AddendumMEETING DATE: 06/02/15
ITEM NO: / I
cos Gatos ADDENDUM
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
DATE: MAY 29, 2015
TO: MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
FROM: LES WHITE, INTERIM TOWN MANAGE
SUBJECT: NORTH FORTY SPECIFIC PLAN GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT GP-14-001,
ZONING CODE AMENDMENT Z -14 -001 AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT EIR -10 -002 PROJECT LOCATION• THE PLAN AREA COMPRISES
APPROXIMATELY 44 ACRES LOCATED AT THE NORTHERN EXTENT OF
THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS BORDERED BY STATE ROUTE 17 AND STATE
ROUTE 85 FREEWAYS TO THE WEST AND NORTH LOS GATOS
BOULEVARD TO THE EAST AND LARK AVENUE TO THE SOUTH. APN
424 -07 -009 010 024 THROUGH 027 031 THROUGH 037 052 THROUGH 054
060 063 THROUGH 065 070 081 THROUGH 086 090 094 THROUGH 095
099, 100, 102 THROUGH 112, 424 -06 -115 116 AND 129 PROPERTY
OWNERS: SWENSON C B TRUSTEE LOS GATOS GATEWAY LLC THOMAS
& MIYOKO YUKI HERBERT & BARBARA YUKI ETPH LP WILLIAM
MATTES GROSVENOR USA WILLIAM FALES WILLIAM HIRSCHMAN
ELIZABETH DODSON PATRICIA CONNELL WILLIAM MATTES MATTES
TRUST MBK ENTERPRISE DEWEY VENTURA DOUGLAS MOISENCO
JAMES DAGOSTINO ROBERT & GEORGIANNA SPINAZZE MARIANNE
EZELL LOS GATOS MEDICAL OFFICE CENTER LLC IRIS GIN JOHN AND
ALLISON DIEP LLC MATHEW BERNAL LG BOULEVARD HOLDINGS LLC
POLARIS NAVIGATION EW REAL ESTATE LLC LAZAAR ENT LLC
PIYUSH KOTHARY. APPLICANT• TOWN OF LOS GATOS.
A. CONSIDER ADOPTION OF THE NORTH FORTY SPECIFIC PLAN.
B. CONSIDER ADOPTION OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS.
C. CONSIDER ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE EFFECTING A ZONING
CODE AMENDMENT.
D. ADOPTION
PREPARED BY:
OF A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING
PROGRAM, AND ADOPTION OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND
OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS.
LAUREL R. PREVETTI
Assistant Town Manager/Director of Community Development
STATEMENT
Reviewed by: N/A Assistant Town Manager Town Attorney N/A Finance
N: \DEV \TC REPORTS\2015 \N40 TC 6 -2 -15 Addendum.doc Reformatted: 5/30/02
PAGE
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: NORTH 40 SPECIFIC PLAN /GP -14- 001/Z -14- 001 /EIR -10 -002
MAY 29, 2015
REMARKS
As noted in the June 2, 2015 Staff Report, Attachment 75 was to be submitted under a separate
cover. Attachment 75 is included in this Addendum and only includes minor modifications when
compared to the previous version (previously provided as Exhibit A of Attachment 14). Attachment
75 will be further modified to reflect the Council's decisions following the conclusion of the
Council's deliberations on the Specific Plan.
Attachment 80 includes the approved action minutes from the April 14, 2015 Town Council meeting,
which includes the motions considered by the Council regarding the North 40 Specific Plan.
Attachment 81 includes additional correspondence received after the Staff Report was distributed.
A couple of Council members have requested responses to the letter submitted by Andrew Faber
(Berliner Cohen) and Barbara Kautz (Goldfarb & Lipmann) dated May 27, 2015 (contained within
Attachment 79). Responses to the letter will be provided in a subsequent Addendum on Monday,
June 1, 2015.
Attachment (Previously received on April 4, 2014):
1. Draft Environmental Impact Report (htlp: / /www.los atg osea.gov /N40DEIR)
Attachments (Previously received on Julv 1 1.2014
2. Final Environmental Impact Report with the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
( http : / /www.losiatosca.f;ov/N40FEIR)
3. Public Hearing Draft North Forty Specific Plan (Note: The complete Specific Plan including
appendices is also available online at: http : / /www.losgatosea.gov /N40SP)
Attachments (Previously received on August 22, 2014):
4. Report to the Planning Commission for the meeting of July 23, 2014 (excluding Exhibits 5 & 6)
5. Desk Item Report to the Planning Commission for the meeting of July 23, 2014
6. Desk Item 2 Report to the Planning Commission for the meeting of July 23, 2014
7. Report to the Planning Commission for the meeting of August 13, 2014
8. Desk Item 3 Report to the Planning Commission for the meeting of August 13, 2014
Attachments (Previously received with Staff Report on August 28, 2014):
9. Verbatim minutes from the August 13, 2014 Planning Commission meeting (141 transcribed
pages)
10. Public Comment received through 11:00 a.m. Thursday, August 28, 2014
11. Detailed Planning Commission recommendations on the North Forty Specific Plan from their
August 13, 2014 meeting (six pages)
12. Draft findings (one page)
13. Memorandum from the Town Attorney (four pages)
PAGE 3
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: NORTH 40 SPECIFIC PLAN /GP -14- 001 /Z -14- 001 /EIR -10 -002
MAY 29, 2015
14. Draft Resolution certifying the Environmental Impact Report (EIR -10 -002), adopting the
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and adopting the Findings of Fact and Statement
of Overriding Considerations, including Exhibit A.
15. Draft Resolution for the adoption of the North Forty Specific Plan
16. Draft Resolution adopting General Plan Amendments of the Town's General Plan (GP -14 -001),
including Exhibit A.
17. Draft Ordinance effecting a Zoning Code Amendment of the Town Code (Z -14 -001), including
Exhibit A.
18. Planning Commission Recommendations for Text Changes to the North 40 Specific Plan (four
pages)
Attachments (Previously received with Addendum on August 29 2014):
19. Resolution 2010 -091: Resolution of the Town Council of the Town of Los Gatos
Recommending Certification of the Environmental Impact Report and Adoption of the 2020
General Plan (includes Exhibit A)
20. Public Comment received from 11:01 a.m. Thursday, August 28, 2014 through 11:00 a.m.
Friday, August 29, 2014
Attachments (Previously received with Desk Item on September 2 2014):
21. Map of the Los Gatos Union School District Boundary and school site options within the North
40,
22. Letter from the Los Gatos Union School District received Friday, August 29, 2014 after 11:00
a.m.
23. Public Comment received from 11:01 a.m. Friday, August 29, 2014 through 11:00 a.m.
Tuesday, September 2, 2014.
24. Additional Limitations for Commercial (Exhibit 8 from the August 15, 2012 Advisory
Committee meeting.
Attachments (Previously received with September 16 2014 Staff Resort):
25. Grosvenor exhibit displayed at the September 2, 2014 Town Council meeting.
26. Letter from the Los Gatos Union School District, dated September 5, 2014.
27. Public Comment received from 11:01 a.m. Tuesday, September 2, 2014 through 11:00 a.m.
Thursday, September 11, 2014.
28. Fehr & Peers letter dated September 10, 2014.
29. Table of Planning Commission recommendations and proposed responses for Council
consideration.
Attachments (Previously received with September 16 2014 Addendum):
30. Letter from A. Don Capobres, Linda Mandolini, and Wendi Baker dated September 12, 2014 (7
pages)
PAGE 4
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: NORTH 40 SPECIFIC PLAN /GP -14- 001 /Z -14- 001 /EIR -10 -002
MAY 29, 2015
31. Public Comments received from 11:01 a.m. Thursday, September 11, 2014 through 11:00 a.m.
Friday, September 12, 2014
Attachments (Previously received with September 16 2014 Addendum #2):
32. Public Comments received from 11:01 a.m. Friday, September 12, 2014 through 11:00 a.m.
Monday, September 15, 2014
33. Highland Oaks Existing Traffic Calming
Attachment (Previously received with September 16 2014 Desk Item):
34. Public Comment received from 11:01 a.m. Monday, September 15, 2014 through 11:00 a.m.
Tuesday, September 16, 2014
Attachment (Previously received with September 16 2014 Desk Item #2):
35. Traffic analysis information
Attachments (Previously received with December 16 2014 Staff Report):
36. Agricultural Resources information
37. Alternative to ITE Traffic Information Analysis by Fehr and Peers ( "Trip Generation Rate
Comparison ")
38. Additional Proposed Projects by Fehr and Peers ( "Additional Future Year Information ")
39. TJKM Peer Review of Fehr and Peers Reports contained in Attachments 37 and 38
40. Draft School District Demographic Study dated October 8, 2014
41. Additional Economic Analysis
42. Revised Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
43. Letter from Superintendent Diane Abbati dated December 8, 2014 with School District Student
Population Projections dated November 3, 2014
44. Public Comment received from 11:01 a.m. Monday, September 16, 2014 through 11:00 a.m.
Thursday, December 11, 2014
Attachments (Previously received with December 16 2014 Desk Item):
45. Public Comment received from 11:01 a.m. Thursday, December 11, 2014 through 11:00 a.m.
Tuesday, December 16, 2014
Attachments (Previously received with February 3 2015 Staff Report):
46. Updated Table of Planning Commission recommendations and proposed responses for Council
consideration
47. North 40 Specific Plan Area Property Ownership Map
48. Public Comment received from 11:01 a.m. Tuesday, December 16, 2014 through 11:00 a.m.
Thursday, January 29, 2015
PAGE 5
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: NORTH 40 SPECIFIC PLAN /GP -14- 001 /Z -14- 001 /EIR -10 -002
MAY 29, 2015
Attachments (Previously received with January 30 2015 Addendum):
49. Correspondence received from 11:01 a.m. Thursday, January 29, 2015 through 11:00 a.m.
Friday, January 30, 2015
Attachments (Previously received with February 2 2015 Addendum 13):
50. Correspondence received from 11:01 a.m. Friday, January 30, 2015 through 11:00 a.m.
Monday, February 2, 2015
Attachments (Previously received with February 3 2015 Desk Item):
51. Exhibits showing existing General Plan and Zoning designations for the Specific Plan area
Attachments (Previously received with March 3 2015 Staff Report):
52. Verbatim minutes from the February 3, 2015 Town Council meeting (124 pages)
53. Letter from A. Don Capobres, Linda Mandoline, and Wendi Baker dated February 13, 2015
(seven pages)
54. Correspondence received from 11:01 a.m. Tuesday, February 2, 2015 through 11:00 a.m.
Thursday, February 26, 2015 (84 pages)
55. Conceptual model of commercial size breakdown
56. Shopping center tenant mix and sizes
Attachment (Previously received with February 27 2015 Addendum):
57. Approved Minutes from the February 3, 2015 Town Council Meeting
Attachment (Previously received with March 3 2015 Desk Item):
58. Correspondence received from 11:01 a.m. Thursday, February 26, 2015 through 11:00 a.m.
Tuesday, March 3, 2015 (17 pages)
Attachments (Previously received with April 9 2015 Staff Rpport ):
59. Los Gatos Village Square tenant sizes
60. Memo from Fehr & Peers to Summerhill Homes regarding freeway impact elimination (11
pages)
61. Correspondence received from 11:01 a.m. Tuesday, March 3, 2015 through 11:00 a.m.
Thursday, April 9, 2015 (204 pages)
Attachments (Previously received with April 10 2015 Addendum):
62. Minutes of the February 3, 2015 Town Council Meeting (seven pages)
63. TJKM peer review of Fehr & Peers memo to Summerhill Homes (two pages)
64. Correspondence received from 11:01 a.m. Thursday, April 9, 2015 through 11:00 a.m. Friday,
April 10, 2015
PAGE 6
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: NORTH 40 SPECIFIC PLAN /GP -14- 001 /Z -14- 001 /EIR -10 -002
MAY 29, 2015
Attachments (Previously received with April 13 2015 Addendum B):
65. Communication from Superintendent Abbati regarding a voluntary contribution agreement
between the Los Gatos Unified School District and the North 40 developers (11 pages)
66. Correspondence received from 11:01 a.m. Friday, April 10, 2015 through 11:00 a.m. Monday,
April 13, 2015
Attachments received with April 14 2015 Desk Item:
67. Traffic options table prepared by staff (one page)
68. Memo from Carey & Co. Inc. (five pages)
69. Correspondence received from 11:01 a.m. Monday, April 13, 2015 through 11:00 a.m. Tuesday,
April 14, 2015 (13 pages)
Attachments (previously received with May 22 2015 Memo):
70. "Redline" Edits to Draft Specific Plan
71. Updated Public Hearing Draft North Forty Specific Plan
72. Updated Public Hearing Draft North Forty Specific Plan Appendices
Attachments (previously received with June .2, 2015 Staff Report):
73. Draft Backbone Infrastructure Improvements by Phase
74. Updated Draft Resolution certifying the Environmental Impact Report (EIR -10 -002), adopting
the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and adopting the Findings of Fact and
Statement of Overriding Considerations, not including Exhibit A
75. Updated Draft Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations (Exhibit A of
Attachment 74 to be submitted under separate cover)
76. Updated Draft Resolution for the adoption of the North Forty Specific Plan, not including
Exhibit A
77. Updated Draft Resolution adopting General Plan Amendments of the Town's General Plan (GP-
14 -001), including Exhibit A
78. Updated Draft Ordinance effecting a Zoning Code Amendment of the Town Code (Z -14 -001),
including Exhibit A (Options 1 and 2)
79. Correspondence received from 11:01 a.m. Tuesday, April 14, 2015 through 11:00 a.m.
Thursday, May 28, 2015
Attachments received with this Addendum:
75. Updated Draft Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
80. Approved action minutes from the April 14, 2015 Town Council meeting
81. Correspondence received from 11:01 a.m. Thursday, May 28, 2015 through 11:00 a.m. Friday,
May 29, 2015
PAGE 7
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: NORTH 40 SPECIFIC PLAN /GP -14- 001 /Z -14- 001 /EIR -10 -002
MAY 29, 2015
Distribution
cc: Grosvenor Americas, Attn: Steve O'Connell, 1 California Street, Suite 2500, San Francisco, CA
94111
Summerhill Homes, Attn: Wendi E. Baker, 3000 Executive Parkway, Suite 450, San Ramon,
CA 94583
LRP:JSP:cg
THIS PAGE
INTENTIONALLY
LEFT BLANK
CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT
of the
TOWN COUNCIL OF
THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
for the
NORTH FORTY SPECIFIC PLAN
20154
I. Introduction
The North Forty Specific Plan ( "the Project" or "Specific Plan ") will involve the
development of up to 364 residential units and 580,000 square feet of non - residential
uses, limited to a maximum of 250,000 square feet ( "sf') for office /hotel uses and
400,000 sf for commercial uses. Approximately 30 percent, or 13.2 acres, of the project
area will be preserved as open space. The Project includes amendments to the 2020
General Plan and the zoning code.
The "Town of Los Gatos ( "Town "), as lead agency, prepared a Draft Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) for the Project in April, 2014 (State Clearinghouse No.
2011 122070). This document was made available for review on April 4, 2014, for a
forty -five (45) day review period. Accordingly, written comments were solicited until
May 19, 2014. The Town of Los Gatos prepared responses to comments on the Draft
EIR, and published both comments and responses to comments in the Final EIR, which
was posted on the Town's website on July 21, 2014.
These findings have been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.) and its implementing
guidelines ( "CEQA Guidelines ") (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15000 et seq.).
11. Project Description
As reflected in the Project Description in the Draft EIR, the Project is a Specific Plan for
future development of the 44 -acre area located at the northern extent of the Town of Los
Gatos, at the junction of the State Route 17 and State Route 85 freeways (hereinafter the
"Plan Area "). Access to the Plan Area is from the two adjoining surface streets: Los
Gatos Boulevard on the southeast and Lark Avenue on the southwest. The Plan Area is
comprised of 33 parcels. (Draft EIR, p. 2 -1.) Development is expected to take place over
a five to 20 -year time period. The Specific Plan provides a framework and development
standards for the development of vacant parcels and re- development of the already -
developed parcels. The Specific Plan establishes three districts (Lark, Transition, and
Northern), within which a mix of commercial and residential uses is envisioned. (Draft
EIR, p. 2 -18.) In general terms, the Specific Plan places residential land uses and lower
intensity retail and office uses to the south end of the Plan Area, with more intense
commercial uses, such as entertainment, restaurant, and shopping uses, at the north end.
(Draft EIR, p. 2 -23.)
The Specific Plan limits total non - residential floor area to 580,000 sf and residential
development to 364 units (both inclusive of existing uses). Additionally, the following
maximum development capacities are established for each type of non - residential use:
250,000 square feet of office /hotel, and 400,000 square feet of commercial (including
restaurants, retail, specialty market, health club, personal services, and entertainment). A
hotel with or without a conference center is also allowed, potentially providing for
2
between 200 and 250 conference participants. The Specific Plan requires at least 30
percent (about 13.2 acres) of the Plan Area be retained in open space. (Draft FIR, p. 2-
18.)
The Project includes several changes to the Town ofLos Gatos 2020 General Plan
relating to Los Gatos Boulevard and the Plan Area. (See Draft EIR, p. 2 -21; General Plan
Amendment GP 14 -001.) In particular, the Project requires changes to the General Plan
Overlay Designation guidelines and Policy LU11.4. Additionally, a zoning amendment
will implement a specific plan overlay for the Plan Area. (See Draft FIR, p. 2 -21 to 2 -22;
Zoning Code Amendment Z -14 -001.) The Specific Plan's development standards and
design guidelines will serve as the zoning for the Plan Area, supplementing and/or
superseding the existing Town of Los Gatos zoning code.
About 27 acres of the Plan Area are in agricultural use and about 17 acres of the Plan
Area have been developed with a variety of urban uses. Portions of the Plan Area along
Los Gatos Boulevard are developed with older residences and older and newer
commercial buildings. Additional residences are located on side streets and within the
orchard area, with a total of about 32 houses within the Plan Area. Existing commercial
uses include a gasoline station on the corner of Los Gatos Boulevard and Lark Avenue,
medical offices, car rental, retail, and eating and drinking establishments. Existing
commercial uses within the Plan Area comprise about 66,000 square feet of floor area.
Bennett Way and Burton Road extend into the Plan Area and provide access to most of
the residences. Much of the remaining Plan Area is planted in walnut orchards, with
several supporting farm buildings, with primary access on Noddin Avenue off Los Gatos
Boulevard. (Draft EIR, p. 2 -1 to 2 -2.)
The Town ofLos Gatos 2020 General Plan designates the Plan Area as Mixed Use
Commercial with a North Forty Specific Plan overlay. (Draft EIR, p. 2 -17.) The Plan
Area currently carries a variety of zoning classifications, corresponding to the existing
uses: RC Resource Conservation on the agricultural areas; CH Restricted Highway
Commercial and CH:PD Restricted Highway Commercial /Planned Development on the
commercial areas; and R -1:8 Single Family Residential on the residential areas. (Draft
EIR, p. 2 -17.) Zoning amendments are required to accommodate the types of
development proposed, because the current zoning reflects existing conditions, not the
land uses described in the Town of Los Gatos 2020 General Plan or proposed in the
Specific Plan. (Draft EIR, p. 2 -21.)
The project vicinity is principally developed land within the greater San Jose
metropolitan area. To the northeast of the Plan Area are the State Route 85 freeway,
houses, and a few offices. To the southeast of the Plan Area are a hospital, medical
offices, other commercial buildings, and houses. To the southwest of the Plan Area are
houses, a reservoir, and commercial uses. To the northwest of the Plan Area lie the State
Route 17 freeway, an orchard, a private school, a tennis /swim club, a small number of
3
houses, apartments, a mobile home park, Los Gatos Creek, and the Los Gatos Creek
recreation trail. The State Route 17 /State Route 85 interchange occupies a large area to
the north of the Plan Area. Figure 6, Project Vicinity Existing Conditions, and Figure 7,
Project Vicinity Photographs, illustrate the existing land uses near the Plan Area. (Draft
FIR, p. 2 -22.)
A. Purpose and Objectives
The Town's Draft FIR for the North Forty Specific Plan Project identified the following
project objectives:
Provide a specific plan that is consistent with the Los Gatos 2020 General Plan
and the Town's adopted vision statement for the Plan Area. Future
development within the Plan Area should seamlessly integrate with the existing
development within Los Gatos, while preserving significant public views and
providing trees and open space. Future development of the Plan Area should
also provide for the Town's unmet commercial and residential needs and
minimize adverse effects on Town infrastructure, services, and schools.
2. Provide a residential program that designates a variety of development
intensities to help achieve the Town's unmet needs, including the young
working professionals and empty- nester move -down buyers, as well as
complies with the Town of Los Gatos Housing Element, with the number of
units having sales prices or rents for low income earners equal to a minimum
of 20 percent of the market rate residential units.
Encourage a diversity of residential offerings and affordability levels for the
targeted buyers, including cottage /garden cluster, rowhouses /townhomes,
condominium flats, multifamily affordable, and vertical mixed use.
4. Offer a commercial program that will complement the existing uses within the
Town and capture retail sales that are currently leaking out of the Town.
Limit the commercial program to a maximum of 580,000 square feet of
commercial (with a maximum of 400,000 square feet of retail, restaurants,
personal services, health club and entertainment, and up to 250,000 square feet
being office and/or hotel uses).
6. Allow for the construction of office uses in the North District of the Plan Area.
7. Create a sustainable community by designing the Specific Plan's public spaces
and expanding the Plan Area's street frontage to encourage alternative forms of
transportation such as walking, bicycling, and public transportation.
11
8. Respect the history of the site by featuring distinctive and attractive building
design and landscaping that gestures towards its agrarian roots.
9. Assist the Town with satisfying its Regional Housing Needs Allocation for
market rate and affordable housing units.
(Draft EIR, p. 2 -42 to 2 -43; Final EIR, p. 4 -3.)
I11. Environmental Review Process and Project Approval
Based upon the decision to prepare an FIR, the Town of Los Gatos prepared and
distributed a Notice of Preparation for a 30 -day comment period on December 22, 2011.
However, subsequent changes were made to the project description and a revised NOP
was circulated for comment from February 13, 2013, to March 14, 2013, in accordance
with CEQA Guidelines section 15082. The California Office of Planning and Research
assigned State Clearinghouse Number 2011122070 to the Project.
A scoping meeting was held at the Los Gatos Town Council Chambers on March 6,
2013. Several members of the public attended the scoping meeting; however, no agency
representatives were present.
On April 4, 2014, the Town published the Draft EIR for the North Forty Specific Plan
Project, commencing a 45 -day public review period that ended on May 19, 2014.
On July 21, 2014, the Town issued the proposed Final EIR for consideration by the
Town's Planning Commission and, subsequently, by the Town Council.
On July 23 and August 13, 2014, the Planning Commission considered the Project, acting
in an advisory capacity. After hearing public testimony, the Commission determined to
recommend approval of the Project to the Town Council.
On September 2, September 16, and December 16, 2014, and January 20,_February 3,
March 3. April 14, June 2, , 2015, the Town Council considered the Project. After
receiving public testimony and deliberating, the Council approved the Project.
IV. Record of Proceedings
In accordance with Public Resources Code section 21167.6, subdivision (e), the record of
proceedings for the Town of Los Gatos' decision on the Project includes the following
documents:
• The April 2014 Draft EIR and its appendices;
• The Final EIR and its appendices;
• All documents cited or referenced in the Draft and Final EIRs;
• The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project;
• All findings and resolutions adopted by the Town of Los Gatos in connection with
the Project and all documents cited or referred to therein;
• All reports, studies, memoranda, maps, staff reports, or other planning documents
relating to the Project prepared by the Town of Los Gatos relevant to the Town's
compliance with the requirements of CEQA and the Town's action on the Project;
• All documents submitted to the Town by other public agencies or members of the
public in connection with the Project, up through the close of the final public
hearing on the_ Project before the Town Council held on September 2, September
16, and December 16,_2014, and January 20 Fehnia; v 3. March 3,, April 14,_ JUne
2015;
• Any minutes and/or verbatim transcripts of public meetings and public hearings
held by the Town of Los Gatos in connection with the Project;
• Any documentary or other evidence submitted to the Town of Los Gatos at such
public meetings and public hearings;
• Any and all resolutions adopted by the Planning Commission and the Town
Council of the Town of Los Gatos regarding the Project, and all staff reports,
analyses, and summaries related to the adoption of those resolutions;
• Matters of common knowledge to the Town of Los Gatos, including, but not
limited to federal, state, and local laws and regulations;
• Town of Los Gatos 2020 General Plan;
• Town of Los Gatos 2020 General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report;
• Town of Los Gatos General Plan Update Background Report;
• Los Gatos Town Codes;
• Los Gatos Sustainability Plan;
• Any documents expressly cited in these findings, in addition to those cited above;
and
• Any other materials required for the record of proceedings by Public Resources
Code section 21167.6, subdivision (e).
The custodian of these documents is the Director of the Community Development
Department, which is located at 110 East Main Street in Los Gatos.
The Town's decisionmakers have relied on all of the documents listed above in reaching
their decisions on the Project even if not every document was formally presented to the
decision makers. Without exception, any documents set forth above not found in the
project files fall into one of two categories. Many of them reflect prior planning or
legislative decisions with which the Town Council was aware in approving the Project.
(See City of Santa Cruz v. Local Agency Formation Commission (1978) 76 Cal.App.3d
381, 391 -392.) Other documents influenced the expert advice provided to the Town of
Los Gatos staff or consultants, who then provided advice to the Town Council as final
decisionmakers. For that reason, such documents form part of the underlying factual basis
for the Town's decisions relating to approval of the proposed project. (See Pub.
Resources Code, § 21167.6, subd. (e)(10); Browning- Ferris Industries v. City Council of
City of San Jose (1986) 181 Cal.App.3d 852, 866; Stanislaus Audubon Society, Inc. v.
County of Stanislaus (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 144, 153, 155.)
V. Findings Required Under CEQA
Public Resources Code section 21002 provides that "public agencies should not approve
projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures
available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such
projects[.]" The same statute provides that the procedures required by CEQA "are
intended to assist public agencies in systematically identifying both the significant effects
of proposed projects and the feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which
will avoid or substantially lessen such significant effects." Section 21002 goes on to
provide that "in the event [that] specific economic, social, or other conditions make
infeasible such project alternatives or such mitigation measures, individual projects may
be approved in spite of one or more significant effects thereof."
The mandate and principles announced in Public Resources Code section 21002 are
implemented, in part, through the requirement that agencies must adopt findings before
approving projects for which EIRs are required. This mandate to adopt findings is found
in Public Resources Code section 21081, subdivision (a), and CEQA Guidelines section
15091, subdivision (a). For each significant environmental effect identified in an EIR
rJ
prepared for a proposed project, the approving agency must issue a written finding
reaching one or more of three permissible conclusions. The three possible findings are:
(1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental
effects as identified in the final FIR.
(2) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction
of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such
changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be
adopted by that other agency.
(3) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations,
including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained
workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives
identified in the final FIR.
(Pub. Resources Code, § 21081, subd. (a); see also CEQA Guidelines, § 15091, subd.
(a).) "[F]easible" means capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a
reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, legal, and
technological factors." (CEQA Guidelines, § 15364.)
Here, as set forth in Table A to CEQA Findings, the Town Council has adopted the first
permissible finding with respect to most significant effects identified in the EIR,
concluding that such effects can be mitigated to less than significant levels. For two
impacts to Transportation and Traffic (Impacts 3.13 -2 and 3- 13 -6), the Town Council has
adopted the second permissible finding because the mitigation measures that would
reduce these impacts to less- than - significant levels are within the jurisdiction of another
agency, Caltrans. Finally, for one impact to Cultural Resources (Impact 3.5 -1), the Town
Council has adopted the third permissible finding because specific economic, legal,
social, technological or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or
project alternatives that would avoid the significant impacts.
With respect to a project for which significant impacts are not avoided or substantially
lessened, a public agency, after adopting proper findings, may nevertheless approve the
project if the agency first adopts a statement of overriding considerations setting forth the
specific reasons why the agency found that the project's "benefits" rendered "acceptable"
its "unavoidable adverse environmental effects." (CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15093, 15043,
subd. (b); see also Pub. Resources Code, § 21081, subd. (b).) The California Supreme
Court has stated, "[t]he wisdom of approving ... any development project, a delicate task
which requires a balancing of interests, is necessarily left to the sound discretion of the
local officials and their constituents who are responsible for such decisions. The law as
we interpret and apply it simply requires that those decisions be informed, and therefore
balanced." (Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Ca1.3d 553, 576
(Goleta I ]).)
Vl. Significant Effects and Mitigation Measures
The Project will cause or contribute to a number of potentially significant environmental
impacts. Many of these environmental effects can be mitigated to less than significant
levels through the adoption of feasible mitigation measures. (Draft EIR, p. 3 -1 to 3 -250.)
But the Project will result in significant and unavoidable impacts to:
(1) Transportation and Traffic (Draft FIR, pp. 6 -2 to 6 -3); and
(2) Cultural Resources (Draft EIR, pp. 3 -73 to 3 -78; Final EIR, pp. 4 -1, 4 -4.)
With respect to transportation- related impacts, the Project - generated traffic would exceed
one percent of capacity on the southbound State Route 85 mixed flow lanes from
Winchester Boulevard to State Route 17, a segment that already operates at LOS F.
(Draft EIR, p. 3 -222 [Impact 3.13 -2]; Final EIR, p. 4 -6.) The EIR did not identify any
feasible mitigation that would reduce this impact to less - than - significant levels because
improvements necessary to address increased delays on state highways would be under
the jurisdiction of Caltrans. (Draft EIR, p. 323.) But the Draft FIR notes that the Santa
Clara Valley Transportation Authority and Caltrans are currently planning to convert
existing high occupancy vehicle lanes on State Route 85 into high occupancy/ toll lanes
that would reduce this significant impact to less- than - significant levels. (Draft EIR, p. 6-
3.) Additionally, the project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts on
operations of one Congestion Management Program highway segment during the PM
peak period. (Draft EIR, p. 3 -229 [Impact 3.13 -6, also discussing southbound State Route
85 lanes from Winchester Boulevard to State Route 17].) Finally, the removal of six
potentially historic structures will result in significant and unavoidable impacts. (DEIR,
pp. 3- 73 -3 -78 [Impact 3.5 -1]; Final EIR, pp. 4 -1, 4 -4.)
The Town of Los Gatos' findings with respect to the Project's significant and potentially
significant effects and mitigation measures are set forth in the table attached to these
findings (Table A to CEQA Findings). The findings set forth in the table are hereby
incorporated herein by reference.
This table does not attempt to describe the full analysis of each environmental impact
contained in the Draft and Final EIRs. Instead, the table provides a summary description
of each impact, describes the applicable mitigation measures identified in the Draft EIR
or Final EIR and adopted by the Town of Los Gatos, and states the Town's findings on
the significance of each impact after imposition of the adopted mitigation measures. A
full explanation of these environmental findings and conclusions can be found in the
Draft EIR and Final EIR, and these findings hereby incorporate by reference the
discussions and analyses in those documents supporting the Final EIR's determinations
9
regarding mitigation measures and the Projects' impacts and mitigation measures
designed to address those impacts. In making these findings, the Town Council ratifies,
adopts, and incorporates into these findings the analyses and explanations in the Draft
EIR and Final EIR, and ratifies, adopts, and incorporates in these findings the
determinations and conclusions of those documents relating to environmental impacts
and mitigation measures.
VII. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Subdivision (a) of Public Resources Code section 21081.6 requires lead agencies to
"adopt a reporting and mitigation monitoring program for the changes to the project
which it has adopted or made a condition of project approval in order to mitigate or avoid
significant effects on the environment." For the North Forty Specific Plan Project, the
Town satisfied this obligation by preparing a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program (MMRP), which was included in Section 5 of the Final EIR. The MMRP
provides a list of all adopted project mitigation measures, identifies the parties
responsible for implementing such measures, and identifies the timing for implementing
each measure. The MMRP is being approved concurrently with the adoption of these
Findings of Fact.
VIII. Project Alternatives
Based on the impact analysis and adopted mitigation measures, all significant effects of
the North Forty Specific Plan Project will be mitigated to a less- than - significant level,
except for two impacts to Transportation and Traffic and one impact to Cultural
Resources. CEQA therefore requires the Town Council to consider any alternative from
the EIR that would reduce the severity of these three significant impacts to determine
whether the alternative is "feasible" within the meaning of CEQA.
Public Resources Code section 21061.1 defines "feasible" to mean "capable of being
accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into
account economic, environmental, social, and technological factors." CEQA Guidelines
section 15364 adds another factor: "legal" considerations. (See Goleta H, supra, 52
Cal.3d at p. 565.)
The concept of "feasibility" also encompasses the question of whether a particular
alternative or mitigation measure promotes the underlying goals and objectives of a
project. (California Native Plant Soc. v. City of Santa Cruz (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 957,
1001 [ "an alternative `may be found infeasible on the ground it is inconsistent with the
project objectives as long as the finding is supported by substantial evidence in the
record "'].) An alternative may also be rejected because it "would not `entirely fulfill' [a]
project objective." (Citizens for Open Government v. City of Lodi (2012) 205
Cal.App.4th 296, 314 -315.) "[F]easibility" under CEQA encompasses `desirability' to the
10
extent that desirability is based on a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic,
environmental, social, and technological factors." (City of Del Mar v. City of San Diego
(1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 410, 417; see also Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of
Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.AppAth 704, 715.)
The Draft EIR evaluated three specific alternatives in detail:
1) No Project Alternative (Alternative 1)
2) Increased Residential/ Reduced Commercial (Alternative 2)
3) Historic Preservation (Alternative 3)
The range of alternatives selected by the Town is reasonable given the proposed uses,
identified significant impacts, and project objectives. As required by the CEQA
Guidelines, the EIR includes the mandatory "No Project Alternative." The second
alternative is the "Increased Residential/ Reduced Commercial' Alternative. It involves
increasing the residential capacity by 25 percent to 455 units and reducing the
commercial capacity by 25 percent to 435,000 square feet. Alternative 3, the "Historic
Preservation" Alternative, involves setting aside four or five acres of the Plan Area as a
conservation area, within which the potentially historic structures could be relocated and
preserved.
A. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND DISMISSED FROM FURTHER
CONSIDERATION
Five other alternatives were considered but eliminated from further consideration because
they were found to be unsuitable for use as alternatives in the EIR (Draft EIR, pp. 5 -2 to
5 -4):
1) 2020 General Plan Build -out Alternative: Under this alternative, the Plan Area
would be developed in accordance with the development assumptions used in
preparation of the 2020 General Plan and its EIR. Build -out of the Plan Area under
this scenario would include up to 750 residential units and development of up to
580,000 square feet of retail or office space. This alternative would intensify air
quality, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, and traffic impacts.
2) 20200 General Plan Build -out Alternative: This was the no project alternative for
the 2020 General Plan EIR. Build -out of the Plan Area under this scenario could
have allowed up to 1,100 residential units and 1,400,000 square feet of
commercial uses. This alternative would significantly increase traffic, noise, air
quality, greenhouse gas emission impacts; increase storm water run -off, and shift
the jobs housing balance to 1:8 compared with 1:6 under the 2020 General Plan.
11
3) Medium- Density Residential Alternative: This was another alternative in the 2020
General Plan EIR. It would have limited residential development to 500 units and
commercial development to 500,000 square feet within the Plan Area. The
Increased Residential/ Decreased Commercial Alternative analyzed in the EIR is
similar to this alternative.
4) Commercial Alternative: Another alternative in the 2020 General Plan EIR, this
scenario would limit residential development to 300 units and commercial
development to 750,000 square feet within the Plan Area. This alternative would
significantly increase traffic, noise, air quality, greenhouse gas emission impacts;
increase storm water run -off; and shift the jobs housing balance to 1:8 compared
with 1:6 under the 2020 General Plan.
5) Alternative Location: The point of the Draft Specific Plan is to provide a more
detailed plan for development of the Plan Area. A project at another location
would not achieve this objective and would be contrary to the policy direction of
the 2020 General Plan.
B. PROJECT ALTERNATIVES ADDRESSED AT LENGTH IN EIR
The Draft EIR identified and compared environmental effects of the three alternatives
listed below with environmental impacts resulting from the Project. The environmentally -
superior alternative would be the No Project Alternative because it would reduce impacts
in all but three environmental topic areas and would be similar to the Project in the other
three. The second environmentally - superior alternative would be the Increased
Residential/ Reduced Commercial Alternative, which would reduce the severity of the
significant and unavoidable impacts to Transportation and Traffic, as well as reduce the
severity of impacts to Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Hydrology and Water
Quality.
1. ALTERNATIVE 1: THE No Project Alternative
a. Description
Section 15126.6, subdivision (e), of the CEQA Guidelines requires that a "no project'
alternative be evaluated in comparison to a proposed project. The no project alternative
must discuss the existing conditions that were in effect at the time the Notice of
Preparation was published, as well as what would be reasonably expected to occur in the
foreseeable future if the project were not approved, based on current plans and consistent
with available infrastructure and community services.
The Town did not assume that "No Project' for this site meant "no development." Rather,
the Town was cognizant of the requirement from CEQA Guidelines section 15126.6,
12
subdivision (e)(2), that a No Project Alternative must consider "what would reasonably
be expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved, based on
current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services." (See
also CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.6, subd. (e)(3)(C).) Consistent with this obligation,
"where failure to proceed with the project will not result in preservation of existing
environmental conditions, the analysis should identify the practical result of the project's
non - approval and not create and analyze a set of artificial assumptions that would be
required to preserve the existing physical environment." (Id., subd. (e)(3)(B).)
The No Project Alternative assumes that the Project would not be implemented and that
the current land uses would continue within the Plan Area. Some minor renovation of
existing development could occur, but no new infrastructure would be constructed. Under
the 2020 General Plan, no entitlements are allowed without adoption of a specific plan.
b. Analysis of the No Project Alternative's Ability to Reduce Significant
Unavoidable Project Impacts
Under the No Project Alternative, most of the project impacts identified in the FIR would
be reduced as compared to implementation of the Project because the Plan Area would
only see some minor renovation activity if the Project is not implemented. The impacts
that would be reduced under the No Project Alternative include: Aesthetics, Agricultural
Resources, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Greenhouse Gas
Emissions, Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Noise, Public Services,
Transportation, and Utilities. In contrast, impacts to Geology and Soils, and Land Use
and Planning would be similar to those under the Project. (Draft EIR, pp. 5 -5 to 5 -7, 5-
17.)
c. Feasibility of the No Project Alternative
The No Project Alternative would not meet any of the 9 stated project goals or objectives,
which contemplate substantial development of a certain kind on the project site, as
opposed to leaving the site unchanged. (Draft EIR, p. 2 -42 to 2 -43.) For this reason, the
Town Council has determined that the No Project Alternative is infeasible within the
meaning of CEQA and therefore rejects the Alternative.
2. ALTERNATIVE 2: The Increased Residential/ Reduced Commercial
Alternative
a. Description
The Increased Residential/ Reduced Commercial Alternative is intended to reduce the
Project's significant and unavoidable traffic impacts, by reducing the commercial
component of the Project, which has the greatest level of traffic generation. This
13
alternative is similar to the 2020 General Plan EIR's Medium Density Residential
Alternative.
Under this alternative, the commercial capacity of the Plan Area would be reduced by 25
percent from 580,000 to 435,000 square feet, and the residential capacity of the Plan Area
would be increased by 25 percent from 364 to 455 units. Layout of the Plan Area would
remain essentially the same as in the Draft Specific Plan, but because of the shift in land
use capacities, it is assumed that there would be a greater emphasis on residential
development within the Transition District. (Draft FIR, p. 5 -8.)
b. Analysis of the Increased Residential/ Reduced Commercial Alternative's
Ability to Reduce Sil4niticant Unavoidable Project Impacts
Adoption of the Increased Residential /Reduced Commercial Alternative would reduce
the severity of the significant and unavoidable impacts related to Transportation and
Traffic, as well as the significant unavoidable impact on Cultural Resources. (Draft EIR,
pp. 5 -16, 5 -17; Final FIR, p. 4 -8.) This alternative causes no new significant impacts.
Under this alternative, the severity of one potentially significant impact (Noise) that can
be mitigated to less than significant levels would increase. In other words, although the
significance determination (less than significant with mitigation) is the same for the
Noise impact under the Project and Alternative 2, the severity of the impact would be
greater under this alternative. In contrast, the severity of four other impacts (Air Quality,
Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Transportation, and Hydrology and Water Quality) would
decrease under Alternative 2, although the significance determination for these impacts
would also remain the same as under the Project. Thus, the Increased
Residential /Reduced Commercial Alternative is better than the Project on some
environmental issues, but worse on others. (Draft EIR, p. 5 -17.)
Aesthetics
The Increased Residential/Reduced Commercial Alternative would result in minimal
changes to aesthetics compared to the Project. The Increased Residential /Reduced
Commercial Alternative would reduce the commercial building square footage by about
25 percent, and could result in reduced building heights, although the alternative would
not alter the heights allowed in the Specific Plan. This alternative would result in a
similar level of aesthetic impacts compared to the Project.
Agricultural Resources
The Increased Residential /Reduced Commercial Alternative would remove all existing
agricultural uses from the Plan Area. The Increased Residential /Reduced Commercial
alternative would result in a similar level of agricultural impacts compared to the Project.
14
Air Quality
The Increased Residential /Reduced Commercial Alternative would reduce daily traffic
volumes by about 19 percent, and would result in a corresponding reduction in air
emissions compared to the Project. The Increased Residential /Reduced Commercial
Alternative could also place additional residential units within an area that has elevated
toxic air contaminant concentrations, although the extent of this effect is less in the
Transition District, and will be decreasing in the coming years due to more stringent
diesel fuel and engine requirements. Policy inconsistencies and construction dust impacts
would be unchanged. Overall, the Increased Residential /Reduced Commercial
Alternative would result in a reduced level of air quality impacts compared to the Project.
Biological Resources
The Increased Residential /Reduced Commercial Alternative would potentially affect the
same special- status species as the Project, because development would take place
throughout most of the Plan Area. The Increased Residential /Reduced Commercial
Alternative would result in a similar level of biological resources impacts compared to
the Project.
Cultural Resources
The Increased Residential /Reduced Commercial Alternative would potentially disturb
unknown buried cultural resources. The Increased Residential /Reduced Commercial
Alternative would likely propose the removal of the historic buildings within the Plan
Area, although similar mitigation measures would apply. The Increased
Residential /Reduced Commercial Alternative would result in a similar level of cultural
resources impacts compared to the Project. Therefore, the impact would be significant
and unavoidable even with mitigation.
Geology, Soils, and Mineral Resources
The Increased Residential /Reduced Commercial Alternative would result in development
of a different mix of commercial and residential buildings, but would not affect overall
development density. The Increased Residential /Reduced Commercial Alternative would
result in a similar level of geology, soils, and mineral resources impacts as the Project.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The Increased Residential/Reduced Commercial Alternative would reduce daily traffic
volumes by about 19 percent compared to the Project, and would result in a
corresponding reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. The Increased Residential/
Reduced Commercial Alternative would result in a reduced level of greenhouse gas
impacts compared to the Project.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The Increased Residential /Reduced Commercial Alternative would result in development
on the portions of the Plan Area that are affected by migrating off -site groundwater
15
contamination, similar to development of the Project. The Increased Residential /Reduced
Commercial Alternative would result in a similar level of hazards and hazardous
materials impacts compared to the Project.
Hydrology and Water Quality
The Increased Residential /Reduced Commercial Alternative would result in slightly less
impervious surface within the Plan Area, based on typically higher building coverage
percentages for commercial development. Because there would be less commercial
development and more residential development, more open space with pervious surfaces
would be likely. This would reduce storm water run -off rates in comparison with the
proposed project. The Increased Residential /Reduced Commercial Alternative would
result in a reduced level of hydrology and water quality impacts compared to the Project.
Land Use and Planning
The Increased Residential /Reduced Commercial Alternative would result in a somewhat
changed mix of land uses within the Plan Area, with additional residential units and
fewer commercial uses. The Increased Residential /Decreased Commercial Alternative
would have 61 percent of the residential units and 75 percent of the commercial
development envisioned for the Plan Area in the Town of Los Gatos 2020 General Plan.
The Increased Residential /Reduced Commercial Alternative would retain the mixed use
concept directed by the Town of Los Gatos 2020 General Plan, and would not result in
adverse effects on the Town's downtown commercial area. The Increased
Residential /Reduced Commercial Alternative would result in a similar level of land use
and planning impacts compared to the Project.
Noise
The Increased Residential /Reduced Commercial Alternative would result in an increased
number of residential units within the Plan Area. Portions of the Plan Area nearest to
major streets and highways have an ambient noise level that exceeds the standard for
residential development. The Increased Residential /Reduced Commercial Alternative
would likely place more residential units within these areas, and expose additional
residential units to high noise levels. Because traffic volumes generated by the alternative
would be about 19 percent less, there would be less project - generated noise, but this
would result in a moderate change in noise levels, and not outweigh the effects of
ambient noise from non - project sources. The Increased Residential /Reduced Commercial
alternative would result in an increased level of noise impacts compared to the Project.
Population Housing and Public Services
The Increased Residential /Reduced Commercial Alternative would result in additional
residents and additional housing within the Plan Area, which would contribute to meeting
the Town's housing goals. Although the number of housing units would increase, the
overall demand for public services would be similar to the Project because commercial
uses would be reduced. The Increased Residential /Reduced Commercial Alternative
16
would result in a similar level of population, housing, and public services impacts
compared to the Project.
Transportation and Traffic
To provide an estimate of trip generation under the Increased Residential /Reduced
Commercial Alternative, the Project's residential trip generation was increased by 25
percent and the Project's commercial trip generation was decreased by 25 percent.
Although other factors influence trip generation, this method provides a reasonable
estimate for comparison purposes.
The Increased Residential /Reduced Commercial Alternative would result in a daily trips
reduction of about 19 percent, compared to either of the proposed project's development
scenarios. Trip reductions during the PM peak period would also be 19 percent compared
to the Project. Reductions during the AM peak period would be less pronounced: 15
percent less than development scenario A and ten percent less than development scenario
B. Peak residential commute traffic (which would increase under this alternative) more
closely aligns with the AM peak period than do trips to retail stores. Most retail stores
open after the peak traffic period, so reductions in commercial traffic have less influence
on AM peak period traffic.
Level of service analysis was not prepared for the Increased Residential /Reduced
Commercial Alternative; however, delays at intersections would decline with the reduced
traffic volumes, and some of the intersection level of service impacts could potentially be
reduced compared to the Project. Likewise, traffic contributions to the freeway segments
would be reduced.
Potential impacts related to transit, bicycle, pedestrian, and Town policy would remain
the same with the Increased Residential /Reduced Commercial Alternative.
The Increased Residential /Reduced Commercial Alternative would result in a reduced
level of traffic and transportation impacts compared to the Project.
Utilities and Service Systems
The Increased Residential /Reduced Commercial Alternative would require water, sewer,
storm drainage, and solid waste services similar to those required by the proposed
project. The Increased Residential /Reduced Commercial Alternative would result in a
similar level of utilities and service systems impacts compared to the Project.
c. Feasibility of the Increased Residential/ Reduced Commercial Alternative
The Town Council rejects the Increased Residential/ Reduced Commercial Alternative in
part based on policy considerations. (See Pub. Resources Code, § 21061.1; CEQA
Guidelines, § 15364; see also City of Del Mar v. City of San Diego (1982) 133
Cal.App.3d 410, 417; California Native Plant Soc. v. City of Santa Cruz (2009) 177
17
Cal.AppAth 957, 1001; Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland (1993) 23
Cal.AppAth 704, 715.) The Increased Residential /Reduced Commercial alternative
places additional residences in locations where noise and toxic contaminants must be
mitigated as described in the EIR. The Increased Residential /Reduced Commercial
alternative would not fully achieve the economic benefits anticipated in the General Plan,
because 25 percent less commercial development could be built within the Plan Area.
The existing uses (676,000 square feet) would represent a higher percentage of
commercial uses within the Plan Area, with only 369,000 square feet of new
commercial buildings allowed. Memorandum from Richard James, EMC Planning
Group, Inc., to Joel Paulson, July 17, 2014 ( "EMC Memo ").)
Furthermore, the Town Council finds the Increased Residential/ Reduced Commercial
Alternative to be infeasible in part because it does not fully meet project objectives.
(California Native Plant Soc. v. City of Santa Cruz (2009) 177 Cal.AppAth 957, 1001;
Citizens for Open Government v. City of Lodi (2012) 205 Cal.AppAth 296, 314 -315.) The
Increased Residential /Reduced Commercial alternative would be inconsistent with the
Project Objective to provide up to 580,000 square feet of commercial uses in two general
categories. The Specific Plan objectives call for up to 400,000 square feet of retail,
restaurants, personal services, health club and entertainment; and/or up to 250,000 square
feet of office and /or hotel. The Increased Residential /Reduced Commercial could
accommodate all of one commercial category and or lesser amounts of each.
For all of the forgoing reasons, and any one of them by itself, the Town Council
detennines that the Increased Residential/ Reduced Commercial Alternative is infeasible
and is hereby rejected.
3. ALTERNATIVE 3: The Historic Preservation Alternative
a. Description
The Historic Preservation Alternative is intended to reduce the Project's significant
impacts on potentially historical resources by preserving them instead of documenting
them. This Alternative would set aside four or five acres of the Plan Area as a historic
conservation area, within which the six potentially historic structures could be relocated
and preserved. The remainder of the Plan Area would be used generally as proposed in
the Specific Plan, and development limits would remain unchanged. (Draft EIR, p. 5 -13.)
The Draft EIR assumed that the four or five acre conservation area would encompass the
existing location of the red barn, in order to reduce costs associated with relocating the
largest of the potentially historic structures. Depending on the location of the historic
conservation area and the purposes to which the potentially historic buildings are put,
some residential uses could be located within the Northern District or some commercial
uses could be located within the Lark District. (Draft EIR, p. 5 -13.)
18
b. Analysis of the Historic Preservation Alternative's Ability to Reduce
Significant Unavoidable Project Impacts
Adoption of the Historic Preservation Alternative would reduce the significant and
unavoidable impacts related to Cultural Resources to a less than significant level. Other
significant and unavoidable impacts to Transportation and Traffic would not be reduced
to less - than - significant levels. This alternative causes no new significant impacts. (Draft
EIR, p. 5 -17.) Under this alternative, the severity of potentially significant impacts that
can be mitigated to less than significant levels would remain similar to those under the
Project. (Draft EIR, p. 5 -17.) Thus, the Historic Preservation Alternative is only better
than the Project on the Cultural Resources issue, but same as the Project on all other
environmental issues.
Aesthetics
The Historic Preservation Alternative would result in development of most of the Plan
Area. Four or five acres of the Plan Area would be set aside for preservation of
potentially historic structures, but this would not significantly change the appearance of
the Plan Area compared to the Project. The Historic Preservation Alternative would result
in a similar level of aesthetics impacts compared to the proposed project.
Agricultural Resources
The Historic Preservation Alternative would remove all existing agricultural uses from
the Plan Area. Although several potentially historic buildings related to current and past
agricultural uses would remain, the agricultural uses themselves would be gone. The
Historic Preservation Alternative would result in a similar level of agricultural resources
impacts compared to the Project.
Air Quality
The Historic Preservation Alternative would result development and trip generation the
same as with the Project, and therefore, air emissions would also be about the same as
those of the proposed project. The Historic Preservation Alternative would result in a
similar level of air quality impacts compared to the Project.
Biological Resources
The Historic Preservation Alternative would potentially affect the same special - status
species as the proposed project, because development would take place throughout most
of the Plan Area. The Historic Preservation Alternative would result in a similar level of
biological resources impacts compared to the Project.
Cultural Resources
The Historic Preservation Alternative would preserve the potentially historic buildings
within the Plan Area within a historic conservation area. Under this alternative, a historic
conservation area of about four to five acres would be set aside, within which the
19
potentially historic buildings from throughout the Plan Area would be relocated as
development of the Plan Area proceeded. The potentially historic structures could be
preserved for adaptive reuse or as a cultural display. The Historic Preservation
Alternative would result in a less- than - significant levels of cultural resources impacts
compared to the proposed project's significant and unavoidable impacts.
Geology Soils and Mineral Resources
The Historic Preservation Alternative would result in development of most of the Plan
Area with new buildings similar to those of the Project. The potentially historic buildings
would be preserved, and are expected to require structural rehabilitation as part of their
relocation; therefore, the potentially historic structures would meet applicable building
code requirements, and not be inordinately more prone to damage from seismic activity.
The Historic Preservation Alternative would result in a similar level of geology, soils,
and mineral resources impacts compared to the Project.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The Historic Preservation Alternative would result in development and trip generation the
same as with the Project, and therefore, greenhouse gas emissions would also be about
the same as those of the Project. The Historic Preservation Alternative would result in a
similar level of greenhouse gas emissions impacts compared to the Project.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The Historic Preservation Alternative would result in development on the portions of the
Plan Area that are affected by migrating off -site groundwater contamination, similar to
development of the proposed project. The Historic Preservation Alternative would result
in a similar level of hazards and hazardous materials impacts compared to the Project.
Hydrology and Water Quality
The Historic Preservation Alternative would not significantly change the development
type of intensity, nor the overall arrangement of development within the Plan Area. The
Historic Preservation Alternative would result in a similar level of hydrology and water
quality impacts compared to the Project.
Land Use and Planning
The Historic Preservation Alternative would result in a similar mix of land uses within
the Plan Area, with about four to five acres set aside for historic preservation. Adaptive
reuse of the potentially historic buildings could include residential, commercial, or other
types of uses could occupy the historic conservation area. The Historic Preservation
Alternative would retain the mixed use concept directed by the Town of Los Gatos 2020
General Plan, and would not result in adverse effects on the Town's downtown
commercial area. The Historic Preservation Alternative would result in a similar level of
land use and planning impacts compared to the Project.
20
Noise
The Historic Preservation Alternative would not significantly change the location or
intensity of development within the Plan Area compared to the proposed project. The
Historic Preservation Alternative would result in a similar level of noise impacts
compared to the Project.
Population, Housing, and Public Services
The Historic Preservation Alternative would not significantly change the location, type,
or intensity of development within the Plan Area compared to the Project. The same
number of existing residences could be replaced with new development, and the same
number of residential units would occupy the Plan Area at build -out. The development
capacity of the Plan Area would not be changed, and the services demands would be the
same as for the Project. The Historic Preservation Alternative would result in a similar
level of population, housing, and public services impacts compared to the Project.
Transportation and Traffic
The Historic Preservation Alternative would have the same combination of land uses and
would generate the same number of vehicular trips as the proposed project. The Historic
Preservation Alternative would result in a similar level of transportation and traffic
impacts compared to the Project.
Utilities and Service Systems
The Historic Preservation Alternative would require water, sewer, storm drainage, and
solid waste services similar to those required by the Project. The Historic Preservation
Alternative would result in a similar level of utilities and service systems impacts
compared to the Project.
c. Feasibility of Historic Preservation Alternative -- Environmentallv Superior
Alternative)
The Town Council rejects the Historic Preservation Alternative on the basis of policy
considerations. (See Pub. Resources Code, § 21061.1; CEQA Guidelines, § 15364; see
also City ofDel Marv. City ofSan Diego (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 410, 417; California
Native Plant Soc. v. City of Santa Cruz (2009) 177 Cal.AppAth 957, 1001; Seguoyah
Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.AppAth 704, 715.) The
Historic Preservation Alternative would hinder the design of Plan Area build -out, because
the potentially historic buildings are located throughout the site. Relocation of the
buildings into a consolidated site or locations that would reduce adverse effects on design
may not be feasible, given the age and uncertain construction methods and conditions of
the buildings. If the buildings were to be relocated, the developer and /or the Town would
incur considerable expense. The developer and/or the Town would also incur
considerable expense in preservation of the historic buildings in place. Depending on the
21
specific re -use proposed, reuse of the barn may be limited by, or costs may increase to
accommodate, building code standards for the specific occupancy group proposed.
Preservation of the potentially historic buildings would result in either denser overall
development with reduced open space (if the historic building square footage were
counted in addition to the maximum square footage /residential units allowed), or
displacement of some commercial square footage or residential units.
For the forgoing reasons, the Town Council determines that the Historic Preservation
Alternative is infeasible and is hereby rejected.
IX. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
As set forth in the preceding sections, the Town Council's approval of the North Forty
Specific Plan project will result in significant adverse environmental impacts to
Transportation and Traffic and Cultural Resources, which cannot be mitigated to a less -
than- significant level.
A. Overriding Considerations
In accordance with Public Resources Code section 21081, subdivision (b), and CEQA
Guidelines section 15093, the Town Council has, in determining whether or not to
approve the Project, balanced the economic, social, technological, and other benefits of
the Project against its unavoidable environmental risks, and has found that the benefits of
the Project outweigh the significant adverse environmental effects that are not mitigated
to less -than- significant levels, for the reasons set forth below. In making this finding, the
Town Council has balanced the benefits of the Project against its significant
environmental impact and has indicated its willingness to accept these risks.
The following statements identify the reasons why, in the Town Council's judgment, the
benefits of the Project outweigh its significant unavoidable effects. Any one of the
reasons for approval cited below is sufficient to justify approval of the Project. Thus,
even if a court were to conclude that not every reason is supported by substantial
evidence, the Town Council will stand by its determination that each individual reason is
sufficient. The substantial evidence supporting the various benefits can be found in the
preceding findings, which are incorporated by reference into this Section, and in the
documents found in the Record of Proceedings, as defined in Section IV.
The Project accomplishes the following policy objectives of the Town:
The Project provides a specific plan consistent with the Los Gatos 2020 General Plan
and the Town's adopted vision statement for the Plan Area. Future development
within the Plan Area will integrate with the existing development within Los Gatos,
while preserving significant public views and providing trees and open space. Future
22
development of the Plan Area will also provide for the Town's unmet commercial and
residential needs and minimize adverse effects on Town infrastructure, services, and
schools.
The Project provides a residential program that designates a variety of development
intensities to help achieve the Town's unmet needs, including the young working
professionals and empty- nester move -down buyers, as well as complies with the
Town of Los Gatos Housing Element, with the number of units having sales prices or
rents for low income earners equal to a minimum of 20 percent of the market rate
residential units.
The Project encourages a diversity of residential offerings and affordability levels for
the targeted buyers, including cottage /garden cluster, rowhouses /townhomes, flats,
multifamily affordable, and /or vertical mixed use.
4. The Project offers a commercial program that will complement the existing uses
within the Town and capture retail sales that are currently leaking out of the Town.
5. The Project will create a sustainable community because the Specific Plan's public
spaces and expanded street frontage provides the opportunity for bicycle lanes and
pedestrian walkways to encourage alternative forms of transportation such as walking,
bicycling, and public transportation.
6. The Project respects the history of the site by featuring distinctive and attractive
building design and perimeter landscaping to reflect the agricultural heritage of the
site.
7. The Project will assist the Town with satisfying its Regional Housing Needs
Allocation for market rate and affordable housing units.
The Town Council may modify or add other considerations.
N:A DEVU2ESOS�2015\ N40CEQAResoFindingsExA6- 2- 2015.docx
23
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank