N40.reconsider.170724
RECONSIDERATION OF THE NORTH 40
DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS
Special Meeting
July 24, 2017
1
North 40 Specific Plan Background
background
The North 40 Specific Plan Advisory Committee (N40 AC) was established by the Town Council in March 2011.
The N40 AC began meeting in March of 2011 and concluded their work in October 2013
All meetings were open to the public and input was provided at the meetings and in writing.
2
North 40 Specific Plan Background
background
An EIR for the Draft Specific Plan was prepared and circulated for public comment in early 2014.
The Planning Commission and Town Council considered the Draft Specific Plan and EIR at ten Public Hearings between June 2014 and June 2015.
The Final EIR was certified and the North 40 Specific Plan was adopted on June 17, 2015.
3
The Specific Plan provides a maximum allowable development capacity for the entire Specific Plan area of 270 residential units and 501,000 square feet of non-residential, commercial
uses.
Development capacity
Development Capacity
4
The proposed applications include: 260 residential condominiums/rowhomes, 10 rental apartments (including two live-work units), 49 affordable senior rental units, one additional unit
to be reserved for a moderate-income manager of the senior units, and 66,791 square feet of commercial floor area.
To enable the development of the 50 units that exceeded the 270-unit maximum allowed by the Specific Plan, the Applicants requested approval of a density bonus pursuant to the State
Density Bonus Law.
APPLICATIONS
Proposed Applications
5
The Town Council considered the applications over the course of four public hearings, held during August and September 2016.
On September 1, 2016, after carefully considering its own General Plan, Housing Element, Specific Plan, the public’s comments and evidence, and the Applicants’ submittals, the Town Council
voted to deny the project.
DENIAL OF applicatioNS
Denial of Applications
6
On October 6, 2016, the Applicants filed a lawsuit against the Town asserting that: (1) the Town of Los Gatos violated the Town’s Housing Element; (2) the Town violated the State’s Housing
Accountability Act; and (3) the Town violated the State Density Bonus Law.
LITIGATION
Litigation
7
On June 9, 2017, the Court issued a Decision against the Town and directed the Town to set aside the denial and reconsider the Project under the Housing Accountability Act (HAA).
The Court determined that the Town Council’s denial was based upon discretionary determinations made under subjective policies in the Specific Plan, instead of under objective policies
as required by the HAA.
COURT DECISION
Court Decision
8
The HAA is often referred to as California’s “Anti-NIMBY law.”
HAA was enacted because local governments had failed to comply with their own policies when housing projects are at stake.
The HAA requires local governments to approve any “housing development project,” if it complies with “applicable, objective general plan and zoning standards and criteria, including
design review standards.”
COURT DECISION
HAA
9
The Court Decision made determinations in regard to the Town’s original findings for denial:
The Town’s findings are based on substantial evidence in the record.
The findings recite only findings of subjective criteria.
COURT decision
Court Decision
10
The HAA does not define the term “objective standard.” The following are definitions of that term found within these two dictionaries:
Law Dictionary: A standard that is based on factual measurements, in the absence of a biased judgement or analysis.
Business Dictionary: Benchmark, criteria, or model based on verifiable measurements or bias free (neutral) analysis and judgment.
Objective Standards
Objective Standards
11
In other words, objective standards are typically quantifiable or numerical standards and anyone evaluating a project against the standards would arrive at the same conclusion. Examples
within the North 40 Specific Plan include building heights, setbacks, open space requirements, etc.
Objective Standards
Objective Standards
12
Staff’s position is that the proposed applications meet the technical objective standards of the North 40 Specific Plan.
In addition, the Court Decision states that “There is substantial evidence in the record to support Applicants’ contention that the Project is consistent with objective standards.”
Objective Standards
Objective Standards
13
If the Town Council agrees with staff’s and the Court’s analysis that the proposed project meets all of the Town’s objective standards, then it can only deny the project if it determines:
ADVERSE iMPACTS
Adverse Impact on Public Health and Safety
14
The project would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety.
There is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact.
“Specific, adverse impact” means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or
conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete.
ADVERSE iMPACTS
Adverse Impact on Public Health and Safety
15
The EIR analyzed the potential adverse health and safety impacts of development of the North 40 Specific Plan and the Council certified the EIR and adopted Mitigation Measures and a
Statement of Overriding Considerations.
This means that impacts analyzed in the EIR cannot now be used as public health and safety concerns for the denial of the applications.
ADVERSE impacts
Adverse Impact on Public Health and Safety
16
As directed by the Court, the Town Council must rescind its previous denial and reconsider the development applications consistent with State laws as discussed in the staff report.
The Council should open the public hearing; listen to the verbal staff report, applicant’s presentation, public testimony, and applicant’s rebuttal; close the public testimony portion
of the public hearing; and continue the matter to August 1, 2017 to begin deliberations when the full Council is present.
CONCLUSION
Conclusion
17