HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 3.3TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS February 24, 2005
Staff Report to the Planning Commission
RE: NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND TENTATIVE MAP FOR A TWO -LOT
SUBDIVISION: LANDS OF JFLP PARTNERSHIP, 27361 ALTAMONT ROAD.
FILE #200 -04 -IS -ND -TM -GD
FROM: Leslie Hopper, Project Planner N
APPROVED BY: Carl Cahill, Planning Director C G
RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission:
I. Review and forward a recommendation that, based on the Initial Study, the City
Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring
Program in Attachment 3; and
2. Review and forward a recommendation that the City Council approve the requested
Tentative Map, based on the findings in Attachment 2 and subject to the conditions of
approval in Attachment 1.
DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS
The following discretionary actions by the City Council are required for approval of the
subdivision:
1. Adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program
2. Approval of the Tentative Map
The Planning Commission's actions are recommendations to the City Council.
TENTATIVE MAP REVIEW
In order to approve a subdivision, the Planning Commission must determine that the
project is consistent with the General Plan and Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances, and
that none of the findings for denial can be made, as specified in Section 66474 of the
State Subdivision Map Act. Staff has prepared findings for approval of the project
(Attachment 2). Comments on the Tentative Map have been received from the Town
Geotechnical Consultant, the Town Engineer, Santa Clara County Fire Department,
PG&E, the Environmental Design Committee, the Pathways Committee, and the Open
Space Committee, and we attached for the Planning Commission's review. Neighboring
residents and property owners within 500 feet of the site have been notified of the public
hearing.
Planning Commission
Lands oflFLP Partnership
February 24, 2005
Page 2 of 12
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
In compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an Initial Study,
Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program have been prepared
for the project. The 20 -day review period for the Negative Declaration ended on
February 22, 2005. The Planning Commission may make comments on both the Negative
Declaration and the Tentative Map. The Negative Declaration must be adopted by the
City Council before approving the Tentative Map. In order to recommend adoption, the
Commission must find that all potential significant environmental effects are addressed
through the proposed mitigation measures.
Recommended mitigation measures include removal and replacement of eight damaged
trees; geotechnical review of site development plans; site-specific drainage
improvements; site-specific erosion and sedimentation control; installation of a fire
hydrant or sprinklered buildings as required by the Fire District; tree protection during
construction; and observation of State and County requirements for handling
archaeological remains and artifacts if found.
The applicant is requesting approval of a two -lot subdivision on 2.82 acres located on the
north side of Altamont Road. The parcel is bounded by Altamont Road to the south, and
residential lots containing single-family dwellings to the west, north, and east. The
existing parcel is open land with trees on the north slope and west property line, a well as
scattered on the property. There is a cluster of damaged oak and sycamore trees in the
middle of the parcel. The site has an average slope of 16.5%. There is a remnant
driveway approach off of Altamont Road at the center of the property that used to serve a
single-family residence that was removed several years ago. The surrounding land use is
single-family residential with a minimum lot size of one acre.
Proposed Development Table
fl�t
'1 P1`r e
.,r ,i?'4:.„'ki.,t
2Y t°:rte a.')
'('dq° "
xY�q`B•;.sX
A
11.1
1.39
1.34
1.307
19,066
7,770
B
21.9
1.43
1.37
1.022
10,769
5,524
Total Site
16.5
2.82
2.71
2.333
Source: Tentative Map
Planning Commission
Lands oflFLP Partnership
February 24, 2005
Page 3 of 12
Lot Desum and Building
The proposed lot line extends generally from north to south, running in a northeasterly
direction, then jogging to the northwest, roughly following the angle of the eastern
property line. Parcel A is 1.39 acres with a slope of 11.1%; Parcel B is 1.43 acres with a
slope of 21.9%. The tentative map shows a 160 -foot diameter building circle on each lot,
indicating that each contains a viable building site. Both parcels are currently
undeveloped and consist of a relatively flat or gently sloping open area in the southern
portion, with a steep downslope at the north end.
Parcel A has oak, pine and redwood trees along the west property line and clustered on
the northfacing slope, with numerous fruit trees and chinese pistache scattered over the
southern portion of the lot. Parcel B has a cluster of pines new Altamont Road, scattered
apricot and walnut trees, and a cluster of oaks at the bottom of the north slope. Parcel B
also contains all but one of the eight damaged trees, which are located along the west
property line.
Sheet C-2 shows conceptual building sites. The conceptual building site on Parcel A is
pushed back on the property to the edge of the downslope and is not a typical site plan
configuration. Development plans are likely to show a residence somewhat closer to
Altamont Road, with a pool and yard behind the house.
Utilities
Water supply will be provided by Purissima Hills Water District. Both parcels are to be
connected to the sanitary sewer system that will be extended along Altamont Road.
PG&E will provide gas and electric services underground, and SBC Communications will
provide telephone service.
Access
Access to the project site currently is provided via a remnant driveway entrance off
Altamont Road. The existing driveway will be abandoned and two new driveways will
be extended from Altamont Road to the new residences. The Santa Clara County Fire
Department requires a 14 -foot -wide paved driveway for each dwelling with a maximum
slope of 15%. Additional study of the proposed driveways will be undertaken at the time
of site development plan review.
in accordance with Section 10-2.1202 of the Municipal Code, the Town Engineer is
recommending the dedication of a 30 -foot -wide half -street right-of-way on Altamont Road
as shown on the Tentative Map. (Condition of Approval #3)
Planning Commission
Lands of1FLP Partnership
February 24, 2005
Page 4 of 12
Geotechnical Review
Cotton, Shires and Associates have reviewed the proposed Tentative Map as well as the
soils report dated August 30, 2004 and the preliminary geologic assessment dated August
15, 2004. Cotton, Shires and Associates concurred with the project geotechnical
consultant that adequate site investigation has been completed to support the geotechnical
feasibility of the proposed subdivision. They recommend approval of the Tentative Map
with requirements for additional investigation related to future residential development of
Parcels A and B. (Condition #1)
Drainage
The Conceptual Development Plan shows a storm drain retention system to capture water
runoff from the proposed development on both parcels. The Town Engineer is requiring
a grading and drainage plan to be submitted for review prior to approval of the Final
Map. All required drainage improvements shall be constructed or bonded for prior to
recordation of the Final Map (Conditions # 5, 6 and 7).
Subdivision Committee
The Subdivision Committee comprised of Commissioner Collins, the Planning Director,
the Town Engineer, and Planning and Engineering staff convened on January 11, 2005 to
review and discuss the subdivision proposal. Pursuant to Section 9-1.509 of the Los
Altos Hills Municipal Code, neighbors within 500 feet of the property were notified of
the hearing. A summary of the discussion at the Subdivision Committee meeting is
provided on the fact sheet and hearing report (Attachments 7 and 8).
The issues discussed at the Subdivision Committee meeting are as follow:
1. The proposed subdivision and subsequent site development will require extension of
existing sewer lines down Altamont Road or along Briones Court and across to the
back of the property. It was suggested that the Town Engineer work with the
applicants to determine the most desirable approach.
2. A conservation easement should be required as a means of protecting steep slopes and
natural habitat such as chaparral and manzanita.
Staff notes the following in response to the preceding comments:
1. The Town Engineer met with the applicants and the project engineer to discuss
alternative approaches to providing sanitary sewer to the site. Upon further
investigation, the applicants have concluded the most feasible approach is down
Altamont Road as originally proposed.
Planning Commission
Lands of JFLP Parmership
February 24, 2005
Page 5 of 12
2. Staff worked with the applicants to determine which portion of the property should be
placed under conservation easement. The proposed conservation easement area is
shown on the Tentative Map. (Condition #4)
Environmental Design Committee
On October 20, 2004, the Environmental Design Committee observed that eight trees,
including three Heritage Oaks, had been severely damaged by saw cutting. There was no
evidence found or determination made as to who may have damaged the trees. Staff
worked with the applicant and the Environmental Design Committee to develop an
equitable means of mitigation consistent with previous actions involving unauthorized
tree removal. The applicant voluntarily offered to replace the trees (see Attachment 10)
and this offer is incorporated in Mitigation Measure 5, which requires replacement of the
three Heritage Oaks with three 84 -inch -box oaks prior to recordation of the Final Map;
the three smaller oaks shall be replaced when site development occurs on the new
parcels; and a landscape maintenance deposit of $30,000 shall be required to ensure
adequate establishment and maintenance of the replacement trees. These requirements
are acceptable to the applicants and the Environmental Design Committee.
Pathway Committee
The Pathway Committee recommends the construction of a Type II -B path within the
public right-of-way along Altamont Road. The path should span the entire frontage of
both lots and be separated from the road by a minimum of five feet. (Condition #11)
Open Space Committee
The Open Space Committee commented that the property serves as a wildlife passageway
(particularly for deer moving between Byrne and the areas above the parcel) and
recommended that wildlife passage be protected along the eastern boundary of Parcel B.
Condition #23 requires that when site development for Parcel B is proposed and
reviewed, wildlife passageways will be considered and protected if found to be
appropriate.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the Initial Study, staff has concluded that the proposed project, as mitigated,
will not have a significant effect on the environment. The Negative Declaration identifies
specific mitigation measures and establishes a Mitigation Monitoring Program to ensure
that any potential significant environmental impacts identified in the Initial Study me
mitigated.
Planning Commission
Lands of 1FLP Partnership
February 24, 2005
Page 6 of 12
Staff has also concluded that, as documented in the recommended findings of approval,
the proposed subdivision is in compliance with the General Plan and Subdivision
Ordinance, and would allow development to occur that meets the provisions of the
Zoning and Site Development Ordinances.
Therefore, the Planning Commission should recommend that the City Council adopt the
Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program and approve the Tentative
Map.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Recommended Conditions of Approval
2. Recommended Findings for Subdivision Approval
3. Initial Study, Negative Declaration & Mitigation Monitoring Program
4. Cotton, Shires and Associates report, November 3, 2004
5. Santa Clara County Fire Department comments, October 15, 2004
6. PG&E letter, January 18, 2005
7. Subdivision Committee hearing fact sheet, January 11, 2005
8. Subdivision Committee hearing report, January 11, 2005
9. Environmental Design Committee comments, October 20, 2004
10. Letter from Jerry Schoening, December 6, 2004.
11. Pathways Committee minutes, October 25, 2004
12. Open Space Committee comments, February 7, 2005
13. Tentative Map, January 8, 2004
Planning Commission
Lands ofJFLP Partnership
February 24, 2005
Page 7 of 12
ATTACHMENT
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS FOR THE TWO LOT
SUBDIVISION OF A 2.82 -ACRE PARCEL
LANDS OF JFLP PARTNERSHIP, 27361 ALTAMONT ROAD
FILE #200 -04 -IS -ND -TM -GD
This project is also subject to the Mitigation Measures included in the attached
Initial Study and Negative Declaration.
GEOTECHNI CAUEARTH W ORK
Supplemental Geotechnical and Engineering Geologic Investigations — Prior
to geotechnical approval of future residential development layouts for individual
lots, the applicant's Geotechnical Consultant shall investigate specific proposed
building areas (additional subsurface investigation shall be completed as
warranted) and update or supplement geotechnical design recommendations to
address the specific site development plans. Currently, only one exploratory
boring has been completed per lot. In addition, a Certified Engineering Geologist
shall prepare an original Engineering Geologic Map and Cross Section(s) for
Parcel A that depict the distribution of site earth materials (e.g., bedrock,
colluvium, fill, etc.) and their subsurface extent. Particular attention shall be
given to the distribution of existing fill on Parcel A. Also, the Project
Geotechnical Consultant shall address gemechnically favorable locations for
storm drain discharge facilities that minimize the potential for adverse slope
instability or erosional impacts.
The results of these investigations shall be summarized by the Project
Geotechnical Consultant and Project Engineering Geologist in a report(s) and
submitted to the Town, for review by the Town Engineer and Town Geotechnical
Consultant, prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check.
LAND AND EASEMENT DEDICATION
2. The applicant shall relocate or abandon existing public utility easements and grant
new public utility easements where needed to all utility companies for utility
construction and maintenance, including but not limited to: PG&E, SBC
Communications, Comcast cable television, and Purissima Hills Water District. The
dedications shall all be completed in conjunction with Final Map approval, to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer.
3. The applicant shall dedicate right-of-way on Altamont Road to the Town of Los
Altos Hills to create a 30 -foot -wide half -street right-of-way m measured from the
Planning Commission
Lands of JFLP Partnership
February 24, 2005
Page 8 of 12
existing centerline as shown on the Tentative Map. The dedication shall be
irrevocable and the road right-of-way shall be located to the satisfaction of the
Town Engineer.
4. The applicant shall grant a conservation easement to the Town of Los Altos Hills
as shown on the Tentative Map prior to approval of the Final Map.
IMPROVEMENTS
A grading and drainage plan which includes an erosion control plan shall be
submitted for review and approval by the Town Engineer m part of the
subdivision improvement plans. This plan shall conform to all standards adopted
by the Town of Los Altos Hills and shall comply with atl appropriate
requirements of the Town's NPDES Permit relative to grading and sediment
erosion control including but not limited to: a) restricting grading during the
moratorium from November 1 to April 1 except with prior written approval from
the Town Engineer; b) protecting all finished graded slopes from erosion using
such techniques as hillside benching, erosion control matting and/or
hydroseeding; c) protecting downstream storm drainage inlets from
sedimentation; d) appropriate use of silt fencing to retain sediment on the project
site; e) any other suitable measures outlined in the ABAG Manual of Standards.
The site drainage shall be designed as surface flow whenever possible to avoid
concentration of runoff. The proposed drainage shall be designed to maintain the
existing flow patterns. The applicant shall design and construct all subdivision
drainage improvements as deemed necessary by the Town Engineer. Storm
drainage design shall be for the 100 -year storm and shall include analysis of the
existing downstream drainage channels and pipes that will receive drainage from
the subdivision to determine if they have adequate capacity to safely
accommodate the additional flows. All required drainage improvements shall be
constructed or bonded for prior to recordation of the Final Map.
The proposed retention chambers shall be designed for storm water runoff based
on a 100 year storm with 1 -hour rainfall duration. The final drainage
improvement plans shall be submitted for review by the Town Engineer prior to
approval of Final Map.
8. Both lots within the subdivision shall be connected to the public water system to
the satisfaction of the Town Engineer and Purissima Hills Water District.
Services shall be installed to the property lines or bonded for prior to recordation
of the Final Map. An encroachment permit shall be required to be issued by the
Public Works Department for all work proposed within the public right-of-way.
Any necessary fees shall be paid prior to the recordation of the Final Map.
Planning Commission
Lands of JFLP Partnership
February 24, 2005
Page 9 of 12
All existing and proposed utilities located within the subdivision that serve the
subdivision shall be placed underground, in accordance with Subdivision
Ordinance, Sec. 9-1.1105. Cable television, gas, electric, and telephone services,
to the property lines are included in this requirement. Plans for the location of all
such utilities are to be included in the improvement plans for the subdivision.
Improvements shall be installed or bonded for prior to recordation of the Final
Map.
10. Both lots within the subdivision shall be connected to the public sanitary sewer
system. All sanitary sewer improvements shall be constructed to the satisfaction
of the City Engineer. An encroachment permit shall be required to be issued by
the Public Works Department for all work proposed within the public right-of-
way. The sanitary sewer system and laterals shall be installed to the property
lines or bonded for prior to the recordation of the Final Map.
11. A Type IIB pathway shall be constructed within the public right-of-way along the
Altamont Road frontage. The path shall be separated from the edge of pavement
by five feet, and meander around trees and power poles as necessary. Driveways
shall be roughened or treated with a non -slip surface where they cross the path,
and no irrigation may be placed closer than five feet to the path. Improvements
shall be bonded for or constructed to the satisfaction of the Town Engineer prior
to recordation of the Final Map.
12. A grading and construction operation plan shall be submitted by the subdivider
for review and approval by the Town Engineer and Planning Director prior to
issuance of any permits for subdivision improvements. The grading/construction
operation plan shall address truck traffic issues regarding dust, noise, and
vehicular and pedestrian safety on Altamont Road and other surrounding
roadways; storage of construction materials; placement of sanitary facilities;
puking for construction vehicles; and puking for construction personnel. A
debris box (trash dumpster) shall be placed on site for collection of construction
debris. Arrangements must be made with the Los Altos Garbage Company for the
debris box, since they have a franchise with the Town and no other hauler is
allowed within the Town limits.
13. Improvement plans for the subdivision shall be submitted for review and approval
by the Town Engineer prior to commencement of improvement work. These plans
shall conform to all standards adopted by the Town of Los Altos Hills.
14. All street improvements shall be constructed to the satisfaction of the Town
Engineer or bonded for prior to recordation of the Final Map.
15. All subdivision conditions of approval and subdivision improvements shall be
constructed and approved by the Town Engineer prior to issuance of any site
development or building permits.
Planning Commission
Lands of1FLP Partnership
February 24, 2005
Page 10 of 12
PLANNING AND ZONING
16. Payment of storm drainage fees, park and recreation dedication fees and all other
applicable fees shall be required prior to recordation of the Final Map. The park
and recreation dedication fees shall be provided in accordance with sections
9.1.1403 and 9.1.1404 of the Los Altos Hills Municipal Code.
17. The applicant shall inform the Town of any damage and shall repair any damage
caused by construction of the subdivision improvements to pathways, private
driveways and public and private roadways prior to final acceptance of the
subdivision by the Town. The applicant shall provide the Town with photographs
of the existing conditions of the roadways and pathways prior to recordation of
the Final Map.
18. Any, and all, wells on the property shall be shown on the improvement plans,
shall be properly registered with Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD),
and shall be either maintained or abandoned in accordance with the SCVWD
standards.
19. Prior to beginning any grading or construction operations, all significant trees
shall be fenced at the dripline; and shall be of material and structure to clearly
delineate that dripline. Town staff must inspect the fencing and trees to be fenced
prior to starting grading or construction. The fence must remain in place
throughout the course of construction. No storage of equipment, vehicles or debris
shall be allowed within the driplines.
20. Upon discovering or unearthing any possible burial site as evidenced by human
skeletal remains or artifacts, the person making such discovery shall immediately
notify the County of Santa Clara Coroner and no further disturbance of the site
may be made except as authorized by the County Coordinator of Indian Affairs.
This shall be accomplished to the satisfaction of the County Coroner's Office and
the Planning Director, as may be necessary during the construction of the
subdivision improvements or individual lot development.
21. The Altamont Road addresses for the two parcels shall be assigned and approved
by the Town as required by the Santa Clara County Fire Department and in
accordance with Town policies.
22. The new residences on Parcels A and B shown on the Tentative Map Conceptual
Development Plan are conceptual only, and no approval of any residence is
indicated by approval of the Tentative Map. Site development applications for
the new residences shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and
approval.
Planning Commission
Lands of JFLP Partnership
February 24, 2005
Page I I of 12
23. When a site development application for a new residence and/or fencing on Parcel
B is submitted and reviewed, wildlife passageways will be considered and
protected if found to be appropriate.
FIRE DISTRICT REQUIREMENTS
24. Fire protection improvements, including installation of any required hydrants,
shall be constructed as requested by Santa Clara County Fire Department.
Improvements shall be constructed and ready for use prior to the recordation of
the Final Map, or shall be bonded for. Driveway access to each parcel shall be
installed prior to commencement of any construction on that lot.
25. Plans for new residences shall be reviewed and approved by the Santa Clara
County Fire Department at the time of site development permit application.
Conditions that may be applied at that time include, but are not limited to,
providing an acceptable water supply based on the size of the new residences,
providing an emergency vehicle turnaround, placement of property address signs
that are clearly visible from Altamont Road, and providing an approved access
system if the lots are fenced and gated.
Planning Commission
Lands of1FLP Partnership
February 24, 2005
Page 12 of 12
ATTACHMENT
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL OF THE
SUBDIVISION OF 2.82 ACRES INTO TWO LOTS
LANDS OF JFLP PARTNERSHIP, 27361 ALTAMONT ROAD
FILE #200 -04 -IS -ND -TM -GD
1. The subdivision as proposed would create two lots: Parcel A would be 1.39 acres
in size, with a Lot Unit Factor of 1.307; Parcel B would be 1.43 acres in size, with
a Lot Unit Factor of 1.022. Each parcel would provide a viable building site. In
this and all other respects, the lots conform to the Los Altos Hills Subdivision
Ordinance.
2. The proposed subdivision would create two lots that would meet the General Plan
guidelines for land with an average slope between 10 and 30 percent, and in all
other respects will be consistent with the General Plan.
3. Access to the proposed lots will be provided from Altamont Road, a public road.
Adequate services including water, gas and electric, telephone, fire protection and
police protection are available to serve the subdivision as described in the staff
report and the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project. Future
development on the two parcels will require extension of the sewer system and
connection of each parcel.
4. All lots as proposed on the Tentative Map are physically suitable for the proposed
future development. The Town Geotechnical Consultant has indicated that stated
concerns can be addressed by adherence to the Project Geotechnical Report and
conditions of approval for the project. It has been determined that each of the
proposed lots contains a suitable building site, and that the proposed density is
consistent with the General Plan.
5. All potentially significant environmental effects can be reduced to a level of
insignificance as mitigated in the attached Mitigated Negative Declaration. The
design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements are not likely to cause
substantial environmental damage or to substantially and unavoidably injure fish
or wildlife or their habitat.
6. The Town Engineer has reviewed the project and has determined that the design
of the subdivision and the improvements will not conflict with easements,
acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of the property within
the proposed subdivision.
ATTACHMENT
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 that focuses on the areas of
concern identified by this initial study.
1. Project Title: Lands ofJFL.P. Partnership Subdivision (2 Lot)
(200 -04 -TM -ND -GD)
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: Leslie Hopper, Project Planner
4. Project Location: 27361 Altamont Road (APN 182-26-002)
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: JFL.P. Partnership
do Brad Blackman
300 S. San Antonio
Los Altos, CA 94022
6. General Plan Designation: Residential (Very Low to Low Density)
7. Zoning: R -A (residential - agricultural)
8. Description of Project: Proposed two lot subdivision of 2.82 acres gross including:
Parcel A-1.39 acres and Parcel B-1.43 acres. The existing
parcel is undeveloped except for the remnants of an asphalt
driveway. The existing driveway approach is off of
Altamont Road at the center of the property. Access to both
parcels will be from Altamont Road. Both lots will have
sanitary sewer line service and water service will be
provided by Purissima Hills Water District. All existing
and new power and utility lines will be placed
'underground.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The project is located on the north side of Altamont Road.
The subject parcel is bounded by Altamont Road to the
south, and residential lots with single-family dwellings to
the west, north, and east. The proposed new subdivision
site consists of open land with trees on the north slope and
west property line, as well as scattered on the property.
There is a cluster of damaged trees in the middle of the
parcel. Pie site has an average slope of 16.5%. The
surrounding land use is single family residential with a
minimum lot size of I acre.
10. Other public agencies whose approval is required: Santa Clara County Fire Department
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
0
Biological Resources
Cultural Resources
0
Geology /Soils
❑
Hazards & Hazardous
Hydrology / Water Quality
❑
Land Use / Planning
Materials
❑
Mineral Resources
Noise
❑
Population / Housing
❑
Public Services
❑
Recreation
❑
Transpottation/Tmffrc
❑
Utilities / Service Systems
❑
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.
DETERMINATION
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.
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
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
in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that
earlier FIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that we imposed upon the proposed project.
Civnnmre� _ Date:
Carl Cahill, Planning Director
3
Potentially
Less Than Less Than No Impact
Significant
Significant Significant
Impact
with Impact
❑
Mitigation
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees,
incorywatian
I. AESTHETICS -- Would the project
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
Ll El
❑
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees,
❑ El
❑
rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site
El ❑
❑
and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely
❑ ❑
E
affect day or nighttime views in the area?
H. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant
environmental effects, lead agencies may refer m 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 Famtland, or Famrland of Statewide
El ❑
❑
171
Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant in the
Famtland 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
Ll ❑
❑
contract?
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their
❑ El
L
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 in an existing
Li ❑
❑
or 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
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
❑ ❑
❑
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?
❑ ❑
0
IV. BIOLOGICAL. RESOURCES -- Would the project
4
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, ❑ ❑ ❑ RI
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
Potentially Less Than Less Than No Impact
❑
Significant Significant Significant
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
Inmmomtion
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat
❑ ❑ ❑ 0
modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special
❑
status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
archaeological resource pursuant to 15064.5?
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
❑ ❑ ❑ FYI
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?
unique geologic feature?
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?
13
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
❑ Q ❑ ❑
resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, ❑ ❑ ❑ RI
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 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
❑
n(
Z
13
❑
cemeteries?
Vt. 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 El LI LI
of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ❑ ❑ ❑
iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? z
5
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 1 S -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?
VH. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERLILS — 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
has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use
airport, would the project result in a safety bazard for people residing or
working in the project area?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project
result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving wildland foes, 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?
I
❑
Potentially
Significant
Impact
less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Inuspormon
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
iv) Landslides?
❑
❑
❑
❑
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
❑
❑
❑
I /f
LJ
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?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 1 S -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?
VH. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERLILS — 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
has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use
airport, would the project result in a safety bazard for people residing or
working in the project area?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project
result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving wildland foes, 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?
I
❑
❑
❑
0
❑
❑
❑
0
❑
❑
❑
0
❑
❑
❑
Q
❑
❑
❑
Q
❑
❑
❑
Q
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
✓0
❑
❑
❑
0
❑
❑
❑
Q
❑ ❑ ❑ Q
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than No Impact
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
with
Impact
Mitigation
❑ ❑ ❑
including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a
Intotpoaricn
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,
❑ ❑ ❑
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with ❑
❑
❑ 0
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,
❑ ❑ ❑
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,
❑ ❑ ❑
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 of polluted runoff!
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
❑ ❑ ❑ 0
g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal
❑ ❑ ❑ 0
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
❑ ❑ ❑ 1171
or redirect flood flows?
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death
❑ ❑ ❑
involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or
dam?
j) foundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
❑ ❑ ❑
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
❑ ❑ ❑ Z
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
❑ ❑ ❑ 0
community conservation plan?
X. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would
❑ ❑ ❑
be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
7
XII. POPULATION AND ROUSING -- Would the project
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No Impact
example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for
Significant
Significant
Significant
0
example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
Impact
with
Impact
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the
LJ
Mitigation
E
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
Incomu'ation
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of
El
U
L
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral resource
El
U
❑
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
El
❑
13
0
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
El
0
El
z
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
❑
Q
❑
project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan
El
❑
❑
z
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
Ll
11
❑
Q
expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise
levels?
XII. POPULATION AND ROUSING -- Would the project
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for
❑
❑
❑
L3
example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for
❑
❑
❑
0
example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the
LJ
0
E
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of
El
U
L
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 govemmental
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?
U
❑
0
L3
Police protection?
❑
❑
❑
0
8
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No Impact
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
with
Impact
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction
Mitigation
❑
❑
or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical
Incapmatiou
Schools? ❑
❑
Q
❑
Parks? ❑
❑
0
❑
Other public facilities? ❑
❑
❑
0
XIV. RECREATION
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional
❑
❑
❑ 0
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?
XV. TRANSPORTATIONITRAFFIC -- 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 patterns, including either an increase in
❑
❑
❑ 0
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?
❑
❑
❑ 0
❑
❑
❑ 0
f) Result in inadequate puking capacity?
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative
❑
❑
❑
transportation (e.g., bus tumouts, bicycle racks)?
XVI. UTEUTEES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS - Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional
❑
❑
❑ 0
Water Quality Control Bound?
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
-
9
Potentially
Less Than Less Than No Impact
Significant
Significant significant
Impact
with Impact
Mitigation
cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,
Incorporation
significant environmental effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing
❑
U
L
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,
entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?
cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which
L)
U
Q
serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the
restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate
project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but
commitments?
U
L
cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the
it Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate
❑
❑
the project's solid waste disposal needs?
with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to
U
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial
solid waste?
U ❑
adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
0A]A0 nJ 91,4119.4 W YIel114UbT044,`1 Ufa 13 f1c1B01
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the
❑
U
❑
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 anima] 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
El
U
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
U ❑
adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Sources: Los Altos Hills General Plan
Los Altos Hills Municipal Code
I. AESTHETICS
c.) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings?
Aesthetic impacts are expected to be minimal when new residences are built on the new
parcels. Removal of eight damaged trees and replacement of three Heritage Oaks as required
by mitigation measure #5 will improve the visual quality of the site. At the time of any
proposed development, a site development hearing will be required in order to evaluate
aesthetic impacts such as grading, fencing, tree preservation, landscaping and general design.
Fencing of all significant trees to remain will be required under measure #6 to protect trees
during grading and construction.
to
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
(Explanation of responses)
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
Eight trees (including six oaks) on the property have been partially removed and irreparably
damaged. The removal of trees in anticipation of development is a violation of Municipal
Code Sec. 12-2.501. Three of the trees qualify as Heritage Oaks and are protected by
Municipal Code Sec. 12-2.302, which requires a permit to remove or destroy a Heritage Oak.
The potentially significant impact will be mitigated by measure #5, which requires
replacement of the three Heritage Oaks with three 84" box oaks in locations to be agreed
upon by the Planning Director prior to recordation of the final map. In addition, the three
smaller oaks will be replaced when site development occurs on the two new parcels.
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES
b.) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to 15064.5?
d.) Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal
cemeteries?
No archaeological resources should be affected by the project. However, if any artifacts or
human remains are discovered during any future grading or construction onsite, work in the
vicinity of the find shall stop immediately until a qualified archaeologist can evaluate the site
and determine the significance of the find per mitigation measure #7.
VI. GEOLOGICAL PROBLEMS
a.ii.)Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects,
including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking?
Berrocal Fault is located approximately 600 feet from the southern boundary of the site.
While the potential for ground surface rupture from the fault is low, Berrocal Fault is
considered potentially active and estimates of upper bound Richter magnitudes for the fault
range from 6.5 to 7.4. Therefore, it may be assumed that development on both lots will be
subjected to seismic induced hazards at some time during their lifetime. To mitigate this
potential impact, a supplemental geotechnical investigation report is required by measure #1
for review and approval by the Town's getoechnical consultant at the time of site
development for the new residences with emphasis on foundation and other structural
designs.
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
c.) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
(Explanation of responses)
result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off-site?
d.) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,
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.) Would the project 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?
No grading or construction is proposed at this time. The Town Engineer will require a drainage
improvement plan to be submitted with any proposal for future site development (mitigation
measure #2). The drainage improvements must be designed to mitigate drainage impacts
based on 100 -year storm flow calculations. While surface runoff may increase due to the
proposed site development, the proposed drainage improvements will mitigate storm water
runoff offsite to a less than significant impact. Erosion control will be required during
construction and as permanent landscaping improvements (mitigation measure #3).
XI. NOISE
d.) Would the project result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
At such time that future development is proposed and approved, the grading and construction
phases would produce short-term increases in noise that will periodically exceed 60dB(A) but
will be held to less than significant by adherence to Town standards for hours of construction.
Once development is complete, a minimal increase in the existing noise level that is typical
of residential uses will occur. No significant noise impacts are anticipated.
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES
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?
When future site development of the two new parcels occurs, the following impacts can be
anticipated:
Fire Protection- Additional services will be required for two new units within the service area
of the Santa Clara County Fire District; a less than significant impact.
Schools -The proposed new dwelling units will probably generate between 2-4 school age
children based on average family size in Los Altos Hills; a less than significant impact.
12
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
(Explanation of responses)
Parks -The proposal will result in a population increase of 6-8 people that would not place
significant demands on the park system.
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC
a.) Would the project 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)?
When future site development of the two new parcels occurs, the two new dwellings will
generate an additional 20-24 vehicle trips per day. The increase in traffic is not anticipated to
create traffic congestion on existing local roadways. The Tentative Map shows a 30 -foot
half -street right-of-way over Altamont Road to meet Town standards.
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on
hmnan beings, either directly or indirectly?
Although the project may have potentially significant impacts on the environment, the
mitigation measures included in this document will ensure that no significant impacts will
occur.
13
MITIGATION MEASURES INCLUDED IN THE PROJECT TO AVOID
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS:
1. Supplemental geotechnical investigation reports shall be submitted for review and approval
by the Town's getoechnical consultant at the time of site development review for the new
residences with emphasis on foundation and other structural designs. The Town Geologist
shall also review and approve the subdivision improvement plans prior to issuance of any
building permits for construction of the improvements.
2. At such time as development on the new parcels is proposed, the applicant shall submit a
detailed drainage improvement plan for review and approval by the Engineering Department.
The drainage improvements must be designed to mitigate drainage impacts based on 100 -
year storm flow calculations. Peak discharge shall not exceed the existing pre -development
peak discharge value of the property. Detention storage must be incorporated into the project
to reduce the predicted peak discharge to the pre -development value.
3. At such time as development on the new parcels is proposed, the applicant shall submit an
erosion and sediment control plan for review and approval by the Engineering Department.
The contractor and the property owner shall comply with all appropriate requirements of the
Town's NPDES permit relative to grading and erosion/sediment control. The first 100 feet of
the driveway shall be rocked during construction and all cut and fill slopes shall be protected
from erosion. All areas on the site that have the native soil disturbed shall be protected for
erosion control during the rainy season and shall be replanted prior to final inspection.
4. At such time as development on the new parcels is proposed, public fire hydrant location and
adequacy shall be determined by the Santa Clara County Fire Department and Purissima
Hills Water District. Hydrant spacing shall not exceed 500 feet, with a minimum single flow
of 1,000 GPM at 20 psi, residual. Alternatively, a sprinklered building may be proposed
subject to Fire Department approval.
5. Prior to recordation of the final map, the property owner shall remove eight existing damaged
trees (including six oaks). To replace the three Heritage Oaks, the owner shall install and
maintain three 84" box Coast Live Oaks on the property in a location to be approved by the
Planning Director. The owner shall replace the three smaller oaks when site development
occurs on the new parcels. Prior to the submittal of any site development permit application
for a new residence or any other site improvements, the owner shall post a landscape
maintenance deposit (or certificate of deposit) in the amount of $30,000. Two years after
installation of the three 84" box oaks, staff shall inspect the property to ensure adequate
establishment and maintenance of the trees. The deposit will be released at that time if the
trees remain viable.
6. Significant trees, as identified by the Planning Department, shall be fenced at the dripline
throughout all phases of grading and construction of subdivision improvements and
individual residences and related improvements.
7. If any archaeological artifacts or human remains are discovered during grading or
construction, work in the vicinity of the find shall stop immediately until a qualified
archaeologist can evaluate the site and determine the significance of the find. Project
personnel shall not collect or alter cultural resources. Identified cultural resources shall be
recorded on form DPR 422 (Archaeological Site) and/or form DPR 523 (Historic Resources).
If human remains are found, the County Coroner shall be contacted immediately.
14
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
Responsible Must Be
Mitigation Measure Department Completed By Done
1. Geotechnical Reports
Engineering
Site Development Review
(Supplemental)
Town Geologist
2. Drainage Improvement Plan
Engineering
Site Development Review
3. Erosion & Sediment
Engineering
Site Development Review
Control Plan
4. Fire Hazard
Fire Department
Site Development Review
Reduction Facilities
5. Replacement of
Planning
Recordation of Final Map
Damaged Oaks
6. Protective Tree Fencing
Planning
Prior to Grading for
Future Development
7. Archaeological Findings
Planning
Ongoing
15
`COTTON, SHIRES &ASSOCIATES, INC.
ATTACHMENT Y
rnwrcr n Trvr. Enif:iNFERS AND GEOLOGISTS
November 3, LVU4
L0214
RECEIVEp
NOV 04 2004
TO: Debbie Pedro TOWHOFLOSALTOSHILIS
Assistant Planner
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS
26379 Fremont Road
Los Altos Hills, California 94022
SUBJECT: Geotechnical Review
RE: JFLP Partnership, Two Lot Subdivision
27361 Altamont Road
File # 200 -04 -GD -LS -ND -TM
At your request, we have completed a, geotechnical review of the Tentative Parcel
Map and additional submitted documents for the proposed Two Lot Subdivision on the
above mentioned property using:
• Soil and Foundation Investigation (report), prepared by American Soil
Testing, Inc., dated August 30, 2004;
• Preliminary Geologic Assessment (letter), prepared by Hydro -Geo
Consultants, Inc., dated August 15,2004; and
• Tentative Parcel Map (1 sheet, 30 -scale), prepared by Lea and Sung
Engineering, Inc., dated September 24, 2004.
In addition, we have reviewed pertinent technical documents from our office
files and completed a recent site inspection.
DISCUSSION
Based on our review of the referenced documents, it is our understanding that
the applicant proposes to subdivide the subject property into two separate lots for future
single-family residence development. The subject property is currently vacant;
however, we note from our site inspection that a previous residence on the property has
been demolished. The existing driveway will be abandoned and two new driveways
will be extended from Altamont Road to each residence.
SITE CONDITIONS
The subject property is generally characterized as a gentle (less than 18 percent
inclinations) south slopin>; broad rid¢etop area adjacent to Altamont Road with a steep
NoNhern California Office Southern Californiaoffice
5245 Avenida Encinas • Suite A
330 Village Lane
Los Gatos, CA 95030-7218 Carlsbad, 92008-4374
(7
(408) 354-5542 • Fax (408) 354-1852 (760) 931-2700 •Fax: (760) 937-1020
e-mail loseatos®cottonshires.com www.cottonsbires.com a -mail: carlsbad®cottomhires.com
Debbie Pedro November 3, 2004
Paget L0214
to very steep (up to approximately 70 percent inclinations) north -facing slope in the
northern portion of the property. The north -facing slope contains several cut/fill
terraces as a result of previous grading activity. A steep (45 percent inclinations)
northeast -facing cut slope exists near the western property line. It appears that pre-
existing site structures were located on a large fill prism in the central portion of the
property. Evidence of shallow creeping and sloughing soil was identified on parts of the
north face of the upper fill slope. The Town Geologic Map indicates that greenstone
bedrock of the Franciscan Complex underlies the property at depth. During our site
reconnaissance, we noted a change in soil color across the site, which could indicate a
change in bedrock conditions. Drainage is characterized by sheet flow north into the
adjacent valley, which forms the headwaters of Matadero Creek.
The Town Geotechnical Hazards Map indicates that the southern edge of the
property lies within a potential ground deformation/fault rupture zone. The Berrocal
fault has been mapped within 600 feet of the southern property line, the Monta Vista
fault is located approximately 0.5 miles north, and the San Andreas fault is
approximately 2 miles southwest of the site.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDED ACTION
Based on our review, proposed site development is potentially constrained by
areas of creeping soils, moderately expansive soil and fill materials, fill of unknown
engineering properties, and potentially strong seismic ground shaking. We concur with
the Project Geotechnical Consultant that adequate site investigation has been completed
to support the geotechnical feasibility of the proposed subdivision. However, we
recommend that prior to approval of individual lot development plans, or issuance of
building permits, that supplemental geotechnical evaluations be completed. Therefore,
we recommend geotechnical approval of the Tentative Map with the following
conditions:
Supplemental Geotechnical and Engineering Geol2gic
Investigations -Prior to geotechnical approval of future
residential development layouts for individual lots, we
recommend that a Geotechnical Consultant investigate specific
proposed building areas (additional subsurface investigation
should be completed as warranted) and update or supplement
geotechnical design recommendations to address the specific site
development plans. Currently, only one exploratory boring has
been completed per lot. In addition, a Certified Engineering
Geologist should prepare an original Engineering Geologic Map
and Cross-Section(s) for Lot A that depicts the distribution of site
earth materials (e.g., bedrock, colluvium, fill, etc.) and their
subsurface extent. Particular attention should be given to the
distribution of existing fill on Lot A. Also, the Project
Geotechnical Consultant should address geotechnically favorable
locations for storm drain discharge facilities that minimize the
potential for adverse slope instability or erosional impacts.
The results of these investigations should be summarized by the
Project Geotechnical Consultant and Project Engineering
Geologist in a report(s) and submitted to the Town, for review by
the Town Engineer and Town Geotechnical Consultant, prior to
geotechnical approval of lot -specific residential development
plans.
COTTON, SHIRES & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Debbie Pedro
Page 3
November 3, 2004
L0214
LIMITATIONS
This review has been performed to provide technical advice to assist the Town in
its discretionary permit decisions. Our services have been limited to review of the
documents previously identified, and a visual review of the property. Our opinions and
conclusions are made in accordance with generally accepted principles and practices of
the geotechnical profession. This warranty is in lieu of all other warranties, either
expressed or implied.
POS:TS:RR:st
Respectfully submitted,
COTTON, SHIRES AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
TOWN GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT
Ted Sayre
Supervising Engineering Geologist
CEG 1795
David T. Schrier
Supervising Geotechnical Engineer
GE 2334
COTTON, SHIRES & ASSOCIATES, INC.
.OEBEC.
m`F�oQoo FIRE DEPARTMENT
'IaA SANTA CLARA COUNTY
14700 Winchester Blvd., Los Gatos, CA 95032-1818
(408) 378-4010 • (408) 378-9342 (fax) • uuw.sccfd.org
PI.MR IEWNUMBER 04 2677
RLGGP""`"m"RATTACHMENT 5
CNOROLNUNBER
ME NUMBER 200.04 -GD -IS -ND -T
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMENTS
BNEer I NO.I REOUWEMEM
of site plan for a 2lot subdivison
this is not an approval of the proposed building footprints on the site
Review of this Developmental proposal is limited to acceptability of site access and
water supply as they pertain to fire department operations, and shall not be
construed as a substitute for formal plan review to determine compliance with
adopted model codes. Prior to performing any work the applicant shall make
application to, and receive from, the Building Department all applicable
construction permits.
fire department conditions or requirements.
CXr PIANS SPECS NEW "MOL —
OCCWANCY
CONST. TYPE
wlunWeneOPTS
PAGE
AH ❑ 11 11❑ 11
LEA & SLING ENGINEERING
10/15/2004
1 OF 1
LJFLOOfl
MFA
LGRO
BESCNPIpN
BY
Residential Development
Rucker, Ryan
ME OF PROJECT
LOCAnOX
LANDS OF JFLP PARTNERSHIP
27%1 Altamont Rd
Organized as the Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District
Seruing Sontu Clam County and the LOmmunitke of Camphell, Cupertino, Los Altos,
Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Monte sereno, Morgan Hill, and Saratoga
Pacific Gas and
Electric Company`
January 18, 2005
Town of Los Altos Hills
26379 Fremont Road
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
Attn: Leslie Hopper
Fax: 650-941-3160
RE: Tentative Map Review
Lands of LFLP Partnership, dated: 10-14-2004
Loc:27361 Altamont Rd., Los Altos Hills
Two Lots subdivision
Town's File: 200 -04 -GD -IS -ND -TM
PG&E file: 40434464-y04-mr-223
Dear Sir/ Madam:
ATTACHMENT (P
Land Services Office 111 Almaden Boulevard, Ran. 814
Corperale Beal Estate San Jose, CA 951150005
Mailing Addrerr
Pacific Gas and Electric Company
P. O. Bax 15005
Sen Jose, CA 951150005
We have completed the review of above said Map. PG&E has no objection to the map.
PG&E owns and operates a variety of gas and electric facilities which may be located
within the proposed project boundaries. Project proponents should coordinate with PG&E
early in the development of their project plans to promote the safe and reliable
maintenance and operation of existing utility facilities. Any proposed development plans
should provide for unrestricted utility access and prevent interference with PG&E
easements.
Activities which may impact our facilities include, but we not limited to,
permarent/temporary changes in grade over or under our facilities, construction of
structures within or adjacent to PG&E's easements, and planting of certain types of
vegetation over, under, or adjacent to our facilities.
The installation of new gas and electric facilities and/or the relocation of existing PG&E
facilities will be performed in accordance with common law or Rules and Tariffs as
authorized by the California Public Utilities Commission.
Please contact me at (408)282-7401 if you have any questions regarding our continents.
Sincerely,
Alfred Poon
Land Agent
South Coast Area- San Jose
Town of Los Altos Hills January 11, 2005
Project Description:
File Number:
Site Address:
Owner(s):
Staff Planner:
Gross Lot Area
Net Lot Area:
Average Slope:
Lot Unit Factor:
200 -04 -GD -IS -ND -TM
27361 Altamont Road
J.F.L.P. Partnership
Leslie Hopper, Project Planner
2.82 acres
2.71 acres
16.5%
2.33
ATTACHMENT
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TABLE
A 11.1 1.39 1.34 1.307 19,066 7,770
B 21,9 1.43 1.37 1.022 10,769 5,524
Total Site 16.5 2.82 2.71 2.33
Sewer/Septic: Sewer System
Environmental Design Committee Comments: Damaged trees should be replaced.
Pathway Committee Comments: Construct II -B path along the road, separated from
the roadway by a minimum of 5 feet.
Fire Department Comments: None
Geotech Comments: Recommend approval with conditions.
Utility Company Comments: None
ATTACHMENT 8
Town Of Los Altos Hills January 11, 2005
Subdivision Committee Hearing Report
Project Description: Two -Lot Subdivision
File Number: 200 -04 -GD -IS -ND -TM
Site Address: 27361 Altamont Road
Owner(s): J.F.L.P. Partnership
Staff Planner: Leslie Hopper, Project Planner
Planning Commission Comments:
After. the group discussed the feasibility of extending sewer lines down Altamont Road
versus running them along Briones Court and across to the back of the property,
Commissioner Collins suggested that the City Engineer work with the applicants to
determine the best approach to sewer installation. In addition, she suggested that a
conservation easement be required as a means of protecting natural habitat such as
chaparrel and manzanita.
Planning Comments:
The applicants will work with their arborist and Planning Staff to map a proposed
conservation easement area. Since the applicants will not be able to attend the Planning
Commission meeting on February 24, they will meet individually with Planning
Commission members to introduce themselves and the project before leaving on their
trip.
Neighbor Comments:
None.
Carl Cahill,
S.t.r - Avg:' .
ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN V COMMITTEET�ACHMENT q
11 SUBDIVISION EVALUATION
Applicant's Name: f"' L -P P*R-IN EPS �H P [ p 2Ar,,
Address: 1-7 -9
U� P -
Reviewed by: r-06141, � Date: t o • D-6. !M#.
Existing Trees: (Comment on size, type, condition, location with respect to building
site.)
+0 UIeKJ
N� oJil�,/ -f•✓cam -f-o �- �enMot�.
Proposed Grading: (Impact on water table, nearby vegetation. Erosion potential. All
grading at least 10' from property line?)
Creeks an&,drainage: (Should a conservation easement be recommended? Will
construction impact wildlife migration (bridges, fences)?
Other Comments: 96 AAS ' CAR VALts+ bL ✓e 010-d(QDt 9 Iv
,
irh� LAI
cu,� p`✓ ,
ATTACHMENT /0
December 6, 2004
Carl Cahill, Director of Planning
City of Los Altos Hills
26379 Fremont Road
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
Re: Two Lot Subdivision
27361 Altamont Road
File 4200 -04 -GD -IS -ND -TM
Dear Mr. Cahill:
The purpose of this letter is to propose a solution to the destruction of trees so that we
may proceed with the timely subdivision of the subject property.
It has been adequately explained in prior letters and meetings that we had nothing to do
with the damage to the trees on this property. I have spent the last 18 years of my
professional employment as the General Manager responsible for Environmental Affairs
at Applied Materials Corporation, with operations in 18 countries. My record on
environmental issues is well known in the industry and I would never even think of such
a gross and unnecessary destruction of trees. We are appalled that someone should
willfully damage trees in such a way on a property, which we love and plan to use for the
building of our dream home. Our builder, Brad Blackman of Custom Dreams, is equally
well respected locally as a "green builder" and was not involved in this unfortunate act of
vandalism.
However, since we genuinely desire to be residents of Los Altos Hills, and wish to build
our dream home on this property, we are willing to contribute to a solution, which we
hope will work for all parties.
It is our intention to have new trees on this property, and we plan to include several
mature trees as part of our landscaping and screening plan as we proceed with the design
of our new home in the near future. Consistent with the neighborhood it makes sense to
include mature oaks as part of that plan, which we will do.
Here is what we would like to propose:
• Concurrent with the approval and recording of the final subdivision map, we will
remove the existing damaged trees and plant three (3) mature 84" box oaks in a
location that will be determined jointly with you. We will make sure that the new
trees are professionally installed, irrigated, and maintained to ensure their best
opportunity to survive transplantation-
• As we process the submission for our new home to the Planning department, we
will work together with the Planning Director to determine the number, location
and size of additional new screening trees as part of our site development
approvals.
We believe that everyone will benefit from the proposed subdivision of this property, and
would sincerely appreciate your support in resolving this unfortunate and distasteful
situation in the most expeditious fashion possible.
The subdivision will eliminate a vacant lot owned by a distant absentee owner whose
property has been a regular gathering site for unwanted teenage activities. We plan to
significantly improve the appearance of this vacant property with new homes and
landscaping, as well as work with our surrounding neighbors to install a connection to the
sewer system close by so that we may abandon the existing aging septic system.
We would greatly appreciate your support of our efforts in helping us to achieve our
goals.
erry Schoening Shahla Sheikholeslam
JAN.
�ESt-lE FWPR82
LOS ALTOS HILLS PATHWAY COMMITTEE ATTACHMENT
Minutes, October 25, 2004, 6:00 P.M.
1. The meeting was called to order at 6:16 by Chairperson Chris Vargas.
Members present: Nick Dunkel (ND), Nancy Ewald (NE), Nancy Gin2t0n (NG), Mike
Kamangar (MK), Ginger Summit (GS), Chris Vargas (CV), Jolon Wagner (JW)
Absent Dick Cassam, Dubose Montgomery, Bob Stutz
Pathway AdHoe Committee: Card Gottlieb
C. The agenda was approved, with changes in presentation to accommodate members of the
audience.
2. Approval of minutes.
The minutes of the meetings of August 23, September 20 and October 11 were approved. The
minutes of public hearings held August 30, 31 and Sept 1 were approved unanimously.
3. Next meetings.
Next Master Path Plan walk: Nov. 13, 8:30 a.m.
Master Path Plan meeting: Nov. 15, 6'00 p.m.
Next regular pathway inspection walk: November 20, 8:30 a.m.
Next regular meeting: November 22, 6:00
4. New Business
A. Recommendations on properties
-27361 Altamont Road (JFLP Partnership, 2101 subdivision)Commlttee recommends the owner
construct a 6' wide IIB path separated from the road by a minimum of 5 feet.
- 24910 La Loma Court: This property is on a cul-de-sac which does not require pathway along
La Loma Court However, property does have an existing pathway along the bottom edge of the
property which connects with Laura Court. This pathway is tentatively recommended for removal
from the new Master Pathway Plan, and he pathway construction is required. 'Committee wants
to know if the town can require an in -lieu fee in this situation.
S. Administrative Support
Committee agrees that the task of taking and transcribing minutes is very difficult and time
consuming. CV asked town staff if a support person could be hired for this task
Recommendation: It would be very expensive for an outside professional secretary to assume
this task, especially since ache would not be familiar with the town or policies. Because Patty
Ciesla is familiar both with the town and the committee functioning, she would be an ideal
candidate. CV will inquire if she can be contacted for this job.
6. Unfinished business
HE brought up the question of property at corner of Mandoli Court and Arastradero. She
contacted the owner who had planted landscaping in the pathway and road right-of-way
easement. Owner indicated willingness to change landscaping and put in pathway, if town would
return the in -lieu fee.
ATTACHMENT I a -
Leslie Hopper
From:
Lan! Smith [Ismith@losaltoshills.ca.gov]
Sent:
Monday, February 07, 2005 8:41 AM
To:
couperusj
Cc:
Leslie Hopper
Subject:
RE: Open Space Response - 27361 Altamont Road
Thank you Nancy.
----Original Message -----
From: couperusj [mailto:
Sent: Monday, February 07, 2005 8:36 AM
To: lsmith@losaltoshills.ca.gov
Subject: Open Space Response - 27361 Altamont Road
Carl
At our Open Space Committee meeting yesterday (Friday December 10), we
looked at the tentative map proposal for 27361 Altamont Road, which I
gather is relatively uncontroversial. However, we did have one comment
related to Open Space concerns, which was that the parcel does serve as
a wildlife passageway (particularly for deer moving between Byrne and
the areas above the parcel), and it could be a problem if the owner(s)
ultimately fenced it all off. If that happened, deer would be forced to
proceed farther down Altamont Road, towards the curve, which could be
dangerous for cars 6 wildlife.
Thus, we'd like to see some sort of protection for wildlife passage
along the easternmost boundary, which would affect only one edge of one
of the two new parcels (where currently there is a chain link fence put
up by the adjacent neighbor).
By the way, we wondered if you wanted to apply any open space easements
to the steepest sloped areas on the uphill side of the property
(obviously there appears to be no indication of building plans there, so
it would be no burden for the developers). Not a big deal, we just
wondered.
Cheers,
Roger