Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 3.4Item 3.4 TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS March 5, 2009 Staff Report to the Planning Commission RE: PREZONING OF UNINCORPORATED LA LOMA ROAD AREA: 11 PARCELS (APPROXIMATELY 12.79 ACRES) BOUNDED BY THE TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS TO THE WEST, NORTH, AND EAST; 4135-08-ZP. FROM: David Keyon, Associate Planner DK APPROVED BY: Debbie Pedro, AICP, Planning Directorlz.;Q RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission: Forward a recommendation to the City Council to approve the proposed prezoning of the unincorporated La Loma area and adopt the Negative Declaration. (Attachment 2) BACKGROUND On May 18, 2008 the Town received an annexation request from Jayesh and Vaishali Shah (25274 La Loma Drive). The Shah property is located within an "unincorporated island" of 11 properties within the Town's Urban Service Area (USA), an area almost entirely surrounded by the Town of Los Altos Hills. It is one of seven unincorporated islands identified in the Town's General Plan as areas subject to future annexation by the Town. Prior to annexation by the Town, the unincorporated area must be prezoned. Prezoning will establish the zoning district which will apply in the event of annexation to the Town. The project area will be prezoned "R -A" (Residential -Agricultural). The zoning classification established through the prezoning procedure will become effective and enforceable when annexation is approved, it will have no force or effect on the subject properties until that time. The area subject to this prezoning is located towards the end of La Loma Drive, roughly encompassing the properties from 25225 La Loma Drive to 25303 La Loma Drive (excepting numbers 25228 and 25259, which me already within Town limits). The average size of the parcels is about 1.16 acres and all of the lots are already developed with single-family homes. A map of the project area and list of the parcels affected is included in Attachment 1. LA LOMA AREA PARCEL SIZE DATA Total Parcels: 11 parcels Total Area: 12.79 acres Average Parcel Size: 1.16 acres Staff Report to the Planning Commission Prezone of La Loma Drive Area March 5, 2009 Page 2 of 3 SANTA CLARA COUNTY ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION The County zoning designation for the subject parcels is RHS (Urban Hillside Residential). The existing RHS County designation allows single-family residential development with a minimum lot size of at least one acre. The existing RHS site standards are as follows: County RHS (Urban Hillside Residential) Standards County Standard for RHS Zone Front setback 30' Side setbacks 20' Rear setback 25' Maximum height 35' Portions of the County's development standards for this area can be found in Chapter 2.30 of the Santa Clara County Zoning Ordinance (Attachment 5). TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS PREZONE AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION The La Loma Area already has a Land Use Designation of Residential (R) in the Town's General Plan. The proposed prezoning will change the zoning designation of the La Loma Area from the County's RHS zone to the Town's RA (Residential -Agricultural) zoning designation at the time of annexation. The RA (Residential -Agricultural) zoning designation allows single-family residential development with a minimum lot size of one -acre. If annexed into the Town, the Los Altos Hills RA zoning standards will apply: Town of Los Altos Hills RA (Residential -Agricultural) Zoning Standards R -A Zone District Standards Front setback 40' Side setbacks 30' Rear setback 30' Maximum height 27' (35' overall) Since the average lot size in the La Loma Drive neighborhood is 1.16 acres and already developed with single-family dwellings, the area is consistent with the character of surrounding properties already located within the Town. Staff Report to the Planning Commission Premne of La Loma Drive Area March 5, 2009 Page 3 of 3 CEOASTATUS In conformance with CEQA requirements, staff prepared anInitial Study and Negative Declaration. A Notice of Intent to adopt a Negative Declaration was published in the Town Crier on February 25, 2009. The notice was also submitted to the Santa Clara Comfy Clerks Office for a 20 day public review period which began on February 25, 2009 and ends on March 17, 2009. CONCLUSION Staff recommends approval of the proposed Prezoning of the La Loma Drive area for the following reasons: 1. The project is consistent with Policy 5.2 of the Town's 2008 General Plan Land Use Element and with Policy H, Program 6 of the 2002 Housing Element (Attachments 3 and 4). 2. The current residential land use in the project area is in conformance with the Town's Residential (R) Land Use designation. 3. The prezoning would have no force or effect on the subject properties until the area is annexed into the Town. Since the La Loma Drive neighborhood is nearly built -out, if the area is annexed into the Town, there should be little or no change to the make up of the existing area or community. ATTACHMENTS: 1. La Loma Drive Project Area Map and Parcels List 2. Draft Initial Study and Negative Declaration 3. 2008 Los Altos Hills General Plan Land Use Element (excerpt) 4. 2002 Housing Element (excerpt) 5. Santa Clara County Zoning Ordinance with RHS Zoning Site Standards (excerpt) Attachment 1 ATTACHMENT 1 Area of Proposed Prezoning �p 11499 J 25201' 25080 x `S 25795 a 25209 25179 �\ T� 2! \ \5136\ 25090 25223 25215 \ 11930 .. ' 25182 25100 �' 11870 � �� 25259 25126 21 25228 g�;. 11924 'C x2215°' 26320 \ / 11972/ / 'd " / 25346 z Town Limits 12001 t/a // %;, 25333 � 1/1 25325 ����✓ 25317 1 Area of Prezoning 2530925313 Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserve Table of Properties Subject to Prezone Address APN Lot Size (Acres, approximate) 25263 La Loma Dr. 336-320-39 1.56 25265 La Loma Dr. 336-320-40 1.17 25225 La Loma Dr. 336-320-52 1.00 25245 La Loma Dr. 336-320-53 1.00 25274 La Loma Dr. 336-320-65 1.46 25285 La Loma Dr. 336-320-68 1.00 25275 La Loma Dr. 336-320-69 1.00 25303 La Loma Dr. 336-320-77 1.03 25255 La Loma Dr. 336-332-281.33 25295 La Loma Dr. 336-320-79 1.00 25299 La Loma Dr. 336-320-80 1.04 Attachment 2 TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT TITLE: Prezoning of unincorporated La Loma area. NAME AND ADDRESS OF PROJECT SPONSOR: Town of Los Altos Hills, 26379 Fremont Road, Los Altos Hills, California 94022 LOCATION OF PROJECT: Unincorporated Santa Clara County lands bounded by the Town of Los Altos Hills to the north, east, and west, and by Mid Peninsula Open Space lands(Rancho San Antonio Open Space) to the south, encompassing 12.79 acres (I 1 properties) on La Loma Drive. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Prezoning of 11 unincorporated parcels by the Town of Los Altos Hills. The proposed Town of Los Altos Hills zoning designation, Residential -Agricultural, would have no effect until the lands are annexed to the town. No physical changes are proposed as a part of this prezone application. MITIGATION MEASURES, IF ANY, INCLUDED IN THE PROJECT TO AVOID POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS: The project is not anticipated to have any potentially significant effects on the environment and therefore no mitigation measures are proposed. 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 the project will not have a significant effect upon the environment for the following reasons: a. For the reasons specified in the attached Initial Study (Exhibit "A"), the project does not 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 species, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or pre -history. b. For the reasons specified in the attached Initial Study (Exhibit "A"), the project does not have the potential to achieve short-term goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals. c. For the reasons specified in the attached Initial Study (Exhibit "A"), the project does not have impacts which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable. d. For the reasons specified in the attached Initial Study (Exhibit "A"), the project does not have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. Debbie Pedro, AICP, Planning Director Date TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS Circulated on: February 25 2009 Adopted Exhibit "A" Town of Los Altos Hills 26379 Fremont Road Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 INITIAL 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. I. Project Title: Prezoning of Unincorporated La Loma Drive area. 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: Debbie Pedro, Planning Director (650) 947-2517 Initial Study prepared by: David Keyon, Associate Planner 4. Project Location: Unincorporated Santa Clara County lands bounded by the Town of Los Altos Hills to the north, east, and west, and by Mid Peninsula Open Space lands to the south, encompassing 11.79 acres (11 properties) on La Loma Drive. 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Town of Los Altos Hill 26379 Fremont Road Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 6. General Plan Designation: Urban Service Area (Santa Clara County General Plan (Existing, Santa Clara County) Designation) Residential (R) (Los Altos Hills General Plan) 7. Zoning: RHS (Residential -Hillside) (Existing, Santa Clara County) 8. Description of Project: Prezoning of II unincorporated parcels by the Town of Los Altos Hills. The proposed Town of Los Altos Hills zoning designation, Residential -Agricultural, would have no effect unless these lands were annexed to the town. No physical changes are proposed as apart of this prezone application. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The unincorporated La Loma Drive area is a hillside residential community that is presently developed with single family residences and related structures. The area is characterized by hilly terrain and dense vegetation. The adjacent Town of Los Altos Hills is also a single-family residential community with similar vegetative and topographic features. 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required: None ENVIl20NMENTAL 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. F1 Aesthetics J Agriculture Resources J Air Quality ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Geology /Sails Hazards & Hazardous L] Hydrology / Water Quality Land Use / Planning Materials ❑ Mineral Resources ❑ Noise L] Population / Housing L3Public Services J Recreation L) Transportation/Traffic F1 Utilities / Service Systems Ll 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 smffresearch and the Town's General Plan and Municipal Code. 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 DECLARATION will be prepared. 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 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. 1 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 Ll 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 LJ 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: Z Z Debbie Pedro, AICP, Planning Director 3 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporation I. AESTHETICS -- Would the project a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? J ❑ L b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limitedto, trees, Ll ❑ 0 rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and El 0 L its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial lightor glare which would adversely ❑ ❑ L Q affect day or nighttime views in the area? E3 ❑ L Q IL 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: ❑ Ll L a) Convert Prime Farmland Unique Farmland, a Farmland of Statewide E3 ❑ L Q Importance (Farmland), as sbown 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 Q D 0 contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their U U ❑ location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to nonagricultural use? IH. 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 ❑ Ll L projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant ❑ ❑ ❑ for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which 41 exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? 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. Fishand Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive 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 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 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'l5064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remain; including those interred outside of formal 5 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact ❑ Mitigation ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ Z ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporzdon cemeteries? ❑ ❑ ❑ z VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -- Would the project a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, EJ ❑ Ll 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ Q to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ❑ ❑ ❑ Q ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ❑ ❑ ❑ iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? ❑ ❑ ❑ iv)Landslides? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 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 L3 Ll ❑ 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 the disposal of wastewater? VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS —Would the project a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the EJ ❑ Ll 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 ha sardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous ❑ ❑ ❑ Q materials, substances, or waste within unaquarter 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 10 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact ❑ Mitigation D Incoroonnion resul4 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 LJ Ll O has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airportor public use ❑ Ll D 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 U Q ❑ result in a safety bazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted U ❑ emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Ll ❑ L h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death ❑ involving wildland fires, including where wildly ids are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? L1 Ll L VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY -- Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? L) L) ❑ b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with ❑ Ll D groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (eg., 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, Ll ❑ L including through the alteration of the worse 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, L1 Ll 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 ❑ ❑ existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources ofpolluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? Ll L3 L g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal ❑ 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 ❑ 7 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact ❑ ❑ 2 Mitigation Incorporation or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding w a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project a) Physically divide an established community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an 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 community conservation plan? X. MINERAL RESOURCES — Would the project ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ 2 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ Q 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 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 groundbome vibration or groundbome noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in 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 has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use I ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ �0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 7 ❑ ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 Potentially Less Than Less Then No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact ❑ Mitigation z ❑ locorporatlon ❑ 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 ❑ people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? XII. 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? XIII. 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 oder 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? E ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ z ❑ z ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ z ❑ ❑ ❑ z ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 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? XV. TRANSPORTATIONfrRAFFIC -- 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 established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic partems, 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? f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS - Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional 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 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 entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entilements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the providers existing commitments? 10 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporation ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ IVI A on 0 0 0 0 OR Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or Mitigation restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate Incorporation f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate ❑ ❑ D the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to U U ❑ solid waste? XVIL 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 sel€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 major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but L1 J 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 J Ll 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) The proposed prezoning would not have the force of law unless an annexation were approved; since no annexation is proposed as a part of this project, the project would have no effect on the environment. Land Use and Planning: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? Per the 2002 Housing Element of the General Plan (Policy H, Program 6, adopted by the City Council on January 15, 2004), the Town is prezoning 11 lots within the La Loma Drive area for potential future annexation into the Town of Los Altos Hills. No new development is proposed as part of this project. Therefore, this project would have no direct effect on the physical environment. Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporation The existing RHS County designation allows single-family residential development with a minimum lot size of one acre, a minimum front yard setback of 30 feet, a minimum side yard setback of 20 feet, a minimum rear yard setback of 25 feet, and a maximum height of 35 feet. All 11 parcels in the project area are about one acre in size and are developed with single-family homes. 12 Adopted May 8, 2008 G',ROWTH BOUNDARIES ' Attachment 3 Sphere of Influence (SOI) Boundary 156. As required by state law, the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) has adopted a sphere of influence (SOI) for each city and special district in Santa Clara County. The SOIs are intended to ensure that urban development takes place in an orderly manner, to preserve agricultural and open space lands, and to ensure that the land use and development policies of a city are recognized in areas that will eventually be part of a city. 157. The SOI indicates areas that may be annexed to the Town and for which urban services, if available, could be provided. The Town's existing SOI, which was adopted in February 1985, is cotemdnous with the town limits to the north, west, and most of the east. The boundaries of some of the Town's unincorporated islands, unincorporated hillside lands, Inds within the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District's Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserve, and lands within the County of Santa Clara's Rancho San Antonio Park help form sections of the southern and southeastern portion of the Town's SOI boundary. Permanently preserved open space areas such as MROSD's Rancbo San Antonio Preserve do not require urban services, but are appropriately included in the SOI due to their location. Unincorporated Pockets in Urban Serviced Area (USA) 158. The urbanized unincorporated areas within the Urban Service Areas (USA) of Los Altos Hills are referred to as urban pockets or islands. The pockets are a result of development that occurred in the County in the 1950s and 1960s. Santa Clara County and LAFCO have adopted policies that state that urban islands and pockets should be annexed. There are seven unincorporated urban pockets within the Los Altos Hills urban service area (USA). Figure 1-2 shows current Town boundaries and urban pockets subject to future annexation within the Town's planning area. Prezonine 159. The purpose of prezoning an area is to establish the zoning district that will apply in the event of subsequent annexation to the Town. The proposed zones must be consistent with the General Plan, and the prezoning has to be approved by the City Council at a public hearing. There are two advantages to prezoning. First, the Town will have zoning in effect immediately upon annexation. Local residents will thereby have prior knowledge of the land use regulations that would affect them should annexation occur. Secondly, prezoning acts to serve notice to LAFCO of the city's intentions regarding its adjacent areas. Prezoning is the procedural first step necessary to ultimately annex a particular territory. However, the act of prezoning does not compel the Town to initiate annexation proceedings. Land Use Element Los Altos Hills General Plan Page LU -22 Adopted May 8. 2008 Land Use Element Los Altos Hills General Plan Page LU -23 Adopted May 8, 2008 160. In August 2002, the Town prezoned approximately 245 parcels in unincorporated county lands known as San Antonio Fulls. The prezoned area is generally between Ravensbury Avenue and Interstate 280, including portions of West Loyola Drive, Mora Drive, and Berkshire Drive. In Much 2006, the Town prezoned an additional 82 parcels between Magdalena and Eastbrook Avenues including properties on Spalding Avenue, Par Avenue, Winding Way, Putter Avenue and Putter Way. Annexation 161. Subsequent to the prezoning of San Antonio Fulls in 2002, the Town annexed 118 parcels totaling 142 acres within the unincorporated urban pocket. (Ravensbury Annexation, Much 2002; West Loyola Annexation, September 2007) The properties in the annexed areas are mostly developed with single- family homes on parcels of one acre or more. There remain approximately 280 acres of unincorporated land within the Town's Urban Service Area that may be subject to annexation in the future. The Town should conduct a comprehensive evaluation of all future annexations to ensure that they are compatible with the land use patterns and zoning designations of the Town and that such annexations do not negatively impact the Town's finances, facilities and services. Areas of Direct Concern 162. Areas of Direct Concern are within the planning area but beyond the Town's corporate limits and the sphere of influence. These areas include several pockets of existing residential and commerciallindustrial development as described below: Residential Areas Portions of several residential areas in Los Altos and Santa Clara County are included within the planning area. These areas, although in other jurisdictions, are of direct and immediate concern to the planning area because of common problems relating to drainage, circulation, public facilities, and visual amenities. Existing development within the portion of Los Altos that is within the planning area is low-to-medium density residential. Development of existing vacant land immediately adjacent to Los Altos Hills should be no more intense than one-half acre per dwelling unit in order to provide a gradual transition between residential densities as previously agreed to by the City and the Town. Cornmereial/Industrial Areas The planning area includes commercial areas within the City of Los Altos and light industrial development in the Stanford Industrial Park. These areas, however, do not occur within the Town limits or its SOI. Land Use Element Los Altos Hills General Plan Page LU -24 Adopted May 8, 2008 GOALS Ensure that the Town's growth will proceed in an orderly, planned manner in order to provide efficient and economical urban services. Policy 5.1 Issues within the sphere of influence shall be monitored for their effects on the Town. Policy 5.2 Any proposed annexations shall be consistent with the Town's General Plan land use designations and adopted annexation procedures. Policy 5.3 Maintain a cooperative worldng relationship with Santa Clara County regarding land use issues. Program 5.1 Request that Santa Clara County and other applicable agencies refer all proposed projects and programs within the sphere of influence to the Town of Los Altos Hills for review and comment, and act favorably on the Town's recommendations. Program 5.2 Review annexation proposals to assure that they are consistent with sphere of influence boundaries, General Plan land use designations and established annexation procedures and criteria. Program 5.3 In evaluating proposed annexations, require the preparation of a fiscal impact analysis to detemrine the costs and benefits to be received by the Town as a result of the proposed annexation. Land Use Element Los Altos Hills General Plan Page LU -25 Housing Goals, Policies, Programs, and Objectives Attachment 4 Town of Los .Altos Hills 2002 Housing Element The prompt processing of subdivision and design review applications and building permits has resulted in average construction rates consistent with the projected demand for housing in Los Altos Hills. The Town will continue to assist the property owners and development community in the housing development process. Time From: Ongoing (Yearly Update) Responsible Agency: Planning/Ruilding Quantified Objective: 212 above -moderate units 6. Program Continue the annexation of lands within the Town's Sphere of Influence to increase the Town's supply of lands suitable for residential development. (Formerly Program 7) In 2002 the Town prezoned a total of 286 acres of land known as San Antonio Hills that includes primarily one -acre lots. It is anticipated that most of these lands will be annexed to the Town of Los Altos Hills though not all within the timeframe of the 2001 Housing Element. In late 2002, the 58 acres of Ravenbury Area within San Antonio Hills was annexed by the Town. This will add to the supply of available housing units in the Town of Los Altos Hills. Additionally, all lots of one or more acres in size can potentially accommodate a secondary unit thus increasing the supply of affordable rental units. 77m Frame: Responsible Agency: Quantified Objective: June 2003 (Ravensbury Annexation) Planning/City Council 3 very low, 3 low and 3 moderate 7. Program Study and pursue additional sewer capacity for the Los Altos Basin area. The Town is in the process of preparing a Sanitary Sewer Master Plan to serve as a strategic planning guide for the grading, improving and expanding of the Town's sewer. infrastructure to meet existing and total "build -out" needs. Currently, 1,827 lots or approximately 60% of the Town's parcels are served by septic systems. It is anticipated that less than 10 percent of the existing systems cannot be replaced by new septic systems and thus will require sewer services from Page 42 Attachment 5 SANTA CLAaF co"ury zoNlNc ORDINANCE CHAPTER 2.30: UREAN RESIDENTIAL BFSE DISTRICTS CHAPTER 2.30 URBAN RESIDENTIAL BASE DISTRICTS Sections § 2.30.010 Purposes - § 2.30.020 Use Regulations § 2.30.030 Development Standards § 2.30.040 Slope -Density Requirements in RHS District § 2.30.010 Purposes The purpose of this chapter is to define allowable land uses and property development standards for the urban residential base districts, which include the RI "One -Family Residence," RIE "One -Family Residence—Estate," RHS "Urban Hillside Residential," R1 `Low-Deasity Campus Residential," R3 "Medium -Density Campus Residential;' R2 "Two -Family Residence," and R3 "Multi -Family Residential' districts. The overall purposes of the urban residential base districts are to provide for appropriate uses in the unincorporated areas of the county that are_within the urban service areas of cities and to regulate the type and intensity of development in these areas in a manner consistent with the general plan of the applicable city. The further specific purposes of cash of the urban residential base districts are described below. A. Rl One Family Residence. The purpose of the One -Family Residence district, also known as the RI district, is to provide for single-family dwellings, and for the orderly and efficient arrangement of dwellings, yards, accessory buildings, and other residential site improvements. B. RIE One Family Residence—Estate. The purpose of the One -Family Residence—Estate district, also known as the RIE district, is to provide for low- density single-family dwellings, and for the orderly and efficient arrangement of dwellings, yards, accessory buildings, and other residential site improvements. p, C. RHS Urban Hillside Residential. The purpose of the Urban Hillside Residential district, also known as the RHS district, is to provide for low-density residential development and limited agricultural uses on foothill lands adjacent to incorporated cities. RHS districts include areas that are particularly vulnerable to natural hazards and environmental degradation. Development density shall be determined by slope -density formulas that consider availability of public water and sewer, and by the severity of geologic and natural hazards. Note that §2.30.040 applies to this district. R[ A1n ZOO. SANTA CLARA COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE GNAVTER 2.30: URBAN RESIDENTIAL BASE DISTRICTS D. RIS Low -Density Campus Residential. The purpose of the Low -Density Campus Residential district, also known as the RI S district, is to provide for urban low-density housing (up to eight units per acre) on the lands of Stanford University, and to provide for limited neighborhood -supporting non-residential uses. This designation implements the specific land use policies for low-density housing prescribed by the 2000 Stanford Community Plan by encouraging more compact and efficient urban development. E. R3S Medium -Density Campus Residential. The purpose of the Medium - Density Campus Residential district, also known as the R3S district, is to provide for urban medium -density housing on the lands of Stanford University, and to provide for limited neighborhood -supporting non-residential uses. This designation implements the specific land use policies for the medium -density housing prescribed by the 2000 Stanford Community Plan. F. R2 Two -Family Residence. The purpose of the Two -Family Residence district, also known as the R2 district, is to provide for one- and two-family dwelling units, and for the orderly and efficient arrangement of dwellings, yards, accessory buildings, and other residential site improvements. G. R3 Multi -Family Residential. The purpose of the Multi -Family Residential district, also known as the R3 district, is to provide space for multiple family residential development commonly found in an urban environment. The R3 district is intended for intensive residential uses at readily accessible urban locations. § 2.30.020 Use Regulations The following tables, Tables 2.30-1 and 2.30-2, specify the allowable land uses for the urban residential base districts, listed by use classification as defined in Chapter 2.10. The regulations for each district are established by letter designations as follows: "R" designates use classifications that are permitted by right. "S" designates use classifications permitted with a special permit, subject to the provisions of Chapter 5.60, Special Permit. "A" designates use classifications permitted with architecture and site approval, subject to the provisions of Chapter 5.40, Architecture and Site Approval. "U" designates use classifications permitted with a use permit, and architecture and site approval, subject to the provisions of Chapter 5.65, Use Permit, and Chapter 5.40, Architecture and Site Approval. Re APRIL 2O E SANTA CLARA COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE CHAPTER 2.30: URBAN RESIDENTIAL SASE 01-1- 1-1 designates use classifications that we not allowed. Supplemental regulations for the establishment and conduct of a use are referenced in the "Supplemental Regulations" column of the table. Use classifications not listed in the table are prohibited in the urban residential base districts. Table 2.30-1 0 Permitted by Right RESIDENTIAL USES 5 Special Permit (Cb 5.60) IN URBAN RESIDENTIAL BASE DISTRICTS A ASA (Ch 5.40) U Use Permit/ ASA (Ch 5.65, 5.40) — Not Permitted USE CLASSIFICATIONS ZONING Supplemental RI R1E RHS RIS R3S R2 R3 Regulations Residences Single -Family 0 0 0 0 A 0 0 Note 1, 2 (R1S) Two -Family — — — 0 A 0 0 Note 1, 2 (RIS) Multi -Family — — — A A — A Residential Accessory 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 § 4.20.020 Structures & Uses Note 3 (R3S) Community Care Limited 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 § 4.10.090, Note 4 Expanded U U Uz A A U i)"j, § 4.10.090 Domestic Animals Dogs & Cats 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Note 5 Small Animals 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Note 6 Horses 0 0 0 0 — — — Now 7 Home Occupations General 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 § 4.10.180 Expanded S S S S S S S § 4.10.180, Note 8 Residential—Communal U U' U` — — U Institutional Rooming Houses, Fraternities, U. U I: — — — U A & Sororities Secondary Dwellings 0 0 0 0 A — — §4.10.340 Notes 1, 9, 10 Temporary Residence / 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 §4.10.380 Construction NOTES: REV: APRIL2006 SANTA CLARA COONTT ZaNINo 0"'NANCE CHAPTER 2.30: URBAN RESIDENTIAL EAEE DISTRICTS I. Single-family dwellings, including certain additions, new secondary dwellings, and duplexes, maybe subject to the building site approval provisions of Sections C)2-300 et seq. of the County Ordinance Code. 2. In RI S districts, ASA is required for new single-family residences on lots smaller than 10,890 square feet (0.25 acre). Two-family residences are not permitted on lots smaller than 10,890 square feet, and ASA is required for new two-family residences on lots smaller than 21,780 square feet (0.50 acre). ASA is not required for additions or remodels of existing dwellings. 3. In R3S districts, accessory structures not meeting the criteria of § 4.20.020 maybe allowed subject to ASA. 4. Facilities qualifying as "Large -Family Day -Care Homes," serving between 7 and 12 persons, are subjeR to an administrative permit, per the provisions of Division B24 of the County Ordinance Code. 5. Not to exceed two (2) dogs and five (5) cats aver four months of age on parcels less than five acres, or three (3) dogs and five (5) cats over four months of age on parcels five acres or more, unless the required permit is secured pursuant to Division B31 of the Cowry Ordinance Code. 6. Small Animals —Limited. Not to exceed a total of twelve (12) of any of the following small animals: rabbits, guinea pigs, chicken and fowl, and similar species as approved by the Zoning Administrator. Roosters, peafowl, guinea fowl, geese or quacking ducks us not allowed. 7. Horses. Minimum lot size for the keeping of horses in urban residential districts is one-half acre. Not to exceed two horses per acre. 3. Expanded home occupations are permitted on lots of one acre or larger. See § 4.10.180 for other criteria. 9. In R3S districts, no secondary dwelling may exceed 640 square feet, and the number of secondary dwellings in a given development may not exceed 25% of the total primary units allowed by the applicable density limitation. 10. In districts when permitted, detached secondary dwellings are subject to a 10,000 square foot minimum lot size. See § 4.10.340(C) for other criteria. Table 2.30-2 E] Permitted by Right NON-RESIDENTIAL. USE CLASSIFICATIONS S Special Permit (Ch 5.60) IN URBAN RESIDENTIAL BASE DISTRICTS A ASA (Ch 5.40) U Use Permit/ ASA (Ch 5.65, 5.40) — Not Permitted USE CLASSIFICATIONS ZONING Supplemental RI RIE RHS RIS R3S R2 R3 Regulations Agriculture — — Q — — — — Note 1 Antennas—Commercial Minor A A A A A A A Major U U "U A A U. U- Churches (See "Religious Institutions") REV: APRIL 2006 SANTA CLARA COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE 2.30: URBAN RESIDENTIAL BASE OISTRICTE Table 2.30-2 0 Permitted by Right NON-RESIDENTIAL USE CLASSIFICATIONS S Special Permit (Ch 5.60) IN URBAN RESIDENTIAL BASE DISTRICTS A ASA (Ch 5.40) U Use Permit/ ASA (Ch 5.65, 5.40) — Not Permitted USE CLASSIFICATIONS ZONING Supplemental RI RIE RHS RIS R3S R2 R3 Regulations Community Care Limited 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 § 4.10.090, Note 3 Expanded U, 'U,;,0 A A U1 IT §4.10.090 Golf Courses & Country Clubs— Historic Structures—Use — — A — — — — § 4.10.170 Conversion Hospitals & Clinics V ,I1 U °', A A MuseumsU= 'U, 11 A A U '10:111. Nonprofit Institutions U. U U'. A A U U Religious Institutions U' or IU,j', A A U U 1 Retail Sales & Services—Local — — — A A — A Note 2 Serving Schools U U. U,' A A UI U''.. Swim & Tennis Clubs U U III: A A U U Utilities Minor A A A A A A A Major U U. U'-. A A U ':Uj NOTES: 1. On lots 2.5 acres or larger in RHS districts, all agricultural uses permitted in HS districts as a matter ofright (see Table 2.20-2) shall be allowed. 2. Commercial and service uses permitted in RIS, R3S and R3 districts shall be limited in scale and in their service market to primarily serve the residents of the subject residential development. For residential support uses in RIS and R3S districts applicable to Stanford University lands, a business plan is required demonstrating that a preponderance of customers will be Stanford residents or employees. 3. Facilities qualifying as "Large -Family Day -Care Homes,' serving between 7 and 12 persons, are subject t0 an administrative pemriq per the provisions of Division B24 of the County Ordinance Code. REV. APRIL 2006 SANTA CL -ARA COUNTv zoNlNc CIN.I.NCE CNATER 2.30: URBAN RESIOENTUL BASE DISTRICTS § 2.30.030 Development Standards A. Standards. Table 2.30-3 establishes property development standards for the urban residential base districts. A'—" indicates there is no applicable standard or requirement. Table 2.30-3 URBAN RESIDENTIAL BASE DISTRICTS: PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS REV AVRIL2006 RI RIE RHS RIS R3S R2 R3 Minimum lot area (sq ft) For lot creation 5,000 5,000 §2.30.040 Note 1 Note 2 5,000 Note 3 For building site 3,750 3,750 3,750 Note 1 Note 2 3,750 Note 3 With lot size combining See Chapter 3.10, Lot -Size Combining Districts districts Setbacks (feet)' Front 25 25 30 25 Note 4 25 20 Side 5 5 20 55 Note 5 10 Comer lot side 10 10 20 10' Note 4 10 10 Rear 25 25 25 25' Note 4 25 15 Scenic road 100 100 100 — Note 100 100 Exceptions §4.20.110, Setback Exceptions Maximum heights Feet 35 35 35 35 Note 4 35 45 Stories 2 2 3 21/2 Note 4 2 4 Lot coverage — — — —. — — 50% — buildings Accessory See Chapter 4.20, Supplemental Development Standards Buildings NOTES: 1. Development density for all housing types in R1 S districts shall not exceed eight (g) units per net acre. For the purposes of this provision, net acreage shall exclude street rigbtsbf--way, but shall include driveways and other common access ways. 2. Development density for all housing types in R3S districts shall be no less than eight (g) units per net acre and no more than 15 units per net acre. For the purposes of this provision, net acreage shall exclude street rights-of-way, but shall include driveways and other Common access ways. 3. Development density in R3 districts shall conform to the density allowed by the applicable city general plan. REV AVRIL2006 SANTq Cl R COVNTY ZDNING ORDINANCE 2.30: URDAN RESIDENTIAL BA5[ n--- 4, Setbacks and maximum height in R3S districts shall be as stipulated by the ASA Committee to promote quality design, and to assure adequate buffering and compatibility with adjacent land use and development. 5. Side and rear setbacks for single-family and two-family dwellings in RIS districts shall be as indicated in table. Side and rear setbacks for mull -family development shall be as stipulated by the ASA Committee to promote quality design, and to assure adequate buffering and compatibility with adjacent land use and development. 6. Setbacks and height limits may be modified for permitted non-residential uses by the ASA Committee for appropriate functioning of proposed uses, compatibility with adjacent development, or to otherwise achieve excellence of development consistent with the purpose of ASA and the intent of the Zoning district. B. Flag Lots: Height Restriction. On any flag lot of less than 20,000 square feet, the maximum height of dwellings shall be 21 feet and shall not include more than one (1) story. C. Measurement. Standards shown in Table 2.30-3 are subject to the following rules of measurement: 1. Where a lot abuts a road, setbacks from that road shall be measured from the edge of the ultimate right-of-way (see "setback" definition in § 1.30.030); 2. Setbacks from all property lines not abutting a street shall be measured from the property line unless otherwise specified; and 3. Height shall be measured according to the provisions of Chapter 1.30: Definitions: General Terms. 4. Development density in RIS, R3S and R3 districts shall be calculated over the project area, which, excepting existing or new street rights-of-way, includes the entire area of any lot or assemblage of contiguous lots upon which development or redevelopment is proposed, and for which one development application is submitted. Any portions of the project area designated as open space by the applicable subdivision or ASA conditions shall be enforceably restricted to prevent increased density of development beyond that allowed by the zoning ordinance. 5. Precision of numbers for the purposes of measurement and calculation shall be as stipulated in § 1.20.030: Precision of Numbers/Rounding. pr § 2.30.040 Slope -Density Requirements in RHS District Table 2.30-4 describes the required minimum land area per dwelling unit, or density of development allowed, as well as the minimum parcel sizes, for the RHS district, based on REv: gPPLL 2006 SANTA CURA Cou NTr zoN:NB 0Ac NANCE CHAPTER 2.30: URBAN RE.IBENTIAL BASE DISTRICTS the availability of public water and sewer. Density of development may be further restricted based upon site-specific characteristics of proposed lots and building sites, including slope, geologic stability, drainage, and other factors. Table 2.304 LOT SIZE / SLOPE -DENSITY FORMULAS IN RHS Water/Sewer Availability Allowed Density: Land Area per Dwelling Unit, Lot Area Range' Minimum rarcel size"° 4 With public 1 1— 5 acres 1 acre water and sanitary sewer 1.2-.02-S With sanitary 1 1.75 —7.5 ac 1.75 acres sewer, without public water .6809-.010952-S Without public 1 2.5 — 10 ac 2.5 acres water or sanitary sewer .4754075'S NOTES: 1. The variable "S" represents the average slope of the entire property that is the subject of the application. Average slope is determined according to the formula S= (0.00229 x IL)/A, where I is the contour interval in feet; L is the combined length of contour lines in scale feet; A is the gross area in acres of the subject lot or area of land; and, S is the average slope expressed as a percentage. The maximum number of lots or dwelling units allowed is determined by dividing the gross let area by the minimum land area per dwelling unit and rounding down to the nearest whole number. 2. Where the average slope of the parcel is less than 10%, the land area per dwelling unit shall be equal to the lesser value in the lot area range. Where the average slope of the parcel is greater than 50%, the land area per dwelling unit shall be equal to the upper value of the lot area range 3. Minimum parcel size requirements are expressed in gross acres and may be waived through tht approval of a cluster permit issued in conformance with applicable general plan policies and th cluster permit procodures of Chapter 5.45 of this ordinance. 4. Permanent dedication of open space and development rights shall be provided as necessary ane appropriate to ensure that the maximum density of development (total number of lots) does nol exceed that which is permitted by the applicable slope -density formula REV: APRIL 2006