CITY COUNCIL CLOSED SESSION AGENDA

Karla Brown, Mayor Jocelyn Kwong, City Clerk April23, 2024 Page 4 protected property interest. (Norlh Pacifica, LLC v. City of Pacifica, supra,234 F.Supp.2d at 1059). The City has not made these required findings and there is no evidence to support such findings based on any standard of review, including the HAA'S required preponderance of the evidence standard. ln addition to the foregoing, subdivision 0Xa) of the HAA provides as follows: For purposes of this section, a proposed housing development project is not inconsistent with the applicable zoning standards and criteria, and shall not require a rezoning, if the housing development project is consistent with the objective general plan standards and criteria but the zoning for the project site is inconsistent with the general plan . . . [T]he local agency may require the proposed housing development project to comply with the objective standards and criteria of the zoning which is consistent with the general plan, however, the standards and criteria shall be applied to facilitate and accommodate development at the density allowed on the site by the general plan and proposed by the proposed housing development project. (Gov. Code S 65s89.50X4)). Thus, under the first senlence of subdivision 0X4), if the zoning is inconsistent with the plan-and the zoning here is inconsistent because the General Plan allows housing at 20 or more units per acre while the zoning does not allow any housing at all (and nursing homes and assisted living facilities are not housing under the City's regulations or state lawFthen the City cannot lawfully require a rezoning. Moreover, under the second sentence of subdivision O(4), which City staff have never acknowledged and was not addressed in the Planning Commission's staff report, the City is required to facilitate and accommodate the Project at its proposed and allowed aeneral plan densitv. lnstead of doing so here, City staff recommended and the Planning Commission decided the Project should be disapproved based on an incomplete and inaccurate description of the facts and the law, contrary to the pro-housing requirements and intent of the HAA. As noted above, the General Plan objectively allows residential development (i.e., detached and attached single{amily homes, duplexes, townhouses, condominiums, and apartments) on the Project Site at a density of at least 20 units per acre (the Project proposes approximately 22 units per acre and thus meets this objective requirement) and the OGPD zoning does not allow any housing at all. Thus, the zoning is indeed inconsistent with the Plan, at least for purposes ofthe HAA as mandated by subdivision 0X4). Moreover, underthe second sentence of subdivision O(4) of the HAA, the City has a legal obligation to facilitate and accommodate lh.e P roject at its proposed and allowed general plan density Even if the law on these issues was unclear-and we believe it is indeed clear-the HAA establishes statewide policy applicable to every city and county in Califomia mandating that "this section be interpreted and implemented in a manner to afford TRLt-58837V919580 2