RHNA because they were permitted prior to the June 30, 2022, commencement date. Additionally, all these units have been recorded against the 5th cycle RHNA, and are being double counted.

In closing I have attached a memorandum from HCD to ABAG dated January 12, 2022  which substantiates the above statement. This memo makes it clear that RHNA credits toward the 6th cycle only apply for “new units approved, permitted and/or built beginning from the start date of the RHNA projection period June 30, 2022”.

We would recommend that Table 10-3 be amended by eliminating all 227 units identified as “entitled/permitted/under construction/final” and thus avoid doubling counting these units in both the 5th and 6th cycles

Thank you,


Phil Koen

An email To Rob Moore re: the risk to Los Gatos of you not doing your job.

Rob, we would be delighted to sit down with you and fully explain our concern. If you didn’t understand our letter, why not reach out directly and ask us for clarification? Wouldn’t that have been the responsible action to have taken as opposed to posting nonsense on NextDoor? How is that helpful to anyone?

The Council Has a Major Mess to Fix and They’re Running Out of Time

An Executive Summary of our letter below to the Town Council.

The staff report for Agenda Item 15 is inaccurate in that it fails to disclose that on November 16, 2023, Staff submitted a November draft of the revised Housing Element to HCD for official review in violation of Government Code Section 65585. We find it hard to understand why Staff would intentionally not disclose this. In our opinion, the lack of transparency and full disclosure has been a consistent theme for the past two Councils led by former mayors’ Rennie and Ristow.  They spanned the development of the Housing Element and were the enablers of Town Manager Prevetti. The cumulative effect of this behavior has led to a growing loss of confidence in Staff and the Town’s latest consultant, Veronica Tam, by the public.

Pushing the Planning Commission to OK the Housing Element 4th Attempt For Certification

By now the Planning Commission should be fully aware the Town failed to comply with
AB 215 and filed the November draft HE prior to completing the mandatory 7-day public
comment period. We have attached HCD’s May 30th comment letter and specifically
draw your attention to Comment D as well as the general discussion regarding AB 215
requirements in HCD’s cover letter. We have also attached two emails from Ms. Whelan
dated November 20 and 21 which provide additional background and confirm the
Town’s failure to comply with Govt Code Section 65585(b)(1).

Thoughts On The 2040 General Plan and Why It Should Not Be Adopted

“Cities have the capability of providing something for everybody, only because and only when, they are created by everybody” – Jane Jacobs   The General Plan is more than a legal underpinning for land use decisions; it reflects the community’s … Continued