HomeMy WebLinkAbout4.1 TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS September 7, 1995
Staff Report to the Planning Commission
RE: REQUEST FOR CERTIFICATION OF FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR, AND
APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, PRE-ZONING, AND
TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP; LANDS OF VIDOVICH, 11920
STONEBROOK DRIVE. (254-93-TM and 257-93-EIR)
FROM: Curtis Williams, Planning Directp...
_
Debbie Pollart and Mike Porto, Contract Town Planners
RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission:
Recommend the following actions to the city Council:
1. certify the Final Supplemental EIR;
2. approve the General Plan Amendment (map and text changes);
3. approve pre-zoning to R-A (Residential Agricultural) zoning district;
4. approve the Tentative Subdivision Map with attached conditions;
5. adopt the attached Mitigation' Monitoring Program;
6. adopt Statements of Overriding Considerations (not attached); and
7. adopt Findings and Facts to support the above actions (not attached).
Staff recommends the Commission utilize the following procedure for tonight's
hearing:
1. ask questions of staff;
2. open the public hearing (hear,applicant first);
3. close the public hearing;
4. discuss items outlined in the staff report or otherwise of concern;
5. modify, add, or delete conditions of approval; and
6. move to either recommend approval of all actions or to deny all
actions.
If the Commission is able to recommend approval at this meeting, staff will return
with revised conditions of approval, if so,directed, and with the necessary findings
and statements of overriding considerations to support the Commission's action.
BACKGROUND
The current project application was deemed complete in November of 1994. Project
modifications made after the date of submittal, such as the retaining wall, have been
incorporated into staff's review. The, project has been subjected to CEQA
requirements (preparation and circulation of a Supplemental EIR), reviewed by
Town staff, the Town's technical consultants (William Cotton and Associates and
Lands of Vidovich ' ,
September 7,1995
Page 2
Wilsey & Ham), and Tow committees (Quarry Hills Council sub-committee,
Pathways committee, Enviro mental Design Committee), in addition to the public.
Previous proposals for resi.ential development of the Neary Quarry area were
submitted to the'County and/or Town, beginning in 1987. The following summary
chronology is intended to pr.vide further background'for the Commission:
February 1i987 Th: Town prepares the Quarry Hills Project Initial Study
and Environmental Assessment for an 80-lot subdivision
on 58-acre site.
July 1988 Ap licant modifies the project, after which the Draft EIR
for the Quarry Hills Residential Subdivision is prepared
and circulated for public review.
September 1988 San a Clara County completes an Expanded Initial Study
and Negative Declaration for the Neary Quarry
Rec amation Plan, adopts the Negative Declaration and
approves the Reclamation Plan for Neary Quarry.
April 1989 The Town certifies the Final EIR for the Quarry Hills
Resiential Subdivision. The project is denied.
September 1992 San a _Clara County circulates the Draft EIR for the
Vid vich General Plan Amendment, which proposes a
25-1 t subdivision on 78 acres. That EIR was not certified
and to date no action has taken place on the pending
Gen ral Plan Amendment and proposed project.
November 1994 Ap licant submits to the Town a tentative subdivision
map for a modified project (23 lots) on 78 acres.
March 1995 The Town circulates the Draft Supplemental EIR for the
Quarry Hills Subdivision.
April 1995 The Planning Commission conducts two public hearings
to accept comments regarding the Draft EIR.
June - Aug. 1995 Final Supplemental EIR (Response to Comments) for
Quarry Hills Subdivision prepared by EIR consultants and •
Tow staff, after receipt of additional information from
appl'cant.
Lands of Vidovich
September 7,1995
Page 3
PROJECT DESCRIPTION/REQUEST
The applicant requests approval of a proposed Tentative Subdivision Map by the
Town of Los Altos Hills, allowing for the development of 23 residential lots on the
78-acre site, which is located in the Montebello Ridge area within the Town of Los
Altos Hills' Sphere of Influence. The applicant proposes modifications to the
adopted Neary Quarry Reclamation Plan and Lake Management Plan in
conjunction with this proposal. This request will also entail expansion of the
Town's Urban Service Area, pre-zoning and annexation of the project site to the
Town of Los Altos Hills, and adoption of!minor text and map amendments to the
Los Altos Hills' General Plan.
Approval of the Tentative Subdivision Map as proposed by the applicant would
allow construction of 23 residences on lots ranging in size from oneto eight acres in
two distinct portions of the project site: the "Quarry Area" and the "Hillside Area."
As part of the approved Reclamation Plan, a lake was created in the area excavated
during the former quarrying on the site. The 23 residences would surround the
north and west sides of the existing lake.
Development of the project site would result in private residential lots (1-23) which
cover approximately 70 percent of the subdivision area. Site coverage by street
rights-of-way account for approximately four percent of the subdivision area. The
remaining 26+ percent of the area would consist of the reclamation lake and
surrounding open space.
Access to the proposed subdivision would be provided from the north from the
existing Stonebrook Drive, which would be extended into the site to connect to the
three proposed streets (Streets A, B, and IC). Secondary access to the site, which
would be used only in emergency situations, would be from.Magdalena Avenue to
Stonebrook Drive, connecting to "C" Street in the subdivision.
Sanitary sewer service would be provided by the Town of Los Altos Hills via a
connection to Town-owned sewer lines, assuming that the project is annexed to the
Town. In order to provide sanitary sewer service to the proposed residences, a
gravity system would extend off-site from a point in the northeastern corner of the
site (near Lot 11), and would generally follow the course of the existing alignment of
Hale Creek for a distance of approximately 1,000 feet to connect with the sewer
system in the Dawson Drive Subdivision (Tract No. 6462). The proposed alignment
would extend through the Juan Prado Mea Preserve, a dedicated Town open space
area. Available alternatives to the proposed sanitary sewer system could consist of
either: 1) a pump with a force main up Stonebrook Drive to Prospect Avenue; or 2)
the use of on-site septic systems.
Storm drainage is conveyed through the site in several ways. A by-pass channel is
proposed along the rear of lots 1 through 10 to carry flows from off-site to Hale Creek
Lands of Vidovich
September 7, 1995
Page 4
in the Preserve. On-site stor flows would be channeled to "roadside ditches" and
conveyed in an open channel o the lake between lots 13 and 14. Off-site flows from
Prospect Avenue and Stoneb ook Drive are proposed to be collected at the site
boundary, conveyed in a pipe etween lots 7 and 8 (through a well site not owned by
the applicant) and deposited in the open channel between lots 13 and 14. In the
event the lake should exceed apacity, an outlet channel is proposed adjacent to Lot
11 to carry the overflow to H le Creek and the Preserve. Water service to the site
would be provided either by he Purissima Water District or the California Water
Service Company.
Public trail easements from t e project site to the adjacent MidPeninsula Regional
Open Space Distinct lands are proposed to extend through Lots 18, 19, 20, and 21.
Public trail easements would also extend along the edge; of Lots 18 and 23 to provide
trail access from the streets. These public trail easements would be approximately 10
feet in width and would generally follow existing unpaved paths that were once
traveled by the former quarry t ucks.
The applicant's request compri es several separate approvals by the Town:
1. Supplemental Environ ental Impact Report (SEIR) - The Planning
Commission will need t determine if the Final SEIR (composed of the Draft
SEIR and the Reppo se to Comments) is adequate and to make a
recommendation to thecity Council as to the certification of the Final SEIR
and its compliance with CEQA. The Commission must review and consider
the Final SEIR before re ommendations to approve or deny the project can be
made.
Should the Planning Commission recommend certification of the Final SEIR,
the attached Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) must
also be adopted, and Fndings and Facts supporting the certification (not
attached) must also be in icated.
CEQA requires that for e ch significant avoidable j impact identified in the EIR,
the Planning Commissi n must indicate what I measure(s) is proposed to
mitigate the impact. .CE A further requires a written plan that describes each
mitigation measure in t e EIR, and outlines who is responsible for seeing
that the action is carrieout and at what stage in the development process
mitigation must occur. he proposed mitigation measures are derived from
the EIR and are contained in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program (MMRP). i
For each significant unavoidable impact identified in the EIR, CEQA requires
that, if the Project is approved, a "statement of overriding considerations" be
made. The Commission and Council must first determine why mitigation is
"infeasible", and then,must balance the benefits of a proposed project against
Lands of Vidovich
• September 7,1995
Page 5
its unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve a
project. If the Commission recommends approval of the project, it must find
that the benefits outweigh the unavoidable significant impacts. If this is the
case, staff will develop Statements of Overriding Considerations to be
recommended for adoption at a subsequent meeting.
Specific issues outlined in the SEIR are analyzed in the DISCUSSION section
of this staff report.
2. General Plan Amendment - The proposed General Plan amendment (GPA)
includes minor text and map changes in order to make the Town's General
Plan internally consistent regarding the Neary Quarry. These changes are
included as an attachment to the staff report.
3. Pre-Zoning - The proposed project includes the annexation of the 78-acre site
to the Town of Los Altos Hills. The site is presently in an unincorporated
area of Santa Clara County. Upon its annexation, the site is proposed to be
zoned by the Town as R-A (Residential-Agriculture). Specific issues of the
proposed pre-zoning are analyzed in the DISCUSSION section of this staff
report.
4. Tentative Subdivision Map - The tentative subdivision map and supporting
materials indicate the proposed lot and roadway layout, and geologic,
engineering and improvement details for the subdivision. After a tentative
map has been approved, even more detailed engineering materials will be
submitted with a final subdivision map which must be approved by the City
Council prior to any development o'n the site.
A number of detailed conditions of approval have been recommended for the
proposed tentative map. Many of these are noted in the .DISCUSSION section
relevant to issues of concern, and al, complete set of conditions is included as
an attachment to the staff report. Additionally, mitigation measures
recommended in the EIR have been incorporated into a Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program which is also included as an attachment
to the.staff report.
The project also would require expansion of the Urban Service Area (USA)
prior to annexation, in order to include the, 78-acre project site within the
service area for the Town of Los Altos Hills. These proceedings come under
the authority of the Santa Clara County Local Agency Formation Commission
(LAFCO) and are pending action regarding project approval, particularly
certification of the Final EIR.
Lands of Vidovich
September 7, 1995
Page 6
DISCUSSION
This section h1as been ar anged to discuss each approval separately: the
Environmental Impact Repot (EIR), General Plan Amendment (GPA), Pre-zoning,
and Tentative Subdivision ap. Required findings and conditions of approval
(COA) for each element of th- proposed project are disicussed within this section.
A. Envir.nmen .1 Im. . Re• •rt EIR
The Final Supplemental EIR FSEIR) consists of the following elements:
1. Draft Supplemental EIR or the Quarry Hills Subdivision, March 1995 (with
reference to the Final EI' for the Quarry Hills Residential Subdivision, April
1989).
2. Response to Comments and Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program, August 1995.
Public hearings were held be ore the Planning Commission on April 12 and April
26, 1995, to accept commen s on the Draft Supplemental EIR. Following these
hearings and subsequent to r-ceiving additional inforration from the applicant, the
Response to Comments docu ent has been prepared.
The public hearing on the EI was closed on April 26th and the final documents are
now before the Commission. The Planning Commission must determine whether
to recommend to the City Council certification of the EIR, i.e., that the documents
fulfill all of the requirements of CEQA. The City Council will have to make two
findings in order to certify the EIR:
1. The Final EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA.
2. The Final EIR reflect- the independent judgment of the Town and the
information contained i the Final EIR was reviewed and considered prior to
action being taken on t e project.
These findings encompass b th the public notice and processing requirements of
CEQA as well as an acknowle o gment that the EIR adequately addresses the potential
impacts of the proposed •roject and evaluates rieasonable alternatives and
mitigation measures. The proposed project may not be approved until these two
findings can be made.
Lands of Vidovich
September 7,1995
Page 7
EIR Issues
The following potential environmental impacts were analyzed and discussed in the
Draft SEIR:
• Land Use. • Transportation.and Circulation
• Geology, Soils,.and Seismicity • Hydrology and Water Quality
• Vegetation and Wildlife • Utilities and Urban Services
• Visual and Aesthetic Quality j • Air Quality
• Noise • Cultural Resources
• Hazardous Materials • Public Safety Issues
The Draft SEIR identified potentially significant impacts for each of the topics listed
above. The attached EIR Summary of Impacts outlines expected impacts and
proposed mitigation measures for each topic. All potentially significant impacts
would be mitigated to a level of insignificance based on the proposed mitigation
measures except for the following impacts which were found to be significant and
unavoidable:
• Land Use - loss of State-designated mineral resource of significance
(project-specific)
• Loss of Open Space (cumulative)
• Transportation and Circulation- access to Lots 19-21.
Because of the existence of significant unavoidable impacts, the Commission and
City Council must adopt Statements of Oyierriding Considerations if the Tentative
Map is approved as proposed. If the Commission and Council delete proposed
mitigation measures for other impacts, a Statement of Overriding Consideration
may have to be made for each of those impacts as well. Statements of Overriding
Considerations will be prepared prior to the Commission's final action: Similarly,
findings of fact will not be presented until the Commission has provided further
direction regarding its recommendations to the Council.
For a summary of all potentially significant impacts and recommended mitigation
measures, refer to the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP)
included as an attachment to this staff report. All mitigation measures included in
the MMRP will become conditions of approval for the proposed project if it is
approved.
B. General Plan Amendment
The Planning Commission must make a recommendation to the City Council with
respect to the requested amendment to the General Plan. The recommendation
may be for approval, approval with modifications, or denial.
1
1
Lands of Vidovich
September 7,1995 l
Page 8
The applicant requests text nd map amendments to the Town of Los Altos Hills'
General Plan and Land Use ap. These amendments would designate the site as
residential and would delete references to the existence of an active quarry on the
project site. Proposed text changes include amendments to the Land Use Element,
Open Space Element, Recreation Element, and Conservation Element, which all
refer to the Nearly Quarry as flan active quarry site and/or the site's designation and
future use as open space pre•erve. The map designation would change from Open
Space Preserve (OSP) to Resid-ntial Very Low to Low Density (R(V-L)).
The proposed text and map C anges, as well as related findings, are included as an
attachment to the staff report.
1
I
C. Pre-Zoning 1
The project site currently 1 es within the jurisdiction of Santa Clara County.
Concurrent with approval of the Tentative Map (but prior to annexation), the
applicant requests pre-zon ng of the project site to the R-A (Residential-
Agricultural) zoning district. The pre-zoning simply indicates what the project site
is intended to be designate. once annexation occurs. Subsequent to project
approval, but concurrent w th finalization of the Subdivision Map action, the
applicant requests annexation of the project site to the Town of Los Altos Hills. A
recommended condition of pproval would require the applicant to consent to
annexation of the site not late than 30 days after approval of the tentative map, and
anticipates that annexation ould be completed prior to final map approval and
commencement of any devel pment activities.
Annexation requests are ty ically considered by the Local Agency Formation
Commission (LAFCO), which is generally concerned that development is occurring
in a logical manner and that public services and utilities can be provided to the
project site without economi ally burdening the Town and service providers. In
this case, howevr, if the property owner consents to annexation and if the property
lies within the Town's Sphere of Influence (it does) and Urban Service Area (it does
not), the Town may conduct a nexation proceedings without LAFCO review.
The Town has initiated LAF 0 proceedings for expansion of the Urban Service
Area (USA), as prerequisite t annexation of the property. The USA application is
on file and is being processed by LAFCO at this time, but awaits finalization of the
EIR before action.
D. Tentative Subdivision Ma •
The tentative subdivision ap application was submitted to the Town in
November of 1994 and since that time has undergone extensive review by Town
planning and engineering st ff, Town geotechnical and engineering consultants,
and Town committees. Duni g the course of this review, changes or modifications
Lands of Vidovich
• September 7,1995
Page 9
to the project have been suggested.. Recommended changes are incorporated into
the proposed Conditions of Approval (COA) for Planning Commission
consideration. Prior to approval of the tentative map, the conditions may be
accepted by the Commission and Council as written, may be modified or deleted, or
additional conditions may be imposed.
Findings
Before a tentative subdivision map can be approved, the Town must find that the
proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvement,
is consistent with the General Plan. In addition, the Town should make a "housing
balance finding" as required by Government Code Section 66412.3 and a finding
relating to future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities as required by
Section 66473.1.
If the Town makes any of the following findings with respect to the project, it shall
deny the tentative map:
• The proposed map or the design or improvement of the proposed
subdivision are inconsistent with the General Plan.
• . The site is not physically suited, for the proposed. type or density of
development. If the site is not suited for the proposed density or population
or structures, the legislative body may approve the map with conditions that
will reduce the density.
• The design of proposed improvements are likely to cause substantial
environmental damage, or substantially and avoidably injure fish, wildlife or
their habitats, or cause serious public health problems. The map may be
approved if an environmental impact report was prepared and appropriate
findings are made that specific economic, social or other considerations make
infeasible the mitigation measures 'or project alternatives identified in the
EIR.
• The design,or types of improvements of the subdivision will conflict with
public easements for access through or use of, property within the proposed
subdivision. The Town may approve the map if alternative public easements
will be provided.
• Discharge of waste from the proposed subdivision would violate existing
requirements prescribed by a regional water quality control board.
Also, the Town shall disapprove a map for the applicant's failure to meet or
perform any of the requirements or conditions imposed by the Map Act or local
ordinance pursuant thereto.. In approving or disapproving a map, the Town shall
Lands of Vidovich
September 7,1995 '
Page 10
apply only those ordinanc s, policies or standards in effect at the time the
application was deemed com Tete (November 1994), with certain exceptions.
Tentative Map Issues
The Tentative Subdivision lap before the Planning Commission represents "the
project" as submitted. Staff nd the Town's technical consultants (civil engineers
Wilsey & Ham and geotechnical consultants William ;Cotton and Associates) have
reviewed the map extensivey. The items discussed 1 below represent key issues
which need to be resolved pri r to action on the tentative map. These items should
be addressed to the satisfac-ion of the Planning Commission by accepting the
applicant's proposal, by imposing relevant conditions of approval, or by
recommending project modifications.
The format for the following -ections includes a discussion of each key issue (staff's
comments/concerns about what the applicant has proposed), staff's
recommendation Ii egarding th.t issue, and relevant conditions of approval.
1. Emergent Access
The Town's General Plan desi:nates Stonebrook Drive as a "through" roadway, but
it is currently a private street on the Magdalena end. ' Emergency vehicle access is
necessary, howevller, to provid- a second means to get to and from the site should a
medical' emergency or natur:1 disaster occur, as there would otherwise be 23
residences with access limi ed to one cul-de-sac street. The connection of
Stonebrook Avenue from Magdalena Road in the southeast (unincorporated Santa
Clara County) to the subdivison is proposed as the emergency access route. The
current roadway width of thi. segment of Stonebrook Avenue is only 15-18 feet,
whereas the Los Altos Fire Dpartment requires a 20 foot width, allowing for two
fire engines to pass each oth r. Widening of the roadway over approximately a
1,000 foot distance would res It in alteration of someexisting mature vegetation
(including two large oak .tres) along the roadway, some of which provides
screening from adjacent prope ties to the Quarry.
This portion of roadway also runs close to the top of a nearly vertical cut at the
southerly quarry wall. . The a licant is not presently proposing measures to widen
the road or to mitigate potenLtiial instability of this area, although the applicant's
geotechnical consultant, Alan Kropp Associates (AKA)1 has recommended remedial
grading of that area, which w.uld also require extensive loss of vegetation on the
north side of the road. In the ourse of staff review, William Cotton and Associates
(WCA) concluded that correcti e grading is appropriate adjacent to this roadway to
provide adequate protection of the roadway for emergency access. WCA determined
that future landsliding, poss bly triggered by seismic conditions or significant
rainfall, may interrupt use of t is roadway, and concluded that there is a "moderate"
•
Lands of Vidovich
September 7,1995
Page 11
level of risk that future seismic activity could render this roadway impassable unless
corrective measures are implemented.
A further complication arises in that the roadway is apparently a private road, and
lies within the jurisdiction of Santa Clara County. The applicant could, however,
widen the road on his side of the street, and could offer to dedicate additional right-
of-way to the County to accommodate widening and slope stability improvements.
If the Town determines not to require widening or not to require corrective grading,
the resultant impacts identified in the EIR would then be considered significant and
a Statement of Overiding Considerations would be required to be adopted by the
Town for each impact (circulation and slop stability).
Recommendation: Require the dedication of additional right-of-way, that the
emergency access! road pavement be widened to 20 feet,
except for areas where mature trees exist (road may be
narrowed to accommodate trees), and that corrective
grading measures be implemented to assure stability of
the roadway.
Conditions of Approval
• The Final Map shall include an offer to dedicate sufficient right-of-way (a
minimum of 10 feet and, if necessary, slope easements) to Santa Clara County
on the north side of Stonebrook Avenue on the applicant's property to
accommodate widening of this segment of roadway (approximately 1,000
linear feet) to a minimum 20 foot width, and to perform corrective grading
work (as recommended by.Alan Kropp Associates) and required drainage and
other improvements in the right-of-way. The area shown for dedication
shallbe to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and County authorities.
• Prior to approval of the.Final Map improvement plans shall be submitted,
for approval by the City Engineer and the Town's Geotechnical consultant,
detailing the corrective grading work outlined by the applicant's geotechnical
consultant for the southern Quarry rim adjacent .to Stonebrook Avenue.
Improvement plans shall also include revegetation of the graded area,
including trees for screening, to the satisfaction of the Planning Director.
Grading improvements, and revegetation shall be completed prior to final
mapapproval, unless an improvement agreement and related bonding is
approved by the City Council. •
• Prior to approval of the Final Map, improvement plans shall be submitted,
for approval by the City Engineer, indicating the widening of the Stonebrook
Avenue pavement to a width of 20 feet. Where such widening would
damage heritage oak.trees, the pavement width shall be narrowed to avoid
Lands of Vidovich
September 7, 1995
Page 12
substantial impact to he trees. Improvements shall be constructed prior to
final map approval, unless an improvement agreement and related bonding
is approved by the City Council.
2. Abandonment of Portion of Stonebrook Drive (Lots 1-4)
The proposed method of a cess to the subdivision is from Stonebrook Drive
southerly of its intersection ith Prospect Avenue. "A" Street would become the
primary access into the subdi ision with cul-de-sacs "B" and "C" serving the lots.
Presently there is a 40 foot ri;ht-of-way from Stonebrook Drive that provides access
to off-site parcels northerly :nd westerly of Lots 1-4. The applicant intends to
abandon his half (20 foot wi•th) as part of the subdivision. Staff believes that the
right-of-way is private, and that easements would need to be abandoned by the
property owner's that hold rights to the existing right-of-way. While those
properties are intended to be served by new streets "A" and "C", abandonment of
those easements needs to occ r prior to approval of the Final Map, or the right-of-
way should remain availabl•, and the lot sizes reduced accordingly. Also, new
easements may need to be -stablished from the proposed subdivision to allow
continued access.
Recommendation: Req ire that abandonment of easements be finalized and
any needed new easements be conveyed prior to approval
of t e Final Map. or that the existing right-of-way remain
available.
Conditions of Approval
• Prior to approval of the Final Map, the applicant shall finalize the
abandonment of access -asements for right-of-way to the rear of Lots 1-4, and
shall provide addition.l easements as necessary to accommodate continued
access to off-site prop-rties. Alternatively, the applicant may retain the
existing right-of-way a d shall indicate on the' revised Tentative and Final
maps redueed lot sizes f•r those Lots 1-4.
3. Access to the Lake and inside Lots
Lots 18, 22 and 23 are constr;ined by access limitations, but access appears to be
feasible for these lots. Lots 19 21, however, present unique design issues that cannot
be mitigated without significant redesign. The primary 'concern is with regard to the
steepness of the driveways) and associated cut and fill. The proposed
street/driveway grades to the•e lots is excessive (up to 19%), would heavily impact
existing trees, and would creat- a serious hazard for stopping at the intersection with
Street "C", especially in we I weather. Attempting to flatten the grade of the
Lands of Vidovich
September 7,1995
Page 13
driveways serving these lots would require significant grading and retaining walls,
contrary to the Town's development standards and policies.
Wilsey & Ham recommend a maximum driveway slope of 6% for a distance of 40
feet where the driveway approaches "C" Street. This can only be accomplished for
these lots if "C" Street is moved northeasterly, constraining Lot 17. Lot 17 also
contains the most appropriate access to the, Lake for vehicles and boats, and is a
likely candidate for trail access parking. Lots 20 and 21 also have significant
development constraints due to tree cover and open space concerns (see discussion
of building site feasibility).
The realignment of "C" street (eliminating Lot,17) and the elimination of lots--20 and
21 would allow for a single driveway to lot 19, with a safer transition from "C"
street.
If the Town determines to allow access to Lots 19-21 with steep grades or excessive
cuts and fills, a Statement of Overriding Considerations will be required, as the EIR
identifies this concern as a significant unavoidable impact.
Recommendation: Direct the applicant to move that portion of "C" Street
from its intersection with "B" street easterly to provide
the recommended flat area for adequate vehicular
transition to the hillside area for Lot 19. The effective
result will eliminate the ability to develop Lot 17 for
residential uses but will provide a safe lake access and
maintenance facility staging- area. Lots 20 and 21 should
be eliminated, to eliminate the safety concerns and
environmental 'impacts regarding a roadway or joint
driveway to those properties.
Conditions of Approval ; _
• Prior to Final Map approval, the applicant shall submit a revised Tentative
Map indicating the elimination of Lots 17, 20 and 21. Street "C" shall be
realigned to provide direct access_ to the.lake along the route of the existing
roadway and to provide adequate transition for the driveway to Lot 19. Lot 17
shall be combined with Parcel A and used for lake access and maintenance,
and for recreational and parking uses to serve the subdivision residents and
for public trail access. The revisions shall be reflected on the Final Map.
• The revised Tentative Map shall also demonstrate that the driveway grade for
Lot 19, as it approaches Street C, will not exceed a maximum of 6% for at least
40 feet from the street, and that driveway grades are reduced to the maximum
extent practicable, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Lands of Vidovich
September 7,1995
Page 14
4. Stability of Quarry Wal
The quarry wall adjacent to .tonebrook Avenue along the southerly boundary of
the property is of concern du- to its steepness and potential instability. Protective
measures are necessary to a.sure the stability of the street above, to preclude
pedestrians, animals and au omobiles from falling down this steep cut, and to
protect persons below from slides and rockfalls. The applicant's geotechnical
consultant has recommended emedial grading work on this slope, and the EIR and
Quarry Reclamation Plan r:commended landscape plantings on the wall for
stabilization. Fencing at the top of the wall would also enhance safety for those
traveling along the roadway. his remedial repair, if required, should be completed
in conjunction with the wi.ening of Stonebrook Drive. Again, if the Town
determines not to require the remedial grading, 'a Statement of Overriding
Considerations will be requires. A separate section of this report discusses the issue
of access to the lake. 1
Recommendation: Require corrective grading, landscaping, and fencing to
provide enhanced stability for i the emergency access route
and to mprove safety for those using the road above and the
quarry 'rea below.
Conditions of Approval
• Prior to approval of th- Final Map, improvement plans shall be submitted,
for approval by the Citi Engineer and the Town's Geotechnical consultant,
detailing the corrective trading work regarding the quarry wall, as outlined by
the applicnt's geotec nical consultant. Improvement plans shall also
include revegetation of the graded area, including trees for screening, to the
satisfaction of the P anning Director. Grading improvements and
revegetation shall be ompleted prior to Final Map approval, unless an
improvement agreeme t and related bonding is approved by the City
Council.
• Prior to approval of th Final Map, the applicant shall fence the top of the
quarry wall from the e d of Street "C" to Magdalena Avenue and along the
rear of those lots alon the east end of the subdivision boundary, where
feasible. The weight, type and location of this fence shall be subject to review
and approval of the Town Planner and City Engineer.
• Prior to approval of t e Final Map, the applicant shall submit with the •
improvement plans, det ils of proposed stabilization plantings of the quarry
wall, as recommended b a licensed Landscape Architect, and to be reviewed
and approved by the Panning Director, the Town's arborist or landscape
architect, and the Tow 's geotechnical consultant. The plantings shall be
. I
Lands of Vidovich
September 7,1995
Page 15
installed prior to Final Map approval, unless an improvement agreement
and related bonding is approved by the City Council.
5. Debris Basin
The Environmental Impact Report and the Town's consultants have identified the
potential for debris flows to 'originate within the subject property and travel
downslope, adversely impacting existing off-site residences.
Lot 21, as proposed on the Tentative Map, is constrained.by debris flow hazards. A
significant portion, of the proposed relocated building envelope is still situated
within the debris flow/colluvial fan deposits (Qc) mapped by Harlan Tait Associates.
Specific site grading measures, resulting in elevation of the building pad as
recommended by the applicant's geotechnical consultant, are an integral part of the
safe development of this lot.
Potential future debris flows originating within swales #1, #4 and #5 (i.e., locations
as defined in the Harlan Tait Associates.Report of May 10, 1991) were identified as
having a moderate to high potential for adversely impacting existing residential
parcels adjacent to the subject subdivision': Mitigation measures to address hazards
from swales #4 and #5, previously detailed by Alan Kropp Associates, include
construction of a debris flow.retention basin within 'the subdivision property (i.e., in
the northwestern portion of Lot 21).
According to William Cotton and Associates, the conceptual debris basin design
proposed in the northwestern portion of Lot 21 appears adequate. However, the crest
height of the proposed berm (shown at. 15 feet above the existing grade) could
probably be reduced to less than 10 feet considering that it is located considerably
downslope, and at a much wider point. in the swale than a previously proposed
berm (also designed with a 15-foot crest height).
The EIR and the applicant's and Town's consultants also recommended that the
potential for debris flows be disclosed to affected property owners, including the
MidPeninsula Open Space District.
Recommendation: Require the installation of a debris basin along the
northwestern boundary of the Lot 21, and that the
applicant disclose the debris flow hazard to all potentially
affected property owners.
Conditions of Approval
• Prior to approval of the Final Map, improvement plans shall be submitted
detailing plans for construction of a debris basin at the northwestern
boundary of Lot 21. . The plans should minimize the height of the berm for.
Lands of Vidovich
September 7,1995
Page 16
the basin and shall include plans for landscaping the fill and other disturbed
areas. Plans must be eviewed and approved by the Planning Director, City
Engineer, and the To n's geotechnical consultant. The debris basin and
related landscaping m st be installed prior to Final Map approval, unless an
improvement agreem nt and related bonding is approved by the City
Council.
• Not later than 30 days fter approval of the Tentative Map, the applicant shall
notify in writing theid-Peninsula Regional Open Space District and all
private property own rs potentially impacted by debris flow hazards, as
identified by the appli ant's geotechnical consultants. The form and content
of the notification sha i1 be approved by the Planning Director and the City
Attorney.
• Prior to approval of he Final Map, the applicant shall submit a revised
Tentative Map, depicting building envelopes and debris flow building
exclusion zones on 11 of the hillside lots (18-23), consistent with the
recommendations of the applicant's and the Town's geotechnical consultants.
The building exclusio I zones shall also be reflected on the Final Map. No
residential constructio shall be allowed within the building exclusion zone
unless a detailed lot-s ecific geotechnical investigation is performed, to the
satisfaction of the T wn's geotechnical consultant, to demonstrate the
feasibility lof constructi n with appropriate mitigation measures.
• Prior to approval of t e Final Map, an appropriate final pad elevation and
proposed site grading lan for Lot 21 shall be prepared and accepted by the
applicant's geotechnica consultant, and reviewed and approved by the City
Engineer and Town ge technical consultant.
• Prior to Final Map a proval, Study Plan #4, delineating final building
envelopes and driveway alignments, as identified by the applicant's
geotechnical consultat, shall be modified with the above changes and
submitted for approva by the City Engineer and the Town's geotechnical
consultant. The geo chnical consultant shall certify in writing that the
recommendations of the plan are reflected in' the proposed improvement
plans.
6. Other Geotechnical Issues
Lots 1 through 17 are generally considered feasiblefor development given the
existing slopes and the mitig tion measures suggested by the EIR and the Town's
consultants. However, sig ificant differential fill ;thickness beneath proposed
building sites may result i the need for special;' (non-standard) residential
foundation design due to var'ous on-going site grading activities which were not
fully inspected or approved y the applicant's geotechnical consultant. William
i
1
1
Lands of Vidovich
September 7,1995
Page 17
Cotton and Associates (August .8, 1995 letter attached) has recommended that
preliminary foundation recommendations be provided prior to Final Map approval.
Progress Report #5, prepared by the applicant's geotechnical consultant to document
site grading, contains a list of 11 site reclamation/grading operations that were not
within their scope of inspection services. ;It is important that all portions of the
property are presented for public or private use in a safe condition, and therefore
William Cotton and Associates .has recommended that the geotechnical consultant
identify any necessary corrective grading required prior to Final Map approval.
Recommendation: Require that the applicant's geotechnical consultant provide
preliminary foundation recommendations and identify any
necessary corrective grading prior to Final Map approval.
Conditions of Approval
• Prior to approval of the Final Map, the applicant's geotechnical consultant
shall submit preliminary foundation recommendations to define the general
type of residential foundation deemed appropriate for each proposed lot. The
potential need for any unusually deep or rigid foundation systems shall be
addressed. The range of differential'fill thickness across proposed building
envelopes shall be quantified as part of this evaluation. Any requirements for
fill settlement monitoring prior to construction shall be addressed. The report
recommendations shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the City Engineer
and the Town's geotechnical consultant. Any recommendations for
unusual foundation design shall be included in the CC&R's for the
subdivision.
• Prior to approval of the Final Map,I the applicant's geotechnical consultant
shall identify the extent of necessary corrective grading;activities resultant
from ongoing grading on.the site. ; The report shall be prepared to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer and the Town's geotechnical consultant, and
any corrective grading must be included on the improvement plans.
• Prior to approval of the Final Map,'the applicant's geotechnical consultant
shall review all proposed improvement plans and shall certify in writing that
such plans are consistent with all geotechnical recommendations. The
geotechnical consultant's.review shall include, at a minimum, all proposed
grading and drainage, and all geotechnical mitigation measures.
7. Drainage .
The applicant proposes to convey drainage from the subdivision to the lake and to
Hale Creek. On-site drainage would be transported_ primarily through a series of
"roadside ditches" to a channel outlet to the lake between Lots 13 and 14. Off-site
Lands of Vidovich
September 7, 1995
Page 18
drainage from areas to the w-st would be conveyed to a drainage pipe and ditch at
street "C" to street "B" and t en to the outlet channellbetween Lots 13 and 14. Off-
site drainage from the area to the north, which presently flows to Hale Creek, would
be transported in a by-pass c annel along the rear of Lots 5 through 10 to Hale Creek.
Drainage from Prospect Av:nue would be conveyed via a pipe from Stonebrook
Drive between Lots 7 and 8, t rough an existing well site, again to the outlet channel
between Lots 13 and 14. Fi ally, an outlet channel would be provided adjacent to
Lots 10, 11 and 12 to carry o erflow to Hale Creek Juan Prado Mesa Preserve in
the event that the lake level exceeds its capacity. Small sections of storm drain are
also proposed to carry wate under the intersection of Streets C and B and under
Stonebrook Drive at various •oints.
While the lake will act in a •eneficial manner as a flood protection facility for the
surrounding area, staffand the Town's consultants are concerned about several
elements of the drainage system. First, there is significant potential for erosion and
siltation in the roadway ditc es (and possibly flooding) if they must carry drainage
from off-site, pa iiticularly from the area to the west. Wilsey & Ham have suggested
that the roadside ditches be used to handle only "local drainage" and not as a
method to channel large amo nts of off-site flows through the site to the lake. The
off-site drainage through Lot 23 should be conveyed to the Lake via a storm drain
pipe to an outlet at the weste n corner of the lake, not in the roadside ditches. The
pipe should be sized to accom odate drainage from a 100-year storm.
The by-pass channel must c ntinue to provide flows to Hale Creek, and as such
should be lined (with clay o other impervious material) to prevent seepage into
Lots 5-10. The by-pass chap el and the lake overflow channel should both be sized
to accommodate drainage from a 100-year storm. The pipe from Prospect Avenue
via Stonebrook Drive, betwee Lots 7 and 8, would be located through a well site,
which is not own' ed by the a•plicant. This drainage (facility could be realigned to
avoid the well site, and shoul• accommodate a 25-year storm flow. In addition, staff
suggests that the proposed op-n channel between Lots '13 and 14 be placed in a pipe
underground to avoid draina•e impacts on those lots, and that a drainage easement
be dedicated behind Lots 1-4 �o accommodate drainage from upsiope lots, if needed
upon development.
Most of the open drainage c annels and enclosed pipes carrying off-site drainage
must accommodate 100-year torm flows, except that some of the short sections of
pipe carrying only localized o -site drainage may be designed to carry 25-year storm
flows, and the pipe from the rospect Avenue drainage may be designed for the 25-
year event, as larger events wi 1 not drain toward the lake. These design parameters •
can be verified by the City En,ineer at the time improvement plans are submitted.
1
In addition, the subdivision i subject to the provisions of the Santa Clara County
NPDES (non-poi t source pollution) general permit, requiring submittal of a Notice
Lands of Vidovich
September 7,1995
Page 19
of Intent and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program to the State and to the
Town, prior to construction.
Recommendation: Require that the;, drainage system be revised as per the
above suggestions, and that the City Engineer verify the
capacity of drainage facilities in the review of
improvement plans.
Conditions of Approval
• Prior to approval of the Final Map, a revised Tentative Map shall be
submitted which: 1) conveys drainage in an underground pipe, rather than
an open channel, from Lot 23 to the western corner of the lake; 2). conveys
drainage in an underground pipe, rather than an open channel, between. Lots
13 and 14; 3) relocates the drainage pipe between Lots 7 and 8 to avoid the
private well site, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer; and 4) provides a
drainage easement to the rear of lots 1-4. All drainage easements shall be a
minimum of 20 feet in width. The changes shall be reflected on the Final
Map, with appropriate dedication of;easements.
• Prior to approval of the Final Map, improvement plans shall be submitted,.
detailing the construction plans for all drainage facilities, and demonstrating
that all facilities can accommodate 100-year storm flows, with the exception of
short sections of channels or pipes carrying only localized on-site drainage,
and the Prospect Avenue drainage pipe, which may be designed to handle 25-
year flows. The design of the by-pass channel shall include an impervious
lining (concrete is not an acceptable material), and the plans shall
demonstrate that adequatemeasures to control erosion and siltation on the
proposed roadside ditches will be incorporated. Plans shall be reviewed and
approved by the City Engineer. Drainage improvements must be installed
prior to Final Map approval, or an improvement agreement and related
bonding must be approved by the City Council.
8. Lake Water Quality, Access and Maintenance
The lake is proposed as a private facility which will be a receptor for drainage from
off-site including, insome cases, from public roadways. Water from off-site,
primarily from existing Prospect Avenue] and Stonebrook Drive to the north and
from the area northwesterly of Lots 1 and 23 will drain to and through the site.
These flows have the potential for depositing pollutants into the privately-owned
lake. The City Attorney has requested that a hold-harmless agreement be developed
to assure that no liability is attributed to the public for potential adverse impacts to
the lake.
Lands of Vidovich .
September 7, 1995
Page 20
I
A 1988 Lake Management Plan, updated in 1994, propoIsed a number of measures to
protect lake water quality re ative to sedimentation and erosion controls, debris,
excessive plant growth (algae , and insect vectors (mosquitoes and midge fly larva).
The EIR elaborated on sever 1 of these as proposed mitigation measures. These
controls should be incorpor ted into construction practices and CC&R's for the
subdivision residents. Another measure to protect lake water quality could include
the incorporation of oil and g ease traps into the storm drain system, although such
controls have little benefit in filtering nutrients and chemicals from fertilizers and
pesticides.
The Lake Management Plan al.o suggested that, for aesthetic reasons, the lake could
be filled by the applicant (or .ubsequently by the homeowners) when it reached a
low point. While this may ssmetimes be a realistic possibility, staff does not feel
that filling of the lake should o ccur during drought periods when water rationing is
in effect. The Lake Manage ent Plan indicated that !filling was not necessary for
health and safety purposes.
Staff is also concerned regardi g the provision of access to the lake for maintenance
and emergency purposes. The only roadway adjacent to the lake itself is the cul-de-
sac at the end of "C Street. he slope from "C" Street down to the lake edge is,
however, too steep to accom odate motorized vehicles. There is an existing road
down to the water surface thr ugh Lot 17, which could be utilized to provide access
for emergency personnel and aintenance vehicles. It would be logical to utilize
this existing access point for the maintenance and safety of the lake, but would
eliminate Lot 17 ads a building ite.
1
As mentioned previously, there is a potential for sloughing or rocksliding from the
steep quarry walls above the 1 ke to the banks below. As the lake could become an
attractive nuisance for childre , hikers, etc., staff feels that access to the lake should
be limited to emergency and aintenance purposes only.
Maintenance of the lake, as a private facility; will fall under the auspices of the
subdivision's Homeowners A sociation. Maintenance will include periodic clean-
up of debris and vegetation, i sect control, aesthetic improvements, and occasional
application of chemicals or pesticides. The feasibility of the Homeowners
Association to fund and impl merit the required level'of maintenance for the lake
needs to be documented in a manner to provide assurance that the lake will not
become a health or safety hazad to the community. I.
Recommendation: Requ re that the lake be privately owned and maintained, •
and hat a hold-harmless agreement be executed regarding
the own's liability for off-site water quality impacts on
the ake; that the measures outlined in the Lake
Man gement Plan and the hold-harmless agreement be
incorporated into the subdivision's CC&R's; that access to
the I ke be provided through Lot 17 , eliminating that lot
as a uilding site; that fencing and signing of the lake be
Lands of Vidovich
September 7,1995
Page 21
provided to preclude access, other than for emergencies
and maintenance purposes; and that lake maintenance
responsibilities be clearly assigned to the Homeowners
Association, including a mechanism for funding
• maintenance activities.
Conditions of Approval
• Prior to approval of the. Final .Map, a hold-harmless agreement shall be
recorded, applicable to all future owners of property in the subdivision,
releasing the Town of Los Altos Hills from any, liability associated with water
quality impacts potentially caused by drainage from public facilities. The
agreement shall be prepared by the City Attorney, and shall be signed by the
applicant and notarized prior to recordation.
• Prior to the approval of the Final Map, the applicant shall prepare CC&R's
outlining the responsibility of property owners in implementing the
recommendations of the 1994 Lake Management Plan and the EIR mitigation
measures, and acknowledging the hold-harmless agreement noted above.
The CC&R's shall also prohibit boats,on the lake, other than for emergency or
maintenance purposes. The applicant shall also prepare a maintenance
agreement, detailing the responsibilities of the Homeowners Association,
including a funding mechanism, for the maintenance of the lake, as per the
1994 Lake Management Plan. The CC&R's and maintenance agreement shall
be submitted for review and approval by the City Engineer, Planning Director,
and City Attorney, prior.to recordation.
• Prior to approval of the Final Map, a revised Tentative Map shall be
submitted relocating street "C" as necessary and providing for an easement
for access to the lake for emergency purposes only through the combined Lot
17 and Parcel A. The realignment and easement shall be:reflected on the
Final Map.
• Prior to approval of the Final Map,'" improvement plans shall be submitted
which outline details of the access road to the lake, and fencing, gates and
signage around the lake, prohibiting access for all but emergency and
maintenance purposes, other than along the rear of Lots 12 through 16.
Drainage plans should incorporate debris grates and, if determined feasible by
the City Engineer, grease traps into inlet or outlet structures. Plans shall be
submitted for the review and approval of the Planning Director and the City
Engineer. Improvements must be installed prior to Final Map approval, or
an improvement agreement and related bonding must be approved by the
City Council. .
Lands of Vidovich
September 7, 1995
Page 22
9. Hale Creek
Staff, other public agencies, and the public has expressed concern that existing flows
to Hale Creek be maintains to protect the riparian vegetation along the creek,
especially through the Juan Prado Mesa Preserve. j The EIR requires protective
measures to assure that no adverse drainage or sewer construction impacts are
caused by the project, and th.t restoration of the riparian environment of the creek,
per the Quarry Reclamation P an, be a condition of subdivision approval.
The project proposes to maint:in flows to the creek byFusin a lined by-pass channel
P P ; g Y-P
to the rear of Lots 5-10, and •.taff other erosion control mechanisms should prevent
erosion of the creek.
Recommendation: Req ire that the by-pass' channel be lined with an
imp•rvious material, that, appropriate erosion and
sedi entation controls be incorporated into the drainage
outl•t to the creek, and that 1 the required elements of the
Rec ►mation Plan be implemented.
Conditions of Approval
• Prior to approval of the Final Map, improvement plans shall be submitted for
the review and appr•val of the City Engineer, outlining the details of
construction of the by-1•ass channel, which shall include verification of the
capacity of the channe and it lining with an impervious material, such as
clay, which does no create an artificial appearance. Erosion and
sedimentation control sl all be provided at the channel outlet to Hale Creek.
The plans hall also in.lude details of sewer lin construction in the vicinity
of the creek, and prot-ctive measures outlined;in the EIR. Improvements
shall be constructed prior to Final Map approval, unless an improvement
agreement and related bonding is approved by the City Council.
• Prior to approval of th Final Map, a Hale Creek restoration plan shall be
submitted, in accordan e with the Quarry Reclamation Plan, for review and
approval by the Planni g Director and the City Engineer. The plan shall be
implemented prior t Final Map approval, unless an improvement
agreement and related b ndingis approved by the City Council.
10. Maintenance of Draina e and Geotechnical Facilities
The EIR and staff recommend tions will require long-term maintenance of drainage
and geotechnical improvem nts to assure their effectiveness in minimizing
environmental impacts. In articular, the project includes the lake and related
access, the debris basin, corrective grading of steeply sloped areas, and a subsurface
Lands of Vidovich
September 7,1995
Page 23
interceptor for seepage on lots 5-10. All of these.facilities will require on-going
maintenance by the Homeowners Association, or will become problems for the
residents, and possibly for the public.
As such, it is necessary that appropriate maintenance agreements be developed and
enforced to assure continued maintenance of these private facilities.
Recommendation: Require that maintenance agreements be developed and
incorporated into the subdivision CC&R's to assure long-
term maintenance of private drainage and geotechnical
facilities.
Conditions of Approval
• Prior to approval of the Final Map, maintenance agreements shall be
submitted and shall be incorporated into the CC&R's providing for the long-
term maintenance of, at a minimum: the lake area and access to the lake, the
debris basin, areas of corrective grading and revegetation, and the subsurface
interceptor for seepage on lots 5-.10. The agreements shall provide
mechanisms for sharing the costs of maintenance as well. The agreements
and.CC&R's shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning
Director, City Engineer, and City Attorney, prior to recordation.
11. Building Site Feasibility
Several of the proposed building sites are highly constrained by potential debris
flows, subsurface seepage, steep topography, limited access, and/or extensive tree
cover, and would result in a significant cumulative loss of open space. In particular:
• Lots .21 and 23 are subject to potential debris flows, and the EIR: and the
Town's geotechnical consultant have recommended mitigation measures to
restrict building sites on those lots.
• Access to Lots 19-21, as discussed previously, is unsafe as proposed and would
likely involve extensive impacts on trees and grading.
• Building sites for Lots 18-23, and particularly for Lots 20 and 21, would be
located on steep slopes in highly visiblelocations, and would require
substantial tree removal. The EIR recommends one-story homes on those.
lots, siting below ridgelines, and a number of tree protection measures.
• The location of Lot 17 would preclude appropriate vehicular access to the lake
for emergency and maintenance purposes.
Lands of Vidovich
September 7, 1995
Page 24 1
• Lots 5-10 are potentially subject to subsurface seepage, which would affect the
long-term viability of structures located there. The applicant's geotechnical
consultant has provid d a preliminary design for a subsurface drainage
system to resolve this p oblem.
• The EIR suggests mitig tion measures to include:building setbacks from Hale
Creek, and location of r sidences on Lots 6-8 to the area south of the by-pass
channel.
•
The EIR identifies the umulative loss of open space from the development
of this project, particula ly the hillsides, as an uniavoidable significant impact
of the development. Reduced intensity of development on the hillside
would not entirely miti ate this impact, but would enhance the open space
element of the project.
The following two provisions f the Town's Subdivision Code (Section 9-1.604) are
relevant in evaluating the feasi ility of lot design:
"(e) All subdivisions shall result in the creation of lots with adequate
building sites wh.ch are capable of being developed or built upon while
retaining the bas.c natural qualities of the lot. No subdivision shall
create lots which are impractical for improvement or use due to the
steepness of the t rrain, the location of watercourses, periodic flooding,
earth movement, ize, shape, or other physical conditions.
(g) On any lot inten ed for residential occupancy it shall be possible to
provide safe ve icular access via a private or common driveway,
conforming to the City standards, from a public or private road."
Staff suggests that Lots 20 a d 21 should be deleted due to inadequate access,
extensive impacts on trees, an. cumulative impacts on open space; and that Lot 17
should be eliminated to allow r-alignment of street "C" for adequate access to Lot 19
and to accommodate access to t e lake and parking for trail access.
1
Recommendation: Requ re the applicant to revise the Tentative Map to
elimi ate Lots 17, 20, and 21;; Lot 17 should be combined
with arcel A (the lake parcel) to be used for lake access,
trailhead parking, and/or rcreation; Lots 20 and 21
shoul, be combined into a common area open space lot;
require implementation of subsurface seepage control for
Lots -10; and impose all of the restrictions outlined in
the E R regarding building setbacks, heights, etc.
1
1
Lands of Vidovich
September 7,1995
Page 25
Conditions of Approval
• Prior to approval of the Final Map, a revised Tentative Map shall be
submitted which eliminates Lots 17, 20 and 21 as building sites. Lot 17 shall be
combined with Parcel A and utilized for lake. access, trailhead parking, and
recreation. Lots 20 and 21 shall be combined into a common area open space
lot (Parcel B).
• Prior to approval of the Final Map, a final design shall be submitted by the
applicant's geotechnical consultant for the subdrain system for Lots 5-10. The
plan shall be incorporated into the subdivision improvement plans for
review and approval by the City Engineer and the Town's geotechnical
consultant. The subsurface drain shall be constructed prior to Final Map
approval, unless an improvement agreement and related bonding are
approved by the City Council.
• Prior to approval of the Final Map, CC&R's shall be prepared which include
all mitigation measures identified in the EIR related to building setbacks,
heights, locations, and design and colors. The CC&R's shall be submitted for
review and approval of the Planning Director and City Attorney prior to
recordation.
12. Conservation Easements
The Town's codes and policies encourage the provision of conservation easements
where necessary to protect significant environmental features, such as steep slopes,
extensive tree cover, areas_ of geologic hazard, and stream corridors. The upper
hillside areas of this subdivision, including the upper portions of lots 18 and 19 and
all of lots'20 and 21, exhibit steep slopes, extensive trees, and susceptibility to debris
flows, and staff suggests they should be protected. Rather than establishing
conservation easements, however, it would be preferable to tie these upper hillside
areas together as a common open space lot (Parcel B), comprised of virtually all of
proposed Lots 20 and 21, and the upper portions of Lots 18 and 19 (those lots may be
reconfigured somewhat). This approach, rather than conservation easements, may
also benefit the applicant as any liability for impacts from debris flows or rockslides,
etc. would be attributed to the Homeowners Association rather than a single
property owner.
Recommendation: Require that areas ; on the upper hillsides be combined into a
common area open space lot (Parcel B), comprised of all of
Lots 20 and 21, and, the upper hillsides of.Lots 18 and 19.
, 1
Lands of Vidovich ,
September 7,1995
Page 26
Conditions of Approval
• Prior to approval of the Final Map, a revised Tentative Map shall be
submitted, delineating a common open space lot (Parcel B) comprised of the
upper hillside areas of l ots 18 and 19, and all of Lots 20 and 21. The revised
layout shall be reflecte. on the Final Map, including stipulation of restrictions
applicable to the operspace lot, such that orily trails and minimal brush .
clearing would be permitted. These restrictions shall also be noted in the
subdivision CC&R's.
13. Traffic on Stonebrook rive
Members of the public have expressed concern regarding the increased level of
traffic on Stonebrook Drive d e to the subdivision, both from construction vehicles,
as well as the long term inc ease on Stonebrook and El Monte Road. The EIR
addressed this issue and concluded that the increased traffic level would not have a
significant impact on the streets in the area or on the affected intersections.
The filling of the Quarry wish dirt severely damaged Stonebrook Drive between
Prospect Avenue and the s bdivision entrance. Subdivision construction will
further damage the street, ich provides the main'entrance to the subdivision.
Staff suggests that it would be appropriate to require the applicant to reconstruct this
portion of Stonebrook Drive.
Another section of this report nd the EIR addressed construction period impacts.
Recommendation: Require the street improvements as depicted on the
prop' sed plan, including dedication of 60 feet of right-of-
way for Stonebrook Drive adjacent to Lots 5-7, as well as
the upgraded emergency access to Magdalena Avenue;
and require that Stonebrook Drive be reconstructed
bet een Prospect Avenue and the subdivision entrance.
1
Conditions of Approval
• The Final � Map shall dedicate street right-of-way for Stonebrook Drive • • -
adjacent to.Lots 5-7, suc that the right-of-way width is no less than 60 feet, to
the satisfaction of the C'ty Engineer.
• Prior to acceptance of the subdivision improvements, the applicant shall
reconstruct Stonebroo . Drive from Prospect Avenue to the subdivision
entrance, with a mini urn pavement width of 24 feet, along with any
necessary drainage imp tovements, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Lands of Vidovich
September 7,1995
Page 27
14. Public vs. Private Streets
The applicant has requested that the proposed streets be private streets. However,
the Town's Subdivision Code and road policy require that all new subdivisions be
installed as public streets.
Recommendation: Require that all road rights-of-way within the project be
dedicated to public use and that all rights-of-way dedicated to
the Town be a minimum width of 60 feet.
Conditions of Approval
• The Final Map shall include dedication of all road rights-of-way to public use;
all internal roadways shall be dedicated to the Town of Los Altos Hills, and
dedication as required for Stonebrook Avenue in the unincorporated area
shall be offered to Santa Clara County. All rights-of-way dedicated to the
Town shall be a minimum width of 60 feet.
15. Construction-related Impacts
Concerns , regarding construction-related impacts have involved traffic on
Stonebrook Drive and air and noise impacts affecting neighbors from construction
of roads, sewers, and houses. The EIR has included a number of mitigation
measures (#81-87) to address these concerns, including dust control, site clean-up
and sweeping, vehicle speed, equipment maintenance, and limited hours of
operation. Additionally, the Town has standard conditions of approvalrequiring
repair to damaged roads, on-site construction practices, and hours of operation.
Recommendation: Require that the EIR mitigation measures be implemented
and that the Town's standard conditions of approval be
incorporated into project review and approval for subsequent
homebuilding.
Conditions of Approval
• Prior to approval of the Final Map, a Grading and Construction Operation
Plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the City Engineer and
Planning Director. The plan shall address truck traffic issues regarding dust,
noise, and vehicular and pedestrian traffic safety; storage of construction •
materials; placement of sanitary facilities; parking for construction vehicles;
and parking for construction personnel. A debris box shall be placed on site
for collection of construction debris. ,
Lands of Vidovich
September 7, 1995
Page 28
• Prior to approval of he Final Map, the applicant shall provide the City
Engineer with photog aphs of the existing conditions of Stonebrook Drive
from El Monte Road to the property boundary, and of all pathways adjacent to
the site. The applica t shall agree, as part of an improvement agreement, to
inform the Town of ar_y damage and shall repair any damage caused by the
construction of the project to pathways, private driveways, and/or public and
private roadways prior to acceptance of subdivision improvements.
16. Pathways/Trails and T ailhead Parking
The proposed project would enerate about 60-70 new residents in the Town of Los
Altos Hills, creating further demand for recreation land access to the Town and
regional trail systems. The id-Peninsula Regional Open Space District (MROSD),
Town staff, avid the Path ays Committee have indicated concern over the
pathways/trails proposed y the applicant for the subdivisions, including
connections to adjacent MROD lands. Several issues have been raised:
• The trails adjacent to Lot 18 and Lot 23 are too steep and are redundant with
the existing road/tra 1 shown topographically on Lot 19 or along the
panhandle to Lots 19-2 , if Lots 20 and 21 are eliminated.
• The MROSD has reque ted that a parking area be provided as a staging area
for access to the region 1 trail system. The District suggested space be provided
for at least 4 cars, up o a maximum of 8 parking spaces. Lot 17 has been
identified as an appr priate location for such parking, and, as indicated
previously, could also be used for lake access and community recreational
facilities to serve the subdivision.
• The MROSD favored p acing a conservation easement over the upper hillside
areas of Lots 18-22, exe uted in favor of both the Town and the MROSD, and
allowing trail access th ough that area.
• Regarding the existing rail on the McCullough property and its connection to
the Juan Prado Mesa reserve (JPMP), an expanded easement is needed (20
feet) over the .northeas -rn corner of Lot 11, to facilitate this important native
path connection.
• Staff believes that then should not be a public trail around the lake, due to
safety and liability concerns. There is no needed connection through the Lake
to other trails. The ap.licant proposes lake trail access (private) only along
those lots (11-16) which back up onto the lake.
• The Pathways Committ•e recommended that access to Lot 11, currently 60 feet
wide, be narrowed so as to prevent further subdivision of that lot and to
accommodate a trail connection from the subdivision to JPMP. Staff suggests,
Lands of Vidovich
September 7,1995
Page 29
however, that the wider right-of-way is appropriate in the event of future
subdivision, and that a trail, if desired, can readily be accommodated within
the 60-foot right-of-way.
• If the right-of-way behind Lots 1-4 is abandoned, a trail could be located
within that area, but would result in some loss of privacy to Lots 1-4, and is
redundant with the trail along the subdivision streets.
Recommendation: Require the following modifications to the map regarding
trails, most of which were prepared by the Pathways
Committee Chairman and the MidPeninsula Regional Open
Space District.
Conditions of Approval
• Prior to approval of the Final Map, a revised Tentative Map shall be
submitted, eliminating the trails adjacent to Lots 18 and 23. Additional access
to the Mid-Peninsula Regional Open Space District property along the
southerly boundary of the site shall be provided from "C" Street along either
the existing access point at Lot 19 or approximately where the joint driveway
to Lots 20 and 21 is proposed (assuming these lots are eliminated). Existing
roads and trails could be designated easements within the recommended
common open space lot (Parcel B). The plan shall be submitted for the review
and approval of the Planning Director and the Pathways Committee.
• The revised Tentative Map shall also show a small parking area (for a
maximum capacity of 6 cars) to be located on proposed Lot 17 (suggested to be
combined with Parcel A), in conjunction with the realignment of "C" Street
and the conversion of Lot.17 to recreation and lake access uses. This parking
would be intended to provide traillead access, as well as to support users of
the recreational amenities on-site. The revised Tentative Map shall be
accompanied by a site plan for Lot 17, which delineates parking, lake access,
and maintenance and/or recreational facilities, for review and approval by
the Planning Director and City Engineer.
• The revised Tentative. Map shall also indicate a trail easement and
connection from the end. of "B" Street adjacent to Lot 10 and the outlet
channel to the Juan Prado Mesa Preserve, and a 20 foot easement for the
native path connection from the McCullough subdivision to JPMP.
• The Final Map shall reflect all pathway easements as shown on the revised
Tentative Map.
• Prior to approval of the Final Map, improvement plans,shall be submitted
detailing proposed trail construction. Plans shall include a Class IIB pathway
1 ,
Lands of Vidovich 1 _ ,,
September 7, 1995
Page 30
along the frontages of Lots 1 through 10 (streets "C" and "B"), along Street
"A", along the Street " " cul-de-sac and the Stonebrook Avenue emergency
access route from Stre t "C" to the subdivision boundary, and along the
pathway easement fr m Lot 10 to Juan Prado Mesa Preserve. Trail
connections to the Mid eninsula Open Space property and shall be native
paths. Plans shall be ubmitted for review and approval by the Planning
Director, City Engineer, and Pathways Committee. Construction of all trail
improvements, including parking on Lot 17, must occur prior to Final Map
approval, or an improvement agreement with related bonding must be
approved b;y the City Council.
1
• Prior to approval of the Final Map, CC&R's shag be submitted which include
prohibition of pedestrian access to the lake, for review and approval by the
Planning Director and City Attorney. Exceptions shall be limited to
emergency access and for maintenance purposes, land for those residential lots
which abut the lake. mprovement plans for the subdivision shall include
fencing and signage for estricting access to the lake. The CC&R's shall also
acknowledge all trail easements and restrict encroachments of structures or
vegetation into such easements.
17. Sewer Service
The applicant proposes to provide sewer service to the subdivision by connection to
the existing sewer located within the Juan Prado Mesa Preserve. Area residents are
concerned that construction a d future maintenance work for the proposed sewer
would be required from Dawson Drive and/or could have a detrimental impact on
the Preserve. It appears that, through the trail system proposed by staff and the
Pathways Committee, sewer onstruction and maintenance could be limited to
access from the Quarry Hills property. The EIR suggests extensive mitigation
measures, as outlined in the T•wn's 1990 Staff Report for the Sewer Line Extension,
which indicates an alignment above Hale Creek and measures to protect existing
vegetation and prevent erosio .
The proposed sewer line wo Id be a gravity system, the most efficient way to
provide service. Alternativ-s considered included pumping sewage up to
Stonebrook Drive to connect to an existing line in Prospect Avenue, or to utilize on-
site septic systems. The pum Bing method is undesirable because of the problems
and costs associated with a lift .tation, and on-site sewage systems are precluded by
the Quarry Reclamation Plan.
Another issue associated with the sewer line is that .it is to be located on Town
property (Juan Prado Mesa Preserve), requiring an encroachment permit from the
Town. Generally, when use f public property is proposed, the applicant would
compensate the Town. In his instance, the Towin may choose to require
' Lands of Vidovich
•
September 7,1995
Page 31 •
improvements to Juan Prado Mesa Preserve or the surrounding area in lieu of
payment.
Recommendation: Require that sewer construction and maintenance be limited
to access from the Quarry Hills Subdivision and follow all of
the recommendations of the EIR and the 1990 Staff Report;
and requirethe applicant to apply for an encroachment
permit, providing consideration for the permit in the form of
enhancement of the Preserve.
Conditions of Approval
• Prior to approval of the Final Map, improvement plans shall be submitted for
construction of the sewer line, and shall reflect all of the conditions outlined
in the EIR and in the 1990 Staff Report for the Quarry Hills Sewer Line
Extension, including abiding by the recommendations of a licensed arborist,
where the line is to be constructed within the driplines of oak trees. Plans
shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and the Planning
Director, as well as by the City of Los Altos. Access shall be limited,to be
taken from the Quarry Hills Subdivision only, and the maintenance service
road shall be of a natural material consistent with the rural nature of the
Preserve. Sewer improvements shall be constructed prior to Final Map
approval, unless an improvement agreement and related bonding are
approved by the City Council.
• The Final Map shall include a note stipulating that access to the sewer line
serving this subdivision from Dawson Drive is precluded.
• Prior to Final Map approval, the applicant shall obtain from the Town an
encroachment permit for construction of the sewer line through the Juan
Prado Mesa Preserve. In consideration of the permit, the applicant shall
implement fire protection enhancements- within the Preserve, to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer. Enhancements, such as clearing dead brush,
wood and branches, shall be made simultaneous with the sewer line
installation.
18. Water Service
The applicant has obtained "will-serve" letters from both Purissima Water District
and the California Water Service Company, but has not yet selected a water service
provider. Both companies apparently,can accommodate the subdivision without
major facility improvements. Required easements and improvements can be
provided at the time of Final Map approval.
Lands of Vidovich
September 7,1995
Page 32
Recommendation: Req ire any required easements and improvements to be
refl:cted on the Final Map and improvement plans for
the subdivision.
Conditions of Approval
• The revised Tentative ap shall reflect which water company is to serve the
subdivision, and shall be accompanied by an updated "will-serve" letter,
outlining the company' requirements for easements and improvements.
• The Final Map shall re ect any easements required by the water purveyor.
• Prior to approval of th- Final Map, improvement plans shall be submitted,
with details of any req ired water system improvements, to be reviewed and
approved by the City Engineer and the water purveyor. Water system
improvements shall be constructed prior to Final Map approval, unless an
improvement agreeme, t with related bonding is approved by the City
Council. I.
CONCLUSION
I
The attached Conditions of Approval, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program, and Final EIR ar- provided to support ; approval of the proposed
subdivision. Witt relevant poi icy determinations, action may be taken to certify the
EIR, adopt the General Plan • mendment, pre-zone the project site, and approve the
Tentative Subdivision Map. Staff recommends that the Commission not take
action on any one element of he application until it is ready to act on all elements.
Action on all of these element would provide the Town with development control
over critical areas immediatel adjacent to the Town limits.
If the Commission recommen s approval, findings to support the EIR, General Plan
Amendment, Pre-zoning and Tentative Map should' be cited. Additionally, the
adoption of Statements of 0 erriding Considerations 'regarding mining and open
space losses (and others if n cessary) should be recommended. And lastly, the
Findings of Fact, Conditions of Approval, and Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program should be 'ncorporated into the approval package. Based upon
direction from the Commissi n, detailed findings and revised conditions will be
prepared for final Commissio action.
If the Commission recommen s denial, the EIR should not be certified and findings .
for denial of the subdivision should be stated.
•
.
•
'Lands of Vidovich
September 7,1995
. Page 33
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Conditions of Approval
2. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
3. General Plan Amendment Revisions and Findings
• 4. EIR Summary of Impacts
5. August 8, 1995 Letter from William Cotton & Associates
6. Application
7. Correspondence _
cc: John Vidovich
Jim Sisk
De Anza Properties
•
Attachment 1
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Tentative Map (#254-93-TM).for
Quarry Hills Subdivision
Lands of Vidovich
In addition to the conditions listed below, all mitigation measures adopted as
part of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program shall also be
incorporated into the Conditions of Approval.
All of the following conditions must be satisfied prior to approval of the Final
Map, or,in the case of improvements, a subdivision improvement agreement and
required bonding may be approved by the City Council prior to Final Map
approval, allowing the improvements to be deferred as per the agreement:
General
1. The applicant/owner must, not later than 30 days. after approval of the
Tentative Map by the City Council,provide written consent to include the
property in the Town's Urban Service Area and to annexation of the
property to the Town of Los Altos Hills. The consent shall.be submitted to
the Town and to the Santa Clara County Local Agency Formation.
Commission (LAFCO).
2. The applicant/owner shall finalize the abandonment of access easements
for right-of-way to the rear of Lots 1-4 with all affected property owners,
and shall provide additional easements and improvements as necessary to
accommodate continued access to,off-site properties. Alternatively, the
applicant may retain the existing access easement and shall indicate on the
revised Tentative and Final maps reduced lot sizes for those Lots 1-4.
3. The applicant shall obtain from the Town an encroachment permit for
construction of the sewer line through the Juan Prado Mesa Preserve. In
consideration for the permit, the applicant shall implement fire protection
enhancements within the Preserve,to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Enhancements, such as clearing dead brush, wood and branches, shall be
made simultaneous with the sewer line installation. All deadwood and
prunings shall be removed from the Preserve at the applicant's expense.
4. Upon City Council approval,of the Tentative Map, no further construction
activities shall take place within the subdivision boundaries without
submittal of plans to the Town.of Los Altos Hills and approval by the City
Engineer.
Conditions of A proval: Quarry Hills
Page 2
Revised Tentative Map and Final Map
5. The applicant shall submit a revised Tentative Map indicating the
following changes:
a) elimination of Lots 17,20 and 21 as building sites;
b) realignment. f Street "C" from its intersection with Street "B"
easterly to prof ide adequate transition for the driveway to Lot 19;
c) Lot 17 shall be combined with Parcel "A" and used for lake access
and maintenance,trailhead parking,and recreation; -
d) Lots 20 and 21 shall be combined into'a common open space lot
(Parcel "B"), a so encompassing the upper hillside areas of Lots 18
and 19,to be r.stricted from all development other than trails;
e) demonstration that the driveway grade for Lot 19, as it approaches
Street "C", w#1 not exceed a maximum of 6% for at least 40 feet
from the street, and that driveway grades are reduced to the
maximum ex ent practicable, to the, satisfaction of the City
Engineer;
f) building envei ope and debris flow building exclusion zones on
hillside lots ( 8-23), consistent with the recommendations of the
geotechnical consultants;
g) a drainage pipe to convey off-site flow from Lot 23 to the western
corner of the l9ke;
h) a drainage pipe to convey flow between Lots 13 and 14 to the lake;
i) relocation of the drainage pipe between Lots 7 and 8 to avoid the
private well site;
j) a drainage easement along the rear of Lots 1-4;
k) elimination of the trails adjacent to Lots 18 and 23;
1) provision of a minimum 10 foot wide trail easement from Street
" to the upper hillside trail connecting to MPROSD lands, either
through Lot 19 or in the approximate j location of the proposed
driveway to Lpts 20 and 21, or otherwise along existing roads and
tails within the recommended common area open space lot (Parcel
13”);
m) provision of a inimum 10 foot wide trail easement from the end
of Street "B" a•jacent to Lot 10 and the outlet channel to the Juan
Prado Mesa Pr-serve;
n) widening of t e 10 foot wide trail easement at the northeastern
corner of lot 11 to 20 feet wide; and
o) accurate delineation of the subdivision !property boundary, to be
clearly shown .s a bold line around the subdivision.
The revised Tentative Map shall be submitted for review and approval by
the Planning Director and the City Engineer.
Conditions of Approval: Quarry Hills
Page 3
6. The revised Tentative Map shall be accompanied by a site plan for Lot 17
(ascombined with Parcel "A"), which delineates a minimum of 6 parking
spaces, lake access, and maintenance and/or recreational facilities.
7. The revised Tentative Map shall reflect which water company is to serve
the subdivision, and shall be accompanied by an updated. "will-serve"
letter, outlining the company's requirements for easements and
improvements.
8. The Final Map shall reflect all of the above revisions to the Tentative,Map,
including applicable easements as required. All drainage easements shall -
be a minimum;of 20 feet in width. •
9. The Final Map shall reflect any buildingexclusion zones for hillside lots
(18-23), and shall stipulate the restrictions of those zones.
10. The Final Map shall stipulate the restricted use of the common area open
space lot (Parcel "B") over the.upper hillside areas, such,that those areas
are limited to trail use and minimal.brush clearing for fire protection
purposes, and that Parcel "A" is not to be used as a residential building
site. •
11. The Final Map shall include a note or other method of stipulating that
access to the. sewer line serving this subdivision from,Dawson Drive is ..
precluded.
12. The Final Map shall reflect any easements required by the water purveyor.
13. The Final Map shall:contain a note prohibiting vehicular access toany lots
in the subdivision from.Stonebrook Drive or Street "A". The restriction
shall also be included in the CC&R's for the subdivision.
14. ' The Final Map shall indicate street names:acceptable to the Town and to
the Los Altos Fire Department.
Land and Easement Dedications 1
15. The Final'Map shall include an,.irrevocable offer to.dedicate sufficient
right-of-way (a minimum of 10. feet and,if necessary, slope easements) on
the north side of Stonebrook Avenue on the applicant's property to
accommodate widening of this segment of roadway (approximately 1,000 •
linear feet) to a minimum 20 foot pavement width, and to perform
corrective grading work (as recommended by Alan Kropp Associates) and
required drainage and other improvements in the right-of-way. The
right-of-way shall be dedicated to lithe satisfaction of the City Engineer and
County authorities.
Conditions of Ap roval: Quarry ills
Page 4
16. The Fi i al Map shat 1 include dedication of street right-of-way for
Stonebrook Drive adj:cent to Lots 5-7, such that the right-of-way width is
no less titan 60 feet,to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
17. The Fin 1 Map shall i dude dedication of allroad rights-of-way to public
use; all internal roa ways shall be dedicated to the Town of Los Altos
Hills, .nd dedicati.n as required for Stonebrook Avenue. in the
unincorporated area -hall be offered to Santa Clara County. All rights-of-
way dedicated to the I own shall be a minimum width of 60 feet.
18. A minimum 20 foot ide emergency access easement shall be dedicated
from Str1eet "B" thro gh Lot 17 to the lake, to the satisfaction of the City ,
Engineer. The easem:nt shall be dedicated on the.Final Map.
19. 10 footiATide pathwa easements shall be granted to the Town for public
use, as hown on-the revised Tentative Map, except that the easement in
the nort eastern corn,-r ofLot 11 (connecting the McCullough subdivision
to Juan Prado Mesa'Preserve) shall be 20 feet wide. The subdivision
CC&R's shall includ: language restricting improvements or vegetation
from i fringing on these easements. The dedications shall be '
accompl'shed as part of the Final Map.
20. The Fin 1 Map shall 1.rovide for-any requested,easements to all.utility
companies, including out not limited to: Pacific Bell,Pacific Gas &Electric
Company and cable t:levision.
21. The applicant shall gr:nt public utility easements and public utility access
easeme is to the To n of Los. Altos Hills where needed within the
subdivi ion for utilit construction and maintenance to the satisfaction.of
the Cit Engineer. This will provide access for installation and
maintennce of the p blic water and sewer system. The dedications shall
be acco plished as .art of the Final Map to the satisfaction of the City •
Enginee
22. The Final Map shall ;irovide an access easement in favor of Ridgewater.
Associates and Silver (A.P.N. 336-26-005 and 336-26-006) from Street "B"
betweenLots 7 and 8 for purposes of access to the existing.parcels, to the 1
satisfact on of the Ci',y Engineer..This easement shall be recorded by a
separate document a d signed by the affected property owners prior to
,approval of:the Final Map. • •
1
4
Conditions of Approval: Quarry Hills
Page 5
Improvements
23. Improvement plans shall'be submitted, for approval by the City:Engineer,
providing.details.of the widening of the Stonebrook Avenue pavement,
from Street "C" to Magdalena Road, to a width of 20 feet.. Where:such
widening would damage heritageoak trees, the pavement width shall be
narrowed to avoid substantial impact to the trees. Plans shall also include
a gate above Street "C", accessible only by emergency vehicles.
24. Improvement plans:shallbe submitted, for approval by the City Engineer
and the Town's geotechnical consultant, detailingthe,corrective grading
work outlined bythe applicant's geotechnical consultant regarding the
southern Quarry wall, :adjacent tb Stonebrook Avenue.- Improvement
plans shall also include revegetation of the graded area,including trees for
screening,to the satisfaction;of the Planning Director. ,
25. The improvement plans shall include fencing at the top of the rquarry wall
from the end of Street "C" to Magdalena Avenue- and along the, rear of
those lots along the east endof the subdivision boundary, where feasible.
The.weight, type and location of this fenceshall be subject to review and
approval of the Planning Director and City Engineer. .
26. The applicant shall submit with. the improvement plans details of
proposed stabilization plantings of the quarry wall, as recommended by a
licensed Landscape. Architect, to be reviewed and approvedby the
Planning Director,_the Town's arborist or landscapearchitect, and the
Town's geotechnical consultant. . -
27. Improvement plans shall:be submitted detailing plans for construction of
a debris basin at the northwestern,boundary of Lot:21. The plans should
minimize the height.of the berm for the basin and shall include plans for
landscaping thefill and.other disturbed areas. Plans must be;reviewed
and approved by the Planning Director, City Engineer, and the Town's
geotechnical consultant, ,.
28. Improvement plans shall be submitted, detailing the construction plans
for all drainage facilities, :and demonstrating that all :.facilities can
accommodate 100-year,storm flows, with the exception ofshort sections of
channels or pipes carrying only localized on-site drainage, and the
Prospect Avenue drainage pipe, which may be designed to handle 25-year •
flows.. The design of the by-pass channel"shall include an impervious
lining .(concrete is not an acceptable material);.and the plans shall
demonstrate that adequate measures to control erosion and siltation on
the proposed-"roadside.ditches,,will be incorporated. Drainage plans
should incorporate debris grates and, if determined feasible by the City
Conditions of A proval: Quar Hills •
Page 6
Engineier, grease tr:ps into inlet or outlet structures. Plans shall be
submitted for the re .iew and approval of the City Engineer.
29. ; 'Impro'ement'plans .hall be submitted which outlineconstruction details
of theccess'road-t• the lake; and fencing, gates and signage around the
• lake;'prohibiting ac -ss for all but emergency-0d maintenance purposes,
:.other than along the rear-of Lots 12 through 16.' Plans shall be submitted
for the review an. approval of the Planning Director and the City
Engineer.
30.' Impro ement"plan- shall provide erosion and sedimentation control:
measures at the cha n �a
el outlet to'Hale Creek, n'd'shall include a Hale
Creek restoration pl:n, in accordance with the Quarry Reclamation Plan,
for review and apprival by the Planning Director and the City Engineer.
31: Improyement pla s shall �be submitted detailing proposed trail
construction. Plans .hall include a Class IIB pathway along the frontages
of Lots 1 through 1 i (streets "C and "B"), along Street "A", along the
Street 'C" cul-de-sa i. and the Stonebrook Avenue emergency access route
from Street "C" to :the subdivision boundary, and. along the pathway
easement from Lot' 10..to Juan Prado Mesa Preserve. Trail connections to
the Mi Peninsula 0 en Space property shall be native'paths. Plans shall
be sub itted for re iew and approval by the Planning Director, City
Engine r, and Path ays Committee.
32. : Impro IIement plans hall be submitted for construction of on-site and off-
site sever-lines, and shall reflect all of the conditions outlined in the EiR
and in the 1990 Staf Report for the Quarry Fills Sewer Line Extension,
includipg complian e with the recommendations of a licensed arborist,
where the line is to b constructed within the dripli ies of oak trees. Plans
• shall b t reviewed a d approved by the City 'Engineer,and the Planning ;
- Directo�, as:well as •b the City of Los Altos. ' Access shall be limited to be
takenrom the Qu.,rry Hills'Subdivision only, and the maintenance
service road shall be of a natural material consistent with the rural nature
of the reserve, to he satisfaction of the Planning Director and City
Engineer.
33. Improvement plans •hall be submitted with details of any required water
'system improvemen's,.to be reviewed and appFroved by the City Engineer
' ' and the-water puree or.
t
34. A project grading pl.n which includes an approved drainage and erosion
control plan to min mize the impacts from erosion and sedimentation
shall be submitted ith the improvement plans, to be reviewed and
approved by the'Cit 'Engineer prior to issuance of grading permits. This .
plan shall conform o all standards adopted by the Town of Los Altos
Conditions of Approval: Quarry Hills
Page 7
Hills and shall comply,with all appropriate requirements of the Town's
NPDES permit relative-to grading and; erosion/sediment control
encompassed in a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan submitted to the
Town and to the Regional Water Quality Board including,but not limited
to: a) restricting grading during the-grading moratorium from November
1. to April 1; b) protecting all finished graded slopes from;erosion using
such techniques as hillslope benching, erosion control matting, and
hydroseeding; c) protecting downstream storm drainage inlets from
sedimentation; d) use of silt fencing to retain'sediment.on the project site;
and e) any other suitable measures outlined in the Association of Bay Area
Governments (ABAG) Manual of Standards.
35. Prior to beginning any grading,or construction operations, all significant
trees shall be fenced at the dripline. The fencing shall be of material and
structure to clearly delineate the dripline. Town,staff must inspect the.
fencing and the trees:to be fenced prior to commencement of grading or
construction; The fence must remain in place throughout the course of
construction. No storage of equipment, vehicles or debris shall be allowed
within the driplines of these trees. 1
36. A Grading and Construction Operation Plan for all subdivision
improvements shall be submitted for review and approval by the City
Engineer and Planning Director.. The plan shall address truck traffic
issues regarding dust, noise, and vehicular and pedestrian traffic safety;
storage of construction materials; placement of sanitary facilities; parking
for construction vehicles; and parking for construction,personnel. One or
more debris boxes- shall be placed on site for collection.of construction
debris.
37. Prior to acceptance of the subdivision improvements, the applicant shall
reconstruct.Stonebrook Drive from Prospect Avenue to the subdivision
entrance, with a minimum:pavement width of 24 feet, along with any
necessary drainage improvements,to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
38. The applicant shall provide the City Engineer with photographs of the
existingcondition of Stonebrook Drive from: El Monte =Road to the
property boundary, and of all pathways adjacent to or on the site.. The
applicant shall agree, as part of an improvement agreement, to inform the
Town of any damage and shall repair any damage caused by the
construction of the project to.pathways, private driveways, and/or public
and private roadways prior to acceptance of the subdivision
improvements.
39. The applicant shall be required,to apply, for and receive any Creek
Alteration Permits:required by t11e California State:Department of- Fish
Conditions of Aproyal: Quarry ills
Page 8
and Game or by t e US. Army Corps of Engineers for proposed
improvements;prior o issuance of construction-or encroachment permits.
40. ' . Improvement plans or fife protection, includpng the installation of fire
hydran�s or other i provements as. required, by the Los Altos Fire
Department, shall be submitted for the review and approval of the City
Enginee and the Fire Department.
41. All.utili 'es located w thin the subdivision shall be installed underground,
in accordance with S bdivision Ordinance,Sec.19-1.1105. Cable television,
gas, el4tric, and tel.phone services installed to the property lines are '
included in this requ. ement. Plans for location of all such utilities are to
be included in the im o rovement plans for the subdivision.
42. All subdivision improvements shall be constructed and installed prior to
Final Map approval, or may be deferred per an improvement agreement
and required bondin:; if approved by the City Council prior to Final Map
approv1.
CC&R's and aintenance A 1 reements
43. The applicant shall' prepare Conditions, Covenants, & 'Restrictions
(C&R'S) for the sub,i ivision, setting forth, at a minimum, the following
limitations on the sub ect properties:
a) all of the reco mended"restrictions contained in the 1994 Lake
Management P an and the related EIR mil gation measures;
b) prohibition of boats on the lake, other than for emergency or
it aintenance p rposes;
c) - prohibition o' pedestrian access to the lake, other than for
emergency ac•ess and for maintenances purposes, and for those
residential lots hich abut the lake;
d) prohibition of ehicular access to lots from Stonebrook Drive or
S reet "A";
e) a 1 mitigation easures identified in "the EIR'related to building
s tbacks, heights,locations, and design and colors;
f) . fie safety re uirements for non-combustible roof coverings,
interior fire sp inklers, and maintenance of brush clearances from
structures;
g) restriction on residential construction within any building
e clusion zone ; ,
h) r strictions on ses allowed within Parcel "B" (common open space
lo ) and on Par el "A" (lake and parking), as well as maintenance
rsponsibilities such as for weed/brush abatement;
i) ajknowledge •ent of all 'trail easements, and limitations on
encroachments of improvements or vegetation into the easements;
• ' Conditions of Approval: Quarry Hills
Page 9
j) any special restrictions on foundation design, as identified by the
applicant's geotechnical consultant; -
k) maintenance responsibilities of the Homeowners Association
and/or individual property owners regarding lake maintenance,
access to the lake, common,.,area, or, open space, lots, areas of
corrective,grading, the debris basin on Lot:21, and thesubsurface
interceptor on;Lots 5-10; and
1) acknowledgement of hold harmless provisions.releasing the Town
from any liability associated with water quality impacts potentially
caused by drainage from public facilities.,
The CC&R's shall be.binding on all present and future property owners in
the subdivision, and, shall prohibit modification of the,above provisions
without the approval of the Town of Los Altos Hills.- The CC&R's shall be
submitted- for review and approval by the City Engineer, Planning
Director, and City Attorney,prior to recordation.
44. A hold harmless agreement shall be submitted,. applicable to all present
and future owners of property in the subdivision, releasing the Town of
Los Altos Hills from any liability associated with water quality impacts
potentially caused by drainage from public facilities.,.,The agreement shall
be prepared by the City:Attorney, and shall be signed by the applicant and
notarized prior to recordation. Provisions of.the agreement shall also be
incorporated into the CC&R's for,the subdivision. .
45. Maintenance agreements shall be submitted providing for the long-term
maintenance of, at a minimum: the lake area and access to the lake, the
debris basin, areas of corrective grading.and revegetation, and the
subsurface interceptor for seepage on lots 5-10. , The agreements shall
provide mechanisms for sharing the costs of maintenance-as well. The
agreements shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning
Director, City Engineer,.and City Attorney, prior to recordation.
Geotechnical
46. Not later than thirty;(30) days after the approval of the-Tentative Map, the
applicant shall notify...in writing the,Mid-Peninsula Regional Open. Space
Districtand all private property owners potentially impacted by debris
flow hazards, as identified by the applicant's geotechnical consultant.
The form,and content of the notification shall be approved by the Planning-
Director and the City Attorney. ,
47. An appropriate final pad elevation and pro_posed site grading plan for Lot
21 shall be prepared., and accepted- by the applicant's geotechnical
consultant, and reviewed and approved,by,.the City Engineer and Town
geotechnical consultant.
i
Conditions of A proval: Quarry ills
Page 10
48. Study lan #4, del neating final 'buildiing envelopes and driveway
alignm nts; as identi ied by the applicant's geotechnical consultant, shall
be ,mo ified with:t, e.changes identified bye the Town's geotechnical
^consultant, and sub itted for approval by the-City Engineer and the
`Towns geotechnical onsultant. The project geotechnical consultant shall I '
certify in writing tha the recommendations of the plan are reflected in the
proposed improvem.nt plans. '
49. The aplicant's ge•technical .consultant shall submit": preliminary
founds ion recomm-ndations to define the general type of residential
founda ion deemed .ppropriate for each proposed lot. The potential need
for any unusually d:ep or rigid foundation'systems shall be addressed.
- The range of differen ial fill thickness across proposed building envelopes
shall be quantified .s part of this evaluation. Any requirements for fill
settlement monitorin: prior to construction shay be addressed. The report
recom endations sh.11 be prepared to the satisfaction of the City Engineer ; ,
and the Town's geot&chnical consultant.
50.- The ap licaht's ge•technical consultant shall' identify the extent of
necessa y corrective t rading activities resultant from ongoing grading on '
the site. ' The repo t shall be prepared to _the satisfaction of the City
Engineer and the -T•wn's geotechnical consultant, arid any corrective
gradin must be incl ,ded on the improvement plans.
51. The applicant's , gee technical consultant shall review all proposed
improv ment plans- and shall certify in writing that such plans are
consistent with all „eotechnical recommendations. The geotechnical
consultant's review s, all:include, ata minimum; all proposed grading and
drainag improveme, ts, and all geotechnical mitigation measures., ,
52. A final design sha 1 be submitted by the- applican't's geotechnical
consultnt for the s bdrain system for Lots 5-10. The plan shall be '
incorporated into th- subdivision improvement plans for review and
approval by the Cit Engineer and the Town's geotechnical consultant.
` .The results of the p an review'shall be summarized in a letter by the
project geotechnical onsultant and submitted to the City Engineer for
' review and approval .rior to final approval of the improvement plans.
53. The geotechnical con-ultant shall inspect, test (as needed); and approve all
geotechnical aspects •f the project construction. The inspections should
include,but not nece-sarily be limited to: excavations, grading, and trench
excavation and coin'action. The results of these inspections shall be
described by the'geo echnical consultant in a letter and submitted to the
City En ineer for revi-w prior to final project'approval.
f '
,
w - •' s Conditions of Approval: Quarry Hills
Page 11
Planning and Zoning
54. All existing non-conforming structures (i.e., caretaker house) shall be
removed from the site prior to approval of the Final Map, unless
accommodations for demolition are included in a subdivision
improvement agreement approved by the City Council.
55. Payment of Park and Recreation fees and all other applicable fees shall be
required prior to recordation of the Final Map.
56. All subdivision conditions of approval and subdivision improvements
shall be constructed, approved by the City Engineer, and accepted by the
City Council prior to acceptance of applications for any site development
permits or building permits for residences.
57. Upon discovering or unearthing any possible burial site asevidenced by
human skeletal remains or artifacts, the person making such discovery
shall immediately notify the County of Santa Clara Coroner and no
further disturbance of the site may be made except as authorized by the
County Coordinator of Indian Affairs. This shall be accomplished to the
satisfaction of the County Coroners Office and the Planning Director, as
may be necessary during the construction of the subdivision
improvements.
•
Attachment 3
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
The applicant is requesting text and map amendments to the Town of Los Altos
Hills General Plan. These amendments would designate the site as residential,
from Open Space Preserve (OSP) to Residential Very Low (R-VL) and would _
delete references to the existence of an active quarry on the project site. A
proposed map revision is attached. -
Specifically, the requested text amendments are as follows (deletions are shown,
in strjLTikeout):
Land Use Element-Page 22,#127
The Neary Quarry presents significant problems to this area in terms of
trucking, noise, dust and aesthetics. The quarry is shown as an open space
preserve, an indication that it most likely will only be suitable as open
space. Plans would need to be developed to enhance the site.
Open Space Element Page-52, Item f (Neary Quarry)
This site, within.the Town's sphere of influence, is designated as an open
space preserve based on its function of "managed" production of natural
the quarrying operation; however, since the quarry is a pre existing use,
few controls arc levied by the County on the operation. It is anticipated
that, when the quarrying operation ceases to exist, the site will be
unsuitable for other than open space uses.
Implementation The Town should.encourage the.County to establish
and dust from trucks which have a negative impact on the surrounding
residential areas. In addition, the County, the Town, and the property
for other uses.
Recreation Element - page 58, last paragraph, item 1, Open Space
Preserve
this site will ever be suitable for any use other than open space.
Quarry Hills General Plan Amendment
Page 2 1 I.
i
Conservation Element- Page 86,#616,item 4 1
Studies should be undertaken of the posciblc'future uses of the Neary
General Plan Provisions
One provision of the general plan is most relevant to this requested change, and
provides criteria against which the requested amendment should be judged, as
follows:
Open Space Element - Pa e 45, #306, item 3 states, "In the context of the local
physical situation, the ex raction of rock, sand, gravel and mineral resources
is incompatible with goal for maintaining a quality environment and should
be prohibited.
Recommended Findings anAction
The primary reason the arean question has been designated in the General Plan
as "open space reserve" is ecause at the time the plan was last updated (mid-
1970s) the site was being utili ed as an active quarry operation. In 1988 the Neary
Quarry Reclamation Plan was approved by Santa Clara County, with estimation
that the quarry could be ope ated until 1998 at current (1988) excavation levels.
With quarry operations no 1 nger taking place and reclamation in process, the
major reason folr the "open s ace preserve" and "quarry" designations no longer
exists.
In December of 1993, the Cit Council adopted an appendix to the Conservation
Element which supported tl1e conversion of the quarry area to residential use
(attached). In light of the information contained in that appendix, the Planning
Commission and City Coun4l may determine that.the'proposed amendment of
the general plan amendment is in.the Town's best interests.
1 ,I
„ ..
; !
; 1
•••• 4. • %)P11-IT'LL.-lavi'cut?,'-.''' • -1 7 a
1 ‘,, - vi7..,•,:;;,00). ,- . Aa,..,. .,.: .. ... ,...... k .. :-.i.:?, - . • .:..),0 • r7f1..?.!.
..., .... es\ c . .,.',.coLLE0e...-5-...,-. • I •-:.---,:::-.-•-•... .-..4:%.,..--., ,,_. .,-- - s, -,..., ....i .../;---.7 - • :::•-;-.-
_.. . .
,.• . ...-,". , , .........AMY, ' ••••••••••• •. s .:: :i. ::i,,.?;717. .....I. . • •441. ,,•
1i.: '41V!•'S t 1111k..-.s' ,• , 77C'. 10.r.: . ••••",,,iimm....•010 . .. . N .. 1 ';. ..7 "....". .. ...""
•.:•'!:, • .•'.-. ':',..,..•.7..s..,:,„.,_,._..,• .::7•I's '..;. ., ..::'• 4,?,"..,•: , .,•••' •• , ,,....,. \ - •• ,•. • :
i..":/„....- -,x.,:,.........,...n., ........... ..: ,.% , v• vi,,. ..t. ,. .,, ..
: . . I. '''. lk .
, ::%tt,, - . v,-.,-er.-,•--.---.:_-....,:ii:-:::...ik: : . „.:.: ..,-: .4, tt p ti ...., . .,.t. .7., ,A., •••.„1,s., : ..,a • • .-7. .. .
& • - -. • ) .-to
,•,,,-. ..,:..,...,I '',..,..:!... '',... ..,,17,-4.-,,r 0,4. .:' • .'.. • ' : ' . .;....,.,;. '• ., ' ......*••': : 1 ''• .s. ••: . • . f ,'.rill
7::.. .Z4
'':'.-,...,4;i.. ,;e-•:.:.--• N.'q.er: ‘,,,,, ..-- .....: e,.2 . .:. ,...: . •t::: . -..s• - ..: . •••• •• --..Nt• -,,••,,,---•• • -
:, t .1 i.:::- ... ; ). • .!:,:..- 2 \:: .. 5 *--s-'vii.4.0 ',... :'•".‘,,, •.:: ... N..• it ff.: , ' • •
/ \
• ., • • .1 •
,r::: f...'. ...[*.:-.:' '-:,''''''' • ' : Ly,-4"'1\.•..-- !-.(;•:'....\....• .:.....4,-...
..sit.pitc....•*;;;..3i,' ..7.. .r.•:--...;Ire:. • `.. "!;::'' '..1.) . ,0 • ....!''''..>. '''...... N.. .,. , • . : ..,..,...::: . ir. :.
...... .• , , .... 46,7 24 ..--,•• •,,r .••:i... r•,..„4. 1,.... .. . . ...... % .; ‘. . 4, ..
'..:•4'.." .. . ,ir •••••:."*. .i151"....A:4,..z,i,? t• 1 ..••••••:g.....y.:.:\ - ...;•::::%,...,...,:,.....‘ •:. . 1...... . •••,.....„4„. _ • . . ..
:4-'!.:f‹.-..44: i '.;-•';,1.!4"7'..:V.• .• -•• ''..3-•:..41-,,•.-i: ......;v4\:!"-•1.'''•'-‘ .1.14 ' :: :'..'.• . ."--.44:--NI"Hic.i‘ :.2,14.:'::. ., ..K;,,,.,4:.i,,..._,.
•-•1 on..vi,. .'..'s,. .,.::.y.L..../ 4.:.: fi tk.,:liAlt 14, ....!.'s .'ks.:.::.:.:*: \--. ' .. ,, .....-'it ' • .r-•-••....
4.''' .A. :::4.4-;•:/,'''' N...;: :ig .<: _,Att .`'i;... . • 4.-'Lx....,. "" '1:-. .,4 i_ ,".V. .....-.Y......N..---',.....'''*4"3;1i*,:
,: (• ::,7:. ..,...,,,...., jb .„...y.. 1..1.: /f. •=4,1) '. .. ,,,,. ,..x ill(..n•,NV./4! ,;/.•‘ ',S,.....s, '‘..% .i.g.:•:..4..:.i
0;.:',..^.!.!... (.7.!',. 's‘4.7...,:'',..1.1/4.,::. : !•s:i '‘ft..:,r%;1110..*,k1 '' '. -,.. :''Vi..' "s 1 . • ./.7....'; ." .1
c IN :i
.• - ,..•,p ...:..,,,, '.•--- t'. : /
it...7.:•i„.......::: ,.:1 .14/ . ,:-....."::"'. 7...'. .: -it i i ci II'1./1 '"...,.1.., ie.\ . \V. : ''''.'• i • s) i ' LI i #
. .."Ra Af;;Zif,''4r7 4 ii, '''',•'• .•;' ' ''1.sitf..-.(/ Vit a ' %, .$ . N; : tS •• --.---,
>
,.:. ./... . . ,....,:‘,' .., ...in r,..,. ...., :: k L.,/...,:_.• if %I 7....) j
..-....;,„,""•,•••••. ," • y , •,111,... . ,y,,.! •.4.fp s • .' C4 .,... : „.., • ',,,„
" .. ,..,.."4'.'i. ..... :.s, .•:ir • ...:. rItt.. . 41.-•••• . .: i‘ -----•_-----.' % 1.--•.;/••••••••' --V-•;,../.
.- • ,- .0_ .,.., . \ .:: ,...._............ 1/
; /., •• ,... ' :: 1.•i-tr.; -•.......-:...:,...,,,,:...i-,\I-..... • ,...:- . . ... ., .......„-____••••,,,..1,.. ., • ,,., - .,,;„.....„.„.:
4,,,,,./.'f.';':;•! '1'..?,77:::.7.- -......t. ...v., -ti to. 0 •-•-.....„/-* . I\ \, :. ,. 1 ••••••.:flu- - , „... y,... ,
C:, i' - :. • • I
&,‘S., 1,b, •4. A• .,111N... 't.:.'''3,-....I.. '.1'5..-.--sv41:1?..r.....
OM
C-::;.'''';.t•-.4i. f......:;4k.--4. '..--,..i .. .1,.. '').-Artfili*‘.i.- :..:.:.:/:7;:...''1.:....-r, ''''''7<, ' ''''''..,.. MI' :;;;;*•.'''''T.,....:-.., Is
r. '''••••\---,i„- ... .,::. --• -: --ftE,-:::•,...,.., .,•..... , ,
L S • . ' --• • 40%Q
!... .... 40:, A _Ir..
ir4 \* , . ...44..;..:42•NI ...., -, . ' 1 St"'s • .•",'4.•:•.•,... 4z47,,r
't'i• ' ..."".-7.,... ''''' ,' 12. .4,r ‘i.•', s.::.. it -L-‘).„ . ..., ',.. .., , ,..••• . ..:.-ii...„k„;....1
1, -,, 1,... .. -!-., ••• ..,.. .-e‘.,.. , .-- , ..; •,.,.. o.....,1-,_--„,.;. .,. .1, 4. , : * •-- 7.<•.----N...--- -
)r...."
/........ :."4..,.?, j ."..;$utW-‘7, ' At i,?;.A. ali • :It,.,- i---...s:, ...fse,.;•., •
• -'1;''7 R(V 'I..i)18 ' : .. • \) 4440; -/ $ '-'1 '
...• •.. i.:. • t 04,...i• .. .•)1
2:::,,,:.-•• N i. 6,4.:,,,-• • ;?,- • - I.:A :. -' ...:$. • • .• - - ..,:...-.:4?••••••-•._.•if • .: .-.6/. w....:
";-,..... ,--.. ..• ...p
,":lb%,4..-,i••-\ •J----.......• •-• -... 44 ....,. .-.?•:,:. . .. • •-• -• ',--4 . ,e.Ifi iTt"--'-------O'r• ,
...
• -..P...f. - ....4-94.e-•r,..,-;„.* , . .... . . 1., >,, 4,....,. .. ... :.4
,..„.../
,i•f'i i $ ''.,. ',„
sA. - */,;;:;‹r f * • ..' ' - . %:y..4. ..-,r).,.. . ,y.,•• .:, ., ..,....1 .. .:.-..... • • . .. ..- --....; ,• ••• ..- • ,.e .i :.•:,. : /7 ::/
..''..iiii.':;:::''../•:-'-;..-'1..•!•',./1-...Y0'.' •__,01111'. -'.:. -, , . -,•••-•,: 4•-• ::.....::: ,:' . <-7-7---........ i .,..: ••'Ilk/ ; .4
:11:.:'....:;...;-.........,:x.::•7.-...-::;,-"N"...,',.:-.: l'f,:...-?..,s`v,,:,.....,.:.....,,.4',„..75,0), „Ir. -....4;,• -..\. ) :\: ,..,,.. :.,-N,,i:4......Z... ....;::. '..i.11...'fi, .,,,,L...11,............„:71 %• . ., . 111.. .:
...72.7...e . .. .....:::./,;•• ,....,.,•c:••,CrrOd)s:::: ..... •,. 1 al f : ' •.."..\ \* tee ---' -- -- . . ': - . e"""
'•_t:-.:4r.:::,r;,:,.1 .)'q•.'^------<\\.':-::: ::/:. ....• .. .P. f ( 'r, -.!---<. ,A• "A..--- V \ f •t-ir . :: \ • - •
. ...
r.7 7.V.7.1* *--:%::.:::".----. .:"...;:•- \..' .;.: ."-. . ',.7, •i•-:".\:-...*- .; ;„-_,N:.. - •Z",‘,.. --:\..i N\• . -V*,., " • ..,. s_ /*":,. •
---)
''4•• ' \ sfa .'(.. ...,\-ii. je?'.v..... I . .. . .. j.- ' . .-:`,`!:.'...... .\, ' 711 4%, '1 , • . '\ .4
f- 'At ?:"..."-:: •. .... ' ::::../. "•'*- * 72' ••••,.. ,..."•>,..N. .' ...41 • ..... •,11P: , . . . , .
•*.. • ... •-.,'..-• .. , .:,. • :pit- •h451 :"..• .' \*1 L • • ' N *\.N. \\..,:z '. fi 41, ., ••. -,/
. •.. •-,„:-- •--,*-4 ' ,... (..3)e. '. 1 0:- •,,' ,.•'•;....1 ....\ .. „..- ......4.-,,.. •,,i,..,... _,...:„. ........;./: ....;...,
--.,. ..- : ...".--t.. ..• :i ' 7'.- ..".....
1 t•-•-: - •i t ,.:i): •,', -,. , , ,IU'c::::•''Vr i 4.;...•'':' • ''.. .
) '‘ • \ , .-' /....'1.4"k. ‘ .;:'--':` - • ' '. I''' . i . -1 -, ': '4\ N..,..N
. •'s.- ' '.1 . ; 1 l'.•: • 'r.trz's .:'.\ ''‘' ....% i . •1,-..... ..,•':27-'' .;'
/ i:f.'-' •-• -4....*, •. . 1 ..... .:'.-'" l'-`-, ‘''-•-..) 1 l'N. .:`' \ \....'.." ' 1 k '. < '77 -N..--,.."
• . . (•4, . .. k.. .-,.....‘.., !•! . I ! ... . '0\ ••f..:7:... N. 4, ,•••.., ? •5 ':: .,:-.' • . . -•,.
27`.•‘.'1: ..''.\kksk.......a..A'C'''sk..
‘". \.\\'•\ .S; • -* •• • ;, ' ::-.' i • rr.'''',-., .. '\\%.c..f. .....•..k..ii/Pft,\ 't"\--4.-; '':•: • • '-.'
• • •--...),.r .....ci . i -,:.•,..: 1 .....•-, ...t.. •• i . \ .i...-.... s. •••,. . ••••
•, 1 \ • '. f '. . ••:.'•' •. • i',.."' ..•-•A VN j . ‘.
i 's".,,„.s. -1;'t,'st.,.•''3r',s,...,-_'.„"..-,I•L'i:I'.•.,,•.....„.(•.'•;-•..,'.,:-..:L;'.'.r;.1'.••7 Z: \1 i. .s-i.•. i -•.'' I, /\S '.A!''I'- ".i... ...r.,..
i \ -.',••'••s•s•••/•••_•_ IwI.1
_.il • t.',..1. ''''' ..;'''• I
.1 .
I . .
. ..
..••••••••••••°..... ..s",ft'
. . .
, .
. ,
R(V-L) Residential - Very Low to Low NORTH
OSP Open Space Preserve
•
, .
•
, .
, . . .
. ,
. .
i
4 APPENDIX TO CONSERVATION ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN OF
'x , ' ' THE TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS
1A Vit;H _ _
This Appendix is required bthe State of California Surface Mining and
>...�f..: Reclamation Act of 1975. P blic Resources Code Section2710 et seq (SMARA)
r and the State ining and G logy Board Policy. California Code of Regulations,
. Ir:;7 Chapter 8,Titl 14 Sections 675-3676.
rw The State Mining and Geolo y Board has designated an area adjacent to the
" Town of Los Altos Hills as a area of significant mineral resources. The State
designation is known as "Se tor Z-Construction Aggregate Resource Area -
Greenstone deiosit located i the Los Altos Hills southwest of the City of Los
Altos in northwestern Santa lara County". See Special Report 146,Part II and
' SMARA Designation Report No. 7.
li This area is in •wo ownershi s: Area 1 is approximately 282 acres and is owned
by the Mid Perunsula Regio al Open Space District. Area 2 is approximately 78
acres and is owned by John idovich et al and contains the area formerly known
— as the Neary Quarry.
0 stn` As of November, 1993,both reas are in the unincorporated area of the County of
Santa Clara and in the spher of interest of the Town of Los Altos hills.
Area 1 is part off Rancho San ntonio Open.Space Preselrve owned by the Mid
/: Peninsula Regional Open Sp ce District. The Town of Los Altos Hills will not
seek to include this area in it urban service area nor will it annex this area into
t. its corporate limits since this roperty does not need municipal services. The use
of this area as publicly owner open space is incompatib'lle-with mining of the
mineral deposits on this pro erty. Since the Town of Los Altos Hills will not
^.._ annex Area 1, the County of anta Clara is the lead agency for purposes of
SMARA.
Area 2 is located west of Inte state 280 between El Monte and Magdalena. The
area is bounded on the Aerth northwest and south by Stonebrook Drive. It is
11 = contiguous to the Town of L s Altos Hills.
Quarryoperations began in 1 34 to provide fill and crushed stone to construct
.. Moffet Field. T e quarry wa operated by John Sondgroth and Sons from 1934
i5; until 1940 and ndgroth Bro hers operated it until 1962. George Neary then
rn
operated the quarry until 197 when Patton Brothers Construction took over. A : _
t ;Reclamation Plan was appro ed by the Board of Supervisors of the County of
i,t 1+ Santa Clara in April, 1989. The Plan was based upon the future site conditions
i a `= following an additional 10 years of operations. The Plan contemplates an
Vegq, 3` t riT T A io 1w Tm T n nTVTI TZTTPT1 TT 1' 31 RRSPnNSPS TO COMMENTS .
i
•
_ - , . li
..1 I •
' 0 ,
. IR
/
additional 475,000 cubic yards of minerals would'be removed prior to _____ I
completion of quarrying.
The Neary-Vidovich Quarry Reclamation Plan Annual Monitoring Report- �
County of Santa Clara File No: 2674-12-70-85P received by the County
December 18, 1991 states on page 2, "There have not been any (mining)
operations at the Quarry since May 31, 1989. The owner has determined that
(mining) operations at the Quarry will not be resumed." R
The Town of Los Altos Hills supports the decision of the owner to cease mining
operations. It plans to include the area within itsl urban service area and annex
. 11110
P
the property into the Town following its approval of a tentative subdivision map
for residential development. No quarry operations are allowed within the Town -- :1
of Los Altos Hills.
i
A residential subdivision of Area 2 would result in the permanent removal of
mineral I*
resources frompotential production. Public Resources Code
significant
Section 2762 requires that,prior to permitting a use in an area containing
important mineral'resources, the Town must prepare a statement specifying its
reasons for permitting the proposed use: .. ill
From 1934 to May 31, 1989, the Neary Quarry has used as its only haul route
Stonebrook Drive to El Monte and Interstate 280; Stonebrook is a city street;it is
steep and winding. La Loma Drive, Prospect and a number of cul-de-sacs also
use Stonebrook to exit their homes.
The General Plan of the Town requires a minimum lot size of one acre. These ,_
large lots have resulted in low density residential development with very high 11
value. This type of development is occurring ini the area using the Stonebrook
haul route. For example, the McCullouch Subdivision of 32 lots has access only
on Stonebrook. This subdivision, along with others on Prospect, approved since
to the traffic on Stonebrook. There would be
the quarry was closed, have added
no way to mitigate the conflict between increased residential traffic and the
resumption of quarry hauling. The Town therefore finds that residential
development of the quarry overrides the loss to the region of the remaining v
quarry material.
In order to comply with California Code of Regulations Section 3,576 (c) 3,the --
Town will record on property titles in the affected mineral resource areas, a
notice identifying the mineral deposit. The notice will be recorded when the
property is annexed to the Town.
. • (
•.
•
•
OUARRY HILLS SUBDIVISION 32 RESPONSE*, '
''�
i+ ; { .
•
a W1
Attachment 4
A 1
EIR SUMMARY
QUARRY HILLS SUBDIVISION .;-,...-g;,),,,,:4,,,,,,.,at.
I 'T_ ; ! �s ; ti I'V^xis
SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
off- ' .. 1'I- b 4 .,, ,.
y r
• The primary component of the proposed project is the approval of a Tentative Map to allow for the ; .`f
development of a 23-lot residential subdivision on a 78-acre site which is located in the Montebello-?•4 4;!:.-
Ridge area in the Town of Los Altos Hills' Sphere of Influence. The development of the 23 ':'+..:kt':
residential lotsis a modification of a 1988 proposal by the same applicant to construct a 43-lot' '.~;,r? =`°
• f_.:
subdivision on essentially the same site. [Note: A substantial portion of the original site in the 1988: `.:' -A" ::
development proposal has since been sold to he Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District :
I • (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 - ; -
ITown 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.
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
The following discussion, and Table S-1, summarize the primary impacts of the proposed Quarry
Hills Subdivision Project. The reader is referred to the main body of this Supplemental EIR for
Idetailed discussions of the environmental setting,'impacts, and mitigation measures.
I A. LAND USE '
Impacts The proposed subdivision would be .compatible with the surrounding residential and
II
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)
i ,
Mitigation No mitigation is available since any development of the project site would render the
quarry inaccessible.
B. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
IImpacts . 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 ;;; -, ,
! 1�•nKfi;}1 `��
(Nonsignificant Impact) ,Yfr 4 -,t1,4t As
y�4j 41,-4.-..t,
. ..CIN,
QUARRY HILLS SUBDIVISION vi MARCH 1993 DRAFT',S 1'F, �' ,
I , 4
� t t�ll l,l,�y1t tYi'.�yY I>.� Ci!t
vs `. C9; `' y,?S — om -n �-T t_ .,_._—,....�++__ .,_ •._ 4yry.N..
' 40
,,..k ;.{„ TABLE S - • • 4;4 0
i'4 � :.,t m i e Ki 4a nCK
d ,
a a o rota
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS' a
j Significant
Impact
which can be 1
• '
• Mitigated.: ...
to a Significant
Impact Nonsignificant Nonsignificant Unavoidable
Category Impact, Level Impact
LAND USE ,
Loss of Mineral Resource ✓
Compatibility with Surrounding Uses i I
TRANSPORT II TION AND TRAFFIC
Generation of Traffic ✓
Emergen y Access ;_. ✓
Access to Lots 19-21 ✓
GEOLOGY
Erosion ✓ N.
Quarry Wall Stability. / •
General Slope Stability j . ✓
Onsite & Offsite Debris Flows ✓ ii
Seismic Hazards .
HYDROLOGY & WATER QUALITY
Flooding ✓
Water QuiLlity ✓
VEGETATION'I & WILDLIFE
Loss of Inderal Habitat ✓ '
Loss of Sage Scrub Habitat it
Loss of Riparian Habitat . .. .. ✓
Impacts to Endangered Species - ✓
Loss of Qak Woodland } abitat ✓.
Im acts to NestingRaptors' ✓
Impacts to Heritage Tree j ✓
VISUAL & AESTHETIC
Light & Glare Impacts ✓
,`,. . Alteration of Existing Views. !�
• .
•
• QUARRY HILLS SUBDIVISION • vii I MARCH 1995 DRAFT SEIR i
• •
TABLE S - 1 continued) J
OF
IMPACTS •:....'..,...•:;:.',.-.,....:.-
-.7t...,;.;:-.•:.,:t..,
.'
SUMMARY ..,......,.,,..-....i,,,..,....,,,,,,,
Significant::
f 9ignificantC r�° r4 1} r �� 0
} s ,,•:, Ip -;,;,,-;:,,,-,::,:p.-:,,,. .....:.,---;,;;.,•
is • which can be .
: .Mitigated: - _rF,L
,, to a Significant :;i'-,-. ..:
Impact . • Nonsignificant: Nonsignificant Unavoidable `
Category ; Impact Level . Impact
UTILITIES & URBAN SERVICES
of
Impacts on Schools
Impacts on Police & Tire . ✓
✓
Impacts on Sanitary Sewers
Impacts on Water Service. ✓.
• Impacts on Parks.
Impacts on Solid Waste /
1 AIR QUALITY
Short-Term Construction.
Long-Term ✓ •
NOISE ✓
Short-Term Construction:
1 Long-Term ✓
CULTURAL RESOURCES .1I Archaeological Resources
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ,
Existing Contamination
PUBLIC SAFETY
ILake-Related Hazards ;
CUMULATIVE %,I Loss of Open Space - -
Traffic . ✓
Geologic
I IIHydrologic/WaterQuality ✓
Vegetation & Wildlife I
IIUrban Services/Utilities
Iti , - .• '
-. . . " .. _ • MARCH 1995 DRAFT SIIIR
,
•
•
� '. . QUARRY HILLS SUBDMSION'„ , , vi ..,.i'.•,:,-,L•:„4,,,
_. . ^;a. ril.+; t .} �;. s•r?.�• i i � . �. ';''•,..•;,••.;•••.•.,,,':,,„ t.7 °p° CCA <l[b v ,,'.. i1 , :
,. ,i,t ::! . n,., h:
.
V )�,'"AY V . , The proposed emergency/secondary access'to i the site is not adequate since existing
4 ,
,;. = *,,' Stonebrook Avenue is narrow and the portion of Stonebrook within the project site _ •
t�2;�.' ', '�i, 4 y �E y n would not be paved. '(Significant Impact)
F PP
",Rs �x'y `"','frits.}, c ''s ' •
``' ° ^ `µ ` here is inadequate/unsafe access to proposed Lots 19-21 which violates Town
standards. (Sig 'ficant Unavoidable Impact).
.r;.
Mitigation In order for the project to have adequate emergency/secondary access, Stonebrook - i
Avenue.should e upgraded to an asphalt-paved; surface street of at least 20 feet in
pved width, ex ending from Street C within!the project boundaries to Magdalena
Avenue; this mitigation will have significant visual and vegetation impacts since it
1.
will remove exiting trees along Stonebrook Avenue, west of Magdalena Avenue.
These impacts, in turn, can be mitigated through the replanting of trees at the ratios
spjecified in the Enz. (Nonsignificant Impact with Mitigation)
Mitigation meas res for the inadequate driveways to Lots 1.9-21 consist of: 1)
Redesigning the ommon/shared segment of the driveway as a public street having a
paved width of 2 feet, with a cul-de-sac or other similar design feature at the end
wiich would allo for fire department vehicles to turn around. Maximum grades for
various segments of this public street are listed on page 46. 2) Driveways for
individual lots s all be redesigned having no grades in excess of 15%. 3) The
driveway for Lo 21 shall be widened or include pullouts to provide a means for
vehicles to pass ach other.
i
Important Note: The mitigation described in;the previous paragraph for access to
Lots 19-21 will itself require substantial additional'grading and the likely widespread
use of retaining 4aiis. This will, in turn, result in substantial additional grading and
visual impacts, oyer 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
ani 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)
II
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
wails, '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, I
landslides/debris flows, stability of the steep quarry walls,general slope stability, and
erosion. In addition, studies undertaken during!the preparation of this EIR revealed
existing hazards to a number of adjacent offsite properties due to the potential for
de ris flows to o cur, originating upslope on Midpeninsula Regional Open Space V
s; see page Di trict land53 for details. (Significant Impact)
111 Mitigation .. The project's geot hnical engineers, with substantial review input from the Town's #.'r-
,.: . geologist, have de eloped an extensive list of measures to be included in the project
` _:;'' which will reduce geologic hazards, both onsite',and offsite, to a nonsignificant level. •...t.,.''
QUARRY HILLS SUBDIVISION ix MARCH 1995 DRAFT SEIR
1
P I
These measures are listed on pages 558-63 in the text. (Nonsignificant Impact with
, Mitigation)
;.,„q,,,,,--,�tw;.;:i-ii::
D.::.:.:, HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ',4 ,
}
Impacts.', The project would not result in any significant flooding impacts, either onsite or „`k„
offsite. However, runoff from the project would contain various pollutants (e.g., oil ..::::;:i:::`•:..
& grease, heavy metals,pesticides &herbicides,etc.) which would degradethe water .. ;,; ;
quality of Hale Creek and Quarry Hills Lake. Potential impacts to the water quality '-=.
ofthe lake include algal blooms, proliferation of weeds, and mosquitos. Impacts to ",.',,:•�;.= . ;:
the lake and creek due to_ erosion andt sedimentation were also identified as potentially :.:!....,',••••:
significant. (Significant Impact)
Mitigation The project will be required to develop a Storinwater 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) ,
1
E. - VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE 1
Impacts, The impacts of the project include tie 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 oaks 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 manyimitigation 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)
1
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) ,1k ; rPr ,
.:, W.�t` yid; 1f.-.,
1
4 MARCH 1995 DRAFT S-+ f 1�s�t a •,&
,,ti��i '1.QUARRY HILLS SUBDIVISION ix , 1a `: ,
;.ie of n/ �r?v�':F.Y l•T . .. ' •.' 1;',1110 1 , 1 f.3f 4._-..e
r� d C` I�
fF;04^r0),;" ',
,' :;k}'` '� kr c„',r ,)Mitigation ,,: As recommended in a 1990 Town of Los Altos Hills staff report, the construction of
u i ;tfri` �, : the sewer line extension will be required to include a number of measures to minimize
--J.:-44...1-44,.1, It r Impacts to the Dale Creek corridor, as well as to;the affected residence in the Dawson
"�:j,;,(.>:'.•.. 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) I
• 1
G. VISUAL AND AESTHETIC IMPACTS ' ' ' -1
i.
Impacts . The proposed p oject'would.result in signif cant visual and aesthetic impacts with I
regard to light and glare, as well as alterations of existing views. The proposed
frsidences will I e visible from a number of the adjacent residential areas, as well as I
om portions .oi 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
siomewhat offset by the fact that the quarry would be replaced with a lake and low-
I
ensity residential development. In addition, the removal of trees along Stonebrook
venue associated with remedial grading and the upgrading of that roadway will
create a visual impact for the residences along Stonebrook. (Significant Impact) {
F !
Mitigation Mitigation measures included in the project include the placement of residences below
to ridgeline, retention of oak woodland habitat where feasible, preservation of
prominent knolls,use of native landscaping,use of low-intensity exterior lighting, and
tile-use of buildi ig materials & colors which'are compatible with the surroundings.
The project wil also be required to comply with the Town's Zoning and Site i
Development Or .nances. Recommended mitigation not included in the project would
be to limit the h ight of houses on the Hillside lots to 1-story. It is also possible to
a�oid the visual impacts associated with development in the"Hillside Area" (i.e.,Lots
18-23) by appro"l ing 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)
L.
H. AIR QUALITY •
Impacts lib long-term significant air quality impacts will 'occur. However, short-term,
construction-rela d impacts could be significant. Construction impacts would take
tlie form of the li elihood of substantial generation of dust during various earthmoving
activities. '(Si ficant Impact) ' , .
a:Mitigation ::, The contractor w 11 be required to undertake various measures during construction to
• av+oid/minimize a generation of airborne particulates. Measures will include the ;"
:;-. ,,, ..,. .'. wateringand c venin of ex osed areas, �and sweeping of adjacent streets.
g P
t;7 f,,,r '(Nonsignificant pact with Mitigation) ! ,ti,,
a;. ;-•.-''' :'_ ‘'• I, QUARRY:HILLS SUBDMSION xi MARCH 1995 DRAFT SEIR n'`:
i
A
I. NOISE
I • 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) '' -l'''.1-,3;:-.1:
':.,, Mitigation:s The contractor will be required to undertake various measures during construction to;".`-'•:-:,,c.
avoid/minimize excessive noise. Measures will include the use of equipment with • .. `:
f - functioning mufflers and the limiting of construction to the hours of 7 AM to 7 PM, : n
Mondays through Fridays. (Nonsignificant Impact with Mitigation) •'.'''''''',-7'::
i
I 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)
IMitigation 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
Ifuture residents.to this contamination.• (Significant Impact)
Mitigation Existing remediation will continue. If any further contamination is found, the extent
I 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
i recommended. (Nonsignificant Impact with Mitigation)
,' (I+fel riµSQ .
. i y*•yyt^ 'j
QUARRY HILLS SUBDIVISION ;diMARCH 1995 DRAFT SBIRJ yY``r0:-:-•
.,,,.'' ' )0',,Ii.4.13,M2Ri:s;'f'.;,.v.",:ev,c,,.,;2
ktif a 40;:W.i'V'' . 'c"'N'i'll'' ''Zi': .. ;:41.10
N:Jcd il 040 :7 M. , t CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ,_;
"NqUif n1pacts'" `Y' The ro used r ect, when combined with other existin and recentl -a roved '``:" ;Q. z,, P P P J g Y PP a;J .4 ` development;would result in a significant loss of open space in the area. (Significant
i.,= Unavoidable,Impact) ' '
t
''' ,
-: ` ' - Nod 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' impacts will!occur. (Nonsignificant Impact)
Ea h project is required to mitigate its own significant impacts on vegetation and
I wildlife. ThereforlIe, no significant cumulative vegetation and wildlife impacts will
li
occur. (Nonsigniecant Impact)
II
• Eacfh project is required to mitigate its own significant hydrologic and water quality
impacts. Therefore, no significant•cumulative hydrologic and water quality impacts 111
wiloccur. -(Nonsignificant Impact)
f
The combined effe t of all of the projects in the area would be to adversely effect the
Lo Altos Schou District, since that district is operating close to capacity. 11
(Significant Impa t) .' 1
Mitigation While each projec contains measures to reduce'the cumulative loss of open space,
taken together this impact cannot be reduced to a nonsignificant level. The loss of
natural open space is an inevitable byproduct of any development in an area whereII
thei1e 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 c II instructing trails and by providing offstreet parking near trailheads.
De 'ls for this mi 'gation are found on page 115. (Significant Unavoidable Impact),
The cumulative impact on the Los Altos School District will be mitigated through the10
payment of a scho 1 impact fee. (Nonsignificant Impact with Mitigation)
I
11
- SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES EVALUATED
lei
A. NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE
o'ect Alt rnative is defined as no action which, in this case, would mean that the proposed
The No Pr ,.
23-lot residential subdivision would not be constructed on the 78-acre project site. Under the No
Project Alternative J the implementation of the previously-approved Neary Quarry Reclamation Plan
and Lake Mana ement Plan woul continue. Under this alternative, the former quarry operations . :::4�, a
g ,
could be'resumed on the 78-acre s to for another five to 15 years, or until such time as•the existing'fA .tt,0
5r' t
17 IZ Cyt \ ir' �'J 1� `.
`'; a it s x s,
t'
• t•<1:
QUARRY HILLS SUBDIVISION xiii MARCH 1995 DRAFT SEIR • :'''.
I
resources are exhausted). This alternative would be consistent with the site's designation by the State -
I 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. =Fi� '.i::
The No Project Alternative assuming no .resumption of quarry activities and no residential : '°' r:`;''
construction would avoid all of the potentially significant impacts of the proposed 23-10:4V,;','.:': .•
I
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. Ii
If the applicant chose to develop one residence on each of the five.parcels on.the 78-acre project site, •
I 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 someof the identified
significant impacts of the proposed project, depending on:the size and locations of the five residences.
I. 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.
I
I 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.
I,
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
I in the site's "Quarry Area", and would be roughly as shown for Lots 147 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.
IThe 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 theproposedproject, the Reduced Scale Alternative would generate fewer vehicle trips, less
stormwater water runoff,require fewer urban servces,,impact less vegetation,generate fewer students
to the school system, have less of•a visual/aesthetic impact on surrounding areas, and would retain
Imore open space on the site,thereby.lessening they 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
I 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 ,
1
'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,as well as the County's General Plan Land r;{ ;y; ._
IUse Designation for the site (Hillsides).
Lit 1}. ',1'
. •:. frry
t
t
bY ,11 f 4A,
•
• •z'
nitii�.,.
i,02 : cti4
QUARRY HILLS SUBDIVISION xiv MARCH 1995 DRAFTER fI , , A . :r ; t '1'.
•
NI
•
,
t . q i }wy4.\ �},
1
NI' Llif :' 4' avoid the significant and unavoi able access-related impacts to Lots 19-21 of the proposed project. p4::. f# ',
j�' �,� y1�.a 4'la. .. � ,tq�, Fy �
l it I; `In addition, this alternative would eliminate the visual and aesthetic impacts associated with a i.74
t�� ` ,' constructing residences on elevated areas, although it should be noted that the proposed project would' ,,4�
, Fti vi�,_' , not construct an) homes above he ridgelines. I • ; '
Of the various r sidential devel pment alternatives (including the proposed project), this Reduced z
- Scale Alternative is the enviro entally-superior alternative. :�
1.
C. ALTE ATIVE LA USE: PUBLIC OPEN SPACE
Under this alterative, the Nea Iry Quarry Reclamation Plan would be completed and the 78-acre,
project site would be maintained as dedicated public open space. This alternative resembles the I
existing site conditions except rOr-- the use of the site as public open space. This open space
alternative would avoid all of th potentially significant impacts of the proposed 23-lot subdivision,
as summarized on the previousages. It' is important to note! however, that this alternative would r
not meet the basic objective of the'proposed project, which isl to develop estate residential lots.
1
D. ALTERNATIVE LOC TIONS
The Town of Los Altos Hills Planning Staff has indicated that there are a number of sites in the If
Town which are presently vac i. and which, theoretically, could support a.residential project such
as the one proposed by the appli ant: These sites are the following: 1) the 65-acre Packard.property;
2) the 41-acre Fenwick property and 3) the 44-acre Bellucci property.
1
Of these three properties, the Bellucci property is most similar to the Neary Quarry site in that
portions of both sites contain step hillsides. The other two properties are generally characterized by
less-steep, rolling hills. The de elopment of the proposed 23 lot subdivision on any of these three
properties would result in impa is similar to.those at the Neary Quarry site, in terms of traffic
generation, noise impacts; air qu `ty impacts, open space impacts, impacts on vegetation, demands
on utilities and ur 1 an services, ani stormwater runoff impacts. However,unlike the proposed project,
the development of a subdivisio on any-of these alternative sites would not result in the loss of a
State-designated mineral resourc of significance. I
Differences in impacts at each or these three sites would primarily be in the area of geology since
every site has its own geologic and topographic characteristics.' Whatever those geologic impacts
would be, typically they can be fnitigated, assuming that construction on active fault zones and on
steep hillsides is avoided. No a sessment was completed on the three alternative sites with regard
to the potential foir encountering chaeological resources and/or onsite contamination. Therefore, it _
is not known whether there woul be any cultural resources or hazardous materials impacts at those -_
alternative sites.
i
_ s,
,.ZP!.
QUARRY HILLS SUB •DIVISION xv MARCH 1995 DRAFT SEW F
I
W illlaril Cotton 330 Village Lane i
Fkir Los Gatos, California 95030 Attachment 5
and Associates (408) 354-5542
August 8, 1995
L1017P
.. RECEIVED,
AUG - 9 1995
-
TOWN OF LOS'ALTOS HILLS
TO : Mr.Curtis Williams
Planning Director
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS .I.
26379 Fremont'Road' , '
Los Altos Hills, California 94022'
SUBJECT : Supplemental Geologic lid Geotechnical Review • • i
RE : Vidovich/Quarry Hills Subdivision -
We have completed a supplemental geologic and geotechnical review of the
Tentative Map application using: -
• Letter from De Anza Properties to Town of Los AltOs Hills, dated •
July 26, 1995; ••
• Seepage on Lots 5-10 (letter) prepared by Engeotech, dated July 24, .
1995;
• Portion of Reclamation Drainage Plan'Illustrating Proposed Subdrains
(1 sheet,.50-scale) prepared;by Kirkeby Engineering, dated July 24,
1995; _ I
• Progress Report #5 - Quarry Hills Reclamation Project, prepared by
Alan Kropp Associates (AKA) dated)December 27, 1994; i - •
•- Second Response to Reviewer Comments (report) prepared,by Alan
Kropp and Associates, dated September 13, 1994;
• Tentative Map - Lot Design and Development Plan (1 sheet, 100-
. scale) preparer not,indicated, dated'October 18, 1993; and
• Study Plan #4 (1 sheet, 40-scale) prepared by''S&A Engineering,
dated September 24, 1993.
.
•
cM(IMMFFRING GEOLOGY • ENVIRONMENTAL EARTH SCIENCES • FOUNDATION ENGINEERING 4 I
.
Mr. Curtis Williams i August 8, 1995
Page 2 I L1017P
1
DISCUSSION
The applicant proposes to subdivide the subject property into 23 lots for
residential development. In o r review report of July 27, 1995, we outlined three
geotechnical issues to be addres ed prior to Tentative Map approval. In addition, we
listed six geotechnical issues to b. satisfactorily addressed prior to Final Map approval.
•
01,C_ U Ilk ,LIII • ►i A: ,LIP . 1 : 1111 • ►
'
I
Proposed site development is constrained by the following geotechnical factors:
• Adverse seepage wi in proposed building envelope (Lots 5 through 10);
• Potenl ial for debris flows to originate within tll e subject property
that may travel do nslope and adversely impact existing off-site
residences;
• Potential instabilit of the southwestern quarry rim that may
disru t the propose Stonebrook Avenue emergency access route;
• tential instabilityf the southeastern quarry rim that may impact
Po p
the adjacent neighb rs'back yards;
• Potential debris flo hazards on three proposed'lots resulting in the
need to carefully define safe building envelopes;
• Significant differential fill thickness beneath proposed building sites
that may result in t e need for special (non-standard) residential
foundation design; a d.
• Various ongoing s to grading activities not 'fully inspected or
approved by the ap licant's geotechnical consultant.
The first two issues listed above have been adequately addressed by conceptual
design information submitted b the applicant and his consultants. Adverse seepage
across Lots 5 th rlough 10 can be mitigated by subdrairi systems, but the group
responsible for maintenance of he proposed subdrains should be clearly designated
during the subdivision process. Final design plans for the subdrain system should be
reviewed and approved by the T wn Engineer and Town Geotechnical Consultant. The
conceptual debris basin design p oposed in the northwestern portion of Lot 21 appears
generally adequate. However, t e crest height of the proposed berm (currently 15 feet
above existing grade) could pro ably be reduced to less than 10 feet considering that it
is located considerably downslo e, and at a much wider point in the swale than the
previously proposed berm (i.e., a so designed with a 15-foot crest height). Final design
of the berm should)include drain ge measures to properly convey surface water flow.
Regarding the proposed Stonebrook Avenue emergency access route, we
understand that the applicant is ilkot proposing measures to mitigate potential instability
of this area. The project geo echnical consultant has previously concluded that
corrective grading is appropri ,te adjacent to this roadway to provide adequate
William Cotton and Associates
Mr. Curtis Williams August 8, 1995
Page 3 L1017P
protection of the roadway for emergency access. We concur with the,consultant that
future landsliding, possibly:triggered:by seismic conditions or significant rainfall, may
interrupt use of this roadway. In our opinion, there is a moderate level of risk-that
future landsliding could render this roadway impassable until corrective measures are
implemented. The riskof not implementing measures to mitigate potential instability.
along StonebrOok Avenue should be considered by the Town during evaluation of the
Tentative Map.
The remaining items 1 through 6 may have significance to visual'or economic
aspects of the project. We recommend that the Town Planning Commission and Council
be made aware of these geotechnical.issues during the Tentative Map evaluation
process, and that these issues be resolved no later than prior to Final Map approval:
1. Potential Southeastern Quarry Rim Instability - The project
geotechnical consultant has previously identified the potential for
failure and retreat of the quarry rim that may encroach into the back
yards of adjacent neighbors to the southeast. While a significant
hazard to any existing homes is not anticipated, the consultant has
indicated that corrective grading and/or wall construction along
this portion of the quarry rim !could reduce the potential for
encroachment of instability into adjacent back, yard, areas., The
Town Attorney should address whether the Town may incur any
liability for not requiring stabilization of these slopes as part of the
subdivision process.
2. Preliminary Foundation Recommendations - Preliminary
recommendations should be prepared by the Project Geotechnical
Consultant to define the general type of residential foundation
deemed appropriate for each proposed lot. The potential need for
any unusually deep or rigid foundation systems should be
addressed. The range of differential fill thickness across proposed
building envelopes should be quantified as part of this evaluation.
Any requirements for fill settlement monitoring prior to construction
should be addressed. It is important that .the geotechnical
consultant, who has inspected! most of the reclamation and
subdivision grading, define appropriate types_of foundations for
individual lots. Preliminary foundation recommendations should be
prepared prior to approval of the Final Map. .
3. On Site Debris Flow Hazard I Mitigation - As discussed and
recommended in our review report of October 14, 1994,the building
envelope.on Lot 23 should be revised in orderto make it consistent
with Alan Kropp Associates (AKA) recommendations. The revised
building envelope, along,with a debris flow building exclusion
zone/conservation easement (i.e., zoneincluding the Qc fan across
Lot 23 previously mapped by Harlan Tait Associates), should be
• indicated;on the Final Map. No residential construction should be
allowed within the building exclusion zone/conservation easement
unless detailed lot-specific geotechnical investigation is'performed
to demonstrate•the feasibility of construction with appropriate
mitigation measures.
•
William Cotton and Associates
I. =-
Mr. Curtis Williams August 8, 1995
Page 4 L1017P
Lot 21 is also constr ined by debris flow hazards. As noted in our
Qctober 1994 revie report, a significant portion of the proposed,
, relocated building envelope is still situated within the debris
flow/colluvial fan deposits (Qc) mapped by Harlan Tait
Associates (HTA). Specific site grading measures, resulting in
elevation of the building pad as recommended by AKA, are an
integral part of the afe development of this lot. An appropriate
final pad elevation and proposed site grading plan should be
prepared and accep ed by AKA prior to Final Map approval. The
Town may request such information, if deemed necessary for
aesthetic evaluation, prior to Tentative Map approval.
The referenced Stud Plan #4, with the modifications stated above,
is to become part f the Final Map application. It should be
understood that sp cific final building envelopes and driveway
alignments are to be defined by the modified Study Plan#4.
4. Quarry Wall Landsliding - AKA has indicated that the benched
quarry walls have a -sigh potential for ongoing shallow landsliding.
The consultant has concluded that corrective grading of these slopes
(i.e., removing existing benches, landslide deposits and loose debris)
to forrki a smooth slope would significantly reduce the potential for
future shallow failLres. While these slopes do not present an
apparent hazard to proposed residential building sites, hikers and
possible boaters may be at risk unless appropriate measures are
taken. We understad that no private boats will,be allowed on the
lake. However, nec ssary fencing or other appropriate measures
shoul be designed, 'n conjunction with final development plans for
the project, to prec ude pedestrian access onto or beneath the
benched quarry wall .
5. Geotechnically Un ocumented Site Grading - The referenced
Progress Report #5J prepared by AKA regarding site grading
operations, contains list of 11 site reclamation/grading operations
that were not within their scope of inspection services. It' is
important that all portions of the property are ultimately presented
for public or privat use in a safe condition. consequently, the
extent of necessary corrective grading activities should be defined
by the Project Geot chnical Consultant to the satisfaction of the
Town Engineer and Town Geotechnical Consultant prior to Final
Map approval.
6. Supplemental Subdivision-Level Improvement Plans -
Supplemental plans should be prepared to illustrate all proposed
subdivision level improvements. A detailed site drainage plan .
should be included illustrating all existing/proposed final water
inlet and outlet facilities for the reservoir. Items such as proposed
• street i.avement sections, fire hydrant locations, and final design
details for surface drainage facilities and seepage mitigation should
be prepared as deemed necessary by the Town Engineer. If crushed
rock (other than Class 2 Permeable material) is utilized in subdrain
construction, then this drain rock should be entirely enclosed by
filter fabric. Final design of the debris flow basin in Lot 21,
includ4g surface drainage measures and adequate berm height,
William Cotton and Associates
-4.
r ;
Mr. Curtis Williams August 8, 1995
Page 5 L1017P
should be submitted. Supplemental subdivision-level improvement
plans should be reviewed and approved by the Town Engineer and
Town Geotechnical Consultant prior to acceptance of the Final
Map.
Respectfully submitted,
WILLIAM COTTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
TOWN GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT
W)-e7 /1 ,,e07&(L- —
William R.Cotton
Principal Engineering Geologist
CEG 882
Patrick O. Shires
Principal Geotechnical Engineer
GE 770
Ted Sayre
Senior Engineering Geologist
WRC:POS:TS:rb
William Cotton and Associates
• Attachment 6
NOV ®� 1 I
. TOWN OF LOS .N.07 11 4- 17171-411".."--7..111)4444&`
MIS IIILMONT 110A0. LOS ALTOS HILLS. CALIFORNIA MI 8i p ' •• ' r (41gMI•Ti.1
n • •.' Al
O \ 111 ... �ilt •
California �4`
+ d • Joao*"
SUBDIVISION APPLICATION For Official Use
Receipt:. .By , Date Fee
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS, CALIFORNIA Deposit , Applic.�A
The undersigned hereby files a Preliminary/Tentative, Subdivision Map and.
supporting information in accordance with the provisions of the Subdivision
Chapter of the Municipal Code and any amendments thereto:
1 . APPLICANT: -Name(Print or Type). jot! k)
Street Address 20 W. ' YLEMQ1.)T .. Li,a - , CitycLuoto CE
Telephone: Business408 -13?) 44Home
Applicant is: Owner Authorized Agent of Owner
iciik)( If agen1tl , complete item2below) - •
2. OWNER : Name(print or type ) . `1 i O\ E t 7 LL -
Street Address - $MIME - ,. City
Telephone: Business Home
3. DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY: Street -Adddr.e ss . l l 9 ZU •_S1-0Nal IL
Subdivision Name Q(A 0 12 IL Y C7t •L—L S , Lot No. -
Assessor' s Parcel Number 336.,- 10 ) 33�-33-1t J 33c2-34- rS, 1(,, l'7
(Please check above descripti on carefully with Planning Commission Secretar
in case of any doubt to insure accuracy)
4. Maps, Statements and Materials required by Subdivision Ordinance submitt
as a part of application (List all items submitted ) .
-pcu1G,LUaS
TD(2_1\1SLOP )
2) POU (4 ) c._o P 1 ac o S L o ' CCAS 5 I Ft CJ>T(O h) M A P
CO to t (r ) C o p` 01= 02-6 Fl L �
b1�IL3 ,� rzl� c . b •
.,•:,:. (•: • ., .1'
. .. . ...
. . . .
. .
. . . . . . . .
Subdivision Application
. . .
Page 2 . A " - • ' '
, 0 . ,•
' .
• ' . •. • ,•
•
. . . • .
4 . Maps, Statements and Materials (cone. )
r; co kya 0 ) c)0 P / • o o L1 2. -corz-1-, nk ,f_ p
(, 0.1e(Os- .-2-7 o P. co (D*- N st-r\1 C___ALL:cjA t_2s-T-71 :bh. 5 ..
. _. .
. .
. . ‘
•
. .. - . - . . . • •
. .
. . . .. .
• • .. ... ..• -
... .. . • . .
•
_ • . .
. -
I , the undersigned , do hereby certify that the facts and information contained
in this application are accurate and complete to the best of my. knowledge .
declare under penal y of perjury that the foregoing in true and correct . •
Executed . at E;(-ALL \NAL- = .. - .. . •
, • .
' .
California on ' — 17--:-L. 43 . . - . . . - . ........ -
(date)
. . . . ,
Signature of owner (s);
Nr_e_c_c)\--.. •
. . •
_ • OR • • . ' • - .. .
• - •
Signature' ofApplicant/Agent;
(requires fetter of authorization from owner) -
. .
, .. . .
- . . •
. . . ,
. .
. . • • . . .
. .
- • .
• ..- ,- '. '. . . . .
- •
•
• . • • .
. .
. .
. ,
. . _.
'
. .•
3/87 .
.
•
. .
• ..
•
' .
• ,
. .
• . . . ' •
• . ' • .
•
, . .,,•; ,,,,,, - ,:i:i..1:i'A':'!Wilt:4
-
• .
,
,- .. .....;:_.7,•;:,;..;.•.1,' •::-..,...'. .. 't;-,..y. , ... .'.','.,.:.,., ..:',,-• •..•.••• .-..•.-,.. ... .... , .-. '..,•,;. ..•.'..--':'. :•, ;'.:.".•.:*,.•.-:. .. '.••:.,-'•:-•-•-..' ,:'.'.':. '-t'--•..,!.::
•. • •• . • , ., . . • • .• . •. •. •- • ' . , • •• • ' ••
. , - . .•., .. • .. . . .• -
. • .
. .
• --:,,-...::.;.•;„:,....;-:,-,:+...,(;;:-.,:,.,,:.,-,.::...ii:1-..,...,•:,.i-,c,,,,,.i.-iszt:-. -: . ,.
., • • ..;;:, ---- 4:,.•
'.'••:','-',..:,"1.".'-!-.'...".1.2...,..,1'.S•4.::',...t.:. ...1-:"...1:-::•::'tr-•:-
'
. • : N.41,1:-,..,.;t•..-:
•,. .s.,....fic.,..,"•4›,.•..:,;7..."7.••-.?.:.')V.'....y.;,'.....:;•:-,`...:I'......•.::1-:.'.:
• ,i;?...ffitS..12.--qi:„.:
. ., ,:-....'-.;,:,'.:,::-7 r:'•:';',,':--;:..,:-,A.,4-'..,',,•,•••:';S.“'',
.. --::... •'--• .;- ...., ,t,. . ,.;,'',*••,-,:.,....•,:-,-.%
-.•?C'iAt.45k.,-
;.'•,.,.'...,....,•5;:r`,:f."...--.0.:',•';':.:,..,;.-•;;.;',..'..,„".1.:*.''':•17:.5„.7,1.,:::%:,:: ijalf4, 11:41::
•r. _ ,,,,... •.
•••:•.,-----c4,- --, co,
'•• -. :"'-'',-,-'2"-.:',,".-..:,:..`:.?.•----...;'.•''.7::;.i!!'.•:'I'''=.s;:'-'::::':`': DWIN L. BORMANN. M. D. A I!•% el le7"1-z.v.if,„
.•-••.'•!;•:;•;:;';•;•;!:.•?.::,,-;:::-;:i.:.•:',,,,,:,•:!;•.!,::',..r:•••,,:...'.•.,•X,5.•.i.•••.
• 14itt: :.,•/s-A: yct•.'il'..4•ye,=4'',ieb 24303 ELISE COURT
!, e:•:'...P.,;," ,,',. --.;ft •,,,,e,..:$ ..,,..::•••
LOS ALTOS HILLS. CALIFORNIAA45322 '..;•:,:-'4,,,-;•!,N
, .'r. ...:". ;,...::•''.!....:,',•`,'-',':.:-'..:
tur,WN'10uFRoLEOCS4AE9LITV0E1S9D9H151.1.9
. ..7.•:-.. : : . •:. :.--.:'''•„::. -•'-'‘!:•:,.:•.-
.-'..."!.:.r.r.0::',...
TEL.EPHON9 941.6684
--'' ••:•,-,, • •..... • ., , . ,.,,,.. ,
•.3.... .tt7L:f(: ,
. . -
• 27) ‘ '.: ',-':::...•:}e.,:i'Ci:'
A , 644.4( fr,-,:r.,,:-..!,;•,•:•:•
L'64'r1-4144.:0 •:.',.7',:4?•7!: .!:•
, •-:,,04,,,::-:-,?.;
g e
.:-•>r-,-...-.-,,-....---:
.., .....-....,..
.7---
-- i I- T/, . :,:f,•:'..--7-:.,7
-...- .•-.- - . . _ .• ...
, . . •--• :.,. .." •.,-.... •.-.... •....•.•• '
.,.--..:::•!
.: •- . .-. - . -. .-. • .. -
- • . •-•- •' • • - . .• - .?,d. Ct/ -i112 ( (4/4/ 1
(Zt4.,
•:;•:-.. 1=•. •:.:.
. . _ . .
.,.-,,..
'124—Al
• • ..' -,'•-:-'.:7-••:,..!::.-;:.;.--:;.:7'..:':.:;.---;:....:f.
..':'-',:.:,--.;-:'..----.....'.:.:•:::,f-1,--:;',::•'..:-,":'-.-,..1: j. 7.. -1*.A-g-t-,-1
1... .... ,...,... ..,.
k...,.?.... :__:,..,....„ .
..'-:-':...-.-i::-,.::'.,'-'':',:••:•_.-;::-...,:......'',•.::•.-:.',::..::'.'T•'-..-',':•;;':'-"....:':;:•,.:•:,.•;-'.-;.s.;:--.';::::;iS•.•-••:;',,'.''.:.'...;.:.;::.;-7,;,,::•-:
/ 134L- , ..-W2„..)-:•--i-4" 1.. .:
,.."17
" ) av27.
,:--.key) ., - 444 ' i7 )
/ ,- i( 6 ,,t,•:,p.--••-••.;•._•:,.,1--„..:-
. . .
• • • • • • •
• • .
• •. • .-. .
' ' . •- •,• " ' - {/:1-7-7..--",..-,...12.03
ty [-;•-_:',--;'•:-.:f--:,•-.
•- - . _
- ----- _--
•.
-:.. .
•-..-.... • c,y.fri,..0,,,y7L4L,t(A.-e 21414.711 .44a/c - *
', . . .
1.-..::-.::•-.:•;';•:-.....:::::,
•
• .
. • ' • •- • •
' 1
2
.4' .--n.,r.--t „ -L../.%-.‹)/,,e'P-' - -- ---,'"-.74_„ , , _e__e '!---, ...._ . .
., .........__
. :.-.,..:'-.-:,,,-,: --;:. e -:...: .-e.... ,;•---,....•-,--.. , „: .... _,....... : ,...„::.
,..,. ,. :....
. _ . . .
,...„ 1,...„./...." .,,,,
. . . .„ .
, -
,......;:.-....1,,,.;,-4,,••••••-,e,r.:,,s4:••-:-.,,;.,'-i.,::,,•&,..---...=-,-.7,=: 1 ' / / 1.--.;-...•:•!::-:.-.--
, 6 •
• . --... - ... • • ..• • ,.:,.. .
• -.--.• - . • " - 11-e7- - 42-vv,A;- '•=*'-‘-'-' .-1,fr-i.
[ ' , .'.•'-,.
.--„. r. ..4. •••
- ' . ' ,• • : , . , •
.. . • .•- '
. Ai.- H • •.. _ :,.
•
;.--M- ,,,,v---1-6-cf 1 ,% 771•W.-74''' .€, 4:---.71-a;z...-0"5 -kr,g="1---
, .
•
1 .. . .
i , , •. . .
•
• I. , .-,. _
..
• . .. . . . .
e •..-.-.::_ ,•
. .
•
...., .
.y.;ease4i ,
..•_,,:“,-...,,-
. . .
. . .
7'7
. . . • -• - -., • 1 ,../„/ pl / . ...•,- .-.-
. . .. .
.•..:, .
•
•
-•.
' I
/ -• . -
. ".../-•.:1 ..1.- .--f--• -41 .
139.7"717Z4. .''..:',.-:----
. , .
•
:/ ,,:- / 11a V - . -.... ,
. .
. .
. . 1
.•. ,---
i,.. .
...-., .
•
. .
• ,
- • ---,..,,ri-r,
. ,
. . .
.
.,;.,.•-!..IF„'",4'.;
•
. . . .•. .• . .••. •..- .
.•
•
. . . •-,
• '
. . . , . .• , .
•• ••:, . .
. .
[
. . '
. .
, .
, .
, .
•• .
,',........', ':.•"i‘7,;.--•.-7--"*.
. . . . .
• • . •
':.,'r.-',':.''ZT,-,?.-'•"i--'
. . . . , .. ... • .. . .
. •
. .
• . . .
" , . . .•.
. . .
. . • ,• • . • • • .. „ .•
• . , , ••
. • . •
. .
.• .
•
. .
•
• , r • : '•..,•4,:-/ ..r•C‘.1.r:!.;,i.-,'••'•,':,;:' !...:-•'...'.:?.',',.1.„':„:
• . ,
. •
I• . .. . .
• : . ' ' •
• •I ..• . . :. , , -.....":;• '143q ' ,,.,./'."•4•:•4•"‘•:i•;•.&pa.)
. • ' . . - . .
. .
.. ••••••• .• •
... ,
•
' .`' • - •• .• .• . . . " '.••• l' •• : • 1 •.:•• .,::••••''... ^-.•.. • .• , . c i S•':',7•J'ti..,_P-:44,.'Itc11•,:ki17,4,1'.;k44741°.•Visilli4.1..44-A^
* i,� ftp .
•
%Wil
VD Ramos-
r 6 ... CITY OF LOS ALTO
One North San Antonio Road)
Los Altos,California 94022-3088
Tel: (415) 948-1491
Fax: (415) 941-7419
August 21, 1995
City Council and 'harming Commission
Town of Los Alto Hills VIA FAX & MAIL
26379 Fremont Ro d
Los Altos Hills, A 94022
SUBJECT: Responses to Comments on the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
(DSlIR) for the proposed Quarry Hills Subdivision
Dear Honorable M yor, Councilmembers and Commissioners:
Thank you for pro1iding us with your responses to.our May 1, 1995 comments on the DSEIR
for the proposed Quarry Hills Subdivision.
The responses to our, comments are generally adequate with the understanding that the
construction control measures listed at the bottom of page 68 and the permanent control
measures listed at tfhe top of page 69 are typical of those which are included in an SWPPP for
a project of this ty/e. . .
Although no mention of it is made in the DSEIR, it would be expected that the Mitigation
Monitoring Progra I for the Final EIR would identify the agency or agencies responsible for
review and approv of the SWPPP and the annualupdates of the erosion control plan, as well
as for enforcement of:the SWPPP during construction.
Thank you very m ch for your consideration and please feel free to contact me at 948-2790,
x211 if your have y questions.
l Sincerely,ooloveyJ .
i1/(
Janj es D. Mackenzie, AICP
Senior Planner
cc: City Manag-r
Planning Director
Fire Department
RESPONSIVE-INNOVATIVE-CONCERNED