The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About3.4Item 3.4 TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS March 1, 2012 Staff Report to the Planning Commission RE: PREZONING OF UNINCORPORATED OLIVE TREE HILL AREA: TWENTY FIVE PARCELS (APPROXIMATELY 31.7 ACRES) BOUNDED BY THE TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS TO THE WEST, NORTH, AND EAST AND MID PENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT TO THE WEST; #134-11-MISC. FROM: Cynthia Richardson, Planning Consultant V" APPROVED BY: Debbie Pedro, AICP, Planning Director C31_ RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission: Forward a recommendation to the City Council to approve the proposed prezoning of the unincorporated Olive Tree Hill area and adopt the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration. (Attachment #1) BACKGROUND On May 2, 2011 the Town received a letter from the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) requesting the Town consider annexing the remaining island pockets that are within the Town's Urban Service Area (USA) (Attachment #2). On September 22, 2011, the City Council reviewed the request and approved an annexation plan that was sent to LAFCO on September 26, 2011. In addition the City Council authorized staff to begin the prezoning process. One of the islands to be annexed is located along Stonebrook Drive, Olive Tree Lane and Northcrest Lane. This neighborhood is almost entirely surrounded by the Town of Los Altos Hills. It is one of five unincorporated islands identified in the Town's General Plan as areas subject to future annexation by the Town. Prior to annexation by the Town, the unincorporated area must be prezoned. Prezoning will establish the zoning district which will apply in the event of annexation to the Town. The project area will be prezoned "R -A" (Residential -Agricultural). The zoning classification established through the prezoning procedure will become effective and enforceable when the annexation is approved and will have no force or effect on the subject properties until that time. The area subject to this prezoning consists of 25 developed parcels. Each parcel maintains a single family home with associated structures and paving. See Attachment #3 for a list of the parcels included within this annexation along with information regarding each parcel. A map of the project area is included as Attachment #4. Roads within the project area include Olive Tree Lane and Northcrest Lane both of which are private. Stonebrook Drive serves as access to several parcels however this portion of Stonebrook Drive is already within the Town limits and is considered a private road. An emergency access easement connects Stonebrook Drive to Laura Court. Staff Report to the Planning Commission Prezoning of Olive Tree Hill Area March 1, 2012 Page 2 of 3 SANTA CLARA COUNTY ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION The County zoning designation for the subject parcels is RHS (Urban Hillside Residential). The existing RHS County designation allows single-family residential development as follows: Zoning Comparison r -E- -� -T ^i -c• ;c >l Zoning Standards 1F" a�` 1, 2 4••S'€- � i"AY � 4�"' L..b .4..'Sf4 �„ a r.,f -3 ra FRHS tk12 A ;� '� 3 ASanta Land Use Single -Family Residential Single -Family Residential Minimum Lot Size 1 Acre 1 Acre Min. Front Yard Setback 30' 40' Min. Side Yard Setback 20' 30' Min. Rear Yard Setback 25' 30' Maximum Height 35' 27'-32" Maximum Floor Area No limit Varies per Section 10-1.503 Maximum Development Area No limit Varies per Section 10-1.502 Second Dwelling Units Max. size 800 sq. ft. Max. size 1,000 sq. n Portions of the County's development standards for this area can be found in Chapter 2.20 of the Santa Clara County Zoning Ordinance (Attachment #5). TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS PREZONE AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION The Olive Tree Hill area already has a Land Use Designation of Residential (R) in the Town's General Plan. The proposed prezoning will change the zoning designation of the Olive. Tree Hill Area from the County's RHS zone to the Town's R -A (Residential- Agricultur,il) zoning designation at the time of annexation. The R -A (Residential -Agricultural) zoning designation allows single-family residential development with a minimum lot size of one -acre. If annexed into the Town, the Los Altos Hills R -A zoning standards will apply. PATHWAYS The Town's General Plan Master Path Plan indicates one existing pathway located along Stonebrook Drive which currently does not connect to any other paths. The Plan also shows a connection at the end of Olive Tree Lane onto the Mid Peninsula Regional Open Space District property which connects to the Chamise Trail. The Pathways Committee sent a letter to the owners letting them know that they would be available prior to their regular meetings on January 23, 2012 and February 27, 2012 to discuss the importance of the pathway system within the Town and informed the potential new residents about the pathway system dedication procedures. Los Altos Hills Municipal Code Section 10.2.602(a) states that each property shall have direct access to a Staff Report to the Planning Commission Prezoning of Olive Tree Hill Area March 1, 2012 Page 3 of 3 pathway or indirect access via a vehicular right-of-way. New pathway dedication and construction may only be triggered by a subdivision, construction of a new main residence or secondary dwelling, cumulative development of 900 square feet of habitable floor area or a barn greater than 900 square feet (see General Plan Pathway Element Goals 4.2 and 4.3). In the future, a General Plan Pathways Element Master Path Plan amendment will be considered for this area. CEQA STATUS In conformance with CEQA requirements, staff prepared an Initial Study and Negative Declaration. A Notice of Intent to adopt a Negative Declaration was published in the Town Crier on February 8, 2012. The notice was also submitted to the Santa Clara County Clerks Office for a 20 day public review period which began on February 10, 2012 and ends on March 1, 2012. CONCLUSION Staff recommends approval of the proposed Prezoning of the Olive Tree Hill area for the following reasons: 1. The project is consistent with Policy 5.2 of the Town's 2008 General Plan Land Use Element and with Policy H, Program 6 of the 2002 Housing Element (Attachment #6). 2. The current residential land use in the project area is in general conformance with the Town's Residential (R) Land Use designation. 3. The prezoning would have no force or effect on the subject properties until the area is annexed into the Town. Since the Olive Tree Hill Drive neighborhood is built -out, if the area is- annexed into the Town, there should be little or no change to the make up of the existing area or community. PUBLIC COMMENT As of this date the Town has not received comments from the public regarding this proj ect. ATTACHMENTS 1. Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration 2. Letter from LAFCO 3. List of parcels within area to be prezoned 4. Map of area to be prezoned 5. Excerpts from the Santa Clara County Zoning Ordinance 6. Excerpts from the General Plan Attachment 1 TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT TITLE: Prezoning of unincorporated Olive Tree Hill area. NAME AND ADDRESS OF PROJECT SPONSOR: Town of Los Altos Hills, 26379 Fremont Road, Los Altos Hills, California 94022 LOCATION OF PROJECT: Unincorporated Santa Clara County lands bounded by the Town of Los Altos Hills to the north, east, and west, and by Mid Peninsula Regional Open Space lands to the south, encompassing 29.15 acres (25 properties) on Stonebrook Drive, Olive Tree Lane and Northcrest Lane. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Prezoning of twenty five unincorporated island parcels (APN#'s 336-35-052, 053, 056, 057, 058, 060, 061, 062, 063, 064, 065, 069, 070, 071, 072, 073, 074, 076, 077, 078, 079, 084, 085,.089, 090) to R -A Residential -Agriculture District. Current County Zoning Designation is RHS (Urban Hillside Residential). MITIGATION MEASURES, IF ANY, INCLUDED IN THE PROJECT TO AVOID POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS: The project is not anticipated to have any potentially significant effects on the environment and therefore no mitigation measures are proposed. The Town of Los Altos Hills has completed a review of the proposed project, and on the basis of the attached Initial Study, has determined that the project will not have a significant effect upon the environment for the following reasons: a. For the reasons specified in the attached Initial Study (Exhibit "A"), the project does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal species, or eliminate important -examples of the major periods of California history or pre -history. b. For the reasons specified in the attached Initial Study (Exhibit "A!'), the project does not have the potential to achieve short-term goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals. c. For the reasons specified in the attached Initial Study (Exhibit "A"), the project does not have impacts which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable. d. For the reasons specified in the attached Initial Study (Exhibit "X'), the project does not have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. Debbie Pedro, AICP, Planning Director TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS Circulated on: Q,'y IS Date Adopted on: INITIAL STUDY Initial Study Checklist & References Olive Tree Hill Annexation Project #134-11 N1isc. Town of Los Altos Hills -Planning Department 26379 Fremont Road Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 Town of Los Altos Hills Initial Study Prezoning Olive Tree Hill February 10, 2012 Page 2 of 25 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 Foran 1. Project Title: Prezoning of Unincorporated Olive Tree Hill Area. 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: Town of Los Altos Hills, 26379 Fremont Road, Los Altos Hills, California 94022 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Debbie Pedro, AICP, Planning Director (650) 941-7222. 4. Initial Study prepared by: Cynthia Richardson, Consulting Planner (650) 941-7222. 5. Project Location: Unincorporated Santa Clara County lands bounded by the Town of Los Altos Hills to the north, east and west, and by Rancho San Antonio Open Space, Mid Peninsula Regional Open Space to the south. 6. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Town of Los Altos Hills, 26379 Fremont Road, Los Altos Hills, California 94022 7. General Plan Designation: Urban Service Area (Santa Clara County General Plan Designation. Residential (R) (Los Altos Hills General Plan). 8. Zoning: R -A (Residential -Agricultural) 9. Description of Project: Prezoning of Unincorporated Olive Tree Hill Area: Prezoning of approximately 25 unincorporated parcels (31.7 acres) bounded by the Town of Los Altos Hills to the west, north, and east, and to the south by an unincorporated portion of Santa Clara County, encompassing 24809, 24898, 24892, 24860, 24808, 24802, 24837, 24855, 24863, 24871, 24877, 24899, 24886, 24874 Olive Tree Lane, 10956, 10944, 10933, 10955, 24797, 24795, 24793, 24791 Northcrest Lane, 10925, 10921, 10919 Stonebrook Drive. The proposed Town of Los Altos Hills zoning designation, Residential -Agricultural, would have no effect unless these lands were annexed to the Town. No physical changes are proposed as a part of Town of Los Altos Hills Initial Study Prezoning Olive Tree Hill February 10, 2012 Page 3 of 25 this prezoning application. 10. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The project is located on the south side of Stonebrook, the end of Olive Tree Lane and Northcrest Lane. Surrounding land uses include one and two story single-family residences with minimum lot size of 1 acre. 11. Other public agencies whose approval is required: Santa Clara County Local Agency Formation Commission. Town of Los Altos Hills Initial Study Prezoning Olive Tree Hill February 10, 2012 Page 4 of 25 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact thavis a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ❑ Aesthetics ❑ Agriculture Resources ❑ Air Quality ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Geology /Soils ❑ Hazards'& Hazardous ❑ Hydrology / Water Quality Q Land Use / Planning Materials ❑ Mineral Resources ❑ Noise ❑ Population / Housing U. 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 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 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 RVIPACT 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: I-�D-�� Debbie Pedro, AICP, Planning Director Town of Los Altos Hills Initial Study Prezoning Olive Tree Hill February 10, 2012 Page 5 of 25 I. AESTHETICS -- Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a ❑ ❑ ❑ scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock ❑ ❑ ❑ outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual ❑ ❑ ❑ character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light ❑ ❑ ❑ or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? DISCUSSION: No new development is proposed as part of this project. The aesthetics of the area will not change no scenic resources exist within this area and no physical changes will be made with this project. Therefore, this project would have no direct effect on the physical environment. MITIGATION: None Sources: 1,5,6 0 Fal a Town of Los Altos Hills Initial Study Prezoning Olive Tree Hill February 10, 2012 Page 6 of 25 II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES— Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the ❑ ❑ ❑ maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? J 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? DISCUSSION: The proposed project will have no foreseeable impact on Agricultural Resources. The site is not used as commercial agricultural land. MITIGATION: None Source: 8 0 Town of Los Altos Hills Initial Study Prezoning Olive Tree Hill February 10, 2012 Page 7 of 25 M. AIR QUALITY — Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of Ll ❑ L3 the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air ❑ LJ L3quality 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? DISCUSSION: Santa Clara County is currently a non -attainment basin for ozone thresholds but achieves an attainment level for carbon monoxide emissions. The proposed project will not increase any emissions or contribute to substantial pollutant concentrations. The proposed project will have no foreseeable impact on air quality. NIITIGATION: None Source: 9 0 Fal 01 Town of Los Altos Hills Initial Study Prezoning Olive Tree Hill February 10, 2012 Page 8 of 25 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, ❑ ❑ ❑ Q 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ Q 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ Q (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 ❑ ❑ ❑ Q 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, ❑ ❑ ❑ Q such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? 0 Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural ❑ ❑ ❑ Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? DISCUSSION: No physical changes will be made to the property with this project. The proposed project will have no foreseeable impact on biological resources. 701 Town of Los Altos Hills Initial Study Prezoning Olive Tree Hill February 10, 2012 Page 9 of 25 MITIGATION: None Sources: 1,5,6 Town of Los Altos Hills Initial Study Prezoning Olive Tree Hill February 10, 2012 Page 10 of 25 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 cemeteries? DISCUSSION: No physical changes will be made to the property with this project. The proposed project will have no foreseeable impact on Cultural Resources. MITIGATION: None Sources: 3,5,16 a A Town of Los Altos Hills Initial Study Prezoning Olive Tree Hill February 10, 2012 Page 11 of 25 VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -- Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential ❑ ❑ ❑ Q 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 ❑ ❑ ® Q substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ❑ ❑ ❑ Q iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including LJ ❑ Q liquefaction? iv) Landslides? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? ❑ ❑ ❑ Q 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 E3❑ ❑ Q 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ Q property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems ❑ ❑ ❑ 21 where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? DISCUSSION: No fault traces exist within the immediate area and no new development is proposed, the proposed project will have no foreseeable impact on Geology and Soils. MITIGATION: None Sources: 12 Town of Los Altos Hills Initial Study Prezoning Olive Tree Hill February 10, 2012 Page 12 of 25 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? 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 hazard for people residing or working in the project area? 0 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 fires, including where wildlands are adjacent ❑ ❑ ❑ to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? DISCUSSION: The proposed prezoning would 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 hazardous material site according to CA Government Code 65962.5. a 5 7 021 Town of Los Altos Hills Initial Study Prezoning Olive Tree Hill February 10, 2012 Page 13 of 25 MITIGATION: None Sources: 13 Town of Los Altos Hills Initial Study Prezoning Olive Tree Hill February 10, 2012 Page 14 of 25 VIII HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY -- Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste 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- 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? g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal 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 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) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? ❑ ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ ❑ Q Town of Los Altos Hills Initial Study Prezoning Olive Tree Hill February 10, 2012 Page 15 of 25 DISCUSSION: No physical changes will be made to the property with this project. The proposed project will have no foreseeable impact on hydrology and water quality. MITIGATION: None Sources: 11,18 Town of Los Altos Hills Initial Study Prezoning Olive Tree Hill February 10, 2012 Page 16 of 25 IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, ❑ ❑ ❑ local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community ❑ ❑ ❑ conservation plan? DISCUSSION: The Town's General Plan, Housing Element (Policy H, Program 6, adopted by the City Council on January 15, 2004) discusses the Towns policy of annexing lands within the Town's Sphere of Influence to increase the supply of lands suitable for residential development. This project proposes to annex island areas within the Town's Sphere and in accordance with the LAFCO policies. The affected parcels are developed with single family residences which is consistent with the R -A (residential agricultural) zoning of the Town. MITIGATION: None Sources: 4,5,6 a RFA Town of Los Altos Hills Initial Study Prezoning Olive Tree Hill February 10, 2012 Page 17 of 25 y� y Y ii' Less Than � Less Than � a �� S1g1TIfiC3nt �Ylth } �� .S! RII1CaDt g � � $ Mrti Significant No Impacts .� u � _z t Im act hon Impact a r rIncorporation x M 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 locally4mportant mineral resource recovery ❑ ❑ ❑ Q site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? DISCUSSION: No physical changes will be made to the property with this project. The proposed project will have no foreseeable impact on mineral resources. MITIGATION: None Sources: 5,6 Town of Los Altos Hills Initial Study Prezoning Olive Tree Hill February 10, 2012 Page 18 of 25 M. NOISE --Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or Potentially Less Than Less Than£ b) Exposure of persons to or generation of Sigmficaut S�gnifTcaut with Significant ❑ No Impact+ ❑ Q groundborne noise levels? Mibgatton c) A substantial permanent increase in Impact Incorporation Impact ❑ ❑ Q above levels existing without the project? s, x d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 M. NOISE --Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 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? 0 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: No physical changes will be made to the property with this project. The proposed project will have no foreseeable impact on noise. MITIGATION: Sources: 5, 6, Town of Los Altos Hills Initial Study Prezoning Olive Tree Hill February 10, 2012 Page 19 of 25 XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING— Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or ❑ ❑ ❑ indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of ❑ ❑ ❑ replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement ❑ ❑ ❑ housing elsewhere? DISCUSSION: No properties within this island area are large enough to subdivide therefore no increase in population will occur. No existing housing is proposed to be removed and no persons are to be relocated. MITIGATION: None Sources: 3,5 f Town of Los Altos Hills Initial Study Prezoning,Olive Tree Hill February 10, 2012 Page 20 of 25 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ Q 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? ❑ ❑ ❑ Q Police protection? ❑ ❑ ❑ Q Schools? ❑ ❑ ❑ Q Parks? ❑ ❑ ❑ Q Other public facilities? ❑ ❑ ❑ Q DISCUSSION: The proposed project will have no foreseeable impacts on any public service or facility, nor substantially alter government facilities, or the provision of public services. All services and facilities that are currently being provided will remain the same. MITIGATION: None Sources: 3 Town of Los Altos Hills Initial Study Prezoning Olive Tree Hill February 10, 2012 Page 21 of 25 .j•,¢,.'-apnpY 7.$•�`i!f`' ^'4: "�'4 org .{ qr n 'y. �. Jr ,Fjt•�e�$+.k.Y �• �' "Y.� 1+�,,t {£�•.ii 'NsY �-• •4 'T. .1c .. r"xE. 4. �L'ih`1',5a - _ 3 v+-�.. j 'h °ni }k� l] IM—f'-ftz; sPotenhallyx„� S�gmficant; Less Than a s y Significant :i"th Less Than t- 3� r air , �" Y hry > ImpackF Y r nincan`t= ;gamNo Impact Im p XIV. RECREATION -- Would the project: a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that ❑ ❑ ❑ [f 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 project will not have a foreseeable impact on recreation facilities. MITIGATION: None Sources: 5,6 Town of Los Altos Hills Initial Study Prezoning Olive Tree Hill February 10, 2012 Page 22 of 25 F4 �✓3 % ' S #-" kik2 ih F . .!" 3 ` F'.ux" F �f}�ff� u''CM J s ,+ - F." 4 % '44 -ice F € _` s Significant a;� load and capacity of the street system (i.e., S�gmficanY� wttL z �� s Sigmfieant Nolmpact 3 �r ��z� .� � �.�� Im act � �¢•4 � � � Im act-�� - '� n � } number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ 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? ❑ ❑ ❑ g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation ❑ ❑ ❑ Q (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? DISCUSSION: The proposed project will have no foreseeable impact on transportation and traffic. Two new private neighborhood streets (Olive Tree Lane and Northcrest Lane) will be added to the inventory of streets within the Town once annexation is finalized. Both streets are privately owned and will not add to the maintenance responsibility of the Town. Stonebrook Avenue, which accesses some of the parcels to be annexed, is already within the Town of Los Altos Hills limits and is considered a private street. MITIGATION: None Sources: 1,3,5 Town of Los Altos Hills Initial Study Prezoning Olive Tree Hill February 10, 2012 Page 23 of 25 Potentially p 'Less Than Less Than Significant with; Significant ° Significant No Impact Impact Mitigation k •` In act Incorporation p , 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ [Jf construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of ❑ ❑ L]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 E3 ❑ and resources, or are new or expanded ❑ Q 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 ❑ Ll E3serve the project's projected demand in addition to the providers existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the ❑ ❑ ❑ [� project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local ❑ 13 LJ statutes and regulations related to solid waste? DISCUSSION: The proposed project will not have an impact on utility and service systems. The nearest sewer line to the subject property is located on Stonebrook Drive and approximately 1,800 linear feet away on Olive Tree Lane. These properties are in the Los Altos Sewer Basin and there is capacity available for all of these parcels. The property is eligible to receive sewer services after it is annexed into the Town. Future development will be subject to further environmental review and shall comply with Town ordinances, standards and policies. MITIGATION: None Sources: 1,3,5,15 Town of Los Altos Hills Initial Study Prezoning Olive Tree Hill February 10, 2012 Page 24 of 25 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: 1-18 Potenttally Less Than Less Than ?nificant with Sig Significant No Impact S�gn►ficant;, Impact Mitigation Impact ineorporatton 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: 1-18 Town of Los Altos Hills Initial Study Prezoning Olive Tree Hill February 10, 2012 Page 25 of 25 Snnrce T,ist! 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 CountyAssessor, Santa Clara County 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 CNDDB Map 11. Purissima Hills Water District Map 12. Geotechnical and Seismic Hazard Zones Map of Los Altos Hills, Cotton Shires -and Associates, December 2005 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 H Indian Burial Grounds (Title B Division B-6) 17. CEQA Guidelines, 2010 18. Google Earth Attachment 2 ELAFCO ME Local.Agency Formation Commission of Santa Clara County May 2, 2011 Debbie Pedro, AICP Planning Director Town. of Los Altos Hills 26379 Fremont Road Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 RF: Status of Unincorporated Lands within the Town of Los Altos Hills' Urban Service Area (Unincorporated Islands) Dear Ms. Pedro: In late October 2010, the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) of Santa Clara County directed its staff to develop an inventory of the remaining unincorporated islands and to report back to the Commission on each city's plans regarding its islands. Five Unincorporated Islands Remain in the Town of Los Altos Hills The Town has five unincorporated islands within its Urban Service Area (USA). See table below and attached maps. 70 West Hedding Street . 11 th Floor, East Wing • San Jose, CA 95110 - (408) 299-5127 • (4081295-1613 Fax • wwwsanmcfara.lafco,ca.gov COMMISSIONERS: Pete Constant Liz Kniss, Margaret Abe-Koga, Mike Wassemnan, Susan Vicklund--Wilson ALTERNATE COMMISSIONERS. Sam Liccardo, Al Pinheiro, George Shirakawa, Terry Trumbull EXECUTIVE OFFICER: Neelima Palacherla No. of Island ID'# :Acres LAH02 8.9 LAH04 24.3 ,Affil --- Total 321.5 70 West Hedding Street . 11 th Floor, East Wing • San Jose, CA 95110 - (408) 299-5127 • (4081295-1613 Fax • wwwsanmcfara.lafco,ca.gov COMMISSIONERS: Pete Constant Liz Kniss, Margaret Abe-Koga, Mike Wassemnan, Susan Vicklund--Wilson ALTERNATE COMMISSIONERS. Sam Liccardo, Al Pinheiro, George Shirakawa, Terry Trumbull EXECUTIVE OFFICER: Neelima Palacherla Annex Islands that Oualify for the Streamlined Annexation Process Islands LAH01, LAH02, LAH03, and LAH04 consist of primarily residential development and rural estates and are eligible for annexation through the streamlined annexation process. Islands such as these, are substantially developed and create inefficiencies / confusion in terms of the provision of emergency and other municipal services. Furthermore, residents of such islands are politically disenfranchised from the city government that surrounds them. Annexation of such islands is a high priority for LAFCO and the County. In order to encourage these annexations,'LAFCO continues to waive its fees for island annexations and the County continues to provide financial incentives including covering the costs for preparing Assessor and Surveyor reports and maps, paying the State Board of Equalization filing fees, and budgeting for road improvements in islands approved for.annexation. As you may be aware, the law streamlining the annexation process for qualified unincorporated islands sunsets on January 1, 2014. We encourage the City to take advantage of this process and the incentives currently being offered by both the County and LAFCO for such annexations. Please provide us with an update on -the City's plans and time -line for -annexing LAHOI, LAH02, LAH03, and LAH04. Review Remaining Island In terms of the Town's large remaining island (LAH05), please review this island and consider opportunities to annex all or portions of it. As you know, LAFCO has approved several out of agency contracts for sewer service to many developed lots in Island LAH05. LAFCO approved those contracts in order to address an existing health and safety concern and with the understanding that the Town would annex these areas as soon as it becomes feasible. Annexation of these areas is now feasible, as they are now contiguous to the Town or would ................ ecome contiguous as the Town annexes areas where LAFCO approved these out of agency contracts for sewer service. A Response is Greatly Appreciated LAFCO staff is willing to work with and assist the City in resolving these island issues. We would appreciate knowing the City's annexation and/or urban service area amendment plans for these islands as soon as possible and no later Page 2 of 3 than June 10, 2011. If you have any questions or concerns or would like to meet to discuss the City's plans, I can be reached at (408) 299-5127 or neelima.galacherla@ceo.scc og v.org or you may contact Dunia Noel, LAFCO Asst. Executive Officer, at (408) 299-5148/ dunia.noel@ceo.sccgov.org. Thank for you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Neelima Palacherla LAFCO Executive Officer Attachment: Maps of Unincorporated Islands in City's Urban Service Area prepared by the Santa Clara County Planning Office Cc: Carl Cahill, City Manager, Town of Los Altos Hills Los Altos Hills Town Council Members Jody Hall Esser, Director, Dept. of Planning & Development, Santa Clara County LAFCO Members Page 3 of 3 Attachment #3 Olive Tree Hill Annexation LIST OF PARCELS FOR ANNEXATION APN Owner Address Lot Size Acres, approximate) Use Year Built House Size 33635052 Schneider 24898 Olive Tree Ln 1.06 Residence 1968 2,299 336 35 053 Arjani 24892 Olive Tree Ln 1.31 Residence 1990 6,949 336 35 056 Ot Property LLC 24860 Olive Tree Ln 1.00 Residence 2008 5,166 336 35 057 Ghazvini 24808 Olive Tree Ln 1.00 Residence 1968 3,293 33635058 St John 24802 Olive Tree Ln 1.13 Residence 1968 2,960 336 35 060 Defaii 24837 Olive Tree Ln 1.00 Residence 1965 3,539 336 35 061 Sahiwal 24855 Olive Tree Ln 1.32 Residence 1967 3,598 .33635062 Sood 24863 Olive Tree Ln 1.11 Residence 1965 3,954 336 35 063 Sliwa & Tosaya 24871 Olive Tree Ln 1.01 Residence 1966 4,103 .33635064 Heel 24877 Olive Tree Ln 1.01 Residence 1978 5,662 .33635065 Gardner 24899 Olive Tree Ln 1.01 Residence 1967 5,922 .33635069 Chan 10956 Stonebrook Dr 1.08 Residence 1964 4,629 .33635070 Malachowsky 10944 Stonebrook Dr 1.08 Residence 1965 3,708 .33635071 Malachowsky 10933 Northcrest Ln 1.11 Residence 1970 14,626 336 35 072 Lo 10955 Stonebrook Dr 1.64 Residence 1969 5,946 .33635073 Sheldon 24797 Northcrest Ln 1.51 Residence 1966 3,213 336 35 074 Consorti 24795 Northcrest Ln 1.22 Residence 1967 2,202 .33635076 Russell 24793 Northcrest Ln 1.30 Residence 1969 4,078 .33635077 Shoemaker 10925 Stonebrook Dr 1.20 Residence 1968 4,844 336 35 078 Walia 10921 Stonebrook Dr 1.00 Residence 1971 4,432 .33635079 Pak 10919 Stonebrook Dr 1.10 Residence 2008 7,785 33635084 Pappas & Sandor 24809 Olive Tree Ln .91 Residence 1965 3,590 336 35 085 Soby 24791 Northcrest Ln 1.38 Residence 1972 2,790 336 35 089 Manber 24886 Olive Tree Ln 1.61 Residence 1968 4,650 336 35 090 Wuerthner 24874 Olive Tree Ln 1.05 Residence 1972 2,883 Attachn.ent 4 �W ® 3 SANTA CLARA COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE CHAPTER 2.30: URBAN RESIDENTIAL BASE DISTRICTS Attachment 5 CHAPTER 2.30 URBAN RESIDENTIAL BASE DISTRICTS Sections - § 2.30.010 Purposes § 2.30.020 Use Regulations § 2.30.030 Development Standards § 2.30.040 Slope -Density Requirements in RHS District § 2.30.010 Purposes The purpose of this chapter is to define allowable land uses and property development standards for the urban residential base districts, which include the R1 "One -Family Residence," RIE "One -Family Residence—Estate," RHS "Urban Hillside Residential," RIS "Low -Density Campus Residential," R3 "Medium -Density Campus Residential," R2 "Two -Family Residence," and R3 "Multi -Family Residential" districts. The overall purposes of the urban residential base districts are to provide for appropriate uses in the unincorporated areas of the county that are within the urban service areas of cities and to regulate the type and intensity of development in these areas in a manner consistent with the general plan of the applicable city. The further specific purposes of each of the urban residential base districts are described below. A. Rl One Family Residence. The purpose of the One -Family Residence district, also known as the R1 district, is to provide for single-family dwellings, and for the orderly and efficient arrangement of dwellings, yards, accessory buildings, and other residential site improvements. B. RIE One Family Residence—Estate. The purpose of the One -Family Residence—Estate district, also known as the RIE district, is to provide for low- density single-family dwellings, and for the orderly and efficient arrangement of dwellings, yards, accessory buildings, and other residential site improvements. C. RHS Urban Hillside Residential. The purpose of the Urban Hillside Residential district, also known as the RHS district, is to provide for low-density residential development and limited agricultural uses on foothill lands adjacent to incorporated cities. RHS districts include areas that are particularly vulnerable to natural hazards and environmental degradation. Development density shall be determined by slope -density formulas that consider availability of public water and sewer, and by the severity of geologic and natural hazards. Note that §2.30.040 applies to this district. REV: MARCH 2010 SANTA CLARA COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE CHAPTER 2.30: URBAN RESIDENTIAL BASE DISTRICTS D. RIS Low -Density Campus Residential. The purpose of the Low -Density Campus Residential district, also known as the RIS district, is to provide for urban low-density housing (up to eight units per acre) on the lands of Stanford University, and to provide for limited neighborhood -supporting non-residential uses. This designation implements the specific land use policies for low-density housing prescribed by the 2000 Stanford Community Plan by encouraging more compact and efficient urban development. E. R3S .Medium -Density Campus Residential. The purpose of the Medium - Density Campus Residential district, also known as the R3S district, is to provide for urban medium -density housing on the lands of Stanford University, and to provide for limited neighborhood -supporting non-residential uses. This designation implements the specific land use policies for the medium -density housing prescribed by the. 2000 Stanford Community Plan. F. R2 Two -Family Residence. The purpose of the Two -Family Residence district, also known as the R2 district, is to provide for one- and two-family dwelling units, and for the orderly and efficient arrangement of dwellings, yards, accessory buildings, and other residential site improvements. G. R3 Multi -Family Residential. The purpose of the Multi -Family Residential district, also known as the R3 district, is to provide space for multiple family residential development commonly found in an urban environment. The R3 district is intended for intensive residential uses at readily accessible urban locations. § 2.30.020 Use Regulations The following tables, Tables 2.30-1 and 2.30-2, specify the allowable land uses for the urban residential base districts, listed by use classification as defined in Chapter 2.10. The regulations for each district are established by letter designations as follows: "R" designates use classifications that are permitted by right. "S" designates use classifications permitted with a special permit, subject to the provisions of Chapter 5.60, Special Permit. "A" designates use classifications permitted with architecture and site approval, subject to the provisions of Chapter 5.40, Architecture and Site Approval. "U" designates use classifications permitted with a use permit, and architecture and site approval, subject to the provisions of Chapter 5.65, Use Permit, and Chapter 5.40, Architecture and Site Approval. REV: MARCH 2010 SANTA CLARA COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE CHAPTER 2.30: URBAN RESIDENTIAL BASE DISTRICTS "—" designates use classifications that are not allowed. Supplemental regulations for the establishment and conduct of a use are referenced in the "Supplemental Regulations" column of the table. Use classifications not listed in the table are prohibited in the urban residential base districts: Table 2.30-1 Permitted by Right RESIDENTIAL USES ;;5.;; Special Permit (Ch 5.60) IN' URBAN RESIDENTIAL BASE DISTRICTS 'p' ASA (Ch 5.40) lJ ? Use Permit/ ASA (Ch 5.65, 5.40) Not Permitted USE CLASSIFICATIONS ZONING Supplemental RI RIE RHS RIS R3S R2 R3 Regulations Residences Single -Family 0 Q[3 M 4:1 13 0 Note 1, 2 (RIS) Two -Family — — — 0 "q''; 0 [3 Note 1, 2 (RIS) Multi -Family — — — A; :A ` — Ac Residential Accessory 13 13 0 0 0 0 13 § 4.20.020 Structures & Uses Note 3 (R3 S) Community Care Limited 13 0 0 0 0 0 [3 § 4.10.090, Note 4 Expanded. 4U l)f%A A Y� 1 § 4.10.090 Domestic Animals Dogs & Cats 0 0 13 0 0 0 13 Note 5 Small Animals [3 0 [3 0 0 13 [3 Note 6 Horses [3 0- 13 [3 — — — Note 7 Home Occupations General 1 0 0 [3 0 0 [ § 4.10.180 Expanded S , S S > S,. S:_ S S § 4.10.180, Note 8 Residential—CommunalU- Institutional Rooming Houses, Fraternities, & Sororities Secondary Dwellings 13 13 [3 — — §4.10.340 Notes 1, 9, 10 Temporary Residence / 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 §4.10.380 Construction NOTES: REV: MARCH 2010 SANTA CLARA COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE CHAPTER 2.30: URBAN RESIDENTIAL BASE DISTRICTS 1. Single-family dwellings, including certain additions, new secondary dwellings, and duplexes, may be subject to the building site approval provisions of Sections C12-300 et seq. of the County Ordinance Code. 2. In RI S districts, ASA is required for new single-family residences on lots smaller than 10,890 square feet (0.25 acre). Two-family residences are not permitted on lots smaller than 10,890 square feet, and ASA is required for new two-family residences on lots smaller than 21,780 square feet (0.50 acre). ASA is not required for additions or remodels of existing dwellings. 3. In R3S districts, accessory structures not meeting the criteria of § 4.20.020 may be allowed subject to ASA. 4. Facilities qualifying as "Large -Family Day -Care Homes," serving between 7 and 14 children, are subject to an administrative permit, per the provisions of Division B24 of the County Ordinance Code. 5. Not to exceed two (2) dogs and five (5) cats over four months of age on parcels less than five acres, or three (3) dogs and five (5) cats over four months of age on parcels five acres or more, unless the required permit is secured pursuant to Division B31 of the County Ordinance Code. 6. Small Animals —Limited. Not to exceed a total of twelve (12) of any of the following small animals: rabbits, guinea pigs, chicken and fowl, and similar species as approved by the Zoning Administrator. Roosters, peafowl, guinea fowl, geese or quacking ducks are not allowed. 7. Horses. Minimum lot size for the keeping of horses in urban residential districts is one-half acre. Not to exceed two horses per acre. 8. Expanded home occupations are permitted on lots of one acre or larger. See § 4.10.180 for other criteria. 9. In R3S districts, no secondary dwelling may exceed 640 square feet, and the number of secondary dwellings in a given development may not exceed 25% of the total primary units allowed by the applicable density limitation. 10. In districts where permitted, detached secondary dwellings are subject to a 10,000 square foot minimum lot size. See § 4.10.340(C) for other criteria. Table 2.30-2 NON-RESIDENTIAL USE CLASSIFICATIONS IN URBAN RESIDENTIAL BASE DISTRICTS 13 Permitted by Right Special Permit (Ch 5.60) <'A ASA (Ch 5.40) U Use Permit/ ASA (Ch 5.65, 5.40) — Not Permitted USE CLASSIFICATIONS ZONING Supplemental RI R1E RHS RIS R3S R2 R3 Regulations Agriculture — — — — — — Note 1 Antennas—Commercial Minor Major Ui US U A A°: U U, Churches (See "Religious Institutions") REV: MARCH 2010 SANTA CLARA COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE CHAPTER 2.30: URBAN RESIDENTIAL BASE DISTRICTS Table 2.30-2 r -T Permitted by Right 1A3 NON-RESIDENTIAL USE CLASSIFICATIONS Special Permit (Ch 5.60) IN URBAN RESIDENTIAL BASE DISTRICTS p ASA (Ch 5.40) Use Permit/ ASA (Ch 5.65, 5.40) Not Permitted USE CLASSIFICATIONS ZONING Supplemental RI RIE RHS RIS R3S R2 R3 Regulations Community Care Limited 0 M [3 M 13 13 13 § 4.10.090, Note 3 Expanded § 4.10.090 Golf Courses & Country Clubs Historic Structures —Use § 4.10.170 Conversion C Hospitals & Clinics Museums Vt Nonprofit Institutions U, Religious Institutions Retail Sales & Services—Local Note 2 Serving Schools Swim & Tennis Clubs Utilities and Public Facilities Note 4 Minor Major A: Wireless Telecommunication Facilities Co -location A' A § 4.10.400, Note 5 Minor A A -A:L A.- § 4.10.400 Major § 4.10.400 NOTES: 1. On lots 2.5 acres or larger in RHS districts, all agricultural uses permitted in HS districts as a matter of right (see Table 2.20-2) shall be allowed. 2. Commercial and service uses permitted in R1 S, R3S and R3 districts shall be limited in scale and in their service market to primarily serve the residents of the subject residential development. For residential support uses in R1 S and R3 S districts applicable to Stanford University lands, a business plan is required demonstrating that a preponderance of customers will be Stanford residents or employees. REV: MARCH 2010 SANTA CLARA COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE CHAPTER 2.30: URBAN RESIDENTIAL BASE DISTRICTS 3. Facilities qualifying as "Large -Family Day -Care Homes," serving between 7 and 14 children, are subject to an administrative permit, per the provisions of Division B24 of the County Ordinance Code. 4. Utility structures and facilities may be exempt from local zoning regulations if they are established by a government agency. There may also be federal or state laws that provide exemptions for certain types of utilities. 5. Co -location of wireless telecommunication facilities may be eligible for an ASA small project exemption (§ 5.40.050), where consistent with the provisions of this ordinance. Where the proposed co -location meets the criteria in Government Code §65850.6(b) relating to previously approved facilities permitted by a means of a discretionary permit issued on or after January 1, 2007, and either a negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration, or environmental impact report was prepared and adopted, the co -location shall be reviewed for consistency with the approved plans, mitigation requirements, and conditions imposed on the existing facility, and if found consistent, will be subject only to a building permit or other applicable permits required by Title C of the County Ordinance Code.. § 2.30.030 Development Standards A. Standards. Table 2.30-3 establishes property development standards for the urban residential base districts. A "—" indicates there is no applicable standard or requirement. Table 2.30-3 URBAN RESIDENTIAL BASE DISTRICTS: PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS R1 RIE RHS RIS R3S R2 R3 Minimum lot area (sq ft) For lot creation For building site With lot size combining districts Setbacks (feet)6 Front Side Comer lot side Rear Scenic road REV: MARCH 2010 5,000 5,000 §2.30.040 Note 1 Note 2 5,000 Note 3 3,750 3,750 3,750 Note 1 Note 2 3,750 Note 3 See Chapter 3. 10, Lot -Size Combining Districts 25 25 30 25 5 5 20 55 10 10 20 105 25 25 25 255 100 100 100 — §4.20.110, Setback Note 4 25 20 Note 4 5 10 Note 4 10 10 Note 4 25 15 Note 4 100 100 SANTA CLARA COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE CHAPTER 2.30: URBAN RESIDENTIAL BASE DISTRICTS Table 2.30-3 URBAN RESIDENTIAL BASE DISTRICTS: PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS R1 RIE RHS R1S R3S R2 R3 Maximum heigO eet ote Stories 2 2 3 21/2 Note 4 2 4 Lot covera e — — — — — — 50% — buildings Accessory See Chapter 4.20, Supplemental Development Standards Buildings NOTES: 1. Development density for all housing types in Rl S districts shall not exceed eight (8) units per net acre. For the purposes of this provision, net acreage shall exclude street rights-of-way, but shall include driveways and other common access ways. 2. Development density for all housing types in R3S districts shall be no less than eight (8) units per net acre and no more than 15 units per net acre. For the purposes of this provision, net acreage shall exclude street rights-of-way, but shall include driveways and other common access ways. 3. Development density in R3 districts shall conform to the density allowed by the applicable city general plan. 4. Setbacks and maximum height in R3S districts shall be as stipulated by the ASA Committee to promote quality design, and to assure adequate buffering and compatibility with adjacent land use and development. 5. Side and rear setbacks for single-family and two-family dwellings in R1 districts shall be as indicated in table. Side and rear setbacks for multi -family development shall be as stipulated by the ASA Committee to promote quality design, and to assure adequate buffering and compatibility with adjacent land use and development. 6. Setbacks and height limits may be modified for permitted non-residential uses by the ASA Committee for appropriate functioning of proposed uses, compatibility with adjacent development, or to otherwise achieve excellence of development consistent with the purpose of ASA and the intent of the zoning district. B. Flag Lots: Height Restriction. On any flag lot of less than 20,000 square feet, the maximum height of dwellings shall be 21 feet and shall not include more than one (1) story. C. Measurement. Standards shown in Table 2.30-3 are subject to the following rules of measurement: 1. Where a lot abuts a road, setbacks from that road shall be measured from the edge of the ultimate right-of-way (see "setback" definition in § 1.30.030); REV: MARCH 2010 SANTA CLARA COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE CHAPTER 2.30: URBAN RESIDENTIAL BASE DISTRICTS 2. Setbacks from all property lines not abutting a street shall be measured from the property line unless otherwise specified; and 3. Height shall be measured according to the provisions of Chapter 1.30: Definitions: General Terms. 4. Development density in RIS, R3S and R3 districts shall be calculated over the project area, which, excepting existing or new street rights-of-way, includes the entire area of any lot or assemblage of contiguous lots upon which development or redevelopment is proposed, and for which one development application is submitted. Any portions of the project area designated as open space by the applicable subdivision or ASA conditions shall be enforceably restricted to prevent increased density of development beyond that allowed by the zoning ordinance. 5. Precision of numbers for the purposes of measurement and calculation shall be as stipulated in § 1.20.030: Precision of Numbers/Rounding. § 2.30.040 Slope -Density Requirements in RHS District Table 2.30-4 describes the required minimum land area per dwelling unit, or density of development allowed, as well as the minimum parcel sizes, for the RHS district, based on the availability of public water and sewer. Density of development may be further restricted based upon site-specific characteristics of proposed lots and building sites, including slope, geologic stability, drainage, and other factors. Table 2.30-4 LOT SIZE / SLOPE -DENSITY FORMULAS IN RHS Water/Sewer Allowed Density: Lot Area Minimum�arcel Availability Land Area per Dwelling Rangel SiZe3 an a Unitl With public 1 1 — 5 acres 1 acre water and 1.2-.02*S sanitary sewer With sanitary 1 1.75 — 7.5 ac 1.75 acres sewer, without public water .6809-.010952*S Without public 1 2.5 — 10 ac 2.5 acres water or .475-.0075*S sanitary sewer REV: MARCH 2010 SANTA CLARA COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE CHAPTER 2.30: URBAN RESIDENTIAL BASE DISTRICTS NOTES: The variable "S" represents the average slope of the entire property that is the subject of the application. Average slope is determined according to the formula S= (0.00229 x IL)/A, where I is the contour interval in feet; L is the combined length of contour lines in scale feet; A is the gross area in acres of the subject lot or area of land; and, S is the average slope expressed as a percentage. The maximum number of lots or dwelling units allowed is determined by dividing the gross land area by the minimum land area per dwelling unitand-rounding down to the nearest whole number. 2. Where the average slope of the parcel is less than 10%, the land area per dwelling unit shall be equal to the lesser value in the lot area range. Where the average slope of the parcel is greater than 50%, the land area per dwelling unit shall be equal to the upper value of the lot area range. 3. Minimum parcel size requirements are expressed in gross acres and may be waived through the approval of a cluster permit issued in conformance with applicable general plan policies and the cluster permit procedures of Chapter 5.45 of this ordinance. 4. Permanent dedication of open space and development rights shall be provided as necessary and appropriate to ensure that the maximum density of development (total number of lots) does not exceed that which is permitted by the applicable slope -density formula REV. MARCH 2010 Adopted May 8, 2008 Attachment 6 GOAL 5 Ensure that the Town's growth will proceed in an orderly, planned manner in order to provide efficient and economical urban services. Policy 5.1 Issues within the sphere of influence shall be monitored for their effects on the Town. — -- Policy 5.2 Any proposed annexations shall be consistent with the Town's' General Plan land use designations and adopted annexation procedures. Policy 5.3 Maintain a cooperative working relationship with Santa Clara County regarding land use issues. Program 5.1 Request that Santa Clara County and other applicable agencies refer all proposed projects and programs within the sphere of influence to the Town of Los Altos Hills for review and continent, and act favorably on the Town's recommendations. Program 5.2 Review annexation proposals to assure that they are consistent with sphere of influence boundaries, General Plan land use designations and established annexation procedures and criteria. Program 5.3 In evaluating proposed annexations, require the preparation of a fiscal impact analysis to determine the costs and benefits to be received by the Town as a result of the proposed annexation. Land Use Element Los Altos Hills General Plan Page LU -25 Housing Goals, Policies, Programs, and Objectives Town of Los Altos Hills 2002 Housing Elerient The prompt processing of subdivision and design review applications and building permits has resulted in average construction rates consistent with the projected demand for housing in Los Altos Hills. The Town will continue to assist the property owners and development community in the housing development process. Time Frame: Responsible Agency: Quantified Objective: Ongoing (Yearly Update) PlanningBuiIding 212 above -moderate units 6. Program Continue the annexation of lands within the Town's Sphere of Influence to increase the Town's supply of lands suitable for residential development. (Formerly Program 7) In 2002 the Town prezoned a total of 286 acres of land known as San Antonio Hills that includes primarily one -acre lots. it is anticipated that most of these lands will be annexed to 'the Town of Los Altos Hills though not all within the timeframe of the 2001 Housing Element. In late 2002, the 58 acres of Ravenbury Area within San Antonio Hills was annexed by'the Town. This will add to the supply of available housing units in the Town of Los Altos Hills. Additionally, all lots of one. or more acres in size can potentially accommodate a secondary unit thus increasing the supply of affordable rental units. Time Frame: Responsible Agency: Quantified Objective June 2003 (Ravensbury Annexation) Planning/City Council 3 very low, 3 low and 3 moderate 7. Program Study and pursue additional sewer capacity for the Los Altos Basin area. The Town is in the process of preparing a Sanitary Sever Master Plan to serve as a strategic planning guide for the grading, improving and expanding of the Town's sewer infrastructure to meet existing and total "build -out" needs. Currently, 1,827 lots or approximately 60% of the Town's parcels are served by septic systems. It is anticipated that less than 10 percent of the existing systems cannot be replaced. by new septic systems and thus will require sewer services from Page 42