Attachment 11 - Required Findings and ConsiderationsTOWN COUNCIL – August 9, 2016
REQUIRED FINDINGS AND CONSIDERATIONS:
North Forty Phase 1
Architecture and Site Application S-13-090
Vesting Tentative Map M-13-014
Requesting approval for the construction of a new multi-use, multi-story development
consisting of 320 residential units, which will include 50 affordable senior units;
approximately 66,000 square feet of commercial floor area, which will include a market
hall; on-site and off-site improvements; and a vesting tentative map. APNs: 424-07-024
through 027, 031 through 037, 070, 083 through 086, 090, and 100.
PROPERTY OWNERS: Yuki Farms, ETPH LP, Grosvenor USA Limited, Summerhill
North 40 LLC, Elizabeth K. Dodson, AND William Hirshman.
APPLICANT: Grosvenor USA Limited
FINDINGS
Required finding for CEQA:
■ An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared and certified for the North 40 Specific
Plan on January 5, 2015. An Initial Study has been prepared and concludes that the proposed
Phase 1 applications are in compliance with the certified EIR.
Required Compliance with the General Plan:
■ The project is in compliance with the General Plan.
Required Compliance with the North 40 Specific Plan:
■ The project is in compliance with the North 40 Specific Plan.
Required finding for demolitions:
■ As required by Section 29.10.09030(e) of the Town Code for demolitions:
1. The Town's housing stock will be maintained as the residences will be replaced.
2. The existing structures have no architectural or historical significance, and are in poor
condition.
3. The property owner cannot maintain the structures as they exist; and
4. The existing structure would conflict with the proposed improvements.
Required Finding for reduction of non-residential setback:
■ As required by Table 2-6 within the North 40 Specific Plan:
Page 2 of 3
North 40 Phase 1/S-13-090, M-13-014
August 9, 2016
1. The setback provides for adequate pedestrian circulation, and
2. The setback is compatible with the adjacent buildings and complements the buildings in
the immediate vicinity, and
3. The setback provides for adequate clear sight vision for vehicular traffic.
Required findings to deny a waiver of development standards:
■ As required by paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 65589.5 of the California
Government Code for denial of a development standard waiver:
1. The modification would have a specific adverse impact upon health, safety, or the
physical environment, and there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid
specific adverse impact without rendering the development unaffordable to low, very
low, and moderate income households. For the purpose of this subsection, "specific
adverse impact" means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based
on objective, identified, written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions
as they existed on the date that the application was deemed complete; or
2. The modification would have an adverse impact on any real property that is listed in the
California Register of Historic Resources; or
3. The incentive or concession would be contrary to State or Federal law.
Required findings to deny a Subdivision application:
■ As required by Section 66474 of the State Subdivision Map Act the map shall be denied if
any of the following findings are made: None of the findings could be made to deny the
application.
a. That the proposed map is not consistent with all elements of the General Plan.
b. That the design and improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with all
elements of the General Plan.
c. That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed development.
d. That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development.
e. That the designs of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are likely to cause
substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or
their habitat.
f. That the design of the subdivision or type of improvements is likely cause serious public
health problems.
g. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict with
easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within
the proposed subdivision.
Page 3 of 3
North 40 Phase 1/S-13-090, M-13-014
August 9, 2016
CONSIDERATIONS
Required considerations in review of Architecture & Site applications:
■ As required by Section 29.20.150 of the Town Code, the considerations in review of an
Architecture and Site application were all made in reviewing this project.
N:\DEV\FINDINGS\2016\North 40 FindingsTC.docx