Attachment 2•
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
RECEIVED
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
JUN 14 2017
FI l ED
JUN 0 9 2017
Court
Illy ol Santa Ciara CLERK DEPAR1MENT
---+-f.f-:,~!..1-.lL.1 DEPUTY
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
11 EDEN HOUSING, INC., SUMMERHILL HOMES, LLC Case No. 16CV300733
12 and GROSVENOR USA Limited, DECISION AND JUDGMENT
GRANTING WRIT OF MANDAMUS 13 Petitioners,
14 vs .
15 TOWN OF LOS GATOS,, and DOES 1 to V,
16 inclusive,
17 Respondents.
18
19
20
"") 1
22
24
r _)
26
27
28
This matter was heard in Department 16 on March 29, 2017. Petitioners, Eden Housing,
Arthur J. Friedman, Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, LLP , and Andrew L. Faber, Berliner
Cohe n, LLP . Re spo nd e nt, Town of Los Gato s, appeared throu gh its attorn eys, Robert Schu ltz,
Town Attorney, Town of Lo s Gatos, and Whitney G. McDonald, Richards, Watson & Gershon,
APC.
Hearing was for Petitioners' pe t ition for writ of mandate. Petitioners' opening brief in
support of the pe tition was fil e d January 13, 2017; Respondent's opposition to Petitioner's
opening brief was filed Febru ary 24, 201 7; and Petitioners' rep ly bri ef was filed March 17, 2017.
ATTACHMENT 2
2
...,
.)
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
2 1
22
2 4
26
27
The petition for writ of mandate concerns Town of Los Gatos Resolution 2016-046. The
Resolution, entered by the Town Council on September 6, 2016, denied Petitioners'
applications for approval of proposed Vesting Tentative Map and Architecture and Site. The
Resolution was signed on September 13, 20161, and sets forth findings for the decision .
The matter having been submitted, and after consideration of the evidence in the
administrative record, oral and documentary, and application of law, including consideration of
burden of proof and argument of counsel, THE COURT ENTERS THE FOLLOWING DECISION AND
JUDGMENT:
Preliminary rulings.
The Petition for writ of mandate is filed in the time and manner required by law.
Review of the local agency action falls under administrative mandamus under Code of
Civil Procedure §1094.5.
Writ of Mandamus.
The applications for proposed Tentative Map and Architecture and Site are to allow
Petitioners' proposed subdivision and development of the North 40 site in Lo s Gatos, CA
("Project"). The site is identified for development by the Town of Los Gatos ("Town") in its
Housing Element . The Town adopted the North 40 Specific Plan which sets forth objective and
subjective factors and goals for development ("Specific Plan").
The principal controverted issues are: (a) whether the Town proceeded as required by
law in applying the correct legal standards and criteria in its deci sion to deny Petitioners'
evidence supports the findings.
Standards and criteria to be considered by the local agency. Petitioners contend that
the Town's decision to disapprove the Project violates the Housing Element Law, the Town's
Housing Element, the Housing Accountability Act, and the Density Bonus Law. Petitioners seek
a writ of mandate to set aside the Town's decision and to direct the Town to approve the
2 8 1 Th e official transc ript of the h ea r ing of Sept em ber 6, 201 6 i nd ic at es the Res olutio n pa sse d by 3-2 vote of th e
Town Co u ncil ; however, t he w ritten Res olution m emorial izi ng the ac tio n i ndicat es the Reso lution is pa ss ed and
ad opted una nimously.
2
2
....
.)
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
I l
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
11
22
23
24
25
26
27
Project. Petitioners contend that the provision s of the cited Acts and laws mandate the Town
to approve the Project if it complies with objective criteria of the Town's Housing Element and
objective standards of appli ca ble planning and zoning, unless the Town makes findings
supported by substantial evidence that the Project wo uld cause specific adverse impacts.2 The
provision s of the Acts and law are intertwined and overlap in the i r application to the present
matter. The decision and judgment that follows is intended to address the Acts and law
collectively.
The pertinent statute of the Housing Accountability Act ("HAA'') i s Government Code
§65589 .5 (j) which states:
"(j) When a proposed housing development project complies with app licable, objective
general plan and zoning standards and criteria, including design review standard s, in
effect at the time that the housing deve lopment project's application is determined to
be complete, but the local agency proposes to disapprove the proje ct or to approve it
upon the condition that the project be developed at a lower density, the local agency
shall base its deci sion regarding the proposed housing development project upon
written findings supported by substantial evidence on the record that both of the
following conditions ex ists:
(1) The housing development project would have a specifi c, adverse impact upon the
public h ealt h and sa f ety unless the project i s disapproved or approved upon the
condition that the project be deve loped at a lower d en sity. As use d in thi s
paragraph , a "specific adverse impact" mean s a significant, quantifiable, direct, and
unavoidable impact, ba se d on objective, identified written public health or safety
standards, policies or conditions as they existed on the date the application was
deemed complete.
(2) There is no fea sible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact
identified pursuant to paragraph (1), other than th e di sap proval of the housin g
development project or the approval of the proj ect upon the condition that it be
developed at a lower den sity."
Under the HAA and Hou sing Element Law ("HEL"), di sc retion ary determination s of
subjective factors in the General Plan or Specific Plan cannot be the ba si s for di sa pproval of a
project. The Legislative purpo se of the HAA and HEL (and Den sity Bonu s Law ("DBL")) i s to
alleviate hou sing shortage and prevent denial of housing projects ba se d on discretion ,
2 8 2 Government Code §65589.5 (j) of the HAA; the Project is within the statute's definition of a housing d evelo pment
project (Govern m ent Cod e §65589.S (h)(2)).
3
subjectivity or local opposition . Petitioners contend that "by-right" approval under the HAA
2 applies to all projects within the Act, including projects that require local agency approv al of a
3 tentative subdivision map and proposed land use.
4 Petitioners maintain that the Town has a mandatory duty to approve the Project
5 because it is consistent with the objective criteria of the Specific Plan 3, and because the Town
6 did not and cannot substantiate a finding by substantial evidence that the Project would have a
7 specific adverse impact as defined by the statute. The Resolution has no findings of compliance
8 or lack of compliance with objective standards under the Town's Housing Element or the HAA,
9 and recites only findings of subjective criteria. Petitioners assert that the Town abused its
10 discretion in proceeding in violation of the HAA, HEL and DBL.
11 Review of the Town's action is complicated by the fact that the applications are
12 considered and enforced by the Town under Government Code § 66473.5 of the Subdivision
13 Map Act ("MA"). This code section directs that no local agency shall approve a tentative map
14 unless it finds that the proposed subdivision, together with its design and improvement, is
15 consistent with the general plan or any adopted specific plan . A proposed subdivision is
16 consistent only if the proposed subdivision or land use is compatib le with the objectives,
17 policies, general land uses and programs specified in the general plan or adopted specific plan. 4
18 As applied to the proposed Project, the statute directs the Town to consider objective and
19 subjective factors in the Town's General Plan or Specific Plan . This includes the exercise of
20 discretion in determining whether or not the proposed subdivision and land use are consistent
22 this state law requires local agencies to exercise discretion in reviewing the Project and
23 precludes approval "by-right", notwithstanding the HAA .
24
25
26
27
28
3 There is su bsta ntial evidence in the record to support Pet itioners' contention that the Project is cons istent wi th
objective st an dard s -had the Town made such a finding.
4 Government Code §66473.5 of the MA provides in pertin ent part that "No local agency shall approve a tentative
m ap ... unl ess the legislative body finds that the propose d subdivision, together wi th th e provisions for its design
and im provemen t , is consistent with th e general pl an ... or any specific plan adopted .... A proposed subd ivision
sha ll be consistent with a general plan or a specific plan only if the local agency has officially adopted such a plan
and the proposed division or land use is com patib le w ith t he objectives, policies, gene ral land uses, and programs
spec ified in such a plan."
4
Government Code §65589.5 of the HAA and Government Code §66473.5 of the MA
2 address the same subject -the proposed land use of the Project, and both appear applicable for
3 a comprehensive approval or denial of the Project. However, the standards and criteria under
4 each statute are different, and the mandamus petition, in part, seeks a ruling reconciling the
5 apparent conflict and determining the applicable standards and criteria for the Project.
6 Petitioners contend that the interpretation that is consistent with the Legislative
7 purposes of the HAA and HEL (and DBL) is to find that the local agency shall enforce objective
8 criteria of the MA on subdivision is sue s only, and apply "by right" objective standards of the
9 HAA and HEL on land use issues. There would be no local agency discretion to consider
10 subjective criteria in the General Plan or Specific Plan for any project under the HAA,
11 notwithstanding provisions of the MA that may apply to a project. It is argued that any other
12 interpretation undermines the purposes of the Legislature in enacting the HAA and HEL (and
13 DBL) of removing barriers to development and facilitating housing.
14 Respondent cites Woodland Hills Residents Assn ., Inc. v. City Council (1979) 23 Cal.3d
15 917 wherein the California Supreme Court found that the Legislative history and mandate of
16 the MA reflects acute awareness that subdivisions which are inconsistent with a locality's
17 general plan subvert the integrity of the local planning process . Respondent also points out
18 that not all housing projects under the HAA require subdivision map approval,5 and approval of
19 such projects is "by-right" under the HAA and HEL. However, if a project requires a tentative
20 subdivision map, additional policies and considerations under the Map Act must be enforced by
22 under the HAA must comply with the criteria of the HAA and HEL, and projects that require
23 subdivision map approval must also comply with the criteria of the MA. Here, the Town
24 determined that the proposed subdivision map and land use did not meet the criteria of the
25 MA and denied the applications. The Town contends this is an appropriate discretionary
26 decis ion, supported by findings, and the findings are supported by substantial evidence.
27
28
5 An asse rtion not challenged by Pe titioners .
5
2
....
.)
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
~1
22
23
24
r _)
26
27
28
Petition.ers argue forcefully that the Town's position is an affront to State Housing Laws
enacted to prevent local agencies from creating barriers to housing development, and that
effectively, there will be no by-right development of the North 40 site . Petitioners anticipate on
remand that the Town will ignore its responsibilities for housing under the HAA and its Housing
Element, and will succumb to local opposition to development. Petitioners expect the Town
will use the MA to effectively block by-right hou sing development.
The California Supreme Court case Tuolumne Jobs & Small Business Alliance v. Superior
Court (2014) 59 Cal.4th 1029 is in structive in interpretation of statutes that may be in conflict.
The primary task is determining Leg is lative intent to give effect to the law's purpose. Words of
the statute are the most reliable indicator of legislative intent. Courts should harmonize
sta tutes to the extent poss ible, and interpretations that lead to absurd results or render words
surplusage are to be avoided. Similarly, an interpretation that renders statutory language a
nullity is to be avoided.
Here, there is no reference in either statute to the other, and no indication that the
Legi slature intended either statute to con trol the other in any particular circumstance. As
•
noted in Tuolumne Jobs & Small Business Alliance, the Legislature is presumed to be aware of
all laws in existence when it passes or amends a sta tute. If the Legi slatu re had intended
Government Code §65589.5 of the HAA to prevail over Government Code §66473.5 of the MA,
it could have sta ted so, but did not. Although Government Code §65589.5 is the l ater enacted
statute and contains language more specific to housing development and land use, Petitioners'
agency to determine if the subdivi sion is consistent with the general plan or adopted specific
plan.
Tuolomne Jobs & Small Business Alliance indicates that absent an express declaration of
legi slative in tent, implie d repeal shou ld be found "only when there is no rational basis for
harmonizing the two potentially conflicting statutes, and the statutes are "irreconcilable, clear!
repugnant, and so inconsistent that the two cannot have concurrent operation." "Implied
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
I l
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
') 1
22
23
24
25
repe al should not be found unless th e late r prov ision gives undebatabl e evidence of an inte nt
to superse de the earlier."6
The reco ncil i ation of th e statute s sugges ted by the To w n giv es effect to both statutes
and does not impliedly repeal either. It retain s application o f "by-ri ght" approval stand ard s of
Go v ernment Code §65589 .5(j) for all projects under the HAA, and if the project require s
approval of a subdivision map, the Project i s al so s ubject to the provision s of the Map Act.7
Determination that Government Code §65589 .5{j) is not the exclusive standard for all projects
under the HAA i s not an implied repeal of th e section . Th is con st itutes a rational ba sis of
harmon izing the two potentially conflictin g stat utes. Notwith standin g Pet ition er s' dire
prediction that this will enabl e the Town to shirk its mandated respon sibilit i es in the face of
local press ure, the statutes are not "cl early r e pugnant, and so in con sist e nt that the two cannot
have concurrent operation ." The reconciliation proposed by Respondent is adopted.
The concern s of Petitioners warrant con sideration , and are addre sse d to some extent
late r in this ruling . However, con siderin g the present statu s of the statut e s, debate appears
be st re serve d for the le gislative branch for leg is lative action, if an y. Here, the Court's task is to
reconcil e th e statutes in their prese nt form, pursuant to guidelines under l aw.
Did the Town fail to pro ceed as r equired by law? Although the To w n was r e quired by
law to appl y the criteria u nder the MA, the MA does not re lieve o r preclud e th e Town from the
provi si o ns of Government Code §65589 .5{j) of th e HAA ; specifically, to determine whethe r or
not the Proj ec t complie s with applicable, objective general plan and zonin g st andard s and
proceed in the manner required by law.8 Re spondent will therefore be mandated to se t aside
its decisi on .
26 6 Tuo lumne Jobs & Small Bu siness All iance v. Superior Court (2014) S9 Cal.4th 1029, 1039.
27 7 The record does not indicate the proportion of projects that require subdivision map approval to those that do
not.
28
8 See, Honchari w v. County of Stanisla us {2011) 200 Ca 1App.4th 1066
7
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
During the course of recon sideration of the applications, if the Town finds that the
Project is in compliance with such objective standards and criteria, and again denies the
Proje ct , the Town must provide written findings supported by substantial evidence th at the
project would ha v e a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety unless the
project is disapproved, and there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the
adverse impact other than the disapproval of the project.9
Is the Town's decision supported by the findings? The Town's decision fail s to
determine whether or not the Project complies with applicable, objective genera l pl an and
zoning standards and criteria , and if determined in compliance, whethe r the Project is
conditionally approved or denied with written findings supported by substantia l evidence unde
Government Code§ 65589 .5(j) of th e HAA. The Town 's decision is therefore incomplete and
not supported by all necessary findings . Re spondent will therefore be mandated to set aside its
decision and issue a decision that includes this determination and if app licabl e, writt en findings
pursuant to Government Code §65589 .5(j).
Are the findings supported by substantial evidence? The Town determined that the
propose d Vesting Tentative Map and Architecture and Site are incon sistent with the Specific
Plan and General Plan based on eight findings. Each finding is set forth below in italics and
addresse d by the Court as follows :
"a. The proposed project overly concentrates all of the residential units that c an be built
purs uant to the North 40 Specific Plan and the General Plan Housing Element on the
so uthe rn portion of the North 40 Specific Plan area and is therefore inconsistent with
Specific Plan Section 2.5; Standard 2. 7.3; Poli cy 5.8.2 and Reside ntia l Unit Size Mix and
Table set forth on page 6-14. This negatively affects the site layout and
disproportionately hurts the chances of better site design in the future. 11
The Specific Plan divide s the site into three land use districts, the Lark Di strict, the
Trans it i on District and the Northern Di strict. The Specific Plan sets a development capacity for
the North 40 site at 270 residential units.10 Each district ha s a di stinct character, and specific
uses and development standards. Eac h district p er mits r esi dential development. The Specific
9 Government Code §65589.S(j)
10 Plu s 50 density bonus units under the Density Bonus Law (49 very low income senior units and 1 moderate
income manager unit)
8
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 I
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
'11
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Plan contains subjective goals and policie s, and.objective standard s for implementation. The
Lark District is envisioned as a mix of lower intensity residential u se and limited retail/office
use, with open space con siderations. En vi sioned land use includes limited retail, office and
restaurants along Los Gatos Boulevard .
The Tran sition District is located in the central portion of the site as a buffer between
low inten sity, primarily residential character of the Lark District and active retail and
entertainment character of the Northern District. The Transition District contemplates a range
of uses, including residential.
The Northern District is intended primarily for retail and entertainment uses, but also
envision s residential use.
Plaintiffs' proposed Project provides 193 residential units in the Lark District and 127
units in the Transition District. This equates to 60% of the residential units being situated in the
Lark Di strict. The Town finds the allocation excessively disproportionate and inconsistent with
the Specific Plan for lower intensity residential development of this district, but provides no
specifics or guidance. There is no specific allocation requirement in the Spe cific Plan. Th is is a
di sc retionary determination of the Town of a subjective policy .
In reviewing factual determinations by the governmental agency, where, as here, a
fundamental or vested right is not involved, the standard of review i s whether substantia l
evidence supports the finding. The Court must view disputed facts in a light most favorable to
the local agency, giving it every reasonable inference and resolving conflicts in favor of the local
Under this standard of review, the record suppo rts that the discretionary finding of the
Town is ba se d on substantial evidence.
"b. The proposed proje ct is inconsistent with the North 40 Specific Plan Section 2.3.1 and
its requirements for lower intensity residential uses in the Lark District."
The finding in volves the land use policy for the district and is sub stantially similar to "a "
above. The finding is a discretionary determination of a subjective policy in the Specific Plan
which is supported by substantial evidence.
9
2
,.,
.)
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
') 1
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
"c. The proposed project buildings 18 through 27 are inconsistent with North 40 Specific
Plan policy that the Lark District consist of lower intensity residential development with
office, retail, personal services, and restaurants along Los Gato s Boulevard."
The residential uses envisioned for the Lark District set forth in the Specific Plan include
condominium, cottage cluster/garden cluster housing, row houses and townhomes. The
description does not include live-work flats (reserved to the Transition and Northern Districts)
or residential above commercial (reserved to the Northern District). The record indicates that
buildings 18 through 27 are residential above commercial which is technically inconsistent with
the identified uses in the Specific Plan for the Lark District. For purposes of the substantial
evidence standard, the Town's finding is supported by substantial evidence.
The Town also finds that the proposed location of the buildings is inconsistent with the
Specific Plan for location of commercial use buildings on Los Gatos Boulevard closer to the Lark
Avenue intersection . The Specific Plan envisions, but does not require, development of
commercial uses along Los Gatos Boulevard . This is a discretionary determination of
inconsistency with a subjective policy which the record indicates is supported by substantial
evidence.
"d. The proposed project buildings 24 and 25 are inconsistent with North 40 Specific Plan
Section 4-2 as it eliminates a "fourth access point off of Los Gatos Boulevard closer to th
Lark Avenue intersection; are inconsistent with North 40 Specific Plan page 3-1, Section
3.1 Architectural and Site Character Goals and Policies, Policy DGS Residential Sitting
that requires residential development to be located to minimize traffic, noise, and air
quality impacts; and are inconsistent with the Commercial Design Guidelines beginning
on page 3-2 which guide site plan development."
Boulevard, and states that there is a possible fourth access point. The fourth access point is not
a requirement . The Environmental Impact Report for the Specific Plan considered three access
points along Los Gatos Boulevard. The record does not indicate, and Respondent does not
identify, an o·bjective factor or subjective goal or vision which a fourth access is material.
Rather, the record indicates engineering issues in adding a fourth access point, including
congestion, turn lane access issues and grade differences, and the Town's planning staff
10
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
'l 1
22
24
2 5
26
27
28
recommended against a fourth access point. It is unclear from the record what information the
Town relied on in support of this finding. The finding is not supported by substantial evidence.
"e. The proposed project is inconsistent with North 40 Specific Plan Policy Section 2.4 an
Appendix C of the Specific Plan as it does not address unmet housing needs for seniors
and "Gen Y. 1111
Section 2.4 states in pertinent part that "(R)esidential development is focused on mulit-
family housing types and shall be designed to attract the unmet housing needs of the
community." Appendix C-Young Adult, Senior, and Empty Nester Design Summary describes
what members of "Gen Y" desire in living spaces and neighborhoods and what "Baby Boomers"
want in retirement housing. There is substantial evidence to support Respondent's finding that
the residential housing component of the proposed plan is inconsistent with the Specific Plan
goals and policies as expressed in section 2.4 and appendix C. This is a discretionary
determination of a subjective policy which the record indicates is supported by substantial
evidence.
'J. the proposed project is inconsistent with the Residential Unit Size Mix and Table set
forth on page 6-14 of the Specific Plan and the Residential Unit Size Mix should have
smaller units to come closer to the income distribution of affordable housing identified in
the Town's certified General Plan Housing Element for 156 very low, 84 low and 30
moderate income units."
The table is neither a requirement nor objective standard, but rather, an example how
the North 40 site could assist the Town to meet affordable housing needs of the community.
The Town's Housing Element, Section 2.4 of the North 40 Specific Plan and appendix C add
context to the table. The record identifies North 40 as the largest remaining site in Los Gatos
for development. The record indicates that the Project provides for 49 residential units at very
low income, one unit at moderate income and 270 units at fair market values well above
moderate income.11
The Town's General Plan Housing Element suggests that the North 40 site have 156 very
low, 84 low, and 30 moderate income units, a total of 270. The Town determined that the
Project should have smaller units to increase the number of units that meet these very low, low
11 Estimated fair market values of $900,000 to $1,500,000.
11
2
...,
.)
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
'1 1
22
24
25
26
27
28
and moderate income levels. The finding provides no guidance or specifics of what mix of
affordable units among income levels is considered consistent. However, under the substantial
evidence standard, the facts in the record are sufficient as substantial evidence to support the
Town's finding.·
"g. The proposed project, specifically buildings 18 through 27, would result in an
anomaly of residential uses within an existing commercial land use context. 11
This finding appears to restate the Town's finding in "c 11 above. Apparently, the
anomaly is that the residential above commercial building is a specified residential use
envisioned for the Northern District in the Specific Plan, but not for the Lark District. While
there is an objective element, it is primarily a subjective policy. There is substantial evidence in
the record to support the finding.
"h. The only promised Below Market Rate housing is 49 units above Market Hall and the
remainder would have home values estimated at $900,000 to $1,500,000 requiring a 20 percent
down payment and income of approximately $130,000 to $200,000 per year. 11
This finding is substantially the same as the Town's findings in "e 11 and '1" above.
Respondent adopted its Housing Element in 2015, in part to meet its allocable share of existing
and projected housing needs, including very low, low and moderate income households12 . The
housing element identifies the North 40 as the primary site for construction of affordable
housing units, with an allocation of 156 units to very low income, 84 units to low income and 30
units to moderate income; a total of 270 units.13 The record indicate s that this is not an
objective requirement, but a subjective goal. Petitioners' Project provides for 49 very low
moderate income level. The 49 very low income units account for a modest percentage of the
affordable units identified in the Housing Element . The record indicates that if the Town is
unable to meet its share of housing need on the sites identified in its Housing Element, the
Town is required to provide proposed actions for additional sites. Because North 40 is the
largest site remaining for development in Los Gato s, the Town contends that approval of the
12 201 very low, 11 2 low, and 132 moderate income units are allocab le to the Town in its ho using element.
13 Table H-2 Summary of Community St rateg ie s.
12
Project with its current allotment of affordable housing will make it difficult to meet the
2 allocation for low-income housing. This finding is supported by substantial evidence.
3 Accordingly, the Court enters the following decision and judgment:
4 A. A writ of mandamus shall issue directing Respondent, Town of Lo s Gatos, to:
5 1. Set aside Town of Los Gatos Resolution 2016-046 denying the applications for Vestin
6 Tentative Map and Architecture and Site;
7 2. Reconsider Petitioners' applications and the Project under the additional provisions
8 of Government Code §65589.5, and specifically subsection (j);
9 3. If, in the course of reconsideration, Respondent determines to again deny the
10 applications and Project, Respondent shall determine whether the Project complies with
11 applicable, objective general plan and zoning standards and criteria.
12 a. If Respondent determines that the Project does not so comply, Respondent
13 shall specify the applicable, objective criteria which the Project failed to comply.
14 b. If Respondent determines that the Project does so comply, then Respondent
15 shall make written findings, supported by substantial evidence on the record, that (1)
16 the project would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety
17 unless the project is disapproved, and (2) there is no feasible method to satisfactorily
18 mitigate or avoid that specifically identified adverse impact other than the disapproval
19 of Petitioners' applications.
20 B. The Town's findings in "1. a" to "c" and "1. e" to "h" of Resolution 2016-046 are
22 C. Approval of the proposed project shall require compliance with the applicable
23 provisions of the Map Act and Housing Affordability Act.
24
25
26
27
28
Dated : June-.!/' 2017
n. Drew C. Takaichi
dge of the Superior Court
14 The Town is encouraged to supplement such findings with objective criteria to enable Petitioners to remed y the
incons istencies identified in the findings.
13
June 12, 2017
R E:
Case Number:
SUP E RIOR CO U R T O F CALI FORNIA
C OUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
DOWNTOWN COURTHOUSE
191 NORTH FIRST STREET
SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95113
CIVIL D IVISION
I ·~
Ed en housing, In c., Summe,hill h omes, LLC vs Town of Lo s Gatos, and DU, to V
16CV300733
PROOF OF SERVICE
D~PUTY . Lara
DECISION AND JUDGMENT GRANTING WRIT OF MANDAMUS w a s d e live red to th e pa rt ies listed b elow the
above entitled case as set forth in the sworn declaration below.
If you , a party represented by you , or a witness to be called on behalf of that p arty need an accommodation under the American with
Disabilities Act, please contact the Court Adminis trator's office at (408) 882-2700 , or use the Court 's TDD line (408) 882-2690 or the
VoicefTDD Californ ia Relay Service (800) 735-2922 .
DECL AR ATION OF SERV ICE BY MAI L: I declare that I served this notice by enclosin g a true copy in a sealed envelope, addressed to
each person whose name is shown below, and by depositing the envelope with postage fully prepa id , i n the United States Ma il at San Jose ,
CA on June 12 , 2017. CLERK OF THE COURT, by Julie Lara , Deputy .
cc: Robert William Schultz, Town Attorney, Town of Los Gatos, Civic Center 110 E. Main St. Les Gatos CA 95030
Whitney Grace McDonald, Ric ha rds Watson & Gershon 847 Monterey St Suite 201 San L uis Obispo CA 93401
Arthur Jay Friedman , Sheppard Mullin , Richter & Hamilton, LLP 4 Embarcadero Ctr 17th Floor San Francisco CA
941 11 -4106
Andrew L. Faber, Berliner Cohen , LL P 10 Almaden Blvd, 111h Floor San Jose CA 9511 3
CW-9027 REV 12/08/16 PROO F O F SERVIC E