The URL can be used to link to this page

2010081606 - Attachment 8 - 15928 Union AvenueTOWN OF LOS GATOS ITEM NO: 2 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT cos caSOS Meeting Date: June 9, 2010 PREPARED BY: Suzanne Davis, Associate Planner sdavis(a,los atogsca.gov APPLICATION NO: Architecture and Site Applications S-08-30, 5-09-33, and 5-09-34 Subdivision Application M-08-13 LOCATION: 15928 Union Avenue (east side of Union Avenue, just north of Leewood Court) APPLICANT: Tony Jeans, T.H.LS. Design PROPERTY OWNER: 217 O'Connor LLC CONTACT: Tony Jeans APPLICATION SUMMARY: Requesting approval to demolish an existing single family residence and subdivide a .93 acre parcel into three lots and to construct two new residences on property zoned R-1:8. No significant environmental impacts have been identified as a result of this project, and a Mitigated Negative Declarafion is recommended. APN 527-42-008. DEEMED COMPLETE: May 20, 2010 FINAL DATE TO TAKE ACTION: July 9, 2010, for Tentative Map; November 20, 2010, for Architecture and Site applications. RECOMMENDATION: Soft approval (Alternative TM-2) PROJECT DATA: General Plan Designation: Low Density Residential Zoning Designation: R-1:8 Applicable Plans & Standards: State Subdivision Map Act Subdivision & Zoning Ordinances General Plan Parcel Size: 40,579 sq. ft. (existing) 32,936 sq. ft. (after R-O-W dedication) Surrounding Area: Existing Land Use j General Plan ;Zoning -------=----------------- North j Single Family ---~ --------_.---r------ _ i. Low Density R-1:8 East -Single Family :Low Density ~ R 1 10 South Single Family ~ Low Density R-1:10__ _ West Single Family :Low Density R-1:8 ATTACHIiENT 8 Planning Conunission Staff Report -Page 2 15928 Union Avenue/M-08-13, 5-08-30, 5-09-33, 5-09-34 June 9, 2010 CEQA: It has been determined that the project will not have a significant impact on the environment and a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared. FINDINGS: ^ As required by Section 29.10.09030(e) of the Town Code for the demolition of a single family residence. ^ As required by Section 66474 of the State Subdivision Map Act. CONSIDERATIONS: As required by Section 29.20.150 of the Town Code for Architecture and Site applications. ACTION: The decision of the Planning Commission is final unless appealed with in ten days. EXHIBITS: 1. Location map 2. Mitigated Negative Declaration (2 pages) 3. Initial Study (42 pages) 4. Mitigation Monitoring Plan (1 page) 5. Required findings (2 pages) 6. Recommended conditions of approval for Tentative Map (10 pages) 7. Recommended conditions of approval for new residences (3 pages) 8. Project data sheets for Parcels 2 and 3 (2 pages) 9. February 1, 2010, Town Council verbatim minutes 10. Consulting Architect's report (4 pages), received March 26, 2010 11. Applicant's letter (4 pages) and exhibits (2 pages), received May 26, 2010 12. Letters from Stephanie Lynott (8 pages), received April 29 and June 1, 2010 13. Letter from Cecilia Holmberg (1 page), received May 6, 2010 14. Letters from Terry Hickey (2 pages), received May 11 and May 27, 2010 15. Letter and information from Thomas Mangano (18 pages), received May 27, 2010 16. Letter from Geoff Mitchell (9 pages), received May 27, 2010 17. Letter from Orville Buesing (3 pages), received May 27, 2010 18. Letter from John Schwarz (4 pages), received May 27, 2010 19. Letter from Paul & Jane De Bella (1 page), received June 2, 2010 20. Existing lot pattern exhibit 21. Development plans and Tentative map exhibits (11 sheets), received May 20, 2010 Planning Commission Staff Report -Page 3 15928 Union Avenue/M-08-13, 5-08-30, 5-09-33, 5-09-34 June 9, 2010 BACKGROUND: The subject property is zoned R-1:8 and is currently developed with a 1,010 square foot single- story home and 528 square foot garage. The property owner initially submitted applications to demolish the existing house and to subdivide the property into three lots. Subsequently two applications were submitted for the development of proposed Parcels 2 and 3. A total of three new single-family homes will be built if the subdivision is approved. Plans for the new residence on Parcel 1 will be considered under a separate Architecture and Site application that is yet to be submitted. The project site is currently 40,579 square feet (.93 acres). The property owner will dedicate 25 feet of frontage on Union Avenue and the area for the Panorama Way cul-de-sac to the Town for public right-of-way. Right-of-way dedications will reduce the land area to 32,936 square feet. On February 25, 2009, the Commission considered the proposed subdivision and demolition of the existing residence. Following public testimony and discussion the Commission continued the matter to March 25, 2009, requesting that the applicant provide an exhibit showing a conforming cul-de-sac for Panorama Way and directing staff to prepare an Initial Study. An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration were prepared and released for public review on July 17, 2009. 'The public review period ended on August 17, 2009. On August 26, 2009, the Planning Commission considered two alternatives for the subdivision, one with a reduced right-of--way for the cul-de-sac at the end of Panorama Way and one with a full right-of--way. The Commission voted unanimously to deny the Architecture and Site application for demolition of the existing residence and the Tentative Map application citing inconsistency with the surrounding neighborhood. The Commission determined that the project did not comply with the existing lot pattern to the north of the site and that the proposed development was not appropriate for the property (making findings c and d from Section 66474 of the State Subdivision Map Act). The applicant appealed the Planning Commission's decision based on his belief that the Planning Commission erred or abused its discretion in finding that the subdivision application was not consistent with the surrounding neighborhood and in finding that the site was not physically suitable for the proposed density and/or type of development. On November 2, 2009, the Town Council denied the appeal upholding the Planning Commission's decision. Prior to consideration of a resolution on this matter, the applicant requested that the Town Council reconsider its decision and that the applications be remanded to the Planning Commission for further consideration. On December 7, 2009, the Council decided to reconsider its decision. Planning Commission Staff Report -Page 4 15928 Union Avenue/M-OS-13, 5-08-30, 5-09-33, 5-09-34 June 9, 2010 On February 1, 2010, the Council reconsidered the applications and voted unanimously to remand the project to the Planning Commission for consideration of two alternate three-lot configurations. A verbatim transcript of the Council discussion was prepared (see Exhibit 9) since a resolution documenting the decision was not adopted. Following the remand the applicant decided to combine the Architecture and Site applications for proposed homes on Parcels 2 and 3 with the subdivision applications. Detailed development plans have not been completed for proposed Parcel 1. Complete story-poles have been installed on proposed Parcels 2 and 3. Height-poles have been installed on proposed Parcel 1 to show the approximate height and location of the north side of the house. PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. Location and Surrounding Neighborhood The project site is located at 15928 Union Avenue, on the east side of the street just north of Leewood Court. Adjacent properties are all occupied by single family residences. Homes to the south (Leewood Court), east (Cambrian View), and across the street to the west (Union Avenue and Lasuen Court) are two-stories. Homes to the north on Union Avenue and Panorama Way are one-story. -Existing home sizes range from 1,753 to 3,705 square feet. B. Tentative Map Approval Approval of a Tentative Map application is required for the proposed three-lot subdivision. Section 66474 of the State Subdivision Map Act includes the following seven findings relative to subdivisions of land. These criteria are in essence reverse findings; should the deciding body (in this case the Planning Commission) make any of the findings, the Tentative Map application should be denied. a. 'That the proposed map is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans as specified in Section 65451. b. That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans. c. That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development. d. That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development. e. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements is/are likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. £ That the design of the subdivision or type of improvements is likely to cause serious public health problems. g. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. Planning Commission Staff Report -Page 5 15928 Union Avenue/M-08-13, 5-08-30, 5-09-33, 5-09-34 June 9, 2010 C. Architecture and Site Approval The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing residence and garage and to construct two new residences. Architecture and Site approval is required for the demolition of the existing single family residence. Architecture and Site approval is also required for the proposed homes that will be constructed on the site if the subdivision is approved. Architecture and Site (A&S) applications have been provided for development of Parcels 2 and 3. A separate A&S application will be filed for Parcel 1 at a later date. D. Zoning Compliance The applicant has proposed two tentative map options, one with traditional pie shaped lots (TM-1) and a second version with modified property lines to provide more usable yard areas (TM-2). Both options comply with zoning requirements. TM-1 Minimum Requirement Parcell Union Parcel2 Panorama Parcel3 Panorama lot size 8,000 sq. ft. 11,996 sf 10,544 sf 10,925 sf lot frontage 60 feet Unian 30 feet Panorama 110 feet 30 feet 150 feet lot depth 95 feet 108 feet 157 feet 175 feet TM-2 Minimum Requirement Parcell Union Parcel2 Panorama Parcel3 Panorama lot size 8,000 sq. ft. 11,989 sf 10,087 sf 11,390 sf lot frontage 60 feet Union 30 feet Panorama 110 feet 35 feet 150 feet lot depth 95 feet 89-128 feet 160 feet 150 feet Panorama Way is a cul-de-sac while Union Avenue has a linear frontage; minimum frontage requirements are different for the two situations. E. General Plan Compliance The General Plan land use designation for the property and surrounding area is low density residential, 0 to 5 units per acre. The proposed density is 3.2 units per acre and is within the allowable density range. ANALYSIS: A. Architecture and Site The applicant is proposing to construct two-story homes on proposed Parcels 2 and 3. The maximum height of the house on Parcel 2 will be 23 feet 11 inches, and the house on Planning Commission Staff Report -Page 6 15928 Union Avenue/M-08-13, S-08-30, 5-09-33, S-09-34 June 9, 2010 Parcel 3 will be 24 feet six inches. A maximum of 30 feet is allowed in the R-1 zone. The proposed houses will meet the minimum required setbacks. General project data is included in Exhibit 8. The Consulting Architect visited the site and reviewed the proposed home designs (see Exhibit 9). The Architect commented that the home proposed for Parcel 3 is well designed with good forms and interesting details, and is of a similar style to homes on Panorama Way. A recommendation to reduce the number of second floor windows was incorporated by the applicant. The Consulting Architect initially had a number of recommendations for the house proposed for Parcel 2. The applicant revised the design, resulting in two minor recommendations as follows: The window frames should be recessed two to three inches from the wall face Add a stucco wall base in areas with where stucco siding. A condition of approval has been included requiring the final elevations for the house on Parcel 2 to be reviewed as part of the building plan check process. B. Lot Confieuration The configuration of the proposed parcels is more conventional with option TM-1, providing pie-shaped lots off the Panorama cul-de-sac. Modifying the lots lines as shown on option TM-2 provides more usable yard areas for Parcels 2 and 3. The other noticeable difference is that TM-2 has an angled property line between Parcel 1 and Parcels 2 whereas TM-1 has a line parallel to Union Avenue. The building envelopes are not significantly different with either option. The applicant's preference is TM-2. If the decision is to approve the Tentative Map, the Commission should indicate which option is preferred. Staff does not have a strong preference on the two options as both meet Town Code requirements, however, TM-2 would provide more usable yards for the new homes. C. Panorama Right-of--Way The proposed physical improvements for the new cul-de-sac at the end of Panorama Way complies with Town Code requirements for paved width and bulb radius, but the right-of- way is less than required by code. Town Code requires a 42-foot right-of--way radius, while the proposed radius is 37 to 47 feet. The proposed right-of--way will accommodate the physical sheet improvements but not the street landscaping. Utilities and landscape areas will be contained within an easement. The Town Code allows a reduced right-of- way to be approved by the deciding body if, based on site characteristics, it is determined to be appropriate. Each site is considered on a case by case basis. There are no other Planning Commission Staff Report -Page 7 15928 Union Avenue/M-08-13, 5-08-30, S-09-33, 5-09-34 June 9, 2010 projects that are similar to the subject application for comparison purposes. The cul-de- sacs for Leewood and Lasuen Courts are the same size as the proposed Panorama Way cul-de-sac. Staff does not have any concerns about the reduced right-of--way. The paved area complies with minimum Fire Department and Engineering standards, and is not reduced in size. If the reduced right-of--way is supported by the Commission, landscaping and street trees will be required to be maintained by the homeowners since they will be located outside the dedicatedright-of--way. C. Neighborhood Compatibility The applicant has provided detailed development plans for the proposed homes on parcels 2 and 3. House plans have not been provided for parcel 1 although the applicant has indicated that cone-story home will be proposed. There are a variety of home sizes with both one and two-story homes on surrounding properties in the surrounding area. The Town Council placed more emphasis on homes on Panorama Way and the east side of Union Avenue as being the most relative to the project site for purposes of evaluating neighborhood compatibility. The homes on Leewood Court will have a relationship with the new houses on the project site as they are adjacent to one another, and staff has included four homes on Leewood Court in the comparison of home sizes and FAR. The following table shows house floor area and FAR and garage size for properties in the immediate vicinity of the project site. Data was obtained from County records and does not include cellars. Address Lot Size House size House FAR Gara e 112 Panorama Way 7,942 2,311 29.0 430 115 Panorama Way 8,018 1,589 19.8 487 110 Panorama Way 8,668 1,924 22.1 470 111 Panorama Way 8,668 1,568 18.0 484 118 Cambrian View 20,909 3,705 17.7 560 15910 Union Avenue 18,450 1,753 9.5 714 Address Lot Size House size House FAR Gara e 101. Leewood Court ...9,583 3,128 32.6. _..560 103 Leewood Court 9,583 3,086 32.2 632 105 Leewood Court 10,019 3,131 31.2 560 107 Leewood Court 12,197 3,164 25.9 632 Parcel2 10.087 3120 30.9 865 Parcel3 11,390 3404 29.9 935 There is a mix of small and large lots in the area surrounding the project site (see Exhibit 20). Immediately to the north the pattern is one large lot of 18,000 to 20,000 square feet fronting on Planning Commission Staff Report -Page 8 15928 Union Avenue/M-08-13, 5-08-30, 5-09-33, 5-09-34 June 9, 2010 Union Avenue with a smaller lot of about 8,000 square feet fronting on Panorama Way. Parcels to the south on Leewood Court are approximately 9,500 to 12,000 square feet in size. The lots closest to Union Avenue are square shaped while the lots fronting on the cul-de-sac are pie shaped. The lot to the east is over 20,000 square feet. Lots across Union Avenue to the east are 10,000 to 12,000 square feet. D. Green Building The project was reviewed using the Build It Green standards adopted by the Town Council on June 2, 2008. Preliminary checklists completed by the applicant show that both houses will exceed the minimum number of points (50) needed to achieve green building certification with scores of 109 (Parcel 2) and 112 points (Parcel 3). Condition #6 requires the project to be certified as green using the GreenPoint checklist. E. Demolition Annroval of demolition In order to approve the demolition of the existing single-family residence, the Planning Commission must make four findings (see Exhibit 5). The applicant provided a structural report documenting the condition of the existing house that was previously provided to the Commission (available in the project file). Extensive work would be required to repair and upgrade the house, including replacement of the foundation and lateral bracing system and framing improvements. The house would also need to be moved to meet setbacks from proposed lot lines. The applicant asserts that it is not economically feasible to relocate and save the house. Demolition of the house has not been raised as an issue at any time during the process. Timing of demolition work The applicant is requesting that the existing house be allowed to remain on the site during construction of the new homes on parcels 2 and 3. Staff has several concerns about this proposal. If the house were to remain on the site after the final map is recorded it will cross a newly created property line. It is standard practice to require buildings that will become nonconforming due to a subdivision to be demolished prior to recordation of the map. Allowing an exception could set a precedent for future projects. In addition, there will be greater construction impacts to Panorama Way residents if the site cannot be accessed from Union Avenue (see additional discussion on this topic on page 7). Lastly, if the applicant were to incur financial difficulty following the start of construction, demolition of the house could be delayed. While a bond could be required to cover the cost of demolition, it is time consuming for staff to pull a bond and have the work completed if the applicant is unable to complete the demolition work in a timely manner. Planning Commission Staff Report -Page 9 15928 Union Avenue/M-08-13, 5-08-30, 5-09-33, 5-09-34 June 9, 2010 If the Commission finds merit with the request a condition will need to be added that specifies when the house must be demolished. In that event, staff recommends that a bond or other surety be required for one and a half times the cost of demolition. F. Tree Imyacts The Town's Consulting Arborist reviewed the proposed subdivision and prepared a revised arborist report for the project. Seven trees are proposed to be removed including two Privets, and one each of the following species: Juniper, Deodar Cedar, Italian Stone Pine, Live Oak, and Monterey Pine. The tree removals are consistent with the Tree Protection Ordinance. Replacement trees will be required to be planted prior to occupancy of the new homes. Locations of new trees on Parcels 2 and 3 are shown on sheet C-1 of the development plans. The project will comply with all Arborist recommendations, including relocation of a storm drain and adherence to minimum setbacks from trees that will be retained. G. Construction Impacts Panorara Way residents are concerned about construction impacts including traffic, parking and the safety of children in the neighborhood (see Exhibits 13 and 14). At a minimum, direct access to the project site will need to be taken from Panorama to construct the cul-de-sac. If the existing house is allowed to remain on the property beyond recordation of the final map, all construction related vehicles would need to access the property from Panorama Way rather than Union Avenue. Union Avenue is an arterial and is more appropriate for primary construction access than Panorama. H. CEOA Determination As required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration have been prepared (see Exhibits 2 and 3). The environmental review was completed by the Town's consultant, Strelow Consulting. As part of this process a biology report was prepared by Ecosystems West, an archaeological review was completed by Pacific Legacy and an arborist report was prepared by the Town's Consultant, Arbor Resources. The public comment period far the Mitigated Negative Declaration ended on August 17, 2009. Protection of nesting birds is the only potentially significant impact that was identified. A mitigation measure has been included in the conditions of approval (Attachment 6) and in a Mitigation Monitoring Plan (Attachment 4). The Initial Study also included several recommended conditions that have been included in the conditions of approval. Planning Commission Staff Report -Page 10 15928 Union Avenue/M-08-13, 5-08-30, 5-09-33, 5-09-34 June 9, 2010 PUBLIC COMMENTS Neighbors have expressed concern about the proposed project at all previous public hearings and have submitted written documentation supporting their assertion that the proposed project is too intensive a development for the property and not compatible with the neighborhood. Neighbors have specifically requested that the Planning Commissioners visit their properties to view the story poles to have a better understanding of their concerns about visual impact (refer to Exhibits 11, 15 and 17). Neighbors are advocating a two lot subdivision with one-story homes. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION: A. Conclusion The three-lot subdivision is within the density range allowed by the General Plan, and complies with minimum frontage, depth and lot size requirements. The Commission should determine if the reduced right-of--way for the Panorama Way cul-de-sac is appropriate given the characteristics of the property and existing improvements. If found to be acceptable, the Subdivision application should be approved as outlined in the recommendation section below. If the Commission determines that the right-of--way should not be reduced, a full right-of--way should be required. The Commission should also decide which lot configuration is more appropriate and specify which Tentative Map option is being approved, and if the existing house will be allowed to remain beyond the date the final map is recorded. Staff supports option TM-2 as it provides more usable yards for proposed Parcels 2 and 3. If it is determined that revisions are needed to one or both home designs the Commission may approve the Tentative Map independent from one or Both Architecture and Site (A&S) applications for the proposed residences on Parcels 2 and 3. B. Recommendation As required by the Permit Streamlining Act, final action must be taken at this meeting. Staff recommends approval of the subdivision. The Planning Commission should take the following actions to approve the Architecture & Site and Subdivision applications: 1. Make the Negative Declaration (Exhibit 2); 2. Approve the Mitigation Monitoring Plan (Exhibit 4); 3. Make the findings for demolition of a single family residence (Exhibit 5); 4. Determine that none of the findings for denial of the tentative map can be made (Exhibit 5); 5. Approve Architecture and Site application 5-08-30 and Subdivision application M-08-13, subject to the conditions in Exhibit 6. 6. Approve Architecture and Site applications 5-09-33 and S-09-34, subject to the conditions in Exhibit 7. Planning Commission Staff Report -Page 11 15928 Union Avenue/M-08-13, 5-08-30, 5-09-33, 5-09-34 June 9, 2010 Prepared by: ` proved b Suzanne Davis, AICP Wendie R. Rooney Associate Planner Director of Community Development. WRR:SD cc: Jeff Grant, 39 Reservoir Road, Los Gatos, CA 95030 Cliff Bechtel, 245 Laning Drive, Woodside, CA 94062 Tony Jeans, T.H.LS Design, P.O. Box 1518, Los Gatos, CA 95031 N:~DEV\REPORTS\2010\Union15928-TM3-0609 f 0.doc THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 15928 Union Avenue WY ffiIBIT 1 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK TOWN OF LOS GATOS l.~vlC CENTER 110 E. Mnw $IREEC P.O. Box 949 Ixs GATOS, CA 95031 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION The Town of Los Gatos has prepared this Mitigated Negative Declaration for the following described project: PROJECT: 15928 Union Avenue PROJECT LOCATION: 15928 Unian Avenue (APN 527-42-008) APPLICANT: 217 O'Connor LLC PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project consists of demolition of an existing house and garage and a tentative map to create three residential lots. No plans for the new homes have been submitted, although a conceptual layout plan has been prepared that shows the proposed cul- de-sac, driveway and building footprint locations. An Architecture and Site approval is required for demolition of the existing single-family residence. If the subdivision application is approved, separate Architecture and Site applications will be required for each new residence. FINDINGS: The Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department has reviewed the proposed project and has determined, based on the attached Initial Study, that the project will have aless-than-significant impact on the environment with implementation of mitigation measures. Consequently, adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration is appropriate. An Environmental Impact Report is not required pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA). This environmental review process was conducted and the attached Initial Study was prepared in accordance with the State CEQA Guidelines. BASIS OF FINDINGS: The Initial Study finds that all potentially significant impacts that could be caused by the project can be reduced to less-than-significant levels with implementation of mitigation measures as described in the attached Initial Study, agreed to by the project applicant, and will be incorporated into the project plans and specifications. The following mitigation measures will be incorporated into the project design or as conditions of approval, to ensure that any potential environmental impacts will not be significant. Impact Mitigation Biological Resources: The removal MITIGATION MeasuRe 1: Avoid tree/vegetation of the trees and vegetation from the removal activities during the breeding bird and bat proposed project area may adversely season (January 1 to August 31). Conduct affect nesting birds and/or raptors or tree/vegetation removal activities after August and roosting bat species if they are on site. before January to avoid impacts to potentially nesting birds and/or roosting bats. If tree/vegetation removal cannot take place during this time, require a qualified biologist to conduct breeding bird surveys and roosting bat surveys no more than 15 days prior to project activities to determine whether nesting or roosting activity is taking place on the property. If nesting/roosting activity is observed, avoid active INCOILPOIZfiTED AUGUST ZO, 1857 ffiIBIT 2 Impact Mitigation nest/roost trees and structures until a qualified biologist has determined that any young birds have fledged or young bats are able to fly from roast sites. Coordinate with a CDFG representatives to establish an appropriate buffer zone around active nest/roosting trees and/or structures if work cannot be postponed until young birds and/or bats are able to fly. If nesting/roosting activity is not observed during the bird and bat breeding seasons, conduct tree/vegetation removal activities as soon as possible after surveys have been completed. PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD: Public review of the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration is from July 17, 2009 through August 17, 2009. Written comments should be submitted by August 17, 2009 to: Suzanne Davis Town of Los Gatos, Community Development Department 110 East Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95031 By: Wendie R. Rooney, of Community Development July 17, 2009 Date TOWN OF LOS GATOS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT INITIAL STUDY I. Background 1. Project Title: 15928 Union Avenue 2. Application: SOS-30, M-OS-13, ND-09-02 3. Project Loeafion: 15928 Union Avenue (APN 527-42-008); see Figure 1. 4. Lend Agency Name and Address: Town of Los Gatos, Community Development Department 110 East Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95031 5. Cantatt Person and Phone Number: Suzanne Davis, 405-354-6875 6. Project Applicant's Name and Address: Tony Jeans, T.H.LS. Design 7. Project Owner's Name and Address: 217 O'Connor LLC. 39 Reservoir Road Los Gatos, CA 95036 8. Initial Study Preparation: Stephanie Strelow, Strelow Consulting, 831-425-6523 9. General Plan Designation: Low Density Residential 10. Zoning: R-1:8,.Sing[e-Family Residential Zone (m;n;muln lot size of 8,000 square feet) 11. Other agencies whose approval is required (and permits needed): • Santa Clara County Fixe Department: Review and approval of site plans fox fire access • West Valley Sanitation District: Appxaval of wastewater collection service I[. Peojeci Description The project consists of demolition of an existing house and garage and a tentative map to create three residential lots. Proposed lot size ranges from 9,466 to 11,112 square feet, which exceeds the minimum 8,000 square feet required by the zone district. Access will be provided to two of the tots via acct-de-sac off of Panorama Way with a shared driveway to proposed Pazcels 2 and 3. Access to 15928 Union Arenue Initial Study 1 7/7309 E%HIBIT 3 ,; ~~ ,; r. ,.> Pazcel 1 will be provided off of Union Avenue. The tentative map includes a 20-foot wide right-of- ( way dedication along Union Avenue and right-of-way dedication for the new Panorama Way cul-de- sac. No plans for the new homes have been submitted, although a conceptual Iayout plan has been prepared that shows the proposed cul-de-sac, driveway and building footprint locations as shown on Figure 2. An Architecture and Site approval is required for demolition of the existing single-family residence. If the subdivision application is approved, separate Architecture and Site applications will be required for each new residence. The project application does not include specific development designs for hoses on the proposed lots. Specific development designs on proposed lots would be evaluated at a latex phase of project planning, as part of the Architecture and Site approval process. III. Environmental Setting The project 0.93acre (40,579 square feet) site is located in the northeastern porfion of the Town of Los Gatos off of Blossom Hill Road. The site is bounded by Union Avenue on the west and single-family homes on all other sides, which axe mostly two stories in height except for homes to the north, which are one story in height. Existing homes to the south are situated at a higher elevation than the project site and overlook the site. An f 3-lot subdivision to the south off of Leewood Court recently was built out in 1997. Homes across the street (west) on Lasuen Court were completed in 2006. , The project site is flat and consists of non-native grasses and a total of 16 trees, including 5 coast live j oaks. All other trees are non-native. One existing single-family home and garage exist on the project site. IV. Environmental Factors Potentially Affected The environmental factors checked below would be potenfially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages: X Aesthetics A icultuxe Resources X Air Qualit X Biolo 'cal Resources X Cultural Resources X Geolo /Soils X Hazards 8c Hazardous 1vlaterials X H drolo /SNater Quality Land Use/Plannin Mineral Resources X Noise X Po ulation/Housin X Public Services X Recreation X Trans ortation/Txaffic X Utilities/Service S stems Mandator Findings of Si 'ficance ~, i 15928 Union Avenue Initial Study 2 7/] 309 .-~ FIGURE 1 - Project Location WY 75928 Union Avenue Initial Study 3 7/13/09 J y"_~'~ FIGURE 2 - Proposed Conceptual Development Plan r- -: t%~ ~~ ~ ~ _ aidio3lla0 ~ ~'. 6FM110.9 `NY'15 Y.1~YV4 . : ECLLW Sp'I = ~ .. ~ ~~~ n ~ - a d ~ .+ f , 4 . ~fl~ . ~ ~ - ~ anrv.~vaoanrean N41d1NiN'<dONA3({=lYSn1d9JNOJ ~ t P 5 ~ v - ~ I § i 8 . a f~ 4 A _I~II~L f :~ - .LL LS `~ jl. ~B'S ~~ ~~L~ ~ a~ Y jatY3F ~ _~ o s,,°p , ~ - . ~:'~ _.i e' ~ ~ ~ ffi'ih-a , ~ ~; ~ t~EC~`f •s Y 'N. - F i'~,- _ _ -uE- _ ~ ~ .j - ° .~. 'J 9 ~n ~ ~.i ~` E ;~ F,9 , y ~ ~I ~~~ - -_ ~ u - - ~ . : ~ ~ _ ~.. F i ~: ~ ° 1 ~~ ~i ~615st 1 @~;~p^~ a` ~;.~'` - g3' U - - ~'~, ~w 1 {:. ..h {r ._, 5.~,,, ~_:.. 75923 Unian Avenue Inilicl Study 4 7/73/09 V. Determination (To be Completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effecton the environment and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be xe azed. X I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be re axed. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is re aired. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at ]east one effect I) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standazds, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the eazliex analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIIZONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must anal a onl the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an eaz]ier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standazds, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DEC[ARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that aze imposed upon the ro osed ro ect nothin further is r ' ed. Wendie R. Rooney, Director of TuIy 17.2009 Date 15928 1Jnian Avenue Initial Siudy 7/73/09 ~~. a VI. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Instructions: 1. A brief explanation is required (see VI. "Evaluation of Environmental Checklist Responses") for all answers except "No Impact" answers that aze adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question (see VII -Reference List, attached). A "No Impactr answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standazds (e.g., the project will. not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on aproject-specific screening analysis). 2. All answers must take account of the whole acfion involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulafive as well as project-level, induect as well as duect, and construction as well as operaflonal impacts. 3. Once the lead agency has determined that a pazticular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact' is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that. any effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determinaflon is made, an EIR is required. ¢. "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated: applies where "'); incoxporatlon of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant ImpacP' to ~.~. ~ a "Less Than Significant Impact" The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level. 5. Earlier Analysis maybe used where, pursuant to the tiering, program E1R, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier E1R or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: a) Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available far review. b) Impucts adequnte[~ addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standazds, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigatimi measures. Por effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated;' describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated oc refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project, 75928 Unicn Ar~nue Initial Study 6 7/13/09 `"~ 1. AESTHETICS Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Wiih Impact Mitigation Would the project: Incorporated a} Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic highway or scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? ^ ^ ^ ^ 17 ^ ^ ~ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ a-e) Scenic Views, Scenie Remurces and Surrounding Visa( Chmacter. The project site is located within a developed residential neighborhood. Views to and from the project site primarily consist of neighboring homes and landscaping. Limited views into the site axe available from the end of Panorama Way. The existing onsite residence along Union Avenue generally blocks views into the site from this vantage point. There aze no mapped or identified scenic views from surrounding public areas. However, a vegetated ridgeline is visible to the south of the project site from the end of Panorama Way. Existing residential development to the south of the project site is visible in the foreground of this ridgeline as seen from adjacent private properties. One public comment indicates that the hillside to the south contributes to the visual setting and character of the neighborhood. The Town of Los Gatos General Plan includes a policy that viewsheds should be promoted and protected (Policy CD.P.1.4) and that new sfructuxes that affect existing scenic views of neighbors be designed so all affected properties have equitable access to views (CD.P.1.11). The cut-de-sac design at the eastern end of the proposed subdivision would maintain the background views of the ridgeline from the end of Panorama Way. Thus, the project would not obstruct or remove public scenic views or vistas. Future constrnciion of homes on the project site may affect private views from homes to the north. However, these residences have partially blocked views across the project site of the distant hillside due to Eencing and landscaping, and the newer homes to the south that axe visible in the foreground. Additionally, the proposed project lots have been reconfigured from a previous 4-lot design to provide increased setbacks between building envelopes and adjacent residences to the north (Source VII.3Town of Los Gatos, February 2009). (See Figure 2.) Thus, the project would not obstruct ox remove public scenic views or vistas or views from neighboring properties. 15928 Union Avenue Inifiaf Study 7 7~73~09 \ Y \ Y rz...~a. The project will not result in removal of resources that would be considered scenic resources. A number of small trees will be removed and 4 trees that are subject to the Towns "Tree Protection' regulations. However, these trees axe located within the site and are not highly visible from surrounding areas nor aze they visually prominent The trees axe not unusual or distinctive in comparison to other landscaping and tree cover in the azea. Locations for tree replacement will be considered with the Architecture & Site Revie~n.~ applications. d) Viiual Effects upon Surrounding Area. The visual quality of the project vicinity is currently chazacterized by a mix of residenfial uses of varying age, style and size with a low, vegetated. ddgeline south of the project site that is visible from the end of Panorama W ay. Existing home sizes in the neighborhood range from 1,630 to 3,705 square feet and homes in the azea aze mostly two stories in height, except for one-story residences located to the north of the project site (Source VII.3 - Town of Los Gatos, February 2009). Impact Analysis. The proposed project willxesult in creation of three xesidenfial lots and future construction of three row hcmes that would be expected to be trNO stones in height and larger-sized homes. This would be consistent with development trends of recent xesidenfial construction within the neighborhood and similaz to scale and mass of xecendy constructed homes in the neighborhood. Thus, the project would not substantially degrade the visual chazactex of the area. This is considered aless-than-significant impact House plans have not be prepazed or submitted at this time, but conceptual building- footprints have been provided. Putuxe homes are likely to be two stories in height based on recent development trends in the area, and are likely to be of similaz size and scale as homes on Leewazd Court to the south. Homes range in size Erom 3,104 to 3,164 squaze feet. Homes on Lasuen Court range from 3,200 to 5,297 square feet. Future residences maybe larger than smaller homes to the north of the project site, but are expected to be similaz in scale to newer homes that are located to the south of the site and throughout the neighborhood. Furthermore, if the. subdivision application is approved, separate Architechue and Site applications will be required for each new residence. House plans axe not proposed at this time. Future detailed review of the size, style and siting of new homes will occur as part of the Axclutecture and Site review process at the time homes aze proposed. d) Light and Glare. The project will not result in introducfion of a major new source of light and glaze, although there will be exterior building and street lighting that is typical of the type associated with residential neighborhoods. One new streetlight is requved on the Panorama cul-de-sac. Design of street lighting would be directed downward, limiting the potential for adverse impacts on adjacent residences. In addition, the Zoning Ordinance {Secrion 29.10.09035) would prohibit the production of duect or reflected glare (such as that produced by floodlights) onto any area outside the project boundary. -Thus, the impact of new light and glaze from new residential development within an exisfing residential neighborhood is considered less-than-significant. ~, ~ 75928 Union Avenue Inifial Study 8 7/73/09 '""~ 2. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES In determining whether Impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Slte Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the Califomla Dept of Conservation as an opticnal model tc use in assessing Impacts on agdcultura and farmland, Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitlgafion Would the project: Incorporated a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or ^ ^ ^ ^ Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant fo the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? (Source VII.5) b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or ^ ^ ^ ^ a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes In the existing environment ^ ^ ^ ^ which, due to their location. or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? The project site is located within an urban residential neighborhood. The site is not designated for agricultural use nor aze there agricultural uses on or adjacent to the project site. The site is not designated as prime, unique or other farmland in the State Farmland Mapping system (FNIMP). The FMYII', operated by the California Department of Conservation, produces maps and statistical data used for analyzing impacts an California s agricultural resdurces. Agricultural land is rated according to soil quality and irrigation status; the best quality land is called prime Farmland. The maps aze updated every two years with the use of a computer mapping system, aerial imagery, public review, and field reconnaissance. The project site, as well as mast of the Town of Los Gatos, is designated "Urban and Built-up Land" in the State's Farmland Mapping System (Source VII.5 -California Department of Conservation, 2006}. The project site is surrounded by existing residenflat development. Thus, the proposed project would not rnnvert agricultural lands to other uses or have other indirect effects upon agricultural lands. 1592& Union Avenue Initial Study 9 T/13/09 rt~ ~~~ ~~' 3. AIR QUALITY Where available, the significance criteria established by the a pplicable air quality management or air pollution control district maybe relied upon to make the fallowing determinations. Potentially Lass Than Less Than No Significant Signhcant Significant Impact Would the project: Impact With Mitigation Impact Incorporated a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the ^ ^ ^ ~ applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute ^ ^ • ^ substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net ^ ^ ~ ^ increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds far ozone precursors)? ~°-~ d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial Q ^ ~ ^ "°'~ pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial ^ ^ ^ ~ number of people? (Source V11.4) a) Conformance with Air Qualify Plan. The project would be considered consistent with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District's (BAAQIvn) Clean Air Pian if population growth for the jurisdiction does not exceed the values in the plan as established by ABAG (Source VII.4 - BAAQMD, December 1999). The BAAQMD adopted the Clean Air Plan in December 2000, which is currently being updated, and adopted the Bny Area 2005 Ozone Strategy (BAGS) in 2005. The consistency of the proposed project with the BAOS is determined by comparing the project's consistency with the Los Gatos General Plan. Since the BAGS growth assumptiorvs for Bay Area communities are based on the Association of Bay Area Government's (ABAG) population projecfions and these projections aze based on the Town's General Plan land use designations and population projections, consistency with the General Plnn would indicate consistency with the BROS. The project would result in a net increase of 2single-family dwellings on the project site. This is slightly less than the 4 units that could be allowed by the Los Gatos General Plan. Therefore, the project would be corsistent with the BAGS. t, a 15928 Union Avenue lnilial Study 10 7/13/09 b) Project Emksions. The San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin, in which the project site is Located, is under the jursdicton of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). The District is the agency primarily responsible for assuring that national and State ambient air quality standazds axe attained and maintained in the San Francisco Bay Area. The District's jurisdiction includes aII of Alameda, Contra Costa, Morin, Napa, San Francisco, San iVTateo and Santa Claza Counties, and the southern portions of Solano and Sonoma Counties. State and national ambient air quality standards have been established for the following pollutants: ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfirr dioxide, fine particulate matter (PM10) and lead: Fox some of these pollutants, notably ozone and PM10, the State standards aze more stringent than the national standazds. 'T`hese pollutants are generally lmown as "¢Ttexia pollutants' (Source VII.4 - BAAQMD, December 1999). The principal sources of NOx and ROG, often termed ozone precursors, are combustion processes (including motor vehicle engines) and evaporation of solvents, paints and fuels. Motor vehicles are the single largest source of ozone precursor emissions in the Bay Area (Ibid). The basin currently has anon-attainment status for the state 1-hour and 8-hour ozone standard, the federal ozone standard, the state PMm and PMss standards, and the Eedera124-haul PMzs standazd. The basin is considered attainment for other state and national standards, except that it is unclassified for the federal 1'r~ho standard.' lmpacF Mafysis. The proposed project wffi result in demoliflon of an existing home and garage and creation of three single-family residential lots that would be developed with homes in the future. The project results in a net increase of 2single-family homes over existing conditions, which would generate air emissions through new regional vehicle trips. The proposed project does not have stationary emission sources. Increases in air emissions associated with the proposed project would not be considered significant since the size of the proposed project would not exceed the BAAQMD's project screening level. A project of 320 ox more single-family trips could exceed the District's threshold of significance for NOx (80 lbs/day) (Source VIL4 - BAAQMD, December 1999). The project's net increase is substantially below this screening level. Additionally, the District generally does not recommend a detailed air analysis for trips generally less than 2,000 vehicle trips per day (Source VII.4 - BAAQMD, December 1999), and the proposed project would result in a net increase of approximately 20 trips per day. Thus, the project would not result in a level of permanent emissions that would be considered significant ox substantially contribute to an exisfing air quality violation, and project emissions aze considered aless-than-significant impact Project construction could result in generation of dust and PM,o emissions. The project parcel is D.93 acres, and fuhue development of residences on the proposed lots would resrilt in surface disturbance. The BAAQMD does not require quantification of construction emissions, t Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 1 2/30/2008. "Ambient Air duality Standards & Bay Area Attainment Status." 15928 Union Avenue Inifiaf Study 11 ~ 7/73/09 t ~ ~,~ but outlines measures to be implemented Eor different types of construction projects that would substantially reduce PMto emissions. Given that site is relatively Ilat and less than an acre in size, significant grading operations are not anticipated, and resulting Plvlro emissions and dust is not expected to be substantial. Hov~ever, constn:ctien would cortribnte to existing nen-att~rrunent Levels of PMio, and thus is considered a potentially significant impact. With implementation of the m;n;mum measures for all construction sites (under 4 acres), the BAAQMD considers emissions from construction activities to be aless-than-significant impact (Source VII.4 - BAAQMD, December 1999). These measures aze included in the Town of Los Gatos Project Conditions and include or exceed the BAAQMD recommendations. Conditions are included for dust control, construction management, erosion control and NPDES compliance. Thus the project as conditioned would implement BAAQMD standards, and the impact is considered less- than-significant. No mitigation measures are required. c) ru:n_•fative Emissr_+!!s. Accox_.ixig to the BAAQMD's most current CEQA Guidelinesz if a project is proposed in a city or county with a general plan that is consistent with the Clean Aix Plan and the project is consistent with that general plan (i.e., it does not require a general plan amendment), then the project will not have a significant cumulative. impact (provided, of course, the project does not individually have any significant impacts). No further analysis regarding cumulative impacts is necessary. As indicated above, the proposed project is consistent with the Town of Las Gatos' General Plan, and, thus, the BAAQMD's Clean Air Plan (Source VII.4 - BAAQMD, December 1999). Therefore, the project would not result in cumulatively considerable increases in any criteria "'~ pollutant for the air basin has been designated non-attainment ~>,~~ d) SensNive Receptors. Adjacent residential uses aze considered to be sensitive receptors. The proposed projecE would not result in stationary emissions or significant vehicular emissions that would expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Temporary emissions during construction would include diesel particulate matter from constmction equipment. Diesel pazticulate matter is a toxic air contaminant (TAC), and following its designation as such in 1998, the CalEEomia Air Resources Board (ARB) developed a comprehensive strategy to control diesel particulate emissions. The "Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from Diesel- Fueled Engines and Vehicles'-a document approved by ARB in September 2000-set goals to reduce diesel PM emissions in California by 75"/o by 2010 and 85°/" by 2020. This objective would be achieved by a combination of approaches (including emission regulations for new diesel engines and low sulfur fuel program). An important Dart of the Diesel Risk Reduction Plan is a series of measures Eor various categories of in-use on- and off-road diesei engines, which are generally based on the following types of controls: • Retrofitting engines with emission control systems, such as diesel particulate filters or oxidation catalysts, Thee BAAQMD's CEQA Guidelines are Currently in the process of being updated. ~_ 75928 Unron Avenue Inihial Study 12 7/i3/09 ~" Replacement of existing engines with new technology diesel engines or natural gas engines, and Restrictions placed on the operation of existing equipment Once the Diesel Risk Reduction Plan was adopted, the ARB started developing PM emission regulations for a number of categories of in-use diesel vehicles and equipment. In July 2007, the ARB adopted regulations for in-use, off-road diesel vehicles that will significantly reduce particulate matter emissions by requiring fleet owners to accelerate turnover to leaner engines and install exhaust retrofits. The ARB does not have a speafic threshold of significance for diesel exhaust. Proposed project grading and construction would involve the use of diesel trucks and equipment that will emit diesel exhaust, including diesel particulate matter. Construction-related diesel emissions would be of limited duration (i.e., primarily during grading) and temporary, although residential uses are located adjacent to the project site. Given the relatively small size of the site and the limited and short-term duration of activities that would use diesel equipment construction- related diesel emissions axe not considered significant Furthermore, the State is implementing emission standazds for different classes of on- and off-road diesel vehicles and equipment e) Odors. The planned residential uses will not create objectionable odors and the use is not listed as a BAAQMD project for potential odor sources (Source VII.4 - BAAQMD, December 1999). 4. BtOLOGICAI-RESOURCES WOUId the pr'O]eCt: Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Mitigation Impact Incorporated a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly ^ ^ or through habitat modifications, on any species ~ ^ Identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or 6y the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b} Have a substantial adverse effect tin any riparian ^ ^ ^ ~ habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, pclides, or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally ^ ^ ^ ^ protected weHands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? 15928 Union Avenue lnifiaf Sfudy 7 3 7/73/09 "_ ~ ~' 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES VYould the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any ^ ^ ^ ^ native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wlldl'rfe corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances ^ ^ ^ ^ protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of ari adopted Habitat ^ ^ ^ ^ Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or slate habitat conservation plan? The vast majority of the site is upland habitat dominated by non-native annual grassland with scattered non-native trees and 5 small coast live oaks. A number of the trees are located along the southern fence line. Due to urban development surrounding the parcel on all sides, and high levels of disturbance including routine mowing for fire prevention, grassland habitat within the site is P"'~ comprised primarily of weedy, non-native annual grasses and forbs. The remnants of a small fruit 4 orchard is present immediately east of the existing residence and is comprised of black walnut, English walnut cherry, apple, olive, and pomegranate. Although these frees to not appeaz to be actively maintained, they continue to produce fruit a) Special Status Species. A biological review of the project site's resources was performed by Ecosystems West Consulting Group. Literature and special-status species databases were reviewed to identify special-status plant species and sensitive habitat types with potential to occur in the project site. Sources reviewed include California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) occurrence records, county occurrence xecoxds, and the California Native Plant Society's (GNPs) Online Inventory of rcare and Endangered UascuIar Plants of Californin. Plants. The review found that the highly disturbed non-nafive annual grassland and remnant orchard aze not suitable habitats for special status plants known to occur hi the vicinity of the project site (Source VILB-Ecosystems West Consulting Group, June 2009). Wildlife. The review of natural resource databases and literature resulted in finding no known occurrence xecoxds of special-status wildlife species within the proposed project site (Source VII.8- EcoSystems West Consulting Group, June 2009). Special-status wildlife speces known to occur within 5 miles around the parcel are listed in Table 1. i 15928 Unian Avenue Inifial Study 14 7~ ] 309 - Table 1. Special-Status Species Known to Occur within 5 miles of the Proposed Project Site Sixtus Species Scientific Name Federal/ State/ Other ., 15~ l.. _ v,1t -~. _ i h $ n ~ ` ' ~Amp ; w s`6nd Repfiles ~: ~ , ~ "; ,._ , _ California tiger salamander (Ambystoma cahfornTense) FT/SCE) CSC California red-legged Ixog (Rana draytoni;) FT/-/CSC Western pond turtle (Actinemys marmarata) _(-/ CSC S 81rds fnes-igg and/w winlenn4) - :: , s ' -" ~ r -` ~ '- ;: Westembvnowingowl (Athenecuxicularia) -/-/CSC;BCC Allen's hummingbird (Selasphorus Basin) -l-/BCC Nuttall's woodpecker (Picoides nuttullit) -/-/ BCC Oak titmouse {Baeolopleus inornatus) -(-/BCC ;=Mammals: , srz ~. ~ „t =a k - r.,. ~ t i~ , . _ p~ J~ Pallid bat (Antrozous paIIidus) _/_/ ~C; gp San Francisrn dusky-footed woodrat (Neotomafuscipesaxxectens) -/-(CSC Nn~m_ edeml (USFWS R009b,<,d; CDFG 2009x) Irt'= Listed as'"I'hieatened" under federal Endangered Spedes Act. (CDFG 2009x) SCE = State Candidate for being listed as "Endangered" under California Endangered Species Act. Iher. (CDFG 2009x; USFWS 20086; WBWG 1998) CSC = Considered a California "Species of Special Concern" by the California Department of Fish and Game; roosts, nests, rookeries, and wintering areas are recognized as significant biofic features (CDFG 21109). BCC= Species of migratory nongame birds that USFWS considers to be of concern in the United States because of (1) documented or apparent population declines, (2} small or restricted poptilations, (3} dependence on restricted or vulnerable habitats. HP = Considered "High Priotit}r' on the Western Bat Working Group's (4VBWG) Western Bat Species Regional Priority Matrix (1998) The California tiger salamander (CTS), California red-legged frog (CRLF), and western pond turtle (WPT) all require aquatic habitat in which to breed and forage as part of their life history. The project site does not pcovide any aquatic habitat within or adjacent to the pazcel boundazies. Thus, the CTS, CRLF, and WPT are not expected to occur within the project site due to the lack of aquatic habitat, 75928 Unioa Avenue fniNal Sfudy 15 7/L 3/V9 the distance from known locations of these species, and from surrounding dense urban azeas restricting movement between known occurrences. The properly does not ocatr with any federally designated critical habitat for the CTS or CRLF (Source VII.B -Ecosystems West Consulting Group, June 2009). The tree stands and the exterior of the current residence on the property do not appear to provide suitable crevices, cavities, or limbs to provide suitable roosting habitat for the special-status pallid bat (Source VII.B - EmSystems West Consulting Group, June 2009). Other more common bat species such as Yuma myotis (Myotis yumanensis), big brawn bat (Eptesicus fuscus), and the Mexican free-tailed bat (Tadarida brasiiiensis), may utIlize the tree stands or structures on the property to roost during their sprirtg/summer breeding seasons (April-September) or during their seasonal migrations in the fall and spring. California Depaztment of Fish and Game Codes provide regulatory conditions that protect non-game species, including special-status and more common species of bats and their roost sites (Ibid.). None of the birds Lsted in Tab1_e 1 were observed w. ithin the proposed project area of the parcel during spring site visits in March and May 2009. The trees on the properly lacked cavity features and snags for cavity-nest birds (i.e. Nuttall's woodpecker and oak titmouse) to utilize the site for nesting. The grassland area on the property lacked sufficient open, unobstructed habitat and fossoxial small mammal burrows, (e.g. California ground squirrel), for the western burrowing owl (BUOW) to occur on site. The scattered coast live oak trees, flowering plants, and fruit trees offer potential nesting and foraging habitat for the special-status Allen's hummingbird and a vaziety of more common bird species (Source VII.B -Ecosystems West Consulting Group, June 2D09). Further discussion of potential nesting birds is presented below in subsection 4(d). Four nest/house structures for the San Francesco dusky-footed woodrat were observed along the south side of the property, east of the current residence. This species is not federally ox state listed as threatened or endangered, but is identified by the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) as a "species of Special Concern" The majority of the nest/house structures were constructed in the dense blackberry thicket along the wall bordering the south side of the property. One nest/house structure occurred under a coast live oak tree near the south east comer of the property. Focused surveys to identify species occupying potential habitat for the San Francisco dusky footed woodxat (Neotoma fuscipes annectens) were conducted to determine if woodrats or non-native rodents [black rat (Rrtttus rattus) or Norwegian rat (Rattus noruegicus)] occur on the site. A trapping effort was conducted May 5-7, 2009 under a CDFGissued scientific collecting pemut. The trapping effort confirmed the presence of at Least one adult female San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat occupying the nest/house structures on the property, and trapping ceased upon detemtinafion of the woodrat's presence on the site. Impact Malysis. A small, apparently isolated colony of San Francisco dusky-footed woodrats is located within the proposed project site. The conceptual site plan shows that the proposed building envelopes and cul-de-sac footprints aze located outside of the woodxat nest areas. However, future construction and residential habitation may result ux removal of vegetation and loss of the individual woodrats inhabiting Hte site. It is likely that many existing small fruit i 5928 Union Avenue Initial Study 16 7~i3~09 ~~~~„' i trees currently providing resources for the woodxat colony will be removed fox future home construction and landscaping. The woodrat colony within the project may be a remnant of a larger popuIafion that has become isolated because of urbanization and recent development in the vicinity of the property. The project site is surrounded by a developed residential neighborhood. Due to the isolated location of the site from other suitable woodxat habitat and likely lack of genetic connection to other woodrat colonies, the potential loss of onsite individuals would not result in a significant impact on woodraf populations (Source VII.8 -Ecosystems West Consulting Group, June 2009). Thus, this is considered aless-than-significant impact. Thece is no nearby suitable habitat is available to enhance and to which to translocate the woodxat colony (Source VII.B - Ecosystems West Consulting Group, June 2009). Although mitigation measures aze not wazranted, after informal consultation with CDFG, the following Condition of Approval is recommended (Ibid.). RECOMMENDED CONDITION OF APPROVAL: hnplemerit the following: • In consultation with a representative of CDFG, a qualified biologist shall collect a genetic sample from the woodxat colony, • Woodrat nestJhouse structures shall be avpided as much as possible and as much woodrat habifiat and resources (blackberries, seed-bearing plants, fruit and oak trees) within the project site shall be retained as is feasible. Install a temporary exclusioir zone and buffer (10 feet m;n;mum is preferable) between the azea o4 disturbance and the wocdrat nest(house structures. Retain vegetation within the buffer area, and upon completion of construction, enhance the buffer between Parcel 3 and the southern property boundary and any additional available adjacent open space with native and fruit-baring vegetation that the woodrats may utilize for additional cover, nest construction, and/or foraging (e.g. Pacific blackberry and coast live oak). • If avoidance and buffering of the woodrat colony is not feasible, the applicant shall coordinate with a CDFG representatve to arrange for a qualified biologist to capture and relocate the woodxats to a wildlife rescue or living natural history museum facility for educational purposes. 6) SensiPiva Habirah. Sensitive habitats include riparian corridors, wetlands, habitats for legally protected species and CDFG `Species of Special Concern', azeas of high biological diversity, areas providing important wildlife habitat, and unusual or regionally restricted habit<1t types. Habitat types considered sensitive include those listed on the CNDDB working list oE'high priority' habitats for inventory (i.e., those habitats that are rare or endangered within the borders of California). No sensitive habitat types including potential jurisdictional wetlands or "other waters" of the U.S. or the state of California were observed on site (Souuce VII.B -Ecosystems West Consulting Group, June 2009). 75928 Unian Avenue Initial Study 17 7/13/09 ~-, ~ .:~ dJ Nesfing and Wildlife Movement. The scattered coast live oak trees, flowering plants, and fruit trees offer potential nesting and foraging habitat for the special-status Allen s hummingbird and a varieh~ of more common bird species. An aeflve western scrub jay (Aphelocoma californica) nest was observed within one of the coast live oaks near the southeast comer of the property. One large stick-nest structure was observed within one of the large trees in the front of the current residence, along the south side of the propertj, which provides potenntial nesting habita# for larger birds including captors, owls, and/or American crows. The property provides potential nesting and foraging habitat for a variety of birds and more common raptors and owls such as the red-shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus) and great horned owl (Bubo virginianus) (Source VII.S -Ecosystems West Consulting Group, June 2009). All of the special-status birds (Table 1) and their active nest sites and more common species of birds and raptors and nest sites aze protected under provisions of the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act. California Pish and Game Codes provide further regulation for all raptors and owls and their nest sites within the state {CFGC 2006). Impact Analysis. The removal of the trees and vegetation from the proposed project azea may adversely affect nesting birds and/or raptors or reest•.rg bats species i f they are on site. Given protection under federal law, the potential disturbance to nesting bird species is considered a potentially significant impact that can be Teduced to aless-than-significant level with implementation of the following mitigation measure. MITIGATION MEasutte 1: Avoid tree/vegetation removal activities during the breeding bird and bat season Qanuary 1 to August 31). CanducE tree/vegetation removal activities after August and before January to avoid impacts to potentially nesting birds and/or roosting bats. If ~` ' "`t tree/vegetation removal cannot take place during this time, require a qualified biologist #o °~,-.~ conduct breeding bird surveys and roasting bat surveys no more than IS days prior to project activities to determine whether nesting or roasting activity is taking place on the property. If nesting/roasting activih~ is observed, avoid actlve nest/roost trees and structures until a qualified biologist has determined that any young birds have fledged ar young bats are able to fly from roost sites, Coordinate with a CDFG representatives to establish an appropriate buffer zone around active nestlroosting trees and/or structures if work cannot be postponed until young birds and/or bats are able to fly. If nesting/roosting activity is not obseroed during the bird and bat breeding seasons, conduct tree/vegetation remoaal activities as soon as possible after survei,/s hnve been completed. Monitoring: The measure shall be included as a Condition of Approval The Applicant is responsible for hiring a qualified biologist to conduct pre-construction surveys in accordance with provisions outlined in the measure and sribmitting the report to the Town of Los Gatos Community Development Deparhnent poor to any ground disturbance or issuance of building permit. e) Tree Removal The Town of Los Gatos' consulting arborist, Arbor Resources, reviewed an azborist report prepared for the project and reviewed potential tree impacts of the proposed subdivision. It should be noted that the arborist report reviewed a d-IoE subdivision that was proposed at the time of the review, but the current application is Eor 3 lots. T'ne report identifies 16 trees on the project site that would qualify fox protection under the Towns "Tree Protection" regulations. These trees axe l I5°28 Union Avenue lnitiaf Sludy 1 S 7~13~09 '- mostly non-native landscaping and fruit trees, except far 5 coast live oak trees. The trees' conditions are rated fiom good to poor (Source VIL7 -Arbor Resources, November 2008). There are also numerous, small fnrit- or nut-bearing trees on the project site because they had hunk diameters less than 18 inches, and are, therefore, exempt from the Town's tree regulafions (Tov/n Code section 29.10.0970) (Ibid.). Section 29.10.0950. et, seq. of the Los Gatos Town Code calls fox protection of specified trees to "preserve the scenic beauty of the Town, prevent erosion of topsoil, provide protection against flood hazards and risk of landslides, counteract pollutants in the air, maintain climatic balance and decrease wind velocities. Removal of protected trees requires a permit from the Town Director of Pazks & Public Works except for specified exceptions and emergencies. Two ox more replacement trees aze required with variations in size based on the canopy size of the removed tree. Impact Analysis. The proposed subdivision improvements and future residential home construction would result in removal of 4 trees regulated under Town ordinances. Numerous smaller fnut nut and oak trees also would be removed, which are exempt in the Town Code tree regulations. Tree removal includes a 27-inch pine located in the Union Avenue right-of- way and 3 trees located within the building footprint on proposed Pazcei 1. The arborist report found that removal of these trees conform to Town regulafions (Source VII.7 -Arbor Resources, November 2008), and replacement trees will be required as determined by the Los Gatos Town staff (ibid.). Thus, the tree removal resulting from project construction would not conflict with local ordinances with Town "Tree Protection" regulations, and tree removal is considered aless-than-significant impact. It should also be noted that since the azborisY report was prepared in November 2008, the project has been modified to reduce the proposed number of lots from 4 to 3 and reduce area of the cut-de-sac footprint, which results in retaining two smaller oak trees on the southeastern edge of the site and on the adjoining property. Additionally, the arborist report identified potential indirect damage to several ash trees on adjacent property to the north due to installation of a storm drain. Although mitigation measures axe not warranted, the following Condition of Approval is recommended. RECOMMENDED CONDITION OF APPROVAL: The Town's Consulting arbvrist shall review any recisions to the site plan and modify reconrmendatians as apprvpriafe. The applicant shall comply wffh all recammendatlons contained in the Arbor Resources report dated November 2008 and as cony be amended fallowing-review of the revised pions. O Ha6etat Plans. The project site is not located within the boundaries of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Com.--ranity Conservation Plan, Neither the project site nor the Town of Los Gatos is located within the study area of the "Santa Claza Valley HCP(NCCP" that is being i 5928 Union Avenue Initial Study 19 7~73~09 ~T~ ~r, prepared as regional plan between the County of Santa Clara, the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, the Santa Clara Valley Water District, and the cities of San Jose, Gilroy and Morgan Hill? 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES Would the project: Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Stgnlflcant Slgnlflcant Impact Impact With Impact Ivtitigation Incorporated a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the sign'fitcance of a historical resource as defined in 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to 15064.5? (Source VI1.9) c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? ^ ^ ^ e ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ • ^ ^ ^ ^ ~~..~ n) Mstwico- Resources - No Impact. The project site does not contain structures or other features that would be considered historical. The existing single-family home on the site will be demolished. While, the existing single-family home is an older home, it does not possess unique or distinctive qualities that would be considered historical The finish materials consist mainly of stucco and wood siding exterior walls and a sloped composition shingle roof; the btdlding consists of wood wall cerstmction, cenventienally framed roof rafters ?nd floor girders with concrete footings (Source VII10). Therefore, the project would result in no impact to historical resources. 6, dJ Archaeological Resources. A cultural resources review was conducted fox the project site by Pacific Legacy. The review consisted of cultural resources records and information research at the Northwest Information Center (KWIC) of the California Historical Resources Information System, consultation with the California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) and an archaeological reconnaissance survey of the project site. 7 ICF Jones and Stokes. August J, 2008. "Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan, P' Administratlve Draft." Prepcred for County of Santa Clara Planning Office. Online at http+//wwwscv-habitatplan.org. ( 75928 Union Avenue Initial Study 20 7/73/09 ~-- The investigation indicated that there aze no previous studies or recorded sites for cultural resources within the project vicinity, and there axe no indications of Native American cultural resources in the immediate project area (Source VII.9-Pacific Legacy, May 2009). The site survey found no evidence of azchaeological materials, although soils were only 10-20% visible due to grass cover. Impact Analysis. The review concluded that clearance for the project is recommended as no heritage resources aze lmown to be present in the project area, and no adverse effect to historic properties are anticipated (Source VIL9-Pacific Legacy, May 2009}. However, given the poor ground visibility, much of the ground on the project site could not be examined. Although ground disturbance from previous construction reduces the chances that intact azchaeological resources may be present unlmown archaeological resources may be discovered during construction. This is considered aless-than-significant impact. Because of the possibility of unidentified (e.g., buried} cultural resources being found during construction, the following condition of approval is recommended. Howe RECOMMENDED CONDITION OF APPROVAL. In the event that aYCF1t76010gical reSOnYees or human remains are accidentally encountered during catzstructien, halt alI construction within a 50-meter radius of the firul, notify the Community Development Director, and retain an archaeologist to examine the find and make appropriate recommendations. If fhe find is determined to be signfficanf, appropriate mitigation measures shall be formulated and implemented, in conformance with fhe prafocol sef forth in Public Resources Cade Section 21083.2. If human remains are discovered, the Santa Clara Counh~ Coroner will be nofifted Eo and provisions of Public Resources Code 5097.9&-99, Health and Safety Code 7050.5 wilt be carried out. If fhe remains are determined to be Native American, the Native American Herifage Commission (NAHC) wtTl be notified within 24 hours as required by Public Resources Code 5097. The NAHC wilt nofzfy designated "Most ]:ikely Descendents"who wild provide recommendations for the treatment of the remains within 48 hours of being granted access to the site. The NAHC wi21 mediate any disputes regarding treatment of remains. A final report shall 6e prepared when a find rs determined to be a significanE archaeological site, and/or when Native American remains are found on the site that includes background irefarmation on the completed work, a description and List of idenhfted resources, the disposition and curation of these resources, any testing, other recovered information, and conclusions. cJ Paleontological Resources. No unique geologic or paleontological features have been identified in Town plans and none were observed on the project sites during site visits. Therefore, the project 4vould result in no impact to these resources. 75928 Union Avenue Initial Study 21 7/ 13/09 ~,;.~.~ ~~.,,. 6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant Wlth Mitigation Incorporated Less Than No Significant Impact Impact a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death Involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as ^ ^ ^ ^ delineated on the most recent Alqulst-Prlolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? (Source: LY.16} Refer io Division of Mines and Geology . Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ^ ^ ^ ^ iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including ^ ^ ^ ^ liquefaction? (Source VIL2) iv) Landslides? (Source VIL2) ^ ^ ^ • b) Result in substantial sail erosion or the loss of ^ ^ • ^ `'~ topsail? ~ , > c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is ^ ^ ^ • unstahle, or that would become unstable as a result of the project; and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? (Source VIL2) d) Be tocated on expansive soil, as defined in Table ^ ^ ^ ^ 18-1-B of the Un'rform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the ^ ^ ^ • use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? a,c) Seismic & Geologie Hozards. The Town of Los Gatos is located within an azea characterized by moderate to high levels of seismic activity (Source VII2 -Nolan, January 1999). The principal faults in the area, the Sze Andreas, Hayward, artd Calaveras fatil~, have been responsible fcr several moderate to lazge historical earthquakes. The Sargent, Berrocal, Shannon and Monte Vista faults belong to a group of faults referred to as the southwestern Santa Clara Valley theist belt; these faults 15928 Unior. Avenue Initial S/udy 22 7~ 1309 ~ --- ~ aze considered potenfially active, although none (except for the southern end of the Sazgent fault) has been specifically linked with significant historical earthquakes (ibid.). Review of the Town's hazards maps indicates that the project site has a high potential for fault rupture, moderate potential fox seismic shaking, and very low potential fox liquefaction. No debris flow hazards or fault traces were identified for the site (Source VII2 -Nolan, January 1999) a The Town's Fault Map indicates that the site is located approximately 2,000 feet north of a mapped "uncertain" fault trace, 100 feet south of a lineation and 250 feet east of an area noted as having a concentration of coseismic ground deformation (Source VII.2 -Nolan, January 1999). The hazard maps were prepared as part of a geotechnical and seismic safety review conducted for the General Plan, which recommends that geologic investigations be conducted in azeas of high ground rupture potential fox critical and sensitive facilities and fox all development within 200 feet of a known active or potentially active fault trace. The proposed residences would be expected to be subject to strong groundshaking during its design life. Construction of the building in conformance to current State California Building Codes typically will provide a design to withstand seismic shaking. The effects of ground shaking can be reduced by earthquake-resistant design in accordance with the latest editions of the California Building Code, although some damage to structures may occur during a large eazthquake (Source VI1.2a -Nolan, 1999). b, d) Sorts and Erosion. A review of the Town s hazards maps {Source VII.2 -Nolan, 1999) indicates that the project site has a slight moderate erosion hazrsd and high shrink-swell potential. Impact Analysis. The proposed residences would be subject to soils consteaintswithout implementation of appropriate soil pxepazarion and engineering measures. As a standard project condition, the Town will require preparation of a soils investigation that will address any soil engineering constraints (including shrink-swell hazards) and specify criteria and recommendations for site grading, remova]/treatment of fill and expansive soils, drainage, foundation design, and other site and structural designs relevant to soils conditions. Assuming all recommendations of the required report are incorporated into the project design, no significant impacts from soil engineering consfraints would be anticipated. The potential far erosion is addressed below in subsection 8{f) -Hydrology, Water Quality. 4These maps are included in the Nolan geotechnical study (Source Vii.2l are dated January 77; 7999 and mdudei Seismic Shaking Hazards Map, Fault, Lineament & Coseismic Deformation Map, Fault Rupture Hazard Zone Map, Liquefaction Hazard Zones Map, Debrls Flow Hazard Map, Slope Siahlllty Hazard Map, and Erosion Potential Map. 15928 Union Avenue Initial Study 23 7/13/09 ~` y C; ~,, 7. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS Potentially Less Than Less Than No MATERIALS Slgnlfcant Sign cant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Would the project: Mltlgadon Inccrpcrated a) Create a sign~pnt hazard to the public or the ^ ^ ^ • environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the ^ ^ ^ ^ environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or ^ ^ ^ • acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of ^ ^ ^ • hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the ~~~ public or the environment? (VIL6) ,~_~ e) For a project located within an airport land use ^ ^ ^ ^ plan or, where such a plan has not been adapted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) Far a project vdthin the vicinity of a private airstrip, ^ ^ ^ • would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project areal g) Impair imptementation of or physically interfere with ^ ^ ^ • an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of ^ ^ ^ • loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with ' wildlands? {VII.1) 15928 Union Avenue Inetial StuJy 2A 7/73/09 -- The project site is not included on any Hazazdous Wastes and Substances Sites List (Source VII.6- Califomia Environmental Protection Agency, 2009). This was also aclrnowledged by the applicant in a statement to the Town of Los Gatos in 2008. The proposed residential subdivision and development would not involve the use, disposal or emission of hazardous materials that would constitute a threat of explosion or other significant release that would pose a threat to neighboring properties. The site location and scale have no impact on emergency response or emergency evacuation. The site is not located neaz an airport airstrip. The site is not located within or adjacent to a wildland fire hazazd azea as mapped in the Town of Los Gatos General Plan (Source VII.1-Town of Los Gatos, 2000). The existing onsite house and gazage structures are proposed for demoliflon as part of the project. If these buildings rnntain asbestos or Iead-containing paint demolition could result in airborne release of hazazdous building materials, such as asbestos fibers or lead dust. Proposed demolition would be remiired to comply with state and federal regulations for inspection and removal of hazardous building materials, including asbestos-containing materials and lead-containing substances, including clearance for asbestos removal from the Bay Axea Aix Quality Management District prior to issuance of a demolition pemut. Therefore, due to existing regulations, the potential for public health hazazds associated with the release of airbome asbestos fibers ox lead dust at the groject site would be considered less-than-significant. One public comment raised an issue regarding potential pesticides due to past agricultural operations. The existing single-family home was constructed in the 1940s according to information provided by the applicant (Source VII.10}. The project azea was developed with subdivisions. starting in the 1950s prior to the time that pesticides were used for lazge-scale agricultural purposes. The remnant fruit trees on the project site appear associated with residential uses and not commercial agricultural uses. Therefore, past pesticide use at the site is not expected to be an issue. 15928 Union Avenue Initial Study 25 7/13/09 "} x=-°~, ~.. ~ ~ ....;: i 8. HYDROLOGY AND WATERRUALITY Potentially ~essThan Less Than No Signifcant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation W`vuld the piG2ct: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter fhe existing drainage pattem of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattem of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result In flooding on- or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) OUierwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? ^ ^ ^ r a ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ~ Aye ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ( 15928 Union Avenue Initial Study 26 7/ 7 3/09 8. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Potentially Less Than Less Than No Sign cant Significant Significant Impact Impact Wlth Impact Mitigation Would the project: i) F~cpose people or structures to a significant risk of ^ ^ ^ ~ lass, Injury or death involving Flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure ofa levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow7 ^ ^ ^ ~ a) Waste Discharge. The proposed Belot subdivision and subsequent construction of single-family homes vrould rot result in discharges that would be regulated or potentially violate water quality standazds or waste dischazge requirements. Therefore, no impacts axe expected. 6) Groundwater. The proposed projecE is not located in a groundwater zone that provides domestic water supplies or a groundwater recharge azea. The project would be supplied by domestic water supplier. Therefore, no impacts to groundwater aze expected, c-e) Storm Dminage.. The project site is located within a developed urban azea. B~dsting drainage from the site is via sheet flow toward Panorama Way. Impact Analysis. The proposed project wt11 result in a net increase of two single-family homes with additional impervious surfacing. The increased runoff is not considered substantial or significant in relation to the surrounding uea urbanized and developed neighborhood. As required by State and Town regulations (and further discussed below), the projeM will be required to design a drainage system in which post-project runoff does not exceed pre-project levels. Thus, the project impact related to drainage is considered less-than-significant. ,f) Water Quality. The project site is not located adjacent to any creeks or water courses. The project site also is identified as having aslight-moderate erosion hazazd (Source Vu.L -Nolan, Tanuaxy 1999). The Town of Las Gatos is part of the Santa Claza Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program. (SCVURPPP) that has been issued a National Pollutant 13ischazge Pemrit (NPDBS} under the Clean Water Act for discharge of storm water runoff. The SCVURPPP is an association of thirteen cities and towns in the Santa Clara Valley, together with Santa Clara County and the Santa Claza Valley Water District that shaze a common permit to discharge stormwater to South San Francisco Bay. To reduce pollution in urban runoff to the "maximum" extent practicable, the Program incorporates regulatory, monitoring and outreach measures aimed at improving the water quality of South San Francisco Bay and the streams of the Santa Clara Valley. In 1990, fire Program received the first municipal stormwater permit in the nation from the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control board, 15928 Union Avenue Initial Study 27 7/13/09 k.~ ~` 1 ~,.. -._ wluch was reissued the permit in 1995 and 2001. )n 2001, the permit was amended to include expanded requirements fox controlling pollutants from new development and redevelopment activities (Provision C.3), which was further amended in 2005 to allow for phased implementation of new requirements (Source VII.lla - SCVIJRl'PP, 2008). As part of the NPDES pemut requirements, the Program produced (and updates) an "Urban Runoff Management Plan" and submits annual s~.~oxk plans and reports to the Regional_ Board. NPDES requirements include compliance with Provision C3, New and Redevelopment Performance Standards, including incorporating appropriate source control and site design measures and to design and implement stormwatex treatment measures to reduce the discharge of pollutants to the maximum extent practicable (Order No. 01-024 of the NPDES as amended by Order No. 01-119 and Order No. R2-2005-0035). Site design, source control and stormwatex treatment BMPs, including pesticide reduction measures, aze outlined by the SCVURPPP in its C.3 Stormwater Handbook. Stomrwater treatment BMPs include bioretention, infiltration, and media filter with absorption (Source VII.Ilb - SCV[JRRP, 2004). Impact Analysis. Project storm drainage could affect water quality, and grading could result in erosion if not properly managed. With the new cul-de-sac and street widening on Union Avenue, new impervious surfacing will exceed 10,000 squaze feet, and the project will be required to comply with NPDES requirements that require post-project runoff not exceed pre-project levels. The Town of Los Gatos staff has indicated that the preliminary level of detail that has been provided by the applicant is adequate fox a tentative map application in order to determine that the project can comply with NPDES requirements. Onsite detention and water treatment can be achieved through various means, including infiltration swales, pervious paving for driveways and/or mechanical structures that are placed underground. The location and type of treatment will be determined and approved by the Town Engineer. The conceptual plan includes a series of shallow gravel basins on each lot prior to discharge into a storm drain along the northern site boundary. Further details and calculations will be required and reviewed by the Town Engineer prior to issuance of any pemuts for future homes. The Town's engineering staff reviewed the preliminary drainage plan and found it to be an acceptable approach. The Town of Los Gatos has a standard condition of approval that requires prepazation of a Storm Water Management Plan that identifies souuce control measures and BMPs that demonstrate compliance with NPDES requirements. In addition to preparation of stormwatex drainage plan, the Town's standard "Santa Claza County Valley Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program Sheet" is regiuxed to be included in project plans. The Conditions of Approval fox the proposed project also include preparation and unplementaflon of an erosion control plan for interim and final erosion control. Thus, as planned and conditioned, potential water quality impacts would be considered less-tl:an- significant. 15928 Union Arenve Initial Study 28 7/1309 'a,,,~ i r, d, g-hJ Flood Hazards. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEIvIA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps for the Town of Los Gatos do not extend to the project area. The project site is not located within a FEMA-mapped 100-year fIoodplain (Source VII.1-Town of Los Gatos, 2000}. 9. LAND USE AND PLANNING Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Signifcant Significant Impact impact Wilh Impact Mitigation Would the project: Incorporated a) Physically divide an established community? ^ ^ ^ ~ 6) Conflict wifh any applicable land use plan, policy, or ^ ^ ^ ~ regulation of an agency with jurisdiction aver the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicahle habitat conservation ^ ^ ^ plan or natural community conservation plan? The project site is located witlvxt a developed residential neighborhood and represents urban ndiIl development The Los Gatos General Plan designates the project site as "Loco Density Residential," which allows fox residential uses at densities of 0 to 5 units per net acre. The proposed density is 3.2 units per acre and within the allowable density range. aJ Division of an Estahlished Community. The project is a residential project that would be located within an existing residential neighborhood. As such, it would not divide an established community and no impact would result with implementation of the proposed project. Is-cJ Conflicts with Plam. Review of the Town's General Plan reveals that tl±e proposed project would not conflict with any appflcable policy adopted fox the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. There aze no habitat conservation plans or natural community conservation plans that apply to the project site. 15928 Union Avenue Ini#ia(Sludy 29 T/ T 3/09 =° 70. MINERAL RESOURCES Potentially Less Than Less Than Nc Significant Significant Signiflcan[ Impact Impact Wlth Impacf - Mitigation Would the project: Incorporated a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral ^ ^ ^ • resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the stale? (Source VII.1) b) Result In the loss of availability of a Iccally ^ ^ ^ • important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? The Los Gatos General Plan does not identify any regionally or locally-important mineeal resources on the project site or in its vicinity. 11. NOISE Potentially Less Than Less Than No - Significant Signiflcant Significant Impact impact With impact Mitigation Would the project result in: Incorporated a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? (Source VIL1) b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbome vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing withcut the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels In the project vicinity above levels exlsiing without the project? t 5928 Union Avenue Initial Study ^ ^ ^ • ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ G • ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ...` !' 30 7/73/09 11. NOISE Potentiany Less Than Less Than No Sign cant Significant Signlflcant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation Would the project result In: Incorporated e) Far a project located within an airport land use ^ ^ ^ ^ plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive neise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of an airstrip, would ^ ^ ^ the project expose people residing ar working in the project area to excessive noise levels? a-6J Exposure to Noise. The project site is located within a developed residential neighborhood. According to the Town's General Plan, the area along Blossom I-lill Road is subject to noise leve]s of 605 decrbels, Ldn, but the project site is outside this area. ProjeM residents axe not expected to be subjected to noise levels that exceed standards fox residential developments. c} Permanent Noise Increases. Puture residential development would not result in creation of a substantial new noise source as the site is currently developed with a residential use within a developed residential neighbonc~od. The net increase of two residential units wouldnot involve uses or activities that would result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels. Noise increases associated with the project would result from residential activities on the project site as well as from traffic increases assocated with the project. Noise generated by project residential activities would be similar to noise generated by adjacent or neazby residential uses and would not conflict with the existing residential noise environment in the neighborhood. Increased traffic would be minor and would not be of the volume that would significantly ox measurably increase ambient noise levels in the project vicinity. d} Temparar/ N:ke !ncrooses. The Town Noise Ordinance (Chapter 16) restricts construction activities to the hours of 8:00 am. to 8:00 p.m. on weekdays and 9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. on weekends and holidays. This ordinance also Iimits construcion noise to 85 dBA at the property line ox 85 dBA at 25 feet !mpact Malysis. Project construction would result in temporary short-term noise increases due to the operation of heavy equipment. Construction noise sources range from about 82 to 90 dBA at 25 feet fox most types of consfiuction equipment, and slightly higher levels of about 44 ro 97 dBA at 25 feet for certain types of earthmoving and impact equipment. If noise controls are installed on construction equipment, the noise Levels could be reduced to 80 to 85 dBA at 25 feet, depending on the type of equipment. With controls, construction noise levels could be made to comply with the Town Noise Ordinance. i 5928 Unian Avenue Initial Study 3 i 7/13/09 ieeissa~ ~_. l . )~ ~ 9 Residential uses are generally considered to be noise-sensitive uses or sensitive receptors. Significant construction noise IeveIs would only occur fox a short period when grading equipment is operating immediately adjacent to these homes, not during the entire project construction period. Construcfion-related noise increases could be significant periodically, especially to residences immediately adjacent to the project on the north. Enforcement of time restrictions and noise level standards contained in the Town Noise Ordinance will be required as a standazd Project Condition of Approval. Thus, construction-related noise is considered ales-than-significant impact. 12. POPULATION AND HOUSING Would the project: Potentially Sign cant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Lessrnan Slgniflcant Impact No Impact a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, ^ ^ • ^ either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, ^ ^ ^ ^ necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, ^ ^ ^ • necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? The project would replace one existing residential unit with three single-family homes, resulting in a net increase of two residential units could generate approximately 16 new residents. The project's net addition of 5-6 persons, which would not represent substantial population growth compared to the Towns current population of 30,296 (as indicated by the California Depaztment Finance). The additional population would be within the Towns 2005 population estimate of 35,700 as projected by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). Such increases in population also would be within ABAG's projected five percent growth rate between 2000 and 2015, and would not represent a significant increase in local or regional populafion. Project population increases are not considered substantial, and since surrounding lands are already developed, the project would not be considered growth-inducing. Although ore e;cisting older home on the project site w~71 be demolished, three new homes will be constructed. 15928 Unian Avenue Initial Sfudy 32 713/09 `1 l ~~ .~ (, 13. PUBLIC SERVICES I=otenUaliy Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation Would the project result in: Incorporated Substantial adverse physical Impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered govemmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause signifwant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, eesponse times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a) Fire protection? Q ~ ~ ~ b) Police protection? p ~ ~ ~ c) Schocls? ~ ~ ~ ~ d) Parks? ~ ~ ~ ~ e) Other public facilities? p ^ ~ ~ (e-61 Fve and Police Prorecfion Services. Services have been provided to the existing residential unit on the project site. The project would sot significantly increase demand for public services since services axe already provided to the existing use on the site and other development in the project vicinity. As infilI development the project will have no measurable effect on existing public services in that the increase will not require expansion or construction of new facilities tox services that serve the project. The Santa Clara Fire Department has reviewed the proposed site plan for site access and fire Ilows, and the project appears to meet department specifications with implementation of conditions regazdmg access and installation of fire hydrants Thus, the proposed project would not result in significant impacts to fire and police protection services. c Schaofs. The proposed project would result in a minor increase local population with a net increase of two residential units. This will result in a minor increase in student enrollments in all grades in the Los Gatos Union School District and Los Gatos-Saratoga Union High School District. According to District staff,6 all schools sexvixtg the project axe at or close to capacity, although there is additional capacity within the Los Gatos Union School District at other schools within the district. sSanta Clara Couniy Fire Department, Development Review Comments, 75928 Union Avenue, Plan Review Number 08 3203, File Number M-OB-013. November 13, 2008. - a Donna Dorsey, Los Gatos Union School District and Jane Marashian, Los Gatos-Saratoga Union High School District, personal communicotion, February 2009. 75928 Union Avenue Initial Study 33 7/13/09 ~. ~r -°'_ The project applicant will be required to pay a "developer fee' that goes to the School Districts to . offset potential additional costs associated with school facilities. The projects contribution of school- aged cluldren is expected to be minhnal due to minor increase of two single-family homes. This level of increased enxolhnent is not expected to result in substantial adverse physical impacts to existing schools or result in the need for construction of a new school facility that could result in additional environmental impacts- Thus, the project would no± result in significant impacts to existing school facilities. The school districts have initiated a joint demographic study to review student enrollment and projections for the future. d Avrks. See discussion that follows below imdex section 14-Recreaflon, regazding the projects impact on local pazks. 14. RECREATION Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Wifh Impact Mltigatlon Would the project: Incorporated a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and ^ ^ ^ ^ regional parks or other recreatienal facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or ^ ^ ^ ^ require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? The proposed net addition of two residential units would add approximately 5-6 persons to the azea, and thereby incrementally increase demand for recreational facilities. The projects incremental population increase is not considered significant given the small number in relation to the remaining citywide population, and the population increase would not result in use that would result in a substantial deterioration of facilities. The project is close to existing recreational facilities such as Blossom Hill Paxk as well as the nearby Vasona Lake County Park i 75?28 Union Avenue Initial Study 34 7/13/09 -- 15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC Would the project: Pofentlally Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Slgniflcant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantia[ in ^ ^ ^ ^ relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result In a substantial increase In either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? ^ ^ ^ ^ c) Result in a change in air Traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e,g., farm equipment)? e} Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Result in inadequate parfiing capacity? g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ aJ ira/fic. The project site is located off of the Union Avenue /Blossom Hill intersection. The Towri s Traffic impact Policy (Resolution 1991-174) specifies that a project with a traffic impact of 19 or less additional AM or PM peak hoot trips could be approved without a comprehensive traffic report if it is determined that the benefits of the project to the Town would outweigh the impact of increased traffic. However, the project would be subject to payment of a traffic mitigation fee. The proposed project would result in a net increase of 20 trips per day with approximately 2 trips during the AM and PM peak hours. According to the Town's traffic determutation; traffic generated by the proposed project would represent a minor impact and no additional traffic studies would be required. This number of increased trips from the project site would not have a measurable or significant impact on traffic operations at vicinity intersections. 15928 Union Avenue Initial Study 35 7/73/09 ...;:~ s:.;£ ~_.~ ~. ~ _. d-e) Access. The proposed project includes a cut-de-sac onto the site from Panorama Way. The Santa Claza County Fire Department has conducted a development review of the project plans and provides specific design requirements Eor the proposed private access road. The Town and Fire Department will review the proposed private roadway design to ensure that it conforms with their respective requirements. 76. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Potentially I_essThan Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact tmpact With Impact Mitigation Would the project: Incorporated a) Exceed wastewater Usatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater Veatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? ^ [~ ® ^ D ^ ^ ^ c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existirg facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project That it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in additien to the provider's existing commitments? fl Be served by a landfill ~r~ith sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? ^ ^ ^ ^ ~ .~~ ^ ^ ^ ^ C ^ C e ^ ^ r ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ 15928 Union Avenue initial Study 36 ~ 7/73/09 -- Utilities aze currently provided to existing development on the project site. Utilities and service system operators indicated that no major off-site utility improvements are expected to be required. The project applicant wt11 be required to install one public fire hydrant on-site, and other utilities (electrical, gas, telephone, cable TV, storm drainage facilities) will be upgraded as necessary. (a, b. el Wastewater Col(eciian and Treatment, Wastewater collection to the Town of Los Gatos and the project site is provided by the West Valley Sanitation District. The District provides sewer maintenance, repair and rehabilitation throughout its service area, as well as storm drain maintenance. Wastewater treatment is provided at the San Jose(Santa Clara Water Pollution Control Plant that serves over 1.5 million people. Treated wastewater is faz less than the plant's capaaty according to a background report prepazed as part of the Town's General Plan update. (b, df Water Sapply. Water Service is provided by the San Jose Water Company. The Company's water supplies aze comprised of groundwater, imported surface water, and surface water collected in the Santa Cruz Mountains, According to Water Company staff, adequate water supply and infrastruchrre capacity exists to serve the project azea.s (11 Solid Waste Disposal. Solid waste collection and recycling service fo the project site is provided by West Valley Collection & Recycling.l2efuse is disposed at the Guadalupe Landfill, located in the City of San Jose. According to recent Santa Claza County reviews as required by the State of California, this landfill had a rema;n;ng 1 ffe of approximately 25 years 9 76. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNFICANCE Does the project: Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated a) Have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare ar endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Q ^ ^ ^ ' Design, Community and Environment. February 72, 2009. "Town of Los Gatos General Pian Update Background Report. s Jtm Bariteau, San Jose Water Company ,personal communication, February 2009. County of Santa Clara. August 22, 2007. °Five-Year CIWMP/RAIWMP Review Report,' submitted to California Integrated Waste Management Board. 15928 Union Avenue Initial Study 37 7/ 13/09 L > ~.. e 16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF Potentially Less Than Less Than No SIGNFICANCE Significant Significant Signficant Impact Impact With Impact Does the project: Mitigation Incorporated b) Have Impacts that are individually limited, but ^ ^ • ^ cumulatively considerable? ("Curnulatlvely considerable" mearis that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projecis, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects?) c) Have environmental effects which will cause ^ ^ ^ ~ substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? As discussed in this Initial Study, the proposed project will not result in significant impacts to biological or cultural resources, is of a limited scale and will not degrade the quality of the environment or result in significant biological or cultural impacts. No environmental impacts have been identified which would have direct or induect adverse effects on human beings. There are two small residential projects in the Union Road/Blossom Hill Road area, but there are no i' . "~ significant cumulative impacts. A recent traffic study Eotmd no significant teaffc impacts with -.~ cumulative projects in the general azea (Source VII.12 - TJKM, August 2008). Cumulative global climate change impacts aze addressed below. Global Climate Choage. The subject of global climate change has gained increasing statewide, national and international attention. Reports released by the State of California indicate that climate change cotdd have profound .impacts on Califomias water supply and usage in addition to other environmental and ecosystem effects. In the recent report prepazedby the Califomia Climate Change Center, "Our Changing Climate: Assessing the Risks to California" (2006), the state's top scientists consider global warming to be a very seriotis issue requiring changes in resource, water supply and public health management. Natural processes and human activities such as fossil fuel combustion, deforestation and other changes in land use are resulting in the acctunulation of greenhouse gases (GHGs) such as carbon dioxide (COz) in the atmosphere. An increase in GHG emissions is said to result in an increase in the earth's average surface temperature, commonly referred to as global wamtatg, which is expected to affect weather patterns, average sea level, ocean acidification and precipitation xates10 10 Jones & Stokes August 2007. "Addressing Climate Change in h1EPA and CEQA Documents." l 15928 Union Avenue Initial Study 38 7/73/09 ~-- California is a substantial contrthutor of global greenhouse gases, emitting over 400 million tons of cazbon dioxide (COz) a year.lr Greenhouse gases aze global in their effect. Because primary greenhouse gases have a Iong lifetime in the atmosphere, accumulate over time, and axe generally well Waxed, their impact on the atmosphere is mostly independent of the point of emission. Although GHG emissions are not currently addressed in federal regulations, the State of California recently passed the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB32), which seeks to reduce GHG emission generated by California. The Governor's Executive Order S-3-OS and AB 32 (Health & Safety Code, § 38501 et seq.) both seek to achieve 1990 emissions levels by the yeaz 2020. Executive Order 5-3-05 goes even further than AB 32, and requires that by 2050 California's GHG emissions be BO% below 1990 levels. AB 32 defines GHGs to include cazbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrocarbons, perfluoxocarbons and sulfur hexafluoxide. The California Air Resources Board (GARB) is the lead agency for implementing AB32. GARB identified 36 "eazly actions to mitigate climate change in California" in Apri12007 as xequued by AB 32. These actions relate to low cazbon and other fuel standards, improved methane capture at landfills, agricultural measures, reduction of hydrocarbons and perfluorocazbonds from specified industries, energy efficiency, and a variety of transportation-related actions. Irx accordance with provisions of AB 32, GARB has completed a statewide Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Inventory that provides estimates of the amount of GHGs emitted to, and removed from, the atmosphere by human activities within California.. The inventory includes estimates for carbon dioxide (C02), methane (CH4), nfhous oxide (N20), sulfur hexaIluoride (SF6), hydrofluorocazbons (HFCs) and perfluoxocazbons (PFCs), which often axe refereed to as the "six Kyoto gases." `The current GHG Inventory covers years 1990 to 2004. Based on review of this inventory, in December 2007 CARE approved a 2020 emissions limit of 427 million metric tons, which is equivalent to the 1990 emissions level. A preliminary estimate of approximately 600 million metric tons has been estimated for 2020 without reductions. However, the preliminary numbers indicate that the difference between 1990 emissions level and ARB's preliminary estimate fox 2020 emissions is 172 million metric tons (Source VII_13f). ht accordance with requirements of AB32, a Scoping Plan was released in October 2008 and adopted by GARB in December 2008. Key elements for reducing the states greenhouse emissions to 1990 Ievels by 2020. include: • Expanding and strengthening existing energy efficiency programs as well as building and appliance standazds; • Achieving a statewide renewables energy mix of 33 percent; • Developing a California cap-and-trade program that ]elks with other Western Climate Initiative partner programs to create a regional market system; • Establishing targets for transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions for regions throughout California, and pursuing policies and incentives to achieve those targets; a • Adopting and implementing measures pursuant to existing State laws and policies, I i Air Resources Board 1990 to 2004 State Inventory (November 2007). 15928 Union Avenue Initial Study 39 713/09 ~``~,~ ~.. (..,. including California's dean caz standards, goods movement measures, and the Low Carbon fuel Standard; and Creating targeted fees, induding a public goods charge on water t~se, fees on high global warning potential gases, and a Eee to fund the administrative costs of the State's long- term commitment to AB 32 implementation (Source V.13e). The Scoping Plan identifies 18 emissions xeducfion measuues that address cap-and-trade programs, vehicle gas standazds, energy effidency, low cazbon fuel standazds, renewable energy, regional transportation-related greenhouse gas targets, vehide efficiency measures, goods movement, solar roofs program, industrial emissions, high speed rail, green building strategy, xecyding, sustainable forests, water and air (Source V.13e). Final CARB regulations aze not due until January 1, 2011, and will not be operafive until January 1, 2012. By the Eonner date, CARB must adopt "greenhouse. gas emissions limits and emissions reductions measures ... to achieve the maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective reductions in greenhouse gas emissions in furtherance of achieving the statewide greenhouse gas emissions limitj.]" (Health & Safety Code, § 38562(x).) Cumularve Impacf Analysis. Global dimate change impacts are a result of cumulative emissions from human activities in the region, the state and the world. Cumulative developmenE and growth in the area would contribute primarily indirect emissions of GHGs that in conjunction with other global emissions, would' contribute to global dimate change. Given international concerns and the state of California's recent laws and indication of the serious nature of this issue, cumulative impacts related fo global dimate change are considered significant. Cumulative development and growth in the project region would primarily contribute indirect emissions of GHGs, which in conjunction with other global emissions, would contribute to global climate change. The proposed project's incremental .increase in GHG emissions is not considered cumulatively considerable. It is expected that GHG enssions would be partially offset by the incorporation of energy and water conserving features and designs that would be required under City and State building regulations. Additionally, the proposed project will replace an existing older structure khat will be subject to stricter building code requirements than were in effect when the existing structure was constructed. The net increase of two residenfial units would not be considered cumulatively considerable given the small amounE of emissions in comparison to state and global emissions. Furthermore, the project was formerly rated with a high score xegazding its "green' rating.'v Therefore, the project's incremental effect on global climate change would not be cumulatively considerable, and no further analysis or quantification of GHG emissions was deemed warranted. ~z Build It Green. June 24, 2008. Letter to Town of Los Gatos Planning Commission. 1 1592A Union Avenue Initicl 5ludy 40 7/13/09 ~ - VII. Source References 1. Town of Los Gatos. July 2000.~Town of Los Gatos General Plan 2000. Z. Nolan Associates. Januazy 30, 1994. "Geotechnical and Seismic Safety Element Working Paper, Town of Lost Gatos, Genexai Plan Update. Prepared for Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates. 3. Town of Los Gatos. Planning Cornnussion Staff Report. Meeting Date: February 25, 2009, Item 2. 4. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). December 1999. BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines -Assessing the Air Qualihj Impacts ofPrajects and Plans. 5. California Depaztment of Conservation. 2007 "Farmland Mapping & Monitoring Program." htto~/Iwww.conservation ca aov/dlro/fmmo/Pao s/index asox 6. California Environmental Protection Agency. 2009. "Cortese List Data Resources." httro:!/www calepa,ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/default htm 7, Arbor Resources. November 18, 2008. "A Tree Inventory and Review of a Proposed Thxee- Lot Subdivision at 15925 Union Avenue, Los Gatos, California," 8. Ecosystems West Consulting Group. June 5, 2009. "Biotic Assessment for the Proposed Development of 15928 Union Avenue, Los Gatos, Santa Claza County, California (APN 527- 42-008}. 9. Pacific Legacy. May 22, 2004. "Archaeological Report for 15928 Union Avenue, Los Gatos, CA." 10. RC Consulting Engineers, Inc. January 23, 2009. Letter to Town of Los Gatos regarding structural elements of Ehe existing onsite home. 11. Santa Claza Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program. a) November 2008. "Executive Summary _ FY 2007-2008 Annual Repotd." b) May 2004. C.3 Stormwater Handbook -Guidance for Implementing Stormwater Regt~irernents far New and Redevelopment Projects and May 2006 "Updates." 12. TJxM Transportation Consultants. August 26, 2008. °Final Traffic Impact Study fox the Proposed Mixed-ruse Development at 15400 Los Gatos Boulevard In The Town of Los Gatos." 15928 Union Avenue Initial $fudy 47 7~ 13/09 $~ ~__ ~T C ~f 13. Global Climate Change References: a) California Governor's Office of Planning and Research. June 19, 2008. "CEQA and Climate Change: Addressing Climate Change Through Ca>ifosia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Review." b) California Governors Office of Plamwag and Research. April 13, 2009. Proposed SB97 CEQA Guidelines Amendments and Transmittal Letter Submitted to the Natural Resources Agency. c) California Aix Pollution Control Officers Associatioxi. January 2008. "CEQA & Climate Change." d) California Aix Resources Board. October 2008. Climate Change Proposed Scoping Pian - A Framework for Change.", e) California Aix Resources Road, October 24; 2008, "Preliminary Drafk Staff Proposal - Recommended Approaches for Setting Interim Significance Thresholds for Greenhouse Gases under the California Environmental Quality Act." f) California Air Resources Boazd. November 16, 2007. "Staff Report -California 1990 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Level and 2020 Emissions Limit" ~_~ }5928 Unien Averwe Initicl Study 42 7~13~09