HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.1Item 3.1
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS
Staff Report to the Planning Commission
June 3, 2010
SUBJECT: . NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND TENTATIVE MAP FOR A TWO -LOT
SUBDIVISION; LANDS OF INCERPI FAMILY SURVIVORS TRUST; 24500
VOORHEES DRIVE; FILE #228 -09 -IS -ND -TM.
FROM: Nicole Horvitz, Assistant Planner' e
APPROVED BY: Debbie Pedro, AICP, Planning Director<:,�
RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission:
1. Review, comment, 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. 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.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant is requesting approval of a two -lot subdivision of a 2.951 net acre parcel located at
the end of Voorhees Drive. The property is surrounded by residential properties developed with a
mix of one and two story dwellings. The site has an average slope of 22.5%. There is currently a
single family residence, swimming pool, and detached three (3) car garage on the site.
Development Table
Lot Design and Building Sites
Parcel 1 is 1.642 net acres with a slope of 25.9%. Parcel 2 is 1.210 net acres with a slope of
17.7%. The tentative map shows a 160 -foot diameter building circle on each lot, showing that
each contains a viable building site.
�.��
.;°'caA. L. �Y
� ,�
fil. ,. b�-4m.»i`mai+ .d•.'P"'t+vr,
Existing
a.':F.vakr'Y.^+...tYysL nCz`�`...
Site
22.5
2.951
2.951
2.161
22,285
11,615
1
25.9
1.741
1.642
1.083
9,787
5,637
2
17.7
1.210
1.210
1.010
12,234
5,671
Lot Design and Building Sites
Parcel 1 is 1.642 net acres with a slope of 25.9%. Parcel 2 is 1.210 net acres with a slope of
17.7%. The tentative map shows a 160 -foot diameter building circle on each lot, showing that
each contains a viable building site.
Staff Report to the Planning Commission
Lands of Inceipi Family Survivors Trust
June 3, 2010
Page 2 of 8
The Tentative Map shows a conceptual site design for parcel 2 with a building footprint, fire
truck turnaround, driveway, and drainage installations. This development is conceptual but
shows that the lot can be developed to meet Town standards.
Utilities
Water supply will be provided by California Water Service Company. Both parcels are to be
connected to the Los Altos Basin sanitary sewer system. PG&E will provide gas and electric
services, and AT&T will provide telephone service. All utilities are required to be underground.
Site Access
There is currently a driveway to access the existing residence on parcel 1. A new ingress/egress
easement from Voorhees drive is proposed to allow access to parcel 2.
Tree Removal
The site was formerly an apricot orchard. There are apricot trees sparsely scattered throughout
the property in addition to yucca, oaks, and pines. There are three heritage oak trees along the
Summerhill Creek tributary located at the southern end of the property. No trees are proposed to
be removed with the subdivision.
COMMITTEE REVIEW
ubdivision Committee
The Subdivision Committee comprised of Commissioner Collins, the Planning Director, and
Planning and Engineering staff, convened on May 18, 2010 to review and discuss the proposed
two lot subdivision. 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 (Attachments 7 and 8)
Neighbors, Al and Nancy Traficanti (24615 Voorhees Drive) supported the project. Abutting
neighbor, Bill Silver (12380 Miraloma Way) has concerns about future site development issues.
Specifically, drainage, the location of the new driveway (head lights may shine into his house),
and landscape screening along the shared property line. Bill Silver sent an email dated January
31, 2010, expressing these concerns (Attachment 11).
Staff received -emails prior to the hearing from Tina Darmohray (12171 Hilltop Drive) and Brian
and Brandee Krzanich (12173 Hilltop Drive) with concerns for the location of the future
drainage system (Attachment 11). Staff responded stating that the drainage system shown on
sheet 2 of the plans is conceptual only and does not constitute an approved drainage system. Any
new drainage associated with the future development is subject to a separate site development
permit and hearing (condition of approval 94).
Staff Report to the Planning Commission
Lands of Inceipi Family Survivors Trust
June 3, 2010
Page 3 of 8
Environmental Design and Protection Committee
The committee recommended that an open space easement should be dedicated over the Summer
Hill Creek tributary.
Pathways Committee
The Pathways Committee recommends the applicant pay a pathway in lieu fee of $50.00 per
linear foot of the average width of the property (Condition #11).
Open Space Committee
The Open Space Committee commented that parcel 1 has a tributary to Summethill Creek along
the southern end of the property and heritage oak trees, but the committee felt the area is not
contiguous with other open space easements and not located within a designated Open Space
Conservation Area, therefore, an open space easement is not necessary.
Geotechnical Review
The Town's geotechnical consultant Cotton, Shires & Associates, Inc. has reviewed the proposed
Tentative Map and Geological Feasibility Summary prepared by JF Consulting dated January 27,
2010 and concluded that the Project Geotechnical Consultant has adequately characterized the
site conditions and recommended appropriate geotechnical design criteria for future residential
development on the proposed lots. According to the Town's geotechnical and seismic hazard
map and the report from the Project Geotechnical Consultant, the property is not located within a
known fault rupture zone. Cotton, Shires and Associates recommend approval of the Tentative
Map.
TENTATIVE MAP REVIEW
In order to approve a subdivision, the Planning Commission must determine that the project is
consistent with the General Plan, Subdivision and Zoning Regulations, 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 proposed subdivision (Attachment 2). Comments
from the Town Geotechnical Consultant, Santa Clara County Fire Department, AT&T, the
Environmental Design and Protection Committee, and the Pathways Committee, are 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.
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
proposed subdivision. The review period for the Negative Declaration will end on June 14,
Staff Report to the Planning Commission
Lands of Incerpi Family Survivors Trust
June 3, 2010
Page 4 of 8
2010. The Planning Commission may comment 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 site-specific drainage improvements at the time
development'is proposed, on the parcels and the observation of State and County requirements for
handling archaeological remains and artifacts if found.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the Initial Study, staff has concluded that the proposed subdivision, 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 address the potentially
significant environmental impacts identified in the Initial Study.
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.
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 dated February 17, 2010
5. Santa Clara County Fire Department comments dated December 2, 2009
6. AT&T letter dated December 15, 2009
7. Subdivision Committee hearing fact sheet dated May 18, 2010
8. Subdivision Committee hearing report dated May 18, 2010
9. Environmental Design and Protection Committee comments dated December 11, 2009
10. Pathways Committee minutes dated February 22, 2010
11. Emails from neighbors
12. Tentative Map plans
Staff Report to the Planning Commission
Lands of Incerpi Family Survivors Trust
June 3, 2010
Page 5 of 8
ATTACHMENT 1
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS FOR THE TENTATIVE MAP -TWO LOT
SUBDIVISION OF A 2.951 -ACRE PARCEL
LANDS OF INCERPI SURVIVORS FAMILY TRUST, 24500 VOORHEES DRIVE
FILE #228 -09 -IS -ND -TM -GD
LAND AND EASEMENT DEDICATION
1. 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: AT&T Telephone Company, Pacific Gas and
Electric Company, Comcast Cable Television, and California Water Service. The dedications
shall all be completed in conjunction with Final Map approval, to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer.
IMPROVEMENTS
2. A grading and drainage plan which includes an erosion control plan shall be submitted for
review and approval by the City Engineer as 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 all 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 October 15 to April 15 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 sediment rolls to retain
sediment on the project site; e) any other suitable measures outlined in the ABAG Manual of
Standards.
3. The on-site and off-site drainage improvement 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 City Engineer. All required drainage
improvements shall be constructed or bonded for prior to recordation of the Final Map.
4. 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 10 -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. The
applicant's engineer shall provide data and peak discharge hydrologic model(s) utilized, as
well as, the calculations of the peak discharge value prior and post development.
Staff Report to the Planning Commission
Lands of Incerpi Family Survivors Trust
June 3, 2010
Page 6 of 8
5. Both lots within the subdivision shall be connected to the public water system to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer and California Water Service. Services shall be installed to
the property lines or be 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.
6. All existing and proposed utilities located within the subdivision that serves 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.
7. Both lots within the subdivision shall be connected to the public sanitary sewer system. An
encroachment permit must be obtained from the Public Works Department for all work
proposed within the public right of way. Services shall be installed to the property lines or
bonded for prior to the recordation of the Final Map.
8. 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.
9. All subdivision conditions of approval and subdivision improvements shall be constructed
and approved by the Town Engineer prior to submittal of any site development or building
permits.
10. 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
abandoned, capped in accordance with the SCVWD standards.
11. The property owner shall pay a pathway fee of $50.00 per linear foot of the average width of
the property prior to recordation of the Final Map.
PLANNING AND ZONING
12. Payment of park and recreation dedication fees, pathway in lieu fee, 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.
Staff Report to the Planning Commission
Lands of Incerpi Family Sun�ivors Trust
June 3, 2010
Page 7 of 8
13. The existing three (3) car garage on parcel 1 shall be removed and replaced with a three (3)
car carport or garage and one exterior parking space located outside of the property line
setbacks, prior to recordation of the final map.
14. 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.
15. 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. All large and heritage
trees shall be retained to the greatest extent feasible. Any proposed removal of heritage trees
is subject to public hearing.
16. 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.
17. The 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.
18. The new residence on Parcel 2 shown on the Tentative Map Conceptual Development Plan is
conceptual only, and no approval of any residence or development 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.
19. The applicant shall prepare, implement, and maintain Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
and provide measures to minimize or eliminate pollutant discharges from construction
activities, the parking areas, and landscaping area after construction.
FIRE DISTRICT REQUIREMENTS
20. 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 the right-of-way, and
providing an approved access system if the lots are fenced and gated.
Staff Report to the Planning Commission
Lands of Incerpi Family Survivors Trust
June 3, 2010
Page 8 of 8
ATTACHMENT 2
RECOMMENDED FINDINGS OF APPROVAL FOR A
TWO LOT SUBDIVISION OF A 2.951 -ACRE PARCEL
LANDS OF INCERPI SURVIVORS FAMILY TRUST, 24500 VOORHEES DRIVE
FILE #228 -09 -IS -ND -TM -GD
1. The subdivision as proposed would create two lots: Parcel 1 would be 1.642 acres in
size, with a Lot Unit Factor of 1.083. Parcel 2 would be 1.210 acres in size, with a Lot
Unit Factor of 1.010. 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 Voorhees Drive. 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.
4. All lots as proposed on the Tentative Map are physically suitable for the proposed future
development. 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 3
INITIAL STUDY
Initial Study Checklist & References
Tentative Subdivision Map Application
Lands of Incerpi Survivors Trust
228 -09 -IS -TM -ND
Prepared By:
Town of Los Altos Hills -Planning Department
26379 Fremont Road
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
Town of Los Altos Hills
Initial Study Lands of Incerpi
May 26, 2010
Page 2 of 27
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 area 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 be the
project applicant, then the project would be eligible for a Mitigated Negative Declaration.
Environmental Checklist Form
1. Project Title: Incerpi 2 -lot Subdivision, (File # 228 -09 -IS -TM -ND)
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, AICP, Planning Director (650) 941-
7222
4. Initial Study prepared by: Nicole Horvitz, Assistant Planner (650) 941-7222
5. Project Location: 24500 Voorhees Drive, Los Altos Hills, CA 94022, APN#336-20-033
6. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Incerpi Family Survivors Trust, 3566 Cambridge
Lane, Mountain View, CA 94040
7. - General Plan Designation: R -A (Residential -Agricultural)
8. Zoning: R -A (Residential -Agricultural)
9. Description of Project: The project sponsor is requesting approval of a tentative map to
subdivide one parcel totaling 2.951 gross acres to create two (2) parcels for development of
single-family residential homes: Parcel 1 — 1.741 acres; Parcel 2 — 1.210 acres (gross
acres). Access to the parcels is proposed from the existing drive on parcel 1 and a new
ingress/egress easement extending from Voorhees Drive for parcel 2. All parcels are
planned to have sewer connections. Water service will be provided by California Water
Service Company. All existing and new power and utility lines within the subdivision will
be placed underground.
10. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Surrounding land uses include one and two story
Town of Los Altos Hills
Initial Study Lands of Incerpi
May 26, 2010
Page 3 of 27
single-family residences with minimum lot size of 1 acre.
11. Other public agencies whose approval is required: Santa Clara County Fire Department
Town of Los Altos Hills
Initial Study Lands of Incerpi
May 26, 2010
Page 4 of 27
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least
one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
❑
Aesthetics
❑
Agriculture Resources
❑
Air Quality
❑
Biological Resources
Z
Cultural Resources
❑
Geology /Soils
❑
Hazards & Hazardous
Z
Hydrology / Water Quality
❑
Land Use / Planning
Materials
❑
Mineral Resources
❑
Noise
❑
Population / Housing
❑
Public Services
❑
Recreation
❑
Transportation/Traffic
❑
Utilities / Service Systems
❑
Mandatory Findings of Significance
This Initial study has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. Information azd
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
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 1) 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 EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon
the proposed project.
Signature: Date: 2 �'
Debbie Pedro, AICP, Planning Director
Town of Los Altos Hills
Initial Study Lands of Incerpi
May 26, 2010
Page 5 of 27
I. AESTHETICS —Would the project: .
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
scenic vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
outcroppings, and historic buildings within
a state scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual ❑ ❑ Q ❑
character or quality of the site and its
surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light ❑ ❑ Q ❑
or glare which would adversely affect day
or nighttime views in the area?
EWPACT:
The proposed project is not situated on a scenic vista or within the vicinity of a state scenic highway. The Los Altos
Hills General Plan identifies important vistas, historic sites, and scenic highways within the Town. None of these
resources listed in the General Plan will be negatively impacted by the proposal.
Aesthetic impacts due to site grading and residential buildings are expected to be mitigable when new residences are
built. At the time of any proposed development all projects will be evaluated for aesthetic impacts such as structure
height, size, setbacks, grading, fencing, tree preservation, and landscaping. Furthermore, the Town has established
standards for screening and lighting of all new residential dwelling projects and their associated landscaping and
lighting plans are reviewed at publicly noticed hearings.
Mitigation:
None
Sources:
1, 2, 5, 20
Significant�vith
�, r � � r 5,
4
�
5lgnificant
t
Significant
No Impact
�u s
� � � � �
� M[ittaat►on
ti,
x
Incor oration
L �Y ; E.��.3 by
Y .� k S
n
z. F
:•K
S"
I. AESTHETICS —Would the project: .
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
scenic vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
outcroppings, and historic buildings within
a state scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual ❑ ❑ Q ❑
character or quality of the site and its
surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light ❑ ❑ Q ❑
or glare which would adversely affect day
or nighttime views in the area?
EWPACT:
The proposed project is not situated on a scenic vista or within the vicinity of a state scenic highway. The Los Altos
Hills General Plan identifies important vistas, historic sites, and scenic highways within the Town. None of these
resources listed in the General Plan will be negatively impacted by the proposal.
Aesthetic impacts due to site grading and residential buildings are expected to be mitigable when new residences are
built. At the time of any proposed development all projects will be evaluated for aesthetic impacts such as structure
height, size, setbacks, grading, fencing, tree preservation, and landscaping. Furthermore, the Town has established
standards for screening and lighting of all new residential dwelling projects and their associated landscaping and
lighting plans are reviewed at publicly noticed hearings.
Mitigation:
None
Sources:
1, 2, 5, 20
Town of Los Altos Hills
Initial Study Lands of Incerpi
May 26, 2010
Page 6 of 27
U. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES—
Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown on the ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
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 ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
contract?
c) Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location or ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use?
Discussion: The proposed subdivision will have no foreseeable impact on Agricultural Resources.
Mitigation:
None
Source:
8
NXpF4s '2`E w -'f t .y:. t' +S Xle 'F' r`3:.
&. Y
71 xYe d •Am,ai,.zM,`,a:+4�3.t
ck t t }�1'. �.w4.v z" CS;x.%
.y
ofl.7x°t•i d'✓..'y`<r $\.i�� df'L.C`y ?tiff 9-t
�(
£P a..E. „T.q rJ` h.
Potenttall FL
..SR
.n.:r:.:
g
r -CA$$ .lan`.Z '�
_'B'
r Y��
tf
�,'�i �+S r �''•, #` k.::GY
Less Than
»i 3 -AS x '` �]. 15 y L' .
,;
.TYsisu'C
F xt ?;-
sca0 ax
; S�gnlficantv�th` a
n
Si n�ficantE ,
No Im acts ,,
k
z�?. ,>
Incorporatton
�. ,1(mpact
S �+
L .`*P..L %\' i
[M;`
:t..... qY+'
std.fiNv"3
fine,£,?s ',q
�y_. i...` C?1
^'i f4Yi S.n.
:1f IY C i'i
Y 1• 4 ;:
4 . . .................,J
U. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES—
Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown on the ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
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 ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
contract?
c) Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location or ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use?
Discussion: The proposed subdivision will have no foreseeable impact on Agricultural Resources.
Mitigation:
None
Source:
8
Town of Los Altos Hills
Initial Study Lands of Incerpi
May 26, 2010
Page 7 of 27
III. AIR QUALITY -- Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of
❑
❑
❑
Q
the applicable air quality plan?
`l x
substantially to an existing or projected air
Potentially 1
®
Less Tban
'
quality violation?
Significant
Significant with
r
Sign icant
,
No Impact
M< x €
x
j 4
'`zImpact r
Xn o
Impact
project region is non -attainment under an
�oratton
r r'
applicable federal or state ambient air quality
❑
❑
❑
Q
standard (including releasing emissions which
III. AIR QUALITY -- Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of
❑
❑
❑
Q
the applicable air quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air
❑
®
❑
Q
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
❑
❑
❑
Q
standard (including releasing emissions which
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations?
❑
❑
❑
JQ
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
substantial number of people?
Discussion: Santa Clara County is currently a non -attainment basin for ozone thresholds but achieves an attainment
level for carbon monoxide emissions. The net increase of one developable property is not a "considerable cumulative
impact".
Mitigation:
None
Source:
9
Town of Los Altos Hills
Initial Study Lands of Incerpi
May 26, 2010
Page 8 of 27
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES —
Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat modifications, on
any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in local or
regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by
the California Department of Fish and Game
or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive 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?
IMPACT:
❑ ❑ ❑ Q
❑ ❑ Q ❑
❑ ❑ ❑ Q
❑ ❑ ❑ Q
❑ ❑ ❑ Q
❑ ❑ ❑ Q
r�' YY vac
'3^y. Pilxja%�tt��" T'hx
i
Sigmficantwfths
3lessThan;a
-
r rs�nr1Pot"�entially
w Y : z ,S�gn�ficant,
kSigni#icant
-
NoImpacts
yb
' :+.tf �>,,..a.. 3x.. ..x., �. �..t..k..v pus �.. x. ...•. -, .. t. 1�.a>
.fFM�cxF �"[�.a Y:... K � ..
._.:S .. E.. YN. 4
I
....#'�i wY`:
.. 3A ..i, \
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES —
Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat modifications, on
any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in local or
regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by
the California Department of Fish and Game
or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive 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?
IMPACT:
❑ ❑ ❑ Q
❑ ❑ Q ❑
❑ ❑ ❑ Q
❑ ❑ ❑ Q
❑ ❑ ❑ Q
❑ ❑ ❑ Q
Town of Los Altos Hills
Initial Study Lands of Incerpi
May 26, 2010
Page 9 of 27
A tributary of Summer Hill Creek is located along the southern property line of parcel 1. The proposed subdivision
and subdivision improvements will not have an impact on the tributary. No trees are proposed to be removed with
the subdivision.
MITIGATION:
None
Sources:
1,6,10
Town of Los Altos Hills
Initial Study Lands of Incerpi
May 26, 2010
Page 10 of 27
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES —
Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as defined ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
in ' 15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource ❑ Q ❑ ❑
pursuant to '15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including ❑ Q ❑
those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
IMPACT:
The proposed subdivision and anticipated residential development will have no foreseeable impact on Cultural
Resources as defined in Title 14; Chapter 3; Article 5; Section 15064.5 of the California Environmental Quality Act.
The site does not contain a listed historical building and no known archeological resources exist on the subject
property.
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 the mitigation measure described below.
MITIGATION:
Conditions of project approval require that 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.
Sources:
3, 5, 16, 19
'Y'Y
hY
- Y x
�udax.s.
t Less Than �p
��;
c wA r a
`�� 1?otenttall x
4
Less Thanzr
kE r; $x�
s
Significant
ficant�vrth
r,F< Ligmf
cant z
No Impact
�a�� � f � 7� r � z u ,� � .�'�, �:
z 7�
�, � � � . �� �
�'
� ;M►tlgahon E .,
� �: .� � � �
��
;
ext
Ini acts'u
V1
Incorporation`
Im ac
P 4
s
res ry�
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES —
Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as defined ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
in ' 15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource ❑ Q ❑ ❑
pursuant to '15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including ❑ Q ❑
those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
IMPACT:
The proposed subdivision and anticipated residential development will have no foreseeable impact on Cultural
Resources as defined in Title 14; Chapter 3; Article 5; Section 15064.5 of the California Environmental Quality Act.
The site does not contain a listed historical building and no known archeological resources exist on the subject
property.
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 the mitigation measure described below.
MITIGATION:
Conditions of project approval require that 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.
Sources:
3, 5, 16, 19
Town of Los Altos Hills
Initial Study Lands of Incerpi
May 26, 2010
Page 11 of 27
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -- Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk
of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer
to Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss
of topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as a
result of the project, and potentially result in
on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in
Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code
(1994), creating substantial risks to life or
property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative waste water disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the disposal
of waste water?
❑
❑
Q
❑
❑
❑
❑
Q
❑
❑
r � ,. �
Potenteally Y
r
:Less Than
Yr
s K r
f
Significant with
-hi t
01M ct
M�tagat�on
P ,
S �. Impact
Incorporation
t
�*�,-. ✓ n �
Y. t �x
z
�Y
as -9 ,
�
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -- Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk
of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer
to Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss
of topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as a
result of the project, and potentially result in
on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in
Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code
(1994), creating substantial risks to life or
property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative waste water disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the disposal
of waste water?
❑
❑
Q
❑
❑
❑
❑
Q
❑
❑
❑
Q
❑
❑
❑
Q
❑ . ❑ ❑ Q
❑ ❑ Q ❑
IMPACT:
According to the geotechnical investigations prepared by JF Consulting, Inc dated January 27, 2010, this site does
not lie within any recognized special study zones for fault rupture along the nearby Berrocal or Monte Vista -
Shannon fault systems. Ground shaking could be prolonged and intense in the event of a rupture of one of the
Town of Los Altos Hills
Initial Study Lands of Incerpi
May 26, 2010
Page 12 of 27
major, nearby faults; the San Andreas, Hayward, or Calaveras fault. The Town's Geotechnical Engineer has
reviewed the JF Consulting report and concurs with the findings therein.
MITIGATION:
None
Sources:
12, 17, 18
Town of Los Altos Hills
initial Study Lands of Inceipi
May 26, 2010
Page 13 of 27
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS—
Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or
❑
❑ ❑
�;
the environment through the routine transport,
use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
tep
"Less Than`
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or
aPot�ally
u
r
Significant with
Significant
1Vo Impacf
hSign�ficant t
M�t,bation u
❑
S.
x
Impact
Impact
into the environment?
r '
Incorporafion
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter mile
❑
❑ ❑
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS—
Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or
❑
❑ ❑
Q
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
❑
❑ ❑
Q
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
❑
❑ ❑
Q
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
❑
❑ ❑
Q
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
❑
❑ ❑
Q
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 result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the
❑
❑ ❑
Q
project area?
g) Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency response
❑
❑ ❑
Q
plan or emergency evacuation plan?
h) Expose people. or structures to a significant
risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland
fires, including where wildlands are adjacent
®
❑ ❑
Q
to urbanized areas or where residences are
intermixed with wildlands?
Town of Los Altos Hills
Initial Study Lands of Incerpi
May 26, 2010
Page 14 of 27
Discussion: The proposed subdivision and anticipated residential development does not produce a hazard or
hazardous waste and will have no foreseeable impact related to Hazards and Hazardous Materials. The site is not
located in an identified location according to CA Government Code 65962.5.
Mitigation:
None
Sources:
13
Town of Los Altos Hills
Initial Study Lands of Inceipi
May 26, 2010
Page 15 of 27
VIII HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY --
Would the project:
f
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
❑ ❑
❑ Q
discharge requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or
x �
a
such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer
z z
potentially
Fess �'han
°' `
r s
S► nicant
Significant with«
S�greifican
No Impact
which would not support existing land uses or
z Mitlga ' t
tion
planned uses for which permits have been
granted)?
IncorporaEion
Impact
� r
3
r
E F
of the course of a stream or river, in a manner
❑ ❑
❑ Q
which would result in substantial erosion or
siltation on- or off-site?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage
VIII HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY --
Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
❑ ❑
❑ Q
discharge requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with 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-
❑ ❑
❑ Q
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
❑ ❑
❑ Q
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
❑ ❑
❑ Q
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
❑ Q
❑ ❑
stormwater drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted runoff.
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
❑ ❑
❑ Q
g) Place housing within a I00 -year flood hazard
area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard
❑ ❑
❑ Q
Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other
flood hazard delineation map?
h) Place within a I00 -year flood hazard area
structures which would impede or redirect flood
® ®
❑ Q
flows?
Town of Los Altos Hills
Initial Study Lands of Incerpi
May 26, 2010
Page 16 of 27
i) Expose people or structures to a significant
risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, ❑ ❑ ❑ 0
including flooding as a result of the failure of a
levee or dam?
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
IMPACT:
The proposed subdivision and anticipated residential development will have no immitigable impact on Hydrology
and Water Quality as defined in this section. All proposed parcels naturally drain to the south over the site and will
be required to maintain the existing flow patterns, using surface flow designs whenever possible. No construction is
proposed at this time, other than utility improvements. The Town Engineer will require a drainage improvement plan to
be submitted prior to construction of any future site development.
MITIGATION:
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. 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. The applicant's engineer shall provide
data and peak discharge hydrologic model(s) utilized, as well as, the calculations of the peak discharge value prior
and post development.
Sources:
2, 11, 14
Town of Los Altos Hills
Initial Study Lands of Incerpi
May 26, 2414
Page 17 of 27
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING—
Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established
community? 13 Ll ❑ 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, ❑❑Ll
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 ❑ L3 D
conservation plan?
Discussion: The proposed subdivision and anticipated residential development will not physically divide a
community. The project complies with the Los Altos Hills General Plan and Subdivision Code.
Mitigation:
None
Sources:
4,5,6
M
:Less"Than
"'
sz
1 nificant,with "'
SignificantY
No Impact
r.4— F:!�:
A'Ppc'�
-W
g,
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING—
Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established
community? 13 Ll ❑ 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, ❑❑Ll
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 ❑ L3 D
conservation plan?
Discussion: The proposed subdivision and anticipated residential development will not physically divide a
community. The project complies with the Los Altos Hills General Plan and Subdivision Code.
Mitigation:
None
Sources:
4,5,6
Town of Los Altos Hills
Initial Study Lands of Incerpi
May 26, 2010
Page 18 of 27
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 ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
region and the residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a
locally -important mineral resource recovery ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
site delineated on a local general plan, specific
plan or other land use plan?
Discussion: The proposed subdivision and anticipated residential development will not result in a loss of mineral
resources. The project is not located in an area known for valued minerals.
Mitigation:
None
Sources:
5, 6, 17, 18
!Xe- g k i# �.
F
AW RC$� 'Cf 4 Y�yat�l...%'�X> - i llj' rc� 3 -
F "'➢w\'b.`V Ax'D' l
'.$ L' Y�tY ''
-. L i- E-2 -
>r }!q 3-: Ex
�h°,tF 3.
":i
.di.'frX'.. 1^s'd'° 4 :
'A h�2Fsis _.
fr�� F
xh`3s,�`b
➢�
E.: -cam aFP
L
-0 �V
F
inK3
Potentially
aV
s
Less 3 han
w r�
5 i ; �a <
x
S�gn►ficant witht
y:�
h , F x _ ,.'
4=� Z;Ee A
Sigmficanf
;,
Significant
r
x No Tm actE
acts
knwMitigation
Impact
a, fr 4 z
vp;:P v
x
`T,+ . . 1R?}.. .C.`;�`3. MK,:i^
EL. 3... E "3,.
>7 .. i..Y 2 T i.t.v
V..✓."-
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 ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
region and the residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a
locally -important mineral resource recovery ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
site delineated on a local general plan, specific
plan or other land use plan?
Discussion: The proposed subdivision and anticipated residential development will not result in a loss of mineral
resources. The project is not located in an area known for valued minerals.
Mitigation:
None
Sources:
5, 6, 17, 18
Town of Los Altos Hills
Initial Study Lands of Incerpi
May 26, 2010
Page 19 of 27
XI. NOISE --Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of
noise levels in excess of standards established
❑
❑
❑
Q
in the local general plan,or noise ordinance, or
z
Potentially
u,
LessThan
$
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of
p� x
as a s< a is rt
Si mfacant
=1 F
1VI�hgat�on
Si6n�fican#
No Zm act
> �° K ,Impacts
I
Impact
�
r ,
neorporation ,
,
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
❑
�
)
Q
Fi_.�.._"�Cl 4Y:,a '33...
� 1
}
.._.L-��;• ..:' 7� ...: St }'.. ,..aa....,
}.%..ti ....%::?... ..:... .Y_i:..iix..Yf
,.v�riYYTC.<:....?d
..fY..
i 4 c
XI. NOISE --Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of
noise levels in excess of standards established
❑
❑
❑
Q
in the local general plan,or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of
excessive groundborne vibration or
❑
❑
❑
Q
groundborne noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
❑
❑
❑
Q
above levels existing without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic
increase in ambient noise levels in the project
❑
❑
Q
❑
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
❑
❑
❑
Q
or public use airport, would the project expose
people residing or working in the project area
to excessive noise levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, would the project expose people
❑
❑
❑
Q
residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
Discussion: The proposed subdivision and anticipated residential development will be regulated by the Town's
established noise standards. Interim construction noise levels associated with subdivision improvements and future
site development will likely periodically exceed 60dB (A) but can be held to less than significant by adherence to
Town standards for hours of construction. Once development is complete, day to day living will produce noises such
as vehicles and air conditioning units. These types of noises are typical of a residential neighborhood. Further, the
Town requires new residences, swimming pools, pool equipment, and air conditioners to demonstrate compliance
with Town Noise standards. No immitigable or new types of noise impacts are anticipated.
Mitigation.
None
Sources:
6
Town of Los Altos Hills
Initial Study Lands of Incerpi
May 26, 2010
Page 20 of 27
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 ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
indirectly (for example, through extension of
roads or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing
housing, necessitating the construction of ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
replacement housing elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people,
necessitating the construction of replacement ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
housing elsewhere?
Discussion: The proposed subdivision and anticipated residential development will not have a significant impact on
population or housing.
Mitigation:
None
Sources:
2,3
%S•LS
I
.E '£ +`j `�
lr '�� i - � � rR` t� � � � 4 �'^"�7 ..r S =k 'f . ¢'^` yy i
Fk �a, t
+yi'' v�T ' ✓-SAY ""t � r YICSF
r
� :wi t <.i
t Less Than 3 v r
fi y� "Yi. N
E Na
��a M
Significant with
n n
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 ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
indirectly (for example, through extension of
roads or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing
housing, necessitating the construction of ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
replacement housing elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people,
necessitating the construction of replacement ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
housing elsewhere?
Discussion: The proposed subdivision and anticipated residential development will not have a significant impact on
population or housing.
Mitigation:
None
Sources:
2,3
Town of Los Altos Hills
Initial Study Lands of Incerpi
May 26,20 10
Page 21 of 27
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES-- Would the project:
a) Would the project result in substantial
adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, need for new or
physically altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios, response times or
other performance objectives for any of the
public services:
■❑
W
Fire protection?
❑
❑
❑
Q
Police protection?
❑
❑
❑
Q
Schools?
❑
❑
❑
Q
k� ��
F Potenfial yLess
❑
Than
y
3
SignIiicanh
Significant with4
:.
Significant
r
No Impact
,
y
Incorporat,on E
>r z
x.
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES-- Would the project:
a) Would the project result in substantial
adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, need for new or
physically altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios, response times or
other performance objectives for any of the
public services:
■❑
W
Fire protection?
❑
❑
❑
Q
Police protection?
❑
❑
❑
Q
Schools?
❑
❑
❑
Q
Parks?
❑
❑
❑
Q
Other public facilities?
❑
❑
❑
Q
Discussion: The proposed subdivision and anticipated residential development will not have a foreseeable impact on
any public service or facility.
Mitigation:
None
Sources:
2,3
Town of Los Altos Hills
Initial Study Lands of Incerpi
May 26, 2010
Page 22 of 27
XIV. RECREATION — Would the project:
a) Would the project increase the use of
existing neighborhood and regional parks or
other recreational facilities such that ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
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 ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
Discussion: The proposed subdivision and anticipated residential development will not have a foreseeable impact on
recreation facilities. The Town's Parks and Recreation Department will collect an in lieu fee prior to recordation of
the Final Map.
Mitigation:
None
Sources:
5,6
. ; Y} tt�'>5,
'F.
>-x�+,. kE!1 UII
S'T'S
f i i "
`f5
Xi L -..: a�.sxT- I ! JDT a£SII 4.�GA • `t }4,ky 5 r PKy ) Y. �Y
rk� *,E'S k'c s� "5 4 W > �•xv �tlL'� 3.i S•;k �.
'x�. .0 �.L= x _
L 1SS II
'Potenttall
"Me. .., vR E�l£+.a.^
-.:L ZeSsT.han x,u
iJ r y .A flF.S� < h �">�
-l" •. ;�
iy, rq ., @ 'x .jY Y'
,y
�-
� E ,. Y x��S<;
E�rix ..
s �Signlficantwith�;'�
Zess Tha
�."
NoImpact�r�
� x9
ImpactA
s t, e`
Im actsa
, g ,err
`���" � �:-.F�ttk�Y�� �{io-' iL }., 5�. i'3EN k" St� P'�YLG
_-: � `tY ' L.4g>. ✓'
$.. .. � f, .Z y i ,Si
�� $ i,q. ,y_�i ��R-:.•�1'� �
i !q'K Y C ' ,�d'u'
>)
x.:,...e.. .... F.. ,..F. v. ,. ... Y'>.FA�.._a_'.sk,'Xal»r ::...<. ..e.......,S ..Y .... Ee S. ✓.,
L S
�2., .>.,�. �.`;A�."S,?`:-•v >Ei ..
,°s?`il..:?..iH'f 4..: ?.,1 .�a4Y
}N>.:..; �:y�k cd'rfe'K:.l�i"v
u.T >�.itz.,n£�x'. ,..:`
XIV. RECREATION — Would the project:
a) Would the project increase the use of
existing neighborhood and regional parks or
other recreational facilities such that ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
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 ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
Discussion: The proposed subdivision and anticipated residential development will not have a foreseeable impact on
recreation facilities. The Town's Parks and Recreation Department will collect an in lieu fee prior to recordation of
the Final Map.
Mitigation:
None
Sources:
5,6
Town of Los Altos Hills
Initial Study Lands of Inceipi
May 26, 2010
Page 23 of 27
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC —
Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is
y
potentially ;
n Less Than'„°'
Less Th an
3 x ai •, '` , �
�
Significant
�. Signiwith m
ficant
`
r
Signifi cant
Nolinpact
k��£
❑
„ 1VIitigaiion1°
Q
❑
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
❑
❑
❑
�.,
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC —
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
❑
❑
Q
❑
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
❑
❑
❑
Q
county congestion management agency for
designated roads or highways?
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns,
including either an increase in traffic levels or
❑
❑
❑
Q
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
❑
❑
❑
Q
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
❑
❑
❑
Q
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity?
❑
❑
❑
Q
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or
programs supporting alternative transportation
❑
❑
❑
Q
(e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
Discussion: The subdivision will allow for one additional new dwelling. The minor increase in traffic is not
anticipated to create traffic congestion on existing local roadways.
Mitigation:
None
Sources:
1,2,3,5
Town of Los Altos Hills
Initial Study Lands of Incerpi
May 26, 2010
Page 24 of 27
y "� .tik'�:.•G. i' ��' .cj 'tS�4. A'� �l � x
'3'C?.'4
`"�' iU'' � �
•xd Y'S'k.a"'%
.e.R �
as ..,r,%�'n S Y
.ra- h i<Sl d ✓x � S m'- ti 4
x ' i�i"a$�z�^z
-�. .. .tY �. '.. ?i-
a S-af�..3+ 7xti'�'x
1R ^ux / ^n:. "a
vr„-.. J -. i
{ S . t'
i� a bsC S'=+�
$ -i'
,,ztG
b) Require or result in the construction of new
>'•< Y L'tY k., 'C 6 L.
water or wastewater treatment facilities or
Less'Than
w: � 4>;.. � _•�� � � � , z�tx .� ,� �, :� +, ,_ -� y
:� �.� ,�
��,Sigmficant with �
�. ...ru
�,=� � r�
'1\To`Imxpact
3 rv�a � , �~�a�,K �. �.� � : , � ,Fr � u xx �� �
h r r�,xstMitiaation
�� , �tgnificant
�Y a �� �� � ..�.,e
���gn►Iican`tT
�
c) Require or result in the construction of new
storm water drainage facilities or expansion of
❑
❑
❑ Q
i1
could cause significant environmental effects?
' i .�'a'"iX}',!` „5 . °` . x., ii ...";-a i �' i tr.. ,.}�:
.n. f; 'k+,. ..5a , t: • s firs
} > a< s s rt' t
.'E.: r•. ..«.`JSP`-
RI a
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS—
Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements
of the applicable Regional Water Quality
❑
❑
❑ Q
Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new
water or wastewater treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the
❑
❑
❑ Q
construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new
storm water drainage facilities or expansion of
❑
❑
❑ Q
existing facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to
serve the project from existing entitlements
❑
❑
❑ Q
and resources, or are new or expanded
entitlements needed?
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider which serves or may serve
the project that it has adequate capacity to
❑
❑
❑ Q
serve the project's projected demand in
addition to the provider's existing
commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient
permitted capacity to accommodate the
❑
❑
❑ Q
project's solid waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local
❑
❑
❑ Q
statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Discussion: The proposed subdivision and anticipated residential development will not have a foreseeable impact on
utility and service systems. Water supply will be
provided by California Water Service Company. All parcels will
connect to sewer.
Mitigation:
None
Sources:
1, 2, 3, 15
Town of Los Altos Hills
Initial Study Lands of Incerpi
May 26, 2010
Page 25 of 27
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF
SIGNIFICANCE -- Would the project:
a) Does the project have the potential to
degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining ❑ ❑ ® Q
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 cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a project ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
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 adverse effects on ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Discussion: The proposed project will not result in a negative impact to the environment, wildlife, plant or historical
resource. The project does not have any foreseeable cumulative or unmitigated impacts as defined in this Initial Study.
Mitigation:
None
Sources:
1-20
T.j
'a
Than
r
�` - ' ''
Potentially a
Less
_y y ess"i'6an
s 'y e3 x
Significants
Sigmficantiv�th
Stgn�h
F
No Impact
€
lyYii�gai�on
ant
a
Impact
J[mpact
x
y
�
3
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF
SIGNIFICANCE -- Would the project:
a) Does the project have the potential to
degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining ❑ ❑ ® Q
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 cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a project ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
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 adverse effects on ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Discussion: The proposed project will not result in a negative impact to the environment, wildlife, plant or historical
resource. The project does not have any foreseeable cumulative or unmitigated impacts as defined in this Initial Study.
Mitigation:
None
Sources:
1-20
Town of Los Altos Hills
Initial Study Lands of Incerpi
May 26, 2010
Page 26 of 27
NIITIGATION MEASURES INCLUDED IN THE PROJECT TO AVOID
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS:
1. 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 10 -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. The applicant's engineer shall provide data and peak
discharge hydrologic model(s) utilized, as well as, the calculations of the peak
discharge value prior and post development.
2. 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.
Town of Los Altos Hills
Initial Study Lands of Incerpi
May 26, 2010
Page 27 of 27
Mitigati®n Monitoring Program
Responsible Must Be
Mimmation Measure Department Completed BY: Done
1. Drainage Improvement Plan Engineering Site Development Review
2. Archaeological Findings Planning Ongoing
Source T,ict:
1. Field Inspection
2. Project Plans
3. Planner's Knowledge of the Area
4. Los Altos Hills Land Use and Zoning Map
5. Los Altos Hills General Plan
6. Los Altos Hills Municipal Code
7. Assessor's Maps, Office of County Assessor, Santa Clara County, 2010
8. State Department of Conservation, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program
9. BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines: Assessing the Air Quality Impacts of Projects and Plans, December 1999
10. State Department Fish and Game CNDDP Map
11. Santa Clara Valley Water District Map
12. Geotechnical and Seismic Hazard Zones Map of Los Altos Hills, Cotton Shires and Associates, Dec -2004
13. DTSC Hazardous Waste and Substance Sites List, California Environmental Protection Agency
14. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Flood Insurance Rate Map, Los Altos Hills, May 18, 2009
15. Sanitary Sewer Map, Town of Los Altos Hills Engineering Department
16. Santa Clara County Municipal Code Chapter II Indian Burial Grounds (Title B Division B-6)
17. JF Consulting, Inc January 27, 2010
18. Cotton & Shires Assoc. Peer Review Letter February 17, 2010
19. CEQA Guidelines, 2010
20. Google Earth
Exhibit List:
1. Project plans
CO'T'TON, SHIRES AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS
TO: Nichol Horvitz
Assistant Planner
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS
26379 Fremont Road
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
Attachment 4
February 17, 2010
L0249A
RECEIVED
FEB 1
SUBJECT: Supplemental Geotechnical Peer Review
RE: Incerpi TOWN OF LOS ALTOS DILLS
Two -Lot Subdivision, 228 -09 -IS -TM -ND
24500 Voorhees Drive
At your request, we have completed a supplemental geotechnical peer review of
the Tentative Map application using:
• Geotechnical Investigation (report) prepared by JF Consulting,
dated January 27, 2010;
• Tentative Map — Conceptual Plan, Slope Map (4 sheets) prepared
by Giuliani & Kull, latest revision date of November 16, 2009; and
• Geotechnical Feasibility Summary Report prepared by JF
Consulting, dated October 9, 2009.
In addition, we have reviewed pertinent technical documents from our office
files.
DISCUSSION
The applicant proposes to subdivide the subject property (approximately 3 acres)
into 2 lots. An existing residence (to remain) is present on the property within the limits
of proposed Parcel 1. Access to the lower (eastern) Parcel 2 would be provided by a
proposed driveway extending from the southern terminus of Voorhees Drive.
In our previous geotechnical peer review of the proposed subdivision
application (letter dated December 7, 2009), we recommended that a supplemental
geotechnical investigation (including subsurface exploration) be completed prior to
geotechnical approval of the Tentative Map. We did not identify- special geotechnical
site constraints (beyond expansive soils and anticipated seismic ground shaking).
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDED ACTION
The Project Geotechnical Consultant has completed an investigation of site
conditions and concluded that the property is geotechnically suitable for the proposed
Northern California Office
330 Village Lane
Los Gatos, CA 95030-7218
(408) 354-5542 o Fax (408) 354-1852
www.cottonshires.com
Central California Office
6417 Dogtown Road
San Andreas, CA 95249-9640
(209) 736-4252 o Fax (209) 736-1212
Nicole Horvitz February 17, 2010
Page 2 L0249A
development provided recommended design criteria are utilized. We do not have
geotechnical objections to the Tentative Map or the submitted site investigation.
Consequently, we recommend geotechnical approval of the Tentative Map application
with the following conditions:
Subdivision Improvement Plans — If the indicated driveway to Parcel 2
is to be constructed as a subdivision -level improvement, then details of
proposed roadway grading, pavement, and associated retaining wall
design should be evaluated and approved by the Project Geotechnical
Consultant prior to issuance of permits for construction of subdivision -
level improvements.
Proposed improvement plans, and a letter from the Project Geotechnical
Consultant indicaiing design conformance witi, presented TEIUiitPlc'ttUdLiiilS, slL.Ould CSE'
submitted to the Town Engineer prior to issuance of permits for construction of
subdivision -level improvements.
LIMITATIONS
This supplemental geotechnical peer review has been performed to provide
technical advice to assist the Town with 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.
TS:DTS:kd
Respectfully submitted,
COTTON, SHIRES AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
TOWN GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT
I'4Sarre
Principal Engineering Geologist
CEG 1795
Z.
David T. Schrier
Principal Geotechnical Engineer
GE 2334
COTTON, SHIRES AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
F111,_e, DEPARTMENT Attachment 5
-FiRE SANTA CLARA COUNTY
14700 Winchester Blvd., Los Gatos, CA 95032-1818
(408) 378-4010 a (408) 378-9342 (fax) - www.sccfd.orq= -
COURTESY 6 SERVICE m
>;; a inteationallyAccredited
_
Agency
PLAN REVIEW NUMBER 0 9 2 9 5 5
�% �/� �T TOWN OF BLODG PERMITONUMBERL��
DE6 EL®P101�1�1T REVIEW COMMENTS FILENUMBER 228-09`ZP-GD-1S-TM
CODE/SEC.
SHEET I NO.
REQUIREMENT
Proposed two -lot minor subdivision.
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.
No fire department conditions or requirements.
Approved as submitted.
CITY PLANS SPECS NEW RMDL AS
OCCUPANCY
CONST.TYPE
APPLICANT NAME
DATE
PAGE
LAH ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
GIULIANI & KULL INC
12/2/2009
1 OF 1
SECJFLOOR
AREA
LOAD
DESCRIPTION
BY
Residential Development
Harding, Doug
NAME OF PROJECT: SFR
LOCATION: 24500 Voorhees Dr
TABULAR FIRE FLOW:
REDUCTION FOR FIRE SPRINKLERS:
REQUIRED FIRE FLOW
® 20 PSI:
Organized as the Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District
Serving Santa Clara County and the communities of Campbell, Cupertino, Los Altos,
Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, and Saratoga
December 15, 2009
Nicole Horvitz
Town of Los Altos Hills
26379 Fremont Road
Los Altos Hills, California 94022
Ecama
NM..
low .ti� � s pl HILLS
Right of Way Department
3475B N. 1St St Rm. 600B
San Jose, Ca 95134
Re: Parcel Map Approval for the Two -Lot Subdivision at 24500 Voorhees Drive
Dear Ms. Horvitz:
AT&T Engineering has reviewed the request for the Parcel Map approval for the above
said address and finds the Parcel Map acceptable and has no objections to the snap as
drawn.
Please contact AT&T Engineer Mike Hennessy at (408) 493-7113 should you have any
questions concerning this project.
Sincerely,
Richard Villano
Right of Way Manager
Attachment 6
Attachment 7
Tow Of Los Altos Hills May 10, 2010
Subdivision ComYrittee Hearing Fact Sheet
Project Description: Two Lot Subdivision
File Number: 228 -09 -IS -TNI -ND
Site Address: 24500 Voorhees Drive
Owner(s): Incerpi Family Survivors Trust
Staff Planner: Nicole Horvitz, Assistant Planner
Site Data
Net Lot Area: 2.951 acres
Average Slope: 22.5%
Lot Unit Factor: 2.161
DFVRL0P1 IFNT TART,>f'
Parcel ;
Ave s Slope f
Gross
1�Tei
NIDA
W. A
.(%)
Acreage
ag
Acreage'
(sq ft)
..::. (sq ft)
Existing
Site
22.5
2.951
2.951
2.161
22,285
11,615
1
25.9
1.741
1.642
1.083
9,787
5,637
2
17.7
1.210
1.210
1.010
12,234
5,671
Grading: None
Sewer/Septic: Sewer
Environmental Design Committee Comments: An open space easement should be
dedicated over the creek tributary
®pen Space Committee Comments: None
Pathway Committee Comments: Pay a pathway fee of $50.00 per linear foot of the
average width of the property
Fire Department Comments: None
Geotechnical Comments: Recommends approval with conditions
Utility Company Comments: None
Attaclnnent 8
Town Of Los Altos Hills May 18, 2010
Subdivision Coninaittee Meeting Report
Project Description: Two Lot Subdivision
File Number: 228 -09 -IS -TM -ND
Site Address: 24500 Voorhees Drive
Owner(s): Incerpi Family Survivors Trust
Staff Planner: Nicole Horvitz, Assistant Planner
Attendance:
Debbie Pedro -Planning Director
Nicole Horvitz -Assistant Planner
John Chau -Assistant Engineer
Ray Collins -Planning Commissioner
Mark Helton -Project Civil Engineer
Pat Ley— Environmental Design and Protection Committee
Rod and Denise Incerpi (property owners) -24500 Voorhees Drive
Al and Nancy Traficanti-24615 Voorhees Drive
Bill Silver -12380 Miraloma Way
Environmental Design and Protection Committee Comments: None
Neighbor Comments:
Al and Nancy Traficanti- Support the proposal
Bill Silver -Has concerns about future site development issues: drainage, location of the new
driveway (headlights), and landscape screening along the shared property line.
S /($/P
Debbie Pedro, AICP, Planning Director Date
Attachment 9
IVIED
r Subdivision Evaluation _ = r
Environmental Design and Protection Committee -Dater
Applicants name and address: R t_.�, �5�
. cr��
Reviewed by:
Grading: -Z
Creeks, drainage, easements:
�OS
' _� ••
..
Existing Vegetation:
Significant issues/comments:
• •
11
Attachment 10
27270 Natoma Road (Lands of Homa Natoma). The PWC reviewed this property on
April 28, 2008 (at the time of the initial proposed 5 -lot subdivision) and again on August
25, 2008 (when the subdivision map was revised to include only 2 lots). The initial
subdivision plan included a road through the property from Natoma to Almaden Court.
The PWC recommended a roadside path and the owner agreed. The revised 2 -lot
subdivision plan did not include a road. Because the Master Path Plan did not include a
connection through this subdivision and there is a nearby connection from Lucerne Lane
to Almaden Court, the PWC recommended that the owners pay a pathway in -lieu fee.
Town staff asked the PWC to review the site development plan for the subdivided lot.
The general consensus was that although a connection between Natoma and Almaden
Court would be useful, the MPP does not show an off-road path through this area and
the PWC has little choice other than to recommend a pathway in -lieu fee. The PWC need
take no action because an in -lieu fee has already been collected.
iii. 24500 Voorhees Drive (Lands of Incerpi). The PWC discussed this property at the Jan 25,
2010 meeting. At that time, the committee agreed to defer action until the time of
development. Town staff informed the PWC that the LAH ordinance 9-1.1112 requirse
that any pathway decision be done at the time of subdivision, so the property is being
formally reviewed tonight. The Town holds easements on the south side of 24595
Voorhees Drive and on the north side of 12580 Miraloma that could provide a connection
between Voorhees and Miraloma, but this off-road pathway was removed from the
Master Path Plan because of neighbor opposition. The Town will retain the easements.
Courtenay Corrigan moved that the owners of 24500 Voorhees Drive be asked to pay a
pathway in -lieu fee based on the full square footage of the subdivision. Anna Brunzell
seconded. The vote was 9 in favor and one abstention (for proximity).
3. OLD BUSINESS
A. Review of Capital Improvement Projects
a. Arastradero Path. Town Engineer, Richard Chiu, asked the PWC to review their
recommendation for the proposed Arastradero roadside pathway because it will not be
possible to construct the path all the way from Purissima to Fremont as originally
planned. Easements are not available on two properties near the sharp curve. The PWC
agreed that a pathway along Arastradero should still be built, even if it runs only from
Purissima to La Cresta. Chairman Dunckel will pass this recommendation on to City
Council for a vote at their March meeting.
b. Page Mill Roadside path at Paseo del Robles. This roadside path will improve safety for
the connection from pathways on the east side of Page Mill (e.g., in the Matadero Creek
Lane, Country Lane, Three Forks Lane area) to the west side of Page Mill. Currently
pedestrians must walk about 100 yards on the shoulder of Page Mill. Richard Chiu
reported to Chair Nick Dunckel that the design and construction of this both path and
the Arastradero path will be done by the same firm. The shoulder will be widened as
part of a project to repair erosion caused by drainage pipes in the area.
c. La Paloma -Atherton Court-Robleda connection. Routing of this off-road pathway has
been discussed at numerous meetings during the past six months. At the Jan 23, 2010
meeting the PWC agreed to seek an alternative to the proposed route along the creek,
which would require over 500 feet of retaining walls and cost more than $400,000. This
pathway is currently being proposed to the Santa Clara Valley Water District for funding.
Members of the PWC suggested that if this path is not funded by the water district,
residents of Atherton should be contacted for feedback on a path using existing (or
alternative) easements in the neighborhood. The PWC reiterated the recommendation for
the less expensive alternative route.
Draft2PWC_Min_022210 .(2) 3/8/10 2
Attachment 11
• Nicole Horvitz
From:
wrsilver@gmail.com on behalf of Bill Silver [bill@agsierra.com]
Seat:
Sunday, January 31, 2010 10:16 AM
To:
Nicole Horvitz
Gc:
Debbie Pedro
Subject:
24500 Voorhees Drive
Ms. Nicole Horvitz
Assistant Planner
Town of Los Altos Hills
Dear Nicole:
As discussed in my meeting with you and Debbie Pedro on January 28, 2010, here are the issues I ask
that you and the Planning Commission address during the subdivision and site development process for
24500 Voorhees Drive. I recognize that some of these issues will be dealt with during site development
and that all that is happening now is subdivision. We ask that the subdivision process keep these issues in
mind and to the extent possible, set guidelines during subdivision for the future site development that
assures that our issues will be satisfactorily resolved.
1. We ask that the subdivision property line be drawn in such a way as to create a legal building site for
the new home as far from our home as possible. As drawn on the site plan that currently is in the Town's
possession, the new home is projected much closer to our home than Mr. and Mrs. Incerpi's home. We ask
that in future site development, the new home be as far from our home as possible. In any event, it is
reasonable that it at least be equidistant between the two. We ask that this design objective be clearly
memorialized so whoever develops the new lot understands it. To the extent that the property line can be
drawn during subdivision in such a way as to facilitate this, we ask that it be done.
2. We ask.that extensive large landscaping be planted on the new lot all along the area adjacent to the
property line separating the new lot from our lot. Due to the location of our home and the slope, we can
only do so much to create a landscape barrier on our side. As the new lot and eventually new home sits
above our home and faces three bedrooms and two bathrooms, we need an extensive landscape barrier
on the new lot for privacy for our home and rear yard. An example of an excellent barrier is the barrier
between our home and 12600 Miraloma Way, our neighbor on the other side of our lot. While our home
sits above their home, our homes are almost totally hidden from each other. The sooner this landscaping
is planted and provides a barrier, the better for us as well as the owners of the new home. Having the
barrier in place in 20 years, really does us little good.
3. The projected location of the driveway to the new home appears to result in headlights from cars on
that driveway pointing directly at our bedroom windows as cars move down the driveway from Voorhees.
We ask that the new driveway be located in such a way as to eliminate headlights pointing at our home
and to the extent it can't be avoided, landscaping or some other solid barrier be required along the new
driveway to block the headlights.
4. We ask that the design parameters for site development be established to have the roofline of the new
home conform to the slope of the hillside as much as possible so as to cause the new home to blend into
the landscape.
5. We ask that extensive attention be given to drainage during site development to assure that changes in
the flow of water, including underground water, resulting from the new home do not impact our property
in anyway. Our home and lot currently handle the flow of water, even during the heaviest rainfall,
extremely well. We don't want anything done on the hillside above us to change that.
We recognize that many of these issues need to be finally resolved during site development. However, we
ask that it be clearly laid out as part of the subdivision plan that they are requirements of future site
development, approved at the time of subdivision. This assures that wh(,..✓er is going to develop the new
lot enjoys the benefit of full disclosure in making their plans. My four years of service on the Pathway
Committee has taught me much but perhaps the most important thing is that developers and homeowners
deserve clear information about what is expected of them. Clear directions during subdivision can make
future site development much less contentious.
Please be sure we are noticed on any hearings related to this development with as much notice as possible
so that we may be present.
We thank you for your consideration.
Bill and Joan Silver
12580 Miraloma Way
Los Altos Hills 94024
650-269-7114 (Bill cell phone)
Nicole Horwitz
From: Debbie Pedro
Sent: Monday, May 17, 2010 2:54 PM
To: Krzanich, Brian
Cc: tmd@marker.org; Brandee Krzanich; Nicole Horvitz
Subject: RE: Lands of Incerpi Survivor's Trust APN 336-20-033
Hi Brian and Tina,
Thank you for your comments on the proposed subdivision project at 24500 Voorhees Drive. The drainage design
shown on the subdivision plans are conceptual only and does not constitute an approved drainage system on the
properties. No new drainage system will be installed as part of the subdivision. Any new drainage design associated
with future site development on the individual lots will be subject to a separate site development permit and a separate
public hearing. We have forwarded your comments to the project engineer so that he is aware of your concerns.
If you'd like'to set up a meeting to discuss this or any other issues concerning the proposed subdivision, please feel free
to give me a call at 650-947-2517.
Thank you.
Debbie
Debbie Pedro, AICP, LEED AP
Planning Director
Town of Los Altos Hills
Phone: (650) 947-2517
dpedro@losaltoshills.ca.gov
From: Krzanich, Brian[mailto:brian.krzanich@intel.com]
Sent: Monday, May 17, 2010 2:18 PM
To: Debbie Pedro
Cc: tmd@marker.org; Brandee Krzanich
Subject: FW: Lands of Incerpi Survivor's Trust APN 336-20-033
To: Debbie Pedro
From: Brian and Brandee Krzanich
Debbie,
Brandee and I are the new owners of 12173 Hilltop Dr. in Los Altos Hills Ca.. although new owners to the property, as a
part of the purchase process we surveyed our lot and spent considerable time understanding the geography and drainage
issues and in fact at one point Mr. Incerpi had asked us for an easement on our property for electrical and gas connection.
I completely concur with Tina's assessment of the drainage concerns and the proposed subdivision of the lands within the
Incerpi Survivor Trust APN 336-20-033. 1 believe it would be a severe impact to both properties if the subdivision is
allowed to continue without proper mitigation of the runoff and drainage as Tina describes below. We have already spent
on both pieces of property considerable sums of money to mitigate the current drainage issues and without these
mitigations I am concerned of the ensuing issues we'll all have as a result of the subdivision. Efforts spent up front to
mitigate these drainage issues could prevent serious issues at a later date. Brandee and I are not trying to prevent the
subdivision just trying to insure it is done with all parties taken in to consideration.
Thank You
Brian and Brandee Krzanich
12173 Hilltop Dr.
Los Altos Hills, Ca. 94024
-----Original Message -----
From: Tina M. Darmohray <tmd@marker.org>
To: dpedro@losaltoshills.ca.gov
Cc: suebobbren@aol.com; marker@alum.mit.edu
Sent: Mon, May 17, 2010 9:36 am
Subject: Lands of Incerpi Survivor's Trust APN 336-20-033
Debbie Pedro, Planning Director,
Thank you for your letter regarding the proposed subdivision
of the Lands of Incerpi to be heard on Tuesday May 18, 2010. I
have reviewed the proposal at the Los Altos Town Hall.
I live at 12171 Hilltop Drive, Los Altos Hills, CA. The
shared driveway of 12171 and 12173 Hilltop Drive is immediately
adjacent to the property of the proposed subdivision.
I am concerned with the plans for the rain runoff from the
proposed subdivision. I note that both proposed dissipators
are directed at the shared driveway for 12171 and 12173 Hilltop
Drive rather than the Summerhill Creek tributary. The Summerhill
Creek tributary is on Parcel 1 and the dissipator should
send the runoff directly towards the tributary. Parcel 2 should
also send the runoff towards the tributary. Additionally plans should
be made to capture any un -mitigated runoff at the foot of the
parcel and drain it to the tributary, including an easement from
Parcel 2 to Parcel 1, if necessary.
Development which increases runoff should be mitigated on the
property and diverted to the creek, rather than the driveway
of the adjacent properties. Unmitigated runoff will undermine
the shared driveway and its soil foundation.
Please let me know that you've received this letter.
Thank you for your consideration of this significant impact.
Tina Darmohray
Owner 12171 Hilltop Drive, Los Altos Hills, CA
B.S., M.S. Soil Science
2
Nicole Horvitz
Sub;ectr: FW: Lands of Incerpi Survivor's Trust APIA! 336-20-033
-----Original Message -----
From: Tina M. Darmohray [mailto:tmd@marker.org]
Sent: Monday, May 17, 2010 4:17 PM
To: Debbie Pedro
Cc: Krzanich, Brian; Brandee Krzanich; Nicole Horvitz; marker@alum.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Lands of Incerpi Survivor's Trust APN 336-20-033
Debbie,
Thanks for your response.
While the Parcels are currently owned by the same individual,
it would be prudent to be sure Parcel 2 has an easement onto
Parcel 1 for future drainage access to the tributary in case it is
necessary in the future.
Thank you!
Tina
1