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