HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 3.2W c�-
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS February 2, 2006
Staff Report to the Planning Commission
RE: PREZONING OF UNINCORPORATED SAN ANTONIO HILLS AREA: 82
PARCELS (19.99 ACRES) EAST OF THE TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS AND
SOUTH OF THE CITY OF LOS ALTOS, GENERALLY BETWEEN
MAGDALENA AVENUE AND EASTBROOK AVENUE INLCUDING
SPALDING AVENUE, PAR AVENUE, WINDING WAY, PUTTER AVENUE,
AND PUTTER WAY; #234-05-ZP. (Continued from December S, 2005)
FROM: Debbie Pedro, AICP, Senior Planner -,R
APPROVED BY: Carl Cahill, Planning Director ('(„
RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission:
Forward the application to the City Council with a recommendation to approve the
proposed prezoning of the Eastbrook -Magdalena area and adopt the Mitigated Negative
Declaration. (Attachment 2)
At the meeting on December 8, 2005, the Planning Commission directed staff to provide
additional information regarding the State housing element law and the proposed project.
Housing Element Law
Pursuant to Government Code Section 65300, each goveming body of a local government
in California is required to adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan for the
physical development of the city or county. The housing element is one of the seven
mandated elements of the local general plan. The housing element law, enacted in 1969,
mandates that local governments adequately plan to meet the existing and projected
housing needs of all economic segments of the community. Under current law, the
California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) is required to
review housing elements and make written findings regarding their compliance with State
housing element law. An overview of the State housing element law is included for the
Commission's review. (Attachment 1)
Los Altos Hills 2002 Housing Element Update
During the Town's housing element update process in early 2003, the City Council
appointed a Housing Element Subcommittee to come up with policies and programs that
might be included in the housing element in order to achieve State certification. One of
the programs recommended by the Committee (Policy H, Program 8) is to prezone 82
parcels within the Eastbrook -Magdalena neighborhood. Prezoning is the procedural first
step necessary to ultimately annex a particular territory. However, the act of prezoning
does not compel the Town to initiate annexation proceedings. If the project area is
Staff Report to the Planning Commission
Prezone of Eastbrook Magdalena
February 2, 2006
Page 2 of 2
annexed in the future, it will add to the supply of available housing units in the Town and
provide greater housing variety at higher densities than currently are allowed in the Town
of Los Altos Hills.
On May 15, 2003, the City Council unanimously adopted the recommendations of the
subcommittee and forwarded the housing element to HCD for review. Subsequently, on
November 26, 2003, the Town received notification from HCD that the 2002 Los Altos
Hills housing element was in "full compliance" with the State's housing element law.
Housing Element Implementation — By approving and adopting the 2002 Housing
Element, the Town had committed to undertake a five-year schedule of actions to
implement the housing programs outlined in the element. As part of the next housing
element update, the Town will have to provide the State with a program by program
review of implementation actions from the previous planning period. The State will then
determine whether the goals, policies, and programs of the previous plan were adequately
met.
Penalties for Non -Compliance
Qualifying for State Funds - While current state law does not provide penalties for non-
compliance, certain State funds are linked to a local government's compliance with
housing element law. For example, jurisdictions that have submitted annual progress
reports and have housing elements in compliance are eligible for Workforce Housing
Grant Program funds, a non competitive grant funded by Proposition 46 that rewards
jurisdictions for issuing building permits for housing developments affordable to lower-
income households. In addition, local governments will receive bonus grants if they are
on target to meet their overall share of the regional housing need.
Court Challenge - Enforcement of the housing element can also occur through private
litigation. A City that has a noncompliant housing element allows citizen groups, private
developers, and those with an interest in land use regulations the ability to sue. If a
lawsuit is brought against a city or county, usually one of three areas is challenged:
consistency with other planning documents, internal consistency and compliance with
state laws governing general plans. A judge who finds a general plan invalid can strip a
locality of its land use power, rendering a city or county powerless to enact zoning
ordinances or approve new developments.
SB910 — This bill introduced by Senator Joe Dunn in 2002 would have imposed
substantial financial penalties on cities that failed to comply with housing element law.
The bill did not pass but similar legislation could be reintroduced.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. State Housing Element Law Overview, State of California Department of Housing
and Community Development, August 31, 2005
2. Planning Commission Staff Report and Attachments dated December 8, 2005
ATTACHMENT I
RNOI I1 CfHWAR)FNFffFR fine
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Division of Housing Policy Development
18W0 WSven,Suiw430 Box ,-
PO.. 952053
8a0 B-9 G 94252-2053(916)323-1]]
FA% 916) 327 2"3
STATE HOUSING ELEMENT LAW
State law requires each city and county to adopt a general plan containing at least seven elements
including housing. Unlike the other mandatory general plan elements, the housing element, required to be
updated every five years, is subject to detailed statutory requirements and mandatory review by a State
agency (Department of Housing and Community Development). Housing elements have been mandatory
portions of general plans since 1969. This reflects the statutory recognition that the availability of housing
is a matter of statewide importance and that cooperation between government and the private sector is
critical to attainment of the State's housing goals. The regulation of the housing supply through planning
and zoning powers affects the State's ability to achieve its housing goal of "decent housing and a suitable
living environment for every California family" and is critical to the State's long-term economic
competitiveness.
Housing element law requires local governments to adequately plan to meet their existing and projected
housing needs including their share of the regional housing need. Housing element law is the State's
primary market-based strategy to increase housing supply and choice. The law recognizes that in order for
the private sector to adequately address housing needs and demand, local governments must adopt land -
use plans and regulatory schemes that provide opportunities for, and do not unduly constrain, housing
development.
The Department is required to allocate the region's share of the statewide housing need to Councils of
Governments (COG) based on Department of Finance population projections and regional population
forecasts used in preparing regional transportation plans. The COG develops a Regional Housing Need
Plan (RHNP) allocating the region's share of the statewide need to the cities and counties within the
region. The RHNP should promote the following objectives to:
(1) Increase the housing supply and the mix of housing types, tenure, and affordability in all cities and
counties within the region in an equitable manner;
(2) Promote infill development and socioeconomic equity, the protection of environmental and
agricultural resources, and the encouragement of efficient development patterns; and
(3) Promote an improved intraregional relationship between jobs and housing.
Housing element law recognizes the most critical decisions regarding housing development occur at the
local level within the context of the periodically updated general plan. The RHNP component of the
general plan requires local governments to balance the need for growth, including the need for additional
housing, against other competing local interests. The RHNP process of housing element law promotes the
State's interest in encouraging open markets and providing opportunities for the private sector to address
the State's housing demand, while leaving the ultimate decision about how and where to plan for growth at
the regional and local levels. While land -use planning is fundamentally a local issue, the availability of
housing is a matter of statewide importance. The RHNP process requires local governments to be
accountable for ensuring that projected housing needs can be accommodated. The process maintains local
control over where and what type of development should occur in local communities while providing the
opportunity for the private sector to meet market demand.
State Housing Element Law Page 2
In general, a housing element must at least include the following components:
Qa A Housing Needs Assessment including:
Existing Needs - The number of households overpaying for housing, living in overcrowded
conditions, or with special housing needs (e.g., the elderly, large families, homeless) the number of
housing units that need rehabilitation, and assisted affordable units at -risk of converting to market -
rate.
Proiected Needs - The city or county's share of the regional housing need as established in the RHNP
prepared by the COG. The allocation establishes the number of new units needed, by income
category, to accommodate expected population growth over the planning period of the housing
element. The RHNP provides a benchmark for evaluating the adequacy of local zoning and
regulatory actions to ensure each local government is providing sufficient appropriately
designated land and opportunities for housing development to address population growth and job
generation.
JA A Sites Inventory and Analysis:
The element most include a detailed Ind inventory and analysis including a sites specific inventory
listing properties, zoning and general plan designation, size and existing uses; a general analysis of
environmental constraints and the availability of infrastructure, and evaluation of the suitability,
availability and realistic development capacity of sites to accommodate the jurisdiction's share of the
regional housing need by income level. If the analysis does not demonstrate adequate sites,
appropriately zoned to meet the jurisdictions share of the regional housing need, by income level, the
element must include a program to provide the needed sites including providing zoning that allows
owner -occupied and rental multifamily uses "by -right" with minimum densities and development
standards that allow at least 16 units per site for sites needed to address the housing need for lower-
income households.
JJ An Analysis of Constraints on Housing:
• Governmental - Includes land -use controls, fees and exactions, on- and off-site improvement
requirements, building codes and their enforcement, permit and processing procedures, and potential
constraints on the development or improvement of housing for persons with disabilities.
& Housing Programs
Programs are required to identify adequate sites to accommodate the locality's share of the regional
housing need; assist in the development of housing for low- and moderate -income households; remove or
mitigate governmental constraints; conserve and improve the existing affordable housing stock; promote
equal housing opportunity; and preserve the at -risk units identified.
QI Quantified Objectives
Estimates the maximum number of units, by income level, to be constructed, rehabilitated, and conserved
over the planning period of the element.
08/31/05
ATTACE'.'`17:N Z
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS December 8, 2005
Staff Report to the Planning Commission
RE: PREZONING OF UNINCORPORATED SAN ANTONIO HILLS AREA: 82
PARCELS (19.99 ACRES) EAST OF THE TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS AND
SOUTH OF THE CITY OF LOS ALTOS, GENERALLY BETWEEN
MAGDALENA AVENUE AND EASTBROOK AVENUE INLCUDING
SPALDING AVENUE, PAR AVENUE, WINDING WAY, PUTTER AVENUE,
AND PUTTER WAY; #234-05-ZP.
FROM: Debbie Pedro, AICP, Senior Planneo-➢q
APPROVED BY: Carl Cahill, Planning Director CC,
That the Planning Commission:
Forward the application to the City Council with a recommendation to approve the
proposed prezoning of the Eastbrook -Magdalena area and adopt the Mitigated Negative
Declaration. (Attachment 2)
BACKGROUND
Pursuant to the 2002 Housing Element update of the Los Altos Hills General Plan (Policy
H, Program 8, adopted by the City Council on January 15, 2004), the Town is prezoning
82 parcels within the Eastbrook -Magdalena neighborhood. (Attachment 3) The program
to prezone the project area was required as part of the State's Housing and Community
Development Department (HCD) certification of the Town's 2002 Housing Element.
The purpose of the prezone and eventual annexation of the project area is to add to the
supply of available housing units in the Town and provide greater housing variety at
higher densities than currently are allowed in the Town of Los Altos Hills.
The project area is located between Magdalena Avenue and Eastbrook Avenue and
includes properties on Spalding Avenue, Par Avenue, Winding Way, Putter Avenue, and
Putter Way. The average size of the parcels is one-quarter acre and most of the lots are
already developed with single-family homes. A map of the project area and list of the
parcels affected is included in Attachment 1.
The purpose of prezoning an area is to establish the zoning district which will apply in the
event of subsequent annexation to the Town. The project area will be prezoned "R -A"
(Residential -Agricultural). The zoning classification established through the prezoning
procedure will become effective and enforceable when annexation is approved. Since no
annexation is proposed as a part of this project, the prezoning would have no force or
effect on the subject properties at this time.
Staff Report to the Planning Commission
Prezone of Eastbrook Magdalena
December 8, 2005
Page 2 of 3
EASTBROOK-MAGDALENA AREA AND PARCEL SIZE DATA
Total Parcels: 82 parcels
Total Area: 19.99 acres
Average Parcel Size: 0.25 acres
SANTA CLARA COUNTY ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION
The County zoning designation for the subject parcels is RIE-lAc nl (One -Family
Residence Estate -1 Acre Minimum, Neighborhood Preservation Combining District).
The existing RIE County designation allows single-family residential development with a
minimum lot size of one acre, a minimum front yard setback of 30 feet, a minimum side
yard setback of 20 feet, a minimum rear yard setback of 25 feet, and a maximum height of
27 feet. Portions of the County's development standards for this area can be found in
Attachment 4.
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS PREZONE AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION
The project area is designated by the Town of Los Altos Hills as Residential Unit No. 6,
"very low to low density [single family] residential" uses. The RA (Residential -
Agricultural) designation allows single-family residential development with a minimum
lot size of one -acre, a minimum front yard setback of 40 feet, a minimum side yard
setback of 30 feet, a minimum rear yard setback of 30 feet, and a maximum height of 27
feet.
Since the average lot size in the Eastbrook -Magdalena neighborhood is one-quarter (0.25)
acre and already developed, it may be impractical to apply Los Altos Hills zoning and site
development standards, especially setback requirements, to these substandard,
nonconforming lots. If annexation of the subject area were to occur as the result of a
future project, the Town could create an overlay district specific to this area with
amended development standards to accommodate new development on these much
smaller parcels.
CEOA STATUS
In conformance with CEQA requirements, staff has prepared an Initial Study and
Mitigated Negative Declaration. A Notice of Intent to adopt a Mitigated Negative
Declaration was published in the Town Crier on November 16, 2005. The notice was
also submitted to the Santa Clara County Clerks Office for a 20 day public review period
which began on November 18 and ended on December 7, 2005.
Staff Report to the Planning Commission
Prezone of Eastbrook Magdalena
December 8, 2005
Page 3 of 3
CONCLUSION
Staff recommends approval of the proposed Prezoning of the Eastbrook -Magdalena area
for the following reasons:
1. The project is consistent with the Town's General Plan Housing Element.
2. The current residential land use in the project area is in conformance with the Town's
residential land use designation.
3. The prezoning would have no force or effect on the subject properties until the area is
annexed into the Town. Furthermore, since the Eastbrook -Magdalena neighborhood is
nearly built -out, there should be little or no change to the make up of the existing area
or community as a result of future annexation.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Eastbrook -Magdalena Project Area Map and Parcels List
2. Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
3. 2002 Los Altos Hills Housing Element -Goals, Policies, Programs, and Objectives
(p. 39-44)
4. Santa Clara County RIE lAc nl Zoning Standards
W
U
Q
�
N
tO
h
N
N
Cl
10
r
0
N
O
of
n'!
N
OJ
m
m
n
O
N
n
0
m
D✓
N
N
N
�
�2
m
N
M
N
.-
d
a
V
W
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
NM
N
V
N
C
N
r
O
N
N
O
(7
N
N
N
N
N
N
Q
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
00
0.6
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
000
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
U
Q
I
V%m
a
a
a
x
3
3
T
T
d
m
T
a
mT
WT
3mma
mm
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
mT
m
m
3
m
3
y���
m
m
m
mT
WTT
m
33aa3
m>>
m
��
a
�
°o
>
a
>>
¢¢3333
aaa�3aa33
2
Q3ci5
�33333333�33
�,m
ci333
X33
m<<i333
m�
0
X33
8
`m
`m
a
`m
`m
`m
'a
'a
`m
`m
`m
`m
`m
`d
`m
`m
`m
`m
`m
a
D
m
`m
`m
m
`d
a
`m
`d
'a
'o
'o
'a
m
m
`m
V
a
C
m
n
C
d
r
d
m
Y-
m
C
C
C
C
C>
m
m
Q
m>>
m
m
m
m
m
C
C
C
m
0
0
G
0
C
C
Q
m
a
a
wm
a
a
a
3
3
a
a
a
a'
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
3
i
w
a
a
a
a
3
3
a
a
3
3
3
3
a
a
a
a
3
3
01
m
OI
C
C
4
m
C
D✓
Ot
l
01
W
m
m
C
C
C
m
m
m
Ot
C
m
00
^
Nm
O
N
N
or
t
t2
S00
m
tm0
b
r
O
of
fmO
fOO
n
n
N
N
d
[O
N
S
N
0
n
r
r
r
r
n
n
n
t0
td
000
1r0
OJ
n
onmm�oo�n�im�000�n
N
tR
r
ouzo
Nomv�r
u�oeaoo�nmw�m
u�
N
N
-
N
—
N
N
—
N
N
M
N
O
N
�-
f0
r
O
�
n
W
O
R
N
(O
r
m1
N
O
�
N
C
N
r
0
M
y
N
�p
m
a•
O
r
(7
O
N
n
O'1
N
O
-
N
cm,
=
N
fD
r
O
N
N
(O
r
at
N
t0
W
O
t0
W<
...
r
m
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
a
O
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
O)
0
NN
N
0
01
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
N
N
N
Qmrommmmmmmmmm��mmmmm�mmmmm
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
_
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
mmmmmmmmmmmmmm
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
a
mmmmmin
O
O
O
O
O
ainmmm
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
CJN
O
awn
O
O
O
wnmmmmmmmMriNNM
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
N
Cl
V
N
!O
n
O'1
m
O
N
t7
p
N
t0
n
a)
W
O
�
N
N
V
N
tD
n
OJ
(O
A
f0
O
n
N
n
t7
n
V
n
1(1
n
fD
n
n
n
at
n
N
n
O
O)
ml
N
N
y
y
y
O
V
C
V
V
YI
4A
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
O
f0
fD
tD
N
tU
N
N
N
r
Nai
ai
wm
mmmmmM
W
Q
�
N
tO
h
N
N
Cl
10
r
0
N
O
of
n'!
N
OJ
m
N
n
O
N
n
0
tD
D✓
r
N
a
�
�2
0
N
NO)
N
.-
VI
Ol
V
W
N
N
N
N
CY
N
M
N
V
N
N
CJ
N
O
N
N
N
N
O
O
O
O
c;
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
0
O
O
O
U
Q
I
a
a
a
T
T
d
m
T
a
s>
m
m
m
m
y���
m
33aa3
m>>
m
��
a
�
>
a
>>
¢¢3333
aaa�3aa33
W
m
m
m
d
m
m
m
m
m
m
d
d
m
m
C
C
m
w
C
rn
C
w
q>>>>>>>>
m
C
C
C>
m
m
Q
m>>
C
>
C
C
C
C
C
C>
m
C
C
Q
m
m
9
9
'O
9
'O
'O
"O
D
01
m
OI
C
C
4
m
C
D✓
Ot
l
01
W
m
m
C
C
C
m
m
m
Ot
C
m
m
G
C
m
w
3
3
3
3¢
y
w
y
E
3
N
N
3
3
000
onmm�oo�n�im�000�n
ouzo
Nomv�r
u�oeaoo�nmw�m
u�
I�r
n�drnm
remmnn
ommmn
`o
neo
�dmr��o
m,
r�orrmmm�m�ommrr
cm,
N
fD
r
O
N
N
(O
r
at
N
t0
W
O
t0
W<
I
<O
r
m
Ot
D
N
t7
V
N
f0
n
0
m
O
N
t�
V
f0
Gi
O
N
O
N
N
N
0
0
Cl
0
N
.0
r
O)
0
O)
0
O)
0
N
0
01
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
N
N
N
Z
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
a
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
MNmNe»mm
NnaimmmmN
NnmmmmnNe'�mmmm`vi
Nai
ai
wm
mmmmmM
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PROJECT TITLE: Prezoning of Unincorporated San Antonio Hills Area-Eastbrook/Magdalena
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 located east of the Town of Los Altos Hills andsouth of the
City of Los Altos, generally between Magdalena Avenue and Eastbrook Avenue including Spalding
Avenue, Par Avenue,Winding Way, Putter Avenue, and Putter Way.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Prezoning of approximately 82 unincorporated parcels by the Town of Los Altos Hills. The proposed
Town of Los Altos Hills zoning designation, Residential -Agricultural, would have no effect unless these
lands were annexed to the town. No such annexation is proposed as a part of this project. No physical
changes are proposed as a part of this prezone application.
MITIGATION MEASURES, IF ANY, INCLUDED IN THE PROJECT TO AVOID
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS:
The project is not anticipated to have any potentially significant effects on the environment and
therefore no mitigation measures are proposed. The Town of Los Altos Hills has completed a review of
the proposed project, and on the basis of the attached Initial Study, has determined that the project will
not have a significant effect upon the environment for the following reasons:
a. For the reasons specified in the attached Initial Study (Exhibit "A"), the project does not have the
potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten
to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal species, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of
California history or pre -history.
b. For the reasons specified in the attached Initial Study (Exhibit "A"), the project does not have the
potential to achieve short-term goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals.
c. For the reasons specified in the attached Initial Study (Exhibit "A"), the project does not have
impacts which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable.
d. For the reasons specified in the attached Initial Study (Exhibit "A"), the project does not have
environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly.
Noyerl ter R. 2005
Carl Cahill, Planning Director Date
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS
Circulated on: November 18, 2005 Adopted on:
Exhibit "A"
Town of Los Altos Hills
26379 Fremont Road
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
INITIAL STUDY
In accordance with the policies regarding implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act
of 1970, this document, combined with the attached supporting data, constitutes the initial study on the
subject project. This initial study provides the basis for the determination of whether the project may
have a significant effect on the environment. If it is determined that the project may have a significant
effect on the environment, an environmental impact report will be prepared which focuses on the areas
of concern identified by this initial study. If it is determined that the project would not have a
significant effect on the environment, it is eligible for a Negative Declaration. If it is determined that the
proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, however, the significant effects of
the project have been reduced to a less -than -significant level because revisions in the project have been
made by or agreed to by the project applicant, then the project would be eligible for a Mitigated
Negative Declaration.
1. Project Title: Prezoning of Unincorporated San Antonio Hills Area-
Eastbrook/Magdalena
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: Town of Los Altos Hills
26379 Fremont Road
Los Altos Hills, California 94022
3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Carl Cahill, Planning Director (650) 941-7222
Initial Study prepared by: Debbie Pedro, AICP, Senior Planner
4. Project Location: Unincorporated Santa Clara County lands located east of
the Town of Los Altos Hills and south of the City of Los
Altos, generally between Magdalena Avenue and Eastbrook
Avenue including Spalding Avenue, Par Avenue, Winding
Way, Putter Avenue, and Putter Way.
5. Project Sponsors Name and Address: Town of Los Altos Hill
26379 Fremont Road,
Los Altos Hills CA 94022
6. General Plan Designation: Urban Service Area (Santa Clara County General Plan
(Existing, Santa Clara County) Designation)
Residential Unit No. 6 (Los �Altos Hills General Plan)
7. Zoning: RIE IAc-nl(One-Family Residence—Estate)
(Existing, Santa Clara County)
S. Description of Project:
Prezoning of approximately 82 unincorporated parcels by the Town of Los Altos Hills. The
proposed Town of Los Altos Hills zoning designation, Residential -Agricultural, would have no
effect unless these lands were annexed to the town. No such annexation is proposed as a part of
this project. No physical changes are proposed as a part of this prezone application.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:
The unincorporated San Antonio Hills area is a hillside residential community that is presently
developed with single family residences and related structures. The Eastbrook -Magdalena area
is characterized by hilly terrain and dense vegetation with Magdalena Creek running along the
northern boundary of the neighborhood. The adjacent Town of Los Altos Hills is also a single-
family residential community with similar vegetative and topographic features.
10. Other public agencies whose approval is required: None
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
❑ Biological Resources
❑ Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
❑ Mineral Resources
❑ Public Services
❑ Utilities / Service Systems
❑
Agriculture Resources
❑
Cultural Resources
❑
Hydrology/Water Quality
❑
Noise
❑
Air Quality
❑
Geology/Soils
0
Land Use / Planning
❑
Population / Housing
❑ Recreation ❑ Transportation/Traffic
❑ 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.
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a ❑
significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added
to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ❑
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect I)
has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been ❑
addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a
"potentially significant impact" or " potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT Ll
a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately
in an earlier FIR pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that
earlier EIR, including revisions
orr/mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project.
Signature: l/Ui( Date: /8 2
005,
Carl Cahill, Planning Director _....
3
Potentially
Less Than Less Than No Impact
Significant
Significant Significant
Impact
with Impact
L3
Mitigation
L
Incarpontion
I. AESTHETICS -- Would the project
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
L3
❑
❑
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees,
L3
❑
L
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
El
Ll
L
affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Ll
❑
❑
IL AGRICULTURE RESOURCES
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant
environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural
Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the
California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing
❑
❑
❑
impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project:
❑
❑
❑
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Ll
❑
❑
Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
❑
Ll
L
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources
Agency, to non-agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
Ll
❑
L
contract?
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their
❑
Q
Q
location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural
use?
III. AIR QUALITY
Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air
quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to
make the following determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
❑
❑
❑
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or
❑
❑
❑
projected air quality violation?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant
❑
Ll
L
for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or
state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which
4
Potentially
Less Than Less Than No Impact
Significant
Significant Significant
Impact
with Impact
❑
Mitigation
❑
Irrcvmoranon
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -- Would the project
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special
status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. 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
nugratory 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?
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?
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
5
❑
❑
❑
0
❑
❑
❑
0
❑
❑
❑
0
❑
❑
❑
0
❑
❑
❑
0
❑ ❑ ❑ 0
❑
❑
❑
0
❑
❑
❑
0
❑
❑
❑
0
❑
❑
❑
0
❑
❑
❑
0
Potentially
less Than Less Than No Impact
Significant
Significant Significant
Impact
with Impact
❑
Mitigation
❑
Incorporation
cemeteries?
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.
it) 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 -I -B of the Uniform
Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for
the disposal of wastewater?
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
M
❑ ❑ ❑ 13
❑
❑
❑
0
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
Q
❑
❑
❑
0
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
J
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
0
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
Potentially
Less Than Less Than No Impact
Significant
Significant Significant
Impact
with Impact
❑
Mitigation
❑
Incorporation
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?
I) 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
D
Ll
emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
U
❑
E
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death
❑
❑
L
involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to
urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?
U
❑
0
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,
U
❑
E
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,
U
❑
0
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
❑
❑
J
existing or planned stormwaler drainage systems or provide substantial
additional sources of polluted runoff?
0 Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
❑
❑
L
g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal
❑
Ll
U
Hood 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 ❑ ❑ L
7
Potentially
Less Than Less Than No Impact
Significant
Significant Significant
Impact
with Impact
❑
Mitigation
❑
L�corporedon
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
❑
0
❑
❑
dam?
0
❑
❑
❑
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
❑
❑
❑
0
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
❑
❑
❑
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an
❑
❑
❑
agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the
general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance)
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural
❑
❑
❑
community conservation plan?
X. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would the project
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would ❑ ❑ ❑
be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral resource ❑ ❑ ❑
recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land
use plan?
XI. NOISE— Would the project result in
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of
standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbome vibration
or groundbome noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project
vicinity above levels existing without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in
the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan
has not been adopted, -within two miles of a public airport or public use - --
8
❑
❑
❑
0
❑
❑
❑
0
❑
❑
❑
0
❑
❑
❑
0
❑
❑
❑
0
Potentially
Less Than Less Than No Impact
Significant
Significant Significant
Impact
with Impact
Mitigation
Inwmormon
airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project
area to excessive noise levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose ❑ ❑ ❑
people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING -- Would the project
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for
❑
❑
❑
example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for
example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the
❑
❑
❑
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of
❑
❑
❑
replacement housing elsewhere?
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated
with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need
for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for
any of the public services:
Fire protection?
❑
❑
❑
Police protection?
❑
❑
❑
Schools?
❑
❑
❑
Parks?
❑
❑
❑
Other public facilities?
❑
❑
❑
XIV. RECREATION
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional
parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
C
❑ ❑ ❑ 0
Potentially
Less Than Less Than No Impact
Significant
Significant Significant
Impact
with Impact
Mitigation
Incorporation
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction Ll ❑ ❑
or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical
effect on the environment?
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC -- Would the project
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing
❑
El
❑
traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial
increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on
El
El
L
roads, or congestion at intersections)?
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard
❑
❑
Q
established by the county congestion management agency for designated
L3
El
U
roads or highways?
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in
J
L
traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks?
J
Ll
L
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
Ll
Ll
D
dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
Lj
L3
L
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
Ll
L
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity?
Ll
L
0
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative
L]
U
transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS - Would the project
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional
L3
L3
L
Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment
El
El
L
facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities
L3
El
U
or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing
J
Ll
L
entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which
Lj
L3
L
serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the
project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing
commitments?
10
Potentially
Less Than Izss Than No Impact
Significant
Significant Significant
Impact
with Impact
cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,
Mitigation
Ince on
0 Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate U ❑ ❑
the project's solid waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to ❑ ❑ ❑
solid waste?
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the
El ❑
❑
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,
cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
to Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but
❑ Q
cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable' means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the
effects of probable future projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial
❑ Ll
Q
adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Sources: Los Altos Hills General Plan
Los Altos Hills Municipal Code
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
(Explanations of responses)
The proposed prezoning would not have the force of law unless an annexation were approved; since no
annexation is proposed as a part of this project, the project would have no effect on the environment.
Land Use and Planning:
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
Per the 2002 Housing Element of the General Plan (Policy H, Program 8, adopted by the
City Council on January 15, 2004), the Town is prezoning 82 lots within the
Eastbrook/Magdalena neighborhood.
The program was required as part of the State's Housing and Community Development
Department (HCD) certification of the Town's 2002 Housing Element. The purpose of
Potentially
Less Than Less Than No Impact
significant
Significant Significant
Impact
with Impact
Mitigation
Inmrpora.on
the prezoning and eventual annexation is to provide a variety of housing densities within
the Town and add to the supply of available housing units in the Town of Los Altos hills.
No new development is proposed as part of this project. Therefore, this project would
have no direct effect on the physical environment.
The existing RIE County designation allows single-family residential development with a
minimum lot size of one acre, a minimum front yard setback of 30 feet, a minimum side
yard setback of 20 feet, a minimum rear yard setback of 25 feet, and a maximum height of
27 feet. All 82 parcels in the project area are under one acre in size and most are
developed with single-family homes. If the annexation of the subject area were to occur
as the result of a future project, the Town will provide for the development of these
substandard lots by creating an overlay district and adopt minimum development
standards for this neighborhood that are consistent with current Santa Clara County
zoning standards for the RIE District.
12
Housing Goals, Policies, Programs, and Objectives Town of Los Altos Hills
2002 Housing Element
HOUSING GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS, AND OBJECTIVES
GENERAL STRATEGY
As outlined in preceding sections of this Element, no significant housing needs or deficiencies
have been identified in the Town. Nonetheless, the Town remains committed to ensuring that
residential development and housing opportunities within the Town continue along the course
established by the 1988 and 1998 Housing Elements.
In particular, the Town's approach to providing additional low and moderate income housing
opportunities will emphasize the construction of new residential second units on existing lots and
in future subdivisions, and the conversion of portions of existing primary residential units to
secondary units. Residential second units are a practical solution for affordable housing in
affluent and semi -rural communities such as Los Altos Hills. The potential advantages and
benefits that second units offer includel2:
• increasing residential units with relatively minimal impacts to the Town's semi -coral
environment;
• affordable rents due to the lower costs of building second units relative to single family
homes;
• rental income for elderly and young homeowners who might not otherwise be able to
afford payment or maintenance of a home on a single income;
• non -monetary benefits provided by renters including services, companionship and added
home security;
In addition to encouraging second unit construction, the 1988 second unit ordinance also
legalized hundreds of previously existing second units. The Town's primary affordable housing
strategy through the end of the decade will be to further encourage second unit construction
through incentives to reserve floor area for such units, reduced fees and review time for
processing second unit requests, enhanced public awareness of the opportunity to construct
second units, and perhaps limited financial assistance for such construction.
On the following pages are a series of goals, policies, programs, and quantified objectives
designed to guide the Town along a path of ensuring housing opportunities for all existing and
future residents of the community, while at the same time remaining true to the principles upon
which the Town was incorporated - mainly preservation of a unique rural residential
environment set amidst a natural setting. None of the individual goals, policies, or programs is
intended to be an entire solution to the issue of housing in the Town, but instead comprise a
complete, integrated solution.
12 From Rural by Design: Maintaining Small Town Character, Randall Arendt, et. A, American Planning
Association (1994).
Page 39
Housing Goals, Policies, Programs, and Objectives Town of Los Altos Hills
2002 Housing Element
GOALS, POLICIES, AND PROGRAMS
I. Goal Preserve the existing character of the Town and provide housing opportunities for
persons who desire to reside in a rural and environmentally sensitive environment.
A. Policy Ensure that all new residential development and reconstruction and
rehabilitation of existing residences preserve the natural environmental
qualities which significantly contribute to the rural atmosphere of the
Town, including the hills, ridgelines, views, natural water courses, and the
native trees.
B. Policy Continue to guide residential development in a manner that is sensitive,
particularly in areas with significant environmental constraints.
C. Policy Protect areas with exceptional natural value.
D. Policy Ensure that reasonable opportunities are available for new residential
development and reconstruction, and rehabilitation of existing residences
while preserving, as much as possible, existing views, hills, ridgelines,
water courses, riparian vegetation, significant open spaces, and native
trees.
E. Policy Require landscaping to soften the impact of new development on the
surrounding community.
F. Policy Require storm water drainage and erosion control systems to be designed
to maintain, to the greatest extent possible, existing water drainage
patterns and to protect existing downstream lands from flooding and
flooding related hazards.
1. Program Review all new residential development and reconstruction and
rehabilitation of existing residences through the Site
Development Permit review process, which focuses on
development siting as well as issues of grading, drainage,
access, and landscape screening as visual mitigation.
Time Frame: Ongoing
Responsible Agency: Planning
Quantified Objective: N/A
2. Program Work with County of Santa Clara, midpeninsula cities, the
N idpeninsula Regional Open- Space District and other public ---- ----
Page 40
Housing Goals, Policies, Programs, and Objectives
Town of Los Altos Hills
2002 Housing Element
agencies to promote open space programs that are compatible
with the Town's goals and policies, especially within the Town
and its Sphere of Influence. (Policies A - D)
Time Frame: Ongoing
Responsible Agency: Planning/Public Works
Quantified Objective: N/A
II. Goal Maintain and preserve the quality of the Town's housing stock.
G. Policy Rely on individual property owners to maintain the quality of the Town's
housing stock on an individual basis.
3. Program Participate through Santa Clara County in the Federal Housing
and Community Development Block Grant Program to provide
housing rehabilitation loans for low and moderate income
housing units/households. Make available to the Town
residents information about CDBG funds on the Town
Website.
Time Frame: Ongoing
Responsible Agency Planning/City Manager
Quantified Objective: N/A
4. Program Enforce the Uniform Housing Code through an on-going
program of enforcement and abatement based on complaints
from Town residents.
Time Frame: Ongoing
Responsible Agency Building Department
Quantified Objective: N/A
III. Goal Ensure that all local housing needs and the Town's fair share of the regional
housing need are met.
H. Policy Facilitate the private development of new residential units and the
reconstruction and rehabilitation of existing residential units to meet the
identified housing needs for all income levels of the community and
provide for variety of housing opportunities.
5. Program Continue to facilitate and expedite the development of new and
the rehabilitation and reconstruction of existing residential units.
Page 41
Housing Goals, Policies, Programs, and Objectives
Town of Los Altos Hills
2002 Housing Element
The prompt processing of subdivision and design review
applications and building permits has resulted in average
construction rates consistent with the projected demand for
housing in Los Altos Hills. The Town will continue to assist the
property owners and development community in the housing
development process.
Time Frame: Ongoing (Yearly Update)
Responsible Agency: Planning/Building
Quantified Objective: 212 above -moderate units
6. Program Continue the annexation of lands within the Town's Sphere of
Influence to increase the Town's supply of lands suitable for
residential development. (Formerly Program 7)
In 2002 the Town prezoned a total of 286 acres of land known
as San Antonio Hills that includes primarily one -acre lots. It is
anticipated that most of these lands will be annexed to the
Town of Los Altos Hills though not all within the timeframe of
the 2001 Housing Element. In late 2002, the 58 acres of
Ravenbury Area within San Antonio Hills was annexed by the
Town. This will add to the supply of available housing units in
the Town of Los Altos Hills. Additionally, all lots of one or
more acres in size can potentially accommodate a secondary
unit thus increasing the supply of affordable rental units.
Time Frame: June 2003
(Ravenbury Annexation)
Responsible Agency: Planning/City Council
Quantified Objective: 3 very low, 3 low and
3 moderate
7. Program Study and pursue additional sewer capacity for the Los Altos
Basin area.
The Town is in the process of preparing a Sanitary Sewer
Master Plan to serve as a strategic planning guide for the
grading, improving and expanding of the Town's sewer
infrastructure to meet existing and total "build -out" needs.
Currently, 1,827 lots or approximately 60% of the Town's
parcels are served by septic systems. It is anticipated that less
than 10 percent of the existing systems cannot be replaced by
new septic systemsand thus will require sewer services from --
Page 42
Housing Goals, Policies, Programs, and Objectives Town of Los Altos Hills
2002 Housing Element
the Town within the next 10 to 15 years. Preliminary findings
show that the Town's system has adequate capacity to
accommodate existing peak wet weather flows. This includes
existing sites where secondary dwelling and employee units
can be accommodated. The Town's sewer demands will
continue to increase with new development, annexation of
areas within the Town's sphere of influence and failure of
some existing septic systems. However, it is unlikely that the
Town will have to provide sewer services to all parcels given
that topographical constraints of many of these parcels make it
unfeasible to connect to the sewer lines. It is anticipated that at
build -out, some deficient pipes with insufficient capacity will
have to be replaced. The area known as Spalding
Avenue/Magdalena Avenue is currently connected to the Los
Altos Basin sewer system.
The Master Plan will include recommended capital
improvement program to finance construction of required
increased capacity to meet the needs as they arise. A joint
sewer study is underway in coordination with the City of Los
Altos to determine what, if any, improvements are needed to
the Los Altos Basin system to renegotiate with Los Altos Hills
for additional sewer connections. The conclusions of the joint
sewer study will help determine the Town's share of costs to
pay for upgrades to the system and its contractual obligations
to increase sewer connections in the Los Altos Basin to allow
development at build -out. Thus, it is not anticipated that there
will be a lack of sewer service to the southern end of Town that
would impact the development of secondary units or employee
housing within existing annexed lands or within the Spalding
Ave./Magdalena Ave. neighborhood.
Time Frame: December 2003
Responsible Agency: Los Altos Public Works
Los Altos hills Public Works
Quantified Objective: NA
8. Program Prezone 95 lots within the Spalding/Magdalena
neighborhood including 40 lots that are one quarter of an
acre in size or smaller and 1) adopt minimum development
standards consistent with current County zoning standards
for the RIE District (setback for front -25 ft., side -5 ft.,
corner lot side -10- ft:,- rear -25 ft., scenic road -100 ft.,
Page 43
Housing Goals, Policies, Programs, and Objectives
Town of Los Altos Hills
2002 Housing Element
maximum height -35 ft./2 stories), 2) establishes a process
for subsequent review of a development application that will
require Site Development Review by the Planning
Commission, and 3) adopt Santa Clara County standards for
secondary units applicable to lots under one acre minimum
(4.10.340). Approval of secondary units shall be a
ministerial process in accordance with AB1866.
Time Frame:
Responsible Agency:
Quantified Objective:
Prezone: Dec. 2004
Annexation: 2005-2006
City Council
10 moderate units
3 low units
9. Program Modify the Zoning Ordinance to allow institutions located
within Los Altos Hills to provide housing for employees.
Modify the zoning ordinance to change permitted uses in
institutional lands (i.e. Fremont Hills Country Club, Packard
Foundation, Westwind Bam) to allow housing for
employees. Through this revision, institutions will be able to
create opportunities for a small number of employees, of
these institutions to live on-site in Los Altos Hills. This will
help in the creation of affordable housing opportunities in
Los Altos Hills while helping in the reduction of commute
traffic.
Under the current Ordinance, institutional uses require a
conditional use permit. The Town of Los Altos Hills will
amend the zoning ordinance as follows 1) employee housing
shall be permitted within institutional use properties where
directly related to the main use, 2) standards shall be developed
to include incentives such as reduced parking requirements, 3)
a use permit amendment will be required for approval of
employee housing.
Time Frame: Ordinance change
January 2004
Responsible Agency: City Council
Quantified Objective: 2 very low,
3 low units
Page 44
Santa Clam County Zoning Ordinance
Chapter 2.30: Urban Residential Base Districts
CHAPTER 2.30 URBAN RESIDENTIAL BASE DISTRICTS
Sections
§ 2.30.010
Purposes
§ 2.30.020
Use Regulations
§ 2.30.030
Development Standards
§ 2.30.040
Slope -Density Requirements in RHS District
§ 2.30.010 Purposes
The purpose of this chapter is to define allowable land uses and property development
standards for the urban residential base districts, which include the Rl "One -Family
Residence," RIE "One -Family Residence—Estate," RHS "Urban Hillside Residential,"
RIS "Low -Density Campus Residential," R3S "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 RI district, is to provide for single-family dwellings, and for the
orderly and efficient arrangement of dwellings, yards, accessory buildings, and
other residential site improvements.
B. R1E 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.
D. R1S Low -Density Campus Residential. The purpose of the Low -Density
Campus. Residential district, also known as the RI S. district, isto provide for
Effective: May 21, 2003
Santa Clara County Zoning Ordinance
Chapter 2.30: Urban Residential Base Distrins
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.
1611 designates use classifications that are not allowed.
Effective: May 21, 2003
Santa Clam County Zoning Ordinance
2.30: Urban Residential Base Districts
Supplemental regulations for the establishment and conduct of a use are referenced in the
"Supplemental Regulations" column of the table. Use classifications not listed in the table
are prohibited in the urban residential base districts.
Table 2.30-1 0
Permitted by Right
RESIDENTIAL USES S
Special Permit (Ch 5.60)
IN URBAN RESIDENTIAL BASE DISTRICTS A
ASA (Ch 5.40)
U
Use Permit/ ASA (Ch 5.65, 5.40)
RI
Not Pernimed
USE CLASSIFICATIONS
ZONING
Supplemental
RI
RIE
RHS
RIS
R3S
122
R3
Regulations
Residences
Single -Family
Q
Q
Q
Q
A
Q
A
Note 1, 2 (RI S)
Two -Family
—
—
—
Q
A
0
A
Note 1, 2 (RIS)
Multi -Family
—
—
—
A
A
A
0
Residential Accessory
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
§ 4.20.020
Structures & Uses
Note 3 (P 3S)
Community Care
Limited
0
M
Q
0
M
M
§ 4.10.090,
Note 4
Expanded
U
D
IFS
A.
A
W
UI:
§4.10.090
Domestic Animals
Dogs & Cats
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Note 5
Small Animals
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Note 6
Horses
Q
Q
Q
Q
–
–
–
Note 7
Home Occupations
General
Q
0
0
0
§ 4.10.180
Expanded
S
S
S
S
5
S
S
§4.10.180,
Note 8
Residential–Communal
,U,
U,
"
U.
–
–
'U.
US
Institutional
Rooming Houses, Fraternities,
U
U..
–
–
–
U:
A
& Sororities
Secondary Dwellings
Q
Q
Q
A
–
–
§4.10.340
Notes 1, 9, 10
Temporary Residence /
Q
0
Q
Q
Q
0
0
§4.10.380
Construction
---NOTES
__—..
Effective: May 21, 2003
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 Cade.
2. In RIS districts, ASA is required for new single-family or Iwo -family residences on any lot (or
multiple lots comprising a single development proposal) where density would exceed four (4)
units per acre. ASA 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 12 persons, 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) cat over four months of age on parcels five acres or more,
unless the required permit is secured pursuant to County Ordinance Code §A33-171.
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 Q Pernatted by Right
NON-RESIDENTIAL USE CLASSIFICATIONS S. Special Permit (Ch 5.60)
IN URBAN RESIDENTIAL BASE DISTRICTS A ASA (Cb 5.40)
U Use Permit/ ASA (Ch 5.65, 5.40)
Not Permitted
USE CLASSIFICATIONS
ZONING
Supplemental
RI RIE RHS RIS R3S R2 R3
Regulations
Agriculture
— — Q — — — —
Note 1
Antennas—Commercial
Minor
A A A A A A A
Major
U U U- A A U U-
Churches (See "Religious
Institutions")
Effective: May 21, 2003
Santa Clara County Zoning Ordinance
Chapter 2.30: Urban Residential Base Districts
ZONING
Supplemental
Table 2.30-2 0
Permitted by Right
NON-RESIDENTIAL USE CLASSIFICATIONS S
Special Permit (Ch 5.60)
IN URBAN RESIDENTIAL BASE DISTRICTS A
ASA (Ch 5.40)
U
Use Permit/ ASA (Cb 5.65, 5.40)
§ 4.10.090,
Not Permitted
USE CLASSIFICATIONS
ZONING
Supplemental
Rl RIE RHS R1S R3S R2 R3
Regulations
Community Care
Limited
0 0
§ 4.10.090,
Note 3
Expanded
IF U'- IF A A U Us
§ 4.10.090
Golf Courses & Country Clubs
U; U': — — — — —
Historic Structures—Use
— — A — — — —
§ 4.10.170
Conversion
Hospitals & Clinics
U, U U, A A U
Museums
U U tL A A 0, At,
Nonprofit Institutions
U Uj U A. A Uj III
Religious Institutions
U U> U A A U''
Retail Sales & Services—Local
— — — A A — A
Note 2
Serving
Schools
U 1) 'U A A UU`
Swim & Tennis Clubs
U , U'. U A A U U`
Utilities
Minor
A A A A A A A
Major
U Ui U' A A Ur U
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 RI 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 RI S and R3S districts applicable to Stanford University lands, a
business plan is required demonstrating that a preponderance of customers will be Stanford
residents or employees.
3. Facilities qualifying as "Large -Family Day -Care Homes,' serving between 7 and 12 persons, are
subject to an administrative permit, per the provisions of Division B24 of the County Ordinance
Code.
Effective: May 21,203
Santa Clara County Zoning Ordinance
Chapter 3.70: Monterey Highway Use Pentit Area Combining District
Table 3.10-1
STANDARD LOT SIZE DISTRICTS:
LOT AREA AND SETBACKS
COMBINING
DISTRICT
Minimum Lot
Area
SETBACKS (feet)
Front Side'
Rear
(Urban) -6
6,000 sq. ft.
25
6
25
-8
8,000 sq. ft.
25
8
25
-10
10,000 sq. ft.
25
10
25
-20
20,000 sq. ft.
30
15
25
-1 Ac.
I acre
30
20
25
-2.5 Ac.
2.5 acres
30
30
30
(Rural) -5 Ac.
5 acres
30
30
30
-10 Ac.
10 acres
30
30
30
-20 Ac.
20 acres
30
30
30
40 Ac.
40 acres
30
30
30
FNOTES:
1. Minimum lot sizes are expressed in net square feet and gross acres.
2. On comer lots, the minimum setback for the exterior side yard in "-6", "-8" and "-l0"
districts shall be 10 feet.
combining
The provisions of §4.20.110, Setback Exceptions, when applicable, shall supersede the
side and rear yard setbacks provided in this table.
§ 3.10.040 Slope -Density Combining Districts
A. Lot Area Calculation. Slope -density combining districts regulate density of
development by means of provisions that determine the maximum number of lots
and dwelling units permitted through subdivision based on the average slope of
the lot. The following table lists the slope -density combining districts, along with
the corresponding formulas for calculating land area per dwelling (density), the
lot area ranges, and minimum parcel size requirements.
Effective Date: March I, 2003
SANTA CLARA COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE
CHAPTER 4.10: SUPPLEMENTAL USE REGULATIONS
grouping of residentially developed lots that are each less than two and one-half
(2.50) acres in area. It shall be within the discretionary authority of the Planning
Commission to more precisely define "residential development' and "immediate
vicinity" as they may apply to a particular proposal.
§ 4.10.330 Schools
This section refers to uses classified as Schools as described in § 2.10.040. All of the
following provisions apply in the A, Exclusive Agriculture Zoning District:
A. Prohibited in Agriculture—Large Scale. Not allowed on any land designated
Agrtculiure—Large Scale by the general plan.
B. Agriculture—Medium Scale Lands. May be allowed on Inds with a general
plan designation ofAgriculture—Medium Scale, provided that all of the following
are met:
1. The property is deemed by the Planning Commission to be of marginal quality
for agricultural purposes because of one or more of the following conditions:
poor soil type, lack of water availability, or an abundance of surrounding
incompatible non-agricultural uses.
2. The proposed uses are intended, designed, and sized to primarily serve the
local coral unincorporated population.
3. The maximum gross floor area of covered spaces (enclosed and unenclosed
structures) shall be limited to no more than 10,000 square feet.
§ 4.10.340 Secondary Dwellings
This section refers to uses classified as Secondary Dwellings as described in § 2.10.030.
Such uses are subject to all of the following provisions:
A. Intent. The intent of this section is to provide a valuable and relatively affordable
form of housing for family members, the elderly, students, in-home health care
providers, the disabled, and others, within existing neighborhoods. It is intended
to regulate such housing units to ensure that they are relatively unobtrusive on the
site, do not significantly impact adjacent properties, and do not diminish
neighborhood character. This section implements Section 65852.2 of the
California Government Code.
B. Residential Density Exemption. As secondary dwellings are considered
substantially different in nature and lesser in intensity than primary dwellings,
secondary dwellings will not be taken into consideration for the purposes of
residential density requirements.
REV. JULY2004
SANTA CLARK COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE
C R APTER 4.I0: SUPPLEMENTAL UsE REGULATIONS
C. Secondary Dwellings in Urban Districts. Secondary dwellings within Rl, RIE,
RHS, Rl S and R3S districts, and Al districts within urban service areas, are
subject to all of the following:
1. Dwelling size/configuration: The regulations for maximum dwelling size
and configuration vary by lot size as follows:
a. Lots smaller than 10,000 square feet: Secondary dwellings may have a
maximum floor area of 640 square feet. Such dwellings must be attached
to the primary dwelling by a common wall no less than eight (8)
horizontal feet in length that is Uniform Building Code compliant for fire
separation.
b. Lots 10,000 square feet or larger: Secondary dwellings may have a
maximum floor area of 800 square feet. Such dwellings may be attached
or detached. Attached dwellings must be Uniform Building Code
compliant for fire separation.
Detached dwellings must comply with all of the following additional
requirements:
i. May not contain more than one story, and may not exceed 21 feet in
height;
ii. Must be situated within the rear yard area, and must comply with the
residential side and rear setbacks prescribed by the applicable zoning
district regulations. Setback variances are not allowed;
iii. May be no newer to the primary dwelling than six (6) feet;
iv. Separation between the primary dwelling and secondary dwelling may
not exceed 50 feet unless problematic lot -specific circumstances (e.g.,
topography, geology, significant legal existing structures or
improvements) necessitate greater separation. A special permit (see
Chapter 5.60) is required for any proposal where the distance between
the primary dwelling and secondary dwelling exceeds 50 feet; and
v. Where an attached garage is incorporated into the design, up to 200
additional square feet of floor area is allowed if: (a) the cumulative
area of the building does not exceed 1,000 square feet, and; (b) the
dwelling (non -garage) portion does not exceed 800 square feet.
2. Owner occupancy: At least one (1) of the two dwellings (primary or
secondary, or both) must be owner -occupied. A deed restriction must be
recorded prior to issuance of building permit for the secondary dwelling to
ensure understanding of and compliance with this requirement. This owner -
occupancy provision does not apply to RI S or R3S districts.
REV: JULY E.
SANTA CLARA COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE
CHAPTER 4.10: SUPPLEMENTAL USE REGULATIONS
3. Parking: A minimum total of three (3) off-street puking spaces must be
provided to accommodate the primary and secondary dwellings on the lot, and
at least one (1) space must be covered. One additional space is required for
secondary dwellings with more than one bedroom, or along streets where off-
street parking is limited or unavailable, per subsection 4.30.070(A)(7).
4. Driveway limitation: A separate driveway providing exclusive access to the
secondary dwelling from a road is not allowed.
5. Deck/porch limitation: Decks and porches, covered or uncovered, that are
attached to a secondary dwelling are limited to 200 square feet beyond the
applicable maximum dwelling size. This limitation does not apply to any
portion of an uncovered deck that is less than 30 inches above finish grade.
6. Density conformance: A secondary dwelling may not be established on any
lot where the existing density exceeds that permitted by the applicable zoning
district. For example, no secondary dwelling may be established on a lot
zoned for single-family residential uses that contains two dwellings (one
conforming, one nonconforming).
7. Building site approval: Establishment of a secondary dwelling is subject to
the applicable building site approval requirements of Chapter II, Division C12
of the Ordinance Code.
D. Secondary Dwellings in Rural Districts. Secondary dwellings within A, AR,
HS, RR and RS districts, and Al districts outside of urban service areas, are
subject to all of the following, which include specific provisions based on lot size.
1. Lots I — 2.5 acres: The minimum lot size for secondary dwellings is one (1)
acre. On lots greater than or equal to one (1) acre gross, but less than two and
one-half (2.50) acres gross, all of the following provisions apply:
a. The secondary dwelling may have a maximum floor area of 640 square
feet. It may not contain more than one (1) bedroom;
b. The secondary dwelling must be attached to the main residence by a
common wall no less than eight (8) horizontal feet in length that is
Uniform Building Code compliant for fire separation;
c. At least one (1) of the two dwellings (primary or secondary, or both) must
be owner occupied. A deed restriction must be recorded prior to issuance
of the certificate of occupancy for the secondary dwelling to ensure
understanding of and compliance with this requirement; and
d. A secondary dwelling shall not be allowed on lots smaller than five (5)
acres (gross) within San Martin General Plan Area; and
REV J-2004