Morgan Hill City Council
November 2, 2022

T.O.F. 1
10' - 0"
LEVEL 1
0' - 0"
LEVEL 1
0' - 0"
T.O.F. 2
21' - 6"

FIXED LADDER

PLASTER

CEMENT PLASTER OVER WOODFRAMED WALL

ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOF

BRICK VENEER OVER WOODFRAMED WALL
HOLLOW METAL DOORS, TYP ALUMINUM WINDOWS, TYP.

PHOTOVOLTAIC PANELS
S
1 RF
1 S
1 GL
1 MTL
1 BRK
1 MTL
3 PT
2 GUTTER
T.O.F. 1
10' - 0"
LEVEL 1
0' - 0"
LEVEL 1
0' - 0"
T.O.F. 2
21' - 6"

PLASTER

CEMENT PLASTER OVER WOODFRAMED WALL

ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOFBRICK VENEER OVER WOODFRAMED WALL

HOLLOW METAL DOORS, TYP
ALUMINUM WINDOWS, TYP.

HIGH SPEED OVERHEAD COILINGDOORS MTL 1 GL1
BRK
1 RF
1 S
1 S
1 MTL
2 CAST BRUSHED ALUMINUM REVERSECHANNEL LETTERS 12"
HIGH SPEED OVERHEAD COILINGDOORS PT2
MTL
3 ROOF ACCESS HATCH AND SAFETYRAILING
GUTTER
T.O.F. 1
10' - 0"
LEVEL 1
0' - 0"
LEVEL 1
0' - 0"
T.O.F. 2
21' - 6"

CEMENT PLASTER OVER WOODFRAMED WALL

PLASTER

BRICK VENEER OVER WOODFRAMED WALL

ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOF
HOLLOW METAL DOORS, TYP ALUMINUM WINDOWS, TYP.

HIGH SPEED OVERHEAD COILINGDOORS

PHOTOVOLTAIC PANELS
S
1 PT
2 S
1 RF
1 BRK
1 MTL
1 GL
1 MTL
2 GUTTER
T.O.F. 1
10' - 0"
LEVEL 1
0' - 0"
LEVEL 1
0' - 0"
T.O.F. 2
21' - 6"

FIXED LADDER CEMENT PLASTER OVER WOOD

FRAMED WALL

PLASTERBRICK VENEER OVER WOODFRAMED WALLASPHALT SHINGLE ROOF 401
S
1 BRK
1 RF
1 S
1 PT
2 GL
1 MTL
3 GUTTER

ROOF ACCESS HATCH AND SAFETYRAILING
PROJECT NUMBER:SHEET TITLE:

NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION
PROJECT:

SHEET NUMBER:
200 E STREET, SANTA ROSA, CA 95404
619.698.9177 | www.coargroup.com
DESCRIPTION: DATE:

SCHEMATICDESIGN
07/11/22

PLANNINGSUBMITTAL
09/27/22
(CONSULTANT LOGO)

EXTERIOR

ELEVATIONS
211101
A3.1

BUTTERFIELD FIRE

STATION

CITY OF MORGAN HILL
17285 Butterfield Blvd.

Morgan Hill, CA 95037
A3.1 SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
B1 EAST ELEVATION
A3.1 SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
A1 NORTH ELEVATION
A3.1 SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
C1 SOUTH ELEVATION
A3.1 SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
D1 WEST ELEVATION

MATERIAL TYPE

DESCRIPTION

NAME COLOR
BRK 1 BRICK VENEER SANDMOLD - STRATFORD
CMU 1 CONCRETE MASONRY
UNIT
SPLITFACE -128
GL 1 GLAZING CLEAR
MTL 1 FACTORY FINISH DARK MEDIUM BRONZEMTL 2 FACTORY FINISH RAL 7013 - BROWN GREYMTL 3 FACTORY FINISH PPG DURANAR - NATURAL SUADE
MTL 4 FACTORY FINISH CORRIGATED METAL DOOR
TO MATCH PT-2
PT 1 PAINT NATURE'S ESSENTIALSPT 2 PAINT DEEP CREEK
RF 1 ASPHALT SHINGLES CLIFFSIDE GRAY
S 1 STUCCO PT-1

EXTERIOR FINISH SCHEDULE

PROPERTY LINE
PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE FIRE STATION BUTTERFIELD BLVD ADJACENT COUNTY BUILDING OUT OF SCOPE ADJACENT COUNTY PARKING LOT OUT OF SCOPE ADJACENT COUNTY PARK OUT OF SCOPE L.O.W.

L.O.W. L.O.W.

L.O.W. S MASTER VALVE FLOW SENSOR POC C WALL-MOUNTED CONTROLLER 4 4 4 4 4 4 MV BACKFLOW PREVENTOR & METER, SCD 4 4 PROJECT NUMBER: SHEET TITLE:NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PROJECT: 6353 DEL CERRO BLVD., SAN DIEGO, CA 92120 619.698.9177 | www.coargroup.com SHEET NUMBER: DESCRIPTION: DATE: SCHEMATIC DESIGN 07/11/22 DESIGN DEVELOPMENT 10/03/22 BUTTERFIELD FIRE STATION CITY OF MORGAN HILL 17285 Butterfield Blvd. Morgan Hill, CA 95037 211101 IRRIGATION PLAN L1.11 0 10' 20' 40' SCALE: 1" = 20'-0" PLANNING

SUBMITTAL
09/27/22

SYMBOL ABBR SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME SIZE SPACING HEIGHT SPREAD WATER USE QUANTITY TREES ARB MAR Arbutus 'Marina' MARINA STRAWBERRY TREE (STANDARD) 24" BOX AS SHOWN 40' 35' LOW - PIS CHI Pistacia chinensis CHINESE PISTACHE 24" BOX AS SHOWN 30' 25' LOW - PLA RAC Platanus racemosa CALIFORNIA SYCAMORE 24" BOX AS SHOWN 40' 25' MODERATE - QUE AGI Quercus agrifolia COAST LIVE OAK 24" BOX AS SHOWN 30' 30' VERY LOW - TREE SCHEDULE SYMBOL ABBR SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME SIZE SPACING HEIGHT SPREAD WATER USE QUANTITY PERENNIALS ANI HAR Anigozanthos Harmony RED-YELLOW KANGAROO PAW 30" O.C. 1 GAL 4' 3' LOW - ERI GRA Eriogonum grande var. rubescens SAN MIGUEL ISLAND BUCKWHEAT 2' O.C. 1 GAL 2' 2' LOW - MIM AUR Mimulus aurantiacus STICKY MONKEY FLOWER 2' O.C. 1 GAL 3' 2' LOW - PEN MAR Penstemon heterophyllus 'Margarita BOP' MARGARITA BOP FOOTHILL PENSTEMON 2' O.C. 1 GAL 2' 2' LOW - SAL CLE Salvia clevelandii CLEVELAND SAGE 5' O.C. 5 GAL 5' 5' LOW - TEU PRO Teucrium chamaedrys prostratum COMPACT CREEPING GERMANDER 3' O.C. 1 GAL 4' 3' LOW - GROUNDCOVERS ARC EME Arctostaphylos Emerald Carpet EMERALD CARPET MANZANITA 5' O.C. 5 GAL 1' 5' LOW - ARC PAC Arctostaphylos Pacific Mist PACIFIC MIST MANZNITA 6' O.C. 5 GAL 2' 6' LOW - BIORETENTION ACH MIL Achillea millefolium COMMON YARROW 2' O.C. 1 GAL 2' 2' LOW - BAC PIL Baccharis pilularis 'Twin Peaks' DWARF COYOTE BRUSH 5' O.C. 5 GAL 2' 5' LOW - CAR DIV Carex divulsa EUROPEAN GREY SEDGE 2' O.C. 1 GAL 1' 2' LOW - IRI DOU Iris douglasiana DOUGLAS IRIS 2' O.C. 1 GAL 2' 2' LOW - JUN PAN Juncus patens BLUE RUSH 2' O.C. 1 GAL 2' 2' LOW - MYR CAL Myrica californica PACIFIC WAX MYRTLE 8' O.C. 15 GAL 17' 15' MEDIUM - RIB SAN Ribes sanguineum RED FLOWERING CURRANT 4' O.C. 5 GAL 5' 4' LOW - 36" BOX: 10 TREES 24" BOX: 10 TREES 15 GAL: 70 PLANTS 5 GAL: 300 PLANTS 1 GAL: 600 PLANTS NOTES: QUANTITIES ARE AN ESTIMATE BASED ON PROPOSED PLANT PALETTE AND SQUARE FOOTAGE WITHIN SCOPE OF WORK AT DD PHASE. QUANTITIES ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE. QUANTITIES BASED ON SQUARE FOOTAGE SYMBOL ABBR SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME SIZE SPACING HEIGHT SPREAD WATER USE QUANTITY SHRUBS ARC HOW Arctostaphylos densiflora 'Howard McMinn' HOWARD MCMINN MANZANITA 6' O.C. 15 GAL 6' 6' LOW - CEA JUL Ceanothus 'Julia Phelps' SMALL LEAF MOUNTAIN LILAC 5' O.C. 5 GAL 5' 7' LOW - RHA CAL Rhamnus californica 'Eve Case' EVE CASE COFFEEBERRY 5' O.C. 5 GAL 6' 6' LOW - WES FRU Westeringia fruticosa COAST ROSEMARY 5' O.C. 5 GAL 4' 5' LOW - GRASSES BOU GRA Bouteloua gracilis 'Blonde Ambition' BLONDE AMBITION BLUE GRAMA 30" O.C. 1 GAL 30" 30" LOW - FES CAL Festuca californica CALIFORNIA FESCUE 3' O.C. 1 GAL 3' 3' LOW - FES MAI Festuca mairei ATLAS FESCUE 30" O.C. 1 GAL 30" 30" LOW - LEY CON Leymus condensatus 'Canyon Prince' CANYON PRINCE WILD RYE 3' O.C. 1 GAL 3' 3' LOW - LOM LON Lomandra longifolia 'Breeze' DWARF MAT RUSH 3' O.C. 1 GAL 3' 3' LOW - PLANT SCHEDULE PROJECT NUMBER: SHEET TITLE:NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PROJECT: 6353 DEL CERRO BLVD., SAN DIEGO, CA 92120 619.698.9177 | www.coargroup.com SHEET NUMBER: DESCRIPTION: DATE: SCHEMATIC DESIGN 07/11/22 DESIGN DEVELOPMENT 10/03/22 BUTTERFIELD FIRE STATION CITY OF MORGAN HILL 17285 Butterfield Blvd. Morgan Hill, CA 95037 211101 PLANTING SCHEDULE L1.20 PLANNING

SUBMITTAL
09/27/22

1. REFER TO SPECIFICATIONS FOR SOIL PREPARATION, PLANTING, AND MAINTENANCE PERIOD REQUIREMENTS. 2. CONTRACTOR TO REFER TO PLANT LIST FOR PLANT SIZE AND SPACING. USE TRIANGULAR SPACING UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 3. PLANT QUANTITIES ARE PROVIDED FOR CONTRACTOR'S CONVENIENCE ONLY. CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY ALL PLANT QUANTITIES SHOWN IN PLANTING PLANS. 4. CONTRACTOR TO SUBMIT PLANT SAMPLES FOR APPROVAL BY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, SEE SPECS. 5. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT TO INSPECT PLANTING LAYOUT PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE IN SITU 10' X 10' MOCKUP OF ALL PLANT MIXES FOR APPROVAL BY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. 6. CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY LOCATION AND DEPTH OF ALL UTILITIES, STRUCTURES, AND IRRIGATION LINES BEFORE DIGGING. 7. GROUNDCOVERS ARE TO EXTEND UNDER TREE AND SHRUB PLANTINGS FOR FULL COVERAGE. SPACE GROUNDCOVER 18" AWAY FROM TREES AND 12" AWAY FROM SHRUBS. 8. SEE GRADING PLAN FOR FINISH GRADES. ALL FINISH GRADES REFER TO FINISH GRADE OF MULCHED LANDSCAPE. NOTES

PROPERTY LINE
PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE FIRE STATION BUTTERFIELD BLVD ADJACENT COUNTY BUILDING OUT OF SCOPE ADJACENT COUNTY PARKING LOT OUT OF SCOPE ADJACENT COUNTY PARK OUT OF SCOPE L.O.W.

L.O.W. L.O.W.

L.O.W. - ARC HOW - ERI GRA - ACH MIL - LEY CON - ARB MAR - PEN MAR - PLA RAC - RHA CAL - SAL CLE - ARC PAC - PLA RAC - LEY CON - RHA CAL - BAC PIL - ANI HAR - CAR DIV - ACH MIL - FES MAI - RHA CAL - PLA RAC - JUN PAT - RIB SAN - FES CAL - LEY CON - QUE AGR - ACH MIL - ARC PAC - ERI GRA - FES CAL - TEU PRO - FES MAI - RHA CAL - PEN MAR - SAL CLE - ACH MIL - ARB MAR - RHA CAL - LEY CON - JUN PAT - QUE AGR - MYR CAL - FES MAI - BAC PIL - IRI DOU - CAR DIV - IRI DOU - PIS CHI - MIM AUR - FES MAI - JUN PAT - PLA RAC - ANI HAR - ARC EME - ARB MAR - QUE AGR - MIM AUR - PIS CHI - PEN MAR - FES MAI - ARC EME - PLA RAC - ARC PAC - ARC EME - ERI GRA - ARC EME - JUN PAT - TEU PRO - ACH MIL MULCH AREA SURROUNDING NEW ADA PARKING PROJECT NUMBER: SHEET TITLE:NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PROJECT: 6353 DEL CERRO BLVD., SAN DIEGO, CA 92120 619.698.9177 | www.coargroup.com SHEET NUMBER: DESCRIPTION: DATE: SCHEMATIC DESIGN 07/11/22 DESIGN DEVELOPMENT 10/03/22 BUTTERFIELD FIRE STATION CITY OF MORGAN HILL 17285 Butterfield Blvd. Morgan Hill, CA 95037 211101 PLANTING PLAN L1.21 0 10' 20' 40' SCALE: 1" = 20'-0" PLANNING

SUBMITTAL
09/27/22

PROJECT NUMBER: SHEET TITLE:NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PROJECT: 6353 DEL CERRO BLVD., SAN DIEGO, CA 92120 619.698.9177 | www.coargroup.com SHEET NUMBER: DESCRIPTION: DATE: SCHEMATIC DESIGN 07/11/22 DESIGN DEVELOPMENT 10/03/22 BUTTERFIELD FIRE STATION CITY OF MORGAN HILL 17285 Butterfield Blvd. Morgan Hill, CA 95037 211101 PLANT PALETTE L1.22 Aesculus californica CALIFORNIA BUCKEYE TREES GROUNDCOVERS Arbutus 'Marina' MARINA STRAWBERRY TREE SHRUBS GRASSES Quercus lobata VALLEY OAK Chilopsis linearis DESERT WILLOW Olea europaea (non fruiting) OLIVE TREE Pistacia chinensis CHINESE PISTACHE Platanus racemosa CALIFORNIA SYCAMORE Quercus agrifolia COAST LIVE OAK Arctostpahylos 'Emerald Carpet' EMERALD CARPET MANZANITA Arctostaphylos 'Pacific Mist' PACIFIC MIST MANZANITA Rosmarinus officinalis prostratus CREEPING ROSEMARY Salvia 'Bee's Bliss' BEE'S BLISS SAGE Arctostaphylos densiflora 'Howard McMinn' HOWARD MCMINN MANZANITA Ceanothus 'Julia Phelps' SMALL LEAF MOUNTAIN LILAC Garrya elliptica COAST SILK-TASSEL Heteromeles arbutifolia TOYON Prunus ilicifolia ssp. illicifolia HOLLYLEAF CHERRY Rhamnus californica 'Eve Case' EVE CASE COFFEEBERRY Westeringia fruticosa COAST ROSEMARY Bouteloua gracilis BLUE GRAMA Carex tumulicola BERKELEY SEDGE Festuca californica CALIFORNIA FESCUE Festuca mairei ATLAS FESCUE Leymus condensatus 'Canyon Prince' CANYON PRINCE WILD RYE Lomandra longifolia 'Breeze' DWARF MAT RUSH Muhlenbergia rigens DEER GRASS PLANNING

SUBMITTAL
09/27/22

PROJECT NUMBER: SHEET TITLE:NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PROJECT: 6353 DEL CERRO BLVD., SAN DIEGO, CA 92120 619.698.9177 | www.coargroup.com SHEET NUMBER: DESCRIPTION: DATE: SCHEMATIC DESIGN 07/11/22 DESIGN DEVELOPMENT 10/03/22 BUTTERFIELD FIRE STATION CITY OF MORGAN HILL 17285 Butterfield Blvd. Morgan Hill, CA 95037 211101 PLANT PALETTE L1.23 Anigozanthos Harmony RED-YELLOW KANGAROO PAW PERENNIALS Eriogonum grande var. rubescens SAN MIGUEL ISLAND BUCKWHEAT BIORETENTION Hesperaloe parviflora RED YUCCA Mimulus aurantiacus STICKY MONKEY FLOWER Monardella villosa 'Russian River' RUSSIAN RIVER COYOTE MINT Penstemon heterophyllus 'Margarita BOP' MARGARITA BOP FOOTHILL PENSTEMON Salvia Clevelandii CLEVELAND SAGE Teucrium chamaedrys prostratum COMPACT CREEPING GERMANDER Achillea millefolium COMMON YARROW Baccharis pilularis DWARF COYOTE BRUSH Carex divulsa EUROPEAN GREY SEDGE Cercis occidentalis WESTERN REDBUD Iris douglasiana DOUGLAS IRIS Juncus patens BLUE RUSH Leymus condensatus 'Canyon Prince' CANYON PRINCE WILD RYE Myrica californica PACIFIC WAX MYRTLE Ribes sanguineum RED FLOWERING CURRANT Salvia sonomensis SONOMA SAGE Sisyrinchium bellum BLUE EYED GRASS PLANNING

SUBMITTAL
09/27/22

MORGAN HILL butterfield fire station # 6
EXterior finishes
RENDERING: Butterfield Boulevard

ALUMINUM WINDOW COLOR
MTL-1: Arcadia Custom, AB-5 Paint

STUCCO COLOR
PT-1: Benjamin Moore, Nature’s Essentials

HOLLOW METAL DOOR COLOR
PT-2: Benjamin Moore, Deep Creek

APPARATUS BAY DOORS
MTL-2: Ral 7013, Brown Grey

CONCRETE MASONRY UNIT
CMU-1: Basalite, Splitface - 128

BRICK VENEER
BRK-1: McNear, Sandmold - Stratford

ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOFING
RF-1: Owens Corning, Duration - Cliffside Gray

GUTTERS
MTL-3: PPG Duranar, Natural Suede

8 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: November 2, 2022
PREPARED BY:

Jennifer Carman, Development Services Director
APPROVED BY: City Manager

APPROVE AMENDMENTS TO THE GENERAL PLAN AND CERTIFY A

SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SEIR), ADOPT

FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE AND A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING

CONSIDERATIONS AND APPROVE MITIGATION MONITORING

REPORTING PLAN FOR THE COCHRANE COMMONS RETAIL
CENTER AND ASSOCIATED LAND. THE PROPERTIES, IDENTIFIED
BY ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBERS: 728-37-056, -069, AND -041, ARE LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF HIGHWAY 101,

COCHRANE ROAD, AND MISSION VIEW DRIVE, (MORGAN HILL

RETAIL VENTURE LP, OWNER)

RECOMMENDATION(S)

1. Open/Close public hearing;

2. Adopt resolution certifying the SEIR, adopt Findings of Significance and Statement of Overriding Considerations and approve the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program prepared for the project;

3. Adopt resolution approving an amendment to the General Plan land use designation;

4. Waive the first and second reading of Zoning Amendment Ordinance; and

5. Introduce Zoning Amendment Ordinance

COUNCIL PRIORITIES, GOALS & STRATEGIES
City Council Ongoing Priorities
Maintaining and Enhancing Infrastructure
Supporting our Youth, Seniors, and Entire Community
Preserving and Cultivating Public Trust
Advancing Regional Initiatives
2022-2023 Strategic Priorities
Affordable Housing and Homelessness
Economic Development
Guiding Documents
Economic Blueprint
Morgan Hill 2035 General Plan

8 REPORT NARRATIVE:

LOCATION MAP/PROJECT INFORMATION:

1. Location: Northeast corner of Highway 101 and Cochrane Road identified by Assessor Parcel Numbers: 728-37-056, -069, and -041

2. Site Area: 66.49 Acres

3. General Plan: Commercial and Mixed Use Flex

4. Zoning: Highway Commercial - PD (Planned Development Combining
District)

5. Request: Request for a modification to an existing Planned Development Combining District and Master Plan to
incorporate housing and expand range of uses allowed
within the Cochrane Commons shopping center.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION:

The proposed project seeks to create a mixed-use neighborhood on the Cochrane Commons campus located at the southwest corner of Mission View Drive and Cochrane Road through General Plan Amendments and Zoning Code changes.

Specifically, the applicant seeks to modify the approved Planned Development Combining District (PD) and the associated Master Plan to modernize the mix of land uses in the Cochrane Commons Shopping Center. The project would involve construction of Phase II of the Cochrane Commons development on the undeveloped site adjacent to the completed Phase I. The project would consist of 498 residential units, consisting of a mix of homes, townhomes, condos, and apartments; 135,000 square feet of retail space; a 140-room hotel. The residential uses would be located in the northern and middle portion of the project site and the hotel and commercial retail would be located in the southern portion. The project would also provide various on-site amenities for residents.

The applicant also proposes a General Plan Amendment to expand the Mixed-Use Flex General Plan land use designation to the entire Phase 2 portion of the site as shown in

8 the graphic below. An updated overall site plan and a Phase 2 site plan have been provided. The applicant is also seeking to allow a third pylon sign within the Shopping Center near U.S. Highway 101 as part of the Planned Development (PD). A further explanation of the applicant’s request is provided in Statement of Planning Objectives attached to the Planning Commission staff report.

The approved center originally included over 650,000 square feet of commercial (12 major retail tenants and 50 smaller restaurants and shops). Since 2005, the developer has been working to attract retail tenants. The City has been challenged to attract retail users and has been working to develop a retail concentration strategy as part of the City's Economic Blueprint. The proposed changes seek to increase the viability of the existing shopping center, encouraging development of the remainder shopping center while providing a variety of housing options. The project will create a mixed-use neighborhood on the Cochrane Commons campus and it is deemed to be generally consistent with the City's General Plan and the City's 2017 Economic Blueprint.

BACKGROUND:

The Planned Development Combining District (PD) and associated Master Plan Overlay for the project site was established by City Council Ordinance No. 1746, New Series on November 5, 2005. Phase 1 is built on the west side of the property, with several sites remaining before final buildout. Phase 2, occupying the eastern half of the property, has yet to develop, although the parking lot area and trash dumpsters were constructed along with Phase 1 many years ago and a gas station was constructed at the Cochrane entrance in recent years. The General Plan land use designation for the majority of the shopping center is Commercial. The General Plan land use designation for the northeastern portion of Phase 2 next to Target was changed to Mixed Use Flex (MU-F) at the request of the property owner as part of the 2016 update of the Morgan Hill 2035 General Plan. Base zoning for the entire site is Highway Commercial (HC). A Planned Development Combining District has been applied to the entire site that serves as the zoning district that governs uses and development standards on the overall site.

As required by Section 18.30.050 (Planned Development Combining District) of the Morgan Hill Municipal Code, the applicant submitted an application for preliminary review on the proposed planned development amendment. The Planning Commission considered the initial preliminary application at their February 11, 2020 meeting. The applicant continued to refine the application and appeared before the Planning Commission again on March 23, 2021. The applicant continued to further refine the application and submitted a number of minor changes or refinements over the last 18 months.

Planning Commission Action:

The Planning Commission reviewed the project on October 11, 2022 and accepted public comment on the proposed project. During the review of the project, the Commission expressed appreciation for the movement to complete the shopping center with the Phase 2 development and raised concerns regarding the proposed General Plan amendment for the entirety of the site and the number of changes proposed in the

8 use list and development standards within the PD.

General Plan Amendment
The application proposes to expand the existing Mixed Use Flex land use designation in the northeastern portion of the project site south towards Cochrane. While the proposal is to expand the designation, the proposed Master Plan does not include residential uses extending to Cochrane Road. The Planning Commission recommended limiting the expansion of the Mixed Use Flex designation to the area proposed for residential use as identified in the site plan. The proposed General Plan Amendment can be found consistent with the policies and provisions of the Morgan Hill 2035 General Plan as noted in the draft resolution.

Use List & Development Standards
Pursuant to Section 18.30.050.A of the Morgan Hill Municipal Code, “the purpose of the Planned Development (PD) combining district is to allow for high quality development that deviates from standards and regulations applicable to base zoning districts in Morgan Hill. The PD combining district is intended to promote creativity in building design, flexibility in permitted uses, and innovation in development concepts. The PD combining district provides landowners with enhanced flexibility to take advantage of unique site characteristics and develop projects that will provide public benefits for residents, employees, and visitors.” A PD functions as a customized zoning district and supersedes the Municipal Code when use allowances or development standards conflict with the Code.

The applicant provided a proposed list of permitted and conditional uses in Section 1 of the PD document. This list is an update from the list currently in the approved PD. The Planning Commission recommended a number of uses move from the permitted to conditional. These uses include lodging facilities, nursing homes and residential care, bars and nightclubs, vehicle sales and leasing,vehicle repair and maintenance and a blanket statement that would allow any use supportive of retail. The edits are noted in Exhibit A of the draft Ordinance.

Development standards were also modified in the proposed project from the original approval. These standards are noted throughout the text of the PD. The primary changes are increases to base height - from 40 to 68 feet and architectural features from 60-75 feet and reductions to setbacks and landscape strip width. There was also a minimum number of stories along Mission View listed as 3 stories.

The Planning Commission had concerns about the height increase and reductions in setbacks and landscape strips. The Commission recommended that the height increase only be applicable to residential and lodging uses as well as the third pylon sign - however, the Commission made it clear that residential uses should be limited to a 4-story height, not the 5-story height that could be supported at a height limit of 68 feet. It was also not clear to the Commission the reason for the reduced setback and landscape strips and they chose to recommend a modified reduction to lessen any potential negative impact. The Commission also recommended that a 2 story maximum be allowed immediately adjacent to the Mission View frontage.

8 The originally submitted PD amendment requested "any material future revisions to the project site plan and/or project design elevations included as a part of this application shall be reviewed and approved by City Staff at Staff level if it is determined by Staff that the project revisions are consistent with or in substantial conformance with the content or intent of this PD and or the project site plan and design elevations." Based on the limited detail included in the site plan and sample elevations, staff raised concerns about this request. Staff believed the proposed change in development standards noted in the above paragraph necessitates a formal review process to ensure appropriate transitions to adjacent areas. Site plans submitted to date are master plans, not detailed design plans where staff can determine whether City standards are met. The Design Review process requires submittal of these plans. The applicant responded to staff's concerns and edited the PD Amendment to request Administrative Design Review for specific developments within Phase 2 (Section 2. #4 in the PD Guidelines). The Planning Commission agreed and affirmed a condition requiring an administrative Design Permit for individual projects within Phase 2 in their recommendation resolution.

CEQA:

An EIR was certified with the other project approvals for the original Cochrane Commons PD in 2005. When an EIR has been adopted and a project is modified or expanded upon, additional CEQA review may be necessary. The key considerations in determining the need for the appropriate type of additional CEQA review are outlined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. The proposed project would involve substantial changes to the project analyzed in the 2005 EIR, including adding new residential uses and a hotel. Therefore, the City determined that the preparation of a SEIR is the appropriate approach to CEQA compliance. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15150, the 2005 EIR is incorporated into this document by reference.

Details of the CEQA analysis are included in the CEQA section of this report.

Traffic
Two separate traffic analysis documents were generated for the proposed project - one using the VMT metric required by CEQA (discussed further in the CEQA section of this report) and one using LOS to determine General Plan consistency. The LOS based traffic analysis found the proposed mixed-use development would result in 2,191 fewer daily trips with 285 additional trips during the AM peak hour and 180 fewer trips occurring during the PM peak hour when compared to the previously approved commercial/retail development on the project site. The proposed mixed-use project would not result in any new or substantially more severe effects on intersection operations than the previously approved commercial/retail development. Furthermore, two intersections (Monterey Road/Dunne Avenue and Cochrane Road/Mission View Road) were shown to be impacted by the approved commercial/retail development in the 2005 EIR. The identified mitigation measures of the 2005 EIR have since been completed.

The traffic analysis document based on LOS recommended the addition of a second

8 northbound left-turn lane on Mission View Drive and a cycle length adjustment would be necessary to improve intersection operations. The addition of the second northbound left-turn lane will require lane striping and signal modification but will fit within the existing curb-to-curb pavement width on Mission View Drive. Implementation of this improvement would improve the intersection’s level of service to LOS C during both the AM and PM peak hours under Year 2030 Cumulative with both project conditions. The Planning Commission recommended review and implementation of this condition at the discretion of the City Engineer. This condition has been incorporated and is noted in the Planning Commission recommendation resolution.

CONCLUSION:

General Plan Amendments and Zone Changes, as proposed by the project applicant, are both legislative acts. The City is granted broad discretion to make decisions on legislative acts by State statute. Applications for such changes are not subject to the Permit Streamlining Act, and the City maintains significant discretion on all such requests, providing no obligation to recommend project approval or make findings for denial. The City is granted such discretion for legislative acts because changes to the General Plan and Zoning affect development policies for the entire City. Proposed amendments to the City's General Plan and zoning ordinance require careful consideration for internal consistency and long-term implications for effective land use planning. As such, this staff report and attachments document the City's policies, provides analysis of the proposed project, identifies required findings, and specific recommendations from the Planning Commission.

The proposed project will create a mixed-use neighborhood on the Cochrane Commons campus. The approved PD has been in place since 2005 and the originally envisioned big box retail/cineplex development has not been able to come to fruition.

The developer has been working to attract retail tenants to the shopping center for over 15 years. The City's 2017 Economic Blueprint action 13 calls for a Retail Concentration Strategy to support existing retail as Morgan Hill is considered over-retailed. The proposed project is generally consistent with the General Plan and the changes proposed in the PD, while broad, create the most flexibility for future development within the center.

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:

The proposed project was publicly noticed with expanded noticing (mailed to property owners within an expanded notice area – beyond 600 feet - of the project site and display notice placed in the local newspaper) for the minimum 10-day period.

Information regarding the meeting was also placed on social media and the City’s 411 information email. Prior to this public hearing, the Planning Commission also held two separate preliminary hearings in 2020 and 2021.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:

The City Council could approve the project with amendments or direct staff to make

8 changes to the request provided the SEIR is certified and Findings of Significance and Statement of Overriding Considerations approved. The City Council could also deny the proposed project.

PRIOR CITY COUNCIL AND COMMISSION ACTIONS:

The Planned Development Combining District (PD) and associated Master Plan Overlay for the project site was established by City Council Ordinance No. 1746, New Series on November 5, 2005. The Planning Commission considered the initial preliminary application at their February 11, 2020 meeting. The applicant continued to refine the application and appeared before the Planning Commission again on March 23, 2021. The Planning Commission approved amendments to the General Plan Land Use Map and Zoning Map at their October 11 meeting.

FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT:

The City development review functions are cost-recovery, with fees collected from applicants to cover cost of services. These fees have been collected.

CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act):

An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared as a Subsequent EIR (SEIR) to the Cochrane Road Planned Unit Development Project 2005 EIR (2005 EIR, State Clearinghouse Number 2004112060). The 2005 EIR approval resolution is included as an attachment. On December 3, 2021, the City of Morgan Hill circulated a Notice of Preparation (NOP) for a 30-day comment period to request input on the types of impacts that could result from the proposed project. The Draft SEIR, along with appendices was made available for public review for a 45- day comment period that began on June 10, 2022 and ended on July 25, 2022. The Notice of Availability of a Draft SEIR was posted with the County Clerk, sent to the State Clearinghouse, published on the City’s website, and mailed to responsible agencies. The City also held a virtual community open house as an opportunity for the public to submit verbal comments on July 13, 2022.

Responses to the Notice of Preparation of a Draft SEIR and input received at the SEIR scoping meeting held by the City are summarized in Section 1 of the Draft SEIR.

Comment letters received during circulation of the Draft SEIR and responses to those letters are included in the FEIR. A Mitigation and Monitoring Report is also attached.

SEIR SUMMARY
As indicated in the Initial Study, there is no substantial evidence that significant and unmitigable impacts would occur to the following issue areas: Aesthetics, Agricultural and Forestry Resources, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Energy, Geology and Soils, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use and Planning, Mineral Resources, Noise, Population and Housing, Public Services, Recreation, Tribal Cultural Resources,

8 Utilities and Service Systems, and Wildfire. Impacts to Tribal Cultural Resources and Transportation were found to be potentially significant and were addressed in the SEIR.

Table ES-4 in the FEIR summarizes the environmental impacts of the proposed project, proposed mitigation measures, and residual impacts (the impact after application of mitigation, if required) identified in the SEIR. Table ES-5 in the FEIR summarizes mitigation measures included in the 2005 EIR that would continue to be implemented under the proposed project. Because some mitigation measures have been previously complied with during development of Phase I, the already developed area adjacent to the project site, not every mitigation measure from the 2005 EIR would be included in the proposed project.

Impacts are categorized as follows:
 Significant and Unavoidable. An impact that cannot be reduced to below the threshold level given reasonably available and feasible mitigation measures.

Such an impact requires a
Statement of Overriding Considerations to be issued if the project is approved pe r §15093 of the CEQA Guidelines.
 Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. An impact that can be reduced to below the threshold level given reasonably available and feasible mitigation measures. Such an impact requires findings under §15091 of the CEQA Guidelines.
 Less than Significant. An impact that may be adverse but does not exceed the threshold levels and does not require mitigation measures. However, mitigation measures that could further lessen the environmental effect may be suggested if readily available and easily achievable.
 No Impact: The proposed project would have no effect on environmental conditio ns or would reduce existing environmental problems or hazards.

The Draft SEIR identifies significant impacts to the following California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) environmental issue area: transportation. As described in the Draft SEIR, Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) impacts can be mitigated, but the project would not fall below the applicable residential VMT per capita threshold and would be considered significant and unavoidable. All other subject area impacts were determined to have no impact or less than significant with the implementation of mitigation measures.

VMT measures the amount and distance of vehicle travel attributed to a project or use.

Specifically, VMT focuses on determining the origin and destination of travel patterns.

Unlike LOS, VMT does not assess the local vehicle trips from a project or the project’s traffic impacts on a local intersection or road/highway segment. Rather, VMT assesses the effects of the project on regional traffic and use of transit and non-motorized travel.

VMT is not a new methodology; it has been used for many years in CEQA documents in estimating pollution (air quality impacts), GHG emissions, and energy consumption.

VMT is typically calculated using a travel demand model, which estimates the total

8 number and length of vehicle trips to and from a given geographic area, such as transportation analysis zones (TAZs). The Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) developed the countywide VMT evaluation tool that is used to generate VMT calculations. Unfortunately, because it is a countywide model, the calculations levy 13 extra miles attached to Morgan Hill due to the City’s distance from regional job centers in San Jose.

In June 2021, City Council directed City Staff to pursue a VMT model in order to deviate from the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Santa Clara Countywide VMT Evaluation Tool and/or to provide substantial evidence to deviate from the Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR) Technical Advisory which recommends a 15% threshold of significance reduction from existing VMT. This effort is currently underway.

The project would involve construction of Phase II of the Cochrane Commons development, which was previously analyzed in the Cochrane Road Planned Unit Development Project 2005 EIR (2005 EIR, State Clearinghouse Number 2004112060) on the undeveloped site adjacent to the completed Phase I. The 2005 EIR identified that significant and unavoidable impacts to agriculture, air quality, noise, and transportation would result from the previously approved project. The previously approved project and the current version of the project would both convert prime farmland out of agricultural use, and this impact would remain significant under the current project. The 2005 EIR found that the previously approved project would result in significant operational emissions from mobile air pollutant sources, even with the implementation of mitigation to implement a trip reduction plan. However, updated modeling with more accurate tools taking into account improved vehicle standards show that air quality emissions from the proposed current project would be less than significant. The 2005 EIR identified a short-term significant and unavoidable noise impact to two single-family residential units on the southeast corner of the project site due to the increased number of vehicle trips. As these units have since been demolished, this impact would no longer apply to the current project. The 2005 EIR also found that the previously approved project would generate new trips on the segment of US 101 between Tennant Avenue and Dunne Avenue that would exacerbate existing unacceptable level of service (LOS) conditions. Since the 2005 EIR’s publication, SB 743 was passed, which prohibits the use of LOS as a metric to analyze transportation impacts under CEQA, so this impact is no longer relevant to the proposed project.

As stated previously, the project would exceed the applicable significance threshold for VMT. Even with Mitigation Measure TRA-1, that focuses on VMT Reductions, the project would not fall below the applicable residential VMT per capita threshold. A Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations is included in the Draft Resolution for the SEIR. The previous 2005 EIR also included significant impacts to traffic and circulation and a Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted for the original project.

There is no mitigation that could reduce VMT by 15% as required because of the extra 13 miles the City has to account for in the VTA traffic model - the methodology the City

8 uses to determine VMT impacts. Significant VMT impacts will be commonplace across all projects until the model or measurements are able to be adjusted.

As required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the SEIR also examined alternatives to the proposed project. Studied alternatives include the following three alternatives: 1) No build, no project, 2) Build out based on current General Plan Designation, 3) Expansion of General Plan Mixed-Use Flex Designation on the north half of the site. Based on the alternatives analysis, the proposed project was determined to be the environmentally superior alternative.

RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MORGAN
HILL ADOPTING CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT; ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS; ADOPTING A MITIGATION
MONITORING PLAN; AND CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE COCHRANE COMMONS PHASE 2 PROJECT.

WHEREAS, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH Number 2022060200) was prepared for the Cochrane Commons Phase 2 Project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). A Notice of Preparation (NOP) was circulated between December 3, 2021 and January 3, 2022 to receive comments regarding the scope and content of the SEIR. A public scoping meeting was held on December 16, 2021 to receive oral comments on the NOP. The Draft SEIR was circulated between June 10, 2022 and July 25, 2022; and
WHEREAS, the City of Morgan Hill received comments on the Draft SEIR by seven individuals / organizations. Responses to those comments and minor changes to the Draft SEIR were included in a Final SEIR document in accordance with the requirements of CEQA; and
WHEREAS, the information contained in the Final SEIR, consisting of the Draft SEIR document in combination with the Final SEIR document, was reviewed and considered by the Planning Commission at a duly-noticed Planning Commission public hearing held on October 11, 2022; and the Planning Commission took action to recommend to the City Council that the Final SEIR be certified as being found complete, correct and in substantial compliance with the requirements of California Environmental Quality Act; and
WHEREAS, the Environmental Impact Report concluded that implementation of the Project could result in one significant effect on the environment and identified mitigation measures that would reduce some but not all of those significant effects to a less-than significant level; and
WHEREAS, in connection with the approval of a project involving the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report that identifies one or more significant environmental effects, CEQA requires the decision-making body of the lead agency to incorporate feasible mitigation measures that would reduce those significant environmental effects to a less-than-significant level and/or adopt a Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations; and
WHEREAS, whenever a lead agency approves a project requiring the implementation of measures to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment,

Resolution No.

CEQA also requires a lead agency to adopt a mitigation monitoring and reporting program to ensure compliance with the mitigation measures during project implementation, and such a mitigation monitoring and reporting program has been prepared for the Project for consideration by the decision-maker of the City of Morgan Hill as lead agency for the Project (the "Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program"); and
WHEREAS, the City of Morgan Hill is the lead agency on the Project, and the City Council is the decision-making body for the proposed approval to construct and otherwise undertake the Project; and
WHEREAS, the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report and the related Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project are, by this reference, incorporated into this Resolution as if fully set forth herein; and
WHEREAS, the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report, incorporating any Addenda, and related Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project are on file in the Development Services Department located at 17575 Peak Avenue, Morgan Hill, California, 95037, and are available for inspection by any interested person at that location.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE MORGAN HILL CITY COUNCIL DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1: FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING

CONSIDERATIONS BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

MORGAN HILL REGARDING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT FOR THE COCHRANE COMMONS PHASE 2
PROJECT: The City Council finds, determines and declares the findings and facts and statement of overriding considerations as set forth in the attached Exhibit "A" by this reference incorporated herein.

SECTION 2: CERTIFICATION OF FINAL EIR: The City Council hereby certifies that the Final SEIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS 2 N D DAY OF NOVEMBER2022, AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

Resolution No.

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ATTEST: APPROVED:

MICHELE BIGELOW, City Clerk RICHARD CONSTANTINE, Mayor

CERTIFICATE OF THE CITY CLERK

I, MICHELLE BIGELOW, CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF MORGAN HILL, CALIFORNIA, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of Resolution No. , adopted by the City Council of the City of Morgan Hill, California at their regular meeting held on the day of , 2022.

WITNESS MY HAND AND THE SEAL OF THE CITY OF MORGAN HILL.

DATE:

MICHELE BIGELOW, City Clerk

Resolution No.

EXHIBIT "A"

FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS BY

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MORGAN HILL REGARDING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE COCHRANE COMMONS PHASE 2 PROJECT (State Clearinghouse No. 2004112060)
The following Findings, the mitigation measures specified herein, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached hereto are hereby adopted by the Morgan Hill City Council in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code Section 21081, 21081.5 and 21081.6, and the CEQA Guidelines, Title 14, California Code of Regulations, Sections 15091 and 15092 for the Cochrane Commons Phase II Project (project).

Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines states that:
a. No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been certified which identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the project unless the public agency makes one or more written findings for each of those significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding. The possible findings are:
(1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR.
(2) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency.
(3) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR.

In short, CEQA requires that the lead agency adopt mitigation measures or alternatives, where feasible, to avoid or mitigate significant environmental impacts that will otherwise occur with implementation of the project. Project mitigation or alternatives are not required, however, where they are infeasible or where the responsibility for modifying the project lies with another agency.

For those significant effects that cannot be mitigated to a less-than-significant level, the public agency is required to find that specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the project outweigh the significant effects on the

Resolution No.

environment. The CEQA Guidelines state in section 15093 that:
“If the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a propos[ed] project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered ‘acceptable.” A. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS
The Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) prepared by the City of Morgan Hill (City) for the Cochrane Commons Phase II Project (project) consists of the Draft Subsequent EIR (Draft SEIR) and the Final SEIR / Response to Comments on the Draft SEIR. It was prepared as a SEIR to the Cochrane Road Planned Unit Development Project 2005 EIR (2005 EIR, State Clearinghouse Number 2004112060). The project analyzed under the 2005 EIR included 590,100 square feet of retail space, a 12-pump gas station, and a 63,200-square-foot movie theatre in the same location as the project, which would have been built out in two phases. The 2005 EIR covered both Phase I and Phase II of project construction. Construction of Phase I of the project was completed in 2007.

The project would involve construction of Phase II of the Cochrane Commons development on the undeveloped site adjacent to the completed Phase I. The Phase II project currently proposed is different from the originally proposed Phase II that was analyzed in the 2005 EIR. The Phase II project would consist of 498 residential units, consisting of a mix of townhomes and apartments, 135,000 square feet of retail space, and a 140-room hotel. Residential and hotel uses were not considered under the 2005 EIR. The General Plan land use designation would be amended from Commercial to Mixed Use Flex and the zoning from Highway Commercial/Planned Unit Development to Mixed Use Flex/Planned Development for the Phase II development area.

On December 3, 2021, the City of Morgan Hill circulated a Notice of Preparation (NOP) for a 30-day comment period to request input on the types of impacts that could result from the proposed project. The Draft SEIR was made available for public review for a 45-day comment period that began on June 10, 2022 and ended on July 25, 2022. The Notice of Availability of a Draft SEIR was posted with the Santa Clara County Clerk, sent to the State Clearinghouse, published on the City’s website, and mailed to responsible agencies. The City also held a virtual community open house as an opportunity for the public to submit verbal comments on the SEIR at 7:00 p.m. on July 13, 2022. The City of Morgan Hill received a total of seven written comment letters during the public comment period.

The City released the Final SEIR for public review on September 30, 2022. The Final SEIR consists of copies of all comments received on the Draft SEIR, a list of commenters, all responses to comments, and proposed amendments to the SEIR. The Final SEIR, Draft SEIR, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) together comprise the SEIR for the project. The analysis and conclusions contained in the SEIR

Resolution No.

reflect the independent judgment of the City.

B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Section 2 of the Draft SEIR includes a detailed description of the project. Other than minor clarifications, no revisions to the project description were required.

The 33.5-acre project site is located at the southwest corner of Mission View Drive and Cochrane Road in the City of Morgan Hill. The project would involve construction of Phase II of the Cochrane Commons development on the undeveloped site adjacent to the completed Phase I. The Phase II project currently proposed is different from the originally proposed Phase II that was analyzed in the 2005 EIR. The project would consist of 498 residential units, consisting of a mix of homes, townhomes, condos, and apartments; 135,000 square feet of retail space; a 140-room hotel; and amending the zoning and General Plan designation to MUF for the Phase II development area. The residential uses would be located in the northern and middle portion of the project site and the hotel and commercial retail would be located in the southern portion. The project would also provide various on-site amenities for residents. A courtyard with outdoor open space would be provided near the proposed apartment units. A clubhouse, recreation hall, swimming pool would also be provided for on-site residents.

There would be a total of 1,367 parking spaces. During Phase I, the project would include 276 parking stalls. During Phase 2, 658 stalls would be added and during Phase 3, 433 stalls would be added. Vehicles would access the project site primarily from De Paul Drive, which would have two driveways leading to two central roadways which would connect to two driveways off Mission View Drive. An additional driveway would be located off of Cochrane Road which would allow right-in and right-out vehicle movements. The project site has been previously graded and would be further modified by additional grading. The storm drain system design would incorporate City standards for pipe sizes, maximum slopes, minimum flow velocities, and pipe material, and drainage would be to the planned detention pond and pumped to the adjacent Cochrane Channel at discharge rates at or below pre-development levels.

The project objectives are to:
 Increase the viability of the existing Cochrane Commons anchors and tenants  Create a vibrant and exciting place for the residents of Morgan Hill to live, work, and shop all in one place
 Assist in protecting the tax revenue generated by the current and future tenants and the long-term viability of the City of Morgan Hill’s retailers  Provide much needed variety to the City’s housing stock in the form of market rate and below market rate affordable housing
 Encourage the development of the remainder of the shopping center The proposed project would require the following approvals:
 Certification of a Subsequent EIR. Certify the Cochrane Commons Phase II SEIR and make environmental findings pursuant to CEQA.

Resolution No.

 Amendment to Zoning and General Plan Designation. Adopt an amendment to the zoning map and General Plan land use map to convert the Phase II development area to MUF.

C. SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS AND DISPOSITION

OF RELATED MITIGATION MEASURES
The following findings are hereby made by the City of Morgan Hill City Council for the significant environmental effects identified in the SEIR and Initial Study related to transportation (impacts related to VMT) and agriculture and forestry resources (impacts related to conversion of Important Farmland). The Final SEIR identified the following impact associated with the project that would be significant and unavoidable:

SEIR

1. Transportation Impact TRA-2: The project would exceed the applicable significance threshold for VMT. Mitigation Measure TRA-1 would reduce residential VMT per capita, but not below the per capita threshold of significance. Impacts would be significant and unavoidable.

Mitigation Measure TRA-1: VMT Reductions. The applicant shall develop and implement Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan that is aimed at achieving a reduction in residential vehicle trips to and from the site. The TDM plan will need to be prepared by a qualified traffic consultant and in coordination with the City of Morgan Hill Development Services Director or Designee. The TDM plan shall quantify the reduction in VMT. The TDM plan may include, but shall not be limited to, the following elements described below:
 School Pool Programs: Organize a program that matches families in carpools for school pick-up and drop-off of all households from the project. Organizing a school pool program helps match parents who transport students to schools without a busing program, including private schools, charter schools, and neighborhood schools where students cannot walk or bike. The school pool program would be open to all families in the development. School pools reduce the total number of vehicle trips traveling to and from schools, thereby reducing VMT.  Voluntary Travel Behavior Change Programs. Provide a program that targets individual attitudes towards travel and providing tools for individuals to analyze and alter their travel behavior with 100% expected resident participation. These programs include mass communication campaigns and travel feedback programs, such as travel diaries or feedback on calories burned from activities and travel. This strategy encourages the use of shared ride modes, transit, walking, and biking, thereby reducing VMT.

Finding: Even with incorporation of Mitigation Measure TRA-1, VMT per capita would not be reduced by 27 percent, which is the percent needed to reduce the VMT per capita below the threshold. There are no feasible mitigation measures or combination of measures that would reduce the overall project VMT per capita by 27 percent. Therefore, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable.

Resolution No.

Impacts related to transportation have been mitigated to the extent feasible. The City of Morgan Hill finds that although this impact would be significant and unavoidable, the impact is acceptable when weighed against the overriding social, economic, and other considerations set forth in Section K, Statement of Overriding Considerations.

INITIAL STUDY

1. Agriculture and Forestry Impact A: Impacts to Agricultural Resources were analyzed in Section 3.2 of the 2005 EIR. The 2005 EIR concluded that the project would convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to non-agricultural use, which would result in significant and unavoidable impacts. The impacts of the proposed project would be the same as those analyzed in the 2005 EIR.

2. Agriculture and Forestry Impact E: Impacts to Agricultural Resources were analyzed in Section 3.2 of the 2005 EIR. The 2005 EIR concluded that the project would convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to non-agricultural use, which would result in significant and unavoidable impacts. The impacts of the proposed project would be the same as those analyzed in the 2005 EIR.

Finding: The project would result in the conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use, which would result in significant and unavoidable impacts. The 2005 EIR found that there are no feasible mitigation measures available to reduce the impact of agricultural land conversion to a less than significant impact. The City of Morgan Hill finds that although this impact would be significant and unavoidable, the impact is acceptable when weighed against the overriding social, economic, and other considerations set forth in Section K, Statement of Overriding Considerations.

For a detailed description of impacts and mitigation measures, see the appropriate text in the Final SEIR.

D. SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS IDENTIFIED IN THE INITIAL STUDY OR SEIR THAT ARE REDUCED TO A LEVEL OF “LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT” BY THE

MITIGATION MEASURES INCORPORATED INTO THE PROJECT
The following findings are hereby made by the City of Morgan Hill City Council for the significant environmental effects identified in the SEIR and Initial Study that would be reduced to a less than significant level through incorporation of mitigation measures.

The City finds for each of the significant or potentially significant impacts identified in this section that based upon substantial evidence in the record, changes or alterations have been required or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant effects as identified in the SEIR and Initial Study and, thus, that adoption of the mitigation measures set forth below will reduce these significant or potentially significant effects to less-than-significant levels. Adoption of the mitigation measures

Resolution No.

will effectively make the mitigation measures part of the project. In addition, compliance with City and other applicable regulations will further reduce project impacts.

Therefore, the City finds that based upon substantial evidence in the record, changes or alterations have been required or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant effects as identified in the SEIR and Initial Study.

SEIR
The Final SEIR identified several impacts associated with the project that would be reduced to a level of less than significant with the implementation of mitigation measures identified in the Final SEIR:

1. Transportation Impact TRA-4: The project could result in inadequate emergency access to the project site. This impact would be less than significant with adherence to Mitigation Measure TRA-2.

2. Tribal Cultural Resources Impact TCR-1: The project has the potential to uncover buried tribal cultural resources during ground disturbing activities. Should project construction activities encounter a tribal cultural resource, Mitigation Measure TCR1 would ensure that potential impacts to tribal cultural resources would be less than significant.

INITIAL STUDY

3. Aesthetics Impact D: Lighting impacts from the proposed project as potentially significant because of its potential adverse effects to night sky visibility and the Lick Observatory on Mount Hamilton. Potentially significant impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level with the implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.1-1 from the 2005 EIR.

4. Air Quality Impact B: The project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. BAAQMD recommends the implementation of best management practices (BMP) to reduce fugitive dust emissions. Adherence to the dust control measures listed in Mitigation Measure 3.3-2 of the 2005 EIR would reduce impacts to less-than-significant levels.

5. Biological Resources Impact A: The project would impact potentially candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Potentially significant impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level with implementation of Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measures 3.4-1a, 3.4-1b, 3.4-2, and 3.4-3 from the 2005 EIR.

6. Biological Resources Impact D: The project site is located in an urbanized area of Morgan Hill and lacks natural habitats or riparian corridors and does not connect habitat or open space areas. With Mitigation Measures 3.3-1 through 3.3-3 and 3.4-

Resolution No.

1a through 3.4-3 incorporated, the project would not interfere substantially with wildlife movement, and this impact would be less than significant.

7. Biological Resources Impact E: The project site currently does not have any existing trees that would be removed by the proposed project. The project would comply with existing regulations, avoidance measures, and mitigation fees in the HCP and Burrowing Owl Mitigation Plan. The project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances, and impacts would be less than significant with implementation of mitigation measures.

8. Biological Resources Impact F: The project site is located in an urbanized area of Morgan Hill and would be required to comply with Mitigation Measures 3.4-1a, 3.4- 1b, 3.4-2, and 3.4-3, and applicable mitigation fees and mitigation measures that are identified in Chapter 6 of the HCP.

9. Cultural Resources Impact A-C: The project site does not contain known historic resources, archaeological resources, or human remains. Nonetheless, project ground-disturbing activities have the potential to impact unrecorded cultural resources. Potentially significant impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level with implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.5-1a and 3.5-1b from the 2005 EIR.

10. Geology and Soils Impact A1-A4: With implementation of the mitigation measures described below, the project site would be considered suitable for development provided that the recommendations contained in a geotechnical investigation conducted by Twining Laboratories in 2004 are implemented. Furthermore, the project would be required to comply with California Building Code requirements and 2005 EIR Mitigation Measure 3.6-1 which would reduce impacts to less than significant. Subsurface conditions on the project site and depth to groundwater across the site would indicate that there is some potential for liquefaction at the site.

Therefore, the 2005 EIR requires implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.6-2 to reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level. Settlements would exceed the tolerances for conventional shallow spread foundations and slabs on grade planned for the project. The 2005 EIR required implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.6-3 to reduce this impact to less than significant.

11. Geology and Soils Impacts C-D: Settlements would exceed the tolerances for conventional shallow spread foundations and slabs on grade planned for the project.

The 2005 EIR required implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.6-3 to reduce this impact to less than significant. Due to the compressible nature of the near surface soils, they would not provide adequate support for the proposed improvements in their existing condition. The 2005 EIR further required implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.6-4 to reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. The 2005 EIR found that there is a less-than-significant impact from unstable soils or geologic units and expansive soils, as development standards and compliance with Mitigation Measures 3.6-5 through 3.6-7, the Morgan Hill Building Code, and California Building

Resolution No.

Code would ensure structures are constructed to accommodate unstable or expansive soil units.

12. Geology and Soils Impact F: No paleontological resources have been explicitly found in the City, but project construction has the potential to result in inadvertently uncovering unique resources during ground-disturbing activities. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.5-1a would reduce impacts to unique paleontological resources to less than significant.

13. Hydrology and Water Quality Impact D: The Anderson Dam has been identified to have seismic safety concerns and is currently undergoing a capital earthquake retrofit to improve dam safety and to return the Anderson Reservoir to its original storage capacity. Flood hazard risk at the project is therefore slightly higher than the risk originally identified in the 2005 EIR. Tsunami, and seiche risk remain the same as when analyzed in the 2005 EIR. The impact would therefore be the same as for the previous project, mitigation measures 3.8-1 through 3.8-3 would apply, and the issue was addressed adequately in the 2005 EIR. Mitigation measures included in the 2005 EIR require an emergency evacuation plan, which would apply to the proposed project.

14. Public Services Impact A1-A2: The proposed project is located in an urbanized area already served by the MHPD and is generally similar to the surrounding uses and would not substantially increase demand on local police services. The proposed project would be required to implement Mitigation Measure 3.11-1 from the 2005 EIR to reduce impacts to less-than-significant levels.

15. Utilities and Service Systems Impacts D-E: There is adequate capacity available to serve the project. Mitigation Measure 3.13-1 from the 2005 EIR would increase the solid waste diversion of project-generated waste.

E. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS IDENTIFIED IN THE SEIR OR INITIAL STUDY The following findings are hereby made by the City of Morgan Hill City Council regarding issue areas with no impact on the environment. The City finds that, based upon substantial evidence in the record, as discussed below, the following impacts associated with the project are not significant or are less than significant. The SEIR and Initial Study provide a detailed analysis of the less-than-significant impacts of the proposed project for all issue areas below.

SEIR

1. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impact GHG-1: The project would generate temporary and long-term increases in GHG emissions, but such emissions would remain below the adjusted efficiency threshold intended to demonstrate consistency with the 2030 statewide GHG reduction target.

2. Transportation Impact TRA-1: The project would not conflict with applicable policies

Resolution No.

addressing transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities.

3. Transportation Impact TRA-3: The project would not introduce design features or incompatible uses that could increase traffic hazards.

INITIAL STUDY

1. Aesthetics Impact A: The proposed project site is not on a hillside, the project would not conflict with City goals and policies regarding hillside preservation in the City’s 2035 General Plan. Furthermore, the project would comply with height regulations established in the Zoning Code. The proposed project would not have a significant impact on scenic vistas.

2. Aesthetics Impact C: The project would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings.

3. Air Quality Impact A: The project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan.

4. Air Quality Impact C: The project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentration.

5. Air Quality Impact D: The project would not result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people.

6. Energy Impact A: The project would not result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during project construction or operation.

7. Energy Impact B: The project would result in no impact to state and local plans for renewable energy or energy efficiency.

8. Geology and Soils Impact B: With compliance with existing regulations, substantial erosion during construction would not occur.

9. Geology and Soils Impact E: The project would be serviced by wastewater collection and treatment systems, and no septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems would be installed, which would be the same for the modified project.

10.Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impact A: The proposed project would include residential and commercial retail land uses, which typically do not use or store large quantities of hazardous materials.

11.Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impact B: No known changes in the conditions of the soils or groundwater at the site have occurred since 2005, and the proposed development would not include activities that use or store more hazardous materials than the Phase II project analyzed in the 2005 EIR.

Resolution No.

12.Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impact D: The project site is not located on a hazardous materials site. A search of the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) EnviroStor database and the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) GeoTracker database conducted on September 9, 2021, confirmed the project site is not located on a hazardous materials site on either database.

13.Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impact F: The proposed project would not result in adverse effects on emergency response or evacuation plans. The project would be required to comply with federal, state, and local regulations, including the Morgan Hill Emergency Operations Plan.

14.Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impact G: The project would not expose people or structures to significant risks involving wildland fires.

15.Hydrology and Water Quality Impact A: The project would be required to comply with regulations under the NPDES permit, Regional Water Quality Control Board, and adopted City regulations, which would address impacts to water quality.

16.Hydrology and Water Quality Impact B and E: The project would not extract groundwater or directly interfere with the groundwater table through construction activities on the site, as ground disturbance would not occur below the water table.

The WSA provided as Appendix WSA determines that there is sufficient water supply available to meet the project’s projected demands reliably over a 20-year projection and with consideration to varying climatic (drought) conditions.

17.Hydrology and Water Quality C1-C4: The 2005 EIR found that the proposed project would result in a substantial increase in stormwater runoff generated at the project site compared to existing conditions, but the project includes detention ponds, which have been designed to provide temporary storage of increased runoff in order to prevent increased flooding downstream. Detention basins on the project site would be fixed to accommodate Santa Clara Valley Water District (Valley Water) requirements and the City’s detention design criteria. The stormwater to be temporarily stored in the planned detention ponds will be pumped to the adjacent Cochrane Channel at discharge rates, which are at or below pre-development levels, as required by Valley Water.

18.Land Use and Planning Impact A-B: The project would not divide an established community. The proposed project would not result in conflicts with Morgan Hill Municipal Code regulations adopted to avoid or mitigate environmental effects.

19.Mineral Resources Impacts A-B: The proposed project would not result in significant impacts to mineral resources, as the City of Morgan Hill General Plan and the General Plan EIR do not identify any mineral resource areas in the vicinity of the project site.

20.Noise Impact A: The project would not make substantial alterations to roadway

Resolution No.

alignments 1 or substantially change the vehicle classifications mix on local roadways. The project would therefore not result in significant impacts to these receivers or any receivers from an increase in traffic noise. Offsite traffic would not create a new or substantially increased noise impact.

21.Noise Impact B: Construction vibration would be lower than what is considered a distinctly perceptible impact for humans. The project does not include substantial vibration sources associated with operation.

22.Population and Housing Impact A: Implementation of the proposed project and the additional population would be in population projections for the City and would not result in substantial cumulative impacts due to population growth. The proposed project would not induce substantial unplanned growth directly or indirectly.

23.Public Services Impact A3: Payment of the development fees is considered full mitigation for the proposed project’s impacts related to schools under CEQA and impacts would be less than significant.

24.Public Services Impact A4: The proposed project would not have substantially adverse impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered recreational services, or the need for new or physically altered recreational services.

25.Public Services Impact A5: The project’s new residents would generate additional demand for library services, but the project’s growth is in the population forecasts in ABAG projections. The proposed project does not include and would not require new or physically altered governmental facilities.

26.Recreation Impact A-B: The increase in population would result in a proportionate increase in demand for recreational facilities. The project’s residential and commercial development would impact the parkland ratio in the City. The amenities provided by the proposed project would reduce the demand for offsite recreational facilities generated by new residents.

27.Utilities and Service Systems Impacts A-C: Services are readily available near the project site. The City of Morgan Hill has prohibited the use of natural gas in new development, the project would not involve the use of natural gas. As circumstances have not changed with respect to electricity and telecommunications infrastructure, the project would continue to be adequately served. There is adequate wastewater service available to serve the project. There is adequate water supply available to serve the project.

28.Wildfire Impacts A-D: The proposed project is not located in a State Responsibility 1 The project would include the addition of a dedicated left turn lane and right turn lane on Tokay Avenue for movements in and out of the community; other than restriping lanes for the dedicated turn lanes, the project would not alter Tokay Avenue (e.g., no roadway widening required).

Resolution No.

Area (SRA) or located near a VHFHSZ.

F. AREAS OF NO IMPACT IDENTIFIED IN THE SEIR OR INITIAL STUDY The Final SEIR and Initial Study prepared for the project identified impacts that would have no impact:

The following findings are hereby made by the City of Morgan Hill City Council for the environmental effects found to have no impact:

SEIR

1. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impact GHG-2: The project would be consistent with the 2017 Scoping Plan and Plan Bay Area 2050. This project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions.

INITIAL STUDY

1. Aesthetics Impact B: There are no designated State Scenic Highways in Morgan Hill. Thus, there would be no impact to scenic resources in a State Scenic Highway.

2. Agricultural Resources Impact B: Neither the project site nor the directly adjacent parcels are under Williamson Act contracts.

3. Agricultural Resources Impact C-D: The General Plan and U.S. Department of Agriculture does not identify any land in the City as zoned for forest land or timberland. The project site does not contain forest land or forestry resources.

4. Biological Resources Impact B: The project site lacks sensitive natural communities and protected wetlands, the project would not have a direct adverse impact on biological resources

5. Biological Resources Impact C: There are no riparian areas or other sensitive natural communities on or directly adjacent to the project site.

6. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impact C: The project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous materials within 0.25 mile of a school.

7. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impact E: The project would not be within two miles of a public airport or airstrip and would not result in a safety hazard or excessive noise hazards.

8. Noise Impact C: The project site is outside of the area of the land use plan for the airport. There are no private airstrips near the project site. Because there are no airports or airstrips near the project site, the project would not result in the exposure of people to excessive noise levels from aircraft.

Resolution No.

9. Population and Housing Impact B: There are currently no residences on the project site. Therefore, the project would not displace existing people or housing.

G. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
When making findings, the lead agency must adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the mitigation measures it has adopted or made a condition of project approval to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment. The City hereby adopts the MMRP for the project, included as Attachment A to these findings. The mitigation measures identified in the Final SEIR and adopted and incorporated into the project will be monitored pursuant to this program.

H. ALTERNATIVES
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6, the SEIR examined a range of reasonable alternatives to the proposed project that would attain most of the basic project objectives but would avoid or substantially lessen the significant adverse impacts. The City has reviewed the impacts associated with each alternative as compared with the proposed project, and has also considered each alternative’s feasibility, considering a range of economic, environmental, social, and legal factors. Overall, the City concludes that Alternative 1 (No Project Alternative) would be the environmentally superior alternative. However, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2), if the No Project Alternative is determined to be environmentally superior, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives. . As discussed above, both Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 would result in reduced transportation impacts compared to the proposed project; however, transportation impacts under Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 would remain significant and unavoidable.

Furthermore, the additional commercial buildout under Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 would result in an increased amount of annual operational GHG emissions. While these emissions do not exceed the adjusted BAAQMD emissions per service person threshold, both alternatives would result in more annual operational GHG emissions, which would result in further impacts to the environment. The alternatives considered by the City are summarized below.

Alternative 1 (No Project Alternative) Under the No Project Alternative, the proposed residential, retail, and commercial buildings associated with the proposed project would not be constructed. Alternative 1 would involve no modification of the existing parcel. The site would remain vacant, and no land use designation or zoning changes would occur.

Alternative 1 would not fulfill the project’s objectives to develop the remainder of the shopping center, nor would it provide additional housing.

Alternative 2 (No Project – Allowable Buildout under Existing General Plan Designation Alternative) The No Project – Allowable Buildout alternative assumes that the proposed residential, retail, and commercial buildings associated with the proposed project are not constructed. However, this alternative also assumes that buildout currently allowed by the existing Morgan Hill 2035 General Plan land use designations

Resolution No.

would occur. As described in Section 2, Project Description, the project site is currently split between two land use designations. Approximately 13 acres of the northwest corner of the site is designated Mixed Use Flex (MUF) (7-24 dwelling units/acre) with the remaining 20.5 acres designated Commercial. The Commercial designation allows a wide range of retail businesses, administrative and executive office uses, and professional services, either in stand-alone buildings or as part of shopping centers, with a maximum FAR of 0.6. With 20.5 acres of the project site designated as commercial and a FAR of 0.6, Alternative 2 would allow a maximum of approximately 536,000 square feet of commercial development.2 The MUF designation allows for a mix of residential, commercial, and office uses, with 7 to 24 dwelling units per acre and a maximum FAR of

0.5. With 13 acres of the project site designated as MUF, a maximum of 312 dwelling units could be developed in the project site. Because lands designated as MUF have a maximum FAR of 0.5, the maximum residential building footprint within the site would be approximately 283,000 square feet. 3 Altogether, Alternative 2 would result in the development of fewer residential units and more commercial area. This alternative would meet most of the project objectives, but it would contribute less housing stock than the proposed project.

Alternative 3 (Mixed-Use Flex Designation on North Half of the Site Alternative) The Extension of Mixed-Use Flex Designation to Cover Half the Site alternative assumes that the 2035 General Plan land use designation of MUF would be extended beyond the northwestern portion of the project site to the east to encompass the northern half of the project site. Residential, retail, and commercial buildings would be constructed consistent with the adjusted land use designation. Approximately 16.75 acres on the northern side of the project site would be designated MUF, and 16.75 acres on the southern side of the project site would remain designated as commercial. 16.75 acres of land designated as MUF would allow for up to 402 dwelling units to be built under Alternative 3,4 and 16.75 acres of land designated as commercial would allow for up to approximately 435,600 square feet of commercial use.5 Alternative 3 would result in half as much area designated as MUF compared to the proposed project; thus, the extended MUF area under this alternative would allow the development of fewer dwelling units compared to the proposed project. Alternative 3 would also involve an increase in areas designated as commercial compared to the proposed project. Similar to the proposed project, this alternative would meet the project objectives by increasing the viability of the existing Cochrane Commons anchors and tenants, developing the remainder of the shopping center, and adding variety to the city’s housing stock.

I. RECIRCULATION NOT REQUIRED
2 20.5 acres multiplied by a FAR of 0.6, converted to square feet, equals approximately 536,000 square feet of allowable commercial development.
3 13 acres multiplied by up to 24 dwelling units per acre equals 312 dwelling units. 13 acres multiplied by a FAR of 0,5 converted to square feet, is approximately 283,000 square feet of residential development. 4 16.75 acres multiplied by up to 24 dwelling units per acre equals 402 dwelling units. 5 16.75 acres Multiplied by a FAR of 0.6, converted to square feet, equals approximately 435,600 square feet of allowable commercial development.

Resolution No.

No new or substantial changes to the SEIR were proposed as a result of the public comment process. The Final SEIR responds to comments and makes only minor technical changes, clarifications or additions to the EIR. The minor changes, clarifications, and additions to the SEIR do not identify any new significant impacts or substantial increase in the severity of any environmental impacts. Therefore, recirculation of the SEIR is not required.

J. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Various documents and other materials constitute the record of proceedings upon which the City base their findings and decisions contained herein. Documents related to this proposed project are located in the City of Morgan Hill Development Services, 17575 Peak Avenue, Morgan Hill, California 95037.

K. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
CEQA requires the decision-making agency to balance the benefits of a project against its significant and unavoidable impacts when determining whether to approve a project. If the benefits of the project outweigh its unavoidable adverse environmental effects, those effects may be considered acceptable (CEQA Guidelines Section 15093(a)). CEQA requires the agency to state in writing the specific reasons for considering a project acceptable when significant impacts are not avoided or substantially lessened. Those reasons must be based on substantial evidence in the Final SEIR or elsewhere in the administrative record (CEQA Guidelines Section 15093(b)). The proposed project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts related to vehicle miles traveled and transportation, even after incorporation of Mitigation Measure TRA-1, VMT Reductions.

The City adopts and makes this Statement of Overriding Considerations regarding the significant unavoidable impacts of the project and the anticipated benefits of the project.

The City finds that the project’s benefits of providing affordable multi-family housing, increasing the viability of the Cochrane Commons, and developing the remainder of the shopping center outweighs the project’s significant unavoidable environmental effects.

On balance, the City finds that there are specific considerations associated with the project that serve to override and outweigh the project’s significant unavoidable effects.

Therefore, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15093(b), these adverse effects are considered acceptable.

L. SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE SUPPORTING FINDINGS
Substantial evidence supporting each and every finding made herein is contained in the Final SEIR and record of proceedings. Omission of reference in these findings to any evidence in the SEIR and/or record of proceedings is not intended to exclude that evidence as supporting these findings.

In making these findings, the City Council has relied upon the expertise of a variety of independent technical and professional consultants to the City, and the expertise of the City's Staff. The City Council has also carefully considered the evidence submitted by

Resolution No.

property owners and other interested agencies and individuals. To the extent that evidence consists of expert opinions that differ from the opinions of the City's outside consultants and Staff, at most it represents a disagreement of experts, which is adequately reviewed in the EIR. Based on its review, the City Council has determined that the opinions of its outside consultants and Staff are valid and are hereby accepted.

In some instances, the City Council has also relied on the expertise of other agencies who have provided comments on the Draft SEIR and other actions related to the Project.

To the extent that alternatives or mitigation measures were proposed by other agencies or interested persons that differ from the mitigation adopted herein, the City Council specifically rejects these proposals based on the substantial evidence in the record supporting the mitigation adopted as sufficient and necessary to mitigate impacts to a less than significant level or to the level that the impacts can feasibly be mitigated.

RESOLUTION NO. XX-XX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

MORGAN HILL ADOPTING A GENERAL PLAN

AMENDMENT FOR THE COCHRANE COMMONS
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR A 66.49-ACRE

AREA LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST QUADRANT OF
COCHRANE ROAD AND HIGHWAY 101 (APNs 728-37-
001, -002, -004, -005 & -007)
WHEREAS, the applicant is requesting a General Plan Amendment and an amendment to the master development plan and Planned Unit Development (PUD) Guidelines for a shopping center on a 66.49-acre site originally approved in 2005 to incorporate housing units into the project; and
WHEREAS, such request was considered by the Planning Commission at their regular meeting of October 11, 2022, at which time the Planning Commission recommended approval of applications ZA2019-0003 and GPA2021-0004 (Morgan Hill Retail Venture LP, Owner; and
WHEREAS, testimony received at a duly noticed public hearing, along with exhibits and drawings and other materials have been considered in the review process.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE MORGAN HILL CITY COUNCIL DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. The proposed General Plan land use designation amendment generally meets the letter and intent of the General Plan goals and policies. The incorporation of housing into the project creates a "lifestyle" center where a mix of uses allows residents inside and outside the center as well as employees to meet daily needs without the use of a private automobile. The traffic analysis conducted for the General Plan consistency review showed that the proposed mixed-use project would not result in any new or substantially more severe effects on intersection operations than the previously approved commercial/retail development.

SECTION 2. The Planned Development amendment will yield a mixed-use project that is consistent with General Plan City and Neighborhood Form Policies CNF10.3, CNF-10.6, CNF-13.1 Housing Element Policy HE-4u, Economic Development Element Policy ED7.4. There is no specific plan or area plan relating to this site.

SECTION 3. The existing PD provides for a regional shopping center and the first phase has been completed. Stand-alone, big box shopping centers are

Resolution No. xx-xx

no longer a successful development model and, as such, the applicant desires to incorporate housing into the project to create a mixed-use neighborhood more consistent with the Morgan Hill 2035 General Plan and superior to the originally approved PD.

SECTION 4. There is an existing Planned Development on this property. Substantial public benefits were not required with the approval of the original PD. The incremental changes proposed by the Amendment allow housing on the site. The project will pay special attention to the connections between Phase I and II to ensure uses complement each other and there is adequate interface between uses. The project will give to the pedestrian scale of common areas and activation of the pedestrian realm. The additional activation of public spaces and connections across the property will provide benefits not only to residents of the center, but to the public as well.

SECTION 5. The site is more than adequate in size to accommodate the original regional shopping center Planned Development as well as the proposed mixed-use development that would be achievable by adding housing to the site.

SECTION 6. The site is located adjacent to Highway 101 bounded by Cochrane Road and Mission View Drive. There are wet and dry utilities and infrastructure in the surrounding area that support the development of this site.

SECTION 7. The proposed changes to the existing PD will create a mixed-use neighborhood that will be compatible with the existing and planned land use character in the area surrounding the existing center. There continues to be a significant impact under CEQA related to transportation, similar to what was approved as part of the 2005 PD and associated EIR. However, this significant impact is based on Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). The traffic study conducted for the General Plan based on Level of Service (LOS) demonstrated that the proposed mixed-use project would not result in any new or substantially more severe effects on intersection operations than the previously approved commercial/retail development.

SECTION 8. A Subsequent Environmental Impact Report has been prepared for this project as part of the General Plan Amendment and Zoning Amendment applications. Mitigation measures and a monitoring program will be adopted for those environmental impacts identified in the report.

SECTION 9. The required findings for a Zoning Amendment in Section 18.114.060 can be made. The Planned Development amendment will yield a mixed-use project that is consistent with General Plan City and Neighborhood Form Policies CNF-10.3, CNF-10.6, CNF-13.1 Housing Element Policy HE-4u, Economic Development Element Policy ED7.4. There is no specific plan or area plan relating to this site. The inclusion of housing and the creation of a mixed-use neighborhood will not be detrimental to the public interest,

City of Morgan Hill
Resolution No. 22-xx

health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the city. The project site is physically suitable for the proposed changes to the existing PD and the creation of a mixed-use neighborhood will create a more integrated community with easy access to goods and services.

SECTION 10. The required findings for a General Plan Amendment in Section

18.115.060 and for a Planned Development amendment in Section

18.30.050 H.7 can be made.

SECTION 11. The approved project shall be subject to the following conditions:
a. The applicant shall comply with the mitigation measures of the certified Subsequent Environmental Impact Report, remaining mitigation measures in the 2005 Environmental Impact Report and adhere to the adopted Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
b. The project shall be subject to compliance with the PD Guidelines and Development Standards as attached in revised Exhibit A of this Resolution. c. Individual developments within Phase 2 shall be subject to Administrative Design Review.
d. Any additional signage beyond the additional pylon side discussed within the PD Guidelines shall be added to the uniform sign program and reviewed and approved by the Development Services Director.
e. The following mitigation from the Transportation Operations Analysis prepared on December 10, 2021 shall be reviewed and implemented at the discretion of the City Engineer. Page III – “The addition of a second northbound left-turn lane on Mission View Drive and a cycle length adjustment would be necessary to improve intersection operations. The addition of the second northbound left-turn lane will require lane striping and signal modification but will fit within the existing curb-to-curb pavement width on Mission View Drive. Implementation of this improvement would improve the intersection’s level of service to LOS C during both the AM and PM peak hours under Year 2030 Cumulative with both project conditions.” f. The expansion of the General Plan Land Use Designation shall match the area designated as residential on the approved Planned Development Master Plan.

PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS 2 n d DAY OF N O V E M B E R , 2022, AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

City of Morgan Hill
Resolution No. 22-xx

ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ATTEST: APPROVED:

MICHELE BIGELOW, City Clerk RICHARD CONSTANTINE, Mayor

CERTIFICATE OF THE CITY CLERK

I, MICHELLE BIGELOW, CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF MORGAN HILL, CALIFORNIA, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of Resolution No. , adopted by the City Council of the City of Morgan Hill, California at their regular meeting held on the day of , 2022.

WITNESS MY HAND AND THE SEAL OF THE CITY OF MORGAN HILL.

DATE:

MICHELE BIGELOW, City Clerk

City of Morgan Hill
Resolution No. 22-xx

EXHIBIT A – General Plan Map Amendment
Mixed Use Flex shall only apply to those areas show as Residential on the following site plans:

Project Site Plan
Landscape Site Plan

ORDINANCE NO. XXXX

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MORGAN HILL

APPROVING A ZONING MAP AMENDMENT FOR

EXPANSION OF A MIXED-USE FLEX ZONE AND PLANNED

DEVELOPMENT COMBINING DISTRICT AND MASTER
PLAN FOR A FOR A 66.49-ACRE AREA LOCATED AT THE

NORTHEAST QUADRANT OF COCHRANE ROAD AND
HIGHWAY 101 (APNs 728-37- 001, -002, -004, -005 & -007)

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MORGAN HILL DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. The Planned Development amendment will yield a mixed-use project that is consistent with General Plan City and Neighborhood Form Policies CNF-10.3, CNF10.6, CNF-13.1 Housing Element Policy HE-4u, Economic Development Element Policy ED7.4. There is no specific plan or area plan relating to this site.

SECTION 2. The existing PD provides for a regional shopping center and the first phase has been completed. Stand-alone, big box shopping centers are no longer a successful development model and, as such, the applicant desires to incorporate housing into the project to create a mixed-use neighborhood more consistent with the Morgan Hill 2035 General Plan and superior to the originally approved PD.

SECTION 3. There is an existing Planned Development on this property. Substantial public benefits were not required with the approval of the original PD. The incremental changes proposed by the Amendment allow housing on the site. The project will pay special attention to the connections between Phase I and II to ensure uses complement each other and there is adequate interface between uses. The project will give to the pedestrian scale of common areas and activation of the pedestrian realm.

The additional activation of public spaces and connections across the property will provide benefits not only to residents of the center, but to the public as well.

SECTION 4. The site is more than adequate in size to accommodate the original regional shopping center Planned Development as well as the proposed mixed-use development that would be achievable by adding housing to the site.

SECTION 5. The site is located adjacent to Highway 101 bounded by Cochrane Road and Mission View Drive. There are wet and dry utilities and infrastructure in the surrounding area that support the development of this site.

SECTION 6. The proposed changes to the existing PD will create a mixed-use neighborhood that will be compatible with the existing and planned land use character in the area surrounding the existing center. There continues to be a significant impact under CEQA related to transportation, similar to what was approved as part of the 2005 PD and associated EIR. However, this significant impact is based on Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). The traffic study conducted for the General Plan based on Level of Service (LOS) demonstrated that the proposed mixed-use project would not result in any new or substantially more severe effects on intersection operations than the

previously approved commercial/retail development.

SECTION 7. A Subsequent Environmental Impact Report has been prepared for this project as part of the General Plan Amendment and Zoning Amendment applications. Mitigation measures and a monitoring program will be adopted for those environmental impacts identified in the report.

SECTION 8. The required findings for a Zoning Amendment in Section 18.114.060 can be made.

The Planned Development amendment will yield a mixed-use project that is consistent with General Plan City and Neighborhood Form Policies CNF-10.3, CNF10.6, CNF-13.1 Housing Element Policy HE-4u, Economic Development Element Policy ED7.4. There is no specific plan or area plan relating to this site. The inclusion of housing and the creation of a mixed-use neighborhood will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the city.

The project site is physically suitable for the proposed changes to the existing PD and the creation of a mixed-use neighborhood will create a more integrated community with easy access to goods and services.

SECTION 9. The required findings for a General Plan Amendment in Section 18.115.060 of the Municipal Code and for a Planned Development amendment in Section 18.30.050 H.7 of the Municipal Code can be made.

SECTION 10. The request was considered by the Planning Commission at its regular meeting of October 11, 2022, at which time the Planning Commission recommended approval of Zoning Amendment application, ZA2019-0003: COCHRANE – MORGAN HILL RETAIL VENTURE CENTER and the Planned Development Master Plan as described in the attached Exhibit “A” dated October 30, 2019, and revised on March 13, 2020, and further revised by applicant on October 11, 2022 and further revised by the Planning Commission on October 11, 2022, and by this reference incorporated herein. The City Council accepts the recommendation of the Planning Commission.

THE FOREGOING ORDINANCE WAS INTRODUCED AT A MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL HELD ON THE 2ND DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022, AND WAS FINALLY ADOPTED AT A MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL HELD ON THE 16THDAY OF NOVEMBER 2022, AND SAID ORDINANCE WAS DULY PASSED AND ADOPTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

APPROVED: ATTEST:
______________________________ ________________________________ RICH CONSTANTINE, Mayor MICHELLE BIGELOW, City Clerk
 CERTIFICATE OF THE CITY CLERK 

I, MICHELLE BIGELOW, CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF MORGAN HILL, CALIFORNIA, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of Ordinance No.

XXXX, New Series, adopted by the City Council of the City of Morgan Hill, California at their regular meeting held on the 16th day of November 2022.

WITNESS MY HAND AND THE SEAL OF THE CITY OF MORGAN HILL.

DATE: _______________________ _________________________________ MICHELLE BIGELOW, City Clerk

EXHIBIT A
Planned Development Master Plan

RESOLUTION NO. 22-19

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF

THE CITY OF MORGAN HILL RECOMMENDING

APPROVAL TO ADOPT A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT

AND AMENDMENTS TO THE COCHRANE COMMONS
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR A 66.49-ACRE

AREA LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST QUADRANT OF
COCHRANE ROAD AND HIGHWAY 101 (APNs 728-37-
001, -002, -004, -005 & -007)
WHEREAS, the applicant is requesting a General Plan Amendment and an amendment to the master development plan and Planned Unit Development (PUD) Guidelines for a shopping center on a 66.49-acre site originally approved in 2005 to incorporate housing units into the project; and
WHEREAS, such request was considered by the Planning Commission at their regular meeting of October 11, 2022, at which time the Planning Commission recommended approval of applications ZA2019-0003 and GPA2021-0004 (Morgan Hill Retail Venture LP, Owner; and
WHEREAS, testimony received at a duly-noticed public hearing, along with exhibits and drawings and other materials have been considered in the review process.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE MORGAN HILL PLANNING COMMISSION DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. The proposed General Plan land use designation amendment generally meets the letter and intent of the General Plan goals and policies. The incorporation of housing into the project creates a "lifestyle" center where a mix of uses allows residents inside and outside the center as well as employees to meet daily needs without the use of a private automobile.

The traffic analysis conducted for the General Plan consistency review showed that the proposed mixed-use project would not result in any new or substantially more severe effects on intersection operations than the previously approved commercial/retail development.

SECTION 2. The Planned Development amendment will yield a mixed-use project that is consistent with General Plan City and Neighborhood Form Policies CNF-10.3, CNF-10.6, CNF-13.1 Housing Element Policy HE-4u, Economic Development Element Policy ED7.4. There is no specific plan or area plan relating to this site.

SECTION 3. The existing PD provides for a regional shopping center and the first phase has been completed. Stand-alone, big box shopping centers are

City of Morgan Hill
Resolution No. 22-19

no longer a successful development model and, as such, the applicant desires to incorporate housing into the project to create a mixed-use neighborhood more consistent with the Morgan Hill 2035 General Plan and superior to the originally approved PD.

SECTION 4. There is an existing Planned Development on this property. Substantial public benefits were not required with the approval of the original PD. The incremental changes proposed by the Amendment allow housing on the site. The project will pay special attention to the connections between Phase I and II to ensure uses complement each other and there is adequate interface between uses. The project will give to the pedestrian scale of common areas and activation of the pedestrian realm. The additional activation of public spaces and connections across the property will provide benefits not only to residents of the center, but to the public as well.

SECTION 5. The site is more than adequate in size to accommodate the original regional shopping center Planned Development as well as the proposed mixed-use development that would be achievable by adding housing to the site.

SECTION 6. The site is located adjacent to Highway 101 bounded by Cochrane Road and Mission View Drive. There are wet and dry utilities and infrastructure in the surrounding area that support the development of this site.

SECTION 7. The proposed changes to the existing PD will create a mixed-use neighborhood that will be compatible with the existing and planned land use character in the area surrounding the existing center. There continues to be a significant impact under CEQA related to transportation, similar to what was approved as part of the 2005 PD and associated EIR. However, this significant impact is based on Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). The traffic study conducted for the General Plan based on Level of Service (LOS) demonstrated that the proposed mixed-use project would not result in any new or substantially more severe effects on intersection operations than the previously approved commercial/retail development.

SECTION 8. A Subsequent Environmental Impact Report has been prepared for this project as part of the General Plan Amendment and Zoning Amendment applications. Mitigation measures and a monitoring program will be adopted for those environmental impacts identified in the report.

SECTION 9. The required findings for a Zoning Amendment in Section 18.114.060 can be made. The Planned Development amendment will yield a mixed-use project that is consistent with General Plan City and Neighborhood Form Policies CNF-10.3, CNF-10.6, CNF-13.1 Housing Element Policy HE-4u, Economic Development Element Policy ED7.4. There is no specific plan or area plan relating to this site. The inclusion of housing and the creation of a mixed-use neighborhood will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the city. The project site is physically suitable for the proposed changes to the existing PD and the creation of a mixed-use neighborhood will create a more integrated

City of Morgan Hill
Resolution No. 22-19

community with easy access to goods and services.

SECTION 10. The required findings for a General Plan Amendment in Section

18.115.060 and for a Planned Development amendment in Section

18.30.050 H.7 can be made.

SECTION 11. Therefore, based upon the above reasons, and the record in this matter, the Planning Commission hereby recommends approval of the proposed General Plan Amendment and Planned Development Amendment as shown in Exhibit A.

SECTION 12. The approved project shall be subject to the following conditions:
a. The applicant shall comply with the mitigation measures of the certified Subsequent Environmental Impact Report, remaining mitigation measures in the 2005 Environmental Impact Report and adhere to the adopted Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. b. The project shall be subject to compliance with the PD Guidelines and Development Standards as attached in revised Exhibit A of this Resolution.
c. Individual developments within Phase 2 shall be subject to Administrative Design Review.
d. Any additional signage beyond the additional pylon side discussed within the PD Guidelines shall be added to the uniform sign program and reviewed and approved by the Development Services Director. e. The following mitigation from the Transportation Operations Analysis prepared on December 10, 2021 shall be reviewed and implemented at the discretion of the City Engineer. Page III – “The addition of a second northbound left-turn lane on Mission View Drive and a cycle length adjustment would be necessary to improve intersection operations. The addition of the second northbound left-turn lane will require lane striping and signal modification but will fit within the existing curb-to-curb pavement width on Mission View Drive.

Implementation of this improvement would improve the intersection’s level of service to LOS C during both the AM and PM peak hours under Year 2030 Cumulative with both project conditions.” PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS 11th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022, AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:

AYES: COMMISSIONERS: MUELLER, HABIB, DOWNEY, LAKE,

KUMAR, WILSON
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: NONE

City of Morgan Hill
Resolution No. 22-19

ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: TANDA
ATTEST: APPROVED:
____________________________ ____________________________ JENNA LUNA, Deputy City Clerk JOSEPH MUELLER, Chair
Joseph Mueller (Oct 21, 2022 15:10 PDT)
Joseph Mueller

City of Morgan Hill
Resolution No. 22-19

EXHIBIT A – PD Guidelines and Development Standards

City of Morgan Hill
Resolution No. 22-19

MIXED USE PROJECT
COCHRANE ROAD AND HIGHWAY 101

A DINAPOLI, BROWMAN, GUGLIELMO DEVELOPMENT

PD GUIDELINES

MORGAN HILL, CA
October 2022
Location
Cochrane Commons is located at the northeast quadrant of the Cochrane Road overpass at Highway 101.

Introduction and Intent
The intent of this narrative is to describe the architectural theme and site development plans which will guide the future development of this site relative to architectural compatibility, site design, landscape features, and signage concepts. These development standards are designed to provide flexibility to allow creative freedom and diversity, which is necessary for maintaining and attracting national retail tenants and future residents to the Cochrane Commons mixed use project. This document outlines the guidelines under which all businesses and residents can synergistically coexist in a competitive market and in close proximity to Cochrane Commons Shopping Center. Except as otherwise modified and amended herein the existing and approved PUD shall remain in full force and effect, including without limitation the permitted and conditionally permitted uses as well as the original site plan.

Development Guideline Format
These PD guidelines are organized as follows:

Section 1: Allowable Uses
Section 2: Site Development Concept
Section 3: Landscape and Lighting Concepts and Guidelines Section 4: Parking and Loading/Circulation
Section 5: Architectural Concepts and Guidelines
Section 6: Site Design Guidelines
Section 7: Utilities and Appurtenant Uses / Devices
SECTION 1: ALLOWABLE USES
All capitalized terms herein shall have the meaning set forth in the Morgan Hill Zoning Code, as adopted on June 6, 2018.

City of Morgan Hill
Resolution No. 22-19

Permitted Uses:
• Small, medium and big box Retail, (including, but not limited to General Retail, Convenience Markets, Home Improvement Centers, Grocery stores, Liquor Stores, Drug Stores, and/or Large Commodity Retail)
• Residential Land Uses (approximately 8-24 dwelling units per acre), rentals or for sale (including, but not limited to, Duplexes, Triplexes, Group Housing, Live/Work Units, Mixed Use Residential, MultiFamily Dwellings, Single-Family Dwellings, Single-Family Attached Dwellings, and/or Single Family Detached Dwellings)
• Lodging Facilities, only full service or boutique hotel lodging allowed • Nursing Homes, Long-Term Care, Residential Care Facilities, and/or Residential Care Facilities, Small • Day Care Centers and/or Home Day Care
• Colleges and Trade Schools, Community Assembly, Cultural Institutions, Instructional Services, Schools
• Eating and Drinking Uses (including, but not limited to, Restaurants, Fast Food Restaurants, SitDown, quick service, fast casual, café, market hall, cafeteria style, drive in and full service) • Up to five (5) Drive-Through Facilities. Drive-Through Facilities in addition to those permitted above, shall be permitted within the shopping center with the approval of a conditional use permit. • Commercial Recreation (including indoor health clubs and group fitness facilities), Cinemas and Theaters, Parks and Recreational Facilities, Bars and Nightclubs, Tasting Rooms, Plant Nurseries, Breweries, Beer Gardens
• Pop-up shops, food trucks and/or temporary food kiosks (day or night) • Farmers Market
• Indoor Animal Boarding
• Professional Offices, Medical Offices and Clinics, Banks and Financial Institutions, Veterinarian Clinics and Hospitals, Government Offices, Service Commercial Uses, Business Support Services, and/or coworking spaces • Personal Services, Social Services, and/or Public Safety Facilities • Fuel and Service Stations, Vehicle Rentals, Vehicle Sales and Leasing, Vehicle Washing Vehicle Rental and Vehicle Showroom
• Parking Lots and Structures
• Recycling Facilities in conjunction with or required as a part of an allowed use • Vehicle Repair and Maintenance, Minor (such as a tire shop, oil changer, car audio shop, or other similar auto oriented uses)
• Wireless Communication Facilities
• Urban Agriculture
• Wholesaling
• Warehousing, storage, and distribution, as a part of a retail or otherwise allowed use including curbside and in store pick-up services, return and delivery services • Ecommerce Fulfillment Services business as part of a retail or other allowable use; • Any other use that is supportive of Retail
• Any other use listed as a permitted use in the original Project PUD approvals, in the GC, General Commercial District in the Morgan Hill Municipal Code, or Mixed-Use Flex designation in the General Plan
Conditional:

City of Morgan Hill
Resolution No. 22-19

• Any Drive-Through and Drive-In Facilities that is proposed beyond the five (5) that are permitted above shall require a conditional use permit.
• A maximum of one (1) of each: Fuel and Service Stations, Vehicle Washing, and Convenience Markets, unless such use is a part of a Retail tenant located or to be located in the Shopping Center in which case more than one of each of the foregoing shall be permitted. • Vehicle Repair and Maintenance, Major
• Nursing Homes, Long-Term Care, Residential Care Facilities, and/or • Lodging Facilities, only full service or boutique hotel lodging allowed • Bars and Nightclubs, Tasting Rooms, Breweries, Beer Gardens • Fuel and Service Stations, Vehicle Sales and Leasing, Vehicle Washing • Vehicle Repair and Maintenance, Minor (such as a tire shop, oil changer, car audio shop, or other similar auto oriented uses)
SECTION 2: SITE DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT: Notwithstanding anything contained herein to the contrary, the original Site Development Concept in Section 2 of Ordinance No. 1746 dated December 8, 2005 (“First PD”) shall continue in full force and effect, except as added or modified herein.

1. The mixed use site development plan consists of multiple retail areas and residential areas, with vehicular roadways bisecting the site N/S from Cochrane Road at De Paul Drive and E/W from Mission View Drive.

2. Building setbacks along Cochrane Road shall be an average of 25 ft; along Mission View an average of 10 15 feet,(with all setback distances measured from the property line); however, encroachments into the setback area are permissible to accommodate the architectural and functional needs of the development as long as the overall average is maintained. Building setbacks along rear or side yard property lines adjacent to property not a part of the PD shall be an average of 10’. For all property within the Project that is subject to the PD there shall be no minimum building setback requirements required between buildings or other improvements, uses, or properties within the Project boundaries.

3. The First PD site plan, and the Site Plan and elevations submitted with the PD Application adopted in Ordinance No. 1746 dated December 8, 2005 shall not require further review or approval.

4. The project site plan and project design elevations shall be subject to Staff Level Administrative Design Review. and reviewed and approved by City Staff to determined that the project is consistent with or in substantial conformance with the content or intent of this PD.

City of Morgan Hill
Resolution No. 22-19

Project Site Plan
SECTION 3: LANDSCAPE AND LIGHTING CONCEPTS AND GUIDELINES Landscape

5. Project landscaping shall be substantially consistent with the Project Site Plan and attached general landscape plan submitted as part of the Amended PD, but will require Administrative Design Reviewfurther Staff Review review at building permit plan review for consistency with local and state watering and irrigation standards. All street trees and trees planted within the front setback areas shall be a minimum 15 gallon size. Except as permitted under the approved PD Amendment or otherwise shown on approved Project landscape drawings, and except for landscaping adjacent to buildings, all landscape areas shall comply with city code.

6. The general characteristics of the plant palette for the Project shall be a combination of year‐ round color and textural interest. Plants shall be selected on the basis of color combinations complementary to the existing architectural theme, growing patterns, low maintenance and water conservation characteristics.

7. An average 20 foot wide landscape strip (excluding sections of hardscape elements such as driveways or sidewalks) shall be provided along Cochrane road, and an average 150 foot wide landscape strip (excluding sections of hardscape elements such as driveways or sidewalks) shall be provided along Mission View Drive. Encroachments into all landscape setbacks shall be permissible to accommodate the architectural and functional needs of the development as long as the remaining landscaped areas maintains the overall average or a substantial portion of the landscape strip equals or exceeds 150 foot requirement. Acceptable mitigation for such encroachments shall include, without limitation: additional landscape planting, an earthen

City of Morgan Hill
Resolution No. 22-19

berm, or screen walls. Berms shall be an average height of 3 feet with a minimum height of 1.5 feet, and shall undulate where possible to be aesthetically pleasing. Except as provided herein, the design of the landscaping strip referred to above shall substantially conform to the Landscape Plan submitted as part of the PD Master Plan.

8. Canopy‐providing treesshall be planted in the parking lot planter islandsto produce shade.

9. The main project entrance at DePaul Drive shall be well landscaped and serve as a focal point, and may include attractive landscape walls, project signage, and other features.

10. Shrubs or vine planting shall be provided to screen utilities and trash enclosures.

11. The main parking field and/or any parking structure shall be screened from view of public streets by use of berming and/or bushes of a minimum of 3 feet effective height (18 months after planting), as measured from the top of the nearest street curb.

12. Where possible, landscaping shall be used to soften the appearance of fences and walls and front elevations of large scale retail buildings which lack fenestration or other architectural detailing.

13. All service areas fronting on public streets shall be screened by landscaping, berms, screens, and/or walls, substantially consistent with the colors and materials shown in the ‘colors and materials pallet’ packet on file in the Development Services Center.

14. Special paving or materials such as integral color concrete or asphalt, pavers, and/or scored concrete paving shall be provided at key on‐site intersections. Pedestrian walkways shall be provided connecting groupings of retail structures to other retail areas, mixed use areas, and/or residential areas, and to parking areas. Walkways which cross traffic lanes shall have special markings such as integral colored concrete, scored or raised concrete, colored paving, special striping, and/or paving stones.

Landscape Site Plan
Lighting

City of Morgan Hill
Resolution No. 22-19

15. Any decorative lighting on the pedestrian pathways parallel to the main driveway from Cochrane Road shall be reduced in height and scale, to create a more human‐scale feeling and atmosphere.

16. The design of the exterior retail building lighting shall be compatible with the existing architectural style of the project. The design of the exterior residential and/or mixed use building lighting shall be complementary with the existing architectural style of the project, and/or provide an architectural transition to the adjacent residential projects.

17. The main parking lot lighting fixtures shall be consistent throughout the project, provided, however the mixed use and/or residential portions of the project shall complement the other portions of the project and will help identify neighborhoods within the project. The maximum pole height (including the base) shall be 33 feet except that lighting poles along Mission View project edge and the Cochrane Road project edge shall be limited to a maximum height (excluding the base) of 15 feet. Further conditions regarding residentially zoned properties are imposed under guideline #18 below.

18. All lighting shall be shielded and directed in such a manner so as not to directly cast light on neighboring residentially zoned properties outside the Project. The Applicant shall pay special attention to ensure that there is no unacceptable spillage of light outside the applicable boundaries of the project. Prior to issuance of site construction permits, Applicant shall provide a photometric plan evidencing conformance of the lighting plan to these guidelines.

SECTION 4: PARKING AND LOADING/CIRCULATION

19. The main parking field shall be screened from public view on Cochrane Road primarily through constructed buildings, the use of berming and/or hedge row plantings, shrubs, trees or any combination thereof, in a manner substantially consistent with the project Landscape Plan.

20. 90 degree parking, angled parking, compact parking, RV parking, parallel parking, one‐way drive aisles, and round‐abouts shall be permitted.

21. Parking areas shall be designed to include provision for pedestrian walkways for access to building entrances. Walkways which cross traffic lanes shall have special markings such as integral color concrete, scored or raised concrete, colored paving, specialstriping and/or paving stones. Walkway strips shall be intermittently provided through landscaped areas to protect landscaping from foot traffic damage.

22. In order to facilitate on‐site traffic flow and vehicle and pedestrian safety, parking stalls shall not be located directly adjacent to the front of a retail anchor tenant occupying a ground floor area that is 100,000 square feet or larger (i.e. Major 1 (Target) as shown on the PD Master Plan).

23. Reciprocal access and shared parking between properties shall be permitted and used, whenever possible, and for purposes of calculating parking ratios residential portions of the project shall be allowed to share parking stalls from the retail portion of the project in meeting the guest stall parking requirements. Given the benefits of the walkable and mixed‐use nature of the project the Residential portion of the Project shall be permitted to receive an overall reduction in its parking requirements by up to 15% off the total parking required for the residential portion of the Project.

24. Cross access easements shall be provided throughout the project.

25. Shared access easements and drivewaysshall be provided.

City of Morgan Hill
Resolution No. 22-19

26. Drive aisles shall allow for circulation within the project, with sufficient width for emergency vehicles.

27. Provisions for connecting driveways and walkways between adjacent properties within the project are encouraged.

28. Emergency vehicle accessshall be provided throughout the project.

29. Loading areas and docks shall be screened from view along Mission View Drive by landscaping or a screening structure. Screen walls or other screening structures shall be architecturally treated, and may be constructed with metal, concrete, concrete block, wood or a combination thereof (see attached exhibit for an example of acceptable screening). Alternatively, screening along the northern property may be compromised of dense evergreen plantings, or other similar screenings.

30. All truck deliveries between the hours of 10pm to 6am shall enter and exit through the DePaul Drive project driveway (main vehicular entry from Cochrane Road).

31. Parking required for the development shall meet the requirements set forth in this PD Amendment. The project shall benefit from and received credit for shared parking throughout the project and among a mix of uses.

SECTION 5: ARCHITECTURAL CONCEPTS AND GUIDELINES

32. The architectural concept shall create a campus of mixed use residential and commercial structures which vary in character, massing, materials, and colors but remaining complementary to the existing theme of the PD Master Plan. Each structure shall be complementary to the existing architectural theme or most directly adjacent structure, but may maintain its own uniqueness prioritizing thoughtful transitions from differing styles within the project and the context of the neighborhood. Building facades may contain design features and variances in scale to create interest in character. The design of entertainment uses may be enhanced by featured elements which may include some or all of the following: neon, tower, marquee, theater lights and statement lobby glazing. The development shall include tower and/or entry features, bold cornices, and varying facades, and a variety of materials, colors and storefronts.

Awnings, light sconces, site lighting, and/or street furniture shall be situated at appropriate locations as determined by Applicant to enhance the pedestrian and/or human scale feel of the project.

33. No residential building or lodging use shall exceed 68 feet in height to the top of the parapet except that tower and accent features of buildings may exceed such height limitations as long as (i) the scale and design of such features are complementary to the existing architectural design of the project; (ii) such exceptions affects no more than 25% of the applicable building; (iii) such features shall not exceed 75 feet at the highest point. Notwithstanding the above, no building sharing a frontage with Mission View shall exceed 32 stories in height, excluding roof decks or other outdoor space which in this case shall not be included in the total number of building stories.

34. Rooflines may be flat and/or provide variation in height, cascading rooflines, or a combination of the above, which shall be complementary to the existing architectural theme established for the development.

35. Large, continuous structures shall incorporate breaks in horizontal planes by varying architectural features and designs and recessing windows and entrances, to provide substance and scale.

City of Morgan Hill
Resolution No. 22-19

36. Windows shall be enhanced by use of various sizes and shapes, and highlighted by the use of accent trim (e.g. molding, pop‐out or wood trim). The design shall be complementary to the architectural style of the project.

37. Architectural treatment shall be applied to the front façade of all building elevations consistent with the below design elevation concepts and complementary to the existing retail development and surrounding residential neighborhoods; complementary architectural treatment shall also be applied to other areas of any building clearly visible from any public street. Final building designs shall be a staff level design review approval.

38. Building design shall be compatible with the immediate adjacent building and provide harmonious transition between various uses.

39. Gutters and downspouts shall be made of quality materials and treated to blend into the façade to which it is attached, unless as a design element, in which case the color shall be consistent with the color schemes of the building.

40. No mechanical equipmentshall be exposed on the wallsurface of any building.

41. All roof‐mounted mechanical equipment or ductwork which project vertically above the roof or parapet shall be screened consistently with the building design.

42. Any outdoor storage of goods, materials or equipment (e.g. garden center, lumber yard) shall be located within an enclosed area. The fencing and/or screening enclosing such area shall be complementary to the existing architectural theme of the PD Master Plan and designed in a manner complementary to the building design and site layout. Chain link fencing with wood inserts is not an acceptable manner of screening.

43. Fences and walls shall be designed to be compatible with the surrounding landscape and architectural style of the PD.

44. Trash enclosures shall be constructed of solid material, and shall be a minimum of six feet in height, with solid view obstructing gates. Reasonable efforts shall be made to screen trash enclosures or locate them in inconspicuous locations.
3 Story Multi‐Family

City of Morgan Hill
Resolution No. 22-19

4 Story Multi‐Family
Retail
Bungalows

City of Morgan Hill
Resolution No. 22-19

Townhomes
Townhomes
SECTION 6: SIGN DESIGN GUIDELINES

45. This PD shall permit two (2) pylon sign structures along Highway 101 near the north end of the site and one pylon structure along Highway 101 near Cochrane Road consistent with the original PD application (8/22/05), subject, if necessary, to approval by the SCVWD. The two pylon signs near the north end of the site shall be a maximum height of 68 ft, as measured to the top of the horizontal cornice. The pylon sign near Cochrane Road shall be a maximum height of 50 ft, as measured at the top of the horizontal cornice. Decorative architectural features may extend above the 68 ft and 50 ft height limits as depicted on the sign elevations date stamped October 27, 2005, on file at the Community Development Department. This PD shall also permit one monument sign structure consistent with the original PD application (8/22/05) at the intersection of Cochrane Road and Mission View Drive. This monument sign shall be a maximum overall height of 20 feet, and shall not be illuminated in the evenings after 10pm. In addition, this PD shall permit directional signage, other residential project signage, landscape wall signs including but not limited to landscape wall signs along Cochrane and Mission View, and other signage consistent with a leasing office.

46. Except as permitted above, the uniform sign program for the Project shall control the signage requirements and placement of signs within the project. The uniform sign program shall be applicable to all buildings and uses within the PD. Tenant identification signs and “now leasing” signs will be allowed on the sides of the buildings that are visible to Highway 101. Signs, Banners and posters shall be permitted and must be of a high quality with character, and ambiance complementary to the existing architectural theme and the standards of the PD Master Plan. Address numbers shall contrast with their background and shall be a minimum of six inches in height.

City of Morgan Hill
Resolution No. 22-19

47. Poster boards containing retail displays (including advertising), for sale/for rent signs incorporating an artistic component or displaying information of community interest shall be permitted.

SECTION 7: UTILITIES AND APPURTENANT USES / DEVICES

48. Easements for the installation and maintenance of utilities, walkways, roads, shared driveways, parking and drainage facilities shall be recorded as part of any subdivision map or lot line adjustment.

49. Detention ponds and/or bioswales may be located within any setback area or outside a setback area.

50. Utility equipment may be located with landscaped or setback areas provided they are located as far from the street frontage as feasibly possible, and adequately screened and/or landscaped to limit the visibility of such equipment.

51. Uses within the PD that utilize shopping carts shall provide indoor or outdoor screened storage of the carts and shall provide for architecturally treated collection areas throughout the parking lots.

52. Vending machines, bike and/or scooter racks, rideshare pick up areas, solar panel installations, newspaper racks, coin operated devices, electric vehicle parking and/or charging stations or other similar devices may be placed on the exterior and/or walkway and/or parking lot or garage adjacent to proposed buildings, provided the area in which the device is located is neat, attractive, attractive or otherwise architecturally treated or landscaped. Once installed, such devices and locations shall be maintained in a high quality manner.

EXISTING GP PROPOSED

LAND USE LAND USE

APN DESIGNATION DESIGNATION

MULTI-FAMILY
728-37-069 COMMERCIAL (MED/HIGH)

RESIDENTIAL
728-37-056 COMMERCIAL MULTI-FAMILY
(MED/HIGH)

RESIDENTIAL
728-37-041 COMMERCIAL MULTI-FAMILY
(MED/HIGH)

RESIDENTIAL
EXHIBIT "'A"'
PN: 728-37-056

0.96733 AC
GP
LEGEND:

Vicinity Map
N.T.S.

ITT7 ll__l_lJ AREA TO BE DESIGNATED

MULTI-FAMILY (MED/HIGH)

PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
FOR
PROJECT NO.: 019-025
APN 728-37-069, 728-37-056
AND 728-37-041

COCHRANE COMMONS SHOPPING CENTER

MORGAN HILL, CA

RSC ENGINEERING
SCALE: 1 "=500'
����vi��
u
��• 9�;i; S
u ite 150 DATE: Q 6 / 1 7 / 1 4
Ph: 916. 788.2884 Fox: 916. 788.4408
City of Morgan Hill
Resolution No. 22-19

Resolution No. 22-19 ZA GP (Cochrane
Commons)
Final Audit Report 2022-10-21
Created: 2022-10-20
By: Jenna Luna ([email protected])
Status: Signed
Transaction ID: CBJCHBCAABAAQ4fo-bCe8k6mgE3o-hngup2Iag7lZi9e "Resolution No. 22-19 ZA GP (Cochrane Commons)" History Document created by Jenna Luna ([email protected]) 2022-10-20 - 11:15:26 PM GMT
Document emailed to [email protected] for signature 2022-10-20 - 11:15:53 PM GMT
Email viewed by [email protected]
2022-10-21 - 8:56:03 PM GMT
Signer [email protected] entered name at signing as Joseph Mueller 2022-10-21 - 10:10:52 PM GMT
Document e-signed by Joseph Mueller ([email protected]) Signature Date: 2022-10-21 - 10:10:54 PM GMT - Time Source: server Agreement completed.
2022-10-21 - 10:10:54 PM GMT

RESOLUTION NO. 22-18

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF

MORGAN HILL RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL CERTIFY

THE FINAL SUSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR
THE COCHRANE COMMONS PHASE 2 PROJECT AS CONSISTENT

WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL

QUALITY ACT AND ADOPT A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING

CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND A

RELATED MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
WHEREAS, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH Number 2022060200) was prepared for the Cochrane Commons Phase 2 Project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). A Notice of Preparation (NOP) was circulated between December 3, 2021 and January 3, 2022 to receive comments regarding the scope and content of the SEIR. A public scoping meeting was held on December 16, 2021 to receive oral comments on the NOP. The Draft SEIR was circulated between June 10, 2022 and July 25, 2022; and
WHEREAS, the City of Morgan Hill received comments on the Draft SEIR by seven individuals / organizations. Responses to those comments and minor changes to the Draft SEIR were included in a Final SEIR document in accordance with the requirements of CEQA; and
WHEREAS, the information contained in the Final SEIR, consisting of the Draft SEIR document in combination with the Final SEIR document, was reviewed and considered by the Planning Commission at a duly-noticed Planning Commission public hearing held on October 11, 2022; and the Planning Commission took action to recommend to the City Council that the Final SEIR be certified as being found complete, correct and in substantial compliance with the requirements of California Environmental Quality Act; and
WHEREAS, the Environmental Impact Report concluded that implementation of the Project could result in one significant effect on the environment and identified mitigation measures that would reduce some but not all of those significant effects to a less-than significant level; and
WHEREAS, in connection with the approval of a project involving the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report that identifies one or more significant environmental effects, CEQA requires the decision-making body of the lead agency to incorporate feasible mitigation measures that would reduce those significant environmental effects to a less-than-significant level and/or adopt a Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations; and
WHEREAS, whenever a lead agency approves a project requiring the implementation of measures to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment,

City of Morgan Hill
Resolution No. 22-18

CEQA also requires a lead agency to adopt a mitigation monitoring and reporting program to ensure compliance with the mitigation measures during project implementation, and such a mitigation monitoring and reporting program has been prepared for the Project for consideration by the decision-maker of the City of Morgan Hill as lead agency for the Project (the "Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program"); and
WHEREAS, the City of Morgan Hill is the lead agency on the Project, and the City Council is the decision-making body for the proposed approval to construct and otherwise undertake the Project; and
WHEREAS, the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report and the related Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project are, by this reference, incorporated into this Resolution as if fully set forth herein; and
WHEREAS, the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report, incorporating any Addenda, and related Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project are on file in the Development Services Department located at 17575 Peak Avenue, Morgan Hill, California, 95037, and are available for inspection by any interested person at that location.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE MORGAN HILL PLANNING COMMISSION DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1 : FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING

CONSIDERATIONS BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

MORGAN HILL REGARDING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT FOR THE COCHRANE COMMONS PHASE 2
PROJECT: The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council find, determine and declare the findings and facts and statement of overriding considerations as set forth in the attached Exhibit "A" by this reference incorporated herein.

SECTION 2: CERTIFICATION OF FINAL EIR: The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council hereby certify that the Final SEIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA
PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS 11th DAY OF OCTOBER 2022, AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:

AYES: COMMISSIONERS: MUELLER, HABIB, DOWNEY, LAKE,

KUMAR, WILSON
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: NONE

City of Morgan Hill
Resolution No. 22-18

ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: TANDA
ATTEST: APPROVED:
____________________________ ____________________________ JENNA LUNA, Deputy City Clerk JOSEPH MUELLER, Chair
Joseph Mueller (Oct 20, 2022 09:49 PDT)
Joseph Mueller

City of Morgan Hill
Resolution No. 22-18

EXHIBIT "A"

FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS BY

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MORGAN HILL REGARDING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE COCHRANE COMMONS PHASE 2 PROJECT (State Clearinghouse No. 2004112060)
The following Findings, the mitigation measures specified herein, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached hereto are hereby adopted by the Morgan Hill City Council in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code Section 21081, 21081.5 and 21081.6, and the CEQA Guidelines, Title 14, California Code of Regulations, Sections 15091 and 15092 for the Cochrane Commons Phase II Project (project).

Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines states that:
a. No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been certified which identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the project unless the public agency makes one or more written findings for each of those significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding. The possible findings are:
(1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR.
(2) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency.
(3) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR.

In short, CEQA requires that the lead agency adopt mitigation measures or alternatives, where feasible, to avoid or mitigate significant environmental impacts that will otherwise occur with implementation of the project. Project mitigation or alternatives are not required, however, where they are infeasible or where the responsibility for modifying the project lies with another agency.

For those significant effects that cannot be mitigated to a less-than-significant level, the public agency is required to find that specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the project outweigh the significant effects on the

City of Morgan Hill
Resolution No. 22-18

environment. The CEQA Guidelines state in section 15093 that:
“If the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a propos[ed] project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered ‘acceptable.” A. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS
The Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) prepared by the City of Morgan Hill (City) for the Cochrane Commons Phase II Project (project) consists of the Draft Subsequent EIR (Draft SEIR) and the Final SEIR / Response to Comments on the Draft SEIR. It was prepared as a SEIR to the Cochrane Road Planned Unit Development Project 2005 EIR (2005 EIR, State Clearinghouse Number 2004112060). The project analyzed under the 2005 EIR included 590,100 square feet of retail space, a 12-pump gas station, and a 63,200-square-foot movie theatre in the same location as the project, which would have been built out in two phases. The 2005 EIR covered both Phase I and Phase II of project construction. Construction of Phase I of the project was completed in 2007.

The project would involve construction of Phase II of the Cochrane Commons development on the undeveloped site adjacent to the completed Phase I. The Phase II project currently proposed is different from the originally proposed Phase II that was analyzed in the 2005 EIR. The Phase II project would consist of 498 residential units, consisting of a mix of townhomes and apartments, 135,000 square feet of retail space, and a 140-room hotel. Residential and hotel uses were not considered under the 2005 EIR. The General Plan land use designation would be amended from Commercial to Mixed Use Flex and the zoning from Highway Commercial/Planned Unit Development to Mixed Use Flex/Planned Development for the Phase II development area.

On December 3, 2021, the City of Morgan Hill circulated a Notice of Preparation (NOP) for a 30-day comment period to request input on the types of impacts that could result from the proposed project. The Draft SEIR was made available for public review for a 45-day comment period that began on June 10, 2022 and ended on July 25, 2022. The Notice of Availability of a Draft SEIR was posted with the Santa Clara County Clerk, sent to the State Clearinghouse, published on the City’s website, and mailed to responsible agencies. The City also held a virtual community open house as an opportunity for the public to submit verbal comments on the SEIR at 7:00 p.m. on July 13, 2022. The City of Morgan Hill received a total of seven written comment letters during the public comment period.

The City released the Final SEIR for public review on September 30, 2022. The Final SEIR consists of copies of all comments received on the Draft SEIR, a list of commenters, all responses to comments, and proposed amendments to the SEIR. The Final SEIR, Draft SEIR, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) together comprise the SEIR for the project. The analysis and conclusions contained in the SEIR

City of Morgan Hill
Resolution No. 22-18

reflect the independent judgment of the City.

B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Section 2 of the Draft SEIR includes a detailed description of the project. Other than minor clarifications, no revisions to the project description were required.

The 33.5-acre project site is located at the southwest corner of Mission View Drive and Cochrane Road in the City of Morgan Hill. The project would involve construction of Phase II of the Cochrane Commons development on the undeveloped site adjacent to the completed Phase I. The Phase II project currently proposed is different from the originally proposed Phase II that was analyzed in the 2005 EIR. The project would consist of 498 residential units, consisting of a mix of homes, townhomes, condos, and apartments; 135,000 square feet of retail space; a 140-room hotel; and amending the zoning and General Plan designation to MUF for the Phase II development area. The residential uses would be located in the northern and middle portion of the project site and the hotel and commercial retail would be located in the southern portion. The project would also provide various on-site amenities for residents. A courtyard with outdoor open space would be provided near the proposed apartment units. A clubhouse, recreation hall, swimming pool would also be provided for on-site residents.

There would be a total of 1,367 parking spaces. During Phase I, the project would include 276 parking stalls. During Phase 2, 658 stalls would be added and during Phase 3, 433 stalls would be added. Vehicles would access the project site primarily from De Paul Drive, which would have two driveways leading to two central roadways which would connect to two driveways off Mission View Drive. An additional driveway would be located off of Cochrane Road which would allow right-in and right-out vehicle movements. The project site has been previously graded and would be further modified by additional grading. The storm drain system design would incorporate City standards for pipe sizes, maximum slopes, minimum flow velocities, and pipe material, and drainage would be to the planned detention pond and pumped to the adjacent Cochrane Channel at discharge rates at or below pre-development levels.

The project objectives are to:
• Increase the viability of the existing Cochrane Commons anchors and tenants • Create a vibrant and exciting place for the residents of Morgan Hill to live, work, and shop all in one place
• Assist in protecting the tax revenue generated by the current and future tenants and the long-term viability of the City of Morgan Hill’s retailers • Provide much needed variety to the City’s housing stock in the form of market rate and below market rate affordable housing
• Encourage the development of the remainder of the shopping center The proposed project would require the following approvals:
• Certification of a Subsequent EIR. Certify the Cochrane Commons Phase II SEIR and make environmental findings pursuant to CEQA.

City of Morgan Hill
Resolution No. 22-18

• Amendment to Zoning and General Plan Designation. Adopt an amendment to the zoning map and General Plan land use map to convert the Phase II development area to MUF.

C. SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS AND DISPOSITION

OF RELATED MITIGATION MEASURES
The following findings are hereby made by the City of Morgan Hill City Council for the significant environmental effects identified in the SEIR and Initial Study related to transportation (impacts related to VMT) and agriculture and forestry resources (impacts related to conversion of Important Farmland). The Final SEIR identified the following impact associated with the project that would be significant and unavoidable:

SEIR

1. Transportation Impact TRA-2: The project would exceed the applicable significance threshold for VMT. Mitigation Measure TRA-1 would reduce residential VMT per capita, but not below the per capita threshold of significance. Impacts would be significant and unavoidable.

Mitigation Measure TRA-1: VMT Reductions. The applicant shall develop and implement Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan that is aimed at achieving a reduction in residential vehicle trips to and from the site. The TDM plan will need to be prepared by a qualified traffic consultant and in coordination with the City of Morgan Hill Development Services Director or Designee. The TDM plan shall quantify the reduction in VMT. The TDM plan may include, but shall not be limited to, the following elements described below:
• School Pool Programs: Organize a program that matches families in carpools for school pick-up and drop-off of all households from the project. Organizing a school pool program helps match parents who transport students to schools without a busing program, including private schools, charter schools, and neighborhood schools where students cannot walk or bike. The school pool program would be open to all families in the development. School pools reduce the total number of vehicle trips traveling to and from schools, thereby reducing VMT. • Voluntary Travel Behavior Change Programs. Provide a program that targets individual attitudes towards travel and providing tools for individuals to analyze and alter their travel behavior with 100% expected resident participation. These programs include mass communication campaigns and travel feedback programs, such as travel diaries or feedback on calories burned from activities and travel. This strategy encourages the use of shared ride modes, transit, walking, and biking, thereby reducing VMT.

Finding: Even with incorporation of Mitigation Measure TRA-1, VMT per capita would not be reduced by 27 percent, which is the percent needed to reduce the VMT per capita below the threshold. There are no feasible mitigation measures or combination of measures that would reduce the overall project VMT per capita by 27 percent. Therefore, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable.

City of Morgan Hill
Resolution No. 22-18

Impacts related to transportation have been mitigated to the extent feasible. The City of Morgan Hill finds that although this impact would be significant and unavoidable, the impact is acceptable when weighed against the overriding social, economic, and other considerations set forth in Section K, Statement of Overriding Considerations.

INITIAL STUDY

1. Agriculture and Forestry Impact A: Impacts to Agricultural Resources were analyzed in Section 3.2 of the 2005 EIR. The 2005 EIR concluded that the project would convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to non-agricultural use, which would result in significant and unavoidable impacts. The impacts of the proposed project would be the same as those analyzed in the 2005 EIR.

2. Agriculture and Forestry Impact E: Impacts to Agricultural Resources were analyzed in Section 3.2 of the 2005 EIR. The 2005 EIR concluded that the project would convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to non-agricultural use, which would result in significant and unavoidable impacts. The impacts of the proposed project would be the same as those analyzed in the 2005 EIR.

Finding: The project would result in the conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use, which would result in significant and unavoidable impacts. The 2005 EIR found that there are no feasible mitigation measures available to reduce the impact of agricultural land conversion to a less than significant impact. The City of Morgan Hill finds that although this impact would be significant and unavoidable, the impact is acceptable when weighed against the overriding social, economic, and other considerations set forth in Section K, Statement of Overriding Considerations.

For a detailed description of impacts and mitigation measures, see the appropriate text in the Final SEIR.

D. SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS IDENTIFIED IN THE INITIAL STUDY OR SEIR THAT ARE REDUCED TO A LEVEL OF “LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT” BY THE

MITIGATION MEASURES INCORPORATED INTO THE PROJECT
The following findings are hereby made by the City of Morgan Hill City Council for the significant environmental effects identified in the SEIR and Initial Study that would be reduced to a less than significant level through incorporation of mitigation measures.

The City finds for each of the significant or potentially significant impacts identified in this section that based upon substantial evidence in the record, changes or alterations have been required or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant effects as identified in the SEIR and Initial Study and, thus, that adoption of the mitigation measures set forth below will reduce these significant or potentially significant effects to less-than-significant levels. Adoption of the mitigation measures

City of Morgan Hill
Resolution No. 22-18

will effectively make the mitigation measures part of the project. In addition, compliance with City and other applicable regulations will further reduce project impacts.

Therefore, the City finds that based upon substantial evidence in the record, changes or alterations have been required or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant effects as identified in the SEIR and Initial Study.

SEIR
The Final SEIR identified several impacts associated with the project that would be reduced to a level of less than significant with the implementation of mitigation measures identified in the Final SEIR:

1. Transportation Impact TRA-4: The project could result in inadequate emergency access to the project site. This impact would be less than significant with adherence to Mitigation Measure TRA-2.

2. Tribal Cultural Resources Impact TCR-1: The project has the potential to uncover buried tribal cultural resources during ground disturbing activities. Should project construction activities encounter a tribal cultural resource, Mitigation Measure TCR1 would ensure that potential impacts to tribal cultural resources would be less than significant.

INITIAL STUDY

3. Aesthetics Impact D: Lighting impacts from the proposed project as potentially significant because of its potential adverse effects to night sky visibility and the Lick Observatory on Mount Hamilton. Potentially significant impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level with the implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.1-1 from the 2005 EIR.

4. Air Quality Impact B: The project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. BAAQMD recommends the implementation of best management practices (BMP) to reduce fugitive dust emissions. Adherence to the dust control measures listed in Mitigation Measure 3.3-2 of the 2005 EIR would reduce impacts to less-than-significant levels.

5. Biological Resources Impact A: The project would impact potentially candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Potentially significant impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level with implementation of Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measures 3.4-1a, 3.4-1b, 3.4-2, and 3.4-3 from the 2005 EIR.

6. Biological Resources Impact D: The project site is located in an urbanized area of Morgan Hill and lacks natural habitats or riparian corridors and does not connect habitat or open space areas. With Mitigation Measures 3.3-1 through 3.3-3 and 3.4-

City of Morgan Hill
Resolution No. 22-18

1a through 3.4-3 incorporated, the project would not interfere substantially with wildlife movement, and this impact would be less than significant.

7. Biological Resources Impact E: The project site currently does not have any existing trees that would be removed by the proposed project. The project would comply with existing regulations, avoidance measures, and mitigation fees in the HCP and Burrowing Owl Mitigation Plan. The project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances, and impacts would be less than significant with implementation of mitigation measures.

8. Biological Resources Impact F: The project site is located in an urbanized area of Morgan Hill and would be required to comply with Mitigation Measures 3.4-1a, 3.4- 1b, 3.4-2, and 3.4-3, and applicable mitigation fees and mitigation measures that are identified in Chapter 6 of the HCP.

9. Cultural Resources Impact A-C: The project site does not contain known historic resources, archaeological resources, or human remains. Nonetheless, project ground-disturbing activities have the potential to impact unrecorded cultural resources. Potentially significant impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level with implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.5-1a and 3.5-1b from the 2005 EIR.

10. Geology and Soils Impact A1-A4: With implementation of the mitigation measures described below, the project site would be considered suitable for development provided that the recommendations contained in a geotechnical investigation conducted by Twining Laboratories in 2004 are implemented. Furthermore, the project would be required to comply with California Building Code requirements and 2005 EIR Mitigation Measure 3.6-1 which would reduce impacts to less than significant. Subsurface conditions on the project site and depth to groundwater across the site would indicate that there is some potential for liquefaction at the site.

Therefore, the 2005 EIR requires implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.6-2 to reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level. Settlements would exceed the tolerances for conventional shallow spread foundations and slabs on grade planned for the project. The 2005 EIR required implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.6-3 to reduce this impact to less than significant.

11. Geology and Soils Impacts C-D: Settlements would exceed the tolerances for conventional shallow spread foundations and slabs on grade planned for the project.

The 2005 EIR required implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.6-3 to reduce this impact to less than significant. Due to the compressible nature of the near surface soils, they would not provide adequate support for the proposed improvements in their existing condition. The 2005 EIR further required implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.6-4 to reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. The 2005 EIR found that there is a less-than-significant impact from unstable soils or geologic units and expansive soils, as development standards and compliance with Mitigation Measures 3.6-5 through 3.6-7, the Morgan Hill Building Code, and California Building

City of Morgan Hill
Resolution No. 22-18

Code would ensure structures are constructed to accommodate unstable or expansive soil units.

12. Geology and Soils Impact F: No paleontological resources have been explicitly found in the City, but project construction has the potential to result in inadvertently uncovering unique resources during ground-disturbing activities. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.5-1a would reduce impacts to unique paleontological resources to less than significant.

13. Hydrology and Water Quality Impact D: The Anderson Dam has been identified to have seismic safety concerns and is currently undergoing a capital earthquake retrofit to improve dam safety and to return the Anderson Reservoir to its original storage capacity. Flood hazard risk at the project is therefore slightly higher than the risk originally identified in the 2005 EIR. Tsunami, and seiche risk remain the same as when analyzed in the 2005 EIR. The impact would therefore be the same as for the previous project, mitigation measures 3.8-1 through 3.8-3 would apply, and the issue was addressed adequately in the 2005 EIR. Mitigation measures included in the 2005 EIR require an emergency evacuation plan, which would apply to the proposed project.

14. Public Services Impact A1-A2: The proposed project is located in an urbanized area already served by the MHPD and is generally similar to the surrounding uses and would not substantially increase demand on local police services. The proposed project would be required to implement Mitigation Measure 3.11-1 from the 2005 EIR to reduce impacts to less-than-significant levels.

15. Utilities and Service Systems Impacts D-E: There is adequate capacity available to serve the project. Mitigation Measure 3.13-1 from the 2005 EIR would increase the solid waste diversion of project-generated waste.

E. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS IDENTIFIED IN THE SEIR OR INITIAL STUDY The following findings are hereby made by the City of Morgan Hill City Council regarding issue areas with no impact on the environment. The City finds that, based upon substantial evidence in the record, as discussed below, the following impacts associated with the project are not significant or are less than significant. The SEIR and Initial Study provide a detailed analysis of the less-than-significant impacts of the proposed project for all issue areas below.

SEIR

1. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impact GHG-1: The project would generate temporary and long-term increases in GHG emissions, but such emissions would remain below the adjusted efficiency threshold intended to demonstrate consistency with the 2030 statewide GHG reduction target.

2. Transportation Impact TRA-1: The project would not conflict with applicable policies

City of Morgan Hill
Resolution No. 22-18

addressing transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities.

3. Transportation Impact TRA-3: The project would not introduce design features or incompatible uses that could increase traffic hazards.

INITIAL STUDY

1. Aesthetics Impact A: The proposed project site is not on a hillside, the project would not conflict with City goals and policies regarding hillside preservation in the City’s 2035 General Plan. Furthermore, the project would comply with height regulations established in the Zoning Code. The proposed project would not have a significant impact on scenic vistas.

2. Aesthetics Impact C: The project would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings.

3. Air Quality Impact A: The project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan.

4. Air Quality Impact C: The project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentration.

5. Air Quality Impact D: The project would not result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people.

6. Energy Impact A: The project would not result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during project construction or operation.

7. Energy Impact B: The project would result in no impact to state and local plans for renewable energy or energy efficiency.

8. Geology and Soils Impact B: With compliance with existing regulations, substantial erosion during construction would not occur.

9. Geology and Soils Impact E: The project would be serviced by wastewater collection and treatment systems, and no septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems would be installed, which would be the same for the modified project.

10.Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impact A: The proposed project would include residential and commercial retail land uses, which typically do not use or store large quantities of hazardous materials.

11.Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impact B: No known changes in the conditions of the soils or groundwater at the site have occurred since 2005, and the proposed development would not include activities that use or store more hazardous materials than the Phase II project analyzed in the 2005 EIR.

City of Morgan Hill
Resolution No. 22-18

12.Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impact D: The project site is not located on a hazardous materials site. A search of the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) EnviroStor database and the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) GeoTracker database conducted on September 9, 2021, confirmed the project site is not located on a hazardous materials site on either database.

13.Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impact F: The proposed project would not result in adverse effects on emergency response or evacuation plans. The project would be required to comply with federal, state, and local regulations, including the Morgan Hill Emergency Operations Plan.

14.Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impact G: The project would not expose people or structures to significant risks involving wildland fires.

15.Hydrology and Water Quality Impact A: The project would be required to comply with regulations under the NPDES permit, Regional Water Quality Control Board, and adopted City regulations, which would address impacts to water quality.

16.Hydrology and Water Quality Impact B and E: The project would not extract groundwater or directly interfere with the groundwater table through construction activities on the site, as ground disturbance would not occur below the water table.

The WSA provided as Appendix WSA determines that there is sufficient water supply available to meet the project’s projected demands reliably over a 20-year projection and with consideration to varying climatic (drought) conditions.

17.Hydrology and Water Quality C1-C4: The 2005 EIR found that the proposed project would result in a substantial increase in stormwater runoff generated at the project site compared to existing conditions, but the project includes detention ponds, which have been designed to provide temporary storage of increased runoff in order to prevent increased flooding downstream. Detention basins on the project site would be fixed to accommodate Santa Clara Valley Water District (Valley Water) requirements and the City’s detention design criteria. The stormwater to be temporarily stored in the planned detention ponds will be pumped to the adjacent Cochrane Channel at discharge rates, which are at or below pre-development levels, as required by Valley Water.

18.Land Use and Planning Impact A-B: The project would not divide an established community. The proposed project would not result in conflicts with Morgan Hill Municipal Code regulations adopted to avoid or mitigate environmental effects.

19.Mineral Resources Impacts A-B: The proposed project would not result in significant impacts to mineral resources, as the City of Morgan Hill General Plan and the General Plan EIR do not identify any mineral resource areas in the vicinity of the project site.

20.Noise Impact A: The project would not make substantial alterations to roadway

City of Morgan Hill
Resolution No. 22-18

alignments 1 or substantially change the vehicle classifications mix on local roadways. The project would therefore not result in significant impacts to these receivers or any receivers from an increase in traffic noise. Offsite traffic would not create a new or substantially increased noise impact.

21.Noise Impact B: Construction vibration would be lower than what is considered a distinctly perceptible impact for humans. The project does not include substantial vibration sources associated with operation.

22.Population and Housing Impact A: Implementation of the proposed project and the additional population would be in population projections for the City and would not result in substantial cumulative impacts due to population growth. The proposed project would not induce substantial unplanned growth directly or indirectly.

23.Public Services Impact A3: Payment of the development fees is considered full mitigation for the proposed project’s impacts related to schools under CEQA and impacts would be less than significant.

24.Public Services Impact A4: The proposed project would not have substantially adverse impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered recreational services, or the need for new or physically altered recreational services.

25.Public Services Impact A5: The project’s new residents would generate additional demand for library services, but the project’s growth is in the population forecasts in ABAG projections. The proposed project does not include and would not require new or physically altered governmental facilities.

26.Recreation Impact A-B: The increase in population would result in a proportionate increase in demand for recreational facilities. The project’s residential and commercial development would impact the parkland ratio in the City. The amenities provided by the proposed project would reduce the demand for offsite recreational facilities generated by new residents.

27.Utilities and Service Systems Impacts A-C: Services are readily available near the project site. The City of Morgan Hill has prohibited the use of natural gas in new development, the project would not involve the use of natural gas. As circumstances have not changed with respect to electricity and telecommunications infrastructure, the project would continue to be adequately served. There is adequate wastewater service available to serve the project. There is adequate water supply available to serve the project.

28.Wildfire Impacts A-D: The proposed project is not located in a State Responsibility 1 The project would include the addition of a dedicated left turn lane and right turn lane on Tokay Avenue for movements in and out of the community; other than restriping lanes for the dedicated turn lanes, the project would not alter Tokay Avenue (e.g., no roadway widening required).

City of Morgan Hill
Resolution No. 22-18

Area (SRA) or located near a VHFHSZ.

F. AREAS OF NO IMPACT IDENTIFIED IN THE SEIR OR INITIAL STUDY The Final SEIR and Initial Study prepared for the project identified impacts that would have no impact:

The following findings are hereby made by the City of Morgan Hill City Council for the environmental effects found to have no impact:

SEIR

1. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impact GHG-2: The project would be consistent with the 2017 Scoping Plan and Plan Bay Area 2050. This project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions.

INITIAL STUDY

1. Aesthetics Impact B: There are no designated State Scenic Highways in Morgan Hill. Thus, there would be no impact to scenic resources in a State Scenic Highway.

2. Agricultural Resources Impact B: Neither the project site nor the directly adjacent parcels are under Williamson Act contracts.

3. Agricultural Resources Impact C-D: The General Plan and U.S. Department of Agriculture does not identify any land in the City as zoned for forest land or timberland. The project site does not contain forest land or forestry resources.

4. Biological Resources Impact B: The project site lacks sensitive natural communities and protected wetlands, the project would not have a direct adverse impact on biological resources

5. Biological Resources Impact C: There are no riparian areas or other sensitive natural communities on or directly adjacent to the project site.

6. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impact C: The project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous materials within 0.25 mile of a school.

7. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impact E: The project would not be within two miles of a public airport or airstrip and would not result in a safety hazard or excessive noise hazards.

8. Noise Impact C: The project site is outside of the area of the land use plan for the airport. There are no private airstrips near the project site. Because there are no airports or airstrips near the project site, the project would not result in the exposure of people to excessive noise levels from aircraft.

City of Morgan Hill
Resolution No. 22-18

9. Population and Housing Impact B: There are currently no residences on the project site. Therefore, the project would not displace existing people or housing.

G. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
When making findings, the lead agency must adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the mitigation measures it has adopted or made a condition of project approval to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment. The City hereby adopts the MMRP for the project, included as Attachment A to these findings. The mitigation measures identified in the Final SEIR and adopted and incorporated into the project will be monitored pursuant to this program.

H. ALTERNATIVES
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6, the SEIR examined a range of reasonable alternatives to the proposed project that would attain most of the basic project objectives but would avoid or substantially lessen the significant adverse impacts. The City has reviewed the impacts associated with each alternative as compared with the proposed project, and has also considered each alternative’s feasibility, considering a range of economic, environmental, social, and legal factors. Overall, the City concludes that Alternative 1 (No Project Alternative) would be the environmentally superior alternative. However, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2), if the No Project Alternative is determined to be environmentally superior, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives. . As discussed above, both Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 would result in reduced transportation impacts compared to the proposed project; however, transportation impacts under Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 would remain significant and unavoidable.

Furthermore, the additional commercial buildout under Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 would result in an increased amount of annual operational GHG emissions. While these emissions do not exceed the adjusted BAAQMD emissions per service person threshold, both alternatives would result in more annual operational GHG emissions, which would result in further impacts to the environment. The alternatives considered by the City are summarized below.

Alternative 1 (No Project Alternative) Under the No Project Alternative, the proposed residential, retail, and commercial buildings associated with the proposed project would not be constructed. Alternative 1 would involve no modification of the existing parcel. The site would remain vacant, and no land use designation or zoning changes would occur.

Alternative 1 would not fulfill the project’s objectives to develop the remainder of the shopping center, nor would it provide additional housing.

Alternative 2 (No Project – Allowable Buildout under Existing General Plan Designation Alternative) The No Project – Allowable Buildout alternative assumes that the proposed residential, retail, and commercial buildings associated with the proposed project are not constructed. However, this alternative also assumes that buildout currently allowed by the existing Morgan Hill 2035 General Plan land use designations

City of Morgan Hill
Resolution No. 22-18

would occur. As described in Section 2, Project Description, the project site is currently split between two land use designations. Approximately 13 acres of the northwest corner of the site is designated Mixed Use Flex (MUF) (7-24 dwelling units/acre) with the remaining 20.5 acres designated Commercial. The Commercial designation allows a wide range of retail businesses, administrative and executive office uses, and professional services, either in stand-alone buildings or as part of shopping centers, with a maximum FAR of 0.6. With 20.5 acres of the project site designated as commercial and a FAR of 0.6, Alternative 2 would allow a maximum of approximately 536,000 square feet of commercial development.2 The MUF designation allows for a mix of residential, commercial, and office uses, with 7 to 24 dwelling units per acre and a maximum FAR of

0.5. With 13 acres of the project site designated as MUF, a maximum of 312 dwelling units could be developed in the project site. Because lands designated as MUF have a maximum FAR of 0.5, the maximum residential building footprint within the site would be approximately 283,000 square feet. 3 Altogether, Alternative 2 would result in the development of fewer residential units and more commercial area. This alternative would meet most of the project objectives, but it would contribute less housing stock than the proposed project.

Alternative 3 (Mixed-Use Flex Designation on North Half of the Site Alternative) The Extension of Mixed-Use Flex Designation to Cover Half the Site alternative assumes that the 2035 General Plan land use designation of MUF would be extended beyond the northwestern portion of the project site to the east to encompass the northern half of the project site. Residential, retail, and commercial buildings would be constructed consistent with the adjusted land use designation. Approximately 16.75 acres on the northern side of the project site would be designated MUF, and 16.75 acres on the southern side of the project site would remain designated as commercial. 16.75 acres of land designated as MUF would allow for up to 402 dwelling units to be built under Alternative 3,4 and 16.75 acres of land designated as commercial would allow for up to approximately 435,600 square feet of commercial use.5 Alternative 3 would result in half as much area designated as MUF compared to the proposed project; thus, the extended MUF area under this alternative would allow the development of fewer dwelling units compared to the proposed project. Alternative 3 would also involve an increase in areas designated as commercial compared to the proposed project. Similar to the proposed project, this alternative would meet the project objectives by increasing the viability of the existing Cochrane Commons anchors and tenants, developing the remainder of the shopping center, and adding variety to the city’s housing stock.

I. RECIRCULATION NOT REQUIRED
2 20.5 acres multiplied by a FAR of 0.6, converted to square feet, equals approximately 536,000 square feet of allowable commercial development.
3 13 acres multiplied by up to 24 dwelling units per acre equals 312 dwelling units. 13 acres multiplied by a FAR of 0,5 converted to square feet, is approximately 283,000 square feet of residential development. 4 16.75 acres multiplied by up to 24 dwelling units per acre equals 402 dwelling units. 5 16.75 acres Multiplied by a FAR of 0.6, converted to square feet, equals approximately 435,600 square feet of allowable commercial development.

City of Morgan Hill
Resolution No. 22-18

No new or substantial changes to the SEIR were proposed as a result of the public comment process. The Final SEIR responds to comments and makes only minor technical changes, clarifications or additions to the EIR. The minor changes, clarifications, and additions to the SEIR do not identify any new significant impacts or substantial increase in the severity of any environmental impacts. Therefore, recirculation of the SEIR is not required.

J. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Various documents and other materials constitute the record of proceedings upon which the City base their findings and decisions contained herein. Documents related to this proposed project are located in the City of Morgan Hill Development Services, 17575 Peak Avenue, Morgan Hill, California 95037.

K. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
CEQA requires the decision-making agency to balance the benefits of a project against its significant and unavoidable impacts when determining whether to approve a project. If the benefits of the project outweigh its unavoidable adverse environmental effects, those effects may be considered acceptable (CEQA Guidelines Section 15093(a)). CEQA requires the agency to state in writing the specific reasons for considering a project acceptable when significant impacts are not avoided or substantially lessened. Those reasons must be based on substantial evidence in the Final SEIR or elsewhere in the administrative record (CEQA Guidelines Section 15093(b)). The proposed project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts related to vehicle miles traveled and transportation, even after incorporation of Mitigation Measure TRA-1, VMT Reductions.

The City adopts and makes this Statement of Overriding Considerations regarding the significant unavoidable impacts of the project and the anticipated benefits of the project.

The City finds that the project’s benefits of providing affordable multi-family housing, increasing the viability of the Cochrane Commons, and developing the remainder of the shopping center outweighs the project’s significant unavoidable environmental effects.

On balance, the City finds that there are specific considerations associated with the project that serve to override and outweigh the project’s significant unavoidable effects.

Therefore, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15093(b), these adverse effects are considered acceptable.

L. SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE SUPPORTING FINDINGS
Substantial evidence supporting each and every finding made herein is contained in the Final SEIR and record of proceedings. Omission of reference in these findings to any evidence in the SEIR and/or record of proceedings is not intended to exclude that evidence as supporting these findings.

In making these findings, the City Council has relied upon the expertise of a variety of independent technical and professional consultants to the City, and the expertise of the City's Staff. The City Council has also carefully considered the evidence submitted by

City of Morgan Hill
Resolution No. 22-18

property owners and other interested agencies and individuals. To the extent that evidence consists of expert opinions that differ from the opinions of the City's outside consultants and Staff, at most it represents a disagreement of experts, which is adequately reviewed in the EIR. Based on its review, the City Council has determined that the opinions of its outside consultants and Staff are valid and are hereby accepted.

In some instances, the City Council has also relied on the expertise of other agencies who have provided comments on the Draft SEIR and other actions related to the Project.

To the extent that alternatives or mitigation measures were proposed by other agencies or interested persons that differ from the mitigation adopted herein, the City Council specifically rejects these proposals based on the substantial evidence in the record supporting the mitigation adopted as sufficient and necessary to mitigate impacts to a less than significant level or to the level that the impacts can feasibly be mitigated.

Resolultion No. 22-18 Cochrane Commons
Phase 2 SEIR
Final Audit Report 2022-10-20
Created: 2022-10-19
By: Jenna Luna ([email protected])
Status: Signed
Transaction ID: CBJCHBCAABAAhDK2FmMObZRnI9IBajODKLKwSn27TcdL "Resolultion No. 22-18 Cochrane Commons Phase 2 SEIR" Hist ory
Document created by Jenna Luna ([email protected]) 2022-10-19 - 9:20:03 PM GMT
Document emailed to [email protected] for signature 2022-10-19 - 9:20:38 PM GMT
Email viewed by [email protected]
2022-10-20 - 4:48:36 PM GMT
Signer [email protected] entered name at signing as Joseph Mueller 2022-10-20 - 4:49:37 PM GMT
Document e-signed by Joseph Mueller ([email protected]) Signature Date: 2022-10-20 - 4:49:39 PM GMT - Time Source: server Agreement completed.
2022-10-20 - 4:49:39 PM GMT