20100818071pW N OF
~'1••' s COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
~S GASp
DATE: August 10, 2010
MEETING DATE: 08/16/10
ITEM NO: ~-g
T0: MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
FROM: GREG CARSON, TOWN MANAGE
SUB7ECT: DRAFT LOS GATOS 2020 GENERAL PLAN AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT ON TI-IE DRAFT LOS GATOS 2020 GENERAL PLAN
UPDATE
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Complete review of the Draft 2020 General Plan.
2. Review the attached Draft Resolution, which contains the Findings of Facts and Statement of
Overriding Considerations related to the Enviromnental Impact Report.
3. Open and hold the public hearing and receive public testimony on the Draft: 2020 General
Plan and Environmental Impact Report.
4. Close the public hearing.
5. Continue the item to the August 18, 2010, Town Council meeting if necessary, or if review is
concluded, adopt the Draft 2020 General Plan and Certify the Final Enviromnental Impact
Report on the 2020 General Plan
BACKGROUND:
On August 2, 2010, the Town Council conducted a thorough review of three of the six Draft
General Plan Elements that contain the changes to the General Plan associated with inclusion of
Goals, Policies, and Actions relative to the four Focus Areas (Youth Needs; Senior Needs;
Environment and Sustainability; and Open Space, Parks, and Recreation). These elements
included Land Use, Community Design, and Transportation. The tluee remaining Focus Area
elements the Council has not reviewed are Open Space, Parlcs, and Recreation; Enviromnent and
Sustainability; and Human Services. These three elements will comprise the focus of the August
16, 2010, Town Council General Plan review.
PREPARED BY: v W~endie R. Rooney, Director~Conunmlity Development
Reviewed by: Assistant Town Manager
Clerk Administrator Finance
N:\DEV\CNCLRPT512010\2020GeneratPlan Augustlb.dac
"~P "own Attorney
Community Development
Reformatted: 5/30/02
PAGE 2
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: DRAFT 2020 GENERAL PLAN AND EIR
August 10, 2010
Additionally, the Council is requested to review the three elements that do not contain new Focus
Area Goals, Policies, and Actions. These elements are Vasona Light Rail and Highway 85,
Safety, and Noise. The Council should also consult the Plamiing Commission recormmended
changes and the staff reconnnended minor changes documents while reviewing these final
Elements. The Planning Cormnission and staff recommended changes were Attaclunent 10 of
the August 2, 2010, staff report (dated June 16, 2010) and Attachment 1 of the August 2, 2010,
Desk Item, respectively.
Last, the Council is also requested to review the attached draft resolution, which includes the
Findings of Facts and Statement of Overriding Consideration for the Final Enviromnent Impact
Report.
DISCUSSION:
At the August 2, 2010, Town Council meeting, the Comlcil completed review of the Draft 2020
General Plan Land Use, Cormnunity Design, and Transportation Elements. Attaclunent 12
contains the Council directed modifications to Goals, Policies, and Actions fiom these tlu~ee
elements. New text is underlined and deleted text is in strike-through format. Attaclunent 13
contains the Goals, Policies, and Actions the Council directed to be removed fiom the Draft 2020
General Plan.
The three remaining elements with Focus Area changes are Open Space, Parks, and Recreation;
Enviromnent and Sustainability; and Human Services. Attachment 14 contains the Town
Council comments/concerns that staff has received as of August 11, 2010. This list will be used
to guide the Town Council's review of the final three elements that contain the Focus Area
changes.
The remaining Draft 2020 General Plan non-Focus Area Elements are Vasona Liglrt Rail and
Highway 85, Safety, and Noise. Attaclunent 15 is the list of Town Council continents/concerns
on these elements. This list will be used to guide the Town Council's review of the final tlu~ee
elements. Attachment 16 is a list of staff reconnnended changes to these three, non-Focus Area
elements. The recormmended changes are non-substantive and clarify a goal, policy, or action.
Attaclunent 20 is the list of Actions that direct the preparation of a study. Council requested to
review this list. Please note that Actions which were deleted based on previous direction are in
strike-tlmough format on this list.
Attaclunent 17 contains the Draft Resolution approving the 2020 General Plan and certification
of the Final Enviromnental Impact Report (FEIR). The Draft Resolution includes the Statement
of Overridurg Considerations and Findings of Fact. As noted in the August 2, 2010, Town
Cotulcil staff report (dated June 16, 2010), due to the significant and unavoidable impacts
associated with Land Use and Plarming, Transportation and Circulation, Air Quality, and
Cneerthouse Gas Emissions, the Town Council will need to adopt a Statement of Overriding
Considerations when certifying the FEIR. Pursuant to the California Envirorm~ental Quality Act
(CEQA), when significant effects are unavoidable, a detailed Statement of Overriding
PAGE 3
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: DRAFT 2020 GENERAL PLAN AND EIR
August 10, 2010
Considerations is separately required in addition to the Findings of Fact. A "Statement of
Overriding Considerations" indicates that even though a project or program would result in one
or more unavoidable adverse impacts, specific economic, social or other stated benefits are
sufficient to warrant project approval. The Statement explains the justification for proceeding
with the project or program despite the significant adverse envi-omnental impacts. A Statement
of Overriding Considerations provides specific reasons why the benefit of a proposed project or
program outweighs the adverse effect. If the benefits of a project outweigh the unavoidable
adverse environmental effects, those effects may be considered "acceptable" pursuant to CEQA.
Lastly, Attaclnnents 18 and 19 are letters received from public members since the August 2,
2010, Council meeting.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION:
The Draft 2020 General Plan is a result of the Town Council's direction to update the existing
2000 General Plan by removing existing implementation measm-es or action items that were
completed; refiiung existing policies that may not be serving the community as intended or lack
clarity; revising information that is no longer current; and integrating new Goals, Policies, and
Actions relevant to Open Space, Parlcs, and Recreation; Enviromnent and Sustainability; Youth
Needs, and Senior Needs.
The GPAC has reviewed and modified the four Focus Area Goals, Policies, and Actions and
ultimately recommended the Planning Commission and Town Council consider the Focus Area
changes in the Draft 2020 General Plan. The Planning Commission considered the GPAC
recommended changes in the Focus Area General Plan Elements; reviewed the non-Focus Area
Draft 2020 General Plan Elements; General Plan Comment Matrix; Table of 2000 General Plan
Goals, Policies, and Actions that are not recommended to be carried over to the Draft 2020
General Plan; and considered the FEIR. Based on the Town Council's direction and the "test for
adequacy" factors, the Planning Commission unanimously found the General Plan met the stated
objectives and accordingly recommended that the Town Council approve the Draft 2020 General
Plan and certify the Final Environmental Impact Report.
The Totem Council has conducted a thorough review of tlu•ee of the six Draft 2020 General Plan
Elements that contain the Focus Area changes and should complete the review of the remaining
Focus Area changes as well as the tlu-ee other elements that did not have Focus Area changes.
This report contains the Town Council duected modifications to the elements reviewed at the
August 2, 2010, Town Council meeting. These, as well as directed changes from the August 16,
2010, Council meeting, will be incorporated into the Draft 2020 General Plan.
Based on the recormnendations of the GPAC, the Planning Coxnrnission, and Town Council's
fast review of the Draft 2020 General Plan, staff recommends that the Town Council complete
review of the General Plan and FEIR, approve the Draft 2020 General Plan, adopt the Findings
of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations, and certify the Final Enviromnental Impact
Report.
PAGE 4
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: DRAFT 2020 GENERAL PLAN AND EIR
August 10, 2010
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:
The 2020 General Plan is a project as defined under CEQA and may have potential significant
enviromnental impacts. An Enviromnental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared for the
project. A Statement of Overriding Considerations must be made since there are significant
unavoidable impacts relating to Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions (includes two significant
unavoidable impacts), Land Use and Planning, and Transportation and Circulation. The
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations are included as Attachment 17 to
this report.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
Attachments:
Previously submitted to the Town Council under separate covers.
Memo to the Planning Commission (dated June 11, 2010):
• Draft 2020 General Plan Elements (Land Use; Community Design; Transportation; Open
Space, Parks, and Recreation; Enviromnent and Sustainability; and Human Services)
• Draft Enviromnental Impact Report
Memo to the Pluming Commission (dated June 18, 2010):
• Fuial EIR
• General Plan Comment Matrix
Memo to the Town Council (dated July 16, 2010)
1. Planning Commission Desk Item 1, with Attaclunents 1 and 2 (dated June 23, 2010)
2. Plamzing Conmiission Desk Item 2, with Attaclunents 1 and 2 (dated June 23, 2010)
3. Plamzing Conmmission Desk Item 3 (dated June 30, 2010)
4. Non-Focus Area Draft 2020 General Plan Elements (Safety, Noise and Vasona Liglnt Rail
and Highway 85 Elements)
5. June 23, 2010, Verbatim Plaming Commissimi Meeting Minutes
6. June 30, 2010, Verbatim Plamzing Comm~ission Meeting Minutes
Attachments submitted with the August 2, 2010, Staff Report (dated June 16, 2010):
7. List of Focus Area Goals
8. List of 2000 General Plan Goals, Policies and Actions that are Not Recomm~ended to be
Carried Over to the 2020 General Plan
9. Revised General Plan Comm~ent Matrix
10. List of Plaruling Connnnission Reconnmended Changes
PAGE 5
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: DRAFT 2020 GENERAL PLAN AND EIR
AugustlQ 2010
11. E-Mail from Clu~is Miller, dated July 10, 2010
Attaclunents submitted with the July 30, 2010, Addendum Report
1. List of Council Member Issues/Concerns
2. Updated Gals, Policies or Implementation Strategies from the 2000 General Plan Not
Carried Forward into the Draft 2020 General Plan
Attachments submitted with the August 2, 2010, Desk Item
1. Staff Recommended Minor Changes to the Focus Area Elements
2. Letter from Silicon Valley Association of Realtors
Attachments submitted under this cover
12. Changes to Goals, Policies, and Actions Based on Council Direction from the August 2,
2010, Council Meeting
13. Goals, Policies, and Actions Removed from the Draft 2020 General Plan Based on
Council Direction from the August 2, 2010, Council Meeting
14. Update List of Council Comments/Concerns on the Focus Area Elements
I5. Update List of Council Comments/Concerns on the Non-Focus Area Elements
16. Staff Recommended Minor Changes to the Non-Focus Area Elements
17. Draft Resolution, Statement of Overriding Consideration and Findings of Fact
18. Letter from Lee Quintana
19. Letter fi~om BGF Planning Consultants
20. List of Actions that Require Preparation of a Study
WR:JP:ct
N:~DEV~CNCLRPTS~20]0~2020GeneralP(au August 16.doc
Changes Based on Council Direction from August 2, 2010
Land Use:
Page LU-16 and 17, j., N. 40 Specific Plan Overlay
3. Overlay Designation
j. North Forty Specific Plan Overlay
Based on recent Town Council direction to complete the Specific Plan for the 40 +/- acre
property known as the North 40. a new General Plan designation is proposed to helmsguide the
future development of this property Drawing on the previous draft s e~cific plan completed in
1999 tThe North Forty Specific Plan Overlay and Specific Plan will determines the mix of uses
and the dimensional standards that will guide development of this his area. The General
Plan Environmental hn act Report assumed a maximum development caLacit~f Residential
750 dwelling units of mixed residential types: and I'den-
°id, .ticl ::.,~., c lir:~itcd t~ oaf 580,000 square feet of retail and office uses for purposes
of assessing environmental impacts associated with development of the property. Althoueh
these are maximums the Specific Plan maybe approved with a lower densities of residential and
commercial uses. The development of a hotel could be allowed :~ pitted in this area. The
North Forty Specific Plan will be °-°..,~,,.,a.,~a based on the followin
g_general guidelines•
Tl,.....1,.««...„4 ..„.1,.«tl.°TT....tl. T; ,..-t. O 'F Ol i. 11.
- _....t.......~ .......i ui~ i~vr-
r ~ 1?PT1t 'LYIFj k1llt P t ~ 1+ T r Tl «.l 41... F 1. -
r
Include a mixture of uses that supplement the existine uses in the Downtown and the rest of the
community.
• Be based on sustainable and "smart" development practices.
_~on r
• Include public ~atherin¢ spaces such as a plazas °"'-= ° '' Y~ _a ...,- ~~.w and a parks
4 41. A 4'41. '.1 4~ 1 __
• Provide for a variety of residenfial housing types, both rental and owner occupied. A minnnum
of 20 percent of the units shall be affordable to households at the moderate income level or
below.
bele~
• Include high-quality architecture and design that reflects the rural and agricultural history of
the site.
• Provide pedestrian-oriented buildings along the Los Gatos Boulevard frontage, with minimal
parking oriented to the street.
• Take advantage ofthe grade change across the site b~-ir~1~.,1:„g „pl.« ,,..~°11.•.:1a.'~>, „~
« >,
~ Continue the "boulevard treatment" along Los Gatos Boulevard, with interconnections from
one parcel's drive aisle to the next.
• Include connecfions to existing intersections along Los Gatos Boulevard and Lark Avenue.
• Develop gateway or landmark features at Los Gatos Boulevard and Lark Avenue and at Los
Gatos Boulevard and the Highway 85 off ramp.
ATTACffi~NT 12
• Provide an easily accessible, fully connected street network that encourages walking.
• Provide a vegetative buffer and screening along Highways 17 and 85.
• Preserve Town character and views„'~
Page LU-23 -Goal LU-3
Goal LU-3 To provide for well-planned, careful growth •°~''-~~ `''~ '~~~~'° °` that respects the
Town's existing character and infrastructure. (new)
Page LU-23 -Policy LU-3.2
Policy LU-3.2 Only approve projects in cases where the overall value to the community from the
develo ment offsets the ublic cost r '-~ '' '~'~~ "c~`° c..~''°'"°"~"'""' °°°'°" " ------~""
P P -, r».,... _ .., .._ ~....._____ .., ... ----- --~
benefit. (L.P.5.7 -revised)
Page LU-24 -Action LU-4.1
n rrr n t r t . ..«,,,t. ,;+t, t...,...,t ,.,,t.t;" ,..,,-r;":,..,r;,,,, r„~,t,.~«;~. ,.rr ,.«:.,,.. ...,.
r
Action LU-4 1 Town staff shall utilize new media and technology to provide clear and current
information on Town processes and decisions and to encourage public participation in Town
government. (new)
Page LU 27 -Policy LU-6.2
Policy LU-6.2 To ensure comnatibility with surrounding neighborhoods, Aapplicants for infill
projects shall demonstrate that the project''-° ° "*~°~'- ~°-~-~"~""''°~°"~ meets the criteria
contained in the Development Poliofor In-Fill Projects. (L.L1.3 and L.L3.2 combined)
Page LU 27 -Policy LU-6.3
Policy LU-6.3 The appropriate deciding body shall make specific findings relative to the criteria
outlined in the Development Policy for In-Fill Projects °° ""~~~~••~~`"'•°~°~ before approving
any infill project. (L.I.1.4 and L.I.3.3 combined)
Page LU-31 -Action LU-9.1
Action LU-9.1 Prepare and adopt a specific plan for the North Forty area prior to development of
the site.
Page LU-33 -Policy LU-10.8
Policy LU-10.8 Uses on Los Gatos Boulevard south of "~~'"''"'~' ^ `~°~a~ Roberts Road shall be
residential or office; existing non-residential uses shall not be intensified and existing vacant
property and residential uses shall be developed as Single Family Residential. (L.P. 7.7 -revised)
Page LU-33 -Policy LU-10.9
Policy LU-10.9 Encourage replacement of vacated business south of Los Gatos-Almaden Road
and north of Roberts and Shannon Road with neighborhood commercial, multi-family, or office
uses. (L.I.7.10)
Relocation of Goal CD-1 and Goal L.G.1.1
See Pages 6-10 of this document.
Community Design:
Page CD-9 -Policy CD-6.3
Policy CD-6.3 Encourage property owners to reduce the visible mass of single family residential
structures by using basements and cellars to provide "hidden" square footage. =~~a-~~~
Action CD-6.1 Review the Cellar Policy to ensure that it preserves neighborhood compatibility
new
Page CD-13 -Policy CD-10.2
Policy CD-10.2 t~ile~v Encourage outdoor seating for restaurants/coffee shops en}y when the
historic character and quality of the Downtown and adjacent neighborhoods can be maintained.
(L.P.6.3 -
revised)
Page CD-24 -Policy CD-14.5
Policy CD-14.5 Staff should require adequate environmental analysis
for projects in the hillside area to ensure adequate consideration
of potential .environmental impacts associated with projects, when appropriate. (L.L8.15 -
revised)
Page CD-25 - PCD-15.3
Policy CD-15.3 New construction shall be designed to follow natural land contours and avoid
mass grading. Houses shall be designed to conform to or step down the contours rather than be
designed for flat pads. Grading large, flat yard areas shall should be avoided. E)rading-should be
on *µ ;, propc~ (CD.P.2.3, L.P.8.4 and L.L8.10 combined)
Page CD-27 -Policy CD-16.3
Policy CD-16.3 New structures or remodels that ~e;il ~-ffP~r ax; t' b F~
shall be designed to respect views from surrounding_properties while
allowing se4lrat all affected properties have equitable access to views. (CD.P1.11)
CD-29 -Policy 17.4
Revise Policy CD-17.4 as follows: lylajor Other than single family residences development
proposals on parcels greater than 40 000 square feet sheald may be processed as a planned
developments.
CD-29 -Policy 17.5
Policy CD-17.5 Applicants for projects with policy hpplications or large scale projects slaeitld
may submit applications to the Conceptual Development Advisory Committee prior to a formal
development application submittal. (L.I.5.2 -revised)
Proposed Action CD-17 6: Review the Conceptual Development Advisory Committee process
and revise as necessary to ensure that the Committee's role in advising applicants on potential
development proiects is consistent with the Town's adopted policies, guidelines and standards.
new
Page CD-31-Action CD-18.5
Action CD-18.5 qtr}dy Review the Conditional Use Permit Table to determine if any deletions or
additions need to be made to the list of uses. Considerations should include factors such as size
of building and/or floor space occupied, traffic generation and whether the use would dictate a
"trademark" style of building. (L.I.5.1 -revised)
Transportation:
Page TRA-16, Add new bullet for Intersection of National and Samaritan
• National Avenue and Samaritan Drive: Widen the approach on National Avenue and
provide a dedicated left-turn lane and a dedicated right-turn lane. (new)
Page TRA-24 -Policy TRA-2.8
Policy TRA-2.8: Consider using roundabouts as an alternative to signalized or traditionally
controlled intersections to calm traffic and increase the capacity of intersections. (T.I.1.17 -
revised)
Page TRA-26 -Policy TRA-3.1
Policy TRA-3.1 All development proposals shall be reviewed to identify and mitigate project
traffic impacts pursuant to the Town's traffic impact policy. (new)
Page TRA-27 -Policy TRA-3.8
Policy TRA-3.8 New development shall be required to upgrade public improvements on project
frontages to meet current Town standards. (new)
Page TRA-28 -Action TRA-3.1
Action TRA-3.1 Include all of the projects listed in Section E.2, Local Intersection and Roadway
Improvements (Pape TRA-141 and E.3, Local Bikeway Improvements (Pa¢e TRA-20), in the
Capital Improvements Program (CIP). (T.I.1.7 -revised)
Page TRA-28 -Policy TRA-4.1
Policy TRA-4.1 Highway 17 should not be widened to provide additional travel lanes south of
-rU w is . w,. ,. „+e,.,.w,.„,.,. ,.« ni,.,,~,.,,, u:n n,.,,,t (T.P.1.14 -revised)
Lark Avenue. T~~ .._. ,,..., ».» ...,..,_ ..~- =-°-----_._o_ _. __...._.._-- _---- ----
Policy TRA-42 T-~i~h+~wne 1-7-ckm,l' ~ 'a ..a . •a aa•
T °''~~-There should not be an interchange at Blossom Hill Road. (T.P.1.14 -revised)
Renumber the rest of the Policies accordingly.
Page TRA-31- TRA Policy-6.2
Policy TRA-31 Develop a combined transit station and bus depot for all the various public transit
modes that serve the 13e~tTown. This hub should be located ' ~?~ooo~.~~ in a
place and manner that minimizes impacts on neighboring businesses and other activities.
(T.P.7.4)
Page TRA-32 and 33 -Policy TRA-7.2 and 7.4
Policy TRA-7.2 «,. ,.,, _.ti _ _ .,
a=~~ In areas that are idenfified^as Very High Fire Hazard Areas on the Town's
Wildland Fire Seventy Zone Maro provide secondary emergency access that will not increase
traffic. If dual access is not possible or acceptable, the intensity of land use will be limited to
available access. (T.P.3.2)
Policy TRA-7.4
Require new development located on sinele access roads in areas identified as Verv Hi Fire
Hazard Areas on the adopted Wildland Fire Severity Zone map to demonstrate an acce to able
means of emergencv access nnor to ap rn oval Emergency access shall discourage through traffic
on hillside roads. (T.P.3.4)
Page TRA-35 -Policy TRA-8.8
Policy TRA-8.8' Facilitate Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) services in Los
Gatos through the provision ofm bus shelters and other means. (T.L4.5 )
Page T13A-44 -Policy TRA-14.3
Policy TRA-14.3 Parking facilities in Downtown Los Gatos shall should be at or below grade. A
parking structure on the Farwell Lot (Lot 6) and/or on the Post Office ~roperiv may be
acceptable with more than one level above grade if hidden by street frontage commercial and/or
residential structures. All parking facilities shall exhibit excellence in design, minimize impacts
on adjacent property and be consistent with the Town's character. (CD.I.4.7)
Page TRA-45 -Action TRA-14.5
Action TRA-14.5 ' ' _Implement programs
for pedestrian, bicycle and transit oriented systems to supplement parking in the Central Business
District. (CD.L4.9)
Other:
Search document for other instances of "Community Benefit."
The only other instance where "Community Benefit" is noted is in Action CD-18.2: Amend the
Town Code to include a definition of "Community Benefit" that clearly differentiates it from
exactions. (L.L1.8)
N:\DEW OEL\GNRLPLAN\GP2010\TC18-2CounciIDirecfian.docx
5
LAND USE ELEMENT (EXCERPT
G. Goals, Policies and Actions
T'he following goals, policies and actions guide future physical development
throughout Los Gatos.
Goal LU-1 To preserve promote and protect the existing small
town character and aual'to f life within o atos.
(L•G•1.11 (GaaICD-1J -
Polity LU-1.1 ncour3ge_daY.elo~ei t end +~ dicrncsinnc ac early ac
~~7hlP regarding the nar.~re and cone of the protect and
no~dhlP i n cte and mitie~ti~n~5re 1Lirementc (t P 7 2 -
(Policy GD-17.6]
Policy LU-1.2 Fn i that ew develon~pr eroec and promotes esi sTina _ _ _ _ __
cnm erciU r ntex can ~ T r 'th the ma- tenon of a
mal4 scale all town to Where and image (L P 1 4 -
. e~ (Policy LU-8.1 J
Policy LU-1.3 ~o~~rve existing 7 c na oral vefetation.~atural
t p<tg~anh~~oarian corridor a d wildlife hahitatc. and
t higlLo ality v lze_1 d~.jpn d environmentally sensitive
d iv xc lar;dcrani g i new and existing_deeeL cop ents,
(T.P~1,5`z vte_sedl (Goal CD4. Nod: Policy CD-4.1 becomes Goa!
CD-4 and subsequent palates under Gaal CD-4 an nnumbered.J
PolicyLU-1.4 I fill ~rol t h 1~~1 he de i d text with the
neiahh hood a_ d u ounding ni g~th.S.eSp t to he
.~tQg= le and rhararter of di r~structures._and
ho> ld hlend other than comp to with the ectahlished
charade of the area R. P 1 Rl (Policy LU-6.SJ
Policy LU-1.5 Fnmur ee nrivat ~ hlic fundinP d l nment d nnexation
of cultural menities activiti ~ a d nt c rnncict nth the
m 11 to n rho cter of T nc Gatoc R. P.1 171 (Policy HS-12.6J
LU-1
TOWN O P LOS G A T O S
DRAFT 2020 GBNBAAL PLAN
LAND USE ELE hfENT
Policy LU-1.7 Use task forces ad hoc committees and other means as an ro-
nriaTe to involve residential and commercial interests in Town
matters. (T..T 1 1 T (Policy LU4.1. Nate: Moving thin polity rerulir
in no policier under Goal LU-4 .ante Town Council gave direction to re-
move Policy LU~.2 ar well. Therefore, Goal LU4 rhvuld be delehd.J
Policy LU-1.8 Commercial develonme t f tune (ffice retail r rch
and development etcl shall he d_esimed in keepinw vnth the
small invm character of T ns C'atos (V P.3 21 ~'ob~9' CD-1.8]
Goal LU-~ To maintain a balanced, economically stable com-
munity within environmental goals. (L.G.5.2)
Policies
Policy LU-X3-2.1 Minimize vehicle miles traveled fox goods and services by
allowing and encouraging stores that provide these goods
within walking distance of neighborhoods in Los Gatos.
(new)
Policy LU-~2~2 Promote telecommutixxg and home-based businesses by
allowing live-work and work-live uses in existing and future
residential development. (new)
ce~eteialtxse~ {ae~ej (I~emaved ar directed by Town Council)
LU-2 ~
TOWN O P LOS G A T O S
DRAPT 2020 GENERAL PLAN
LAND USE ELEMENT
~Y
aeig}z~et~eed--(~eu=} (I{emoved ar directed by Tawn Caunci!]
~Efr6R ~~~~ __a _.l _.,. t__. _ ,...~Y..,. .:~~d,~
[Removed as directed by GPAC] V
$ LU-3
4 COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT (EXCERPT)
2. Goals, Policies and Actions
This section describes overarching design principles that apply to the chaxactex of
the Town.
e
~) [Nave to Land Use Element ar New Goal LU-1J
Goal CD-1 Preserve and enhance the Town's chaxactex through
exceptional community design. (CD.G.1.1-revised)
(previourly Paliey CD-1.1J
Policies
Policy CD-1.~-1 Building elements shall be in proportion with those
traditionally in the neighborhood. (CD.P.1.8)
Policy CD-1.r2 New stmctuxes, remodels, landscapes and haxdscapes shall be
designed to harmonize and blend with the scale and rhythm of
the neighborhood and natural features in the area. (CD.P.1.'n
Polity CD-1.41 Buildings, landscapes and haxdscapes shall follow the natural
contours of the property. (CD.P.1.10)
Policy CD-13-4 Development on all elevations shall be of high quality design
and construction, a positive addition to and compatible with
the Town's ambiance. Development shall enhance the
chaxactex and unique identity of existing commercial and/or
residential neighborhoods. (L.Pl.l -revised)
9 CD-1
TOWN O F LOS G A T O S
^RAFT 2020 GENERAL PLAN
C O M M O N I T Y DESIGN E L E M E N T
Polity CD-1.Fr~ Town staff shall evaluate projects to assess how built
characteristics, including scale, materials, haxdscape, lights and
landscape, blend into the surrounding neighborhood.
(CD.L2.2 -revised)
Policy CD-1.~-~. Review properties next to community entry points when they
aze developed ox redeveloped to reflect the gateway concept.
(CD.P.1.23)
Peli~-EB $ 8 r~__` _:_1 a,._-a ............. ..ca r ~rr ~ cc__ _:' ____~'L
[Moved tv new pol-
icy under nem Goal LU-1.J
CD-2 10
Removed by Town Council at August 2, 2010 Hearing
Land Use•
Page LU-22
Y^ b ^~b` "Tj
t~raFiiee~re~ardin u i~F^...:. ,.. ,, /.. ..~
c
,4Ptia~a ITT , ~ ^a^F~rrtAre-liberal c a ,.
9
~1~,+......Al...n:«..~oti4l.nk.r.:11«..4 :...«.. ,.a aL ,. .~,.: ~LL_L1___~ i"__-
Page LU-24
Page LU-27
r~ T n..A TTnn L', ..,.... n.s ,...A •L ,. T_._,_ n_~_ ._ "_""___ ___ n
PTFI<'}lla fF-TPCi F~Pnti'1~ n ~ Tx 1' 1 D 1 .l 1. 4 C~7. ll. xxT ~ .1
a
die"'• '~7)
Community DesiEn:
Page CD-8
Page CD-26
a ~-i k~illcidP~l,xJ ~mnx tU L' a• a i ,
J b b b b _ __ _ _ _ _
i~uiiniiu~~. `TT .D.QLTVTIG P1liJ~~
Page CD-31
~ rr r r -
..
r b"
..,, .....nl.ln L...:1 A:«.. ,ten:..1.4 /T T 7 7 ,,,,A\
... ............. .............b ..vab+.u. \i,. rzT-z«v~=race
ATTACHFfLNT 13
Transportation:
Page TRA-14, E. 2a, First Bullet
TT-' n a al u;tt n,.,.,7. r....+,.ll ..;,lo,...,ll. ;,, G,.«+ of n t n,r a n t
> >
..,mac
Page TRA-19 v. Bullet 1
T r /c+ + D a + D1 LT;11 U,,...7• r•..., ..+«., n+ ,.,.le.,+a.7 1 h t. +.
0
Page TRA-19 vii. Bullet 1
TdT' 7 R 1 ,7
~ CST- ri- \IT + T 1 A l)«,,..:Aa +..,,. +,. F ,,,-+,-.,.,ol 1~„0~ h;h 1 1 A'
TRA-24
Page TRA-32
Page TRA-33
D 1' TD A 7 Q D R-..... +l.e T ,. «..+.... Doo o.....,;«
J
e
F..« ,,.«.~..,'o«...... ~ +.. 1: X0+0.. D,...A /T T Q `7\
O J
Page TRA-35
Page TRA-36
and - ~41i ~ 7 t«,.«..«,..+..t' F
... .~xoirzx ¢mxaPxoxxucxvxxzm
. +vuvaa u~ai ~..~ ~
...... ........ :.b.. ..v wu u.irsxusricr.
Page TRA-40 -Action TRA-11.3
Page TRA-45 -Action TRA-14.3
a Y b
N:\DE WOEL\GNRLPLAN\GP2010\TC\8-2CauncilRemoved.docx
THIS PAGE
INTENTIONALLY
LEFT BLANK
Council Comments (Remaining Focus Areas)
(Bold type denotes issues raised by more than one Councihnember)
Open Space, Parks and Recreation:
Page OSP-11 -Policy OSP-2.3: Do we really mean "all hillside developments"
Page OSP-14 -Policy OSP-4.6: Intent needs to be clarified.
Page OSP-14 -Action OSP-4.2: Do we want to pursue a community pool? Is the high
school pool serving our needs? Should this be removed?
Page OSP-14 -Action OSP-4.3: Do we need a study about a sport complex with Creekside
coming online soon. Should this be removed?
Page OSP-14-Action OSP-4.5: How will this work?
Page OSP-14 -All Actions, except 4.4 are "Conduct a study...."
Page OSP-14 -Action OSP-4.7: This seems problematic. Should it be removed?
Page OSP-15 -Policy OSP-5.3: Is this necessary given our existing gathering places? What
does this policy mean, and how is this the Town's concern?
Page OSP-16 -Policy OSP-5.8: This needs to be revised. "Require" and "where feasible" are
contradictory.
Page OSP-16 -Policy OSP-5.9: Should we set a minimum size ofmulti-family project that will
be required to have a tot lot?
Page OSP-16 -Action OSP-5.3, 5.4 and 5.5: Not a bad idea, but what will this cost? Are we
committing to something that we cannot afford?
Page OSP-17 -Policy OSP-6.7: Doesn't this contradict oar stated goal of higher density
development along Highway 85 and the Vasona Light Rail corridor?
Page OSP-17 -Policy OSP-6.8: Isn't the County phasing out the use of the Williamson Act?
OSP-18 -Action OSP-6.2: Do we want to create a new agency?
Page OSP-18 -Actions OSP-7.4 and 7.5: "Conduct a study..."
Environment and Sustainabilitv:
Page ENV-10 -Policy ENV-1.4: This might be interpreted to prevent bicycles from all our open
space areas. They are all "native plant habitats"
ATTAC~T 14
Page ENV -13 -Policy ENV-4.1: Should we replace "shall" with "should"
Page ENV-14 -Policy ENV-4.8: Does this need more clarification given the situation that
occurred on the Union subdivision property?
Page ENV-21-Policy ENV-6.1: Could this stop all new development?
Page ENV-21 -Policy ENV-6.2: This is too restrictive. One trip will require this plan?
Page ENV-22 -Policy ENV-6.8: Will this unduly burden developers? Will they have to
purchase newer equipment that meets the standard?
Page ENV-23 -Policy ENV-6.9: Does there need to be a certain size criteria for projects
before a construction management plan is required?
Page ENV-23 -Policy ENV-6.9 (c): Should this be removed?
Page ENV-12 -Action ENV-6.1: To what end?
Page ENV-29 -Policy 8.4 and 8.5: These seem to be contradictory -Should these be
require or encourage? Do we need to define the size of development? Should the Town
also be required to do this if we ask it of others, such as at the sports park?
Page ENV-29 -Policy ENV-8.4, Last Line: Should we change "and" to "and/or"
Page ENV-30 -Action ENV-8.3: The criteria should be broadened to include more than
just VMT. Do we need to "Conduct a study..."
Page ENV-31-Action ENV-9.2: Is it feasible to be a zero waste community?
Page ENV-31 -Action ENV-9.3: Should this be coordinated with our Joint Powers Authority,
rather than done on our own?
Page ENV-32 -Policy ENV-10.1: Discussion on this Policy.
Page ENV-32 -Policy ENV-10.2: Discussion on this Policy.
Page ENV-33 -Policy ENV-10.6 and 10.7: Are we willing to sacrifice excellence in design to
"Require" these?
Page ENV-33 -Action ENV-10.1 (b): Is this reasonable?
Page ENV-34 -Action ENV-10.2: Discussion on energy and water efficiency audits. Why
study so many strict enforcement requirements on energy efficiency when we don't do the
2
Page ENV-34 -Policy ENV-11.4: Discussion on green roofs.
Page ENV-35 -Policy ENV-11.8: Are we dropping applicants who do not meet these standards
to the "back of the line"? Is that fair?
Page ENV-36 -Action ENV-11.2 (a-e): Discussion on this policy. What defines solar access.
Agree with protecting it, but what about impacts to urban forest or adjacent properties?
Should we change from absolute protection to more broad reference? Should we change to
"Consider amending..."
Human Services•
Page HS-6 -Action HS-3.1: How do we know there's a need for town sponsored events for
youth? Action 3.3 is to conduct a study. We should wait for the results before committing
town to sponsorship of events. Rather than specify "A Place For Teens", etc., just say
"organizations"
Page HS-6 -Policy HS-3.1 and Action 3.2: Should we omit the use of specific names? Does the
word support imply monetary support? We need to be cautious about financial commitments.
Page HS-7 -Action HS-3.3: Poor wording on intent.
Page HS-7 -Policy 4.1: Don't we do this now through Community Unity?
Page HS-7 -Action 4.2: This should be reworded. Supplement with what?
Page HS-7 -Action 4.3: Is this the Town's responsibility or schools? Would it be better
handled by schools, CofC or NPO?
Page HS-8 -Action HS-5.1: Is this the Town's responsibility?
Page HS-8 -Action HS-5.3: Do we want to be this specific "interacfive indoor play facilities"
Page HS-8 -Action HS-5.6: Theatre need is not just for youth. Do we need this study?
Page HS-9 -Policy HS-6.3,: How would businesses be involved in school commutes?
Page HS-9, Background Information, Third Sentence: Confirm that we want to define seniors as
65+. Los Gatos Saratoga Recreation uses 55+, HUD senior housing is either 55 or 62.
Page HS-8 and 9: Be sure to encourage walking as well as bicycling throughout.
Page HS-15, Policy HS-7.2: This applies to youth as well, not just "senior programs"
Page HS-16 -Action HS-7.4: Does the Town need to do this when Council on Aging and
Aging Services Collaborative can do a better job?
Page HS-16 -Policy HS-8.1: Clarify supply or provide. Can the Town afford this?
HS-17 - Action HS-8.1: Can the Town afford this? Do we want to make this commitment?
HS-17 -Action HS-8.2: Do we need to study requiring transportation at senior housing
when p olicy 8.2 aheady encourages it?
HS-17 - Action HS-9.1: Do we need this study?
HS-23 -Action HS-10:1 : Once they make the contact, then what? Does this really have any
meaning?
HS-27 - Policy HS-12.1: Do we really mean "all new development"
HS-28 - Policy HS-12.7: Should we da this study?
HS-38 - Policy HS-17.2: Delete "single family and multi-family"
HS-38 - Policy HS-17.5: Do we want to make this decision?
HS-39 - Policy HS-17.3: Should we do this study?
HS-40 - Policy HS-18.1: Change "Require" to "Encourage"
Page HS-40 - Policy HS-18.2: Is this realistic?
Page HS-43 - Policy HS-20.1: Is this really what we want to do? Can it be worded better?
Page HS-44 -Action HS-20.1: Is this really what we want? Do we want to require this of, for
example, a single home in the hillside?
Page HS-46 - HS Action-21.1: Study the feasibility of constructing a reuse center for
building materials from remodeled and demolished buildings. (what is a reuse center...I
thought a recycling center, and Diane's question is would we really consider building one in
our Town?).
Other:
Why are Fire and Police in Human Services? Shouldn't they be in Safety?
There should be more historical context for police and fire in the Human Services element.
4
Overall organization -Move water, wastewater and garbage/recycling from Human Services to
environrnent. Move police and fire to safety from Human Services.
N:\DEWOEL\GNRLPLAN\GP2010\TC\CouucdCommeutsCombinedFocusAreas8-16Final.docx
THIS PAGE
INTENTIONALLY
LEFT BLANK
Council Comments (Non-Focus Areas)
Vason Lisht Rail:
VLR-9 -Action 5.2: Should we promise trail connection if water district opposes because of
habitat impacts?
VLR Policy-3.6: Should we remove "air rights"
Sa y:
Page SAF-8 -Policy SAF-1.12 and Action SAF-1.3: Do we need to clarify if maintain actually
means retain and/or that the buildings being referred to are those owned by town (not hospitals,
for example).
Page SAF-9 -SAF Action-1.5: Should this be moved to Emergency Preparedness section?
Page SAF-11, under Goal SAF-2: Add a Policy for secondary emergency egress for houses in
fire areas?
Page SAF-12, under Goal SAF-3: Add an action item about evacuation plans for high risk areas?
Page SAF-15, under Goal SAF-4: Should we add another Policy under Goa14 as recommended
by the Santa Clara Valley Water District regarding storm run-off?
N:\DEVITOEL\GNRLPLAN\GP2010\TC\CouncIlCommentsCombinedOther. docx
1
ATTAC@1LNT 15
THIS PAGE
INTENTIONALLY
LEFT BLANK
Staff Recommended Changes (Non-Focus Areas)
Vision:
Page VIS-4, First Paragraph
Preserving the small-town character of Los Gatos requires attention to a collection of related
issues, including human scale of development, historic preservation, density and intensity,
population growth, Downtown preservation, development in the Highway 85/North Forty area,
congestion, open space, views of the hills, the „ type of businesses located in Town,
protection of the Town's various neighborhoods and community design.
Vasona Light Rail:
VLR (General)
Staff will take out all references to the VLR being located in the Highway 85 median.
Page VLR-5 -Policy VLR-1.5
Policy VLR-1.5 Encourage parcel assembly in the East Los Gatos Boulevard sub-area to provide
greater design flexibility and minimize driveways along Los Gatos Boulevard. (V.P.8.4 -
revised)
The reference to East Los Gatos Boulevard sub-area if the name of the sub-area. The sub-area is
on the east side of Los Gatos Boulevard. Please see Figure VLR-1 on Page VLR-3.
Page VLR-6 -Policy VLR-2.3
Policy VLR-2.1 Encourage development of residential rental units throughout the Vasona Light
Rail area. Residential development proposals shall demonstrate how they address the Town's
unmet housing_eoals for affordable housing- (V.P.8.2 and V.P.2.1 -revised)
P(117F i7TD 11 D 'A 1 A 1.,«.«..«• ....7 ,. ..,:+1.:« +t. ,. ~~,... ~... ,, r.~t+ n__i _"__ _i__~i
Y
~«.,.«..+«..+e 4..... +1.,... ,..7,7xaa.n_+1.o T....,«~... «..,.+ 1.,.,,..;«....,...1.. F CC ,7 1.7 1. R7 D 7 1
b b ~\
--revised
Policy VLR-2.3: Proposed mixed use projects in the Vasona Light Rail area which include
residential uses shall assist the Town in meeting its housing goals of providing rental units and
affordable housing. (V.L8.2 -revised)
Page VLR-6 -Policy VLR-3.1
Policy VLR-3.1: Mixed-use proposals within the Vasona Light Rail area shall address how the
proposed uses within the mixed use development would be compatible and synergistic with each
other. (V.P.2.2 -revised)
Page VLR-6 -Policy VLR-3.2
Policy VLR-3.2: Mixed-use commercial/market rate and/or affordable housing developments
may be considered in the ~' T '- Vasona L~-ht Rail area. (V.P.5.3 -revised)
1
ATTACHMENT 16
Page VI.R-7 -Policy VLR-3.8
D1' VTD 7PT 1. V.......... T:,.l.+D..:1 ., .7 -__ 1 4'
J o
N:\DEV\JOEL\GNRLPLAN\GP2010\TC\S taffChangesOther.docx
RESOLUTION 2010-
RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS RECOM1vIENDING CERTIFI-
CATION OF THE ENVIliONMENTAL IbIPACT REPORT AND ADOPTION OF THE 2020 GENERAL,
PLAN.
WHEREAS, the Town of Los Gatos has prepared the 2020 General Plan to enhance General Plan 2000 in the
four focus areas of parks and recreation, environment and sustainability, youth needs, and senior needs, along with the
Environmental Impact Report (EIR); and
WHEREAS, the implementation of the 2020 General Plan is intended to pxeseroe the small town character of
Los Gatos, enhance the community vision established in the 2000 General Plan and support a sustainable community;
and
WHEREAS, the 2020 General Plan establishes goals, policies and actions to maintain and achieve these desir-
able attributes; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code section G5351, numerous opportunities were provided for the in-
volvement of citizens, public agencies, public utilities, and various civic groups through, among other things, through the
meetings of the General Plan Advisory Committee and the General Plan Committee over atwo-year period; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code section 65352, the Draft 2020 General Plan and the Draft EIR
were circulated to all applicable public agendes and interested civic groups; and
WHEREAS, under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA
Guidelines, the Town of Los Gatos pxepaxed responses to comments on environmental issues, which responses clarify
or correct information contained in the Draft EIR, providing good-faith reasoned analysis supported by factual infor-
mation, and the comments and responses thereto, were pxepaxed and published in a Final Environmental Impact Report
("Final EIR"); and
WHEREAS, under the provisions of the Government Code and the California Environmental Quality Act,
the Planning Commission conducted duly noticed public hearings regarding certification of the Final ELR and adoption
of the General Plan on June 23 and 30, 2010, and recommended that the Los Gatos Town Council certify the Final EIR
and adopt the 2020 General Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended adoption of the 2020 General Plan, and the Los Gatos
Town Councl considered all recommendations made by the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the Los Gatos Town Council conducted duly noticed public hearings and received public testi-
mony about the 2020 General Plan and the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on August 2 and 16, 2010; and
WHEREAS, on August 16, 2010, the Los Gatos Town Council found that the Final EIR fox the 2020 General
Plan as recommended fox certification by the Planning Commission, was pxepazed in compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act and guidelines and is complete;
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: The Los Gatos Town Council certifies the Final Environmental Im-
pact Report (Final EIR) subject to the Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations in Exhibit A, attached here-
to;
ATTAC6M"E~1 i 17
FURTHER RESOLVED: The Los Gatos Town Council finds that the 2020 Genexal Plan is consistent with
the goals of the community and that all proceedings have been conducted in compliance with the provisions of Gov-
ernment Code Section 65350 et seq.
FURTHER RESOLVED: The Los Gatos Town Council adopts the 2020 General Plan dated August 2010.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Los Gatos, California,
held on the 16th day of August, 2010 by the following vote:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
Is/Diane McNutt
IvLYOROF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
LOS GATOS, CALIFORNLI
/s/
CLERK. OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
LOS GATOS, CALIFORNLI
Exhibit A
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION I. CEQA TOWN OF LOS GATOS 2020 GENERAL PLAN EIR STATEMENT OF FIND-
INGS
1.0 Introducfion ............................................................................................................................. .................................................1-1
2.0 Purpose and Background ....................................................................................................... ................................................. 1-2
3.0 General Findings ..................................................................................................................... .................................................1-5
4.0 FindingsRegaxdingLess-Than-Significant Impacts ........................................................ ..................................................1-9
5.0 Findings Regazding Significant Unavoidable Impacts ..................................................... ........
.......................................... 1-9
6.0 Findings Related to Cumulative Impacts .......................................................................... ................................................1-12
7.0 Findings Regarding Monitoring of Mitigation Measures ................................................ ................................................1-13
8.0 FindingsRegaxdingAltematives .......................................................................................... ................................................1-13
9.0 Growth-Inducing Impacts .................................................................................................... ................................................1-17
SECTION II. TOWN OF LOS GATOS GENERAL PLAN 2020 STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CON-
1.0 Statement of Overriding Considerations
II-1
i
THIS PAGE
INTENTIONALLY
LEFT BLANK
SECTION I
THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS 2020 GENERAL PLAN EIR
STATEMENT OF FINDINGS
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Section 1.1 of this document provides a description of CEQ?, Statute s and Regulations regarding findings related to a
project. Section 1.2 provides a description of the public review process that has lead decision makers to they conclu-
sions regarding this proposed 2020 General Plan. Section 2.0 presents the propose and background of the project, in-
cluding a Project Description to familiarize the reader with the 2020 General Plan and to provide the context upon
which these Findings axe based. Section 3.0 of this document presents the substantiation fox certification of the Final
EIR. The Findings in Section 4.0 relate to those impacts that have been determined to be less than significant. Section
5.0 contains Findings fox impacts that axe considered significant and unavoidable. Section 6.0 contains the Findings for
cumulative impacts, and Section 7.0 contains Findings regarding monitoring of mitigation measures. Section 8.0 con-
tains Findings regarding the alternatives to the proposed 2020 General Plan. Section 9.0 contains Findings for gxowth-
inducing impacts. The Statement of Overriding Considerations in contained in Section II of tiais document.
1.1 California Environmental Quality Act
The California Environmental Quality rlct ("CEQi1 ") (Public Resow:ces Code Sections 21000-21177) and the State
CEQrl Guidelines (Cal. Code of Regulations, Title 14, Sections 15000-15387) require that specific findings be made if a
lead agency decides to approve a project which will have significant impacts. Section 21081 of the California Public Re-
sources Code states:
(NJo public agency shall approve ox carry out a project fox which an Environmental Impact Report has been cer-
tified which identifies one ox more significant effects on the environment drat would occur if the project is ap-
proved ox carried out unless bode of the following occur:
(a) The public agency makes one, ox more, of the following findings with respect to each significant effect:
(1) Changes ox alterations have been required in, ox incorporated intq the project which mitigate or
avoid the significant effects on the environment.
(2) Those changes ox alterations axe. within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency
and have been, ox can and should be, adopted by that other agency.
(3) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for
the provision of employment opportunities fox highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitiga-
tion measures ox altemadves identified in the environmental impact report.
(b) With respect to significant effects which wire subject to a finding under paragraph (3) of subdivision (a),
the public agency fords that specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, ox other benefits of
the project outweigh the significant effects on the environment."
The Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") fox the Town of Los Gatos 2020 General Plan (State Clearinghouse No.
2009032078) identifies significant ox potentially sigxuftcant environmental impacts, which, prior to mitigation as well as
after mitigation implementation, may occur as a result of implementation of the Town of Los Gatos 2020 General Plan
("General Plan"). Thus, in accordance with the provisions of CEQ~1 Statute and the State CEQd Guidelines, the Town
of Los Gatos, as the "lead agency" hereby adopts these Findings.
1.2 Environmental Review Process
Design, Community & Environment Town of Los Gatos 2020 General Plan
II-1 Findings of Pact and Statement of Overriding Considerations'
In conformance with CEQr1 Statute and the State CEQA Guidelines, the Community Development Department of the
Town o£ Los Gatos conducted an environmental review of the~pxoposed 2020 General Plan. The environmental review
process has included the following:
Initial Study/Scoping Process:
The Community Development Department of the Town of Los Gatos prepared a Notice of Pxepazation (NOP)
and Initial Study for the proposed CEQA Project is accordance with Section 15082 of the CEQA Guidelines. The
NOP was distributed for public review on btaxch 23, 2009. Environmental issues raised by comments received in
response to the NOP during its 30-day public review period were considered for inclusion in the Draft EIR Public
and agenry comments receive on the NOP were reviewed and incorporated into the Draft EIR. '
Pursuant to Section 15060(C) of the CEQr1 Guidelines, and Section 21083.8 of the State CEQd Statute, the Com-
munity Development Department of the Town of Los Gatosproceeded with pxepazation of an EIR. The Draft
EIR addressed environmental impacts in the following categories:
• Aesthetics
• rlix Quality .
• Biological Resources
• Cultural Resources
• Geology, Soils and Seismicity
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions
• Hazazds and Hazazdovs Materials
• Hydrology and Water Quality
• Land Use and Planning, including <lgricultural Resources
• Noise
• Population, Housing and Employment
• Public Services and Recreation
• Transportation and Circulation
• Utilities and Infrastructure
During the scoping process, the mineral resources category was eliminated from the analysis in the Draft EIR since
known mineral resources axe not significant within the Town.
• Preparation of a Dxafr EIR by the Community Development Department of the Town of Los Gatos:
The Draft EIR was distributed to Responsible Agendes, other affected agencies, and interested parties. The Notice
of Completion (NOC) of the Draft EIR was distributed as required by CEQA, including publication in the local
newspaper 1145-day public review period commenced on March 1Q 2010 and concluded or dpri126, 2010. Dur-
ing the public review period, the Draft EIR, including appendices, was made available and circulated fox public re-
view.
Public Hearings on the Draft 2020 General Plan and EIR:
A public hearing was held by the Town of Los Gatos Planning Commission on April 21, 2010 to receive public
comment on the Draft EIR. The lead agenry responded to all questions submitted verbally or in writing in the Fi-
nal EIR and subsequent memorandums.
• Ptepazadon of the Final EIR:
Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21092.5, the Town prepazed the Final EIR in response to comments on
the Draft EIR. The Final EIR contains the following. refinements and clarifications to the Draft EIR, written
comments received on the Draft EIR; responses to those comments; and testimony presented to the Planni a
Commission and responses thereto. The Final EIR was issued on June 16, 2010.
2.0 PURPOSE AND BACAGROUND
Design, Community & Envuonrnent Town of Los Gatos 2020 General PLw
II-2 Findings of Fact and Statement of Oveniding Considerations-
2.1 Description of the Project
These findings relate to the project, the Town of Los Gatos 2020 General Plan. The project includes all of the Town of
Los Gatos within the town limits and land within its Sphere of Influence (SOI).
The Town of Los Gatos is a 14squaze-mile community located in the southwestern area of Santa Clara County com-
monly referred to as Silicon Valley. Los Gatos is positioned in the southeast foothills of the Santa Cruz Mountains, ap-
pxoximately 25 miles east of the Pacific Ocean and 43 miles south of San Francisco.
The Draft 2020 General Plan is the basis fox the Town's land use and development policy, representing the basic com-
munity values, ideals and aspirations governing development and conservation in Los Gatos through the year 2020. The
Draft 2020 General Plan addresses all aspects of development including ]and use, community character, transportation,
housing, public facilities, infrastructure, parks and open space, among other topics.
California Government Code Section 65300 requires the General Plan to be comprehensive and internally consistent.
The General Plan must provide long-term guidance fox the community. The General Plan must address all issues speci-
fied by State law and can be organized in a way that is most appropriate fox the Town of Los Gatos.
The proposed Dxafr 2020 General Plan carries forward the majority of General Plan 2000 and also includes: a revised
General Plan structure with new goals, polities and actions focusing on parks and recreation, youth needs, senior needs
and environment and sustainability; and a comprehensive update to the Town's Housing Element, in compliance with
Government Code Section 65588.
It should be noted that the Draft 2020 Genexat Plan proposes few changes to the land use designations as specified in
the General Plan 2000 and subsequent amendments thereto. The 2020 General Plan goals, policies, and actions address
buildout conditions within the Town and aims to accommodate anticipated population growth. There axe approximately
28,800 residents cuaendy located within the Town of Los Gatos.
The overall objectives of the Draft 2D20 General Plan aze to ensure that Los Gatos:
• Maintains the small town character of the Town.
• Is afull-service community that is also environmentally sensitive.
• Maintains a balanced, well-designed mix of residential, commercial, service and open space uses, fostering a pedes-
trian-oriented community consistent with a small town character.
• Maintains and expands existing park and open space land to maintain and enhance quality of life and promote sus-
tainability, ox the long-term well-being of the environment and community.
• Meets the changing needs of the Town's youth and senior populations.
Supports an active business communirythatpxovides ~ wide variety-afgoods and-services and abroad-range of em-
ployment opportunities, minimising the need to navel to other communities.
• Provides swell-run, effident munidpal government that is fiscally healthy with high levels of public safety, recrea-
tional, art and cultural amenities and that is committed to high quality of life.
• Promotes a sustainable and environmentally conscience community through conservation of resources, reduction of
.greenhouse gas emissions, and smart-growth practices.
• Provides housing that meets the needs of a diverse community.
2.2 Purpose of the EIR
Design, Community & Environment Town of Los Gatos 2020 General Plan
R-3 Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Pursuant to CEQA, Public Resources Code sections 21000 et seq., and the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regu-
latioas, Title 14, Seciion 15000 et seq., (collectively, "CEQA"), the lead agenry prepared an EIR fox the 2020 General
Plan to analyze the environmental effect of the 2020 General Plan. The Draft EIR was circulated fox public review fox a
45-day period between March 10, 2010 and April 26, 2010, in accordance with CEQA. Responses to comments were
prepared and axe contained in the Final EIR. The Town of Los Gatos is the CEQA `9ead agenry" for the 2020 General
Plan. The EIR was pxepazed by Design, Community & Environment (DC&E) fox the Community Development De-
partment of the Town of Los Gatos.
2.3 The Use of a Ptogtam EIR
The CEQA Guidelines identify several types of EIRs, each applicable to different project circumstances. This EIR has
been pxepazed as a Program EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15168 to accommodate a complete analysis of
all of the components of the 2020 General Plan.
A Program EIR is an EIR that may be pxepazed on a series of actions that can be characterized as one lazge project and
ate related in one of the following ways:
a) Geographically;
b) As logical parts in the chain of contemplated actions;
c) In connection with issuance of Hiles, regulations, plans, ox other general criteria to govern the conduct of a
continuing program; ox
d) As individual activities carried out under the same authorizing statutory ox regulatory authority and having gen-
erally similar environmental effects which can be miflgated in a similar way.
A Program EIR enables the lead agency to consider broad environmental implications of development at an early stage
in the process, sometimes when the project is still at a conceptual level, recognizing that a series of actions will occur
prior to development. Because they aze prepared relatively early on, Program EIRs allow greater Ilexibility in dealing
with overall development options, basic environmental issues, and cumulative impacts.
The Program EIR idenflfies and mitigates the effects of the overall program of development to the extent that they aze
known at this time. The lead agenry incorporates feasible mitigation measures developed in the Program EIR into sub-
sequent actions to implement the program. Requests fox approval of subsequent entitlements in the program must be
examined in light of the Program EIR to determine whether additional environmental review must be conducted. If the
agenry Ends that pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15162, no new effects could occur and no new mitigation is
required, the agency can approve the activity as being within the scope of the Program EIR. However, if a latei activity
would have effects that were not e.amined in the Program EIl~ additional environmental review w_ ould need, to _be. con-
ducted and additional opportunities for public review provided as appropriate under CEQA. Additional environmental
review is required fox subsequent discretionary approvals requested of the lead agenry to implement the program, if,
pursuant to section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines, the following circumstances occur:
a) Substantial changes axe proposed to the project description;
b) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under wMch The project is undertaken (such as
new regulatory requirements adopted relevant to the project); ox
Design, Community & Environment ~ Town of Los Gatos 2020 General Plan
LI-4 Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
c) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the
exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was cerhified, identifies new ox mote severe im-
pacts from those identified in the program EIR ox if new mitigation measures can be identified to offset im-
pacts of the project.
2.4 Description of the Record
Fox purposes of CEQA and these Endings, the record before the Town includes, without limitation, the following:
1) The NOP;
2) The Draft EIR and all appendices to the Draft EIR;
3) The Final EIR and all appendices to the Final EIR;
4) All notices required by CEQA, staff reports and presentation materials related to the 2020 General Plan;
5) All studies conducted fox the 2020 General Plan and contained in, ox referenced by, staff reports, the Draft
EIR, or the Final EIR;
6) All public reports and documents related to the 2020 General Plan prepared fox the Town and other agendes;
'n All documentary and oral evidence received and reviewed at public hearings and workshops and all transcripts
and minutes of those hearings related to the 2020 General Plan, the Draft EIR, and the Final EIR;
8) For documentary and informational purposes, all locally-adopted land use plans and ordinances, including,
without limitation, specific plans and ordinances, master plans together with environmental review documents,
findings, mitigation monitoring programs and other documentation relevant to planned growth in the area; and
9) Any additional items not included above if they are required bylaw.
2.5 Discretionary Actions
The discretionary action fox the proposed project involves the following approval by the Los Gatos Town Council:
1) Adoption of the 2020 General Plan.
These Endings are made by the Town pursuant to Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines. The Town is also adopting a
"Statement of Overriding Considerations" pursuant to Section 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines.
3.0 GENERAL FINDINGS
3.1 Tetmiuology of Findings
Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines requires that, fox each significant environmental effect identified in an EIR fox a
proposed project, the approving agency must issue a written finding reaching one ox more of three allowable conclu-
sions. The first is that "[c]hanges or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the~project which avoid ox
substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the [Final] EIR." The second potential finding is
that "[s]uch changes ox alterations axe within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agenry and not the
agency making the fmding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agenry ox can and should be adopted by
Design, Community & Environment Town of Los Gatos 2020 General Plan
II-5 Findings of Fact and Statement of Ovuriding Considerations
such other agency." The third pemilssible conclusion is that "[s]pecific economic, social, ox other considerations make
infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR."
For purposes of these findings, the term "mitigation measures" shall constitute the "changes ox alterations" discussed
above. The term "avoid ox substantially lessen" will refer to the effectiveness of one ox more of the mitigation measures
ox alternatives to reduce an otherwise significant environmental effect to ales-than-significant level.
In the process of adopting mitigation, the Town will also be making decisions on whether each mitigation measure pro-
posed in the Draft EIR is feasible ox infeasible. Pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines, "feasible means capable of being
accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental,
legal, social, and Yechnological factors." (CEQA Guidelines, § 15364.) When the Town finds a measure is not feasible,
evidence fox its decision will be provided.
3.2 Certification of Final Environmental Impact Report and Adoption of Findings
On August 16, 2010, the Town Council of the Town of Los Gatos certified the Environmental Impact Report (SCH
No. 2009032078) (the "EIR") fox the 2020 General Plan ("Plan") (Resolution # _). Based upon the substantial evi-
dence in the record, the Town of Los Gatos finds and declares as stated herein.
3.3 The Town of Los Gatos is the "lead agency" fox the Plan evaluated in the EIR. The Los Gatos Town Council
concurs with the Planning Commission recommendations and supports the findings by the Town of Los Gatos
that the EIR has been prepared incompliance with CEQA Statute and the State CEQA Guidelines.
3.4 The EIR evaluates the following environmental issues
• Aesthetics
• Air Quality
• Biological Resources
• Cultural Resources
• Geology, Sods and Seismicity
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions
• Hazards and Hazardous Materials
• Hydrology and Water Quality
• Land Use and Planning, including Agricultural Resources
• Noise
• Population, Housing and Employment
• Public Services and Recreation
~ Transportation and Circulation
• Utilities and Infxastmctuxe
The EIR considered the significant and unavoidable environmental effects, if any, in each of these environmental
issue areas in Chapter 4 of the Draft EIR. Additionally, the Draft EIR considered the following issues in sepa-
rate sections: Cumulative Impacts; Significant Unavoidable Impacts; Alternatives to the 2020 General Plan;
Gmwth-Inducing Effects as a result of the 2020 General Plan; and Significant Irreversible Changes as a result of
the 202D General Plan.
The cumulative impacts of the 2020 General Plan and other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future pro-
jects were considered in the EIR as required by CEQA (Public Resources Code Section 21083) and the State
CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15130). The cumulative analysis at the end of each
Design, Community & Environment Town of Los Gatos 2020 General Plan
IL-6 Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
section in Chapter 4 of the Draft EIR includes an analysis of future environmental conditions in the Town of Los
Gatos and surrounding areas to the extent required in order to determine the significance of the Plan's incxemen-
talcontribution to cumulative impacts.
The cumulative impacts analysis in each section of Chapter 4 in the EIR concluded that all cumulative impacts re-
sulting from implementation of the proposed Plan would either be less than significant ox mitigable to a less-
than-significant level. These impacts axe summarized in Section 6.0 of this document.
3.5 The Los Gatos Town Council finds that the Draft EIR and Final EIR provide objective information to assist the
Town's decision-makers and the public-at-large in their consideration of the environmental consequences of the
proposed 2020 General Plan. 'The public review period provided all interested jurisdictions, agencies, private or-
ganizations, and individuals the opportunity to submit comments regarding the Dxafr EIR. The Final EIR was
pxepazed after the public review period and responds to comments made during the public review period (blaxch
10, 2010 tluough rlpxil 2G, 2010), as well as those made at, ox prior to the noticed public meetings and/ox public
hearings on the issues relevant to the Draft EIR. The Final EIR also includes a summary of the oral and written
comments made prior to the Planning Commission Public Hearing and responses to those comments.
The Los Gatos Town CouncIl finds that the Community Development Department evaluated comments on en-
vironmental issues received from persons who reviewed the Draft EIR. In accordance with CEQi1 Statute, the
Community Development Department prepared written responses describing the disposition of significant envi-
ronmental issues raised. The Final EIR provides adequate, good faith, and reasoned responses to the comments
received by the Community Development Department. The Community Development Department has re-
viewed the comments received and responses thereto and has determined that neither the comments received nor
the responses to such comments add significant new information regarding environmental impacts to the Draft
EIR consistent with Public Resources Code Section 21092.1 and CEQr1 Guidelines Section 15088.5. Specifically,
changes resulting from comments made on the Draft EIR do not result in the following:
1. A significant new environmental impact that would result from the 2020 General Plan ox an adopted
mitigation measure;
2. A substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact that is not reduced to a level of less
than significaht by adopted mitigation measures;
3. A feasible Project alternative ox mitigation measure not adopted that is considerably different from oth-
ers analyzed in the Draft EIR that would deafly lessen the significant environmental impacts of the
2020 General Plan; ox
4. Information that indicates that the public was deprived of a meaningful opportunity to review and
comment on the Draft EIR.
The Town of Los Gatos' decision-makers have based their recommendation on full appraisal of all viewpoints,
including all comments received up to the date of adoption of these Findings, concerning the environmental im-
pacts identified and analyzed in the EIR.
3.6 These findings axe based upon substantial evidence in the entire record before the Town as described in Section
2.4.
The references to the Draft EIR and Final EIR set forth in these findings aze fox ease of reference and axe not
intended to provide an exhaustive list of the evidence relied upon fox these findings.
3.7 These Findings reflect the Los Gatos Town Council's final recommendation regarding the significance of impacts
of the proposed 2020 General Plan as approved by the Los Gatos Town Council.
Design, Community & Environment Town of Los Gatos 2020 General Plan
II-7 Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
3.8 The Los Gatos Town Council certifies that it has independently reviewed and analyzed the Draft EIR and that
the Community Development Department circulated a Draft E1R, which reflected its independent judgment.
3.9 The Los Gatos Town Councfl certifies that the Final EIl2 reflects the independent judgment of the lead agenry,
identified as the Community Development Department, as well as the Los Gatos Town Council.
3.t0 CEQA defines the term "project" as the whole of an action ox "activity wMch is being approved and which may
be subject to several discretionary approvals by govexnmentaL agencies." Accordingly, the Los Gatos Town
Council has certified the EIR. and the Los Gatos Town Council is approving and adopting Findings for the en-
tirety ofthe actions described in these Findings and in the EIR as comprising the Project.
It is contemplated that there may 6e a variety of discretionary actions undertaken by other State and local agen-
des (who might be referred to as "responsible agencies" under CEQA), concerning the Project, including without
limitation:
• California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG)
• California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal EPA)
• Federal Emergency Management Agenry (FEMA)
• State of California Office of Planning and Research (OPR)
• State Department of Health, Tonic Substances Control Division (DTSC)
• California Department of Transportation (Caltxans)
• California Regional Water Quality Control Boazd (RWQCB)
• Bay Axea ilir Quality Management District (BAAQMD)
• U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE)
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
Other agendes, organizations, and/or special interest groups not formally identified as a responsible agency, but
otherwise anticipated to be participants in the local review process fox the 2020 General Plan include:
• Santa Clara Valley Water District
• Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E)
• Valley Transportation Authority
• City of San Jose
• City of Saratoga
• City of Campbell
• City of Monte Sexeno
Because the Town of Los Gatos is the lead agenry fox the Plan, the EIR which the Community Development
Department of the Town of Los Gatos has prepared is intended to be the basis fox compliance with CEQA fox
each of the possible discretionary actions by other state and local agencies to carry out the Plan.
3.11 The Los Gatos Town Council believes that its decision on the Plan is one which must be made after a hearing
required by law at which evidence is required and discretion in the determination of facts is vested in the Los Ga-
tos Town Council. As a result, any judicial review of this decision would be governed by Public Resources Code
§21168 and Code of Civil Procedure §1094.5. Regardless of the standazd of review which is applicable, the Los
Gatos Town Council has considered evidence and arguments presented to the Planning Commission and Com-
munityDevelopment Department of the Town of Los Gatos prior to ox at the public hearings on this matter In
determining whether the Plan has a significant impact on the environment, and in adopting Findings pursuant to
Public Resources Code §21081, the Town has complied with Public Resources Codes §21082.2 and §21081.5.
Design, Community & Environment Town of Los Gatos 2020 General Plan
II-8 Findings of Fact and Smtement of Ovexridiag Consideradons•
3.12 The Los Gatos Town Council finds and declazes that the 2020 General Plan is expected to have a "lifetime" of
appxoximatelp 10 yeazs, beginning when the Plan is implemented and running to the year 2020.
3.13 The Los Gatos Town Councfl finds and dedaxes that the EIR analyzes the Plan in its full size and extent.
3.14 The EIR analyzed all reasonably foreseeable extensions, expansions ox alterations of the Plan. The EIR analyzed,
to the extent feasible at this time, the environmental effects of implementation of the 2020 General Plan. The
Los Gatos Town Council hereby finds and declares that at this time there axe no reasonably foreseeable exten-
sions, expansions ox alterations of the Plan which axe not described in the EIR, based on the administrative xec-
oxd before the Los Gatos Town Council at the time of its final decision on the Plan.
3.15 Having received, reviewed, and considered the above described information, as well as all other information and
documents in [he record, the Los Gatos Town Council hereby conditions the Plan and finds as stated in these
Findings.
3.16 Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 and California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15091,
the Town of Los Gatos is the custodian of the documents and other material that constitute the record of pro-
ceedings upon which the Town's derision is based, and such documents and other material axe located at: Town
of Los Gatos Community Development Department, 110 East Main Street, Los Gatos, California, 95030.
4.0 FINDINGS REGARDING LESS-THAN-SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The EIR identified the thresholds of significance utilized to determine the impacts in the various resource categories
discussed below. The EIR finds that these axe less-than-significant environmental impacts in the following subject areas:
• rlesthedcs
• Biological Resources
• Cultural Resources
• Geology, Soils and Seismirity
• Hazazdous Materials and Safety
• Hydrology and Water Quality
• Noise
• Population and Housing
• Public Services and Recreation
• Utilities and In&astructuxe
The Town is not required to adopt mitigation measures or adopt policies as part of the General Plan fox impacts that axe
less than significant.
5.0 FINDINGS REGARDING SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
The EIR sets forth environmental effects of the General Plan that would be significant and unavoidable. These impacts
cannot be avoided ox reduced to aless-than-significant level even with the adoption of all feasible mitigation measures
proposed in the EIR. In adopting these findings, the Town also adopts a Statement of Overriding Considerations set-
ting forth the economic, social and other benefits of the proposed Project that will render these significant effects ac-
ceptable.
5.1 Ail Quality
Design, Community & Environment Town of Los Gatos 2020 General Plan
II-9 Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
5.1.1 Significant and Unavoidable Impact
Imnact AO-1: The proposed Draft 202D General Plan would be inconsistent with applicable clean air planning
efforts of B1,AQbID, as projected Wi iTs that could occur under the proposed Draft 2020 Gen-
eral Plan would increase at a greater rate than population growth.
5.1.2 Mitigation Adopted by the Town
The Draft 2020 General Plan includes extensive goals, policies and actions that would reduce V14T within the Town.
These goals, policies and actions would reduce air quality impacts from Wi fT to the extent feasible, and no additional
mitigation is available.
5.1.3 Facts in Support of Findings
The Draft 2020 General Plan includes extensive goals, policies and actions that aim to reduce vehicle reliance and VM"P
within the Town. The goals and policies of the proposed Draft 2020 General Plan would encourage local and regional
transit services, improve biryde and pedestrian networks, provide altematlves to automotive transportation and land use
decisions which would help to reduce the increased rate of VMT as compared to that associated with automotive
transportation only. Goal ENV-8 and associated Policies ENV-8.1 through ENV-8.5 would strive to reduce overall
greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 by encouraging carpooling and alternative transportation, promoting
local employment opportunities and encouraging the use of non-polluting fuels by including natural gas fueling stations
and electric charging stations. Policy LU-2.1 addresses the reduction of VMTs by encouraging puroeyoxs of goods and
services to be located within walking distance of Town neighborhoods. In addition, Goals TRA-8 and TRA-9
encourage mass transit and alternative modes of transportation to reduce vehide reliance. In support of those goals,
Policies TRA-8.1 through TRA-8.8 and TR<1-9.1 through TRd-9b encouage non-polluting alternatives to travel
including walking, biking, public transit; and encourage the development of mass transportation systems in the Town.
Goal TRA-10, Policies TRA-10.1 through TRA-10.6, and Actions TRA-10.1 through TRA-10.4 and fiction TRA-5.4
specifically address increased levels of biking and walking within the Town.
Additionally, Goals VLR-1, VLR-3 and VLR-9 promote the construction of the Vasona Light Rail and mass transit
facilities and encourage mixed-use development to reduce traffic impacts. Associated Policies VLR-1.1 through 1.3,
VLR-3.2 through VLR-3.5 and VLR-9.1 through VLR-93 encourage the construction of the Vasona Light Rail and
encourage mixed use development in the vicinity of the Vasona Light Rail.
However, although the policies and actions identified above would effectively reduce traffic impacts, the projected
growth in vehicle travel could still lead to an increase in regional VNfT beyond that anticipated in B~QMD's clean air
planning efforts because BAAQMD's cuuent clean air plan was adopted ten years ago and did not anticipate the full
range of projects and development currently anticipated by the Town of Los Gatos. As a result, development in Los
Gatos would contribute to the on-going air quality issues of attaining ozone ambient air quality standards in the Basin.
5.2 Gxeeahouse Gas Emissions
5.2.1 Significant and Unavoidable Impacts
Imnact GHG-1: Although goals, policies, and actions in the 2020 General Plan would reduce GHG emissions by
25.5 percent, implementation of the Draft 2020 General Plan would not achieve the 28- to 33-
pexcent reduction from "business as usual" required by Assembly Bill 32.
Imnact GHG-2: Significant adverse physical impacts from the effects of global climate change hazazds would have
an adverse impact on the Town.
Design, Community & Environment Town of Las Gatos 2020 General Plan
II-10 Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
5.2.2 Mitigation Adopted by the Town
The Town of Los Gatos shall prepare and implement a Climate Action Plan pursuant to Environment and Sustainability
Element Action ENV-7.1 to direct its community-level GHG emission reduction efforts. As part of the Climate Action
Plan the Town shall prepare a climate change preparedness analysis to address Town adaptation to climate change.
5.2.3 Facts in Support of Findings
Goals, policies and actions contained in the 2020 General Plan axe estimated to reduce GHG emissions by 25.5 percent.
Action ENV-7.1 in particular calls fox the preparation and implementation of a Climate Actioa Plan. The Climate Ac-
tion Plan shall be incorporated into the 2020 General Plan and shall be a fully enforceable document that establishes
quantified emissions reductions tazgets and identifies strategies and measures the Town will undertake to reach its tar-
gets. The Climate Action Plan shall also include a climate change preparedness analysis to address Town adaptation to
climate change. Every two years, the Town shall monitor and report on progress toward the emissions reduction targets.
Until the Climate Action Plan is prepared and GHG emissions reductions axe quantified, the 2020 General Plan would
not achieve the 28- to 33-percent reduction required by Assembly Bill 32.
Additionally, the impacts of global climate change on a town-wide scale axe speculative at this time. Therefore, it would
also be speculative to quantify tfie reduction of this climate change impact from implementation of a Climate Action
Plan and assodated climate change preparedness analysis so that adverse physical impacts from the effects of global cli-
mate change hazards would remain significant and unavoidable.
5.3 Land Use and Planning, Including Agricultural Resources
5.3.1 Significant and Unavoidable Impact
Imnact LU-1: Implementation of the 2020 General Plan would result in the conversion of Unique Farmland to non-
agricultuxal use. The Draft 2020 General Plan calls fox development under the North Forty Specific
Plan Overlay that would be incompatible with continued agricultural use of the property.
5.3.2 Mitigation Adopted liy the Town
Since development is incompatible with continued agriculture on the site, there aze no feasible mitigation measures to
reduce this impact.
5.3.3 Facts in Support of Findings
Development on this site is critical to helping the Town meet its Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RF~Td) and
meeting other objectives of the 2020 General Plan, including maintaining a balance of uses, supporting an active bust-.
ness community, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and providing housing. The. 2020 General Plan calls fox develop-
ment in the North Forty Specific Plan area, which is an area designated as Unique Farmland; therefore, the 2020 General
Plan would convert at least some Unique Farmland to anon-agricultural use.
5.4 Transportation and Circulation
5.4.1 Significant and Unavoidable Impact
Imnact TRA-1: With the implementation of the roadway and intexsecdon improvements identified in the 2020 Gen-
eral Plan in the Transportation Element, transportation impacts would be fully mitigated. However,
Design, CommuniTy & Environment Town of Los Gatos 2020 General Plan
IL-11 Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
because there axe currently no dedicated funding sources identified fox the improvements, it cannot
be concluded that the improvements will be funded and completed at the time they axe needed Eor
mitigation to the Town level-of-service operational standard.
5.4.2 Mitigation Adopted by the Town
The Town shall create a dedicated funding source fox implementation of transportation improvements identified in the
Plan.
5.4.3 Facts in Support of Findings
The 2020 General Plan includes a~ number of policies to address future impacts to the capacity of the roadway system.
Goal TRd-1 and Policy TRA-1.1 requires that development not exceed transportation capacity and to develop transpor-
tation systems that meet current and future needs of residents and businesses. Policy TRA-3.3 calls fox an evaluation of
all new developments to ensure that they axe in compliance with the Town's LOS intersection policy; Polity TRA-3.4
states that new projects shall not cause an intersection at LOS of Level A, B, ox C to drop more than one level and an
intersection at LOS of D ox below to drop at all; and Policy TRA-3.5 states that if a new project causes an intersection
LOS to drop more than one level from Level A, B, ox C ox to drop at all from Level D ox below, the project shall miti-
gate traffic so that the LOS will remain at an acceptable level.
In addition, Action TRA-3.1 will implement the local roadway improvements listed the Transportation Element of the
2020 General Plan in the Capital Improvements Program (CIP). With the implementation of these improvements, no
intersections will operate below the acceptable level of LOS D. A dedicated funding source for ~txansportation im-
provements would ensure that improvements axe completed at the time they axe needed to mitigate the capacity of the
existing circulation system. Until dedicated funding sources have been identified fox the improvements, implementation
of the 2020 General Plan would potentially exceed the capacity of the existing circulation system.
6.0 FINDINGS RELATED TO CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
CEQA Guidelines require consideration of the potential cumulative impacts that could result from a proposed project in
conjunction with other projects in the vicinity. Such impacts can occur when two ox more individual effects create a
considerable environmental impact ox compound other environmental consequences. In the case of a town-wide plan-
ning document such as the Town of Los Gatos 2020 General Plan, cumulative effects aze effects that combine impacts
from implementation of the Plan in the Town with effects of development in other portions of the region.
The cumulative impacts of a General Plan take into account potential impacts o; growth projections in combination
with impacts from projected growth in other cities ox counties in the region. The cumulative impact analysis examines
cumulative effects of the proposed General Plan, in combination with development in cities adjacent to Los Gatos.
Several jurisdictions and agencies were consulted as part of this analysis to identify current growth, where most intensive
growth was occurring within respective jurisdictions, and whether a substantial increase in the amount of growth was
expected in the foreseeable future. The jurisdictions consulted include the following.
• County of Santa Clara
• City of Campbell
• City of Monte Sexeno
• City of Saratoga
• City of San Jose
No significant cumulative impacts were found in the EIR
Design, Community & Environment Town of Los Gatos 2020 General Plan
II-72 Findings oEFact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
7.0 FINDINGS REGARDING MONITORING OF MITIGATION MEASURES
Mitigation is provided fox 3 significant impacts in the 2020 General Plan EIR. A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Plan has been prepared fox the 2020 General Plan.
8.0 FINDINGS REGARDING ALTERNATIVES
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6 requires a discussion of a reasonable range of alternatives to the project ox to the
location of the project. However, an EIR need not consider an alternative whose implementation is remote ox specula-
tive. An EIR is required to describe and comparatively evaluate a range of reasonable alternatives to a project, ox loca-
tion of the project, that would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the pmject but would avoid or substantially
lessen any of the significant effects of the project. Thus, the range of alternatives evaluated in the Draft EIR was dictat-
ed by CEQA Guidelines and by the range of significant impacts identified in the Draft EIR and evaluated alternadves
were limited to those that theoretically could have reduced ox eliminated identified environmental impacts.
its discussed in the Draft EIR, all impacts would be less than significant, except for impacts to air quality, greenhouse
gas emissions, land use and planning, and transportation and circulation, which would remain significant and unavoida-
ble. Accordingly, two alternatives, in addition to the required No Project Altemadve, were considered and evaluated in
Chaptu 5 of the Dxafr EIR, and a summary of their potential advantages and disadvantages is provided in Table 5-2 of
the Draft EIR.
The Dxafr EIR discussed the following alternatives in detail:
A. Altemadve 1: Existing General Plan Alternative (also referred to as the No Project Alternafive);
B. Alternative 2: Medium-Density Residential Alternative; and
C. Alternative 3: Commercial Alternative.
Each of these alternatives was evaluated under the same environmental categories as presented fox the proposed project
and as identified in Chapter 4 of the Draft EIR.
Based on the comparison of the xeladve merits of each altemaflve compared to the ZD20 General Plan, each of the alter-
natives was found to be deficient in meeting the Town's goals and objectives.
The 2020 General Plan objectives axe to ensure that Los Gatos:
• Is afull-service community that is also environmentally sensitive.
• Maintains the small town chazactex of the Town.
• Maintains a balanced, well-designed mix of residential, commercial, service and open space uses, fostering a pedes-
trian-oriented community consistent with a small town chazactex.
• Maintains and expands existing park and open space land to maintain and enhance quality of life and promote sus-
tainability, or the long-term well-being of the environment and community.
• Meets the changing needs of the Town's youth and senior populations.
• Supports an active business community that provides a wide variety of goods and services and a broad range of em-
ployment opportunities, minimising the need to travel to other communities.
Design, Community & Environment Town of Los Gatos 2020 General Plan
II-13 Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
• Provides a well-run, efficient municipal government that is fiscally healthy with high levels of public safety, recrea-
tional, an and cultural amenities and that is cotumitted to high quality of life.
• Promotes a sustainable and environmentally conscience community through conservation of resources, reduction of
greenhouse gas emissions, and smart-growth practices.
• Provides housing that meets the needs of a diverse community.
Based on the compazafive evaluation contained in the Draft EIR, the proposed 2020 General Plan would reduce the
magnitude of the most impacts and would be the environmentally superior altemafive.
8.1 Alternative 1: Existing General Plan Alternative (No Project Alternative)
8.1.1 Description of Alternative 1
The No Project Alternative assumes that no updated General Plan ox updated Housing Element would be adopted and
that development would continue to occur as allowed under the existing 2000 Town of Los Gatos General Plan. The
potential housing sites identified in the Draft 2007-2014 Housing Element would not receive an Affordable Housing
Overlay Zone (AHOZ) designation and would retain the existing land use and zoning designation. The North Forty
azea would also retain its Mixed-Use Commercial (IvNC) designation, which would result in significantly more
nonresidential development in the North Forty area.
In relation to the proposed Draft 2020 General Plan and Draft 2007-2014 Housing Element, the existing General Plan
would allow approximately 540 fewer dwelling units; about 1,280 fewer people; 128,460 more square feet of
retail/service uses; 543,330 more square feet of office uses; no change in industrial uses; and about 2,100 more jobs at
the horizon buildout in 2020.
8.1.2 Rejection of Alternative 1
Chapter 5, Section A.2 of the Dxafr EB3 contains an analysis comparing the potential impacts of the 2020 General Plan
to the No Project ~lltemative. As summarized below, the No Project Alternative would represent an overall substantial
deterioration in comparison to the 2020 General Plan because it would worsen impacts to all environmental categories
except geology and soils and hazards and hazardous materials, fox which impacts would be equivalent to those found
under the 2020 General Plan, as identified in the Draft EBZ
The No Project Alternative would result in a greater amount of nonresidential development as compazed to the 2020
General Plan, mostly in the North Forty azea. The 2020 General Plan would not include a North Forty Specific Plan
Overlay designation and therefore would not set parameters for development is the North Forty Area. Additionally, the
substantial amount of nonresidential development would result in more vehicle trips and vehicle miles traveled. More
vehicle trips would lead to increased traffic noise levels, impacts on circulation, further deterioration in air quality from
mobile source emissions, and greater greenhouse gas emissions as compared to the 2020 General Plan.
Development under the No Project Alternative would create ajobs/housing imbalance, increasing the jobs-to-housing
ratio to 1.8 as compared to 1.6 under the 2020 General Plan. An optimum jobs/housing balance is typically between 1
and 1.5 fox a community. Because the No Project Alternative would not identify the housing sites in the Draft 2007-
2014 Housing Element nor apply the AHOZ to these sites, this Alternative would not meet the Regional Housing
Needs Assessment (RI-IN1,) assigned to the Town by the Assouation of Bay ilrea Governments (i.Bx1G). T'hexefoxe,
the overall jobs/housing imbalance and the inability to meet the RHNA would lead to a deterioration with respect to
population, housing and employment under the No Project Alternative.
Design, Community & Environment Town of Los Gatos 2020 General Plan
II-14 Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Nonresidential uses typically require more impervious surfaces then residential uses require, thereby potentially
increasing the amount of stoxmwatex runoff and increasing the impact on water quality as a result of greater
nonresidential development under the No Project Altemative compared to the 2020 General Plan. The No Project
Altemafive would also result in greater impacts to utilities and infrastructure because of the increase in nonresidential
development.
The No Project Altemadve would have retained the Hillside Residential designation on certain parcels that axe
inconsistent with the Ivlidpeninsula Regional Open Space District's designations. Some of these parcels retaining the
Hillside Residential designation would be inconsistent with Williamson Act contracts by allowing residential
development that could create conflicts with continuing agricultural uses on these parcels.
The No Project Altemative would not include the same level of comprehensive policy direction in areas including
aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, greenhouse gas emissions, hydrology and water quality, and
utdities and infxastructuxe.
Therefore, the Town rejects Altemative 1, the No Project Alternative.
8.2 Alternative 2: Medium Density Residential Alternative
8.2.1 Description of Alternative 2
Under the Medium Density Residential Alternative; the housing sites identified in the Draft 2007-2014 Housing Element
would also be designated fox housing, but at a density o£ 12 dwelling units (DU) per acre instead of 20 DU per acre. In
order to meet the Town's RHNA, additional underutilized sites along Blossom Hill Road and north of Highway 85
would also be designated fox medium density housing (12 DU per acre). The North Forty Specific Plan Overlay Desig-
nation would be included as part of this alternative. However, the potential development parameters of the North Forty
Specific Plan Overlay Designation would be xedef_ined to allow fox less residential and non-residential development in
the North Forty azea.
Overall, the Medium Density Residential Alternative would piovide fox approximately 190 fewer new residential units
and about 440 fewer people than the 2020 General Plan, This alternative also includes 278,460 more square feet of re-
tail/service uses, 56,670 fewer square feet of office uses and no change in industrial uses, wMch would result in approx-
imately 430 additional jobs. The goals, policies and actions contained in the proposed Draft 2020 General Plan would
apply under this alternative as well.
8.2.2 Rejection of Alternative 2
Chapter 5, Section B.2 of the Draft EIR contains an analysis comparing the potential impacts of the 2020 General Plan
to the Medium Density Residential Altematlve. As summarized below, the Medium Density Residential Alternative
would represent an overall substantial deterioration in comparison to the 2020 General Plan because it would worsen
impacts to the following environmental categories as identified in the Draft EIR: air quality, greenhouse gas emissions,
hydrology and water quality, noise, and transportation and circulation. All other environmental categories would have an
equivalent impact as found under the 2020 General Plan except xegazding public services and recreation, fox which the
Medium Density Residential rlltemative would be an insubstantial improvement as compared to the 2020 General Plan.
More nonresidential development under the Medium Density Residential Alternative would result in more vehicle trips
and vehicle miles traveled. Residential development would be of a lower density than that of the 2020 General Plan, and
this development would be spread throughout the Town. This lower density, spread-out development would further
increase vehicle miles traveled. The increase in vehicle trips and vehicle miles traveled would resort in more mobile
Design, CommuniTy & Environment Town of Las Gatos 2020 General Plan
II 15 Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
source emissions, and therefore a greater amount of greenhouse gas emissions, as compared to the 2020 General Plan.
More vehicle trips would also result in increased traffic noise levels and increased impacts to circulation.
l4oxe nonresidential development would also result in more impervious surfaces, since nonresidential uses typically
require more impervious surfaces than xesidendal uses. More impervious surfaces would potentially result in more
stormwatex runoff and therefore increase the impact on water quality as compared to the 2020 General Plan.
The Medium Density Residential ~1ltemative would include the same level of comprehensive polity direction as found
under the 2020 General Plan. However, even with this same level of polity direction, the Medium Density Residential
Altemadve would be an overall substantial deterioration as compazed to the 2020 General Plan for the impacts
described above.
Therefore, the Town rejects illtemadve 2, the Medium Density Residential dltemative.
8.3 Alternative 3: Commercial Altemative
8.3.1 Description of Altemative 3
Under the Commercial Altemative, the Draft 2007-2014 Housing Element potential housing sites located along Los
Gatos Boulevard would be designated fox non-residential development instead of residential development. In order to
meet the Town's RHNA, other underutilized sites located throughout the Town would be designated for housing at 20
DU per acre. The North Forty Specific Plan Overlay Designation would be included as part of this alternative. Howev-
er, the potential development pazametexs of the North Forty Specific Plan Overlay Designation would be redefined to
allow for less residential development and more nonresidential development in the North Forty area.
Overall, the Commercial Altemative would generate the second mast non-residential development and job growth after
the Existing General Plan ?dtemative. The Commercial Altemative would provide fox approximately 570' fewer new
residential units and about 1,340 fewer residents compared to the proposed Draft 2020 General Plan. This altemative
would also include 49,790 additional square feet of retail/service uses, 523,000 additional square feet of office uses and
no change in industrial uses, which would result in approximately 1,860 additional jobs. • The goals, policies and actions
contained in the proposed Draft 2020 General Plan would apply under this altemative.
8.3.2 Rejection of Altemative 3
Chapter 5, Section C.2 of the Draft EIR contains an analysis comparing the potential impacts of the 2020 General Plan
to the Commercial Altemative. rls summarized below, the Commercial tlltemative would represent an overall
substantial deterioration in comparison to the 2020 General Plan because it would worsen impacts to the following
environmental categories as identified in the Draft EIR: air quality; greenhouse gas emissions; hydrology and water
quality; noise; population, housing and employment; and transportation and circulation. r1ll other environmental
categories would have an equivalent impact as found under the 2020 General Plan except regarding Public Services and
Recreation, which would be the only insubstantial improvement as compared to the 2020 General Plan.
The additional nonresidential development under the Commercial rllternadve would result in a greater amount of
vehicle trips and vehicle miles traveled as compared to the 2020 General Plan. The increase in mobIle source emissions
would lead to a deterioration in air quality and an increase in greenhouse gas emissions. The increase in veMcle trips
would also result in increased traffic noise levels and impacts on circulation.
More nonresidential development would also result in more impervious surfaces, since nonresidential uses typically
require more impervious surfaces than residential uses. More impervious surfaces would potentially result in more
stormwater runoff and therefore increase the impact on water quality as compared to the 2020 General Plan.
Design, Community & Environment Town of Los Gatos 2020 Genera! Plan
LI-16 Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Development under the Commercial Altemative would also create ajobs/housing imbalance, increasing the jobs-to-
housing ratio to 1.8 as compared to 1.6 under the 2020 General Plan. The optimum jobs/housing balance is typically
between 1 and 1.5 fox a community.
The Commercial Altemative would include the same level of comprehensive polity direction as found under the 2020
General Plan. However, even with this same level of polity direction, the Commercial Altemadve would be an overall
substantial deterioration as compared to the 2020 General Plan fox the impacts described above.
Therefore, the Town rejects Alternative 3, the Commercial Altemative.
9.0 GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS
Chapter 6, Section A of the Draft EIR presents the growth-inducing impacts that can be anticipated from adoption and
implementation of the 2020 General Plan. Section 15126(d) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR address the
growth-inducing impacts of the proposed action. Not all growth inducement is necessarily negative. Negative impacts
associated with growth inducement occur only where the projected growth would cause adverse environmental impacts.
According to the CEQA Guidelines, the EIR should discuss the ways in which the proposed project could foster eco-
nomic ox population growth, ox the construction of additional housing, either directly ox indirectly, in the surrounding
environment, including projects which would remove obstacles to population growth. Direct growth-inducing impacts
axe generally associated with providing urban services to an undeveloped area. Providing urban services to a site, and the
subsequent development, can serve to induce other landowners in the vicinity to convert their property to urban uses.
Indirect, ox secondary growth-inducing impacts, consist of growth induced in the region by additional demands fox
housing, goods, and services associated with the population increase caused by, ox attracted tq a new project.
9.1 Direct Impacts
The 2020 General Plan would directly induce population, employment and economic growth by allowing fox intensified
development within some azeas of the Town. Under buildout conditions in 2020, the 2020 General Plan would allow
the following development based on the expected growth assumptions fox the Los Gatos area:
0 Approximately 1,600 additional residential units to be added to the 12,130 residential units estimated to exist in
2008.
• Approximately 3,790 new residents in addition to the existing 2008 population within the Town limit. This would
result in a town population of 32,600 in 2020.
4 Approximately 2,660 new jobs to be added to the 18,820 jobs estimated to exist in 2008.
6 Approximatcly 943,210 squaze feet of commercial development to be added to the approximately 4.1 million square
feet existing in 2008.
State law requires the Town to promote the production of housing to meet its fair share of the regional housing needs
distribution made by ABAG. The housing and employment growth in Los Gatos would generally have beneficial effects
by allowing the Town to address its regional fair-share housing obligations.
In addition, the type of growth envisioned by the 2020 General Plan would be concentrated in specific, designated areas.
New development would be pedestrian-friendly, use land efficiently and promote transportation altemaflves. Housing
near the Vasona Light Rail would be encouraged, as would mixed-use development. Housing would also be allowed in
the North Forty azea. The growth envisioned under the 2020 General Plan would result in local and regional benefits by
Design, CommuniTy & Environment Town of Los Gatos 2020 General Plan
II-17 Findings of Fact and Statement of Ovemding Considerations
promoting land use patterns that reduce automobile dependence and support regional transit systems, which could re-
duce greenhouse gases, air quality, noise and traffic impacts associated with population growth and non-residential de-
velopment, as well as making services more efficient to provide and reduce pressure on developing open space.
9.2 Induect Impacts
The 2020 General Plan encourages new growth in the urbanized areas of Los Gatos. Development in these areas would
consist of infill development on the remaining vacant sites or redevelopment of undemtilized sites. Roadway and infxa-
structuxe axe present for these areas, and all projects would be required to comply with the Town's standazds fox public
services and utilities.
9.3 Findings Regarding Growth Inducing Impacts
9.3.1 Duect Impacts
Because housing and employment growth under the 2020 General Plan would allow the Town to accommodate its re-
gional fair-share housing obligations and because growth envisioned under the 2D20 General Plan is Focused on efficient,
pedestrian-friendly land use patterns that reduce automobile dependence, the growth-inducing effects of implementation
of the 2020 General Plan would be beneficial to the Town and surrounding areas.
9.3.2 Indttect Impacts
Since the roadway and infrastructure to serve this development are largely in place, and since new projects would be
required to comply with the Town's standards fox public services and utilities, secondary growth-inducing effects do not
represent a significant environmental impact.
Desigq-Community & Environment Town of Los Gatos 2020 General Plan
II-18 Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
SECTION II
THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS GENERAL PLAN EIR
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
1.0 STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
1.1 Introduction
In deterrnini.,g whether to adopt the 2020 General Plan, CEQr1 Guidelines Section 15093 requires a public agency to
balance the benefits of a project against its unavoidable environmental risks. In accordance with Public Resources Code
Section 21081 (b) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, the Town Council has, in determining whether ox not to adopt
the 2020 Cienexal P7 balanced the economtc, soua~technolo cal, academtc, and other benefits of the Plan against its
unavoidable environmental effects, and has found that the benefits of the Plan outweigh the significant adverse envi-
xonmentaleffects that axe not mitigated to less-than-significant levels, fox the reasons set forth below. This statement of
overriding considerations is based on the Los Gatos Town Council's review of the Dxafr EIR and Final EIR and other
information in the administrative record. The Los Gatos Town Council finds that each of the following benefits is an
overriding consideration, independent of the other benefits, that warrants approval of the 2020 General Plan notwith-
standing the Plan's significant unavoidable impacts.
By incorporating policies intended to avoid environmental impacts and by steering development to within existing ur-
banized areas, the 2020 General Plan is largely self-mitigating. Rather than mitigating impacts from implementation of
the 2020 General Plan through mitigation measures in the EIR, the policies and ]and use map in the 2020 General Plan
are intended to prevent the majority of environmental impacts altogether. Implementation of the 2020 General Plan has
the potential to generate five significant environmental project impacts and no significant cumulative impacts.
Significant and Unavoidable Project Impacts:
• dQ-1
• GHG-1
• GHG-2
• LU-1
• TRA-I
The Town recognizes that the 2020 General Plan will cause the five significant and unavoidable impacts as listed above.
The Town has carefully balanced the benefits of the proposed General Plan against the unavoidable adverse impacts
identified in the Draft EIR, Final EIR and the Town's Findings of Fact. Notwithstanding the disclosure of impacts
identified as significant and which have not been eliminated to a level of insignificance, the Town, acting pursuant to
Section 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines, hereby determines that the benefits of 2020 General Plan outweigh the signifi-
cant unmitigated adverse impacts.
1.2 Specific Findings
1.2.1 Project Benefits Outweigh Unavoidable Impacts
The remaining significant and unavoidable impacts of the 2020 General Plan axe acceptable in light of the economic,
fiscal, social, planning, land use and other considerations set forth herein because the benefits of the proposed General
Plan outweigh the significant and unavoidable adverse environmental impacts of the proposed project.
1.2.2 Balance of Competing Goals
Design, Community & Environment Town of Los Gatos 2020 General Plan
II-t Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
The Town finds it imperative to balance competing goals in adopting the 2020 General Plan and the environmental
documentation for the 2020 General Plan. Not every polity ox environmental concern has been fully satisfied because
of the need to satisfy competing concerns to a certain extent. Accordingly, in some instances the Town has chosen to
accept certain environmental impacts because to eliminate them would unduly compromise important economic, social,
ox other goals. The Town finds and determines that the text of the 2020 General Plan and the supporting environmen-
tal documentation provide for a positive balance of the competing goals and that the economic, fiscal, social, planning,
land use, and other benefits to be obtained by the 2020 General Plan outweigh the environmental and related potential
impacts of the 2020 General Plan.
1.3 Overriding Considerations
Substanttal evtdence is-included in the record of these proceedings and in documents relating to 2020 General demon-
strating the benefits which the Town would derive from the implementation of the Plan. The Town has balanced the
economic considerations of the 2020 General Plan against the unavoidable environmental impacts identified in the Draft
EIR and Final EIR and concludes that the economic benefits that will be derived from the implementation of the 2020
General Plan outweigh those environmental impacts. These aze addressed in the Town's Findings of Fact. In particular,
the Town considered whether there would be any impacts related to: aesthetics; agriculture; air quality; biological re-
sources; cultural resources; geology, soils, and mineral resources; hazazds and safety; hydrology and water quality; land
use; noise; population and housing; public services and recreation; transportation and circulation; utilities; and green-
house gas emissions. Upon balancing the environmental risks and countervailing benefits, the Town concludes that the
benefits which the Town will derive from the implementation of the 2020 General Plan outweigh those environmental
risks.
More particularly, the 2020 General Plan will provide fox the orderly development of residential, mixed use, retail and
office, indusuiaL, and public uses, while maintaining significant areas of open space and public lands. The growth envi-
sioned in the 2020 General Play would be concentrated in speufic, designated areas within the Town limits, and new
development would use land efficiently and seduce dependence on the automobile. The 2020 General Plan defines a
vision of what the Town desires to be in 10 years, and serves as a comprehensive guide fox decisions about land use,
housing, water resources, circulation, conservation and open space, health and safety, community services, and public
facilities and services. The Town finds that this level of comprehensive planning is desirable and beneficial to the Town
and provides a more environmentally sustainable vision and development plan fox the Town than the previously adopt-
ed General Plan. Fox example, the proposed General Plan includes a new Environment and Sustainability Element as
well as new policies throughout the General Plan that support the Town's goal of being a more sustainable communiy.
These policies aim to reduce vehicle trips, promote alternative transportation modes, conserve energy, conserve water
resources, and seduce greenhouse gas emissions.
The adoption of the 2020 General Plan would provide the Town with a "constitution" fox land use and development
that would guide the town's growth over the next 10 years in a manner that aligns with the goals of the Town of Los
Gatos and its residents. The 2020 General Plan would also create a variety of housing types that would allow the Town
to meet its fau share housing requirements as allocated by the Association of Bay rlxea Governments (ABAG).
The Town finds that the above described benefits which will be derived from adopting the proposed General Plan,
when weighed against the absence of the General Plan, override the significant and unavoidable environmental impacts
of the Plan.
1.4 Incorporation by Reference
The EIR is hereby incorporated into these findings in its entirety. Without limitation, this incorporation is intended to
elaborate on the scope and nature of mitigation measures, the basis fox detemvning the significance of impacts, the
Design, Community & Environtent Towa of Los Gatos 2020 General Plan
II-2 Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
comparative analysis of alternatives, and the reasons for approving the Project in spite of the potential fox associated
significant unavoidable adverse impacts.
1.5 Record of Proceedings
Various documents and other materials constitute the xecoxd of proceedings upon which the Los Gatos Town Council
bases its findings and decisions contained herein. The xecoxd of proceedings is located at the Community Development
Department of the Town of Los Gatos, 110 East Blain Street, Los Gatos, California, 95030. The custodian fox the rec-
ord of proceedings is the Town of Los Gatos. This information is provided in compliance with Public Resources Code
section 21081.6(a)(2) and CEQ~l Guidelines, g 15091(e).
1.6 Summary
Based on the foregoing findings and the information contained in the Record, the Los Gatos Town Council has made
one or more of the following £mdings with respect to each of the significant environmental effects of the 2020 General
Plan:
1) Changes ox alterations have been required in, ox incorporated into, the 2020 General Plan which mitigate or
avoid the significant effects on the environment.
2) Those changes ox alterations axe within the xesponsibiliry and jurisdiction of another public agenry and have
been, ox can and should be, adopted by that other agency.
3) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, ox other considerations, including considerations fox the pxovi-
sion of employment opportunities fox highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures ox alter-
natives identified in the environmental impact report.
Based on the foregoing findings and the information contained in the record, it is determined that:
1) tlll significant effects on the environment due to the approval of the project have been eliminated ox substan-
tially lessened where feasible.
2) ajny remaining significant effects on the environment found to be unavoidable aze acceptable due to the factors
described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations in subsection C, above, and the Town finds that the
proposed General Plan should be approved. _ '
Design, Coxmm~niTy & Environment Town of Los Gatos 2020 General Plan
II3 Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considuations
THIS PAGE
INTENTIONALLY
LETT BLANK
F
1 ~
u
O
1'
a
z
~_
w y
W
O
Z p
a
Z O ~
~ Z
J Q
6 (~ Q
J `" Z
< ° O
p J
w
Z LL Z
w 0 ~
O Z Q
o ;
00 ~
~~ E
°q
A
u o
.Y ~ ~ ;, ~
y4 v
V
•~ ~ ~ ~+ O O
~ w` w'
O ~ Q V C
'
~ LL N
p y.
° v
C N
u v,
~
G
•y~
C w
.b 7
'6
,n
~
p
~ y
C
.
.'
3
~ y
ti
O H
~
w
~ v
~
o U
d y
o N
a
o ~
:° Lvi
° s
y
4
a v
e
a N
w .-
y
R
~
~ y N
°i
~
I
/ y v ~ r
!
j 4 w cn
[
-~ b
° f~ ~ a u °i o q
~ ^
o ,~, U ,~
..
w
G
~'':
n D
•w
q
C ' u a a a
C p o F" E" F'
, ~
d
O C ~ ..G+ m .G Y m ° v ~
'~ '~ o o c. o o a, ~ ,~ a
C F ~ C Lv° ~ G 1° T p ~
v ~
u ~
N o ~
v ~
N O
~' v C q v
v
v O ~
ee ~ O D
~ F ~ O ~ ~ O N S~ b N
w q
~O
N O N
v
y 1r`
W
4
Li
y ~
w
~ v
~
~
~
~ 0.
u
o
~ ~
n.
~
~
a
., ~
a
U Q Ca U Q Ca c Q
~ ~ .
N
N rrnn
v
~ ~
~
[
.4'
~
N
m
O _
4
°
Y
~
U
w
~ x W
~ F C ~ C. ~ . ~ ~
^
p a y ~ sn v ~ L-` y m a v u C7
v y _ y
"
a
m
G
~'
`°
ro
q
o
q
> u
'"
~
~tl O
.p w u m b > a
n ,
. ~ N
u F. ~ c ~ v o o °' o ~ B q ~ ° v
U i ,~ ~ u U F , .
. F .-. o x F
. ~
~ v v
i o
w .~ ~ . v o ~ y ~ ~
~ I'y N ~ U L N "O L S v M yyr y ~ ~ .[ S°y,~ f -. W
H N ~ ~
O
C7 ~
C U F O [
v y
v "LS ~ ~
(7 .G ~ ~
'~ ~
~
y
~ ~ N O
.
x
v
~
cac[i!!
~v-.
"
N
4w"
09
[
~
is
m
O
O C
~d
u
C
~
~
~ n,
~ ..
~ C7
~ G d O ~ ~ ~ '
in U a . ~ H ~ F 4
~ v ~ w ~ v o b C ~ a ~ H F ,.. '~ u w v ~ 09
'~ v y
~ F ~ ~ F
R ~ [
W ~
~
r .s •C
-o v
-
° a
`" ~
~' v
~
o v
~
u ,~ Y h
~ am,
'
C [
v
° !
~ ~ ~
s ,~ F O ~ on o ~ `
' u ;,~ -
~
~ O [
~ b O O w ~ v C a w ro « ~ O T ~ w
C i c
a [ a ''
'
• •
~ R. N C ,O O ~ p y ~ v Y R C w L is a~ v ~ ° ~ R ~ 4'
r0
,~
7
O
y
v.
4.
~
"
y
~
~
W
m
,bA
O
'
m
L
N
'
C
q
~
yM
~ ~
.
~ 4
7
u
u .
~ N
v
v
' ~
~ y ~ L
v ~ 4
ro
~ ci N ~ N
~ .'~ 4~
~
~
n,
d
~
o .« 8 U
"
w ~
~
~
w
~ °
m
~
~ °
h ~
~ °'
c
, v ,
THIS PAGE
INTENTIONALLY
LEFT BLAND
Date: August 11, 2010
From :Lee Quintana
5 Palm Ave
Los Gatos, Calif. 95030
To: Mayor Diane McNutt and the Town Council
Enclosed are comments on the General Plan Update along with a few relating to the
Final EIR (with two attachments).
I do have a few remaining comments which I managed to feed to my new computer! But
not many!
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Ef you have any question please feel free to
call me.
Thank you.,
Lee Quintanta
ATTAC~NT 18
Comments on Draft General Plan: General Comment, Introduction, Vision -from Lee Quintana
GENERAL COMMENTS 2624 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
1. RexibilitylConsistency of General Plan:
2. Revise organization
3. Text modifications not identified on list or matrix
4. Noise Revise Figure NOi-2
5. Provide revised Draft General Plan and revised Final EIR prior to approval
1. Flexibility /Consistency:_ See comments under 1 INTRODUCTION_Page INT-13
2. Revise Organization
• The issue is not the number of new goals/policies/actions or whether they were deleted, combined or
revised, or moved within or between elements.
• The issue is whether the adopted General Plan will provide clear, consistent direction on the Town's
land use policy and the role organization play in that.
• Suggestions:
• Consider wmbining related elements
• Retain the basic nrgani anon of I ment as in th 000 n rat Plan It works better because:
• Each element is organized in a hierarchy from general to specific
• Similar goals are grouped together, followed by a related group of policies (some policies apply
to more than one goal) provides better flow
• The short Issue Statement before each group of goats provided context
B ~Il~ets~ Use bullets if a policy has more than two items. Bullets are both easier to read and understand
• Kee¢Goals simple: for example Goal CD-2
• 'To limit intensity of new development" rather than,
• 'To limit intensity of new development to a level that is consistent with surrounding development
and the town at large", everything after ° .... devefopmenY' seems more like a policy to go under a
goal
• POI, i?~ See 1 Introduction below
10 S^N/Table of Gantentsllndex
• Expand to be more inclusive
• Include a more detailed Tabfe of Contents
• Add an index, or at least a matrix of where topics can be located (see attached)
3. Text changes Some new, mod'rfied or deleted text that (not identified in a matrix or list) may in some
cases change meaning, broaden flexibility, or decrease understanding
5. General Plan and EIR
• Revise Draft GP and Final EIR consistent wish proposed changes
• Reconcile the discrepancies between the two documents.
• Provide an Summary Table of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance
After Mitigation for the Final EIR (see attached exasnpie Tabfe 2-i from the 2000 General Plan Update
(March 2000)
1 INTRODUCTION
1. Flexibility of interpretation of policies and internal consistency
2. Organization -change order of sections:
3. Inconsistency of text between Final EIR and GP text
1. Flexibility/Consistency
Page INT-13 Rrst paragraph: The paragraph is new text..... further refining polices. Policies have
essentially been divided into three categories, each °generall~' identified by two words
z
Comments on draft General Dian: General Comment, Introduction, Vision -from Lee Quintana
• Mandatory policies: (shalt" or "require")
• Non-mandatory policies: ("should" or "explore"}
• Policies Town supports but has no authority over or prefers not to make mandatory: ("encourage" or
"promote") Note: it is not clear why the latter doesn't fall into the Non-mandatory category
• In the Land Use Element alone "shat(" appears 3 times, " (two were further mod'rfied by discourage or
evaluate), "should" and "encourage" once each, and 22+policies not use any of six words noted
identified. ), 1"should", and 1 °eneourage".
• How can one determine, with any consistency, whether The policies are mandatory, not-mandatory,
Town has no authority or prefer not to make mandatory? This leaves a lot of room (or too much) for
flexible interpretation.
Page INT-13 second paragraph
• New text not found in 2000 General Plan: "This General Plan is intended to meet multiple, and
sometimes competing policy objectives. Therefore, the Town may not 6e able to adhere to every policy
in every decision that it makes to implement the General Plan. The Towrt Council has final discretion
over which policy objective will have priority in instances where there are competing policy objectives
affecting a single decision
• This adds more "flexibility" and raises the question of whether the General Plan meets the State
requirement for internal wnsistency. When does flexible reach the point when the General Plan no
longer gives clear direction or no longer meet State requirements?
• See attached p.12 & 13 of the State General Pfan Guidelines: fntema! Consistency
Page INT-12 Last sentence: New text It also does not match the EI{3 text.
2. Change organization of element as follows:
A. Purpose of the Genera! Plan
8. How the General Plan is Used
C. Focus of the General Plan
D.Organizatfon and Content
E. Background and History
F. General Plan Update Process
Page INT-1: Add a new heading after the 2nd paragraph B: How the General Ptan is Used and move the
last paragraph up as first paragraph under B.
Page INT 2 ist paragraph
• Add new heading r F rs of th Q 0 n r^! Pt°n 9
• Provide more inclusive definition of sustainability
• Add other focus areas and other objectives of update
Page INT-10 Organization and Contents
• Move 3.The Green Leaf Symbol up as 1 or number 2
• Suggest deleting and replacing with: Sin ~ th fact n r^t ht°n pd°te in 20(10 the iccua of
custainability hac gained ev n mor import n Th r r_s ^i o " r ing atr renPC, th t pct i I
approach whether in daily Irfe or a~pperatfon eneompacsPC ,rid v riaty of diifarant
actions. For that reason poll i and ac~lianc ih^t c tenor! the Tocvn'a_go°I of being ° ~ oaf^in°bte
commenity are integrated thropgh h n90 n r I Plan ~Ipd^te ^~4tg11_a~t~ithin the Environment np
Sustainabiliiy m nt
2 VISION
1. Add a stronger bullet for sustainabildy.
2. Put "town character" and sustainability as first two bullets
3. There is a lot of repetition between A. and B. can it be reduced?
Land. Use Element -Comments from Lee Quintana
3 LAND USE
1. North 40: Appropriate location for North 40 and proposed North 40 Specific Plan
2. Eliminate new land use designation
3. General Comments on Land Use Element
1. Appropriate location for North 40 and North 40 Specific Plan
~'' th VLR 1 m nt nd int or^t it into th L^nd ~ I m nt D I t for the following reaGOns
• As a separate element it is no longer working as intended.
• After 25 years keeping it as an a separate element from land use works against thinking of the area as
fully integrated Town-wide {and use policy.
• The primary focus of the VLR area is on land use
• While the four VLR areas have a functionally connection, the Los Gatos Blvd. Plan overlaps part of the
VLR area. Having all 5 together in land use would reenforce the integration of planning Town-wide.
PI_ ra the VI R re sunder section F Soeci^I Planning Areas and reoraanize~
1. Vasona Light Rail and Highway 85 Area (VLR Area) with North 40 under that
2. Specific Plans and Other Plans. (the old 3.Other Plans). The last sentence of the introduction to 3.
already references developing a North Forty Specific Plan, the guiding principles wuld be a. Principles
for proposed North 40 Spec'rfic Plan.
3. Oveday Zones
4. Historic Districts
2. North 40~iecific Plan Overlav
• Delete the Overlay as a new Land Use Designation
• Incorporate the rest of the VLR element into the land use element. Including an Action to develop the
Specific Plan
• The advantages of the above:
• Keeps the North 40 at the beginning of the element
• Eliminates creating both a new type of land use designation with a a completely new and more
detailed format
3. General Comments and suggestions on land use
Replace: The text under 2000 GP 2.4, 2.4.1 and 2.42 was much easier to understand than the revised
text.
Page LU-12: Why do density ranges for residential land uses ~~esSap?
Page LU-14 e. Mobile Home Park:. Why not delete?
Page LU-21,
• Delete Goal LU-1, or delete Goal LU-8 and replace with Goal LU-1 modified as follows: ~
maint^in ^ bal^nrod .Pronomically stable communih~
Policies LU1.1 and LUi.2 and Actions i.i and i2- The Policies and Action may tit better under a goal to
minimize travel miles
Page LU-17 F: Add: ~na~ifi zolans mnct 6e consistent v^~h the General Plan that they imotement
Page LU-19 2 Historic Districts: Add a reference to CD Rgure 1 Historic Districts map. History appears
in more than one place in GP, is ft possible to condense in one Location and refer to it?
Goal LU-2:
Land Use Element -Comments from Lee Quintana
• Move: May be more appropriate as a Pofrey under Goal LtF3.
• Consider the following mod'rfication, whether or not this goat is moved: To coordinate and cnoperat~
with surrounding jurisdictions andleF other focal and regional agencies on land ice i ,e that may
affect Los Gatos. ' ^^ °^'^^'^ ~•~••-^ ^^M^ ^a ^~^-^^•^-
Goal LU-3 Modify: To previt#e Rlasr for greful growl!?-within-+r~ urc, cs be tc,;;;c cNc,- ;;~, u"~,
..~ .,
Policy 3.2: Clarify intent of Community Benefd
Policy LU-3.3: Delete: Doesn't staff' already evaluate this?
Policy LU-3.4: Clarify and simplify: A mrddor lot shall 6e alloyed only when afl the follovaino aooly
• It will d cr a th amo mt of ar a r -quired for a oublic street and
• Jt is consistent with the neighborhood lot oattem and
~b ~ nti a~iPVPlonment will 6e in oontaxt t ^K: the e:dsfing neighborhood c^^! ^nd h^r^ct r
Goal LU-4, Policy LU-4.1 and Action LU-4.1:Detete, are these really needed? If kept move where they so
don't interfere with the flow of Land use goals.
Policy LU-5.6:
• Delete from Land Use element and move -splitting it between Community Design and Environment
and Conservation.
• Add the following to Community Design: "Demolitions shat b d' !raged If demolition i¢ allowed th
gplacpment house
. Sho ~1d b similar in ci and ai a other homes in th n ighborhood and
• Shall maintain the existing character of fhe neiohbofiood_
• Move resource conservation and landfill issues to the Environment element
• Add an action item to amend the Demolition Pofiey to effectively implement GP policies. (given large
number of demo's and that there is no speL~fic requirements for recycling)
Goal LU-6: Move: may fit better as a policy under Goat LU-3.
Policy LU-6.2, 6.4 and 6.5: Move. Place as bullets under the infill policy.
Policy LU-6.3 Delete
Vasona Light Rail and Highway 85 Element - comments from Lee Quintana
7 VASdNA LIGHT RAIL AND HIGHWAY 85 ELEMENT
1. Move VLR Area: See comments in Land Use
2. Move North 40: See comments in Land Use. The only remaining mention of North 40 in this element is
Figure VLR-1 and Policy VLR3.4.
3. General Comments on VLR
3. General Comments on VLR Element (if kept)
Revise organization of this element to flow from the general to specific
A.lnfroduction: Delete 1st and 2nd Paragraphs and replace with:
The V^son^ Light R^il ^nd Highvey$ I .m .nt (yl R) addre_c¢es the opnortuni6e and challeno~
pr se_Pnted ¢y th nna c~tnietion of IjJgh4ta S'L5. the potential far futeire mace transit in its median. and the
oronnGad ex'ension of the V~son^ Liaht Raif along Winche-star Blvd How this area is developed will olav
a major role in the future character of the Town. The area caveredby this element are shown in VLR
Fioure 1.
Change B. to History and Background
• Move the first 5 sentences of C. Guiding Philosophy to the 8. History and Background and then
rearrange as follows:
• Move the 5th sentence up after the 1st sentence and modify as follows: These large trndeveteped
parcels may also be...... (Note: this assumes these refrence to the same parcels)
• Move) and condense the last three paragraphs on page VLR-2 to C. Guiding Philosophy.
Goals, Policies, Actions
North 40: See Land Use Element Comments
Policy VLR-5.2 and Policy VLR-5.3: Delete both and replace with the following: D~v_ -I~onment in the
"^^^^a 6jght R^" ^•e^ s'-^" ~e •+~sign '+ a^~ ^^a^ro~ r^ ratio advantage of the amenities offered by the
('rook ^nd ah^II be degjgned toto nresen'e and enhance the riparian corridor and habitat.
Action VLR-5.1 and 5.2: Modify based on comments received from SCVWD these may not be possible.
Add "to work with SCVWS to.. ° to both actions.
Goal VLR-2: To specific. Suggest following modification : To efleeurage provide opportunities for
affordable housing. Delete the rest. Senior, multi-family, and mixed use housing are not always affordable
housing.
Policy VLR-7.1: Clarify intent: "No down zoning of residentiaF properties shall be allowed within the
Vasona Junction sub-area until development of the Vasona Light Rail is planned and funded". The
wording in GP2000 is No change in zoning shall be allowed until development of the Vasona Light Rail is
planned and funded" Why was this change made? How it changes the meaning of the policy.
Policy VLR-1.2: Clarify meaning and infant
Policy VLR-1.5: Move: Not an appropriate location for this policy
Policy VLR-1.6: Delete: Not necessary to say Town's plans, policies etc. will be implemented
Policy VLR-2.2: Delete, Redundant with Policy VLR-2.3.
Goal VLR-3: Clarify: Not clear what "coordinate" means. Is this a typo?
Vasorta Light Raii and Highway &5 Element - comments from Lee Quintana
Policy VLR-3.1: Clarify: What does "compatible and synergistic" mean?
Policy VLR-3.5: This policy is too vague.
Policy VLR-3.8: Clarify
Policy VLR-3.8: Move:.Fts better under Goal VLR-2
Policy VLR-8.1: Delete: Not necessary to say Town will implement Town Plans, policies, etc.
Policy VLR-8.2: Move: More appropriate under Goal VLR-8. Clarify °sufficient".
Goal VLR-7: Delete and replace with: To ensure
How does design review control the mix of uses and what does a high qualiiy mixture of residential. and
non-residential mean?
Policy Under Goal VLR-6 have more to do with design Phan phasing.
General Plan Update -Comments from Lee Quintana
GOALS, POLICIES OR {MPLEMENTfNG STRATEGIES FROM TtiE 2000 LOS GATOS GENERAL
PLAN[~JJQI CARRIED FORWARD INTO THE DRAFT2020GENERAL PLAN
Redundancy may be necessary when the same policy applies to goals in different elements.
L.P.4.5:
Keep: It may be redundant to Housing Element but it is an important land use policy.
Modify: Place L. P.4.5 as the first sentence of Policy LU-5.9 (to provide context) or keep it as a separate
policy and add a footnote referencing the Housing Element
CD.P. 1.5 and .D.P.1.8:
Keep: These policies represent separate, distinct ideas. CD.P.1.8 applies to building elements (i.e.
architectural elements such as size of window, porches, etc.) and GD.P.1.5 refers to density and scale.
Modify CD.P' 1.5 : Avoid abrupt changes in scale and/QLdensity.
CD.P. 1.7 AND CD.P. 1.9
Keep: There is some redundancy between these policies, however, they are not equivalent. CD.P.1.7
primarily addresses scale and rhythm. CD.P. 1.9 addresses materials and the natural setting.
Modify C.P.1.7 to eliminate redundancy: New structures and remodels
shall be designed to harmonize and blend with the scale and rhythm of the neighborhood and~ural
f w.....~--,. '....'-.., .-~-
CD.P.4.2
Keep: Deleting CD.P.4.2 would change intent. LP.6.4 applies only to the CBD, GD.P. 4.2 applies to the
entire town.
L.P.1.9, CD.P.3.2, 3.4 and 3.5, L.P.4.6, CD.P.4.6
Keep: L.P. 1.9, CD.P3.4, CD.P.3.2 and CD.P.3.5
Modify CD.P.3.4 to eliminate redundancy: Encourage the preservation and restoration of historic sites,
~ historic structures and architecturally valuable structures.
Keep CD.P.3.2 and CD.P.3.5
T.P.4.11
Keep: It may be redundant to the VLR Element but R is an important policy tying land use to circulation
policy.
Suggest: Incorporate reference to mass transit in 85 Median in one of the policies under Goal TRA-8.
V.1.1.1 and V.I.i.2
Delete V.1.1.1
Replace V.1.1.2 with: Coordinate and proactively participate with other communities and agencies in the
planning phase of proposed mass transit facitifies to facilitate their canstruetion and ensure that the
Town's interests are represented.
V.P.4.4
Keep: It may be redundant with polices in the CD Element but given the potential development in the
VLR area, especially the North Forty, it applies here as well.
V.G.4.2 and V.G.4.1
Keep V.G.4.2 as a policy and modify: ~-e„esurngeThe hest mixture of residential and nonresidential
uses within the area wHiel-rah p be the mixture which will have aehieves the feast affect on traffic, noise,
schools, adjacent neighborhoods. etc.
V.P.6.3 and V.1.6.3
S~
General Plan Update -Comments from Lee Quintana
Delete both: The Town does not have jurisdiction over the SCVWD maintenance road. Replace with:
along the l"later District's maint .Want. road
Note: This will update the information consistent with comments from the SCVWD
N.G.1.1 and N.G.1.2
Keep both Make N.G.1.2 a policy.
Note: Also make N.G.1.3 a policy
HS.1.1.2 and New policy HS-7.3
These are not equivalent. HS.I.t.2 has to do wfth media coverage etc, HS-7-3 a full service senior center.
HS.P.5.1 and HS.1.4.1:
Clarify why'Town" directed removal.
C.P..2.6 and CD.P.1.17
Keep C.P.2.8: This is speafic to water conservation
Modify CD.P.1.17 to be more specific to community design: Landscaping and hardscaping shall
harmonize with the existing neighborhood .
C.P.2.12 and CD.P.1.17
See comment above.
Delete C.P.2.13
Replacing with: New development shall conserve and make efficient use of water.
C.P.2.8
Keep: Move to Land Use Element.
Clarify: Why did the `Town" directed removal? Unless this was moved someplace iota the 2020 General
Plan this is a change of intent.
Thus, the preparation of a general plan must be
approached on multiple levels and from an in-
terdisciplinary point of view.
A general plan should be written as an inte-
gratedstatement ofpolicies. Abasic understand-
ing of the structural and functional
interrelationships between issues and elements
can help avoid the problems associated with
treating issues in isolation, as well as focus
planning er"2'orts on the key issues. The table
at right illustrates the relationships among the
seven mandatory elements and the required
topics of the general plan. Remember that not
every general plan will address these issues
to the same extent or in the same manner.
Cities and counties should design their gen-
eral plan formats to suit the topographic, geo-
logic, climatologic, political, socioeconomic,
cultural, and historical diversities that exist
within their communities.
LAFID USE ELEFNEPlT
The land use element functions as a guide
to planners, the general public, and decision-
makers as to the ultimate pattern of develop-
ment for the city or county at build-out. The
land use element has perhaps the broadest scope
of the seven mandatory elements. In theory; it
plays a central role in curreiati,ig ail land use
issues into a set of coherent development poli-
cies. Its objectives, policies, and pragrarns re-
late dire~_tly ;n the nt7tr-r eief3erfs_ h7 nra~ ir_-.e,
it is the most visible and often-used element in
life local general piati. Although ail general piau
elements carry equal weight, the land use ele-
tnent IS Oft?p perralYed 2~ b?ing mOSt rpnra_
sentative of "the general plan."
The land use element has a pivotal role in
zoning, subdivision, and public works deci-
sions. The element's objectives and policies
provide along-range contend for those short-
term actions.
Coart and Attorney General
Interpretations
The following legal interpretations have ad-
dressedthe land use element with regard to the
land use diagram, population density, building
intensity, the designation of solid waste disposal
sites and its relationship to the circulation and
noise elements.
GENERAL PLAN ISSUES AND ELEMENTS
ELEMENT
m
o
~ a
m ~
us
0 m T
V
m
~ m
V J C
J O 2 O 0 Z iq
Agriculture X Z X
Air Quality X
Airports ! ~ 'y ~ X
Density X X
Education X
Fire X X
Fisheries ~ X
Flooding X X -.X X
ForestsTmber X X X
Housing Z X
Industrial Uses X X
Land Reclamation X
~ Land Use
f71 X X ~ X ~ X ~
~ Minerals 'X X
to Noise Contours ~ X
Pubic Buildings X
Railways &Yards !_ ~ X
~, Recreation X X
~ Scenic Resources X X
1 Seismic Hazards X X
1 Still!:.^nsorratioa ! I I X es
~
ctil L"vL:bi!~,
i I X ~
t T.ra^.sportatf^r. Rcucos 3P I I I ar ~ 3[ X I
l Transpcrtaticn Terminals
;;
I f
!JtilitiesrEase.^,ie.^.r.~, X I X
W2St° Faeltltie.: X Xy
Water Quality X X
WaterSuppty ~ Xz X X X
watersheds X X
Waterways/Water Bodies X X
Wildlife X X
X Indicates a topic ident~ad in statute
Xt Trail systems
Xz Factors affecting adequate inventory of sites
Z Indicates a topic closely related to statutory
requirements
r.<„or,l Pleas r:~a~+eh.,a< ee
/~7J `~
9
's'I)~3
t'
such as transportation facilities. Other regional plans,
such as those for air or water quality, spell out mea-
sures that local governments must institute in order to
meet federal or state standards forthe region. Sti31 oth-
ers,such asregional housing allocation plans, measure
each local government's responsibility for satisfying a
specific share of regional needs. Some regional agen-
cies have put together useful information on seismic
safety and other issues that can be helpful in the plan-
Wing process.
The Legislature has mandated wnsideration of cer-
tainregional impacts in the general pbm. For example,
if a city or county adopts or amends a mandatory gen
eral plan element limiting the number of residential
units that may be constricted on an annual basis, rt
must eicplainthat action. The city or county mustmake
specific findings concerning the efforts it has made to
implement its housing element and the public health,
safety, and welfare considerations that justify redua-
inghousing oppordmities inthe region (§65302.8). Fur-
ther, cities and counties must balance the housingneeds
of the region against the needs of their residems for
public services and the available fiscal and environ-
mental resources (§65863.6, §66412.3). In addition,
the housing element of the general plan must include
action programsto accommodate the locatity's regional
fair share of housing (§65583, §65584).
Local general plans should recognize the city's or
county's regional role if regional needs are to be satis-
fied, federal and state standards met, and coordination
achieved in the location of public facilities. Accord-
mgly, generaiplans shouIdiriclude a discussion of the
extent t'a whuh the general pIan's policies standards,
and proposals cozrespandfaregronalplans and the plans
of adjoining communities. A city or county may need
to reexamine its own general phm when its neighbors
make impoitant changes to their plans.
]`sane Comprehensiveness
A general plan must address a broad range of issues.
Under the "shoe fits" doctrine discussed in Chapter 4,
the phm should focus on those issues that are relevam
to the planning area(§65301(c}}. The plan must address
the junsdiction's physica} development, sueli as.gen-
eral'Iocattonsz appropriate mix, timing, and extent of
landes and~sup~ior6riog.*+s,="~,rr.ne: Tlie bmail scope
of physical development issues may large from appro-
priate areas forbuilding factories to open space for pre••
serving endangered species (see Chapter 4 for
examples). This may include not only those issues de-
scdbed in the planning statutes, but regional issues as
well.
12 General Plan Guidelines
In the 1960s, planners began to assert that land use
decisions have not only immediate and future physical
and enviroiimenial impacts, butalso social and economic
impacts. Because a general plan represents the most
comprehensive local expression ofthe general welfare
as it relates to land use regulation, recognizing social
and economic concerns m the general phmmay be quite
appropriate. Social and economic issues maybe dis-
cussed within the context of the mandatory elements,
such as housing and ]and use. Some jurisdictions have
adopted an optional economic development element as
part oftheir general plans (see Cliapferb}=Fnyiromnen
tatjustiee wlichrceggnizesthatlandusedec>sronsl~aee
c9ipscgnences-for socialegvi}y,'may aisc`be addr~s~ixd`.
withittthe context of the mandatory elements.-This is
discussed in Chapter 2.
INTERNAL CONSISTENCY
"In construing the
provisions of this article,
the Legislature intends that
the general plan and
elements and parts thereof
comprise an integrated,
internally consistent and
compatible statement of
policies for the adopting
agency. " 065300.5)
sin#s~ deyscritied
tielbv/. ""
Equal States Among Elements
All elements of the general plan have~qual-legak+
stattis~ For example, the land use element policies are
not superior to the policies of the open-space elemem.
Acase in point: in Sierra Club v Beard afSuper-
visors of Kern County (1982) 126 Ca1.App_3d 698,
two of Kern County's general plan elements, ]and
use and open space, designated conflicting land uses
for the same property. A provision in the general plan
text reconcIled this and other map inconsistencies
by statirig that "if in any instance there is a conflict
between the Lmd use element and the open-space el-
ement, the land use element controls." The court of
appeal struck down this clause because it violated
the imernal consistency requirement under §65300.5.
t+lo elementis logall~~ubordinate ti another the gen
~b
~ 1. y1 "~
.t
t;
rts of a general glan, whether mandatory
lust be consistent with one another_ The
n in Concerned Citizens of Cdlaveras
rd ofSupervisors (1985) 166Calftpp3d
this point In that case„-the county~land
ontamed proposals expected to iesult in
traffic congestion that would fo_ llow. The county
ply stated tliat it would lobby for fiords to solve
future traffic problems. The court held that thrs ua
Also, housing element law requires local agencies
to adopt housing element programs that achieve the
goals and implement the policies of the housing ele-
ment Such programsmust identify the means by which
consistency will be achieved with other general plan
elements (§65583(c)).
A city or county may incorporate by reference into
its general plan-all or a portion of another jurisdiction's
plan. When doing so, the city or county should make
sure that any materials incorporated by reference are
consistent with the rest of its general plan.
Comsestency~'6?xtlrm Elemeriis
Each element's data, analyses, goals, policies, and
implementation programs must be consistent with and
complement one another EstabhsheiT goalss; data; and
analys>s `form the foundation for any ensuing policies.
For example, if one portion of a circulation element
indicates that wunty roads are sufficient to accommo-
date the projected level of traffic while another section
of the same element descnibes a worsening traffic situ-
ation aggravated by continued subdivision activity, the
element is not internally consistem (Concerned Citi-
zens of Calaveras County a Board of Supervisors
(1983) 166 Cat.~fpp.3d 90).
Aria P}aff ~onsisteney '~
Illpnnprples, goals, obleehues,pohctes, and~plan
proposals°set f'ath'm an area or community plan must
lie' consistentveth-the overall general'~plari
The general plan should explicitly discuss the role
of area phms if they are to be used. Similarly, each area
plan should discuss its specific relationship to the gen-
eralplan. In 1986, the Court ofAppeal ruled on an area
plan that was alleged to be inconsistent with the lazger
general'plan= Tlie~c:tiiut"upfiet$'iiotlY~tie area-plflrr and
the general plaa when it found that the general plan's
"nonurban(riual"designation, by the plan's own descrip-
tion, was not mended to be interpreted literally or pre-
cisely, especially with regazd to small areas. The court
noted that the azea plan's more specific "urban resi-
dential" designation. was pertinent and that there was
no inconsistency between the countywide general plan
and the azea plan (Las Vrgenes Homeowners Federa-
tion, Inc, v. Cou. my of Los Angeles (1986) 177
Ca1.App.3d 300). However, the court also noted that
in this particular case the geographic azea of alleged
inconsistency was ;quite small.
__
ageemerlt ;For example, if a general plan's land use
element diagram designates tow-density residential de-
velopmentin anarea where the text describes the pres-
ence- of prime agricultural land and further contains
written policies to preserve agricultural land or open
space, a conflict exists.. The plan's text and diagrams
must be reconciled, because "internal consistency re-
quues that general plan;d~agrams afland use,-oircita-
rion systems'F open space and'natnral iesotirces areas
re~lectwrrttei gohciesaid programs m the text fo'reactt
element"'(Cvrtins CaliforniaLand-Use anclPlanning
Law, F998 edifion, p~ 18)
Without consistency in all five of these areas, the
general-plan cannot effectrvely serge as aclear-guide
tii-future developme~,rDecrslon makers will face::eon-
flicking dbectives, crfizens vrilY be!confused about the.
policiesand'standardsttsecommunity has selected; find-
ings of wnsistency of subordinate. land use decisions
such as rezonings and subdivisions will be difficult to
make; and land owners, business, and industry will be
unableto rely on the general plan's stated priorities and
standazds fortheir ownindividualdecision-making. Be-
yond'this, inconsistencies in the general plan can ex-
posethe jurisdictionto expensive and lengthy litigation.
LONG-TERM PERSPECTIVE
Since the general plan affects the welfare of current
and future generafions, state law requires that the plan
take along-tenu pErspective (§65300). The general plan
projects conditions and needs into the future as a basis
for determining objectives.It also establishes long-term
policy for day-today decision-making based upon those
objectives.
The time flames for effective planning vary among
issues. The housing element, for example, specifically
General Plan Guidelines 13
i,~
_~//~
r/~. "!/
c~m.~~z
~u'..4..;<...ki.Ljr :$r.:'";iF'+ns4P+'. r,£:ttts;=€i"i t~:_
Ai b 10, 24 I U
J3ianne ivlcNutt, Nlayar
I.,as €iatos''awn t;aunail
I l0 E. Main Street
Las ~alr5s, tai 95034
ite: Draft 242() tieneral flan and EIR; LPN 424-48-474,457,021; C)ka Road Properties
Dear iv[s. McNutt and '1'crwu t~auncil:
T ana writiizg on behalf of the Yuki Farms General Partnership, FTPId, LP, and. lie related Yuki
oc-~mersl7ip enfiities (herein, "I'r~ki Farms") regaL~in~ the ~'e£arznred propertp located NW of f}ka
Kaad and NW of FT.wy 17, North of Lark Raad eked Saufh of Hwy t15 ft3ka Rd area afthe Vasona
Light ~ai:l liement}. Previa~~s cammenfs to the Planning Cafnmissan (April 2b and June 1.8, 2014}
suggest specific reference to policies that prornate mixed ea~ntnerciai and ltigl~er density residential
rtsev in this area. Yrrlci I"`arms recommends adoption of the following policy under Goal VLR -~.
To better achieve the overall ~~oaCs of the Yas~ortu l fight ttaiC Element,
eracourcage rnwxed- use rlevelnEmerst ~f neigtrbor F:onrt etnnrraereaC anc3 rnectiurrr
- tzigh density t°esatlentiaC uses nortl2 of Larlc~ventre in tke C?ka .Xd stth urea of
the Yasontr Li~htltaiZ a~~ea.
We believe that ibis referc;nc:e ~viIl ensure that development of these properties wilt be consistent
with alt related.land use, circulation, and hau,sing and goals and paiicies afthe other General flan
F,,lements.
Sincerely, ...-"~
~~
Brian Faucht, Alt`['
cc: Torn Yuki
----` --------- .-.-......_- --------- ...w......w:..-~.,.,.-~ .,.-..__...... ATTACffi~SENT 19
11&SanMcucrelrkves~alinss.t;1~~339~1 < fb31)7~rL-D~79=briat~(z~b~Fnirinntn~.cor~i
THIS PAGE
INTENTIONALLY
LEETBLANK
Draft 2020 General Plan Goals, Policies and Actions that Direct a Study
(46 Actions Require aStudy/Strike-out Actions have been Deleted)
Land Use (3 Actions)
Community Design (10 Actions)
A.. ~ !'ll n. A,.a',. !'~Tl 7 1 C~tn flN Pt 'l~fiac~-L t 'a ~t' t. D t TiT t U '
b
(DTifD\ 4.. ~.4 4r.e ...7 .,.r. FhP1 nSx~ YY1M1 1 4 '4 1+ a 4r. 1
K
~f t .7.7'4' 4 +l, t. ,7 4 C •L. 1.
Y b
af~~ket-rates-(~~3--revised)
Page CD-10: Action CD-7.1 Conduct a study to research increasing yard setback regulations to
include considerations for building height and update the Town Code as necessary. (L.I.2.2 -
revised)
Page CD-22: Action CD-12.3 Conduct a study and amend the Town Code to require proposed
developments that are otherwise exempt from historic review but that might have an impact on
sites of designated or suspected historic significance to be referred to the Historic Preservation
Committee for review and recommendation. (L.I.1.9 -revised)
Page CD-24: Action CD-14.2 Conduct a study to determine whether hillside properties should
be downzoned to lower densities. (CD.L2.5 -revised)
Page CD-27: Action CD-16.1 Study the feasibility of establishing a program to acquire scenic
easements through dedication orpurchase. (O.L1.6- revised)
Dnien rn Z1 A,.4:..« (`ll 74 1 e+.rcly tkl ~'111Y1Yl111Y1 x 'F Dl .7 Tl 7
.+ rr r r b Y
o.. +7,,.« n n nnn ..,.,.....o r ,,. it r ~ c\
/T
Page CD-31: Action CD-18.5 Study the Conditional Use Permit Table to determine if any
deletions or additions need to be made to the list of uses. Considerations should include factors
ATTACHPSF'NT ZO
such as size of building and/or floor space occupied, traffic generation and whether the use
would dictate a "trademark" style of building. (L.L5.1 -revised)
r a• 4 4,, n+«no4n /rr\ T 1 1 l1,-~..~na\
u. ~.. ~.. ~..~.... ...-..-„ ~_~._. _.__ __.- __~
1 - -- •- 11 1,1 1, '1.7' 7, ..L.4 /T T '1 7 ;n~
Transportation (8 Actions)
revised
D-age TPA 32 A 4' TD A ~ c r a r '1, •1 •+
TD n zt~ A +' TD A P 7 !' ,]..~~nti~,l., +.. s r r
• 1 l- i -.1 L. 1 4« ,.Fn+; ..., ~ n;l;+; on /T T11 ~ -~. n'n~~\T
o r
D~TrtD~2~ A TD A 4 ~ /" .1,,,.4 n n4„~9 4.. '~ 4 1 1 + n;l.. «.]
a
r ..
Page TRA-38: Action TRA-10.2 Study amending the Town Code to require bicycle parking in
specific types of projects. (T.I.5.15 -revised)
1+' '1 r ,1 4.: 1.' 1: non n«.1 0 .,n+.-:n«.. ~„~
Page TRA-45: Action TRA-14.5 Conduct a feasibility and design study to develop and
implement programs for pedestrian,. bicycle and transitoriented systems to supplement parking in
the Central Business District. (CD.I.4.9)
Vasona Light Rail and Highway 85 (3 Actions)
Page VLR-7: Action VLR-3.1 Conduct a study to evaluate whether development of air rights at
the Vasona Light Rail station facility should be allowed or could feasibly be accomplished
without creating. visual congestion or violating the small-town character of Los Gatos. (V.I.5.3 -
split)
Page VLR-11: Policy VLR-8.3 Require a noise study for all development applications within
the Vasona Light Rail area, identifying degrees of impact and noise attenuation measures, if
necessary, to mitigate noise impacts on residential neighborhoods. (V.I.6.2 -revised)
Page VLR-11: Action VLR-8.2 Conduct a study to explore methods of financing infrastructure
improvements in the Vasona Light Rail area. (V.L7.4 -split)
Open Space, Recreation and Parks (8 Actions)
Page OSP-14: Action OSP-4.1 Conduct a study to determine the feasibility of developing active
recreational game spaces such as bocce courts and outdoor chess in existing parks. (new)
Page OSP-14: Action OSP-4.2 Conduct a study to determine the feasibility of constructing a
community pool facility. (new)
Page OSP-14: Action OSP-4.3 Conduct a study to determine the feasibility of developing a
sports complex with multi-use fields that can accommodate more than one type of sport. (new)
Page OSP-14: Action OSP-4.5 Conduct a study to determine the feasibility of providing
dedicated off-leash dog recreation areas and/or allowing off-leash dog times at specific parks.
(new)
Page OSP-14: Action OSP-4.6 Conduct a study to determine the feasibility and need for
developing more picnic areas within parks. (new)
Page OSP-14: Action OSP-4.7 Conduct a study to determine the appropriate use of "air space"
over Seven Mile Reservoir. (L.L7.9 -revised)
Page OSP-18: Action OSP-7.4 Conduct a study to determine if there are additional access
opporhrnities along the Los Gatos Creek Trail. (new)
Page OSP-18: Action OSP-7.5 Conduct a study to determine the accessibility and safety of the
existing access points along the Los Gatos Creek Trail. (new)
Environment and Sustainability (3 Actions)
Page ENV-23: Acfion ENV-6.1 Study a ban on gardening equipment that may adversely affect
air quality. (C.L3.5)
Page ENV-30: Action ENV-8.3 Conduct a study to determine appropriate Establish criteria for
using vehicle miles traveled when evaluating municipal services and/or development
applications. (new)
Page ENV-34: Action ENV-10.2 Study the feasibility of requiring energy and water efficiency
audits at time-of--sale for commercial and residential properties. (new)
Noise (2 Actions)
Page NOI-10: Policy NOI-2.2 Require all noise-sensitive developments adjacent to or within an
area where noise levels exceed community aspirations to include a noise study and
recommendation for reducing noise impact to an acceptable level. (N.I.1.13-revised)
Page NOI-11: Action NOI-3.1 Conduct a study to identify traffic improvements that could be
constructed or signal timing changes that could be made to improve traffic flows without
increasing speed levels to reduce high noise levels created by traffic congestion. (N.P.1.4)
Safety (1 Action)
Page SAF-8: Action SAF-1.3 Conduct a study to evaluate the condition of each building and
structure in Town whose use and function are essential in response to a major earthquake.
(S.I.1.4 -revised)
Human Services (8 Actions)
Page HS-6: Action HS-3.2 Work with A Place for Teens and the Los Gatos-Saratoga Recreation
District to study the possibility of expanding The Venue or a sunilar teen facility to offer a larger
variety of programming specific to different age groups. (new)
Page HS-7: Action HS-3.3 Conduct a study to identify the activities and/or develop the facilities
that teens would like to see in the Town. (new)
Page HS-8: Action HS-5.6 Study the feasibility of developing or fmding Develop a theatre
venue specific to youth performances. (new)
Page HS-17: Action HS-8.2 Study the feasibility of requiring all new senior housing
developments to provide transportation shuttle services. (new)
Page HS-17: Action H5-9.1 Study the feasibility of providing incentives for the development of
a variety of types of senior housing, including independent living and residential senior care
facilities. (new)
Page HS-28: Policy HS-12.7 Study the feasibility of a performing arts center for the Town,
including options for location and financing. (HS.I.4.2)
Page HS-39: Action HS-17.3 Study the benefits and consequences of using artificial turf,
specifically related to drainage. (new)
Page HS-46: Action HS-21.1 Study the feasibility of constructing a reuse center for building
materials from remodeled and demolished buildings. (C.I.6.2 -revised)