Item 9 Staff Report Accept Report on Santa Clara County General PlanCOUNCIL AGENDA
DATE: 11/7/94
ITEM NO. 7
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
DATE: October 27, 1994
TO: MAYOR AND TOWN UNCIL
FROM: TOWN MANAGER
SUBJECT: ACCEPT REPORT ON SANTA CLARA COUNTY GENERAL PLAN
RECOMMENDATION:
BACKGROUND:
The County of Santa Clara is in the process of revising their General Plan and has prepared a draft
environmental impact report (DEIR). Overall, the General Plan is a good planning document which clearly
states that urban growth should occur in cities, rural areas should remain rural and natural resources should
be protected. It recommends closer coordination among the County, cities and special districts regarding
decisions and activities that affect the County's overall physical development. There are no major changes
in the land use designation. The County will continue to defer to the cities' general plans for Urban Service
Areas. There are no proposed changes to any policies concerning the jointly adopted Los Gatos Hillside
Specific Plan. A policy change is proposed to encourage clustering and dedication of open space for rural
areas. This proposed policy is consistent with Town hillside policy. The Planning Commission considered
and accepted the Planning Director's report on the County General Plan on October 12, 1994 (Attachment
2). To meet the County's deadline for commenting on the DEIR, a letter has been sent to the County
(Attachment 1).
PREPARED BY: LEE E. BOWMAN Cd
PLANNING DIRE TOR
(Continued, Page 2)
LEB:SB:mb 10/27/94 4:29 pm
n:\dev\marie\county
ATTACHMENTS: (See Page 4 for list of Attachments)
DISTRIBUTION: Vickie Moore, Greenbelt Alliance, 1922 The Alameda Suite 213, San Jose, CA 95126
File #
Reviewed by: /)(j Attorney Clerk Finance Treasurer
COUNCIL ACTION/ACTION DIRECTED TO:
PAGE 2
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: SANTA CLARA COUNTY GENERAL PLAN
October 27, 1994
DISCUSSION:
In reviewing the draft revised General Plan and DEIR staff and the Planning Commission recommends that
improvements be made to the areas identified below. Staff has also received correspondence from
Greenbelt Alliance informing the Town on what improvements they feel should be made to the document
(Items 3, 4 and 5 identified below). Staff and the Planning Commission concurs with their concerns and has
incorporated them in this report.
1. Golf Courses
The DEIR states that the Draft General Plan proposes policies that will place constraints on golf
courses in agricultural areas but not in hillside areas. The DEIR states that golf courses have a
potential environmental impact concerning "the use of pesticides and herbicides, water and other
service demands, conversion of agricultural land and growth inducement. Golf courses and
ancillary uses that usually accompany them --restaurants, pro shops and eventually residential
development— are not compatible with Ranchlands and Agriculture. They are fundamentally different
types of activities that create nuisances for each other. Golf courses bring traffic to rural areas and
involve a more intensive use of the land than farming and ranching, so they materially change rural
qualities of the more remote areas. This use increases land values, which in turn create pressure
to convert more lands from ranchland or agriculture to other uses...Golf courses in agriculture zones
would have significant impacts." Staff and the Planning Commission believes that these impacts
would be true for hillside areas as well and recommended that the EIR address this issue.
2. Design Principles
The General Plan has some improved language on development restrictions in the hillside and rural
residential zones. Overall, the County has developed good design principals for residential
developments. One of the design principles in the land use section of the Draft General Plan states
that the structures on or near ridgelines shall be located, constructed, and/or landscaped so that
they do not create a significant adverse visual impact as seen from the valley floor. Staff and the
Planning Commission believes that the County should expand this principal to discourage houses
at or near the ridgeline to ensure that there will be no visual impact. Residences at or near the
ridgeline should only be approved when no other alternative exists and the site has been designed
to meet County requirements for reducing the visual impact.
3. Low Density Development
There is no clear definition of low density development. The Draft General Plan Land Use Plan
policy for hillsides states that "lands so designated shall be preserved largely in natural resource
related and open space uses" and "allowable uses shall be consistent with the conservation and
wise use of these resources and levels of development shall be limited to avoid increased demand
for public services and facilities." It allows "low -density recreational uses and facilities...and
commercial, industrial, or institutional uses, which by their nature 1) require remote, rural settings;
or 2) which support the recreational or productive use, study or appreciation for the natural
environment." The Plan goes on to state that "Non-residential uses allowed in 'Hillsides' areas shall
be of a generally low density or low intensity nature, depending on the use, as is consistent with
the basic intent of the Hillsides designation to preserve the resources and rural character of the
land."
PAGE 3
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: SANTA CLARA COUNTY GENERAL PLAN
October 27, 1994
It was recommended that the County develop a set of criteria, in the form of performance standards
that clearly defines a low-density/intensity development consistent with resource conservation goals
and that clearly defines developments that are not low density/intensity and consistent with resource
conservation goals.
The Draft General Plan states that "Privately -owned recreational land uses and facilities within rural
unincorporated areas, including but not limited to golf course, campgrounds, and similar uses,
should be compatible with the landscape and resources of the area in which they are proposed.
To ensure such compatibility, potentially significant impacts often associated with such land uses
should be avoided or reduced to less than significant levels, including:
a. water demand;
b. traffic generation;
c. waste water generation and disposal;
d. alteration of natural topography, drainage patterns, habitat, or vegetative cover;
e. use of harmful chemicals, such as pesticides and herbicides;
f. riparian area or heritage resource impacts; and,
g• loss of prime soils or other impact upon local agriculture."
In addition, the Draft General Plan states that "Land uses proposed for inclusion within the Hillside
zoning district may be evaluated for conformity with the intent of this land use designation by
various measures of land use intensity, including but not limited to:
a. waste water generation rates;
b. traffic generation rates;
c. extent of grading vegetation removal, drainage modifications, or other alteration of the
natural environment; and
d. noise or other nuisance potential."
It was further recommended that this list serve as the basis for the criteria to be used by the County
to develop maximum threshold standards. The County should also include in this list, infrastructure
improvement requirements (such as road widening, parking facilities, lighting, etc.) to provide a
more thorough review of the overall impact.
4. Open Space Easement Dedications for Non -Residential Development
A more precise definition of open space dedication requirements was recommended for non-
residential development in the hillside. The Draft General Plan states under the Land Use Plan
policy "For all uses allowed in Hillside areas other than agricultural and single-family residential land
uses, open space preservation by means of easement dedication may be required in order to:
a. protect the public health;
b. prevent or mitigate potentially significant adverse environmental impacts; and/or
c. to create perimeter areas that adequately buffer neighboring properties from adverse off -site
impacts of the proposed land use."
PAGE 4
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: SANTA CLARA COUNTY GENERAL PLAN
October 27, 1994
The document further states that "The nature and duration of an open space or conservation
easement shall be commensurate with:
a. the nature of the land use;
b. the duration to which that use has been entitled through County permitting procedures; and,
c. the extend of alterations made to the natural landscape."
The document further states that "Land uses which do not receive a permanent entitlement, should
not be required to dedicate open space or conservation easements of a permanent nature, unless
required as a mitigation for alterations made to the natural landscape.
The County should develop ways to determine appropriate open space easement dedication
requirements for non-residential development.
5. Implementation
The County Planning Department has experienced major staff cutbacks, as have most jurisdictions.
Budget cuts tend to have an affect on the prioritization of planning work projects. Staff and the
Planning Commission recommended that the County make the implementation of the General Plan
top priority to ensure that it is done within a reasonable time period.
CONCLUSION:
The review period for the DEIR ended on October 31, 1994. The Town's comments for the EIR have been
forwarded to the County (Attachment 1 ). The public hearing to make a recommendation regarding the draft
revised Santa Clara County General Plan and to recommend certification of the Final EIR is scheduled for
the November 29, 1994 County Planning Commission Meeting. The Board of Supervisors is the final
decision maker on the general plan and EIR and will review the documents and make a decision on
December 13, 1994. If Council has additional recommendations on the draft revised County General Plan,
a letter should be forwarded to the County addressing these recommendations prior to the November 29,
1994 hearing.
FISCAL IMPACT: None
ENVIRONMENTAL An Environmental Impact Report was prepared by the County
ASSESSMENT:
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Letter to Santa Clara County Planning Department
2. Planning Commission minutes of October 12, 1994
3. Planning Director Report dated October 6, 1994 for Planning Commission agenda of October 12,
1994 (Exhibit A deleted and incorporated as Attachment 1 of this report)
TOWN OF Los GATOS
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
(408) 354-6874
October 17, 1994
Mr. Hugh Graham
Santa Clara County Planning Office
County Government Center, 7th Floor
70 West Hedding Street
San Jose, CA 95110
RE: Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Draft Revised County General Plan
File # 5722-00-00-94E!R
Dear Mr. Graham:
CIVIC CE*rra
110 E. MAN STILT
P.O. Box 949
Los GATos, CA 95031
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Report referenced
above and the draft revised General Plan for Santa Clara County. Overall, the revised General Plan is a
good planning document which clearly states that urban growth should occur in cities, rural areas should
remain rural and natural resources should be protected. Policies have been added for hillside developments
which are consistent with Town policies. The revised General Plan also has some improved language on
development restriction in hillside and rural areas which the Town concurs with. Good design principals for
residential development have also been developed.
To meet Town concerns for hillside development, the following improvements/considerations are
recommended:
1. Golf Course
The revised draft General Plan proposes policies that will place constraints on -golf courses in
agricultural areas, but not in hillside areas. Page 5A-31, Impact 3, of the DEIR states the potential
environmental impacts of golf courses in agricultural areas. The Town believes that these impacts
would be true for hillside areas as well, and the EIR should address this issue.
2. Design Principals
Staff believes that the County should expand principal R-LU 21.6 of the General Plan, to discourage
houses at or near the ridgeline to ensure that there will be no visual impact. Residences at or near
the ridgeline should only be approved when no other alternative exists and the site has been
designed to meet County requirements for reducing the visual impact.
3. Low Density Development
The revised draft General Plans does not provide a clear definition of low density development. It
-is recommended that the County develop a set of criteria, in the form of performance standards that
dearly defines a low-density/intensity development consistent with resource conservation goals and
that dearly defines developments that are not low density/intensity and consistent with resource
conservation goals.
It is further recommended that the list identified in Section R-LU 25 of the General Plan should serve
as the basis for the criteria to be used by the County to develop maximum threshold standards.
ATTACHMENT 1
TVr-nvonve-run 47 •rcr•?n 7 997
Mr. Hugh Graham
Santa Clara County Planning Office
October 12, 1994
Page 2
The County should also include in this list, infrastructure improvement requirements (such as road
widening, parking facilities, lighting, etc) to provide a more thorough review of the overall impact.
4. Open Space Easement Dedications for Non -Residential Development
The Development Policy Section for Non -Residential Open Space Preservation of the General Plan
(R-LU 28 to R-LU 30), deals with open space dedications. A more precise definition of open space
dedication requirements is recommended for non-residential development in the hillside. The
County should develop ways to determine appropriate open space easement dedication
requirements for non-residential development. —
5. Implementation
The County Planning Department has experienced major staff cutbacks, as have most jurisdictions.
Budget cuts tend to have an affect on the prioritization of planning work projects. The Town
recommends that the County make the implementation of the General Plan top priority to ensure
that it is done within a reasonable time period.
If you have any questions, please contact Sandy Baily at 354-6873.
Very truly yours,
Lee E. Bowman
Planning Director
LEB:SLB:sm
cc: Santa Clara County Planning Commission
SMOG\LETTERS \EIR
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES --27
OCTOBER 12, 1994
ITEM 7 Report on Santa Clara County General Plan
Rudolph: We are going to make a recommendation if we concur with recommendations
of the report. I'm a golfer and a member of the Sierra Club. The only problem I have with
golf courses is that they are going to be developed around them. I think I can concur with
this recommendation. Some of the best examples of golf course architecture are in
locations that would never gain approval today, i.e., Pebble Beach and Cypress Point:
Links style courses would be preferable to some other kind of a course, where the natural
typography is acted upon rather than heavy grading and contouring of the land.
Abkin: Would such a course still bring associated development?
Rudolph: I am opposed to the associated development, so 1 think it's unrealistic that a
course could be built, with the high cost of land, without such development.
Abkin: There's nothing more in the report that requires our discussion or decision?
Bowman: No.
Decker: There's so much in it, I wish we had more time to consider it.
Atty. Anderson: The comment period extends to October 31st, so individual Commissioners
are welcome to write to the County.
Bowman: That's on the EIR. The Plan itself has a hearing in November before the County
Commission and the Board of Supervisors in December, so there's still time.
MOTION Comm. Morgan moves, seconded by Comm. Decker, to direct Staff to send a letter to the
County of Santa Clara and forward the matter to the Town Council.
Motion passes unanimously, 6-0.
AYES: Commissioners Abkin, Chase, Decker, Jensen, Morgan and Rudolph
NOES: None
ABSTENTIONS: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Pacheco
ATI AC MENT
Date: October 6 1994
For Agenda Of: October 12, 1994
Agenda Item: 7
REPORT TO: The Planning Commission
FROM: Lee E. Bowman, Planning Director
LOCATION: Report on Santa Clara County General Plan
ACTION: Recommendation to Town Council.
EXHIBITS: A. Draft Letter to the County Planning Department and Commission
RECOMMENDATION Direct staff to send letter to the County of Santa Clara and forward matter
SUMMARY: to Town Council.
A. REMARKS:
The County of Santa Clara is in the process of revising their General Plan and has prepared a draft
environmental impact report (DEER). Overall, the General Plan is a good planning document which dearly
states that urban growth should occur in cities, rural areas should remain rural and natural resources should
be protected. It recommends closer coordination among the County, cities and special districts regarding_
decisions and activities that affect the County's overall physical development. There are no major change*
in the land use designation. The County will continue to defer to the cities' general plans for Urban Service
Areas. There are no proposed changes to any policies concerning the jointly adopted Los Hillside Specific
Plan. A policy change is proposed to encourage clustering and dedication of open space for rural areas.
This proposed policy is consistent with Town hillside policy.
In reviewing the draft revised General Plan and DEIR staff recommends that improvements be made to the
areas identified below. Staff has also received correspondence from Greenbelt Alliance informing the Town
on what improvements they feel should be made to the document (Items 3, 4 and 5 identified below). Staff
concurs with their concerns and has incorporated them in this report.
1. Goff Courses
The DEIR states that the Draft General Plan proposes policies that will place constraints on golf
courses in agricultural areas but not in hillside areas. The DEIR states that golf courses have a
potential environmental impact concerning "the use of pesticides and herbicides, water and other
service demands, conversion of agricultural land and growth inducement. Golf courses and
ancillary uses that usually accompany them --restaurants, pro shops and eventually residential
development— are not compatible with Ranchlands and Agriculture. They are fundamentally different
types of activities that create nuisances for each other. Golf courses bring traffic to rural areas and
involve a more intensive use of the land than farming and ranching, so they materially change rural
qualities of the more remote areas. This use increases land values, which in turn create pressure
to convert more lands from ranchland or agriculture to other uses...Golf courses in, agriculture zones
would have significant impacts." Staff believes that these impacts would be true for hillside areas
as well and recommends that the EIR address this issue.
2. Design Principles
The General Plan has some improved language on development restrictions in the hillside and rural
residential zones. Overall, the County has developed good design principals for residential
developments. One of the design principles in the land use section of the Draft General Plan states
that the structures on or near ridgelines shall be located, constructed,and/or landscaped so that
Tr,ems"' MEW .
The Planning Commission - Page 3
Report on Santa Clara County General Plan
October 12, 1994
It is further recommended that this list serve as the basis for the criteria to be used by the County
to develop maximum threshold standards. The County should also include in this list, infrastructure
improvement requirements (such as road widening, parking facilities, lighting, etc.) to provide a
more thorough review of the overall impact.
4. Open Space Easement Dedications for Non -Residential Development
A more precise definition of open space dedication requirements is recommended for non-
residential development in the hillside. The Draft General Plan states under the Land Use Plan
policy "For all uses allowed in Hillsides areas other than agricultural and single-family residential land
uses, open space preservation by means of easement dedication may be required in order:
a. protect the public health;
b. prevent or mitigate potentially significant adverse environmental impacts; and/or
c. to create perimeter areas that adequately buffer neighboring properties from adverse off -site
impacts of the proposed land use."
The document further states that 'The nature and duration of an open space or conservation
easement shall be commensurate with:
a. the nature of the land use;
b. the duration to which that use has been entitle through County permitting procedures; and,
c. the extend of alterations made to the natural landscape."
The document further states that "Land uses which do not receive a permanent entitlement, should
not be required to dedicate open space or conservation easements of a permanent nature, unless
required as a mitigation for alterations made to the natural landscape.
The County should develop ways to determine appropriate open space easement dedication
requirements for non-residential development.
5. Implementation
The County Planning Department has experienced major staff cutbacks, as have most jurisdictions.
Budget cuts tend to have an affect on the prioritization of planning work projects. Staff
recommends that the County make the implementation of the General Plan top priority to ensure
that it is done within a reasonable time period.
B. CONCLUSION:
The review period for the DEIR ends on October 31, 1994. It is imperative that the Town's comments be
forwarded to the County by that date. The public hearing to make a recommendation regarding the draft
revised Santa Clara County General Plan and to recommend certification of the Final EIR is scheduled for
the November 29, 1994 County Planning Commission Meeting. The Board of Supervisors is the final
decision maker on the general plan and EIR and will review the documents and make a decision on
December 13, 1994. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a letter to the County
Planning Department informing them of the Town's recommended improvements noted above, and any
other improvements recommended by the Commission. The Commission should then forward the matter
to Town Council to inform them of the Commission's action and for their comment on the revised General
Plan.
November 7, 1994
Los Gatos, California
COUNTY REFERRALS (02.47)
Motion by Mrs. Lubeck, seconded by Mr. O'Laughlin, that Council approve the recommended
action concerning County Referrals:
# LOCATION APPLICANT REQUEST RECOMMENDATION
5648 150 Wood Road Nash Grading Permit Approval/twoconditions
Grading Abatement/Building Site Approval
Carried by a vote of 4 ayes. Mrs. Benjamin was absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION/PLANNING DEPARTMENT MONTHLY STATUS REPORT (03.47)
Informational report regarding activity of Planning Commission and Department was received
and filed.
CODE COMPLIANCE/QUARTERLY REPORT (04.47)
Informational report from the Code Compliance Officer regarding abatement of code violations
was received and filed.
COUNCIL CALENDAR OF MEETINGS (05.10)
Informational item presenting future Town Meetings for Council and other Town Boards and
Commissions was received and filed.
PAYROLL RATIFICATION/OCTOBER 1994 (06.V)
Motion by Mrs. Lubeck, seconded by Mr. O'Laughlin, that Council ratify the check registers for
the payrolls of September 25 through October 8, 1994 paid on October 14, 1994 and October
9 through October 22, 1994 paid on October 28, 1994 in the amount of $582,700.48. Carried by
a vote of 4 ayes. Mrs. Benjamin was absent.
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE/RATIFICATION/OCTOBER 1994 (07.V)
Motion by Mrs. Lubeck, seconded by Mr. O'Laughlin, that Council ratify the accompanying
check registers for accounts payable invoices paid on October 14, 21, and 28, 1994 in the amount
of $973,785.10. Carried by a vote of 4 ayes. Mrs. Benjamin was absent.
TREASURER'S REPORT (08.V)
Informational report submitted by the Treasurer to the Council as of September 30, 1994, was
received and filed.
GENERAL PLAN/SANTA CLARA COUNTY (09.13)
Motion by Mrs. Lubeck, seconded by Mr. O'Laughlin, that Council accept and file report on
Santa Clara County General Plan. Carried by a vote of 4 ayes. Mrs. Benjamin absent.
MINUTES OF OCTOBER 17, 1994 (10A.V)
Motion by Mrs. Lubeck, seconded by Mr. O'Laughlin, that Council approve the Minutes of
October 17, 1994 as submitted. Carried by a vote of 4 ayes. Mrs. Benjamin was absent.
MINUTES OF OCTOBER 25, 1994 (10B.V)
Motion by Mrs. Lubeck, seconded by Mr. O'Laughlin, that Council approve the Minutes of
October 25, 1994 as submitted. Carried by a vote of 4 ayes. Mrs. Benjamin was absent.
TC:D6:MM110794 2