2017-044 - Rescind Resolution 2016-046 denying the North 40 southerly development applicationRESOLUTION 2017 -044
RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL
OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
RESCINDING RESOLUTION 2016 -046 DENYING A REQUEST FOR THE CONSTRUCTION
OF A NEW MULTI -USE, MULTI -STORY DEVELOPMENT CONSISTING OF 320
RESIDENTIAL UNITS, WHICH INCLUDES 50 AFFORDABLE SENIOR UNITS;
APPROXIMATELY 66,800 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL FLOOR AREA, WHICH
INCLUDES A MARKET HALL; ON -SITE AND OFF -SITE IMPROVEMENTS; AND A VESTING
TENTATIVE MAP ON PROPERTY ZONED NORTH 40 SPECIFIC PLAN
APNS: 424 -07 -024 THROUGH 027,031 THROUGH 037, 070,
083 THROUGH 086, 090, AND 100.
SUBDIVISION APPLICATION: M -13 -014
ARCHITECTURE AND SITE APPLICATION: S -13 -090
PROPERTY LOCATION: SOUTHERLY PORTION OF THE NORTH 40 SPECIFIC PLAN
AREA, LARK AVENUE TO SOUTH OF NODDIN AVENUE
PROPERTY OWNERS: YUKI FARMS, ETPH LP, GROSVENOR USA LIMITED,
SUMMERHILL N40 LLC, ELIZABETH K. DODSON, AND WILLIAM HIRSCHMAN
APPLICANTS: GROSVENOR USA LIMITED, SUMMERHILL HOMES,
AND EDEN HOUSING
WHEREAS, the Town Council held a duly noticed public hearing on August 9, 2016 and
continued the applications to a special August 11, 2016 meeting; and
WHEREAS, the Town Council continued consideration of the applications on August 11,
2016 and continued the applications to the August 16, 2016 meeting; and
WHEREAS, the Town Council continued consideration of the applications on August 16,
2016 and continued the applications to a special September 1, 2016 meeting; and
WHEREAS, the Town Council continued consideration of the applications on September
1, 2016 and voted to deny the proposed applications and continued the matter to the
September 6, 2016 meeting for consideration of adoption of a final Resolution on its action;
and
WHEREAS, on September 6, 2016, Council adopted Resolution 2016 -046, attached
hereto as Exhibit A, denying Vesting Tentative Map application M -13 -014 and Architecture and
Site application S -13 -090; and
1of3
Resolution 2017 -044 August 1, 2017
WHEREAS, 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; and
WHEREAS, on June 9, 2017, the Santa Clara County Superior Court issued a Decision and
Judgment that states the following:
A. A Writ of mandamus shall issue directing Respondent, Town of Los Gatos, to:
1. Set aside Town of Los Gatos Resolution 2016 -046 denying the applications for
Vesting Tentative Map and Architecture and Site;
2. Reconsider Petitioners' applications and the Project under the additional
provisions of Government Code §65589.5, and specifically subsection (j);
3. If, in the course of reconsideration, Respondent determines to again deny the
applications and Project, Respondent shall determine whether the Project complies with
applicable, objective general plan and zoning standards and criteria.
a. If Respondent determines that the Project does not so comply, Respondent shall
specify the applicable, objective criteria which the Project failed to comply.
b. If Respondent determines that the Project does so comply, then Respondent
shall make written findings, supported by substantial evidence on the record,
that (1) the project would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health
or safety unless the project is disapproved, and (2) there is no feasible method to
satisfactorily mitigate or avoid that specifically identified adverse impact other
than the disapproval of Petitioners' applications.
B. The Town's findings in "1. a" to "c" and "1. e" to "h" of Resolution 2016 -046 are
supported by substantial evidence.
C. Approval of the proposed project shall require compliance with the applicable
provisions of the Map Act and Housing Affordability Act.
WHEREAS, the Town Council held a duly noticed public hearing on July 24, 2017 and
continued the applications to the August 1, 2017 meeting; and
2of3
Resolution 2017 -044 August 1, 2017
WHEREAS, the Town Council held a public hearing on August 1, 2017.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
In accordance with the Decision and Judgment, A. 1. above, Resolution 2016 -046 denying
Vesting Tentative Map application M -13 -014 and Architecture and Site application S -13 -090 is
hereby set aside and rescinded and of no further force and effect as a consequence of the
judgment of the Superior Court referred to herein above.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Los
Gatos, California, held on the 151 day of August, 2017, by the following vote:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
AYES: Marcia Jensen, Rob Rennie, Barbara Spector, Mayor Marico Sayoc
NAYS: Steve Leonardis
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
SIGNED: _
MAYOR OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
LOS GATOS, CALihORNIA
DATE:
ATTEST:
CLERK ADMINISTRATOR OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA
DATE:: _ i "( _cn) —
3of3
Resolution 2017 -044 August 1, 2017
RESOLUTION 2016 -046
RESOLUTION OF THE TONVN COUNCIL
OF THE'TOWN OF LOS GATOS
DENYING A REQUEST FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW MULTI -USE,
MULTI -STORY DEVELOPMENT CONSISTING OF 320 RESIDENTIAL UNITS,
WHICH INCLUDES s0 AFFORDABLE SENIOR UNITS; APPROXIMATELY 66,800
SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL FLOOR AREA, WHICH INCLUDES A MARKET
HALL: ON -SITE AND OFF -SITE IMPROVEMENTS; AND A VESTING TENTATIVE
MAP ON PROPERTY ZONED NORTH 40 SPECIFIC PLAN
APNS: 424 -07 -024 THROUGH 027, 031 THROUGH 037, 070,
083 THROUGH 086, 090, AND 100.
SUBDIVISION APPLICATION: M -13 -014
ARCHITECTURE AND SITE APPLICATION: 5 -13 -090
PROPERTY LOCATION: SOUTHERLY PORTION OF THE NORTH 40 SPECIFIC
PLAN AREA, LARK AVENUE TO SOUTH OF NODDIN AVENUE
PROPERTY OWNERS: YUKI FARMS, ETPH LP, GROSVENOR USA LIMITED,
SUMMERHILL N40 LLC, ELIZABETH K. DODSON. AND WILLIAM HIRSCHMAN
APPLICANTS: GROSVENOR USA LIMITED, SUMMERHILL HOMES,
AND EDEN HOUSING
WHEREAS, on November 14, 2013, the applicants, Grosvenor USA Limited,
Sumnmerhill Homcs, and Eden I lousing, submitted Architectural and Site (A &S) and Vesting
Tentative Map (V "1 Mr applications for the portion of the Specific Plan area south ofNoddin
Avenue.
WHEREAS, an Environmental hupact Report (EIR) v� as preparcd for the North 40
Specific Plan and on January 20, 2015, the Town Council certified that document in compliance
with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA,
WHEREAS, on June i 201:, the Town Council adopted the North 40 Specific Plan,
providing detailed land use and dev clopnient guidance for the area bounded by Highway 17 to
the west. Los Gatos Boulevard to the cast. Avenue to the south and Highway 85 to the
north.
WHEREAS, the proposed development identified in the A &S application included 360
residential coudoininiums'roufllomes, 10 rental apartments (including two live -work units), 50
EXHIBIT A
affordable senior rental units, and 61791 square feet of conunercial floor area.
WHEREAS, the VTh9 proposed to subdivide the 20.7 -acre project area into 113 lots,
with up to 320 residential condominiums.
WHEREAS, on March 18, 2016, the applicants, Grosvenor USA Limited. Summerhill
IIonics. and Eden Rousing, submitted revised Architectural and Site (A &S} and Vesting
Tentative Map (VTM) applications for the portion of Be Specific Plan area south of Noddin
Avenue.
WHEREAS, Be Planning, Commission held a dull noticed public hearing on March 30,
2016, at which time the Commission considered public testimon), the staff report prepared for
that meeting, and all other documentation related to the applications, and continued consideration
of the applications to April 27, 2016.
WHEREAS, on April 27, 2016, the Planning Commission continued consideration of the
applications to a date uncertain,
WHEREAS, on May 2, AM 6, Be Community Development Department Director
determined that the applications were complete.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on July 12,
2016, at "Inch time the Commission considered public testimony, the staffreport preparers for
that meeting, and all other doctunentabm related to the applications, closed the verbal public
comment portion of Be public hearing, and began to ask questions of the applicant team, and
continued the applications u) its July 13, 2016 meeting.
WHEREAS, the Planning C'onmimmon continued consideration of the applications on
my 13, 2016, at which time the Commission concluded its questions of die apnlwain and staff
and deliberated on the appheations. Following its deliberations and consideration of all the
documentary evidence from the applicant and all interested persons who wished to testify or
of ti
Rmolumn 2W 0046 September 6,201
submit docu hewn the Planning C inmussion voted to ieeonuacnd (4-2- 1, Erekson and
O'Donnell opposed, Burch recusedj that the Pov,a Council deny the proposed applications based
upon the following findings:
1. The project is not consistent with the General Plan and the North 40 Specific Plan.
2. Specifically, the project does not address the unmet needs Ibr senior housing as noted in
Section 2.4 and Appendix C of the Specific Plan.
1 The project does not inanporme views adequate}; in the layouts as called out in Section
153 (Qvn Space Goals and Policies. Opc Space. Policy Of View Preservation and does
not comply midi Design Guidelin 3.2,; .d, Site Planning aad Design, and Section
3.2.6.e.i. Building Elements and `nkuiation which states "Special care shall be taken to
avoid obstructing viCWS to the surrounding hills."
4. 1 'he project's economic study as required in Section 2.42 was flawed because, it did not
consider the downtown %onditionai I ise Permit and parking requirements,
5. Tine units should he Smaller, Qpica} of the CXamples cited on page; 6 of the Planning
Commission Report fir its July 11 2016 mectinc:.
6. The project does not comply with Section 3.1 .ANhiwcwrW and Site Character Goals and
Policics. policy DC36 Architecture to "produce ]nigh quAR, authentic deli <gn" particularly
for buildings 24 and 25.
7. The Specific Plan cn%isions lower inwrisity residential uses it the Lark District,
WHEREAS, the Town Council held a duly noticed public hearing on August 4, 2016 at
Wrhich time the Council considered public testimony, the staffrcport prepared for that meeting,
and Al other documentary evidence related to the applications fi-om the applicant and all
interested persons who Wished to testify or submit documents, closed the verbal public comment
portion of die public heating, and continued the applications to a Special .august 11, 2016
Resolution 2016 -0=46 Sepiembcr 6. 201 (1
meeting.
WHEREAS, the Town Council continued consideration ofthe applications on Aumrst
11. 2016, at which time the Council concluded its questions ofthe applicant and stmt". considered
all other doeurnemar\1 evidence related to the applications from the applicant and all interested
persons who wished to submit documen s, and continued the applications to the August 16, 2016
meeting.
WHEREAS, the Town Council continued consideration of the applications on August
16, 2016, at which time the Council clef ibeiated on the applications, considered all other
documentary evidence related to the applications from the applicant and all interested persons
who wished to submit documents requested further- information, and continued the applications
to a special Septcmbe: 1, 2016 meeting.
WHEREAS, the Town Council continued constderahon of tale appiications on
September 1, 2010, at which time the (;Caned continued deliberation on the applications,
considered all other documentaiy evidence related to the applications tiont ire applicant and al!
interested persons who wished to submit documents. Folltm ing its deliberations and
consideration of all the documentary evidence tiom the applicant and all interested person s'who
wished to testify or submit documents, the Gown Council voted 0 -2, Jensen and Lennie
opposed) to deny the proposed applications based upon the fotlmv ing motion and findings:
1. Uphold the residential components of the Planning Commission 's recommendation to the
Town Council to deny the application.
Determine that the project has significant issues with tite lagout of the residential units
and if there was an opportunity to spread the units throughout the North 40 area, the
project would hay c a better comprehensive site plan. For example: residential buildings
18 through 27 on Building [yep Plan Sheet i m, surrounded by South 3 Street. Los Gatos
-1 i(
Rem,jutiwi 2016 -046 September 6, 20 t(+
Boulevard, and Lark Av criue, are an anotna . due to the existing commercial property on
Los Gatos Boulevard.
3. The project is not consistent with site access on North 40 Specific Plan I>age 4 -2 and
Commercial Design Guidelines on page 3 -2 guide file site plan development-
4. The ability to ,pread residential units throughout Inv North 40 would provide a better
design. _' 70 units were allocated in the 1lousinc; Element for all 40 acres cif the North 40-
13.5 acres were not designated to the southern Laik District. Transition District, or
Northern District. This provides discretion to the dcciding body and is how land use
decisions work in Los Gatos, When (here is ambil,um. the decidint; body makes the
determinations based on look and ]ccl, site layout, scale. mass, and neighborhood
harmony. The Council should not be looking at this project any diflerently.
5. With the intention of applying the Specific Plan uniformly on all protects in the future,
this application disproportionately hurts the chances of a better site design in the future.
6- The project is not consistent with the Housing Element which planned for an income
distribution of 156 very low, 94 low, and 30 moderate income households for the North
40 site.
7. Reducing the size of the proposed units and locating the proposed units outalde of the Los
Gatos School District boundaries are strategcs for reducing the cost of tine proposed units
thereby making tine units more affordable and consistent with the Specific flan and
Housin Element.
VVIIEREAS, the I`own Council on September 6, 2016, considered the final resolution
and findings for denial Vesting I eniam e Map application IM -f 3 -014 and Architecture and Site
application S -1 - )90.
5ut'
Resolution 2016 -046 Sepismber 6. 2016
!Yow `C IEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
I . Vesting Tentau e )Aap application 11 ' 3-014 and Architecture and Site
application S -13 -090 are denied based out the following findings:
The besting Tentative Vlap and Architecture and Site application (hereinafter "pnposed
project ") is inconsistent With numerous Noah 40 Specific Plan and General Plan policies.
Section 664715 of the Cadiornia Subdfrtsion Map Act states that, 'In o local agency slid]
approve a tentative map... unless lit] finds that the proposed subdAlsion, together A& the
provisions for its design and improvement, is consistent with the general plan-..o specific plan.'
The proposed Vesting Tentative wisp and Architecture and Site applications are not consistent
with the following General Plait and North 40 Specifie Plan Policies:
a. The proposed project overly concentrates all of the icsidential units that can be built
pursuant to the North 40 Specific Plan and the General Plan Housing Element on the
southern portion of the Notih 40 Specific Plan area and is: therefore inconsistent with
Specific Plan Section 2.5; Standard 2.7.3: Policy 5.12; and the Residential Unit Sire
Ax and Table set forth on page 0 14. This negatk c13 affects the site layout and
disproportionately hunts the chances of better site design in the future.
b. The proposed project is inconsistent with `worth 40 Specific Plan Section 13.1 and its
requirements for lower intensity residential uses in the Lark District.
c. The proposed project buudings 18 through 27 arc inconsistent with North 40 Specific
Plan policy requirement that the lark District consist oflower intensity residential
development with office, retail personal services, and restaurants along Los Gatos
Boulevard.
d. The proposed project buildings 24 and 25 are inconsistent with North 40 Specific
Plan Section 4 -2 as it eHrrintaws "a fourth access point AT of I n)s Gatos Houlavard
6 Of `
Resolution 2016 -036, September 6. 2016
closer to the Lark A� core intersection; are inconsistent with North 40 Specific Plan
page 3 -L Section 3.1 Architectural and Site Character Goals and Policies, Policy
DG5 Residential Siting dru requires residential development to be located to
minimize traffic, noise, and air quality impacts: and are inconsistent with the
Commercial Design Guideiines beginning on page 3 -2 which 7uide site plan
development.
e. The proposes: project is inconsistent with North 40 Specific Plan Policy Section 2.4
and Appendix C of the Sped fic Plan as it does not address the unmet housing needs
for seniors and "Gen Y. "
f. The proposed project is inconsistent the Residential knit Size Mix and Table set firth
on page 6 i 4 of the Specific Plan and the Residential Lna Size Mix should have
smaller units to come closer to the income distribution ofaffordable housing
identified in the Town's certified General Plan 1 hu Sint; Element for 156 very low, 84
low, and 30 moderate income units.
g. The proposed project" specifically buildings 18 through 27" would result in an
anomaly of residential uses within an existing commercial land use context.
I The only promised Below> Market Rate housing is the 49 units above Market }call and
the remainder would have home values estimated at 5900,000 to S1,500,000 requiring
a 20 percent down payment and income ofapproxitriately 5130,000 to 5200,000 per
t' ar.
2. In addition to the above findings, the I own Council dunks the Vestima Tentative Map
and '+rchhecture and She applications based on the entire admtncsuauve record.
3. The decision constitutes a final administrative decision pursuant to Code of Civil
Procedtne section 1094.6 as adopted by section 1.10 085 of the Town Code of the 1'own of Los
' ot'ti
Resolution .2.016 -046 Sep[en:ber 6, 20 76
Gatos. Any application for judicial relief from this decision must be sought within the time
limits and pursuant to the procedures established by Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.6, or
such shorter time as required by state and federal Law.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of
Los Gatos, California, held on the d °i day of September, 2016. by the foliovving vote:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
AYES: Marcia Jensen, Steve Lc onardis, Rob Rennie, Marco Sayoe, Mayor Barbara Spector
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
SIGNED:
MAYOR OF THIS TOWN LOS GATOS
LOS CATOS. CALIFORNIA
� t
DATE:
--- 41 4
ATTEST:
CLERK ADMIN.'S f RA I'Of OF IHE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
LOS GATOS_ CALIFORNIA
BATE: / it I LP.__. - - - --
8of8
Rue oluuon 2116 -046 Sepmaber 6, 2016