Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4.2 • TOWN OF Los ALTOS HILLS April 12, 1995 Staff Report to the Planning Commission RE: REQUEST FOR TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP APPROVAL, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, PREZONE, ANNEXATION, AND DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR REGARDING THESE APPROVALS; LANDS OF VIDOVICH, 11920 STONEBROOK DRIVE. (254-93-TM and 257-93-EIR) FROM: Debbie Pollart and Mike Porto,Interim Town Planner RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission: Open the Public Hearing and take comments on the adequacy of the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR), and continue public hearing. INTRODUCTION: As this public hearing is intended as an opportunity for the Commission, as well as the public to acquaint themselves with the EIR and to make comments if desired, and because no action will be taken at this hearing, the following discussion is included to apprise the public and Commission of the EIR process and major issues analyzed within the EIR. Terms indicated in bold are defined in the attached Glossary. DISCUSSION: Background The Quarry lands are currently in the County of Santa Clara,'but in 1987 John Vidovich, the property owner, applied to the Town to annex the quarry and develop 43 residential lots on 358 acres. Although the EIR prepared for the proposal was certified, the project was very controversial and was never approved. Concurrent with the processing of the application through the Town, the County adopted a Negative Declaration and approved the Reclamation Plan for the Neary Quarry in 1988. In September of 1992, the County of Santa Clara circulated a Draft EIR for a proposed General Plan Amendment. That EIR evaluated the potential impacts associated with a proposed County General Plan Amendment on 78 acres of the 358-acre site to allow the development of 25 residential lots. That EIR was not certified and the General Plan Amendment application has been continued c Planning Commission April 12, 1995 Lands of Vidovich Page 2 several times at the County. To date, no action has been taken by the Board of Supervisors. In 1994 the applicant submitted to the Town plans for proposed development of a 23-lot subdivision on 78 acres. (The other 280 acres of the original 358-acre site were sold to the Mid-Peninsula Regional Open Space District for inclusion in the Rancho San Antonio Open Space Reserve.) The document now before you is a Draft Supplemental EIR to the Town's original Quarry Hills Project Final EIR. The SEIR focuses on the changes in the project from the previous application. EIR Process The Quarry Hills Subdivision Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) was completed by David J. Powers & Associates, Inc. (EIR consultants under contract to the Town) and released for the required 45-day public review on March 15, 1995. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines require that all EIRs have a public review period (normally 45 days), during which time the responsible and trustee agencies as well as the public may submit written comment (and verbal comments if a public hearing is held during the review period) on the contents and adequacy of the EIR. The public review period established for this document commenced on March 15, 1995 and will conclude on May 1, 1995. Upon conclusion of the 45-day review period, staff will forward all written comments, as well as verbal comments from the SEIR public hearings, to the EIR consultants and direct them to prepare the Response to Comments, which together with the Draft SEIR constitutes the Final EIR. Upon completion of the Response to Comments and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), which is required by CEQA, and some additional information required of the applicant (see attached letter), this item will come back to the Planning Commission for consideration and recommendation to the Council. (Please refer to the attached tentative time line.) At that time you will make your recommendations to the City Council regarding certification of the Final EIR and project approval. During tonight's public hearing and subsequent hearings, it is important for the Planning Commission and the public to understand and make the distinction between comments on the adequacy of the EIR versus comments made on the merits of the ,proposed project. Since an EIR must examine all environmental effects of a project, it would expedite the overall process if tonight's comments • Planning Commission April 12, 1995 Lands of Vidovich Page 3 could be limited only to thosepertaining to the EIR. The Planning Commission and public will have ample opportunity to discuss the project (tentative map) when the Final EIR and the applicant's additional information comes back to you for consideration. Major EIR/Subdivision Issues All significant effects identified in the EIR must be mitigated or overriding considerations must be adopted,whereby the Town finds that thebenefitsof the project outweigh the unmitigated significant effects. Please refer to Table S-1 of the SEIR for a summary of these impacts. A copy of this table is attached. The proposed Tentative Map was noticed along with the Draft SEIR to inform the public that it is available for review. However, due to the fact that staff is awaiting additional information from the applicant, we are not prepared at this time to respond in detail to map-related issues, nor make recommendations or propose conditions of approval. CONCLUSIONS: Staff is not making any formal recommendations regarding any necessary action on this project at this time. The purpose of this preliminary Planning Commission hearing on the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report is to take public testimony and to gain additional information so that direction can be given to staff, the applicant and EIR consultants. Staff is available to answer any questions you may have. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Glossary 2. Draft Time Line 3. Summary Table S-1 from Draft SEIR 4. Letter to Jim Sisk dated March 30, 1995 cc: John Vidovich Jim Sisk De Anza Properties GLOSSARY Approval - fter considering the Final EIR and in conjunction with making findings, theead Agency may decide whether or how to approve or carry out the project. Ipublic agency shall not decide to approve or carry, out a project for which an EIR was prepared unless either: 1) The project as approved will not have a significant effect on the environment, or 2) The agency has: A) Eliminated or substantially lessened all significant effects on the environment where feasible through the use of Findings, and B) Determined that any remaining significant effects on the environment found to be unavoidable. are acceptable due to overriding considerations. Certification [of Final EIR] - Prior to consideration of the project itself, the Lead Agency (Town) must certify the adequacy of the Final EIR and certify that the decision-making body (City Council) reviewed and considered the Final EIR in reaching its decision on the project. Environmental Impact Report (EIR) - An EIR is a detailed statement prepared under CEQA Guidelines describing and analyzing the potential significant environmental effects of a project and discussing ways to mitigate or.avoid the effects. The purpose of an EIR is to inform the decision-makers and the general public of the environmental effects of projects that the decision-makers propose to implement or approve. Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the EIR process is intended to enable public agencies to evaluate a project and its potential for resulting in a significant impact on the environment; to examine and institute methods of reducing adverse impacts; and to consider alternatives to the project as it is proposed. These three actions are completed prior to consideration of approval for a project. Final EIR - The Final EIR consists of the Draft EIR, Response to Comments, and any other infdrmation added by the Lead Agency. Findings - No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been completed which identifies one or more significant environmental • effects of the iroject unless the public agency makes one or more written findings for each of those significant effects. There are three possible findings (explained in CEQA Section 15091). Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) - Public Resources Code section 21081.6 (a) provides that when an agency approve a mitigated negative declaration or adopts findings committing itself to mitigation measures after preparing an EIR, the agency "shall adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the changes to the project which it has adopted or made a condition of approval ill order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment." This document is normally prepared concurrent with the Response to Comments and is part of the Final EIR that is reviewed and approved. Overriding Considerations CEQA required that decision-makers balance the benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve the project. If the benefits of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered "acceptable." Reclamation Plan - Reclamation is defined by the State Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) as: „The combined process of land treatment that minimizes water degradation, air pollution, damage to aquatic or wildlife habitat, flooding erosion, and other adverse effects fromsurface mining operations....The process may extend to affected lands surrounding mined lands, and may require backfilling, grading, resoiling, revegatation, soil compaction, stabilization,or other measures.” Response to Comments -Written responses made by the Lead Agency (and EIR consultants) for all written comments received during the 45-day review period and for verbal comments made during public hearings held during the review period. Written responses are only required for comments made on the adequacy of the EIR and/or significant environmental issues. Comments on the merits (or lack of) of the project itself do not require a written response. Supplemental EIR - A Supplemental EIR is required when " a) substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the environmental impact report; b) substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is being undertaken which will require major revisions in the environmental impact report; or, c) new information, which was not known and could not have been known at the time the environmental impact report was certified as complete, becomes available." (Public Resources Code 21166). REVISED TIME-LINE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR QUARRY HILLS SUBDIVISION, LANDS OF VIDOVICH • Task Date PHASE I- EIR SCOPING Complete PHASE II-NOTICE OF PREPARATION Complete PHASE III-ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT EIR Complete PHASE IV- DRAFT EIR Revise ADEIR/submit print proof copy Complete Complee Staff review of print proof Complete Complete DEIR Complete Reprodiction of DEIR Complete Comme ce 45-Day DEIR circulation March 15, 1995 Tentative Planning Commission April 12, 1995 Preliminary review of DEIR and Subdivision Map End 45-Day DEW circulation May 1, 1995 PHASE V - ADMINISTRATIVE FINAL EIR Prepare Response to Comments (RTC) and May 1 - May 15, 1995 Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) Complete Staff review of RTC and MMRP May 15 -June 1, 1995 PHASE VI- FI AL EIR Revise RIC and MMRP June 1 -June 8, 1995 Final EIR Available (Draft SEIR, Response June 8 - June 22, 1995 to Comments, and MMRP) Tentative Planning Commission July 12, August 9, Sept. 13 Public Hearings (or as needed) • Tentative City Council Public Hearing October 18, November 1 (or as needed) EIR SUMMARY QUARRY HILLS SUBDIVISION UMMARY DESC' ' t0 ' ' ;O OS_ 0 PRO ECT The primary component of the proposed project is the approval of a Tentative Map to allow for the development of a 23-lot residential subdivision on a 78-acre site which is located in the Montebello Ridge area in the Town of Los Altos Hills' Sphere of Influence. The development of the 23 residential lots is a modification of a 1988 proposal by the same applicant to construct a 43-lot subdivision on essentially the same site. [Note: A substantial portion of the original site in the 1988 development proposal has since been sold to the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (MROSD)for public open space purposes.] In addition to the Tentative Map,which would be called the Quarry Hills Subdivision, the project proposes a modification to the adopted Neary Quarry Reclamation Plan, expansion of the Los Altos Hills Urban Service Area, annexation of the site to the Town of Los Altos Hills, zoning, and text amendments to the Town of Los Altos Hills General Plan. The project site is located in an unincorporated portion of Santa Clara County, adjacent to the southern boundary of the Town of Los Altos Hills, west of Interstate 280. The 78-acre site is in an area known as the Montebello Ridge, and is the site of the former Neary Quarry. The project site, which is sometimes referred to as the Vidovich property, is bordered to the south by MROSD lands. SUMMAAY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION The following discussion, and Table S-I, summarize the primary impacts of the proposed Quarry Hills Subdivision Project. The reader is referred to the main body of this Supplemental EIR for detailed discussions of the environmental setting, impacts, and mitigation measures. A. LAND USE Impacts The proposed subdivision would be compatiblewith the surrounding residential and open space uses, and is generally consistent with the Town's plans and policies for the project site and its relation to the surrounding area. However, the project would result in one significant, unavoidable land use impact: the placement of a residential development upon the former quarry, which is a State-designated mineral resource of significance. (Significant Unavoidable Impact) Mitigation No mitigation is available since any development of the project site would render the quarry inaccessible. B. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Jmnacts, The 220 trips per day which would be generated by the project would not result in ' any significant impacts to nearby intersections or to the surrounding roadway network. (Nonsignificant Impact) 111 • TABLE S - 1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS Significant. Impact which can be • Mitigated to a Significant Impact Nonsignificant Nonsignificant Unavoidable Category Impact Level Impact LAND USE Loss of Mineral Resource ✓ Compatibility with Surrounding Uses ✓ . TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Generation of Traffic ✓ Emergency Access ✓ Access to Lots 19-21 ✓ GEOLOGY Erosion ✓ Quarry Wall Stability ✓ General S1‘ Stability ✓ Onsite & Offsite Debris Flows• ✓ Seismic Hazards ✓ HYDROLOGY 8c WATER QUALITY Flooding - ✓ Water Quality ✓ VEGETATION 1& WILDLIFE Loss of Ruderal Habitat ✓ Loss of Sage Scrub Habitat ✓ Loss of Riparian Habitat ✓ Impacts to Endangered Species ✓ Loss of OakI Woodland Habitat ✓ Impacts to Nesting Raptors ✓ Impacts to l eritage Trees ✓ VISUAL & AESTHETIC - Light &'Glaie Impacts ; . . ✓ Alteration:o Existing Views ✓ • • TABLE S - 1 (continued) SUMMARY OF IMPACTS Significant Impact which can be Mitigated to a Significant Impact Nonsignificant Nonsignificant ' Unavoidable Category Impact Level Impact UTILITIES & URBAN SERVICES Impacts on Schools ✓ Impacts on Police &Fire ✓ Impacts on Sanitary Sewers ✓ Impacts on Water Service ✓ ' Impacts on Parks ✓ Impacts on Solid Waste ✓ AIR QUALITY Short-Term Construction ✓ Long-Term ✓ NOISE Short-Term Construction ✓ Long Term ✓ CULTURAL RESOURCES Archaeological Resources ✓ HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Existing Contamination ✓ PUBLIC SAFETY Lake-Related Hazards ✓ CUMULATIVE Loss of Open Space ✓ Traffic ✓ Geologic ✓ Hydrologic/Water Quality ✓ Vegetation & Wildlife ✓ Urban Services/Utilities • ✓ 1 f71 The proposed emergency/secondary access to the site is not adequate since existing Stonebrook Avenue is narrow and the portion of Stonebrook within the project site would not be paved. (Significant Impact) There is inadequate/unsafe access to proposed Lots 19-21 which violates Town standards. (Significant Unavoidable Impact) • ' Mitigation In o der for_the project to have adequate emergency/secondary access, Stonebrook Avenue should be upgraded to an asphalt-paved surface street of at least 20 feet in paved width, extending from Street C within the project boundaries to Magdalena Avenue; this mitigation will have significant visual and vegetation impacts since it will remove existing trees along Stonebrook Avenue, west of Magdalena Avenue. These impacts, in turn, can be mitigated through the replanting of trees at the ratios specified in the EIR. (Nonsignificant Impact with Mitigation) Mitigation measures for the inadequate driveways to Lots 19-21 consist of: 1) Redesigning the common/shared segment of the driveway as a public streethaving a paved width of 22 feet, with a cul-de-sac or other similar design feature at the end whicli would allow for fire department vehicles to turn around. Maximum grades for various segments of this public sweet are listed on page 46. 2) Driveways for individual lots shall be redesigned having no grades in excess of 15%. 3) The driveway for Lot 21 shall be widened or include pullouts to provide a means for vehicles to pass each other. Impotent Note: The mitigation described in the previous paragraph for access to Lots 49-21 will itself require substantial additional grading and the likely widespread use of retaining walls. This will, in turn, result in substantial additional grading and visual impacts, over and above that for the project as it is presently proposed. In other words,while it may be feasible to design a solution to this access problem from an engineering and geologic perspective, the resultant visual impact would likely be both significant and unavoidable, and would be contrary to various sections of the Town's Zoning and Site Development Code. (Significant Unavoidable Impact) C. GEOLOGY Impacts Since the project site is located in a region with the potential, for major seismic activity,and since the project site contains steep slopes and a former quarry with steep walls, the proposed 23-lot residential subdivision would result in a number of potentially significant geologic impacts. These potentially significant geologic impacts include hazards, both onsite and offsite, associated with seismic activity, landslides/debris flows, stability of the steep quarry walls, general slope stability, and erosio . In addition, studies undertaken during the preparation of this EIR revealed exist' g hazards to a number of adjacent offsite properties due to the potential for debris flows to occur, originating upslope on Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District lands; see page 53 for details. (Significant Impact) MitI2atioU The'pioject's geotechnical engineers, with substantial review input from the Town's geologist, have developed an extensive list of measures to be included in the project which will reduce geologic hazards, both onsite and offsite, to a nonsignificant level. • These measures are listed on pages 58-63 in the text. (Nonsignificant Impact with Mitigation) D. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Mack The project would not result in any significant flooding impacts, either onsite or • offsite. However, runoff from the project would contain various pollutants (e.g., oil &grease,heavy metals,pesticides &herbicides,etc.)which would degrade the water quality of Hale Creek and Quarry Hills Lake. Potential impacts to the water quality of the lake include algal blooms, proliferation of weeds, and mosquitos. Impacts to the lake and creek due to erosion and sedimentation were also identified as potentially significant. (Significant Impact) Mitigation, The project will be required to develop a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan which - will contain measures to avoid/minimize water quality impacts for both the construction and post-construction periods. The project's Lake Management Plan includes measures to avoid impacts to Quarry Hills Lake. The list of water quality mitigation measures is found in the text of this document on pages 69-70. (Nonsignificant Impact with Mitigation) E. VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE Impacts The impacts of the project include the loss of oak woodland habitat,potential impacts to nesting raptors, and impacts to Heritage Oaks. The loss of oak woodland habitat would be greatest for the lots in the site's "Hillside Area". The current reclamation grading and project's proposed offsite sewer line extension have already and will result in potential impacts to oak woodland habitat. In addition, recommended remedial grading associated with upper quarry wall stability and the widening of Stonebrook Avenue as an emergency/secondary access will remove a substantial number of trees along the north side of that street. (Significant Impact) Mitigation Pages 82-84 of the text lists the many mitigation measures, all of which are included in the project, to minimize/avoid vegetation & wildlife impacts. These measures include the designing of the lots in the "Hillside Area" to minimize the loss of oak woodland habitat and replacement of impacted oak trees at a 5:1 ratio. Mitigation will also include the replacement of trees lost as part of the ongoing implementation of the Reclamation Plan. Measures to protect trees during construction are included in the project, as are pre-construction surveys for raptor nests. (Nonsignificant Impact with Mitigation) F. UTILITIES AND URBAN SERVICES ,Impacts The proposed offsite extension of a sanitary sewer line to the Dawson Subdivision will result in potential impacts to the Hale Creek corridor, as well as impacts to the property at 11665 Dawson Drive. In addition, students from the project could exceed the capacity of the Los Altos School District. (Significant Impact) n Mitigation As recommended in a 1990 Town of Los Altos Hills staff report, the construction of the sewer line extension will be required to include a number of measures to minimize impacts to the Hale Creek corridor, as well as to the affected residence in the Dawson Subdivision. Impacts to the school district will be mitigated through the payment of a school impact fee, as mandated by State law. (Nonsignificant Impact with Mitigation) G. VISUAL AND AESTHETIC IMPACTS Impacts The proposed project would result in significant visual and aesthetic impacts with regard to light and glare, as well as alterations of existing views. The proposed residences will be visible from a number of the adjacent residential areas, as well as from portions of the adjacent public open space lands. The impact would be the greatest on the Hillside Lots (i.e., Lots 18-23). This adverse impact would be somewhat offset by the fact that the quarry would be replaced with a lake and low- dens'ity residential development. In addition, the removal of trees along Stonebrook Avenue associated with remedial grading and the upgrading of that roadway will create a visual impact for the residences along Stonebrook. (Significant Impact) Mitigation Mitigation measures included in the project include the placement of residences below the ridgeline, retention of oak woodland habitat where feasible, preservation of pronunent knolls,use of native landscaping,use of low-intensity exterior lighting,and the use of building materials & colors which are compatible with the surroundings. The project will also be required to comply with the Town's Zoning and Site Development Ordinances. Recommended mitigation not included in the project would be to limit the height of houses on the Hillside lots to 1-story. It is also possible to avoid the visual impacts associated with development in the"Hillside Area (i.e.,Lots 18-23) by approving a modified version of the proposed project such that lots in the "Hillside Area" are eliminated. [See discussion of the "Reduced Scale Alternative" on page xiv.] (Nonsignificant Impact with Mitigation) • H. AIR QUALITY Impacts No long-term significant air quality impacts will occur. However, short-term, consti-uction-related impacts could be significant. Construction impacts would take the form of the likelihood of substantial generation of dust during various earthmoving activities. (Significant Impact) Miti a n The contractor will be required to undertake various measures during construction to avoid(Iminimize the generation of airborne particulates. Measures will include the watering and covering of exposed areas, and sweeping of adjacent streets. (Nonsignificant Impact with Mitigation) I. NOISE Impacts No long-term significant noise impacts will occur. However,short-term,construction- related impacts could be significant. Construction impacts would take the form of elevated noise levels during various construction activities. (Significant Impact) Mitigatign The contractor will be required to undertake various measures during construction to • ' avoid/minimize excessive noise. Measures will include the use of equipment with functioning mufflers and the limiting of construction to the hours of 7 AM to 7 PM, Mondays through Fridays. (Nonsignificant Impact with Mitigation) J. CULTURAL RESOURCES Impacts Construction of Lots 1, 2, 22, and 23 of the proposed subdivision would be in a sensitive area. There is a possibility that this construction could disturb subsurface archaeological resources. (Significant Impact) Mitigation After vegetation is removed on Lots 1, 2, 22, and 23, the area would be inspected by a qualified archaeologist. A written report detailing the findings of this inspection would be prepared and would identify appropriate mitigation measures. (Nonsignificant Impact with Mitigation) K. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Impacts The project site is known to contain soils contaminated with petroleum-related compounds from activities associated with the former quarrying. Although remediation of this contamination is underway, the project could potentially expose future residents to this contamination. (Significant Impact) Mitigation Existing remediation will continue. If any further contamination is found, the extent of the contamination will be determined and a remediation plan will be implemented. (Nonsignificant Impact with Mitigation) L. PUBLIC SAFETY ISSUES Impacts The steep shoreline of the quarry lake would result in a potential safety hazard, particularly to children. (Significant Impact) • Mitigation The southern shoreline would be fenced off to discourage humans and wildlife from entering. The quarry benches would be planted with trees and shrubs to act as a deterrent to climbing these slopes. An emergency access road to the lake is also recommended. (Nonsignificant Impact with Mitigation) 1 . Il M. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Impacts The proposed project, when combined with other existing and recently-approved development,would result in a significant loss of open space in the area. (Significant Unavoidable Impact) No significant cumulative traffic impacts were found to occur. (Nonsignificant . Impact) Each project is required to mitigate,its own significant geologic impacts. ,Therefore, no significant cumulative geologic impacts will occur. (Nonsignificant Impact) Each project is required to mitigate its own significant impacts on vegetation and wildlife. Therefore, no significant cumulative vegetation and wildlife impacts will occur. (Nonsignificant Impact) Each project is required to mitigate its own significant hydrologic and water quality impacts. Therefore, no significant-cumulative hydrologic and water quality impacts will occur. (Nonsignificant Impact) Th combined effect of all of the projects in the area would be to adversely effect the Los Altos School District, since that district is operating close to capacity. (Signifcant Impact) Mitigation While each project contains measures to reduce the cumulative loss of open space, taken together this impact cannot be reduced to a nonsignificant level. The loss of natoral open space is an inevitable byproduct of any development in an area where there are substantial open space resources. Specific mitigation recommended for this project is to improve access to the adjacent Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District lands by constructing trails and by providing offstreet parking near trailheads. De 1ails for this mitigation are found on page 115. (Significant Unavoidable Impact) 1 The cumulative impact on the Los Altos School District will be mitigated through the payment of a school impact fee. (Nonsignificant Impact with Mitigation) SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES EVALUATED A. NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE The No Project Alternative is defined as no action which, in this case, would mean that the proposed 23-lot residential sbdivision would not be constructed on the 78-acre project site. Under the No Project Alternative1the implementation of the previously-approved Neary Quarry Reclamation Plan and Lake Management Plan would continue. Under this alternative, the former quarry operations could be resumed on the 78-acre site for another five to 15 years, or until such time as the existing resources are exhausted.' This alternative would be consistent with the site's designation by the State as a significant mineral resource zone. The site would remain within an unincorporated area of Santa Clara County. It is also possible under the No Project Alternative that the applicant could construct five residences, one on each of the five parcels on the 78-acre site; as allowed under County policies. The No Project Alternative - assuming no resumption of quarry activities and no residential construction - would avoid all of the potentially significant impacts of the proposed 23-lot • subdivision. These impacts include the loss of the quarry as a mineral resource, various geologic impacts, loss of oak woodland habitat, the impacts associated with the offsite extension of a sanitary sewer line, short-term noise and air quality impacts on surrounding properties. and visual/aesthetic impacts. If the applicant chose to develop one residence on each of the five parcels on the 78-acre project site, the impacts of such development would be similar to those of the proposed project, but at a substantially reduced intensity. This reduced intensity could very well avoid some of the identified significant impacts of the proposed project,depending on the size and locations of the five residences. For example, development of only five residences would likely not create a significant visual impact or, at a minimum.the visual impact would be reduced when compared to that of the proposed project. The primary adverse effects of the No Project Alternative would be those which would occur If the former quarrying operations on the site were to resume. Those impacts include the following: land use incompatibility with surrounding residences and MROSD lands, truck traffic, noise, generation of substantial dust, loss of vegetation, and substantial visual/aesthetic impacts. Of course, if the former quarrying operations did not resume, these impacts would not occur and the No Project Alternative would be, on balance, environmentally superior to the proposed project. B. REDUCED SCALE ALTERNATIVE The Reduced Scale Alternative was defined as development of a 17-lot residential subdivision on the site, as compared to the 23 lots of the proposed project. This alternative's 17 lots would be located in the site's "Quarry Area", and would be roughly as shown for Lots 1-17 on the site plan for the proposed project. The Reduced Scale Alternative would eliminate the six "Hillside Area"lots (i.e., Lots 18-23) that are in the proposed project. The environmental impacts of the Reduced Scale Alternative would be the same as those for the proposed project, except that the degree of each impact would be less. For example, when compared to the proposed project, the Reduced Scale Alternative would generate fewer vehicle trips, less stormwater water runoff,require fewer urban services,impact less vegetation,generate fewer students to the school system, have less of a visual/aesthetic impact on surrounding areas, and would retain more open space on the site, thereby lessening the cumulative loss of open space. Two of the biggest differences between the proposed project and the Reduced Scale Alternative are in the areas of geology and traffic. Specifically, the Reduced Scale Alternative would avoid the various geologic impacts associated with constructing residences in the site's "Hillside Area". These impacts include potential debris flows,erosion, and slope stability issues. With regard to traffic,this alternative would • `Resumption of quarrying would require the applicant to obtain a new Use Permit from Santa Clara County. The quarrying is allowed under the existing site zoning, u well as the County's General Plan Land Use Designation for the site (Hillsides). 121 avoid the significar't and unavoidable access-related impacts to Lots 19-21 of the proposed project. In addition, this alternative would eliminate the visual and aesthetic Impacts associated with constructing residences on elevated areas.although it should be noted that the proposed project would not construct any'homes above the ridgelines. Of the various residential development alternatives (including the proposed project), this Reduced. Scale Alternative;is the environmentally-superior alternative. C. ALTERNATIVE LAND USE: PUBLIC OPEN SPACE Under this alterna ive, the Neary Quarry Reclamation Plan would be completed and the 78-acre project site would be maintained as dedicated public open space. This alternative resembles the existing site conditions except for the use of the site as public open space. This open space alternative would avoid all of the potentially significant impacts of the proposed 23-lot subdivision, as summarized on the previous pages. It is important to note, however, that this alternative would not meet the basic objective of the proposed project, which is to develop estate residential lots. D. ALTERNATIVE LOCATIONS The Town of Los Altos Hills Planning Staff has indicated that there are a number of sites in the Town which are presently vacant and which, theoretically, could support a residential project such as the one proposed by the applicant. These sites are the following: 1)the 65-acre Packard property; 2) the 41-acre Fenwick property; and 3) the 44-acre Bellucci property. Of these three properties, the Bellucci property is most similar to the Neary Quarry site in that portions of both sites contain steep hillsides. The other two properties are generally characterized by less-steep, rolling 'h4ls. The development of the proposed 23-lot subdivision on any of these three properties would result in impacts similar to those at the Neary Quarry site, in terms of traffic generation, noise impacts, air quality impacts, open space impacts, impacts on vegetation, demands on utilities and urban services, and stormwater runoff impacts. However,unlike the proposed project, the development of a subdivision on any of these alternative sites would not result in the loss of a State-designated mineral resource of significance. Differences in impacts at each of these three sites would primarily be in the area of geology since every site_has its oven geologic and topographic characteristics. Whatever those geologic impacts would be, typically they can be mitigated, assuming that construction on active fault zones and on steep hillsides is avoided.. No assessment was completed on the three alternative sites with regard to the potential for encountering archaeological resources and/or onsite contamination. Therefore, it is not known whether there would be any cultural resources or hazardous materials impacts at those alternative sites. March 30, 1995 Mr. James Sisk DE ANZA PROPERTIES 920 W. Fremont Avenue Sunnyvale, California 94087 Subject: QUARRY HILLS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ITEMS OF REFERENCE TO BE SUBMITTED Dear Mr. Sisk: The recently completed Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Quarry Hills Subdivision references certain items that need to be submitted prior to hearings on the tentative subdivision map. We may notice public hearings on the map before these items are submitted, so that the public and planning commission are not restricted to discussing only the DEIR. However, these hearings on the map will not be able to continue after the public review period is closed until these items are submitted and evaluated by the Town. Those items, and their representative page numbers in the environmental impact report are referenced below to help you expedite their submittal to the Town. Page 46: Mitigation for Inadequate Emergency Access: (Stonebrook Avenue) "A design for this proposed upgrade of Stonebrook Avenue shall be submitted to the Town prior to the public hearings on the Tentative Map."- This design is necessary so that the impacts of the widening on the adjacent trees and berm can be evaluated. Page 46: Mitigation for Inadequate Access to Lots 19-21: "The applicant shall submit plans showing the revised design to the Town prior to hearings on the Tentative Map." These designs are necessary to illustrate the feasibility of reducing the grade, as well as the aesthetic impacts of the design. Alternatively, as the ElR indicates, these lots can be eliminated. • 1 Mr. James Sisk March 30, 1995 Page 2 Page 60: Building Exclusion Zones, Lots 21, 22 & 23: (Potential Debris Flow) "These exclusion zones shall be submitted to the Town prior to the Public Hearings on the Tentative Map so that it can be determined that these lots are developable from a geologic point of view." Page 61: Debris Flow, Baffle Structures, Debris Basins or Diversion Structures: "The design of this mitigation shall be submitted to the Town prior to the public hearings on the Tentative Map." This design is necessary so that the impacts of the mitigation to surrounding parcels mlay be evaluated. Page 61: Stability of the Reclamation Fill: "A Final geotechnical report on the Neary Quarry/Quarry Hills Reclamation Project prepared by a registered geotechnical professional would be submitted to the Town prior to approval of the tentative map." Although the EIR uses the language "prior to approval of the map", staff needs this information prior to the public hearings so that the Town Geologist can make a final recommendation. Page 63: Seismic Impacts: "A special geologic investigation to assess the seismic risk to future development on the lots in the "Quarry Area" of the project from the Berrocal Fault would be performed prior to approval of the tentative map." Although the EIR uses the language "prior to approval of the map", staff needs this information prior to the public hearings so that the Town Geologist can make a final recommendation. Page 116: Cumulative Land Use Impacts: (Trails) "The locations for all trails shall be reviewed shall be reviewed by the Town's Pathways Committee, the City Engineer and MROSD staff, and designs for the trails shall be submitted to the Town prior to the public hearings on the Tentative Map." These locations are necessary because the EIR concludes the trail locations on the submitted map are inadequate due to the steepness of the paths. • r I A • Mr. James Sisk March 30, 1995 Page 3 Additionally, we have received comments from our Engineering consultant and our Geotechnical Consultant. In each instance, certain issues have been raised which should be addressed before final action is taken on the tentative tract map. Their respective letters are attached for your review. Items necessary before final action on the tentative map are clearly referenced. In addition, it has been noted that there are a series of existing lots which presently comprise the site in question. Please show the existing lot lines on the tentative tract map. The subdivision boundary as it currently exists along Stonebrook from the end of lot 18 to Magdalena is difficult to visualize in the field. It would be extremely helpful if this boundary could be staked in the field so that the Planning Commission and City Council can determine the actual extent of the project boundary in the area. Lastly, we understand that there is a model of the quarry site. We have been asked to have this model available during the EIR and Tentative Map review process for both Planning Commission and Council. An item of scale, such as a boat, car or person would help to indicate the magnitude of the site and the development areas. The tentative review schedule for this project is quite ambitious. The items listed above will assist the Planning Commission and ultimately the City Council in making timely decisions on this project. Please submit the necessary information as soon as possible so that the schedule is not impacted. If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact us. Sincerely, Debbie Pollart and Mike Porto Interim Town Planners DP/map Attachments: Wilsey & Ham letter dated March 24, 1995 William Cotton and Associates letter dated February 16, 1995 cc: City Manager City Attorney Mayor Dauber Council member Siegel