Item 1 - Addendum with Exhibit 27.North Forty Phase II
PREPARED BY: Jocelyn Shoopman
Senior Planner
Reviewed by: Planning Manager, Community Development Director, and Town Attorney
110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● (408) 354-6872
www.losgatosca.gov
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING COMMISSION
REPORT
MEETING DATE: 10/29/2025
ITEM NO: 1
ADDENDUM
DATE: October 27, 2025
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Joel Paulson, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: 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: Yuki
Farms LLC. Applicant: Grosvenor Property Americas c/o Steve Buster. Project
Planner: Jocelyn Shoopman.
REMARKS:
Exhibit 27 includes public comments received between 11:01 a.m., Friday, October 24, 2025,
and 11:00 a.m., Monday, October 27, 2025.
EXHIBITS:
Previously Received with the April 30, 2025, Staff Report:
1. Location Map
2. Letter of Justification with Proposed Density Bonus Concessions, Waivers, and Parking
Reductions
3. Consulting Architect’s Report
4. Applicant’s Response to Consulting Architect’s Report
5. Final Arborist Report
PAGE 2 OF 2
SUBJECT: 14859, 14917, 14925, and 16392 Los Gatos Boulevard; 16250, 16260, and 16270
Burton Road; and Assessor Parcel Number 424-07-116/S-23-031 and M-23-005
DATE: October 27, 2025
6. Neighbor Outreach Summary
7. Visual Renderings
8. Objective Design Standards Checklist
9. Public Comments Received by 11:00 a.m., Friday, April 25, 2025
10. Transportation Analysis Report
11. Development Plans, Part 1
12. Development Plans, Part 2
13. Development Plans, Part 3
14. Development Plans, Parts 4 through 6
15. Development Plans, Parts 7 through 9
16. Development Plans, Parts 10 through 11
Previously Received with the April 30, 2025, Addendum Report:
17. Public Comments Received Between 11:01 a.m., Friday, April 25, 2025, and 11:00 a.m.,
Tuesday, April 29, 2025
18. Full Transportation Analysis Report
Previously Received with the April 30, 2025, Desk Item Report:
19. Public Comments Received Between 11:01 a.m., Tuesday, April 29, 2025, and 11:00 a.m.,
Wednesday, April 30, 2025
20. Additional Correspondence from the Applicant
Previously Received with the October 24, 2025, Staff Report:
21. Final Initial Study – September 2025
(available online at https://www.losgatosca.gov/N40II_FinalInitialStudy)
22. Required Findings and Considerations
23. Recommended Conditions of Approval
24. Revised Letter of Justification with Proposed Density Bonus Concessions, Waivers, and
Parking Reductions
25. Revised Objective Design Standards Checklist
26. Public Comments Received Between 11:01 a.m., Wednesday, April 30, 2025, and 11:00
a.m., Friday, October 24, 2025
Received with this Addendum Report:
27. Public Comments Received Between 11:01 a.m., Friday, October 24, 2025, and 11:00 a.m.,
Monday, October 27, 2025.
EXHIBIT 27
October 26, 2025
David Ying
Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD)
2020 West El Camino Avenue
Sacramento, CA 95833
CC: Mr. Gustavo Velasquez, Director HCD, Mayor Matthew Hudes, Town Manager Chris
Constantin, Town Attorney Gabrielle Whelan; Barbara Kautz, Goldfarb Lipman
Re: Emergency Request for Immediate Technical Assistance – Town Attorney’s
Directive to Apply Density Standards from a Rejected Housing Element
Dear Mr. Ying:
HCD’s immediate intervention is required. In my October 13, 2025 email to Town
Attorney Gabrielle Whelan (see attached), she directed the Planning Commission to
apply the 30 units/acre density standard from the January 30, 2023 Housing Element—
which HCD found non-compliant on April 14, 2023—to the October 29 review of the
North 40 applications.
This directive is contrary to controlling authority, including California Renters Legal
Advocacy & Education Fund v. City of San Mateo (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 820, 831–
832, which holds that a noncompliant Housing Element has no legal effect for purposes
of the Housing Accountability Act (HAA). See also Gov. Code §§ 65585(b), (h).
I. The Town Attorney’s Directive Is Legally Invalid
Attorney Whelan’s email (attached) asserts:
- The project “should be evaluated against the 30 units/acre standard, because it
vested after the Town’s adoption of the January 30, 2023 Housing Element.”
- The Builder’s Remedy density is “125 units/acre (3 × 30 + 35).”
- Grosvenor “elected to be reviewed under the density range allowed by the
Housing Element.”
- Each assertion depends on the premise that the January 30, 2023, Housing
Element remained legally operative despite HCD’s explicit finding of
noncompliance on April 14, 2023. This directly conflicts with California Renters,
which held that a noncompliant element lacks legal force for HAA purposes until
certified by HCD.
II. Immediate HCD Action Is Required – Delay Will Entrench Legal Error
HCD previously indicated it could wait to provide assistance until after the Planning
Commission meeting. That is untenable because:
1. Statutory Hearing Limits – Gov. Code § 65589.5(o) restricts continuances.
Hearings held under erroneous legal assumptions cannot be undone.
2. Administrative Record Prejudice – Findings adopting the 30 du/ac standard or
125 du/ac Builder’s Remedy calculation will become embedded in the record
and later constrain judicial review.
3. Proactive Duty Under § 65585(g) – HCD must prevent violations, not merely
comment after the Commission makes determinations based on invalid
standards.
III. Legal Errors Embedded in the Town Attorney’s Position
A. Misstated “Election” Between Housing Element and Baseline Zoning
The HAA allows applicants to elect between statutory versions of § 65589.5
(Gov. Code § 65589.5(f)(7)(A)), not between legally invalid Housing Element
densities and baseline zoning. Baseline zoning for both North 40 projects is 20
du/ac under the North 40 Specific Plan/HEOZ zoning (Town Code
§ 9.80.510(6)(b)). Allowing Grosvenor to use a rejected element while holding
others to baseline zoning creates inconsistent, unequal treatment in violation of
Gov. Code § 65589.5(d)(1).
B. Builder’s Remedy Density Is Miscalculated
The Town attorney’s formula—(3 × 30) + 35 = 125 du/ac—assumes a 30 du/ac
baseline. Correct baseline zoning is 20 du/ac, resulting in: (3 × 20) + 35 = 95
du/ac
Nothing in the HAA authorizes Builder’s Remedy projects to use densities from a
noncompliant Housing Element.
C. Invalid Reliance on Site Inventory for “Suitability”
The Town asserts the North 40 sites were “identified as suitable” under Gov.
Code §65589.5(d)(5)(A) because they appear in the rejected January 2023
inventory. This is legally unsound:
- Gov. Code § 65583.2 requires the inventory to be in a compliant Housing
Element.
- San Franciscans for Livable Neighborhoods v. City and County of San
Francisco (2018) 26 Cal.App.5th 596, 657–658 confirms that Housing
Element inventories lacking HCD certification are not legally operative.
IV. Concrete Harm if HCD Does Not Act Before October 29 Hearing
If HCD remains silent, the Planning Commission will:
- Make findings that the 2023 Housing Element “allowed 30 du/ac” despite having
no legal effect
- Use 125 du/ac instead of 95 du/ac to calculate Builder’s Remedy density;
- Accept a false “election” theory available only to Grosvenor;
- Treat a rejected site inventory as establishing suitability.
V. Requested Immediate HCD Action
HCD must provide written technical assistance confirming:
1. The January 30, 2023 Housing Element had no legal effect from April 14, 2023
until certification in June 2024;
2. The 30 du/ac standard cannot be used for vesting, Builder’s Remedy
calculations, site suitability, or applicant “elections”
3. Correct baseline density for North 40 is 20 du/ac
4. Builder’s Remedy density is 95 du/ac, not 125 du/ac
5. The rejected inventory cannot establish § 65589.5(d)(5)(A) site suitability
6. Attorney Whelan’s directive conflicts with California Renters and Gov. Code §§
65585 and 65589.5.
Respectfully
Jak Van Nada -
Los Gatos Community Alliance
Facts Matter; Transparency Matters; Honesty Matters
www.lgca.town