Project’s parking garage decision delayed
Housing Accountability Act throws a curveball into the proceedings
Like everything else associated with the controversial North 40 mixed-use development, a proposal to eliminate a parking garage’s underground level turned into a quandary for the town’s Planning Commission this week.
As a result, the commission decided to postpone a vote until Sept. 23 after discussing the proposal for two hours Wednesday because it was unclear whether the developer’s request fell under the state’s Housing Accountability Act.
If it does, the commission would would have to base its decision only on objective standards, not subjective ones, town attorney Rob Schultz advised it.
Schultz said he thought the act applied because at least twothirds of the North 40 development going up on a former orchard at the interchange of Highway 17 and Lark Avenue is residential.
“You’ve got to find those objective standards,” Schultz said. “That’s the only way you can deny a housing project under state law. There have been many subjective reasons in the correspondence that you’ve received such as:
“If they don’t have the garage, there will be a parking problem. (The parking) might be needed for future development. The applicant promised it, therefore they should have to do it. All of those are subjective reasons.”
But a public speaker threw a curveball into the discussion by questioning whether the Housing Accountability Act even applies since the market hall building itself, which is served by the parking garage, contains 62% housing, falling short of the twothirds needed for the act to apply.
Schultz was asked to doublecheck and later told the commissioners because he and his staff calculated the entire first phase of the project, they concluded it must comply with the state law.
He said if the commission disagrees with that conclusion, it should specifically cite why the state law doesn’t apply.
The act already has played a major role in the project. In 2016, the development appeared dead when the town council voted 3-2 to reject the first phase, with the majority claiming it did not comply with the town’s specific plan.
But the developers sued, and a judge ruled the town did not fol
low provisions in the housing affordability act because it reviewed the specific plan subjectively rather than objectively.
The application went back to the council, which narrowly approved the project.
Although the proposal to remove the parking level was on its Aug. 26 agenda, the Planning Commission delayed the discussion until Wednesday because of the
Bay Area’s many raging wildfires.
Commissioners also wanted an opportunity to visit the site after reading correspondence from residents suggesting that SummerHill Homes already was constructing the market hall garage under the assumption that its request will be approved.
The planning commissioners visited the site and were told Wednesday by Michael Keaney of SummerHill Homes that the garage construction has not started.