Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.3 Town Of Los Altos Hills June 1, 2006 Staff Report to the Planning Commission RE: AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE ALLOWING A 1:1 DEVELOPMENT AREA BONUS FOR INSTALLING ROOF MOUNTED SOLAR PANELS (SECTION 10-1.502 (b) (6)) FROM: Carl Cahill, Planning Director/Acting City Manager C.e, RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission: Recommend that the City Council adopt the proposed ordinance amendment to Section 10-1.502 (b) (6) allowing a 1:1 development area bonus (500 sq. ft. maximum) for installing roof mounted solar panels subject to certain conditions enumerated in the proposed ordinance. BACKGROUND On April 6, 2006, the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed ordinance. Finding some concerns with the proposed ordinance, the Planning Commission appointed an ad- hoc committee consisting of Commissioners Eric Clow and Ray Collins along with the Environmental Initiatives Committee (EIC) chair Peter Evans to work out the bugs in the ordinance.. On May 2nd,the ad hoc group met and hammered out the attached ordinance. (Attachment 1) CEOA REVIEW In conformance with CEQA requirements, an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared for the project. Based on the analysis contained in the study, the project impacts can be mitigated to a less than significant level. Mitigation measures are included on pages 4 and 5 the attached environmental document. ATTACHMENT 1. Proposed amendment to section 10-1.502(b) (6) of the Zoning Ordinance 2. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3. April 6,2006 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes ATTACHMENT 1 DRAFT ORDINANCE as proposed by May 2nd AD HOC group meeting TITLE 10. (Zoning and Site Development) CHAPTER 1. (Zoning) Article 5. "Area, Coverage,Height,and Setback Limitations" Sec. 10-1.502 (b) (6)Development Area Bonus A development area bonus of one square foot for every one square foot of roof mounted photovoltaic (PV) power generation facility (solar panels) shall be granted subject to the following requirements: a) The development area bonus shall apply only to properties that have a net area of not less than one acre and that do not already exceed the Maximum Development Area allowable. b) The roof mounted PV facility shall be grid tied or connected. c) For new residences, the roof mounted PV facility shall be fully installed and grid connected prior to the final inspection and occupancy of the new residence. d) For all other structures and projects, the roof mounted PV facility shall first be installed with a building permit and receive a satisfactory final inspection prior to granting of the development area bonus. Alternatively, the development area bonus may be first granted upon submittal of a cash performance deposit to the Town that is equal in amount to the cost of installing the PV system including materials and labor. e) The development area bonus shall only be used for projects that otherwise comply with all other zoning and site development regulations including the Town Grading Policy. f) No Double Dipping. The maximum allowable development area bonus shall be reduced by 1 square foot for every one square foot of PV system over 500 sq. ft. that is exempted from development area calculations by action of the Planning Commission. g) Sunset Provision. This Section shall expire on July 30, 2013. Page 1 of 1 ATTACHMENT 2, TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT TITLE: Zoning Amendment to Title 10, Chapter 1,Article 5, Section 10-1.502(b)(6)Development Area Bonus NAME AND ADDRESS OF PROJECT SPONSOR: Town of Los Altos Hills, 26379 Fremont Road, Los Altos Hills, California 94022 LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Los Altos Hills area wide. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The proposed project is an amendment to the Town Zoning Ordinance to allow property owners a development area of one square foot for every one square foot of roof mounted solar panels up to 500 sq. ft. subject to certain limitations enumerated in the attached proposed ordinance.. MMGATION MEASURES, IF ANY, INCLUDED IN THE PROJECT TO AVOID POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS: a. The Town of Los Altos Hills has completed a review of the proposed project, and on the basis of the attached Initial Study, has determined that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described in the attached Initial Study on pages 4 and 5 have been added to the project and will fully mitigate or avoid potentially significant impacts to the environment. Carl Cahill, Planning/Director Date TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS Circulated on: June, 12006 Adopted on: Town of Los Altos Hills 26379 Fremont Road Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 ENITIAT STUDY In accordance with the policies regarding implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, this document, combined with the attached supporting data, constitutes the initial study on the subject project. This initial study provides the basis for the determination of whether the project may have a significant effect on the environment. If it is determined that the project may have a significant effect on the environment, an environmental impact report will be prepared which focuses on the areas of concern identified by this initial study. If it is determined that the project would not have a significant effect on the environment, it is eligible for a Negative Declaration. If it is determined that the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, however, the significant effects of the project have been reduced to a less-than-significant level because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project applicant, then the project would be eligible for a Mitigated Negative Declaration. 1. Project Title: Amendment to Title 10, Chapter 1, Article 5, Section 10- 1.502(b)(5)B Development Area Bonus 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: Town of Los Altos Hills 26379 Fremont Road Los Altos Hills, California 94022 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Carl Cahill, Planning Director (650) 941-7222 Initial Study prepared by: Carl Cahill 4. Project Location: Town of Los Altos Hills area wide 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Town of Los Altos Hill 26379 Fremont Road Los Altos Hills CA 94022 6. General Plan Designation: Very Low Density Residential 7. Zoning: R A, Residential Agricultural (Existing, Santa Clara County) 1 8. Description of Project: The proposed project is an amendment to the Town Zoning Ordinance to allow property owners a development area bonus of one square foot for every one square foot of roof mounted solar panels up to 500 sq. ft. subject to certain requirements including: a) The development area bonus shall apply only to properties that have a net area of not less than one acre and that do not already exceed the Maximum Development Area allowable. b) The roof mounted PV facility shall be grid tied or connected. c) For new residences, the roof mounted PV facility must be fully installed and grid connected prior to the final inspection and occupancy of the new residence. d) For all other structures and projects, the roof mounted PV facility shall first be installed with a building permit and receive a satisfactory final inspection prior to granting of the development area bonus. Alternatively, the development area bonus may be first.granted upon submittal of a cash performance deposit to the Town that is equal in amount to the cost of installing the PV system including materials and labor. e) The development area bonus shall only be used for projects that otherwise comply with all other zoning and site development regulations including the Town Grading Policy. f) No Double Dipping. The maximum allowable development area bonus shall be reduced by 1 square foot for.every one square foot .of PV system over 500 sq. ft. that is exempted from development area calculations by action of the Planning Commission. g) Sunset Provision. This Section shall expire on July 30, 2013 . 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The Town of Los Altos Hills is a hillside residential community that is presently developed with a single -family residences and related structures. The Town is characterized by rural hills with occasional steep slopes, set between the Santa Cruz Mountains and the Santa Clara Valley. There are a number of creeks and significant oak tree groves spread throughout the residential community, with conservation and open space easements to protect many areas of steep slope or critical vegetation. An extensive network of public pathways exists along the roadside and off- road,providing access to neighborhoods, adjacent communities and environmental amenities and open space. 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required: None 2 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a"Potentially Significant Impact"as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Agriculture Resources Air Quality Biological Resources LJ Cultural Resources Geology/Soils Hazards&Hazardous Q Hydrology/Water Quality L) Land Use/Planning Materials Mineral Resources Noise Ll Population/Housing L] Public Services Ll Recreation J Transportation/Traffic Utilities/Service Systems R1 Mandatory Findings of Significance This Initial study has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. Information and conclusions in the Initial Study are based upon staff research and the Town's General Plan and Municipal Code. DETERNMATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment,and a NEGATIVE LJ DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the.proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,there will not be a R1 significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project.A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the,proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment,and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. L3 I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s)on the environment,but at least one effect I) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards,and 2)has been LJ addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets,if the effect is a "potentially significant impact"or"potentially significant unless mitigated."An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required,but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects(a)have been analyzed adequately Ll in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and(b)have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR,including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Signature: Date: Carl Cahill,Planning Director 3 MMGATION MEASURES INCLUDED IN THE "PROJECT" TO AVOID POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS: 1. The proposed ordinance requires that any allowed development area bonus shall only be used for projects that otherwise comply with all other zoning and site development regulations including the Town Grading Policy. Properties eligible for the bonus must be at least one acre in size and not already exceed maximum development area allowable or have been granted other development area exemptions. 2. Applicants requesting a development area bonus, which includes floor area, are required to submit detailed drainage system plans for review and approval by the City Engineer. Pursuant to Article 5 "Drainage and Erosion Control" of the Los Altos Hills Site Development Code, the City Engineer shall, if necessary, require on-site drainage systems and improvements that mitigate the effects of erosion, siltation and flooding on immediate or downstream neighbors. Such improvements may include drainage detention systems on individual private properties so as to prevent runoff overloading of the Town's natural drainage channels and to comply with the Town's NPDES draft permit obligations. 3. Applicants requesting a development area bonus are required to comply with Article 4 "Grading" and the Town's Grading Policy. The Town's Grading Ordinance and Grading Policy effectively mitigate erosion, soil compaction,topsoil displacement, siltation of water courses, and other adverse effects of grading, including alteration of the scenic qualities of the natural terrain. For example, the Grading Policy allows a maximum combined depth of cut and fill of 8-feet for tennis courts. Compliance with the Grading Policy would therefore preclude the installation of a tennis court or other large impervious surface structure on a steep slope. 4. Applicants requesting a development area bonus are required to comply with Article 8 "Landscaping" which requires all projects to be sufficiently landscaped to mitigate erosion impacts that may occur as a result of new development,retard soil creep, and reduce the potential for landslides. Landscape plans for new residences are generally reviewed at public hearings to address neighbor concerns. 5. Applicants requesting a development area bonus are required to comply with the Town's General Plan policies and standards. For example, the Land Use Element of the Town's General Plan requires that all slopes, canyons, and ravines, generally in excess of 30% slope should be kept free of structures and left in a natural condition with respect to terrain and vegetation. The Town consistently requires such areas on private property to be placed in conservation easements. The regular requirement of these easements has resulted in the preservation of large areas of watershed within the Town in perpetuity. 6. Applicants requesting a development area bonus on slopes greater than 15% are generally required to demonstrate the geotechnical feasibility of the project pursuant to Section 10- 2.1303(b)(5) by submitting preliminary geotechnical investigation report(s). The soils report 4 II must be reviewed and approved by the Town's geotechnical consultant at the time of site development review. 7. Applicants requesting a development area bonus within the foliar spread of oak trees are required to submit a certified arborist report examining the impacts of the proposed development on the trees and specifying recommendations for protecting tree roots and branches. Town Municipal Code Chapter 12 Article 3 and 4 protects heritage trees including oak trees. The removal of heritage trees, especially oaks, in order to accommodate development is strongly discouraged and generally disallowed unless the tree is in poor health or there are no other practical options for locating a proposed residence. In these cases, oak trees that are removed are required to be mitigated by new oak tree plantings at a 3:1 ratio. 5 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporation L AESTHETICS—Would the project: a)Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ❑ Ll b)Substantially damage scenic resources,including,but not limited to,trees, Ll U U rock outcroppings,and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c)Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and U Q L1 its surroundings? d)Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely U Ll U affect day or nighttime views in the area? EL AGRICULTURE RESOURCES In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects,lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model(1997)prepared by the California Dept.of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland.Would the project: a)Convert Prime Farmland,Unique Farmland,or Farmland of Statewide Ll Importance(Farmland),as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency,to non-agricultural use? b)Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use,or a Williamson Act LJ L) L contract? c)Involve other changes in the existing environment which,due to their U L Q location or nature,could result in conversion of Farmland,to non-agricultural use? III.AIR QUALITY Where available,the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.Would the project: a)Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b)Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or L projected air quality violation? c)Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant L U for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard(including releasing emissions which 6 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporation exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? ) xP P P ❑ ❑ ❑ e)Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? ❑ ❑ ❑ Q IV.BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES--Would the project: a)Have a substantial adverse effect,either directly or through habitat ❑ ❑ ❑ modifications,on any species identified as a candidate,sensitive,or special status species in local or regional plans,policies,or regulations,or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service? b)Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive ❑ ❑ ❑ Q natural community identified in local or regional plans,policies,regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c)Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as ❑ ❑ ❑ defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act(including,but not limited to, marsh,vernal pool,'coastal,etc.)through direct removal,filling,hydrological interruption,or other means? d)Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or ❑ ❑ ❑ Q migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors,or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e)Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological ❑ ❑ ❑ resources,such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f)Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan,or other approved local,regional,or ❑ ❑ ❑ FA state habitat conservation plan? V.CULTURAL RESOURCES-=Would the project: a)Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical ❑ ❑ ❑ resource as defined in'15064.5? b)Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an ❑ ❑ ❑ archaeological resource pursuant to'15064.5? c)Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or ❑ ❑ ❑ unique geologic feature? d)Disturb any human remains,including those interred outside,of formal ❑ 11 Llcemeteries? 7 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporation VL GEOLOGY AND SOILS--Would the project: a)Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss,injury,or death involving: i)Rupture of a known earthquake fault,as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault?Refer ❑ ❑ ❑ to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii)Strong seismic ground shaking? ❑ ❑ ❑ iii)Seismic-related ground failure,including liquefaction? ❑ ❑ ❑ iv)Landslides? ❑ ❑ ❑ b)Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ c)Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable,or that would become unstable as a result of the project,and potentially result in on or off- ❑ ❑ Q site landslide,lateral spreading,subsidence,liquefaction or collapse? d)Be located on expansive soil,as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform ❑ ❑ ❑ Building Code(1994),creating substantial risks to life or property? e)Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for ❑ ❑ ❑ the disposal of wastewater? VIL HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS—Would the project: a)Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the ❑ ❑ ❑ routine transport,use,or disposal of hazardous materials? b)Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through ❑ ❑ ❑ reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c)Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous ❑ ❑ ❑ materials,substances,or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d)Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials ❑ ❑ ❑ sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and,as a result,would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e)For a project located within an airport land use plan or,where such a plan ❑ ❑ ❑ Q has not been adopted,within two miles of a public airport or public use 8 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporation airport,would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f)For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,would the project D D Ll WT result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g)Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted L] L3 L emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h)Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,injury or death Ll L) L involving wildland fires,including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? VIII.HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY—Would the project: a)Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? D b)Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with D groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level(e.g.,the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c)Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, D L L including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river,in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-site? d)Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, Ll D L including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river,or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on-or off-site? e)Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of 13 LJ existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f)Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? L3 D Ll Q g)Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Ll D 0 Q Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h)Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede LJ L] ❑ or redirect flood flows? i)Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,injury or death L) LJ L Q involving flooding,including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? 9 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporation j)Inundation by seiche,tsunami,or mudflow? 0 LJ L UL LAND USE AND PLANNING-Would the project: a)Physically divide an established community? Q D Q b)Conflict with any applicable land use plan,policy,or regulation of an Ll D D Q agency with jurisdiction over the project(including,but not limited to the general plan,specific plan,local coastal program,or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c)Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural L) D Q community conservation plan? X.AHNERAL RESOURCES--Would the project: a)Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would Ll D D be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b)Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource D L L recovery site delineated on a local general plan,specific plan or other land use plan? XI.NOISE--Would the project result in: a)Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of L D Q standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance,or applicable standards of other agencies? b)Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration D L) L or groundborne noise levels? c)A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project L) D D Q vicinity above levels existing without the project? d)A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise'levels in D D D the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e)For a project located within an airport land use plan or,where such a plan ❑ LJ D Q has not been adopted,within two miles of a public airport or public use airport,would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f)For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,would the project expose D D D people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 10 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Impact + Significant Significant Significant Impact with . Impact Mitigation Incorporation MIL POPULATION AND HOUSING—Would the project: a)Induce substantial population growth in an area,either directly(for ❑ ❑ ❑ example,by proposing new homes and businesses)or indirectly(for example,through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b)Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,necessitating the ❑ ❑ ❑ construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c)Displace substantial numbers of people,necessitating the construction of ❑ ❑ ❑ replacement housing elsewhere? XM.PUBLIC SERVICES a)Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities,need for new or physically altered governmental facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts,in order to maintain acceptable service ratios,response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? ❑ ❑ ❑ Police protection? ❑ ❑ ❑ Schools? ❑ ❑ ❑ Parks? ❑ ❑ ❑ Other public facilities? ❑ ❑ ❑ XIV.RECREATION a)Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional ❑ ❑ ❑ parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b)Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction ❑ ❑ ❑ or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? 11 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporation XV.TRANSPORTATIONURAFFIC—Would the project: a)Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing ❑ ❑ ❑ traffic load and capacity of the street system(i.e.,result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips,the volume to capacity ratio on roads,or congestion at intersections)? b)Exceed,either individually or cumulatively,a level of service standard ❑ ❑ ❑ Q established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c)Result in a change in air traffic patterns,including either an increase in ❑ ❑ ❑ traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d)Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature(e.g.,sharp curves or ❑ ❑ ❑ dangerous intersections)or incompatible uses(e.g.,farm equipment)? e)Result in inadequate emergency access? ❑ ❑ ❑ Q f)Result in inadequate parking capacity? ❑ ❑ ❑ Z g)Conflict with adopted policies,plans,or programs supporting alternative ❑ ❑ ❑ R1 transportation(e.g.,bus turnouts,bicycle racks)? XVL UTILIT ES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS-Would the project: a)Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional ❑ ❑ ❑ FO Water Quality Control Board? b)Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment ❑ ❑ ❑ facilities or expansion of existing facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c)Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities ❑ ❑ ❑ Z or expansion of existing facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d)Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing ❑ ❑ ❑ R1 entitlements and resources,or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e)Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which ❑ ❑ ❑ R1 serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f)Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate ❑ ❑ ❑ Z the project's solid waste disposal needs? g)Comply with federal,state,and local statutes and regulations related to ❑ ❑ ❑ Z solid waste? 12 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporation XVII.MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a)Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment,substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or,eliminate important examples of the majoi periods of California history or prehistory? b)Does the project have impacts that are individually limited,but LJ L ❑ cumulatively considerable?("Cumulatively considerable"means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,the effects of other current projects,and the effects of probable future projects)? c)Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial LJ 13 L adverse effects on human beings,either directly or indirectly? Sources: Los Altos Hills General Plan Los Altos Hills Municipal Code DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (Explanations of responses) I. AESTHETICS: c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? Any additional development area approved as a result of the proposed project is subject to the requirements of the Zoning and Site Development Ordinance. This includes meeting certain height and setback requirements to minimise negative aesthetic impacts. The proposed ordinance requires that properties be at least one net acre in size to ensure that any new development installed, as a result of the bonus, is of a scale compatible with a low density semi- rural residential environment and does not overwhelm the property and invite variance requests. Additionally, development area improvements must be substantially screened with landscaping. Landscape and lighting plans are a required component for most new development. IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES.Would the proposal result in impacts to: e) Locally designated species (e.g.heritage trees)? Increased development area could potentially result in the removal of heritage trees. Town Municipal Code Chapter 12 Article 3 and 4 protects heritage trees including oak trees. The removal of heritage trees, especially oaks, in order to accommodate development is strongly discouraged and generally disallowed unless the tree is in poor health or there are no other 13 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporation practical options for locating a proposed residence. In these cases, oak trees that are removed are required to be mitigated by new oak tree plantings at a 3:1 ratio. VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable,or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on or off-site landslide,lateral spreading, subsidence,liquefaction or collapse? Prior to any new development, grading and drainage plans are subject to the review and approval of the Town Engineer, Planning Commission and City Council and are required to comply with the Town's Grading Ordinance and Town Grading Policy which are intended to minimize changes in topography. For lots with greater than 15% average slope or known geologic hazard, a preliminary geotechnical report attesting to the geotechnical feasibility of the project and a grading and drainage plan are required for review and approval by the Town Geologist. This requirement minimises the potential for unstable soil conditions as a result of excavation, grading or fill. Structural setbacks are required from known fault traces. VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY-- e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? The changes to the Zoning Ordinance would likely result in some change in absorption rates, drainage patterns and increases in the rate and amount of surface runoff due to increased impervious surface coverage. However, The Town's existing discretionary development review process and ordinances pertaining to drainage are adequate to mitigate the effects of the proposed ordinance. Under the amended ordinance, the maximum amount of development area on any individual parcel will still be limited to about 35%. Over 65% of the lot will remain unimproved and available for stormwater runoff absorption and detention. Also, the proposed ordinance specifically limits the bonus to properties that conform to the current maximum allowable development area calculated for each specific property. Legal nonconforming parcels that already exceed the maximum development area allowable are not eligible for the bonus. Development area, as defined by the Zoning Ordinance, includes all floor area and some types of semi-permeable surfaces. Therefore, development area square footage numbers are generally 3- 15% higher than the actual percentage of total lot impervious surface coverage. For example, where a two-story home is proposed on a 1-acre hillside lot, development area is likely to be greater than the amount of impervious surface coverage by several thousand square feet. This is because the square footage of both floors are counted as development area even though the 14 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporation second floor partially or completely overlaps the impervious footprint of the first floor. The floor area for single story homes with ceiling heights greater than 17-feet is also required to be counted twice even though there is no net increase in impervious surface. The total square footage of pools and wood plank decks is also counted as development area and yet these structures do not represent 100% impervious surface coverage. Given the popularity of two-story homes, swimming pools and wood decks in Los Altos Hills, total impervious surface coverage on hillside properties affected by this ordinance will in almost all cases be 25% or less. The zoning ordinances of neighboring communities such as the City of Palo Alto also allow minimum 1-acre residential developments(R-E zone)with 25%impervious surface coverage. In addition, nearly half of the properties in Los Altos Hills remain on septic systems. Some properties will; not likely be able to utilize the development area bonus until sewer service becomes available in the area. This is because septic systems require significant areas of land to be reserved for septic leach lines which may not be located under impervious structures of any kind, steep slopes or in close proximity to public right of ways. Town ordinances also require that drainage systems for new impervious development area be designed to maintain the existing flow patterns. Site drainage associated with proposed development area is already required to be designed as surface flow wherever possible to avoid concentration of the runoff. In addition, the Town Engineer has sufficient authority under the Zoning and Site Development Ordinance and the General Plan to require the installation of on- site drainage structures that detain storm water runoff to minimize the effects of erosion, contribution to downstream flooding and overloading the Town's natural drainage swales with excessive runoff. Such drainage improvement requirements are consistent with the Town's NPDES Permit obligations for improving storm water runoff quality. Grading and drainage plans for any new development are also subject to review and approval by the City Engineer, Planning-Commission and the City Council. XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited,but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects,and the effects of probable future projects)? Impacts as a result of this project are individually limited. However, the development area increases allowed by the proposed ordinance will theoretically apply to at least 75,-80% of the lots in Town. However, cumulative impacts are limited due to the limited seven year duration of the ordinance. Based on the number of Site Development Permits issued in any given year and the high cost associated with installing a roof mounted solar system, it is estimated that no more than 20% of the residential properties will be able to -take advantage of the ordinance. Appropriate mitigation measures will be applied as each individual site development permit application for increased development area is reviewed. Controlling the amount and rate of 15 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporation stormwater runoff released from individual lots as a result of new development is critical to mitigating the single most potentially significant impact of this proposed ordinance amendment. The mitigation measures, as stipulated in the Initial Study and Negative Declaration and embodied in the Town's current development ordinances and General Plan provide the Town with sufficient authority and discretion to control and mitigate for any additional storm water run-off as a result of this proposed amendment and therefore the proposed project will have no cumulatively considerable or significant impacts on the environment. 16 ATTACHMENT 43 Planning Commission Minutes Approved 05/04/2006 April 6, 2006 Page 5 MOTION SECONDED AND .PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Clow, seconded by Commissioner Carey and approved by the following roll call vote to approve the requested site development permit subject to the recommended Conditions of Approval in Attachment one. AYES: Chairman Cottrell, Commissioners Cary;Kerns, Collins and Clow NOES: None This approval is subject to a 22 day appeal period. 3.3 AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING AND SITE DEVELOPMENT CODES WITH REGARD TO PHOTOVOLTAIC POWER AND SOLAR THERMAL ENERGY GENERATION FACILITIES. (SECTIONS 10-1.226, 10-1.239, 10- 1.247, 10-1.702, 10-1.502, AND`10-2.301); CEQA REVIEW: CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, SECTION 15061(b)(3) (staff-Debbie Pedro). Senior Planner Debbie Pedro presented the staff report stating that per the Planning Commissions direction at the hearing in March the revisions had been made to the draft Energy Efficiency Ordinance and the changes are reflected in Attachment 2. Carl Cahill, Planning Director suggested that one or more members of the Planning Commission work with the Environmental Initiatives Committee (EIC) at one of their meetings to further discuss the photovoltaic ordinance regarding the MDA credit. Commissioner Clow and Collins volunteered to meet with the EIC. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Peter Evans, Chairman of the Environmental Initiatives Committee, expressed that he hoped the Planning Commission would act on the ordinance as drafted by staff as it has EIC support. The Committee continued to believe that the incentive is worthwhile and the MDA exemption idea could be worked on together by the Ad Hoc Planning Commission group, the EIC Committee and staff members. Commissioner Carey asked if Peter Evans envisioned the EIC becoming a committee that was concerned with other environmental issues such as saving water. He questioned if giving NIDA credit for solar would be opening up the door for a lot more,issues that would make it hard to argue that solar panels are the only environmental .protection effort that might deserve MDA credit. Peter Evans explained that energy efficiency and solar panels were the first issues the EIC has addressed and they have also invested time in hazardous waste, single stream recycling, and water issues. Commissioner Kerns commented about the EIC's proposed change to require greater than the Title 24 requirement and the cost and education for the public that was discussed at the last Planning Commission meeting. Planning Commission Minutes Approved 05/04/2006 April 6, 2006 Page 6 Mr. Evans said the EIC had an analysis of homes in the town and what measures would be required to achieve that level of performance and what it would cost in dollar terms and also on a payback basis and as a percentage of total building cost. This information goes into a report that is sent to the California Energy Commission where the case is made that the incremental efficiency improvement is actually cost effective. Commissioner Kerns was concerned that Title 24 is already strict and to require above and beyond that might be asking too much of homeowners. Chairman Cottrell questioned the incremental cost. Mr. Evans related that State law requires that it be cost effective and the improvements is t icall analysis that the EIC has done shows the incremental cost of thesetypically around$1 a foot. Commissioner Carey offered that if a MDA credit is to be allowed for solar there should be some consideration for review by the Planning Commission. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Motion by Commissioner Collins, seconded by Commissioner Kerns and passed unanimously to forward the recommendation to the City Council to adopt the resolution approving the proposed amendments to all sections as amended. Staff was directed to proceed with the initial study of potential environmental impacts relating to granting additional development credit. SHORT RECESS CALLED AT 8:12. MEETING RECONVENED AT 8:16. 3.4. AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING AND SITE DEVELOPMENT CODES WITH REGARD TO EFFECTIVE DATE, APPEAL, AND COUNCIL REVIEW OF ACTIONS FOR ZONING AND SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMITS (SECTIONS 10- 1.1108-1110, 10-2.1305, AND 10-2.1313); CEQA REVIEW: CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, SECTION 15061 (6)(3) (staff-Debbie Pedro). Staff report by Debbie Pedro stated that this amendment to the ordinance was reviewed by the Planning Commission as a new business item in February and the purpose is to reconcile some existing discrepancies in the municipal code in regard to the appeal and approval process of site development permits. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING