2010050306 - Exhibit 5 - Initial Study
JUN 4 ~ 2009
INITIAL STUDY .TOWN O~ SOS GATOS
. PLANN{NG DIVISION
PLACER OAKS
PLACER OAKS ROAD
LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION GP-O7-Ol
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION PD-O7-142
NEGATIVE DECLARATION ND-07-143
( PREPARED FOR
• TOWN OF LOS GATOS
COMMUNITY .DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
110 E. MAIN STREET
Los GATOS, CA 95030
JUNE 2009
l
PREPARED BY
GEIER BL GEIER CONSULTING, INC.
P.O. Box 5054
BERKELEY, CA 94705-5054
510/644-2535
Exhibit 5
f
r
~~
1
TowN of Los GATOS
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
Project Title:. Placer Oaks.
General Plan Amendment Application GP-07-01
Planned Development Application PD-07-142
Negative Declaration ND-07-143
Lead Agency Name and Address: Town of Los Gatos
Community Development Department
110 East Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95031
Contact Person and Phone Number: Sandy Baily, 408/354-6873
Project Location: Placer Oaks Road (Figure 1)
Property Owner: Canyon Oaks of Los Gatos, LLC
1307 So. Mary, Suite 120
Sunnyvale, CA 94087
Project Applicant: Cupertino Development Corporation
1307 So. Mary, Suite 120
Sunnyvale, CA 94087
General Plan Designation: Medium Density Residential (5-i2 dwelling units per acre)
Zoning: RM:S-12, Multi-Family Residential Zone (5-12 units per acre)
Description of Project: The ±3.1-acre project site consists of three parcels.l The project applicant is
requesting: (1) a General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from Medium Density
Residential (5-12 dwelling units per acre) to Low Density Residential (0-5 units per acre); and (2) a
Rezoning from "RM:S-12PD" to "R-1:8:PD.""Approval of .the proposed General Plan Amendment and
Rezoning would allow construction of 9single-family homes. The "PD" zoning designation would allow
for reduced road widths and setbacks. Otherwise, standard requirements under the R-1:8 zone would be
met (e.g., minimum yards, allowable density, maximum building height, maximum lot coverage, and
parking).
Project implementation would result in the creation of nine residential lots and three additional lots for
undeveloped open space and the access road. A breakdown of these lots is as follows:
1 Parcel No. 529-14=073: 2.821 acres, Parcel No. 529-14-012: 0.23 acre, and Parcel No. 529-14-027: 0.009 acre.
I
JUNE, 2009
• ',
PROJECT LOCATION FIGURE 1
ti
~ ti: J,`
F•`,i.i_ .~_ .. Mfr - r ire r• ~•"•.
r• tr ~.-~.,~r~-.
-T'y ~••.s~': r'~.r~••~' ••.1'~. 101
Jose
~'I
9"~
~~ PLACER OAKS ~ NO SCALE 1 `.I
INITIAL STUDY_ PLACER OAKS
Areal Extent
Proposed Use in square feet (acres) % of Site
Open Space 91.,949 s.f. (2.11 ac.) 69%
e Private 3,387 s.f. (0.08 ac.)
- Publics (Lots A and B) 88,562 s.f. (2.03 ac.)
Street (Lot C) and Parking 23,749 s.f. (0.55 ac.) 17.8%
Building Coverage (Lots 1 - 9) 17.595 s-.f. (0.40 acJ 13.2%
Total 133,293 s.f. (3.1 ac.} 100.0%
NOTE: Lots A and B comprise 17,850 s.f. or 0.41 acre, while the remainder of this area 1s
comprised of the slope above Lots 4.8, and 9 .
Single-familyhomes would be constructed on nine lots, which would range in size from 5,214. to 25,567
square feet (s.f.). Two floor plans are proposed ranging from 3,480 to 3,625 s.f. in size (including garage);
all would be two stories with 4 bedrooms, 2'/z to 3%a baths, and two-car garage. A total of 46 parking
spaces would be provided on-site as follows: 18 garage spaces (nine, two-car garages), 18 spaces in
driveway aprons, and 10 on-street parking.spaces.
The project would include approximately 2.11 acres of private and public open space (69% of .the
undeveloped area). Of this, approximately 3.7% would be private open space., comprised of residential
patios and yards. Landscaping would be planted around proposed buildings as well as along the
northwestern project boundary adjacent to the freeway site frontage.
Access to the site would be from Placer Oaks Road via a proposed 22-foot wide private access driveway.
This access driveway would extend from the site's northeast corner at Placer Oaks Road and extend in a
southerly directly along the existing dirt road. At the base of the hill. (near the southern boundary), this
driveway would extend in the westerly directly to the western boundary, then northerly along the western
boundary. A sound wall on an earth berm would be constructed along the western project boundary,
extending up to approximately 14 feet high (top of wall proposed to be at elevation 319 feet).
Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The 3.1-acre project site is currently undeveloped. The project
site is located east of the Highway 17 freeway, north of Blossom Hill Road, and south of Placer Oaks
Road. The site is bounded by single-family homes and Placer Oaks Road on the north, the Highway 17
freeway on the west, as well as one single-family residence and apartments on Oak Rim Court (Blossom
Hill Terrace Apartments) on the east.
Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation
agreements): Caltrans.
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least
one impact that is a ".Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on thefollowing pages:
Aesthetics Agriculture .Resources Air Quality
X BiologicaLResources X Cultural Resources X Geology/Soils
Hazards & Hazardous Materials Hydrology/Water Quality Land Use/Planning
Mineral Resources X Noise Population/Housing
Public Services Recreation Transportation/Traffic
Utilities/Service Systems Mandatory .Findings of Signif icance
I
JutvE, 2009
i
INITIAL STUDY -PLACER OAKS
DETERMINATION: (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE LEAD AGENCY)
.. ....On the.basis_of ihis_initial _evaluation;_
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and
a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
X I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on fhe 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 ared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially
significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at Ieast one effect ]:) has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier.document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has
been. addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described. on attached
sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the
effects that remain to be addressed,
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the. environment,
because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR
or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuantto applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided
or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions
or mitigation measures that are imposed u on the proposed roject, nothin further is required.
r.,1 ,, -
i'
Wendie R. Roone ,Director of Co un evelopment Date
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL.IMPACTS
ISSUES:
Potentially
• Significant
• Potentially Impact Unless Less Than
Significant . Mitigation Significant No
Issues (and Su ortin Information Sources) Irn acr Into orated Im act Im act
I. Aesthetics - Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? X
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,. including, but not
limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings X
within a state scenic highway? •
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or X
quality of the site and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which X
would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
The western half of the project site is relatively level, while the eastern portion slopes steeply upward
toward the east, creating a 60-foot change in elevation between the western and eastern project
JUNE, 2009 4
INITIAL STUDY -PLACER OAKS
boundaries. This change in elevation combined with the existing tree cover on the south side of Placer
Oaks Road limit visibility of the site from adjacent areas to the north and east. Existing tree .cover also
1 limits views of the site from areas to the south. The State Highway 17 freeway extends along the western
project boundary, while residential development is located to the north, east and south of the project site.
Existing tree cover along the site perimeter and adjacent off-site areas combined with the 60-foot change
in elevation limit visibility of the site from adjacent areas. Views of the site from northbound lanes of
Highway 17 are mostly screened by an almost continuous tree cover that extends along the east side of the
freeway. This tree cover limits views to just glimpses of the site. From southbound lanes, this tree cover
limits views of the site to glimpses of the upper, eastern margin of the site and existing adjacent
residences to the north and east that are also at these upper elevations. As drivers .travel northbound along
this section of the freeway, it should be noted that views are predominantly of adjacent tree cover with
partially screened views of apartment buildings south of the site. Southbound drivers on the freeway also
view mostly tree cover, although roofs of single~family homes that are located north of the project site are
visible from these lanes.
The project would involve construction of 9 two-story residences on the more level, western portion of
the site, adjacent to the State Highway 17 freeway. Although existing trees located within the freeway
right-of-way would remain, proposed tree removal along the western project boundary to accommodate
the proposed sound wall and project development would increase visibility of proposed development. An
evaluation of views of the site was prepared by the project architect, Paragon, for the proposed
development and. submitted to the Town for review as part of the development application. Site sections
and streetscape views are presented in the development application. The streetscape from Highway 17
shows that the row of redwood trees proposed along the western project boundary would eventually
screen views of homes and the sound wall. However, until these trees reach sufficient size, the proposed
sound wall would be visible from the Highway 17 freeway, along with the upper floors and roofs of .
project homes. The proposed provision of an earth berm at the base of the sound wall would limit wall
height and provide area for landscape plantings along the berm. Although the project would result in
short-term changes in existing views from Highway 17, these views would be partiallyscreened by
mature trees located along the east side of the freeway (within the freeway right-of-way) and eventually
screened by proposed tree plantings.
Idlature tree cover on the sloping, eastern portion of the site combined with the 60-foot change in
elevation would limit views of project residences from existing residential development to the north and
east. Trees located off-site or along the eastern project boundary as well as fencing and backyards of
adjacent residences would also limit views of the project road from these homes, although some views of
this road could be available from residential backyards or rear windows. Existing tree cover on the
property that abuts the southern project boundary would continue to screen views of the project from
areas to the south.
The proposed project would~include exterior light fixtures on proposed residences and along the private
street, introducing a new source of light in the project vicinity Proposed lighting will be specifically
reviewed as part of Architecture and Site review. To help maintain ,privacy at adjacent residences and
reduce the potential for disturbance due to nighttime lighting, the final plans will need to satisfy Town
Code Section 29.10.09035, which prohibits the production of direct or reflected glare (such as that
produced by floodlight onto any area outside the project boundary).
In addition, as vehicles leave the site and approach Placer Oaks Road when it is dark, their headlights
could illuminate the existing residence to the north of the project street/Placer Oaks Road intersection.
Realignment of the project street westward at this intersection to reduce this effect was evaluated by
Arbor Resources, but it was determined that such realignment could result in substantial root damage to a
~~
JutvE, 2009
INrf IAL STUDY -PLACER OAKS
large oak tree, threatening. its long-term viability. The applicant retained a landscape architect to evaluate
t11is situation to prepare some possible designs for adding some type of screening on the neighbor's _
property.Z- _ - -- --- - - - ---- -- --_ _
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Impact Unless Less Than
__..._-- - -_--_ -__
Issues (and Supporting InformatiorrSources) - --Significant- _
hn act :_---Mitigation- --
Inco orated -Signifcant_
Irn act _.--No__--
Im act
II. Agriculture Resources -Would the project:
a) Convert .Prime Farmland; Unique Farmland, or Farmland
of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps X
prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency,
to non-agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a X
Williamson Act contract?
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which,. X .
due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use?
The project site is currently undeveloped, and the site's agricultural potential is limited by its small size
(3.1 acres) and surrounding. residential development. There are no existing agricultural uses/operations at
or near the site.
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Lnpact Unless Less Than
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources) Significant
hn act Mitigation
Incorporated Significant
Irn act No
Int act
III. Air Quality -Would the project:.
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable X
air quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially X
to an existing or projected air quality violation?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any X
criteria pollutant for which the'project region. is non-
attainmentunder anapplicable federal or state ambient air
quality. standard (including releasing emissions,. which
exceed quantitative. thresholds for ozone precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant X
concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number X
of people?
J
2 Email Communication from Rodger Griffin to Sandy Baily dated January I5, 2009 regarding the applicant's efforts to address ...r~
the headlight glare issue.
JurrE, 2009 6
INTI'IAL STUDX -PLACER OAKS
The project would be consistent with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District's (BAAQMD) most
.recently adopted regional alr quality plan, the Bay Area 2005 Ozone Strategy {BAGS). 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 BAOS is based on population projections of the Association of Bay Area
Governments (ABAG) that are based on the Town's General Plan in effect at the time the BAOS was
approved, consistency of the project with the General Plan would indicate consistency with the BROS.
Although the project would amend the General Plan designation from Low Density Residential (0-5 units
per acre) to Medium Density Residential (5-12 dwelling units per acre), the project would involve
development of nine residences on 3.1 acres and this density (2.9 units per acre) would be allowed under
either General Plan designation. Therefore, the.project would be consistent with the BROS.
The San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin is classified by the BAAQMD as non-attainment for ozone and
inhalable particulates (PM,o). The proposed project would generate 86 trips per day, 7 trips.during the
AM peak hour; and 9 trips during the PM peak hour. The proposed residential development would be
below the Bay Area Air Quality Management District's (BAAQMD) threshold levels for.potential
significance for residential uses.3 Therefore, air emissions increases associated with the proposed project
would be considered less than significant since the size of the proposed project would not exceed the Bay
Area Air Quality Management District's (BAAQMD) threshold levels for potential significance.4 The
BAAQMD threshold level for potential significance is 375 single-family units or 2,000 trips per day. At
or above this size, traffic generated by the project would have the potential to generate significant local
and regional air quality impacts, and an air quality impact assessment would need to be prepared and
submitted to the BAAQMD for review.
Adjacent residential uses are considered to be sensitive receptors. Proposed ,grading activities would
generate short-term emissions of criteria pollutants, including suspended and inhalable particulate matter
and equipment exhaust emissions. The project parcel is approximately 3.1 acres, but surface disturbance
would affect a smaller area, approximately two acres. The BAAQMD does not require quantification of
construction emissions, but considers any project's construction-related impacts to be less than significant
if required dust-control measures are implemented. The Town's standard dust control conditions require
implementation of the BAAQMD's standard dust control measures (required on sites of less .than four
acres), which would mitigate the project's construction-related air quality impacts to a less-than-
significant level
In 2006, California passed the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (Assembly Bill No. 32;
California Health and Safety Code Division 25.5, Sections 38500, et seq.), which limits statewide
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to 19901evels and establishes a goal of achieving these emissions
reductions by 2020 (representing a 25 percent reduction in emissions). AB 32 requires the California Air
Resources Board (GARB.) to adopt a comprehensive blueprint for limiting greenhouse gas emissions by
the end of 2008 and complete the necessary rulemaking to implement that plan by the end of 2011.
Pursuant to this requirement, GARB released their Proposed Scoping Plan in October 2008, which
estimates reductions from the combination of acap-and-trade program and a set of measures in the
transportation (emissions reductions), energy efficiency and conservation (solar and renewable energy),
and industrial measures (such as recycling and waste).
3 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 1996. BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, Assessing the Air Quality Impacts of Projects
and Plans. April.
4 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 1999. BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines. December.
JUNE, 2009 7
INITIAL STUDY -PLACER OAKS
Since the CARB has not adopted a methodology or defined quantitative thresholds that can be applied to a
• • specific development project to evaluate an individual project's contribution to GHG emissions
_ __ _ _(particularly,~or a_project as small as nine single-family residences, no_significance determination for the
proposed project can be made at this time. However, untilsuch time that a methodology is adopted and
mitigation can be applied, it is recommended that energy efficiency measures be incorporated into the
proposed building. to the maximum extent feasible. While the proposed building is required to comply with
--- - _
-- ~ ---
energy efficiencyxeq>.tirements of the California Energy~Code (Title 24,-Part 6 of the Califorrila-
Administrative Code), the Towri will also require completion of the GreenPoint Rated checklist during
Architecture and Site review process when proposed home designs are submitted (pursuant to the Town's
adoption of near-term policy recommendations from the Santa Clara County Cities Association Green
Building Collaborative in Apri12008).
To provide for future use of renewable energy, it is also recommended that solar access to the project
homes as well as existing adjacent structures be maintained to the maximum extent feasible. Since the
project site is located lower in elevation than surrounding areas to the east and proposed landscaping on
the upper portion of the site would be limited to shrubs (not trees), project residences would not shade any
.existing structures to the east. Shading is a design issue that is reviewed' as part. of the Architecture and Site
review process to deternune whether the proposed homes would shade each other or any adjacent homes.
Potentially
'Significant
Potentially Impact Unless L.essThan
Issues (and Supporting. Information Sources)
• signifIeant
Impact IVlitigation
Incorporated Significant
hn act No
L-n act
IV. Biological Resources -Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through ~ X
habitat modifications,. on any species identified as a
candidate, sensitive,. or special status species in local or
regional plans, policies;.. or regulations, or by the. California
Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and•Wildlife
Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any,riparian habitat or X
other sensitive,natural community identified in local or
regional plans,.polices, regulations or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
c) Have a substantial. adverse effect on federally protected X
wetlands. as defined by Section 404 of the Clean .Water Act
(including, but not limited to, marsh,.vernal pool, coastal,
etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other.means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native X
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors,
or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting X
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
JUNE, 2009
INITIAL STUDY -PLACER OAKS
r'
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Impact Unless Less Than
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources) Significant Ivtitigation Significant No '
Im act Inco orated Im act Im act
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat X
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan,
or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
The project site is characterized by oak woodland corridor on the periphery of the site while the central
portion consists of non-native grassland. The oak woodland includes primarily coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia) along with valley oak.(Quercus lobata); these oaks constitute 82 percent of the 95 trees listed in
the arborist's inventory. The potentially affected oak woodland occurs primarily on the western edge of
the project site, bordering the Highway 17 right-of-way.
The central portion of the project site is covered with non-native annual grasses; the proposed residences
have been planned for development primarily in the grassland area since this area is relatively level .and
best suited for residential siting. Non-native annual .grasses common to this habitat include slender wild
oats (Avena barbata), cheat grass (Bromus tectorum), barnyard barley (Hordeum murinum ssp.
leporinum) and Italian wild rye (Lolium multiflorum); while common non-native forbs include bristly ox-
tongue (Picric echioides), yellow star thistle (Centkuria solstitialis), Italian thistle (Carduus
pycnocephalus), and milk thistle (Silybum marianum). The grassland areas on the project site are disced
annually for fire prevention purposes, as required by the Town.
Special ..Status Plant Species. Based on the inventory of rare and endangered plants maintained by the
California Native Plant Society (GNPs), the oak woodland habitat on the project site has the potential to
support three special status species (CLAPS List 1B: "Plants rare, threatened or endangered~in California
and elsewhere"): Loma Prieta hoita (Hoita strobilina), western leatherwood (Dirca occidentalis), and
Davidson's bush .mallow (Malacothamnus davidsonii). The three species are generally associated with
mixed oak woodland or chaparral habitats. Site soil conditions and topography would not be conducive
for the support of these species. The closest recorded locations for these species include the Santa .Cruz
Mountains, the border of Santa Clara and Santa Cruz counties, and the Coyote Ridge vicinity in Santa
Clara County.
Similarly, five List 1B class species are associated with grassland habitat in the project vicinity. These
include: Mt. Hamilton fountain thistle (Cirsium fontinale var. campylon), Santa Clara Valley dudleya
(Dudleya setchellii), fragrant fritillary (Fritillaria liliacea), Metcalf Canyon jewel-flower (Streptanthus
albidus ssp. Albidus), and most beautiful jewel-flower (Streptanthus albidus ssp. Peramoenus). These
species are associated with serpentine soils and site conditions do not include such soil characteristics.
Based on these factors and the small area affected by proposed home development, the potential for .
impact on these species would be less than significant.
While no nests were observed on the project site, the proposed project would .have the potential to
adversely affect special-status bird species during the construction period. In order to minimize the
potential effects of grading on nesting birds, the following mitigation measure will be required:
1. If land clearing, grading, tree and brush removal, tree trimming or demolition activities are to occur
during the nesting season. (i.e., between February 1 and August IS), apre-construction nesting bird
survey shall be performed by a qualified biologist. The biologist should survey the area immediately
adjacent to the construction area for the presence of nests. This pre-construction survey shall be
conducted no more than one week prior to planned grading activity.
~,
,~
JUNE, 2009 9
INITIAL STUDY -PLACER OAKS
^ If nesting birds with eggs or young are observed during the pre-construction surveys, grading in
the affected project area shall not commence until after the young have fledged.
.~
^ If no nesting birds are observed, no further action is required, and grading and construction may
proceed, provided it commences within one week of the survey to prevent "take" of.individual
birds that may have begun nesting after the survey.
Tree Removal. Policy O.P.3.3 of the Open Space Element of the Los Gatos General Plan emphasizes
preservation of public and private landscaping along Town streets; The I,os Gatos Tree Protection
Ordinance states that the preferred tree replacement is two or more trees of a species and~size designated
by the Director of the Parks and Public Works Department. Tree replacement requirements are based on
canopy size, which is defined in Table 3-1 of the Ordinance, Tree Canopy- Replacement Standard. Tree
canopy replacement requirements range from two to six. 24-inch box size trees or two 36-inch and/or 48-
inch box size trees, depending on the canopy size of the tree to be removed.
During project construction, there would be the potential for damage to the oak trees that are proposed to
be retained. Proposed tree protection measures (refer to Tree Protection Notes on Existing Tree Plan)
would minimize such potential. impacts to aless-than-significant level.
Arbor Resources (AR) completed a tree survey for the proposed project in June 2008,5 and a copy of this
report is on file with the Los Gatos Community Development Department. AR ideritified 152 trees on the
site and inventoried a total of 95 trees. The inventoried trees consist of nine various species (almost 90%
are oaks): approximately 83 valley and coast live oaks, one California black walnut, four blue
elderberries, two holly-leaf cherries, one California bay, one cypress, and three willows. There were.many
additional trees scattered throughout the project site, but were exempt by Town Code (they are fruit- or
nut-bearing trees with trunks less than four inches in diameter). Of the 95 trees, three are located on the !
property to the south, but their trunks are situated along or within a few feet of the property boundary and
their canopies overhang onto the project site.
Of the 95 inventoried trees on the site, approximately 43 trees would be removed. because. they would
conflict with proposed development and they consist of 36 oaks (#4, 8, 14, 19, 28, 29, 76-84, 115, 116,
117, 122, 123, 125, 128-132, 134-143), three willows (#85, 86,127), one California bay (#12), one
cypress (#133), and two blue elderberry (#27 and 124). AR recommends that nine oak trees be relocated
(#113, 114', 144,.146 (consists of a cluster of six trees).
Although proposed to be retained,. there are 15 trees that would be severely impacted by proposed
development and their longevity and stability would be jeopardized by proposed development: #2,15, 16,
22, 25, 72, 73, 75,.91,124, 145, 146;149-151. Of these, AR recommends the following design.
modifications:
^ Tree #2 is a prominent coast live oak at the project entrance on Placer Oaks Road. AR recommends
specific design modifications to ensure survival of this oak.
^ Trees #25,.72, 73, and 145 would be adversely affected by proposed drainage improvements or sound
wall construction and AR recommends modification of grading and trenching in the vicinity of these
trees as well as relocation and design modification of this section of the sound wall.
5 Arbor Resources, 2008. An Tree Inventory and Preliminary Review of the Proposed Development Below Placer Oaks Road, ~ °~
Los Gatos, California. June 9.
JuNE,2009 10
INrrIAL STUDY -PLACER OAKS
• ^ Tree #91 would be subject to short- and long-term damage from the proposed dissipater and storm
drain lines, and AR recommends relocation of these facilities.
^ Trees #149-151 would be adversely affected by proposed installation of a sewer line using the open
trench construction method. AR recommends that this line be installed using the' directional-boring
technique (microtunneling) under the tree canopies.
^ AR identifies potential root loss to Tree #90 from both trenching for the storm drain and construction
of the walkway. AR recommends relocation of the walkway at least 20 feet from this tree's trunk,
which would require removal of Tree #124, a blue elderberry.
To reduce impacts on trees to be retained and adequately replace trees to be removed, the following
measure will be required:
2. Recommendations made by-Arbor Resources (June 9, 2008) shall be implemented to eliminate or
minimize the construction-related impacts on the trees to be retained. Recommendations are listed
under Section S.0 of the arborist's report but Section 4.0 also includes additional design
recommendations. These include design guidelines section addressing tree location mapping, utility
.locations, drainage facilities, and landscape design. The report also provides protection measures
before and during construction, addressing fencing, work within tree canopies, etc. The report's
fandings and recommendations are included as Attachment 1.
Potentially
Sign cant
Potentially Impact Unless Less Than
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources) Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Im act
V. Cultural Resources -Would the project: ~ •
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a X
historical resource as defined in 15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of X
an archaeological resource pursuant to 15064.5?
c).Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological X
resource or site, or unique .geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred X
outside of formal cemeteries?
The project "site is undeveloped and there would be a very low potential. for encountering historical .
resources on the project site. An archaeological field inspection was conducted on -the project site in
1999.6 The inspection included an archival search of State Clearinghouse records and a field inspection of
the project site. The archival research revealed that there are no recorded prehistoric or historic cultural
resources within the subject area, and no prehistoric or historic cultural resources were noted during the
surface reconnaissance. Also., there are no recorded sites, historic or prehistoric, within one-fourth mile
of the project site. No evidence of arboriginal use and/or occupation of -the area was noted during the
field inspection. The lack of archaeological materials may be due to the fact that there is a layer of fill to
a depth of at least four feet (up to 22 feet in some locations), covering the entire original stream terrace
6 Holman & Associates, 1999. Archaeological Field Inspection of Canyon Oaks Project, Los Gatos, Santa Clara County,
.California. January I5.
JUNE, 2009 11
INITIAL STUDY -PLACER OAKS
and making it impossible to complete a visual field inspection. A program of subsurface testing or
archaeological monitoring would not be recommended given the depth of this fill. However, given the
roximit of the -ro'ect. area_to the original course of_Los Gatos Creek, the area does have th~otential_
P -- - - -y ---- p- -J - - - - - - ---- - ---
for containing buried archaeological resources, which might have been associated with. the original stream
terrace. To ensure that any subsurface cultural resources are not adversely affected by project
development, the following mitigation measures will be required:
3. In the event that archaeological traces are encountered, all construction within a 50-meter radius of
the find will be halted, the Community Development Director will be notified, and an archaeologist
will be retained to examine the find and make appropriate recommendations.
4. If human remains are discovered, the Santa Clara County Coroner will be notified. The Coroner will
determine whether or not the remains are Native American. If the Coroner determines that the.
remains are not subject to his authority, he will notify the Native American Heritage Commission,
who shall attempt to identify descendants of the deceased Native Americans.
S. If the Community Development Director finds that the archaeological find is not a significant
resource, work will resume only after the submittal of a preliminary archaeological report and after
provisions for reburial and ongoing. monitoring are accepted. Provisions for identifying descendants
of a deceased Native American and for reburial will follow the protocol set forth in CEQA Guidelines
Section 15064.5(e). If the site is found to be a significant archaeological site, a mitigation program
will be prepared and submitted to the Community Development Director for consideration and
approval, in conformance with the protocol set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21083.2.
6. A final report shall be prepared when a find is determined to be a signi, ficant archaeological site,
and/or when Native American remains are found on the site. The final report will include
background information on the completed work, a description and list of identified resources, the '
. disposition and curation of these resources, any testing, other recovered information, and
conclusions.
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Impact Unless Less Than
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources) S;gnificant . Mitigation significant No
Im act Incorporated Ln act Impact
VI. Geology and Soils -Would the project expose people or
structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including .
the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
a) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the X
most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of
Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
b) Strong seismic ground shaking? X
c) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? X
d) Landslides? X
e) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? X
JUNE, 2009 12
INITIAL STUDY -PLACER OAKS
1
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Impact Unless Less Than
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources) significant Mitigation Significant No
Im act Inco orated Im act Im act
f) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that X
would become unstable as a result of the project, and
potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
g) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of ~ ~ X
the Uniform :Building Code (1994), .creating substantial
risks to life or property? .
h) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of X
septic tanks or alternative. waste water disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste
water?
The eastern portion of the site slopes steeply down towards the west, but the remaining two-thixds of the
lot is relatively level with only a slight slope toward the north and west. Project development would occur
primarily on the western portion of the site while development on the sloping eastern portion of the site
would be limited to the access road and pedestrian path.'The proposed grading plan indicates 2,797 cubic
yards (c.y.) of cut and 4,551 c.y. of fill, resulting in net total of 2,017 c.y. of fill (accounting for shrinkage
factors). Most of the excavation would be associated with construction of the proposed access road, while
most of the fill would be associated with development of the homes. New retaining walls would be
required to support cuts and fills along the roadway alignment where it extends along the steep eastern
slope. Although the roadway .could be constructed completely on cut ground., it is also likely that fill
would need to be placed on the downslope side in order to limit wall heights in the cut areas. Town
requirements will include provision of interim and final erosion control plans. Such measures would
reduce.potential erosion hazards to aless-than-significant level.
A geotechnical investigation was completed for the project by GeoForensics, Inc. (GFI) in 2007. The
GFI study was peer reviewed by the Town's consulting geotechnical engineer, AMEC Geomatrix, in
2008. A response was prepared by GFI in 2008 and the response was subsequently reviewed by AMEC in
2008. Copies of these studies and evaluations are on file at the Los Gatos Community Development
Department. The GFI study involved a site reconnaissance, review of published geotechnical maps,
subsurface exploration (ten borings), laboratory testing, and engineering analysis of field and lab data.
From a geotechnical engineering standpoint, GFI concluded the site can be safely developed as proposed,
provided recommendations are incorporated into the design and construction.
According to geologic mapping reviewed by GFI, the eastern portion of the site is underlain by Older
Alluvium (weathered, unconsolidated to moderately consolidated .gravel, sand, and silt), while the western
portion of the site is underlain with Younger Alluvium (unconsolidated a~Id undissected, ,poorly sorted.
gravel, sand, silt clay, and organic matter). GFI's subsurface exploration encountered clay, sand., and
~ GeoForensics, Inc., 2007. Geotechnical Investigation. for Proposed New 9-Unit Subdivision at the Placer Oaks Road Property,
2545 Placer Oaks Road, Los Gatos, California. July 2.
GeoForensics, Inc.., 2008. Placer Oaks Road Property, 2545 Placer Oaks Road, Los Gatos, California. Response to
i Geotechnical Peer Review. May 5.
JUNE, 2009 13
INITIAL STUDY -PLACER OAKS
gravel materials consistent with this mapping. Borings also encountered imported fill material of varying
depth (up to 22 feet) in some locations.
__ ____
The site lies within the seismically active Bay Area, but is not within any of the i`Earthgnake Fault-Zones
established by the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act of 1972. According to GFI, the active San
Andreas Fault is located 7 kilometers (km) southwest of the site, while the potentially active Monte Vista
Shannon-Fault is ma ed a .-roximatel "-0:7;km to the southwest:-Otl~e~faults in-the ro`ect re ion J -
PP PP- - y - - p ~ g
include the San Gregorio, Hayward, and Calaveras faults. GFI reviewed the California Seismic Hazards
Zones mapping, which indicates that the western portion of the site is underlain by soils that are
potentially subject to liquefaction hazards. GFI performed a liquefaction analysis, which confirmed
liquefaction hazards in the western margin of the site. GFI also determined that the potential for ground
rupture and large-scale, seismically-induced landsliding at the site are low, while the potential for ground
subsidence is moderate to low. However, GFI indicates that the site is likely to be subject to very strong
to violent ground shaking during its life span due to a major earthquake, and this shaking could result in
lateral spreading hazards; therefore, appropriate measures to mitigate this possibility have been detailed in
their report.
7. The recommendations of the geotechnical report by GeoForensics Inc. (dated May 5, 2008) shall be
implemented (included as .Attachment 2). These recommendations address site preparation, grading,
ground improvements, foundations, retaining walls,. drainage, and pavement.
Potentially
' Significant
Potentially Impact Unless Less Than
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources) signifioant
Im act Mitigation
Inco orated Significant
Im act No
Im act
VII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials -Would the
project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment X
through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous .
materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment X
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 X
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 X
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?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, X
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles
of a public airport or public use airport, would.the project
result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in
the project.area?
JUNE, 2009 14
INITIAL STUDY -PLACER OAKS
• Potentially
Significant
Potentially Impact Unless Less Than
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources) Significant Ibiitigation Significant No
Im act Inco orated Im act hn act
f) For a project within the vicinity~of a private airstrip, would X
the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or .
working in the project area?
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an X
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, X
injury or death involving wildland fires, including where
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where
residences are intermixed with wildlands?
A Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was completed by Romig Engineers, Inc. in October
2008. This report is available for review at the Los Gatos Community Development Department. Based
on the geotechnical investigation by GeoForensics, the fill is as thick as 22 feet in some.locations, but
depth varies across the site. Romig completed a historical records review, borings, and chemical analysis.
A review of historical aerial photographs indicate that the site was undeveloped with no fill. in 1948. The
site was apparently filled prior to or in 1974 with at least two fill .events: one in the southern part of the
site by 1965 and another in the northern part by 1.974. It is unknown if any fill soil was brought on-site
after 1974. The possible fill source is also unknown.
To address potential soil contamination concerns with this fill material, Romig performed soil sampling
on a reconnaissance level with sampling depths of 5 to 7 feet, corresponding to the expected depth of soil
disturbance that could be associated with proposed development. The study included drilling seven
exploratory borings to a depth of 5 to 7 feet and two boreholes to a depth of approximately 20 feet (where
groundwater was sampled). Fourteen soil samples and two groundwater samples were analyzed and
results showed the following: '
^ Soil samples contain very low levels of pesticides (Chlordane and DDE) and apparently degraded
fuels (TPHG and TPHD), but measured levels are below-the ESL and TTLC levels.s Romig
concluded that the metals detected in soils samples are derived from a natural source occu_ rrence
related to regional geology of this area.
^ Groundwater samples contain TPHD, metals, and pesticides (DDD. and DDE), but they were also
below STLC and ESL Ceiling Groundwater Levels.9
On the basis of the boring and chemical analytical data, Romig concluded that there does not appear to
be significant contaminant presence in the fill soils to depths of seven feet. The presence of these
compounds is attributed to historic ,pesticide application and farming land use from sites where the fill
originated. Groundwater quality at the site may be affected by previous uses and the contaminants found
s San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board Soil Tire One Environmental Screening Levels (RWQCB ESLs) and Title
22 Total Threshold Limit Concentrations (TTLC)
9 Soluble Threshold Limit Concentration (STLC)
JUNE, 2009 15
INITIAL STUDY -PLACER OAKS
in the fill soils. However,. since contaminant levels are below applicable threshold levels, Romig
concluded that groundwater contaminants were not a concern and no further analysis is required.
- - --- -- - - -.... - --- - ----_ ---- ------ ------ ----------- -Potentially- -- --
Significant
' Potentially Impact Unless Less Than
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources) Significant
Im act Ivlitigation
Inco orated Significant
hn act No
hn act
VIII. Hydrology and Water Quality -Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge X
requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere X
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there
would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of
the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate
of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which .
would not support existing land uses or planned uses for
which permits have been granted)?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site X
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 pattern of the site X
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 X
capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage
systems or provide substantial .additional sources of
polluted runoff?
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? X
g) Place housing within a 100=year flood hazard area as X
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 X
would impede or redirect flood flows?
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, X
injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a .
result of the failure of a levee or dam?
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? X
The project site is located within an urbanized area of the Los Gatos Creek watershed. The Highway 17
freeway forms a barrier to natural drainage from properties along the east side of the highway in the
project vicinity. Culverts under the freeway provide for drainage Los Gatos Creek and Vasona Reservoir
to the east of Highway 17.
LL
J
JulvE, 2009 16
INITIAL STUDY -PLACER OAKS
Rainfall is primarily absorbed on-site with minor storm runoff flows (approximately 0.95 cfs10) draining
to the western perimeter of the property and onto State Highway 17 right-of-way adjoining the site.
Runoff collects in an off-site drainage Swale and drains through a Caltrans culvert under Highway 17 into
Vasona Reservoir immediately west of the highway. In addition to minor runoff from the property, an
existing storm drain transects the southern part of the project site from Placer Oaks Road westward to the
Caltrans right-of-way and discharges to .the drainage swale west of the site. Flows from Vasona Reservoir
discharge to Los Gatos Creek; the creek flows into the Guadalupe River, and eventually into the San
Francisco Bay.
Storm Dralnaee. As required by the Town, the project plans include an extensive evaluation of hydrologic
conditions on the project site. Analyses by Civil Engineering Associates include a utility plan,~grading
and drainage plan, storm outfall design specifications, astormwater management plan, and a hydrology
calculations exhibit. These studies present a description of existing hydrological conditions on the site and
anticipated effects of the project on storm flows at the project site.
The 3.1-acre project site is currently undeveloped. Project development would result in approximately
-1.55 acres being covered by streets, driveways, parking areas, or buildings (51% of the site). With. the
exception of the proposed private access road to the property, the steep slopes in the eastern part of the
property would remain as open areas. The existing water easement area that transects the center. of the
project site along with new yards for the proposed residential development would be retained as pervious
areas on the site.
The Utility Plan (May 16, 2008) for the proposed project indicates that the overall stormwater~conveyance
system for the project was designed to accommodate the 10-year storm event. The hydrological
calculations for the proposed project anticipate 10-year storm flows to increase from the existing volume
of 0.95 cfs to 2.91 cfs under post-development conditions. The Plan specifies that all roof drains would be
directed to splash blocks for maximum on-site percolation. Slope protection.measures such as rip-rap at
outfall locations are proposed for erosion control. All of the site's stormwater runoff would be directed to
vegetated bio-swales for filtration. Bio-swales are proposed along the waterline easement extending
through the center of the site and along the western boundary of the property. stormwater discharging
from the bio-swales would enter the existing off-site Swale on State right-of-way and join current runoff
flows from the existing storm drain discharging to the Swale. As a condition of project approval, the
Town will require that the applicant provide the Town with a letter from Caltrans indicating that site
runoff would be allowed to drain into the swale along the freeway right-of-way. The Utility Plan indicates
that all work to be done in the State of Californiaright-of-way would comply with Caltrans standards and
would be constructed by authority of Caltrans permit No. 0407-6DD1688.
Although project development would result in an increase in peak surface flows from the project site; the
proposed project includes provisions for on-site storage in pipes to ensure that the rate of surface flows
discharging from the site would remain at pre-development levels (Hydrological Calculations, May 16,
2008). The surface runoff from the project site would drain to an existing storm drain located under the
Highway 17 freeway, within the Caltrans right-of-way. Since storm drainage facilities serving the project
area have already been designed with sufficient capacity to accommodate surface runoff from the project
.site under current conditions, restriction of post-development flows to existing rates would preclude
project drainage impacts on existing storm drainage facilities. Caltrans approval would ensure that peak
.surface flows from the site would not adversely affect downstream freeway facilities. Therefore, potential
10 cubic feet per second
i
JutvE, 2009 17
INITIAL STUDY -PLACER OAKS
project impacts on existing downstream storm drainage facilities will be reduced to less than significant
by existing Town requirements and permit approval by Caltrans.
Flood Hazards. According to Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)-Flood Insurance Rate
Maps (May 18, 2009) for the project area, the project site is located within an area of the town designated
as "X," areas of 0.2% annual chance flood, areas of 1% annual chance flood with average depths of less
- -
than3foot or vvith drainage areas less-than I square mile and areas protected by levees rom o-annu _ "
chance flood.. The Town of Los Gatos Safety Element Flood Plain'map also shows that the 100-year
floodplain comes in close proximity to the site. along the State Hwy 17 frontage. Flood hazard mapping
prepared: by the Santa Clara Valley Water District indicates that the limit of the 100-year flood event
would be located at approximately the median of Highway 17, west of the project site.. Both of these maps
are schematic in nature and therefore, any site-specific flood hazard area should be deferred to the FEMA
maps, which indicate that the project site is located outside the 100-year flood plain.
The project site is located just east of Vasona Reservoir (across the freeway) and below Lexington
Reservoir. Similar to other development in Los Gatos located below or near these reservoirs, the project
could subject to inundation due to failure of upstream dams. Regular inspections by the Division of Dam
Safety as well. as ongoing efforts to strengthen/modify dams and spillways by the SCVWD as necessary
help to ensure the structural safety of the reservoirs in Santa Clara County. Therefore, inundation hazards
due to dam failure are not considered to be any greater at the project site than in other areas located
downstream of this dam.
Water Quality. Stringent water quality regulations of the. Clean Water Act have recently been triggered
because the NPDES (National Pollution Discharge Elimination System) permit program. has failed to
protect beneficial uses of Santa Clara County's creeks and the South San Francisco Bay, as evidenced by
such observations as violations of ambient water quality criteria, high concentrations of toxic. substances, ~
and fish consumption health advisories. These new regulations require that all discharges shall comply
with Provision C.3, New and Redevelopment Performance Standards of Order No. 01-024 of the NPDES
permit program.
Since the project site is located within the Los .Gatos Creek watershed, runoff from the site would
discharge indirectly into Los Gatos Creek, flow into the Guadalupe River, and eventually into the Bay.
The Guadalupe River is on the Clean. Water Act Section 303(d) List of Water Quality Limited Segments
due. to the presence of diazinon, a pesticide, and mercury. Best Management Practices (BMPs) outlined
by the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program (SCVURPPP) for treatment
control of pesticides are bioretention, infiltration, and media filter with adsorption/absorption as the
removal process.
After project completion, surface runoff from the site would be expected to carry typical urban pollutants
generated by roadways, building surfaces, and landscape areas. As a condition of project approval, the
Town will require: (1) preparation and submittal of interim and final erosion control plans to the
Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department; and (2) implementation of non-point
source pollution prevention measures to reduce pollutant levels in the water that will eventually discharge
to Los Gatos Creek and Guadalupe River. Since the proposed project would create more than 10,000 s.f.
of impervious surfaces, the Town has determined that the C.3 numerical requirements apply to the
proposed project. The project's stormwater management plan. includes treatment of storm runoff through
filtration in bio-swales (240 feet in length). The project. plans include maintenance programs that reduce
the amount of post-construction pollutants that reach the swales and measures to ensure the continued.
functioning of the bio-swales. The Town has determined that these measures would meet C.3 ,
requirements. Also, since the area of disturbance would involve more than one acre, a Storm Water -°--~,
Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) would be required by the Town. With proposed drainage
JtrrrE, 2009 18
INITIAL STUDY -PLACER OAKS
improvements, erosion control plans, and SWPPP, the project would comply with current non-point
source requirements as well as SWPPP and erosion control portions of the NPDES permit program.
Consequently, the project's potential impacts on water resources in the project area would be less than
significant.
~ Potentially
• Significant
Potentially Impact Unless Less Than
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources) ~ Significant Mitigation Sign cant No
Im act Inco orated Itn act Irn act
IX. Land Use and Planning -Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? X
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or X
.regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project
(including, but not limited to the general plan, specific
plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted
for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental ~ '
effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or X
natural community conservation plan?
The project site is currently designated by the General Plan for Medium Density Residential (5-12
dwelling units per acre) and zoned for Medium Density Residential (RM:S-12PD). The proposed density
of the project would be 2.9 units per acre, less than the density allowed by the General Plan and current
zoning. The project applicant is requesting: (1) a General Plan Amendment to change the land use
designation from Medium Density Residential (5-12 dwelling units per acre) to Low Density Residential
(0-5 units per acre); and (2) a Rezoning from "RM:5~12PD" to "R-1:8:PD."
The proposed project would be located adjacent to existing single-family residences to the north and east
as well as apartments to the southeast and south. The project would be consistent with the existing
adjacent single-family residential uses. No land use compatibility problems would be anticipated between.
proposed residences and surrounding residential uses because project residences would be separated by
approximately 60 feet vertically (in elevation) and 80 to 150 feet horizontally. However, the proposed
access road to the site would be located as close as 20 feet from existing residences to the east (see
Section XI, Noise, for more discussion).
The Los. Gatos General Plan does noC identify any habitat conservation plans or natural community
conservation plans that apply to the project site.
Potentially
Significant
Potentially hnpact Unless Less Than
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources) Significant Mitigation Significant No
Im act 'Inco orated lm act Im act
X. Mineral Resources -Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral X
resource that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of alocally-important X
mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general
plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
JUNE, 2009 19
INITIAL STUDY -PLACER OAKS
The Los Gatos General Plan does not identify any regionally or locally-important mineral resources on .
the project site or in its vicinity.
- - - - ___ _ --- - - -- ---- - - - _- -PotenHall
Significant
Potentially Impact Unless Less Than-
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources} Significant
Ln act Mitigation
Inco orated Significant
Im act No
Im act
XI. Noise -Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in X
excess of standards established in the local general plan or
.noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive X
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in X
.the project vicinity above levels existing without the
project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient X
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, X
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 noise levels?
f) For a.project within the vicinity of aprivate airstrip, would X
the project expose people residing or working in the project
area to excessive noise levels?
Project Construction.. Project construction would result. in temporary short-term noise increases due to the
operation of heavy equipment. Construction noise sources range from about 76 to 85 dBA at 50 feet for
most types of construction equipment, with slightly higher levels of about 88 to 91 dBA at SO feet for
certain types of earthmoving and impact equipment. If noise controls are installed on construction
equipment, the noise levels could be reduced by 1 to 16 dBA, depending on the type of equipment.
Foundation piers are proposed'to be drilled, not driven, which would avoid short-term noise impacts
associated with impact pile driving. The potential for construction-related noise increases to adversely
affect nearby residential receptors would depend on the location and proximity of construction activities
to these receptors.
The Town Noise Ordinance (Chapter 16) restricts construction activities to the hours of 8:00 AM to 8:00
PM on weekdays and 9:00 AM to 7:00 PM on weekends and holidays. This ordinance also limits noise
generation to 85 dBA at the property line or 85 dBA at 25 feet. Proposed road construction along the
eastern boundary would be located as close as 20 feet from adjacent residences to the east, while home
development would be located 70 to 140 feet away. At 20 feet, the ordinance noise limit would result in
maximum noise levels of 85 dBA at the closest residences during road. construction. At 70 feet,
maximum interior noise levels would reach 76 dBA with the windows closed during home construction.
Both road and home construction could periodically result in speech interference effects. Temporary
disturbance (e.g., speech interference). can occur if the noise level in'the interior of a building exceeds 45
/'
J
JUNE, 2009 20
INITIAL STUDY -PLACER OAKS
to 60 dBA.11 However, it should be noted that such levels would only occur for a short period when
grading equipment is operating adjacent to a specific receptor, not during the entire project construction
period. Therefore, enforcement of the Town Noise Ordinance during project construction (which restricts
times of construction and maximum noise levels) would be adequate to mitigate potential short-term
noise impacts to ales-than-significant level.
Project Traffic Noise Increases. Long-term noise increases associated with the project would result from
increased traffic along the project's private street as well as residential activities (i.e., operation of
appliances and maintenance equipment such as lawnmowers, blowers, etc.) on the project site. The
estimated 86 vehicles per day would generate noise levels of less than 45 dBA (Ldn) at 50 feet, which
would be.well below measured ambient noise levels in the eastern portion of.the site (measured to be
approximately 67 dBA, Ldn;, see below for more discussion). Based on traffic volumes presented in
Section XV, Transportation and Traffic, project-related traffic increases along existing neighborhood
streets would increase noise levels by less than 1 dBA, which would be less than significant. In general,
noise increases of 3~dBA are barely perceptible to most people. Noise generated by project residential
activities is expected to be similar to noise generated by adjacent or nearby residential uses and would not
conflict with the existing residential noise environment in. the neighborhood.
Noise Compatibility of Proposed Residences. Residential uses are generally considered to.be noise-
sensitiveuses or sensitive receptors. Project residents would be subject to noise from the Highway 17
freeway and a detailed noise study was completed for the applicant by Edward L. Pack Associates, Inc.
(Pack) in June 2007.12 This study evaluated the noise compatibility of proposed residential uses with the
existing and future noise environment at the project site. Noise measurements taken as part of this study
indicate that existing noise levels on the site are 76 dBA (Ldn)13 in the vicinity of proposed exterior living
spaces of proposed residences (124 feet from the centerline of the Highway 17 freeway). Under future
conditions, noise exppsure at the site is estimated to remain at 76 dBA (Ldn). At the base of the slope on
the site (the eastern margin of the level portion of the site) noise levels are 67 dBA (Ldn).
When compared to the Town of Los Gatos Noise Element exterior noise goal of 55 dBA (Ldn), noise
levels of 76 dBA (Ldn) at the site would exceed this goal by up to 21 dBA. Due to the existing noise
exposures at the site, achieving the Town's noise goal of 55 dBA (Ldn) is not feasible. Therefore, Pack
recommends a design goal of 65 dBA (Ldn) for the exterior living areas of the project and an interior
noise design criterion of 45 dBA (Ldn) for interior living spaces.14 The exterior standard would only
11 In indoor noise environments, the highest noise level that permits relaxed conversation with 100% intelligibility throughopt the
room is 45 dBA. Speech interference is considered to become intolerable when normal conversation is precluded at 3 feet,
which occurs when background noise levels exceed 60 dBA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Information on Levels of
Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety (Condensed Version),
1974).
12 Edward L. Pack Associates, Inc., 2007. Noise Assessment Study for the Planned "Placer Oaks" Single-Family Development,
Highway 17, Los Gatos. Project No. 39-022. June 12.
t3 Ldn: A 24-hour day-night noise descriptor which accounts for people's increased sensitivity to poise during the nighttime
hours by adding a 10-dBA penalty. For traffic-dominated noise environments Ldn and CNEL, Community Noise Equivalent
Levels, are generally the same.
14 For comparison purposes, the recommended standard would. be 5 dBA higher than the exterior noise standard of 60 dBA
(CNEL or Ldn) but the' same as the interior noise standard of 45 dBA (CNEL or Ldn) specified in Title 24, Part 2 of the
California Code of Regulations, which applies to new hotels, motels, apartment houses, and dwellings other than detached
single-family dwellings. Since Title 24 standards do no[ apply to single-family homes,the project is not required to comply
with them. The recommended 65-dBA standard would, however, be consistent with State Land Use Compatibility Guidelines
for multi-family residences of 65 dBA (Ldn). This higher acceptable noise level is indicated for multi-family housing since it is
often located along majortransportation corridors and exterior areas are likely to be smaller, limited use patios and balconies.
1
JUNE, 2009 21
INTrIAL STUDY -PLACER OAKS
apply to the first floor elevations of project homes since there are no second floor balconies. Based on
noise measurements taken as part. of the detailed noise study, exterior noise levels at project residences '"
_ ~_ closest to.the freeway_wou_ld b_e_76 dBA (Ldn),_while interior noise exposures_would. be 61 dBA (Ldn)._
-- - __ __
Such levels would exceed the recommended 65 dBA (Ldn) exterior noise standard by up to 11 dBA and
the 45-dBA recommended interior standard by up to 16 dBA. .
To achieve the recommended 55-dB~Tovc!n extenor noise~goal at the residences-closest-to the freeway; a "
noise control barrier along the freeway would have to be up to 36 feet high. While this would not be a
feasible mitigation measure, it would be feasible to meet the recommended 65-dBA exterior noise
standard with a 12-foot high. noise barrier. Additional noise control measures would also need to be
incorporated into the design of project homes to meet the recommended 45-dBA interior noise standard.
The following measure will be required to reduce exterior and interior noise levels at project residences to
less-than-significant levels: ,
8. The project shall be required to include a noise wall along the project boundary that is contiguous to
the Highway 17 freeway with the height specifications as.recommended in the detailed noise study.
To control flanking noise, the barrier shall continue along the southern property boundary as
• specified in the detailed noise study. In addition, recommended noise control measures (e.g., closed
windows where there is a direct line-of-sight, windows meeting specified Sound Transmission Class
ratings, and mechanical ventilation) shall be incorporated into project homes to achieve acceptable
interior noise levels. These recommendations are included as Attachment 3.
Potentially
Significant
• Potentially Impact Unless Less Than
Issues (and' Supporting Information Sources) Significant Mitigation Significant No
Im act Inco orated Im act Im act
XII. Population and Housing e Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either X
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, X
necessitating the construction of replacement housing..
elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the X
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
The proposed project•vvould result in an increase in local population, but this increase. would be less than
significant. Under the existing "Medium Density Residential" land use designation, a population of
approximately 93 people could occur at the site (up to 37 units on 3.1 acres with 2.5 persons per unit).
The project would result a net increase of approximately 23 more people (nine units with 2.5 persons per
unit), fewer than what is allowed by the current General Plan designation. The project's net addition of 23
persons would represent a 0.08% increase over the Town's current population of 28,592 (as indicated in.
the 2000 census) and 0.06% increase over the Town's 2005 population of 35,700 as projected by the
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). Such increases in population also would be within
ABAG's projected 5% growth rate between 2000 and 2015 and therefore, would not represent a
significant increase in local or regional population.
The. project would not be considered growth-inducing, since the project site is located adjacent to existing
development and the project is considered an infill development. No new roads or utilities would be
JUNE, 2009 22
INITIAL STUDY -PLACER OAKS
extended to any contiguous undeveloped areas. However, it is possible that the property contiguous to the
southern project boundary (currently developed with a tennis court) could be developed at some time in
the future and the project's private access road could be used to access this property. However, approval
of future project homeowners would be required and feasibility of such approval is unknown and
speculative.
The project site is currently undeveloped and no existing housing would be displaced as a result of the
proposed project.
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Impact Unless Less Than
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources) Significant Mitigation Significant No
Im act Inco orated Impact Im act
XIII. Public Services -
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical
impacts associated with the provision of new or physically
altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically
altered governmental facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service .ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of.the public services:
Fire protection? X
Police protection? X
Schools? X
Parks? X
Other public facilities? X
The project would not significantly increase demand for public services since this is an in-fill
development and services are already provided to adjacent residential uses to the north, east, and south.
The Santa Clara County Fire Department has reviewed the proposed site plan for site access. and water
supply, and the project will be required to meet Department requirements for minimum fire flow,
automatic fire sprinklers, hydrant spacing/location, building access requirements, etc.ls The project will
be required to meet minimum fire flow requirements (or install ..automatic fire sprinkler systems) and
install public fire hydrant(s) at location(s) to be determined jointly by the Fire Department and San Jose
Water Company. Alternatively, approved fire sprinkler systems can be installed in project homes.
Adequate fire apparatus (engine) access will need to be provided on the private street (including
minimum width of 20 feet, vertical clearance of 13 feet 6 inches, unobstructed pavement width, minimum
turning radius of 36 feet outside and 23 feet inside, a maximum slope of 15%), and the turnaround at the
end of the street will need to meet Department standards. Tlie Fire Department also specifies timing of
required water supply and roadway installations to ensure that adequate fire protection services can be
provided during project construction. The proposed. plan will be subject to formal plan review by the
Santa Clara County Fire Department to determine compliance with adopted model codes.
15 Santa Clara County Fire Department, 2007. Development Review Comments for 371 Los Gatos Boulevard. December 18.
JUNE, 2009 23
INITIAL STUDY -PLACER OAKS
The project would generate a minor increase in the Town population that would potentially result in
additional park use by future residents. The project's potential impact on the demand for recreational `~"
facilities.is discussedin.Secti_o~_~lY, $e~reation,_below ___._._ _____._ __
The project would add new students to the Los Gatos Union School District and Los. Gatos-Saratoga High
School District. Project students- would likely attend Louise Van Meter Elementary School, Fisher
Middle School, and Los Gatos High School. To offset potential additional service costs for enroThng new
students from the proposed project, the Los Gatos Union School District and Los Gatos-Saratoga High
School District will charge the project applicant impact fees based on the size of new homes (per square
foot basis) and by supplemental parcel taxes on the new residential parcels. Payment of impact fees and
. supplemental taxes would mitigate the.project's impacts on school services to aless-than-significant
level.
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Impact Unless Less Than
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources) Significant Mitigation. Significant No
Irn act Inco orated hnpact Impact
XIV. Recreation -' •
a) Would the project increase the use of existing. X
neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require X
the construction or expansion of recreational facilities;
which might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment? •
The proposed addition of nine residences would. increase local population, and thereby increase the
demand for recreational facilities. No common open space areas with recreational facilities are proposed
as part of the project, but private open space (backyards and' Lot B, the slope along the eastern portion of
the site) would comprise approximately half of the site. Nearby recreational facilities include Oak
Meadow Park/Vasona Lake County Park (across the freeway to the west) and Fisher Middle School (less
than one-fourth mile to the south). The project's incremental increase is considered to be less than
significant given the small size of the project,. the project's proximity to existing recreational facilities,
and provision of small, usable open space on each lot.
Potentially
• Sign cant
Potental]y Impact Unless Less Than
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources) Significant Mitigation Significant No
Im act Inco orated hn act hn act
XV. Transportation/Traffic -Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in relation X
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 X
service standard established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads or highways?
~,
JUNE, 2009 24
INITIAL STUDY -PLACER OAKS
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Impact Unless Less Than
.Issues (arid Sllpporting InformatlOri SOUrceS) Significant .Mitigation Significant No
Im act Inco orated Irn act Irn act
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an X
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., X
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? X
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? , X
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs X
supporting alternative Transportation (e.g., bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)?
An off-site traffic analysis was completed for the applicant.by Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
to assess the effects of project-related traffic increases on Placer Oak Road:16 The Town and Hexagon
estimate that the proposed project would generate 86 average daily trips with 7 AM peak hour trips and 9
PM peak hour trips. The Town's Traffic Impact Policy (Resolution 1991-174) requires preparation of a
detailed traffic study for any project with the potential to generate 20 or more additional AM or PM peak
hour trips. The Santa Clara County's Congestion Management Program (CMP) also sets forth criteria to
determine which intersections (and roadway segments) should be studied, and the CMP requires that at .
least 10 peak hour trips per lane be .added by a proposed development. Based on these criteria, the amount
of peak hour traffic added to the roadway network as a result of the proposed project would be
statistically insignificant.
Although traffic increases would be less than significant based on common engineering practices,
residents' perceived impacts could be different. A tool for measuring residential perceptions was
developed by Donald Appleyard while working at the University of California at Berkeley. The tool was
named the TIRE, Traffic Infusion on Residential Environments. The TIRE index uses average daily
volumes to determine the amount of daily traffic that could be added to a roadway before its residents
would notice. The values of the TIRE index range from 0 to 5, with 0 representing no traffic and 5
representing extreme traffic. The amount of existing daily traffic directly correlates to the amount of that
could be added before residents would notice. In an attempt to quantify the perceptions of its residents,
the TIRE index was applied to the surrounding residential streets. Daily traffic counts were conducted on
October 31, 2007 and November 1, 2007 (Wednesday and Thursday, respectively) to determine the
existing traffic levels. The results are summarized as follows:
' Existing Change in ADT Number of Daily Trips Noticeable 85u' Percentile
Street ADT Threshold Added By Project Increase (YIN} Speed2
Oak Rim Way 924 220 37 N 23.7
Placer Oaks Road 709 140 45 N 24.8
Frank Avenue 340 79 25 N 28.1
Izorah Way 464 114 15 N 26.2
Note: Sum of project trips is greater than the project's total daily trips because project trips must use one roadway to reach another.
'Denotes the amount of daily traffic that could be added to a street before residents would perceive an increase in traffic.
2 Average Daily Traffic (ADT) and Speed Data provided by AutoCensus.
t6 Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc., Offsite Traffic Analysis of the Proposed Placer Oaks Road Residential Development
(APN #52916073). November 8. A copy of this study is on file at the Town Community Development Department.
Ju1vE, .2009 25
INITIAL STUDY -PLACER OAKS
Based on the above traffic volumes, Hexagon determined that: (1) none of the "surrounding roadway
segments would experience a noticeable increase in traffic with the addition of the proposed project; alid '
_(2)ihe_spe.e_d. of traffic on the exi ding roadways_is suitable for_residential frontage..Although the_project _, ___ _ _
would increase traffic on surrounding neighborhood streets,. Hexagon concluded that the project's
increase in peak hour traffic is so low that it would not significantly affect existing or future cut-through
traffic patterns on the Town's street network.
In addition to the TIRE index, Hexagon reviewed the accident history of the area. Town accident data
indicated there was a total of 4 accidents over the past 3 years on the neighborhood street of Farley Road,
Frank Avenue, Izorah Way, Leroy Avenue, Placer Oaks Road, and Oak Rim Way. There were no unusual
patterns observed in the accident data and none of the accidents would have been correctable by physical
improvements. Based on this recent accident history,. the existing neighborhood does not appear to have.
an existing accident problem.
Residents living along Placer Oaks Road would be subject to temporary construction-related traffic
increases. The proposed grading plan indicates 2,797 cubic yards (c.y.) of cut and 4,55.1 c.y. of fill,
resulting in net total of 2,017 c.y. of fill. With one haul truck being filled or unloaded every 20 minutes,
there would be an average of 3 trucks per hour for 8 hours per day over 7 days. Since the only available
access to the site is from Placer Oaks Road and,Frank Avenue; the-Town. will require the applicant to
work with the Town Parks and Public Works Department Engineering Inspectors to devise a traffic
control plan to ensure safe and efficient traffic flow under periods when soil is hauled on or off the project
site. This would include, but would not be limited. to, provisions for the developer/owner to place
construction notification signs noting the dates and time of construction and hauling. activities, or
providing. additional traffic control. All trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose debris will be required.
to follow a designated route between Los Gatos Boulevard and the project site (as specified by the
inspector) and be covered (or at least two feet of freeboard must be maintained). These requirements will i
reduce potential' traffic safety hazards to aless-than-significant level.
A total of 46 parking spaces would_be provided on-site as follows: 18 garage spaces (nine, two-car
garages), 18 spaces in driveway aprons, and 10 on-street parking spaces. The Los Gatos Parking Code
requires three parking spaces for residential unit. At this rate, the.propbsed 9-unit residential. development
would require 27 parking spaces and the project would meet this requirement. Therefore, proposed
parking facilities would be adequate.
Potentially
Significant"
Potentially Impact Unless Less Than
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources) ~ signifioant Mitigation Significant No
Im act Inco orated Ln act Im act
XVI. Utilities and Service Systems -Would the project:
a) Exceed. wastewater treatment requirements of the X
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or ~ X
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing:
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water X
drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
JUNE, 2009 26
INITIAL STUDY -PLACER OAKS
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Impact Unless Less Than
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources) signiFcant Mitigation Significant No
Im act Inco orated Im act Irn act
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the X
project from existing entitlements and resources, or are
new or expanded entitlements needed?
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment X
provider, which serves or may serve the project-that it has
adequate capacity to serve the projects projected demand in
addition to the providers existing commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to X
accommodate the projects solid waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and ~ X
regulations related to solid waste?
Utilities are currently provided to contiguous residential properties to the north and east and this project is
considered an in-fill development. A 12-inch sanitary sewer line and easement as well as a 20-inch water
main and easement currently traverse the project site in anorth-south direction. Along the northern
project boundary, there is a PG&E easement. There is also a 6-inch sewer line and storm drain that
traverse the site adjacent to the the northern project boundary. No development is proposed in the vicinity
of the 20-inch water main, PG&E easement, 6-inch sewer line, or storm drain and therefore, no direct
impacts on these utilities would result from project development. However, the 12-inch sewer line and
easement are proposed to be abandoned and relocated, The relocated sewer line would extend from the
southern project boundary across Lot 2 (near the Lot 1 boundary), then extend- along the proposed private
street to its northern terminus, and then follow the western project boundary to the northwestern corner of
the site. The existing sewer easement across the site would be vacated and a new easement would be
established along the relocated sewer line to allow for maintenance access.
Proposed homes would connect to the sewer main that is proposed to be relocated to the project's access
road. Water, electricity, and gas would be extended from Placer Oaks Road to project homes. Water and
storm drain lines would be extended to project homes via the proposed private street (see Section VIII,
Hydrology and Water Quality for discussion of storm drainage facilities). The proposed Utility Plan
indicates a joint trench containing electricity and gas lines would be extended to project homes along the
proposed private street.
The project will be required to install public fire hydrant(s) at location(s) to be determined jointly by the
Fire Department and San Jose Water Company. The required fire flow for this project is 1,750 gpm
(gallons per minute) at 20 psi (pounds per square inch) and the Fire Department determined that the
adjusted fire flow is available from area water mains and fire hydrant(s) which are not spaced at the
required spacing. As an alternative to hydrant installation, the Fire Department allows provision of .
approved sprinkler systems in project residences Adequate fire apparatus (engine) access will need to be
provided on the private street (including minimum width of 20 feet, vertical clearance of 13 feet 6 inches,
unobstructed pavement width, minimum turning radius of 36 feet outside and 23 feet inside, a maximum
slope of 15%), and the turnaround at the end of the street will need to meet Department standards. The
proposed plan will be subject to formal plan review by the Santa Clara County Fire Department to
determine compliance with adopted model codes.
Jt11vE, 2009 27
INITIAL STUDY -PLACER OAKS
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Impact Unless Less Than
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources) -- - -- - -- - - --
' - Signiffcanc_.
Irn act _ Mitigation___
Inco orated __Significant
Im act __ No _
Im act
XVII. Mandator .Findings of Significance -
a). Does~the_project have the-pot_ential_to degrade-the quality __ _ _ _-__-___._ ___ __________ _-X___-.
of the environment, substantiallyreduce the habitat of a
fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population
to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate
a plant or animal community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal
or eliminate important examples of the major periods of
California histo or rehisto ?
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually X
limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable"means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed. in connection with
the effects of past projects, the effects of other current
ro'ects, and the effects of probable future projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will ~ X
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
a
r
JUNE, 2009 28
INITIAL STUDY -PLACER OAKS
ATTACHMENT 1
RECOMMENDATIONS
FROM
A TREE INVENTORY AND PRELIMINARY REVIEW
OF THE
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
BELOW
PLACER OAKS ROAD
LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA
BY
ARBOR RESOURCES
JUNE 9, 2008
r
David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist June 9, 2008
least 22 feet from its trunk. Note that the locations of the dissipater and storm drain line
differ between the civil. and landscape drawings,
The civil drawings show a "perimeter garden wall" around trees #119 and 12Q,
presumably as a grading limit beneath their canopies, To optimize their chance for
survival, I recommend the wall is expanded to be at least 10 feet east and west of their
trunks.
5.0 RECO1VIlVIENDATIONS
Recommendations presented within this .section are based on plans reviewed, and serve as
.guidelines for mitigating impacts to trees of regulated status being retained or removed.
They should be carefully followed and incorporated .into construction plans, and are
subject to revision upon reviewing any additional or revised plans.
{
5.1 Design Guidelines
1. The recommendations presented in Section 4.0 of this report should be followed.
2. For review purposes, the assigned numbers and trunk locations of the inventoried
trees should be identified on Sheet C-1 (as shown on Sheet C-2).
3. Unless otherwise approved, all utilities and services should be routed outside from
beneath the trees' canopies. In the event this is not feasible, directional boring and/or .
the use of a pneumatic air device (such as an Air-Spade) must be considered.. For
boring, the ground above tunnel(s)- must remain undisturbed and the access pits
established as far from the trunks as possible. Additionally, the pit locations (if
within the TPZ or designated-fenced areas) shall be reviewed by the Town prior to
being dug.
Placer Oaks Road, Los Gatos Page 7 of 12
Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department
I
David L. Babby, Registered ConsultingArborist June 9, 2008
4. All existing, unused lines or pipes beneath the canopies of retained trees shall be
- - abandoned-and cut off-at exstin soil ade- -rather than.-bein -du u and-causin
g gr' ( g g p g----- --
subsequent root damage).
5. Per Section. 29.10.1000(C.1) of the Ordinance, a copy of this report must. be
incorporated into the final set of project plans, titled Sheet(s) T-1, T-2, etc. (Tree
Protection Instructions), and referenced on all site-related plans.
6. The permanent and temporary drainage design, including downspouts, should not
require water being discharged beneath the trees' canopies.
7. Mitigation is necessary to compensate for the loss of trees removed. Pursuant to
Section 29.10.0985 of the Town Code, this shall be determined by the Parks and
Public Works Department. The trees shall be planted prior to final inspection,
double-staked with rubber tree ties (may not be necessary for trees of 48-inch box
size and larger), and. all forms of irrigation be of an automatic drip or soaker hose
system placed on the soil surface and not in a sleeve. Additionally, to achieve the
greatest assurance of proper installation,. all new trees shall be installed, including
necessary irrigation, by an experienced state-licensed landscape contractor or a
professional tree company.
8. The proposed planting plan specifies the installation of coast live oaks within several
feet of foundations, driveways, walkways,. etc. At these distances, the integrity of
these features will become compromised and potentially damaged as the trees
mature. As a guideline, I suggest the trunks are designed to be at least 10 feet from
any surrounding foundation or hardscape. Where this is not feasible, I suggest an
alternative tree type more compatible for the location(s) is considered.
Placer Oaks Road, Los Gatos Page 8 of 12 ..
Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department
David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist June 9, 2008
9. The landscape design should incorporate the following additional guidelines:
a. The landscape plans should identify the existing and proposed locations of any
tree proposed for relocation.
b. Turf should be avoided beneath canopies of the oaks. ~ As an alternative, I
suggest afour-inch layer of coarse wood chips is used.
c. Large-growing trees (including any to be relocated) that can exceed the height
of retained trees should not be installed beneath canopies of retained trees.
d. Plant material installed beneath the oak canopies shall be drought-tolerant,
limited in amount, and planted at least five to ten feet from a tree's trunk.
A source for identifying suitable drought-tolerant plant material is as follows:
www.californiaoaks.org/ExtAssets/CompatiblePlantsUnder&AroundOaks.pdf.
. e. Irrigation can, overtime, adversely impact the oaks and should be avoided.
Irrigation for any new plant material beneath an oak's canopy should be low-
volume, applied irregularly (such as only once or twice .per week) and
temporary (such as no more than three years}.
f. In the event trenches for irrigation and/or lighting are required beneath a
canopy, they shall be installed in a radial direction to the trees' trunks. If
irrigation trenches cannot be routed as such, the work may need to be
~ performed using a pneumatic air device (such as an Air-Spade®) to avoid
unnecessary root damage.
g. Stones and new fencing should not be placed against the trees' trunks (I suggest
a minimum two-foot setback). Additionally, mulch should not be placed
against the trunks.
h. Tilling beneath canopies should be avoided, including for weed control.
i. Bender board or other edging material proposed beneath the canopies should be
established on top of existing soil grade (such as by using vertical stakes).
5.2 Protection Measures before and during Development
10. An ISA (International Society of Arboriculture) certified arborist and/or a member of
ASCA (American Society of. Consulting Arborists) - to be named the "project
arborist" -shall be retained by the applicant/owner or contractor to assist in
implementing and achieving compliance with all tree protection measures.
Placer Oaks Road, Los Gatos
Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department
Page 9 of 12
David L. Babby, Registered ConsultingArborist June 9, 2008
11. Prior to any grading or site clearing work, apre-construction meeting between the
...
-- -- - - --project--arborist-and- contractor shall-be -held -on-site--to discuss-work-procedures, - -
protection fencing locations,. limits of grading, tree removals, staging areas, routes of
--access, -supplemental. watering,--mulching,-..locations _.for equipment.. washing _pits,_
procedures for removing existing paving beneath tree #2's canopy, and any other
applicable tree protection measures. The limits of .grading should be staked prior to
the meeting.
12. Tree: protective fencing shall be installed prior to any grading, surface scraping or
heavy equipment arriving on site, and its precise location and placement approved by
the project arborist• (in the form ~ of a letter submitted ~to the Town) prior to the
issuance of any demolition, grading or construction permit. It should be comprised
of six-foot high. chain link mounted on eight-foot tall, two-inch. diameter steel posts
that are driven 24 inches into the ground and spaced no more than 10 feet apart. Once
established, the fencing must remain undisturbed and be maintained throughout
construction until final inspection.
`,
13. Prior to construction, 8.5- by 11-inch signs (minimum) should be attached to the
fencing on the side facing construction activities and contain the following wording:
"Warning -Tree Protection. Zone -this fence. shall not be removed. Violators are
subject to a penalty according to Tows Code 29.10.1025."
14. Unless otherwise approved, all development activities must be conducted outside the
designated fenced areas, as well as beyond unpaved area beneath canopies of
Ordinance-sized trees inventoried and not inventoried for this report. These activities
include, but are not limited. to; the following: grading, stripping of topsoil, trenching,
equipment cleaning,. stockpiling/dumping of materials, and equipment/vehicle
operation and parking.
15. Any approved activity required on unpaved areas beneath the trees' canopies must be
performed under the supervision of the project arborist. All work should be manually
Placer Oaks Road, Los Gatos Page 10 of 12 ,,<,
Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department
David L. Gabby, Registered Consulting Arborist June 9, 2008
performed using hand tools and wheelbarrows. In the event roots of two inches and
greater are encountered during the process, the project arborist shall be consulted.
16. The removal of existing paving beneath tree #2's ~ canopy must be .carefully
performed to avoid excavating soil and damaging roots during the process. The
project arborist should monitor this work, which must not involve the use of heavy
equipment or tractors operating or traveling on unpaved soil beneath the canopy.
17. Post/pier holes dug beneath tree canopies for the proposed sound wall and perimeter
fencing must first be reviewed by the project arborist prior to digging. A post-hole
digger should be used to dig the first 2.5 to 3 feet below grade. In the event a root of
two inches and greater in diameter is encountered during the process, the hole should
be shifted over by about 12 inches and the process repeated. All digging below the
hand-dug area can occur using amanually-operated mechanical auger.
18. Recommendations that are presented within Section 5.1 of this report and pertain to
site development should also be followed.
19. Throughout construction during the months of.May thru October, supplemental water
shall be supplied to retained trees. The specific trees, methodology, frequency, and
amounts shall be prescribed by the project arborist.
20. The relocation of trees ..shall be performed according to the standards set forth in
ANSI A300 (Part 6)-2005 Transplanting, and also by a company that has an -ISA
certified arborist in a supervisory role, holds a current California state-licensed
contractor's license, carries General Liability and Worker's Compensation insurance,
and abides by ANSI 2133.1-2006 (Safety Operations). All recommendations
provided by the company for pre-, during, and post-transplant care shall be followed.
21. All tree pruning and removal shall be performed in accordance with the most recent
ANSI standards, and by a California state-licensed tree service company that has an
ISA certified arborist in a supervisory role. The company selected should also carry
Placer Oaks Road, Los Gatos Page 11 of 12
Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department
David L. Babby, Registered ConsultingArborist ~ Ju»e 9, 2008
General Liability and Worker's Compensation insurance,. and shall abide by ANSI •'
___ _ _ _ __..__ _. 2133:1-2006-(Safety Operations);.. _ - - - --
_ _ - -. _ _~ -22._Where needed,_~oil_should be c4eared_from the root_collars4 of_all. oaks to minimize __ _
the risk of infection by harmful root-rotting organisms. The work should be
. performed under supervision of an ISA certified arborist~.
23. All equipment shall be positioned to avoid the trunks and branches of trees. Where a
conflict arises, the project arborist must be contacted to help address the situation.
24. The disposal of harmful products (such as cement, paint, chemicals, oil and gasoline)
is prohibited beneath canopies or anywhere on site thatallows drainage beneath.
canopies. Herbicides should not be used beneath the. trees' canopies; where used on
site, they should be labeled for safe use near trees.
Pre ared By: ~~~~~ ~ • Date: June 9, 2008
p
David L. Babby
Registered ConsultingArborist#399
_ Board-Certified MasterArborist #WE-4001B ~ ~rr.~,,~,;f~R«
~ ~
~ ~~ T
~. ~~
.~
~~^~r~n~ult{n9 h~h~
a A "root collar" is the area where the large anchorage roots and main trunk merge,. often distinguished by a
distinct swelling at a trunk's base.
Placer Oaks Road, Los Gatos Page ]2 of I2 ,.~ .
Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department ~'
r'.
INITIAL STUDY -PLACER OAKS
ATTACHMENT Z
RECOMMENDATIONS
FROM
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
FOR
PROPOSED NEW 9-UNIT SUBDIVISION
AT THE
PLACER OAKS. ROAD PROPERTY
2S4S PLACER OAKS ROAD
LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA
BY
GEOFORENSICS, INC.
JUNE, 2007
I;~
File: 207070
7uly 2, 2007
Ground Subsidence -Ground subsidence may occur when poorly consolidated soils densify as a
result of earthquake shaking. Although most of the site is underlain by dense native and fill
materials, there are some localized areas of loose fiU. FIence, the hazard due to ground subsidence
is, in our .opinion, considered to be moderate to low. For lots with loose fill materials, special
foundation construction,. and/or ground improvements have been recommended.
Lateral Spreading -Lateral spreading may occur when a weals layer of material, such as a sensitive
silt or clay, loses its shear strength as a result of earthquake shaking. Overlying blocks of competent
material may be translated laterally towards a free face. Such conditions were encountered on the
western margins of the proposed-building site. Therefore, the potential for lateral spreading has been
addressed for the potentially affected lots.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Site Preparation and Grading
All debris resulting from the demolition of any existing improvements should be removed from the
site and may not be used as fill. Any existing underground utility lines to be abandoned, should be
removed fi om within the proposed buildu1g envelope and their ends capped outside of the building
envelope.
Any vegetation and organically contaminated soils should be cleared from the pavement and building
areas. All hales resulting from removal of tree stumps and roots, or other buried objects, should be
overexcavated into 1=1rm materials and then backfilled and compacted with native materials.
The placement of new fills at the site is expected to include: utility trench backfill, slab subgrade
materials, and fuushed drainage and landscaping grading. These and all other fills should be placed
in confoi~nanee with the .following. guidelines:
Fills n•~ay use organic-free soils available at the site or import materials. Import soils should be free
of construction debris or-other deleterious materials and benon-expansive. A minimum of 3 days
prior to the placement of any fill, our offace should be supplied with a 3p pound sample
(approximately a full S gallon bucl~et) of any soil or baserock to be used as fill (including native and
import materials) for testing and approval.
All areas to receive fills should be stripped of organics and loose or soft near-surface soils. Fills
should be placed on level benches in lifts no greater than 6 inches thick (loose) and be compacted
to at least 90 percent of their Maximum Dry Density (MDD), as determined by ASTM D-1557. In
pavement (concrete or asphalt) areas to receive vehicular traffic, all baserock materials should be
compacted to at least 95 percent of their MDD. Also, the. upper 6 inches of soil subgrade beneath
any pavements should be compacted to at least 95 percent of its MDD.
I
File: 207070
July 2, 2007 •~
All unretainedfills to be placed on slopes steeper than. 6 to 1(horizontal to vertical, H:V) will need
to be keyed and benched into competent native materials. Any retained fills will need to be benched
incompetent materials, however, a formal keyway is not recfuired. The entire base of any k~ay __
---- _
should extend into competent materials, generally located•about 5.5 to 7 feet below grade on the
eastern slope. The entire bases of all benches should extend into competent materials, as identified
ui the field by representatives from o~u• office. It should be anticipated that the outer edge of bench
excavations will extend at least 7 feet below native grade. Keyways and benches should be sloped
back into the hillside at a minimum 2% gradient.
Temporary, dry-weather, vertical excavations shauld remain stable for short periods of time to
heights of 4 feet. Deeper cuts may experience raveling and sloughing, particularly on the western
side of the project. If this occurs, the cuts will need to be trimmed back per our. recommendations
made in the field. All excavations should be shored. or sloped in accordance with OSHA standards.
Cuts deeper than 10 feet may encounter groundwater and will require temporary (and perhaps
permanent) dewatering.
Permanent cut andlor fill slopes should be no steepex than 2:1(H:V). However, even at this gradient,
minor sloughing. of slopes may still occur i1i the future. Positive drainage improvements {e.g.
drainage swales, catch basins, etc.) should be provided to prevent water from flowing over the tops
of cut andlor fill slopes.
Ground Lnprovements
The shallower soils along the western and northern margins of the site contain loose sandy soil
materials which have been determined to be potentially subject to liquefaction aiid lateral spreaduig.
In order to reduce the potential for such conditions to impact the proposed project, we recommend
that a program of ground improvement be implemented at the subject site.
Although there are several options available to improve the ground conditions to mitigate against
these seismic problems, we anticipate that the best mitigation method would be f o perform pressure
~routirag of the potentially problematic materials as they are located relatively close (<20) below
existing grades, but often below the water table. Specifically, we recommend that. the following
grouting work be conducted:
Lateral Confinemtent Barrier - in order to limit the potential for the site to experience lateral
spreading, we recommend that a 20 foot wide zone of pressure grouted material be installed to
provide a lateral barrier to movement. In this area, a series of pressure grout holes. would be drilled
to a minimum depth of 25 feet on a S foot spacing. The holes would then receive grout injections
at intervals determined by the groutinb contractor to density the soils up to a depth of 5 feet below
grade. The grout curtain wall will need to extend from the southeastern corner of Lot 3, clockwise
around to the eastern side of Lot 9. 'We recommend that the grout curtain be located a minimum of
S feet fi•orn the perimeter of any building pad in order to limit differential settlements under the
structure in case the building pad has not also been pressure grouted.
9
File: 207070
July 2, 2007
Lot Densification - In addition to the grout. curtain for la#eral spreading mitigation, it may also be
advantageous to pressure grout building pads in order to limit on-site liquefaction and associated
post-seismic settlements. Lots 3 and 9 are the prime candidates to receive such treatments. Using
such treatments, these two Iots (and any others similarly treated) may then be constructed on a
waffle-style foundation system rather than the proposed pier and grade beam system. Alternatively,
these lots will need to be supported on deep drilled piers (which may be difficult to .install due .to
high ground water conditions such as on Lot 3). Pressure grouting to achieve lot densification
should use pressure grouting holes extending a minimtun of 25 feet below grade. The area of
grouting should cover the entire building pad, plus an additional zone extending a minimtun of 10
feet laterally from the edge of the proposed building. Specific grouting patterns and pressures are
to be detei~nined by the grouting contractor.
Foundations -Drilled Piers
Due to the presence of loose sands and fill materials, the foundations will need to penetrate into the
deeper, more stable soils (if soil improvements are not conducted across the building pads). We
recommend a pier and grade beam foundation system be used.
Piers should penetrate a minimttm of 15 feet below lowest adjacent grade, and 5 feet into competent
native materials, whichever is deeper. It should be assumed that up to 25 feet of overburden will
exist at the site, so nominal pier depths may range from 15 to 30 feet below lowest adjacent grade.
W/zeregrouncl water is etscocuztered in sandysvils, pier drilling r~tny experience caving conditions.
In stccl: cases, tlae Bales may need to be cased, tremmied, or drilled and potcred, depending upon
fire degree of laole instability. It would be wise to test drill some pier !toles to determine tlae degree
of instability prior to full scale production on any lot.
The piers should have a minimum diameter of 16 inches and be nominally reinforced- with a
minimum of four#4 bars vertically. Piers should be spaced no closer than 4 diameters, center to
center.
Actual pier depth, diameter, reinforcement, and spacing should be determined by the structtual
engineer based upon the following design criteria:
A friction value of 500 psf (with a 1/3 increase for seismic and wind Toads) may be assumed to act
on that portion of the pier in competent material. Temporary lateral support to seismic or wind
loading maybe assumed to be developed in the upper 5 feet of pier length, using a passive pressure
of 250 pcf Equivalent Fluid Weight (EFW). Passive resistance may be assumed to act over 1.5
projected pier diameters.
Even though piers are designed to derive their vertical resistance tluough skin friction, the bases of
the piers holes should be clean and firm prior to setting steel and pouring concrete. If more than 6
inches of slough exists in the base ofthe pier holes after drilling, then the slough should be removed.
If less than b inches of slough exists, the slough may be tamped to a stiff condition.
10
,`
Pile: 207070
July 2; 2007
I9ue to groundwater, loose sands, and very gravelly materials, the piers should not remain
open for more than a few days prior to casting .concrete. In the event of tarn, shallow
groundwater, or_caving conditions it may be necessary to pour piers immediafely, or even case
__ _ _
- __
the holes. The drilling contractor should be prepared to case the holes should caving
conditions occur. To provide a better qualitypier condition, consideration should be given to
pouring the piers the same day the piers are drilled. If a drill and pour will be performed,.. all
parties concerned (our offlice, structural engineer, special inspectors, municipal, etc.) should
be notified. Alternatively, helix piers may be used for structura! support of the new buildings
in order to achieve a deep foundation system, without threats of pier hole instability.
All perimeter piers, and piers under load-bearing walls, should be connected by concrete grade
beams. 1'eriineter grade beams should penetrate a minimum of 6 inches below crawlspace grade
(unless a perimeter footing drain is installed to intercept water attempting to enter around the.
perimeter). Interior grade beams do not need to penetrate below grade,
All improvements connected dixectly to any pier supported structure, also need to be supported by
piers. This includes, but is not limited to: porches, decks, entry stoops and columns, etc. If the
designer does not wish to pier support these items, then care must be taken to structurally isolate
them (with expansion joints, etc.) from the pier supported structure.
If the above recommendations are followed, total foundation settlements should be less than 1
inches, while differential settlements should be less than 0.5 inches. i
Foundations -Waffle
Where the building pad has been improved through the use of pressure grouting, or other approved
means of liquefaction mitigation, the foundations may consist of a waffle style foundation. The
waffle foundation is to consist of a series of interlocking spread footings which form a rigid mat
across the area of the proposed building. We note that care will need to be exercised during design
to permit cross ventilation under the residence.
Waffle foundations should be designed such that the footings can accommodate unsupported areas
of 20 feet in diameter under the interior of the structure, a 5 foot cantilever along the. edges of the
house, and a 10 foot cantilever at the corner of the structure. With those areas unsupported, the
foundation must be sufficiently stiff to limit deflections to acceptable limits.
If slab floors are to be incorporated into the waffle system, then the floors must be structurally
supported by the waffle beams. J{urther, drainage must be provided ~.uzder the granular capillary
break under each "cell" of the Foundation system. Collection pipes may penetrate the waffle beams,
but details for then passage should be provided by the structural engineer.
11
k'ile: 207070
July 2, 2007
Retaining Walls
Retaining walls will be required along the proposed roadway on the eastern slope. These walls will
also need to be supported by the competent native materials located about 5 to 7 feet below grade.
We recommend the walls be pier supported in order to effectively reach these competent materials..
Wall Forces -Any unrestrainedretgining walls required far the proposed construction should be
designed to resist an active pressure of 45 pcf Equivalent Fluid Weight (EFW) in supporting soils
with retained slopes less than 4; I (H:V). An active pressure of 65 pcf EFW should be utilized for
retained slopes with an inclination of 2:1(H:V). Where retained slopes are greater than 4:1, though
less than 2:1, the designer should linearly interpolate between 45 and 65 pcf EFW.
Any restrained retaining walls required should be designed for the aforementioned active pressti~res
with an additional uniform pressure of 8H psf, where H is the height of the wall in feet. We leave
it to the design professional's judgement in detei7nining whether a wall is xestrained or not.
All retaining walls should also be designed to resist a point load applied at the midpoint of the wall,
equal to %z the ma;~imum applied surcharge.
"Drilled Piers -Any wall ~vhich is located on, or within 1 O feet of the crest of, slopes steeper than
5: I (H:V) should utilize a drilled pier foundation system. We note that pier-supported walls ma not
~ rely upon a toe footing to resist overturning forces. All vertical and lateral forces should be resisted
by piers. This may require the use of a staggered, double row of piers, depending upon the wall
height and any surcharges.
Drilled piers should penetrate a minimum of 15 feet below the lowest adjacent grade,-and at least
5 feet into competent native materials, whichever is deeper. The piers should have a minimum
diameter of 16 inches. Pler should be .spaced no closer than 4 diameters, center to center. Actual
pier depth, diameter, reinforcement, and spacing should be deter~iiined by the structural engineer.
A vertical. friction value of S00 psf may be assumed to act on that portion of the pierbelow a depth
of 5 feet. Lateral support may be assumed to be developed along the length of the pier below S feet,
using a passive pressure of 3 50 pcf Equivalent Fluid WeiglZt (EFW} where the ground is sloping, and
500 psf where the ground below the wail is level. Passive resistance may be assumed to act over 1.5
projected pier diameters. Above 5 feet, no frictional. or lateral support may be assumed. These
design values may be increased 1/s far transient loads (i.e. seismic and wind).
Spread Footings -Where the ground surface is level on the downslope side of the wall for a
distance of at least 10 feet, and where the wall height is less than 5 feet high, spread footings may
be used for wall support. Tallex walls may also be candidates for spread footing construction, but
must be approved by our office prior to design.
12
File; 207070
July 2, 2007
Spread footings for these walls should be desibiiedusing an allowable beanrig ptessuire o 2500 psf, _ ---- -
at aminimum depth of l8 inches below adjacent grade, or on competent materials as approved by
our office in the field. Lateral pressures may be resisted by a passive pressure of 350 pcf EFW
__
assumed to be a~irig against~he sides of the footings (or shear keys if required)..-_P_ slue r-eststa~ce
may start at a depth of 1 foot below exterior grade. Alternatively, lateral pressures may be resisted
by friction between. the base of the footings and the ground surface. A friction coefficient of 0.40
n3.ay be assumed. Frictional and passive resistance ma not be used in combination. The above
values may be increased ~/a for transient loads.
Wall Drainage -The above values have -been provided assuming that back-of--wall drains will be
installed to prevent build-up of hydrostatic pressures behind all walls. This drainage system may
consist of a prefabricated drainage panel (i.e. Miradrain) or a gravel and filter fabric type system.
We also recommend that any walls through which efflorescence transmission would be undesirable,
should be waterproofed. The waterproofnig should be specified by the designer,. though we
recommend the use of Bituthene, Miradri; or other similar waterproofing membrane. additionally,
the ground surface above all walls should form a drainage Swale to carry water to the sides of the
v~~all. Excess surface water should not overtop the retaining wall.
Tl1eback-of--wall drain systems should be installed with a minimum 3 -inch diameter perforated pipe
placed. a minimum of 4 inches below the top of the footing. The pipe should not be placed on tope
of the heel of the wall footing unless seepage tluough the base ofthe wall. is acceptable. Perforations
should be placed face-down (at 5 and 7 o'clock). The perorated pipe should cotu~.ect to a solid ,:
discharge line, which discharges away from the new stititctures. This solid line should not connect
to surface water drain lines (i.e. downspout and area drain lines). Ifwatex transmission through the
base ofa wall is not a concern, then weep holes may be used in place of the pipe.
If used, the gravel system should consist of a minimum 12 inch wide column. of drain rock (3/a to 3/a
incl~ clean, crushed rock) extending. the full width of the wall. The rock should continue to within
12 inches of finish grade. Prior to backfiIling with the drain rock, a layer of filter fabric (Miraf
140N or approved equivalent) should be placed against all soil surfaces to separate the rock and soil.
The filter fabric should wrap over the top of the gravel and then a 12 inch thick cap. of native soils
should be placed at the top of the drain.. If concrete flatwork is to directly overlay the back-of--wall
drain, then the soil cap may be eliminated.
If prefabr7cated drainage panels are used,. a packet of filter fabric-wrapped drain rock should be
placed around the perforated collector pipe at the base of the panel. The tops of the panels should
be sealed and secured in accordance with the manufachirer's recommendations.
We note that Caltrans Class II permeable rock may be utilized in lieu of clean drain rock and filter
fabric. The Class II permeable rock needs to be compacted into glace, and needs to be certified by
the quarry or rockery that it meets the Caltrans Class II permeable rock specifications. Additionally,
the perforated collector pipes. will need to be wrapped in a filter fabric sock to prevent the pei•~neable
rock from washing into the pipe.
13 ~~~
File: 207070
July 2, 2007
Sound Wall Foundations
The sound walls should utilize a pier and grade beam foundation system.
Drilled piers should penetrate a minimum of 20 feet below the lowest adjacent grade, with the pier
depth into competent native materials equal to or greater than the height of the sound wall. The piers
should have a minimum diameter of 16 inches. Pier should be spaced no closer than 4 diameters,
center to center. Actual pier depth, diameter, reinforcement, and spacing should be determined by
the structural engineer.
A friction value of 500 psf may be assumed to act on that portion of the pier below a depth of 5 feet.
Lateral support maybe assumed to be developed along the length of the pier below 5 feet, using a
passive pressure of 350 pcf Equivalent Fluid Weight (EFW). Passive resistance maybe assumed
to act over 1.5 projected pier diameters. Above 5 feet, no frictional or lateral support no.ay be
assumed. These design values maybe increased ~/s for transient loads {i.e, seismic and weld}.
Ideally, the piers for the sound wall will be located wittun, or upslope of the grout curtain wall. If
not, then the sound walls will be subject to dannage due to liquefaction induced ground movements.
House Floor Slabs
The house floors may consist of concrete slabs. However, all slabs must be structurally supported
~ by other foundation elements (e.g. waffle beams, grade beams, etc.). Garage slabs .may be
structurally supported, or constructed "on-grade".
Where installed, structural house floor slabs must be underlain by a minimum of 6 inches of crushed
'/q drain rock with a perforated collector pipe embedded in the base of the gravel to preclude flooding
of this capillary break. The pipe system should then be directed to drain independently of any
surface drainage System (e.g. downspouts, yard drains, etc.).
Above the gravel, a vapor barrier should be installed to limit moisture transmission up to the base
of the concrete slab. Above the barrier, a thin (1 to 2 inch) layer of clean sand should be placed to
aid in the curing of the concrete. Pipe penetrations through the vapor barrier should be sealed.
Other Slabs
The driveways, any sidewallcs or patios, and garage floors rn.ay consist of conventional concrete
slabs-on-grade. Though, it should be expected that some shifting of such slabs can occur. We have
provided guidelines to help reduce post-construction movements, However, it is nearly impossible
to economically eliminate all shifting. Further, some shifting should be anticipated in the event of
a major seismic event.
l~
File: 207070
July 2, 2007
To help reduce cracking, we recommend slabs be a minimum of 5 inches thick and be nominally
reinforced witlx #4 bars at 18 inches on center, each way. Slabs which are thinner or more lightly
reinforced.may_experience undesirable__cosruetic cracking, __Howeyer,_actual reinforcement and
thickness should be determined by the structural engineer based upon anticipated usage and loading.
In Iarge slabs {e.g. patios, garage; etc.), scare joints should be placed at a maximum of l0 feet on
center. In sidewalks, score joints should be placed at a maximum of S feet on center. All slabs
should be separated from adjacent improvements (e.g. footings,. porches, columns, etc.) with
expansion joints.
The garage slab, and slabs through which moisture transmission is undesirable, should be underlain.
by 2 inches of sand over 4 inches of clean 3/4 inch crushed drain rock. The sand and drain rock
should be separated by a vapor barrier {e.g. visqueen).
Slabs which wi l be subj ect to light vehicular loads and through which moisture transmission is not
a concern (e.g, driveway) should be underlain by at least 6 inches of compacted baserock, in lieii of
the sand and gravel. Exterior landscaping flatwork (e.g. patios and sidewalks) may be placed directly
onproof-rolled soil subgrade materials (e.g. no granular subgrade), however, they will be potentially
subject to moisture transmission.
As stated previously, inpavement (concrete or asphalt}areas toaeceive vehicular traffic, all baserock
materials should be compacted to at ]east 95 percent of their MDD: Also, the topper b inches of
native soil subgrade beneath any pavements should be compacted to at least 95 percent of its MDD. ~'
If on grade, the garage slabs should "float" independently from the pexxmeter grade beam. The slab
should be separated from the grade beam with an expansion joint completely around the peruneter
and at any interior isolated columns. Ideally, the. grade beam at the front of the garage should
continue to final floor elevation, with the slab inside the grade beam. Tl1is will help to assure that.
the garage doors always shut upon the grade beam, which should experience little or no movement
(while the slab has the potential for greater nxovements).
Drainage
Due to the flat nature of the site, it will be important to provide good drainage improvements at the
property.
Surface Drainage -Adjacent to any buildings, the ground surface should slope at least 4 percent
away from the foundations within 5 feet of the pei7meter. Impervious surfaces should have a
rninimtun gradient of 2 percent away from the foundation.
Surface water should be directed away from all builduigs into drainage swales, or into a surface
drainage system. (i.e, catch basins and. a solid drain line): "Trapped" planting areas should not be
created next to any buildings without providing means for drainage (i.e. area drains).
15
File: 207070
July 2, 2007
All roof eaves should be lined with gutters. The downspouts should be connected to solid drain
lines, or should discharge onto paved surfaces which drain away from the structure. The downspouts
may be connected to the same drain line as any catch basins, but should not connect to any perforated
pipe drainage system. If splash blocks are preferred, then a perimeter footing drain system must be
installed.
Footing Drain -Due to the potential for changes to surface drainage provisions, it would be wise
(though not required) to install a perimeter footing drain to intercept water attempting to enter the
crawlspace. If a footing drain is not installed, some infiltration of moisture into the crawlspaee may
occur. Such penetration should not be detrimental to the performance of the str~.icture, but can
possibly cause humidity and mildew problems within the house.
'The footing drain system, if installed, should consist of a 12 inch wide gravel-filledtrench, dug at
least 12 inches below the elevation of the adjacent cr~mvlspace. The trench should be lined with a
layer of falter fabric (Mirafi ICON or equivalent) to prevent migration of silts aild clays into the
gravel, but still permit the flow of water. Then 1 to 2 inches of drain rock (clean crushed rock or pea
gravel) should be placed in the base of the lined trench. Next a perforated pipe (minimum 3 inch
diameter) should be placed on top of the thin rock layer. The perforations in the pipe should be face
down. 'The trench should then be backfilled with more rock to within 6 inches of f rushed grade.
The filter fabric should be wrapped aver the top of the rock. Above the filter fabric 6 inches of
native soils. should be used to cap the drain. If concrete slabs are to directly overlay the drain, then
the gravel slrould continue to the base of the slab, without the 5 inch soil cap. This drain should not
be :connected to any surface drainage system.
Drainage Discharge -The surface drain lines slrould discharge at least 1 S feet away fi om the house,
preferably at the street. The discharge location(s) may need to be protected by energy dissipaters to
reduce the potential for erosion. Care should be taken not direct concentrated flows of water towards
neighboring properties. This may require the use of multiple discharge points.
The footing drain lines (if installed), and under-slab subdrains, should discharge independently from
the surface drainage system. A sump pump may be required for these subsurface drain systems. The
surface and subsurface drain. systems should not be connected to one another.
Drainage Materials -Drain lines should consist of hard-walled pipes (e.g. Schedule 40 PVC or
SDR 35). Comigated, flexible pipes may not be used in any drain system installed at the property.
Surface drain lines (e:g. downspouts, area drains, etc.) should be laid with a minimum 2 percent
gradient (% inch of fall per foot of pipe}. Any subsurface drain systems (e.g. footing drains) should
be laid with a minimum 1 percent gradient (~la inch of fall per foot of pipe).
16
File: 207070
July 2, 2007
Utility Lines
.....The ut'li~ty trenches rnay_be coxnpacted~cith_nati_ve sand_y__soals or_clean-impo~•ted_fill., ~e no~.e_that_._. __
import bedding will likely be required due to the high gravel content of the native soils, Only
mechanical means of compaction of trench baekfill will be allowed. Jetting of sands is not
acceptable. Trench backfilI should be compacted to at least 90 percent of its MDD. However, wader
pavements, concrete flatwork, and footings the upper 12 inches of trench backfill must be compacted
to at least 95 percent of its MDD,
Pavement
The access roadway is expected to be asphaltic concrete over Caltrans Class II aggregate base
(baserock). The asphalt should have a minimum thickness of 3 inches. The. baserock should have
a minimum thickness of 8 inches. 'All of the baserock and the upper 6 inches of soil subgrade should
attain a minimum compaction of 9S percent of its Iv1DD. Any fill below this layer should attain a
minimum of 90 percent relative compaction.
Where retaining walls are installed along the upslope side of the roadway, we recommend that the
back ofwall drains be located a minimum of 6 inches below the elevation of the roadway subgrade
to provide a dry and stable base for the pavement. Subcliains can be used to provide longer pavement
life proximate to heavily irrigated landscape areas, but such improvements are not required urxder
current standards of construction'.
Plan Review and Construction Observations
The use of the recommendations contained within this report are contingent upon our being
contracted to review the plans,. and to observe geoteclutically relevant aspects. of the construction.
We should be provided with a full set of plans to review at the same time the plans are submitted to
the building/planning department for review. A mi:aimum of one working week should be pxovided
for review of the plans.
At a minimum, oiu observations should include: key and bench excavations; compaction testing. of
fills and subgrades; pier drilling; slab. and driveway subgrade preparation; installation of any
drainage system (e.g. footing and surface), and fmal grading. A minimum of 48 hours notice should
be provided for all construction observations.
LI14~lITATIOl~1S
This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of the addressee, and then architects and
engineers for aiding in the design and construction of tl~e proposed Bevel opment. It is the addressee's
responsibility to provide this xeport to the appropriate design professionals, building officials, and
contractors to ensure correct implementation of the recommendations.
17
INITIAL STUDY -PLACER OAKS
ATTACH11rIENT 3
RECOMMENDATIONS
FROM
NOISE ASSESSMENT STUDY
FOR THE
PLANNED "PLACER OAKS"
SINGLE-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT
HIGHWAY 17
LOS GATOS
BY
EDWARD L. PACK ASSOCIATES, INC.
JUNE, 2007
t
i
~~ _
` .,.~
~..
-4-
II. Recommendations
To achieve compliance with the Town of Los Gatos Noise Element standard of 55
dB DNL, a noise control barrier 36 ft. high would be required along the Highway 17
.right-of--way. As this measure would not be feasible for a residential project, measures to
achieve noise exposures of up to 65 dB DNL at the exterior livings areas (rear and side
yards) are recommended, as described below.
A. .Exterior Noise Controls
• Construct a 12 ft. high acoustically-effective barrier along or .near
the west property line contiguous with Highway 17. To control
flanking noise, continue the barrier along the .south property line
for the following distances from the main barrier and at the
indicated heights:
11 ft. 15 ft.
10 ft. 35 ft.
9 ft. 40 ft.
8 ft. 45 ft.
7 ft. 40 ft.
6 ft. 40 ft.
In addition, continue the barrier along the east property line from the
northerly most "point" at a height of 10 ft. for 30 ft. and at 8 ft. high for 30
ft.
The barrier height is in reference to the nearest building nad elevation.
i
-5-
Because of the downslope of the site at the northerly portion of Lot 9, the Town of
Los Gatos Planning Department-may want to-consider-allowing-the noise-control barrier
to remain at the top of the slope along Highway 17 at Lots 3, 5, 6 and 7, then turn toward
the flat rear yard area of Lot 9 with a barrier of shorter height (11 ft.) to encompass a
patio area.
If the noise control barrier remains close the freeway property line, the footing of
the wall at the north end of the site would be at approximately 299 ft. while the top of the
barrier would be 12 ft. above the nearest pad grade of 307 ft., to 319 ft. Thus, the actual
wall height in this area would be up to 20 ft.
Please see Figure 1 for the locations and heights of the recommended noise
control barriers.
To achieve an acoustically-effective barrier, it must be made. air-tight, i.e., without
cracks, gaps, or other openings and must provide for long-term. durability. The barriers
can be constructed of wood, concrete, stucco, masonry, earth berm or a combination
thereof and must have a minimum surface weight of 4.0 lbs. per sq. ft. for barriers 10 ft.
and taller and 2.5 lbs. per sq. ft. for barrier shorter than 10" ft. If wood fencing is used,
homogeneous sheet materials are preferable to conventional wood fencing as the latter
has a tendency to warp and form openings with age. However, high quality, air-tight,
tongue-and-groove, shiplap, or board and batten construction can be used, provided the
minimum surface weight requirement is met and the construction is air-tight. Gates may
be incorporated into barriers. that are less than 8 ft. high. The noise. control barriers must
be constructed so that all joints, including connections with posts, pilasters or the building
shells are sealed air-tight and no openings are permitted between the upper barrier
components and the ground.
The implementation of the above recommended measures will reduce exterior
noise exposures to 65 dB DNL or lower in the side and rear yards of the planned homes.
,.,,,~
r
3
x
S2
6
l[,> g~
m
m
,C
U ~
~
m
N
L
+ ,.y.,
L
+
-
v-
O
N .~
t
~
O
C
O
•®
L
~
~
N
;
IL
~ t
~ .D
m _
~
~
• ~ ~ a
ryf
~+-.
iy N
~ _C
.(6 m
.~ 'D
~ .
~ 7
.~
V o m
Q ~ ~
1
s
1 U C
/1 y ..+
1-L O
C O
...
•
~ ~ O
~ U
H
Y
~ n R
V M tr1 'U
00 00 y
2 ~ v ~
UO ~ F°', w a.
y y
U ~+
y u ~
Y rv
J ~ yi
Q J ~
N ~
d ~
W ° 4 0
U o
o
'~ " ~
~ ~
N
-6-
~i
B. Interior Noise Controls
To achieve acceptable interior noise exposures in project living spaces,. the
following noise control measures will be required. In addition, general construction
measures effecting the building shell are also recommended, as described in Appendix B.
These window controls assume the construction of the noise control barrier recommended
in this study. If a barrier higher than 14 ft. is constructed along the Highway 17 property
boundary, the window sound ratings rating be affected. and will need to be re-specified.
• Maintain closed at all times all windows and glass doors of living
spaces of the project that have a direct or side orientation toward
Highway 17, i.e., if there is aline-of--sight from a window or glass
door to the freeway, the space is noise impacted.
• Install windows rated minimum Sound Transmission Class (STC)
38 at the second floor living space windows within 35 ft. of the
west property line. ~"~
• Install windows rated minimum STC 34 at -all second-floor living
space windows between 35 ft. and 125 ft. of the west property line.
• Install' windows and glass doors rated minimum. STC 29 at all other
second floor living spaces and at all first floor living spaces.
• Provide some type of mechanical ventilation for all living spaces
with a closed window condition.
When windows and doors are maintained closed for noise control, some type of
mechanical ventilation to assure a habitable environment must be provided. The
mechanical ventilation requirements specified by the Uniform Building Code (UBC) are
described in Appendix B. The windows and glass doors specified to be maintained
closed are to be operable, as the requirement does not imply a "fixed" condition. All
other windows and glass doors of the project and all bathroom windows may have any
type of glazing and maybe kept opened as desired.
-~_
In addition to the required STC ratings, the windows and doors shall be installed
in an acoustically-effective manner. To achieve an acoustically-effective window
construction, the sliding window and door panels must form an air-tight seal to the
outside environment when in the closed position and the window frames must be caulked
to the wall opening around their entire perimeter with anon-hardening caulking
compound to prevent sound infiltration. Exterior doors must seal air-tight around the full
perimeter when in the closed position.
Please be aware that many dual-pane window and glass door assemblies have
inherent noise reduction problems in the traffic noise frequency .spectrum due to
resonance that occurs within the air space between the window lites, and the noise
reduction capabilities vary from manufacturer to manufacturer. Therefore, the acoustical
test report of all sound rated windows should be reviewed by a qualified acoustician to
ensure that the chosen windows will adequately reduce traffic noise to acceptable levels.
The implementation of the above recommended measures will reduce interior
t
~ noise exposures to 45 dB DNL or less.
III. Site, Traffic and Project Descrit~tions
The proposed project site is a vacant parcel located on the east side of Highway 17
between Blossom Hill Road and Lark Avenue. The site is presently vacant with the
buildable area relatively flat and approximately at-grade with Highway 17. The northerly
end of the site slopes down to below the freeway grade. The easterly portion of the site is
steeply sloping up to the east. Surrounding land uses include single-family residential
above the site to the east, vacant land. adjacent to the north and south, and Vasona Park is
across Highway 17 to the west.
The primary source of noise at the site is traffic on Highway 17 which carries an
Average Daily Traffic (ADT} volume of 93,000 vehicles, as reported by CalTrans, Ref.
(c). There are no other significant sources of noise in the site vicinity.
S
J
1
JUN ~ $ 2009
NOTICE
TOW N OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING DIVISION
Town of Los Gatos
Environmental Impact Review
Mitigated Negative Declaration
Lead Agency: Town of Los Gatos
Community Development Department
110 East Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95031
Project Title and
Location: Placer Oaks
Placer Oaks Road
General Plan Amendment Application GP-0701
Planned Development Application PD-07-142
Negative Declaration ND-07-143
Project Description: The ±3.1-acre project site consists of three parcels.' The project applicant is
requesting: (1) a General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from Medium Density
Residential (5-12 dwelling units per acre) to Low Density Residential (0-5 units per acre); and (2) a
Rezoning from "RM:S-12PD" to "R-1:8:PD." Approval of the proposed General Plan Amendment and
Rezoning would allow construction of 9single-family homes. The "PD" zoning designation would allow
for reduced road widths and .setbacks. Otherwise, standard requirements under the R-1:8 zone would be
met (e.g., minimum yards, allowable density, maximum building height, maximum lot coverage, and
parking).
Project implementation would result in the creation of nine residential lots and three additional lots for
undeveloped open.space and the access road. A breakdown of these lots is as follows:
Areal Extent
Proposed Use in square feet (acres) % of Site
Open Space 91,949 s.f. (2.11 ac.) 69%
- Private 3,387 s.f. (0.08 ac.)
- Public (Lots A and B} 88,562 s.f. (2.03 ac.)
Street_(Lot C) and Parking 23,749 s.f. (0.55 ac.) 17.8%
Building Coverage (Lots 1 - 9) 17.595 s.f. (0.40 ac.) 13.2%
Total 133,293 s.f. (3.1 ac.) 100.0%
NOTE: Lots A and B comprise 17,850 s.f. or 0. 41 acre,while the remainder of this area is
comprised of the slope above Lots 4, 8, and 9.
Single-family homes would be constructed on nine lots, which would range in size from 5,214 to 25,567
square feet (s:f.). Two floor plans are proposed ranging from 3,480 to 3,625 s.f. in size (including garage);
all would be two stories with 4 bedrooms, 2'/i to 3'/z baths, and two-car garage. A total of 46 parking
spaces would be provided on-site as follows: 18 garage spaces (nine, two-car garages), 18 spaces in
driveway aprons, and 10 on-street parking spaces,
'Parcel No. 529-14-073: 2.821 acres, Parcel No. 529-14-012: 0.23 acre, and Parcel No. 529-14-027: 0:009 acre.
Jt1NE, 2009
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION -PLACER OAKS
The project would include approximately 2.11 acres of private and public open space (69% of the
undeveloped. area): Of this, approximately 3.7% would be private open space, comprised of residential
.~.~,.
- -- patios and yards.-Landscaping-would be planted around-proposed`buildings as-well-as-along the - --- - - - -
northwestetn project boundary adjacent to the freeway site frontage.
-Access. to-the-site-would-be from-Placer-Oaks-Road via.a-proposed-22-foot. wide-private-access driveway.-
Thisaccess driveway would extend from the site's northeast corner.at Plaeer Oaks Road and extend in a
southerly directly along the existing dirt road. At the base of the hill (near the southern boundary), this
driveway would extend in the westerly directly to the western boundary, then northerly along the western
boundary. A sound wall on an earth berm would be constructed along the western project boundary,.
extending up to approximately 14 feet high (top of wall proposed to be at elevation 319 feet).
Determination: Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there
will not be a significant~effect in this case because the nutigation~measures listed below have been added
to the project, mitigating potential impacts to aless-than-significant level. An Environmental Impact
Report will not be required. `
Statement of Reasons to Support Finding:
1. Aesthetics: The western half of the project site is relatively level, while the eastern portion slopes
steeply upward toward..the east, creating a 60-foot change in elevation between the western and eastern
project boundaries. This change in elevation combined with the existing~tree cover on the south side of
Placer Oaks Road limit visibility of the site from. adjacent areas to the north and. east. Existing. tree cover
also limits views of the site from areas to the south. The State Highway 17 freeway extends along the
western project boundary, while residential development is located to the north, east and south of the
project site. Existing tree cover along the site perimeter and: adjacent off-site areas combined with the 60-
foot change in elevation limit visibility of the site from adjacent areas. Views of the site from northbound
lanes of Highway 17 are mostly screened by an almost continuous tree cover that extends. along the east
side of the freeway: This tree cover limits views to just glimpses of the site. From southbound lanes, this
tree cover limits views of the site to glimpses of the upper, eastern margin of the site and existing adjacent
residences to the north and east that are also at these upper elevations. As drivers travel northbound along
this section of the freeway, it should be noted that views are predominantly of adjacent tree cover with
partially screened views of apartment buildings south of the site. Southbound drivers on the freeway also
view mostly tree cover, although roofs of single-family homes that are located north of the project site are
visible from these lanes. .
The project would involve construction of 9 two-story residences on the more level, western portion of
the site, adjacent to the State Highway 17 freeway. Although existing trees located within the freeway
right-of-way would remain, proposed tree removal along the western project boundary to accommodate
the proposed sound wall and project development would increase visibility of proposed development. An
evaluation of views of the site was prepared by the project architect, Paragon, for the proposed
development and submitted to the Town for, review as part of the development application. Site sections
and streetscape views are presented in the development. application. The streetscape from Highway 17
shows that the :row of redwoo8 trees proposed along the western project boundary would eventually
screen views of homes and the sound wall. However, until these trees reach sufficient size, the proposed
sound wall would be visible from the Highway 17 freeway, along with the upper floors and roofs of
project homes. The proposed provision of an earth berm at the base of the sound wall would limit wall
height and provide area for landscape plantings along the berm. Although the project would result in
short-term changes in existing views from Highway 17, these views would be partially screened by
~`~
'-
JuNE,2009
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION -PLACER OAKS
mature trees located along the east side of the freeway (within the freeway right-of-way) and eventually
screened by proposed tree plantings.
Mature tree cover on the sloping, eastern portion of the site combined with the 60-foot change in
elevation would limit views of project residences from existing residential development to the north and
east. Trees located off-site or along the eastern project boundary as well as fencing and backyards of
adjacent residences would also limit views of the project road from these homes, although some views of
this road could be available from residential backyards or rear windows. Existing tree cover on the
property that abuts .the southern project boundary would continue to screen views of the project from
areas to the south.
The proposed project would include exterior light fixtures on proposed residences and along the private
street, introducing a new source of light in the project vicinity Proposed lighting will be specifically
reviewed as part of Architecture and Site review. To help maintain privacy at adjacent residences and
reduce the potential for disturbance due to nighttime lighting, the final plans will need to satisfy Town
Code Section 29.10.09035, which prohibits the production of director reflected glare (such as that
produced by floodlight onto any area outside the project boundary).
In addition, as vehicles leave the site and approach. Placer:0aks Road when it is dark, their headlights
could illuminate the existing residence to the north of the project street/Placer Oaks Road intersection.
Realignment of the project street westward at this intersection to reduce this .effect was evaluated by
Arbor Resources, but it was determined that such realignment could result iri substantial root damage to a
large oak tree, threatening its long-term viability. The applicant retained a landscape architect to evaluate
this situation to prepare some possible designs for adding some type of screening on the neighbor's
property.
2. Agriculture Resources: The project site is currently undeveloped, and the site's agricultural potential
is limited by its small size (3.1 acres) and surrounding residential development. There are no existing
agricultural uses/operations at or near the site.
3. Air Quality: The project would be consistent with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District's
(BAAQMD) most recently adopted regional .air quality plan, the Bay Area 2005 Ozone Strategy (BAOS).
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 BAOS is based on population projections of the
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) that are based on the Town's General Plan in effect at the
time the BAGS was approved, consistency of the project with the General Plan would indicate consistency
with the BAOS. Although the project would amend the General Plan designation from Low Density
Residential (0-5 units per acre) to Medium Density Residential (5-12 dwelling units per acre), the project
would involve development of nine residences on 3.1 acres and this density (2.9 units per acre) would be
allowed under either General Plan designation. Therefore, the project would be consistent with the BAGS.
The San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin is classified by the BAAQMD as non-attainment for ozone and
inhalable particulates (PM,a). The proposed .project would generate 86 trips per day, 7 trips during the
AM peak hour, and 9 trips during the PM peak ho{~r. The proposed residential development would be
below the Bay Area Air Quality Management District's (BAAQMD) threshold levels for potential
significance for residential uses. Therefore, air emissions increases associated with the proposed project
would be considered less than significant since the size of the proposed project would not exceed the Bay
Area Air Quality Management District's (BAAQMD) threshold levels for potential significance. The
BAAQMD threshold level for potential significance is 375 single-family units or 2,000 trips per day. At
~ or above this size, traffic generated by the project would have the potential to generate significant local
JtrrrE, 2009
MTI'IGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION -PLACER OAKS
and regional air quality impacts, and an air quality impact assessment would need to be prepared and
submitted to the BAAQMD for review.
~~t.
Adjacent residential uses are considered to be sensitive receptors. Proposed grading activities would
generate short-term emissions of criteria pollutants, including suspended and inhalable particulate matter
- - - and~equipment:exhaust-emissions. The-project parcel-is approximately 3:-1 acres-but-surface disturbance -- - -
would affect a smaller area, approximately two acres. The BAAQMD does not require quantification of
construction erriissions, liut considers ariy project's. construction-related impacts to be less than significant
if required dust-control measures are implemented. The Town's standard dust control conditions require
implementation of the BAAQMD's standard dust control. measures (required on sites of less than four
acres), which would mitigate the project's construction-related air quality impacts to a less-than-
significant level.
In 2006, California passed the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (Assembly Bill No. 32;
California Health and Safety .Code Division 25.5, Sections 38500, et seq.),. which limits statewide
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to 19901evels and. establishes a goal of achieving these emissions
reductions by 2020 (representing a 25 percent reduction in emissions). AB 32 requires the California Air
Resources Berard (GARB) to adopt a comprehensive blueprint for limiting greenhouse gas emissions by
the end of 2008 and complete the necessary rulemaking to implement that plan by the end of 201 L
Pursuant to this~requirement, GARB released their Proposed' Scoping Plan in October 2008, which
estimates reductions from the combination of acap-and-trade program and a set of measures in the
transportation (emissions reductions), energy efficiency and conservation (solar and renewable energy),
and. industrial measures (such as recycling and waste).
Since the GARB has not adopted. a methodology or defined quantitative thresholds that can be applied to a
specific development project to evaluate an individual project's contribution to GHG emissions
(particularly, for a project as small as nine single-family residences),. no significance determination for the
proposed project can be made at this time. However,. until such time that a methodology is adopted and
mitigation cane be applied, it is recommended that energy efficiency measures be incorporated' into the
proposed building to the maximum extent feasible. While the proposed building is required to comply with
energy efficiency requirements of the California Energy Code (Title 24, Part 6 of the California
Administrative.Code), the Town will also require completion of the GreenPoint Rated checklist during
Architecture and Site review process when proposed home designs are submitted (pursuant to the Town's
adoption of near-term policy recommendations from the Santa Clara County Cities Association Green
Building Collaborative in Apri12008).
To provide for future use of renewable energy, it is also recommended that solar access to the project
homes as well as existing adjacent structures be maintained to the maximum extent feasible. Since the
project site is located lower in elevation than surrounding areas to the east and proposed landscaping on
the upper portion of .the site would be limited. to shrubs (not trees), project residences would not shade any
existing. structures to the east. Shading is a design issue that is reviewed as part of the Architecture and
Site review process to determine whether the proposed homes would shade each other or any adjacent
homes.
4. Biological. Resources: The project site is characterized by oak woodland corridor on the periphery of
the site while the central portion consists of non-native grassland. The oak woodland includes primarily
coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) along with valley oak (Quercus lobata); these oaks constitute 82
percent of the 95 trees listed in the arborist's inventory. The potentially affected oak woodland occurs
primarily on the western edge of the project site, bordering the Highway•17 right-of-way.
JUNE, 2009 4
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION -PLACER OAKS
The central portion of the project site is covered with non-native annual .grasses; the proposed residences
have been planned for development primarily in the grassland area since this area is relatively level and
best suited for residential siting. Non-native annual grasses common to this habitat include slender wild
oats (Avena barbata), cheat grass (Bromus tectorum), barnyard barley (Hordeum murinum ssp.
leporinum) and Italian wild rye (Lolium multiflorum); while common non-native fortis include bristly ox-
tongue (Picris echioides), yellow star thistle (Centauria solstitialis), Italian thistle (Carduus
pycnocephalus), and milk thistle (Silybum marianum). The grassland areas on the project site are disced
annually for fire prevention purposes, as required by the Town.
Special Status Plant Species. Based on the inventory of rare and endangered plants maintained by the
California Native Plant Society (GNPs}, the oak woodland habitat on the project site has the potential to
.support three special status species (GNPs List 1B: "Plants rare, threatened or endangered in California
and elsewhere"): Loma Prieta hoita (Hoita strobilina), western leatherwood (Dirca occidentalis), and
Davidson's bush mallow (Malacothamnus davidsonii). The three species are generally associated with
mixed oak woodland or chaparral habitats. Site soil conditions and topography would not be conducive
for the support of these species. The closest recorded locations for these species include the Santa Cruz
Mountains, the border of Santa Clara and Santa Cruz counties, and the Coyote Ridge vicinity in Santa
Clara County.
Similarly., five List 1B class species are associated with grassland habitat in the project vicinity. These
include: Mt. Hamilton fountain thistle (Cirsium fontinale var. campylori), Santa Clara Valley dudleya
(Dudleya setchellii), fragrant fritillary (Fritillaria liliacea), Metcalf •Canyon jewel-flower (Streptanthus
albidus ssp. Albidus), and most beautiful jewel-flower (Streptanthus albidus ssp. Peramoenus). These
species are associated with serpentine soils and. site conditions do not include such soil characteristics.
Based on these factors and the small area affected by proposed home development, the potential for
impact on these species would be less than significant.
While no nests were observed on the project site, the proposed project would have the potential to
adversely affect special-status bird species during the construction period. In order to minimize the
potential effects of grading on nesting birds, the following mitigation measure will be required:
MITIGATION: If land clearing, grading, tree and brush removal, tree trimming or demolition activities
are to occur during the nesting season (i.e., between February 1 and August 15),'aprc-construction
nesting bird survey shall be performed by a qualified biologist. The biologist should survey the area
immediately adjacent to the construction area for the presence of nests. This pre-construction survey
shall be conducted no more than one week prior to planned grading activity.
^ If nesting birds with eggs or young are observed during the pre-construction surveys, grading in
the affected project area shall not commence until after the young have fledged.
^ If no nesting birds are observed, no further action isrequired,-and grading and construction may
proceed,. provided it commences within one week of the survey to prevent "take" of individual
birds that may have begun nesting after the survey.
Tree Removal. Policy O.P.3.3 of the Open Space Element of the Los Gatos General Plan emphasizes
preservation of public and private landscaping along Town streets. The Los Gatos Tree~Protection
Ordinance states that the preferred tree replacement is two or more trees of a species and size designated
by the Director of the Parks and Public Works Department. Tree replacement requirements are based on
canopy size, which is defined in Table 3-1 of the Ordinance, Tree Canopy -Replacement Standard. Tree
Ju[vE, 2009
MITIGATED NEGATNE DECLARATION -PLACER. OAKS
canopy replacement requirements range from two to six 24-inch box size trees or two 36-inch and/or 48- , ~
inch box size trees, depending.. on the canopy size of the tree to be removed. ,
~._.
During project construction, there would be the. potential for damage to the oak trees that are proposed to
be retained. Proposed tree protection measures (refer to Tree Protection Notes on Existing Tree Plan) .
-- - would minirruze such-potential impacts to a-less than-significant-level.--------- ----- --------- --- -------- - - -
Arbor Resources (AR) completed a tree survey for the proposed projecton June 2008, and a copy of this
report is on file with the Los Gatos Community Development Department: AR identified 152 trees on the
site and inventoried a total of 95 trees. The inventoried trees consist of nine.various species (almost 90%
are oaks): approximately 83 valley and coast live oaks, one California black walnut, four blue
elderberries, two holly-leaf cherries, one California bay, one cypress, and three willows. There were many
additional trees scattered. throughout the project site, but were exempt by .Town Code (they are fruit- or
nut-bearing trees with trunks less than four inches in diameter). Of the 95 trees,. three are located on the
property to the°south, but their trunks are situated along or within a few feet of the property boundary and
their canopies overhang onto the project site.
Of the 95 inventoried trees on the site, approximately 43 trees would be removed. because they would
conflict with proposed development and. they consist of 36 oaks (#4, 8, 14, 19,.28, 29, 76-84, 115, 116,
117, 122, 123, 125, 128-132, 134-143), three willows (#85,.86, 127),. one California bay (#12), orie
cypress (#133), and two blue elderberry (#27 and 124). AR recommends that nine oak trees be relocated
(#113, 114, 144, 146 (consists of a cluster of six. trees).
Although proposed to be retained, there are 15 trees that would be severely impacted by proposed
development and their longevity and stability would be jeopardized by proposed development: #2, 15, 16,
22, 25, 72, 73, 75, 91, 124, 145, 1:46,149-151. Of :these, AR recommends the following design
modifications:
^ Tree #2 is a prominent coast live oak at the project entrance on Placer Oaks Road. AR recommends
specific design modifications to ensure survival of this oak.
^ Trees #25, 72, 73, and 145 would be adversely affected by proposed drainage improvements or sound
wall construction and AR recommends modification of grading and.trenching in the vicinity of these
trees as well as relocation and design modification of this section of the sound wall.
^ Tree #91 would be subject to short- and long-term damage from the proposed dissipater and storm
drain lines, and AR recommends relocation of these facilities.
^ Trees #149-151 would.be adversely affected by proposed installation of a sewer line using the open
trench construction method. AR recommends that this line be installed using the directional-boring
technique (microtunneling) under the tree canopies.
^ AR identifies potential root loss to Tree #90 from both trenching for the storm drain and construction
of the walkway. AR recommends relocation of the walkway at least 20 feet from this tree's trunk,
which would require removal of Tree #124,. a blue elderberry.
To reduce impacts on trees to be retained and adequately replace trees to be removed, the following
measure will' be required:
J
JUNE, 2009 6
MTI'IGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION -.PLACER OAKS
MITIGATION: Recommendations made by Arbor Resources (June 9, 2008) shall be implemented to
eliminate or minimize the construction-related impacts on the trees to be :retained. ~ Recommendations
are listed under Section 5.0 of the arborist's report but Section 4:0 also includes additional design
recommendations. These include design guidelines section addressing tree Location mapping, utility
locations, drainage facilities, and landscape design. The report also provides protection measures
before and during construction, addressing fencing, work within tree canopies, etc. The report's ,
findings and recommendations are included as Attachment 1 of the Initial Study.
MITIGATION MONITORING: The Planning Division of the Community Development Department will
be responsible for ensuring that all recommendations made by the arborist are reflected in final
project plans and implemented during construction.
5. Cultural Resources: The project site is undeveloped and there would be a very low potential for
encountering historical resources on the project site. An archaeological field inspection was conducted. on
the project site in 1999 by Holman & Associates and a copy of this report is on file. with the Los Gatos
Community Development Department. The inspection included an archival search of State Clearinghouse
records and a field inspection of the project site. The archival research revealed that there are no recorded
prehistoric or historic cultural resources within. the subject area, and no prehistoric or historic cultural
resources were noted during the surface reconnaissance. Also, there are no recorded sites, historic or
prehistoric, within one-fourth mile of the project site. No evidence of arboriginal use and/or occupation
of the area was noted during the field inspection. The lack.of archaeological materials may be due, to the
fact that there is a layer of fill to a depth of at least four feet {up to 22 feet in some locations), covering the
entire original stream terrace and making. it impossible to complete a visual field inspection. A program of
subsurface testing br archaeological monitoring would not be recommended given the depth of this fill.
However, given the proximity of the project area to the original course of Los Gatos Creek, the-area does
have the potential for containing buried archaeological resources, which might have been associated with
the original stream terrace. To ensure that any subsurface cultural resources are not adversely affected by
project development, the following mitigation measures will be required:
MITIGATION: In the event that archaeological traces are encountered, all construction within a 50-meter
radius of the find will .be halted,-the Community Development Director will be notified, and an
archaeologist will be retained to examine the find and make appropriate recommendations.
MITIGATION: If human remains are discovered, the Santa Clara County Coroner will be notified. The
Coroner will determine whether or not the remains are Native American. If the Coroner determines
that the remains are not subject to his authority, he will notify the Native American Heritage
Commission, who shall attempt to identify descendants of the deceased Native Americans.
MITIGATION: If the Community Development Director finds that the archaeological find is not a
significant resource, work will resume only after the submittal of a preliminary archaeological report
and after provisions for reburial and ongoing monitoring are accepted. Provisions for identifying-
descendants of a deceased Native American and for reburial will follow the protocol set forth in
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(e). If the site is found to be a significant archaeological site, a
mitigation program will be prepared and submitted to the Community Development Director for
consideration and approval, in conformance with the protocol set forth in Public Resources Code
Section 21083.2.
MITIGATION: A final report shall be prepared when a find is determined to be a significant
. archaeological site, and/or when Native American remains are found on the site. The final report will
include background information on the completed work, a description and list of identified resources,
JurrE, 2009 7
MTI'IGATED NEGATNE DECLARATION -PLACER DAKS
the disposition and curation of these resources, any testing, other recovered information, and
conclusions.
MITIGATION MONITORING: The Planning and Building Divisions of .the Community Development
Department will be responsible for ensuring that these measures are implemented appropriately
_ - _ - _. _during construction-as-the need-arises.---------------------_~_.___ __.__--- ---_-T -_._-- ------_-_---.__ -.. __-__ _ _
6. Geology and Soils: The eastern portion of the site slopes steeply down towards the west, but the
remaining two-thirds of the lot is relatively level with only a slight slope. toward the north and west.
Project development would occur primarily on the western portion of the site while development on the
sloping eastern portion of the site would be limited to the access road and pedestrian.path. The proposed
grading plari.indicates 2,797 cubic yards (c.y.) of cut and 4,551 c.y. of fill, resulting in net total of 2,017
c.y. of fill (accounting for shrinkage factors), Most of the excavation would be. associated with
construction of the proposed access road, while most of the fill would be associated with development of
the homes. New retaining. walls would be required to support cuts and' fills along. the roadway alignment
where it extends along the steep eastern slope. Although the roadway could be constructed completely on
cut ground, it is also likely that fill would need to be placed on the downslope side in order to limit wall
heights in the cut areas. Town requirements will include provision of interim and final erosion control
plans. Such measures would reduce potential. erosion hazards to aless-than-significant level.
A geotechnical .investigation was completed for the project by GeoForensics, Inc. (GFI) in 2007. The GFI
study was peer reviewed by the Town's consulting geotechnical engineer, AMEC Geomatrix, in 2008. A
response was prepared by GFI in 2008 and the response was subsequently reviewed by AMEC in 2008.
Copies of these studies and evaluations are on file at the Los Gatos Community Development .
Department. The GFI study involved a site reconnaissance, review of published geotechnical maps,
subsurface exploration (ten borings), laboratory testing, and engineering analysis of field and lab data.
From a geotechnical engineering standpoint, GFI concluded the site can. be safely developed as proposed,
provided recommendations are incorporated into the design and construction. ,
According. to geologic mapping reviewed by GFI, the eastern portion of the site is underlain by Older
Alluvium (weathered, unconsolidated to moderately consolidated' gravel, sand, and silt), while the western
portion of the site is underlain with Younger Alluvium (unconsolidated and.undissected, poorly sorted
gravel, sand, silt clay, and organic matter). GFI's subsurface exploration encountered clay, sand, and
gravel materials consistent with this mapping. Borings also encountered imported fill material of varying
depth (up to 22 feet) in some locations. -
The site lies within the seismically active Bay Area, but is not within any of, the "Earthquake Fault Zones"
established by the Alquist-]?riolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act of 1972. According to GFI, the active San
Andreas Fault is located 7 kilometers (km) southwest of the site,. while the potentially active Monte Vista
- Shannon Fault is mapped approximately 0.7 km to the southwest. Other faults in the project region
include the San Gregorio, Hayward, and Calaveras faults. GFI reviewed the California Seismic Hazards
Zones mapping, which indicates that the western portion of the site is underlain by soils that are
potentially subject to liquefaction hazards. GFI performed a liquefaction analysis, which confirmed
liquefaction hazards in the western margin of the site. GFI alsodetermined that the potential for ground
rupture and large-scale, seismically-induced landsliding at the site are low, while the potential for ground
subsidence is moderate to low. However, GFI indicates that the site is likely to be subject to very strong
to violent ground shaking during its life span due to a major earthquake, and this shaking could result in
lateral spreading. hazards; therefore, appropriate measures to mitigate this possibility have been detailed in
their report.
-\,
JuNE,2009
MITIGATED NEGATNE DECLARATION -PLACER OAKS
.MITIGATION: The recommendations of the geotechnical report by GeoForensics Inc. (dated May 5,
2008) shall be implemented (included as Attachment 2 of the Initial Study). These recommendations
address site preparation, grading, ground improvements, foundations, retaining walls, drainage, and
pavement.
MITIGATION MONITORING: The Building Division of the Community Development and Engineering
Division of the Parks and Public Works Departments will be responsible for ensuring that all
recommendations are incorporated into the project design and properly implemented during
construction.
7. Hazards and Hazardous Materials: A.Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was
completed by Romig Engineers, Inc. in October 2008. This report is available for review at the Los Gatos
Community Development Department. Based on the geotechnical investigation by GeoForensics, the fill
is as thick as 22 feet in some locations, but depth varies across the site. Romig completed a historical
records review, borings, and chemical analysis. A review of historical aerial photographs indicate that the
site was undeveloped with no fill in 1948. The .site was apparently filled prior to or in 1974 with at least
two fill events: one in the southern part of the site by 1965 and another in the northern part by 1974. It is
unknown if any fill .soil was .brought on-site after 1974. The possible fill source is also unknown.
To address potential soil contamination concerns with this fill material, Romig performed soil~sampling
on a reconnaissance level with sampling depths of 5 to 7 feet, corresponding to the expected depth of soil
disturbance that could.be associated with proposed development. The study included drilling seven
exploratory borings to a depth of 5 to 7 feet and two boreholes to a depth of approximately 20 feet (where
groundwater was sampled). Fourteen soil samples and two. groundwater samples were analyzed and
results showed the following:
^ .Soil samples contain very low levels of pesticides (Chlordane and DDE) and apparently degraded
fuels (TPHG and TPHD), but measured levels are below the ESL and TTLC levels.2 Romig
concluded that the metals detected in soils samples are derived from a natural source occurrence
related to regional geology of this area.
^ Groundwater samples contain TPHD, metals, and pesticides (DDD and DDE); but~they were also
below STLC and ESL Ceiling Groundwater Levels.3
On the basis of the boring and chemical analytical-data, Romig concluded that there does not appear to be
significant contaminant presence in the hll soils to depths of seven feet. The presence of these compounds
is attributed to historic pesticide application and farming land use from sites where the Ell originated.
Groundwater quality at the site may be affected by previous uses and the contaminants found in the fill
soils. However, since contaminant levels are below applicable threshold lever, Romig concluded that
groundwater contaminants were not a concern and no further analysis is required.
8. Hydrology and Water Quality: The project site is located within an urbanized area of the Los Gatos
Creek watershed. The Highway 17 freeway forms a barrier to natural drainage from properties along the
east side of the highway-in the project vicinity. Culverts under the freeway provide for drainage Los
Gatos Creek and Vasona Reservoir to the east of Highway 17.
z San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board Soil Tire One Environmental Screening Levels (RWQCB ESLs) and Title
22 Total Threshold .Limit Concentrations (TTLC)
~ s Soluble Threshold Limit Concentration (STLC)
JUNE, 2009 9
MITIGATED NEGATNE DECLARATION -PLACER OAKS
Rainfall is primarily absorbed on-site with minor storm runoff flows (approximately 0.95 cfs4) draining to
the western perimeter of the. property and onto State Highway 17 right-of.-way adjoining the site. Runoff
' ~.,°-'
- collectsin-an off-site drainage Swale and°drains through a Caltrans culvert under I3ighway-l7 into-Vasona- - -
. Reservoir immediately.west of the highway. In addition to minor runoff from the property,. ari existing '
storm.drain transects the southern part of the project site from Placer Oaks Road westward to the Caltrans
- - - -right-of=way-and-discharges to-the drainage-Swale-west of-the-site.-Flows from V-asona-Reservoir-- - - -
dxscharge to Los Gatos Creek; the creek flows into the Guadalupe River, and eventually into the San
Francisco Bay.
Storm Drainaee. As required by the Town, the project plans include an extensive evaluation of hydrologic
conditions on the project site. Analyses by Civil Engineering Associates include a utility plan,. grading
and drainage plan, storm outfall design specifications, astormwater management plan, and a~hydrology
calculations exhibit. These studies present a description of existing hydrological conditions on the site and
anticipated effects of the project on storm flows at the project site.
The 3.1-acre project site is currently undeveloped. Project development would result in approximately
1.55 acres being covered by streets, driveways, parking areas, or buildings (51 % of the site). With the
exception. of the proposed private access road to the property, the steep slopes in the eastern part of the
property would remain as open areas. The existing water easement area that transects the center of the
project site along with new yards for the proposed residential. development would'be retained as pervious
areas on the site.
The Utility Plan (May 16, 2008) for the proposed project indicates that the overall stormwater conveyance
system for the project was designed. to accommodate the 10-year storm event. The hydrological
calculations for the proposed project anticipate 10-year storm flows to increase from the existing volume
of 0.95 cfs to 2.91 cfs under post-development conditions. The Plan specifies that all roof drains would be
directed to splash blocks for maximum on-site percolation. Slope protection measures such as rip-rap at
outfall .locations are proposed for erosion control. All of the site's. stormwater runoff would be directed to
vegetated bio-swales for filtration. Bio-swales are proposed along the waterline easement extending
through the center of the site and along the western boundary of the property. stormwater discharging
from the bio-swales would enter the existing off-site Swale on State right-of-way and join current runoff
flows from. the existing storm drain discharging to the Swale. As a condition of project approval, the
Town will require that the applicant provide the Town with a letter from Caltrans,indicating that site
runoff would be allowed to drain into the swale along the freeway right-of-way. The Utility Plan indicates
that all work to be done in the State of California right-of-way would comply with Caltrans standards and
would be constructed by authority of Caltrans permit No. 0407-6DD1688.
Although project development would result in an increase in peak surface flows from the project site, the
proposed project includes provisions for on-site storage in pipes to ensure that the rate of surface. flows
discharging from the site would remain at pre-development levels (Hydrological Calculations, May 16,
2008). The surface runoff from the project site would drain to an existing storm drain located under the
Highway 17 freeway,. within the Caltrans right-of-way. Since storm. drainage facilities serving the project
area have already been designed with sufficient capacity to accommodate surface runoff from the project
site under current conditions, restriction of post-development flows to existing rates would preclude
project drainage impacts on existing storm drainage facilities. Caltrans approval would ensure that peak
surface flows from the site would not adversely affect downstream freeway facilities. Therefore,. potential
° cubic feet per second.
~s
TUNE, 2009 10
MTI'IGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION -PLACER OAKS
project impacts on existing downstream storm drainage facilities- will be reduced to less than significant
by existing Town requirements and permit approval by Caltrans.
Flood Hazards. According to Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate
Maps (May'18, 2009) for the project area, the project site is located within an area of the town designated
as `.`X," areas of 0.2% annual chance flood, areas of 1% annual charice flood with average depths of less
than 1 foot or with drainage areas less than 1 square mile, and areas protected by levees from 1% annual
chance flood.. The Town of Los Gatos Safety Element Flood Plain map also shows that the 100-year
floodplaln comes in close proximity to the site along the State Hwy 17 frontage. Flood hazard mapping
prepared by the Santa Clara Valley Water District indicates that the limit of the-100-year flood event
would be Iocated at approximately the median of Highway 17, west of the project site. Both of these maps
are schematic in nature and therefore, any site-specific flood. hazard area should be deferred to the FEMA
maps, which indicate that the project site is located outside the 100-year flood plain.
The project site is located just east of Vasona Reservoir (across the freeway) and below Lexington
Reservoir. Similar to other development in Los Gatos located below or near these reservoirs, the project
could subject to inundation due fo failure of upstream dams. Regular inspections by the Division of Dam
Safety as well as ongoing efforts to strengthen/modify dams and spillways by the SCVWD as necessary
help to ensure the structural safety of the reservoirs in .Santa Clara County. Therefore, inundation hazards
due to dam failure are not considered to be any greater at the project site than in other areas located
downstream of this dam.
Water QualitX. Stringent water quality regulations of the- Clean Water Act have recently been triggered
because the NPDES (National Pollution Discharge Elimination System) permit program has failed to
protect beneficial uses of Santa Clara County's creeks and the South San Francisco Bay, as evidenced by
~ such. observations as violations of ambient water quality criteria, high concentrations of toxic substances,
and fish consumption health advisories. These new regulations require that all discharges shall comply
with Provision C.3, New and Redevelopment Performance Standards of Order No. 01-024 of the NPDES
permit program.
Since the project site is located within the Los Gatos Creek watershed, runoff from the site would
discharge indirectly into Los Gatos Creek, flow into the Guadalupe River, and eventually into the Bay.
The Guadalupe River is on the Clean Water Act Section 303(4) List of Water Quality Limited Segments
due to the presence of diazinon, a pesticide, and mercury. Best Management Practices (BMPs) outlined
by the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program (SCVURPPP) for treatment
control of pesticides are bioretention, infiltration, and media filter with adsorption/absorption as the
removal process.
After project completion, surface runoff from the site would be expected to carry typical urban pollutants
generated by roadways, building surfaces, and landscape areas. As a condition of project approval, the
Town will require: (1) preparation and submittal of .interim and final erosion control plans to the
Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department; and (2) implementation of non-point
source pollution prevention measures to reduce pollutant levels in the water that will eventually discharge
to Los Gatos Creek and Guadalupe River. Since the proposed project would create more than 10,000 s.f.
of impervious surfaces, the Town has determined that the C.3 numerical requirements apply to the
proposed project. The project's stormwater management plan includes treatment of storm runoff through
filtration in bio-swales (240 feet in length). The project plans include maintenance programs that reduce
the amount of post-construction pollutants that reach the swales and measures to ensure the continued
functioning of the bio-swales. The Town has determined that these measures would meet C.3
i requirements. Also, since the area of disturbance would involve more than one acre, a Storm Water
JUNE, 2009 11
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION -PLACER OAKS
Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) would be required by the Town. With proposed drainage
. improvements, erosion control plans, and SWPPP, the project would comply with current non-point
_ source requirements as well ~s SWPPP and erosion-control portions ofthe NPDES permit program. -- - - -
Consequently, the project's potential impacts on water resources iri the project area would be less than
significant. .
9. Land Use and Planning: The project site is currently designated by the General Plan for Medium .
Density Residential (5-12 dwelling units per acre) and zoned for Medium Density Residential (RM:S-
12PD). The proposed density of the project would. be 2.9 units per acre, less than the density allowed by .
the General Plan and current zoning. The project applicant is requesting: (1) a General.Plan Amendment
to change the land use designation from Medium Density Residential (5-12.dwelling units per acre) to
Low Density Residential (0; 5 units per acre); and (2} a Rezoning from "RM:5-12PD" to "R-1:8:PD."
The proposed project would be located adjacent to existing single-family residences to the north and east
as well as apartments to the southeast- and south. The project would be consistent with the existing.
adjacent single-family residential uses. Noland. use compatibility problems would be anticipated between
proposed residences and surrounding residential uses because project residences would be separated by
approximately 60 feet vertically (in elevation) and 80 to 150 feet horizontally. Howevex, the proposed
access road to the site would be located as close as 20 feet from existing residences to the east (see
Section 1 1, Noise, for more discussion).
10. Mineral Resources: The Los Gatos General. Plan does not identify any regionally orlocally-
important mineral resources on the project site or in its vicinity.
11. Noise: Project Construction. Project construction would result in temporary short-term noise
increases due to the operation of heavy equipment. Construction noise sources range from about 76 to 85
dBA at 50 feet for~most types of construction equipment, with slightly higher level's of about 88 to 91
dBA at 50 feet for certain types of earthmoving and impact equipment. If noise controls are installed on
construction equipment, the noise levels could be reduced by 1 to 16 dBA, depending on the type of
equipment. Foundation piers are proposed to be drilled, not driven, which would avoid short-term noise
impacts associated with impact pile driving. The potential for construction-related noise increases to
adversely affectnearby residential receptors would depend on the location and proximity of construction
activities to these receptors.
The Town Noise Ordinance (Chapter 16) restricts construction activities to the hours of 8:00 AM to $:00
PM on weekdays and 9:00 AM to 7:00 PM on weekends and holidays. This ordinance also limits noise
generation to 85 dBA at the property line or 85 dBA at 25 feet. Proposed road construction along the
eastern. boundary would be located as close as 20 feet from adjacent residences to the east, while home
development would be located 70 to 1'40 feet away. At 20 feet, the ordinance noise limit would result in
maximum. noise levels of 85 dBA at the closest residences during road construction. At 70 feet,
maximum interior~noise levels would reach 76 dBA with the windows. closed. during home. construction.
Both road and home construction could periodically result in speech interference effects. ~ Temporary
disturbance (e.g., speech interference) can occur if the noise level in the interior of a building exceeds 45
to 60 dBA. However, it should be noted that such levels would only occur for a short period when grading
equipment is operating adjacent to a specific receptor, not. during the entire project construction period.
Therefore, enforcement of the Town Noise Ordinance during project construction (which restricts times
of construction and maximum noise levels) would be adequate to mitigate potential short-term noise
impacts to ales-than-significant level.
J
JuNE,2009 12
MITIGATED NEGATIVI: DECLARATION -PLACER OAKS
r Project Traffic Noise Increases. Long-term noise increases associated with the project would result from
1 increased traffic along the project's private street as well as residential .activities (i.e., operation of
appliances and maintenance equipment such as lawnmowers., blowers, etc.) on the project site. The
estimated 86 vehicles per day would generate noise levels of -less than 45 dBA (Ldn) at 50 feet, which
-would be well below measured ambient noise levels in the eastern portion of the site (measured to be
approximately 67 dBA, Ldn; see below for more discussion). Based on traffic volumes presented in
Section 15, Transportation and Traffic, project-related traffic increases along existing neighborhood
streets would increase noise levels by less than 1 dBA, which would be less than significant. -In general.,
noise increases of 3 dBA are barely perceptible to .most people. Noise generated by project residential
activities is expected to be similar to noise generated by adjacent or nearby residential uses and would not
conflict with the existing residential noise environment in the neighborhood.
Noise Compatibility of Proposed Residences. Residential uses are generally considered to be noise-
sensitive uses or sensitive receptors. Project residents would be subject to noise from the Highway 17
freeway and a detailed noise study was completed for the applicant by Edward L. Pack Associates, Inc.
(Pack). in June 2007. This study evaluated the Noise compatibility of proposed residential uses with the
existing and future noise environment at the project site. Noise measurements taken as part of this study
indicate that existing noise levels on the site are 76 dBA (Ldn) in the vicinity of proposed exterior living
spaces of proposed residences (124 feet from the centerline of the Highway 17 freeway). Under future
conditions, noise exposure at the site is estimated to remain at 76 dBA (Ldn). At the base of the slope on
the site (the eastern margin of the level portion of the site) noise levels are 67 dBA (Ldn).
When compared to the Town of Los Gatos Noise Element exterior noise goal of 55 dBA (Ldn), noise .
levels of 76 dBA (Ldn) at the site would exceed this goal by up to 21 dBA. Due to the existing noise
exposures at the site, achieving the Town's noise goal of 55 dBA (Ldn) is not feasible. Therefore, Pack
recommends a design goal of 65 dBA (Ldn) for the exterior living areas of the project and an interior
noise design criterion of 45 dBA (Ldn) for interior living spaces. The exterior standard would only apply
to the first floor elevations of project homes since there are no second floor balconies. Based on noise
measurements taken as part of the detailed noise study, exterior noise levels at project residences closest
to the freeway would be 76 dBA (Ldn), while interior noise exposures would be 61 dBA (Ldn). Such
levels would exceed the recommended 65 dBA (Ldn) exterior noise standard by up to 11 dBA and the 45-
dBArecommended interior standard by up to 16 dBA.
To achieve the recommended 55-dBA Town exterior noise goal at the residences closest to the freeway, a
noise control barrier along the freeway would have to be up to 36 feet high. While this would not be a
feasible mitigation measure, it would be feasible to meet the recommended 65-dBA exterior noise
standard with a 12-foot high noise barrier. Additional noise control measures would also need to be
incorporated into the design of project homes to meet the recommended 45-dBA interior noise standard.
The following measure will be required to reduce exterior and interior noise levels at project residences to
less-than-significant levels:
MITIGATION: The project shall be required to include a noise wall along the project boundary that is
contiguous to the Highway 17 freeway with the height specifications as recommended in the detailed
noise study. To control flanking noise, the barrier shall continue along the southern property
boundary as specified in the detailed noise study. In addition, recommended noise control measures
(e.g., closed windows where there is a direct line-of-sight, windows meeting specified Sound
Transmission Class ratings, and mechanical ventilation) shall be incorporated into project homes to
achieve acceptable interior noise levels. These recommendations are included as Attachment 3 of the
Initial Study.
Jt1rrE, 2009 13
MTI'IGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION -PLACER OAKS
MITIGATION MONITORING: The Planning Division of the Community Development Department will
be responsible for ensuring that these measures are incorporated into final project plans, while the '~,
vn.,.
Building Division of -the Community Development Departmentwill° be responsible-for-ensuring that - -
these measures. are properly implemented during construction.
-12.-Population and Housing: The-proposed projectwould-result_in-an_increase_inhcal_pQpulation,.but..._._. __ __
this increase would be less than significant. Under the existing "Medium Density Residential" land use
designation, a population of approximately 93 people could' occur at the site (up to 37 units on 3.1 acres
with 2.5 persons per unit). The project. would result a net increase of approximately 23 more people (nine
units with 2.5 persons per unit), fewer than what is allowed by the current General Plan designation. The
project's net addition of 23 persons would represent a 0.08% increase over the Town's current population
of 28,592 (as indicated in the 2000 census) and 0.06% increase over the Town's 2005 population of
35,700 as projected by .the Association of Bay. Area Governments (ABAG). Such increases in population
also would be within ABAG's projected 5% growth rate between 2000 and 2015 and therefore, would not
represent a significant increase in local or regional population.
The project would not be considered growth-inducing, since the project site is located. adjacent to existing.
development and' the project is considered an infill development. No new roads or utilities would be
extended to any contiguous undeveloped areas. However,. it is possible that the property contiguous to the
southern project. boundary (currently developed with a tennis. court) could be developed at some time in
the future and the project's private access road could be used to access this property. However,.approval
of future project homeowners would be required and. feasibility of such approval is unknown and
speculative..
The project site is currently undeveloped and no existing housing. would be displaced as a result of the
proposed project..
13. Public Services: The project would not significantly increase demand for public services since this is
an in-fill development and services are already provided to adjacent residential uses to the north, east, and
south.
The Santa Clara County Fire Department has reviewed the proposed site plan for site access and water
supply, and the project will be required to meet Department requirements for minimum fire flow,
automatic fire sprinklers, hydrant spacing/location, building access requirements, etc. The project will be
required to meet minimum fire flow requirements (or install. automatic fire sprinkler systems) and install
public fire hydrant(s) at location(s) to be determined jointly by the Fire Department and San Jose Water
Company. Alternatively, approved fire sprinkler systems can be installed in project homes. Adequate fire
apparatus (engine) access will need to be provided on the private street (including. minimum width of 20
feet, vertical clearance of 13 feet 6 inches, unobstructed pavement width, minimum turning radius of 3b
feet outside and 23 feet inside,. a maximum slope of 15%); and the turnaround at the end of the street will
need to meet Department standards. The Fire Department also specifies timing of required water supply
and roadway installations to ensure that adequate fire protection services can be provided during. project
construction. The proposed plan will be subject to format plan review by the Santa Clara County Fire
Department to determine compliance with adopted model codes.
The project would generate a minor increase in the Town population that would potentially result in
additional. park use by future residents. The project's potential impact on the demand for recreational
facilities is discussed in Section 14, Recreation, below.
The project would add new students to the Los Gatos Union School District and Los Gatos-Saratoga High
School District. Project students would likely attend Louise Van Meter Elementary School, Fisher
.lurrE, 2009 14
MTI'IGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION -PLACER OAKS
Middle School, and Los Gatos High School. To offset potential additional service costs for enrolling new
students from the proposed project, the Los Gatos Union School District and Los Gatos-Saratoga High
School District will charge the project applicant impact fees based on the size of new homes (per square
foot basis) and by supplemental parcel taxes on the new residential parcels. Payment of impact fees and
supplemental taxes would mitigate the project's impacts on school services to aless-than-significant
level.
14.. Recreation: The proposed addition of nine residences would increase local population, and thereby
increase the demand for recreational facilities. No common open space areas with recreational facilities
are proposed as part of the project, but private open space (backyards and Lot B, the slope along the
eastern portion of the site) would comprise approximately half of the site..Nearby recreational facilities .
include Oak Meadow Park/Vasona Lake County Park (across the freeway to the west) and Fisher Middle
School (less than one-fourth mile to the south). The project's incremental increase is considered to be less
than significant given the small size of the project, the project's proximity to existing recreational
facilities, and provision of small, usable open space on each lot.
15. Transportation and Traffic: An off-site traffic analysis was completed for the applicant by
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. to assess the effects of project-related traffic increases on
Placer Oak.Road.'The Town and Hexagon estimate that the proposed project would generate 86 average
daily trips with 7 AM peak hour trips and 9 PM peak hour trips. The Town's Traffic Impact Policy
(Resolution 1991-174) requires preparation of a detailed traffic study for any.project with the potential to
generate 20 or more additional AM or PM peak hour trips. The Santa Clara County's Congestion
Management Program (CMP) also sets forth criteria to determine which intersections {and roadway
segments)- should be studied, and the CMP requires that at least 10 peak hour trips per lane be added by a
proposed development.,Based on these criteria, the amount of peak hour traffic added to the roadway
network as a result of the proposed project would be statistically insignificant.
Although traffic increases would be less than significant based on common engineering practices,
residents' perceived impacts could be different. A tool for measuring residential perceptions was
developed by Donald Appleyard while working at the University of California at Berkeley. The tool was
named the TIRE, Traffic Infusion on Residential Environments. The TIRE index uses average daily
volumes to determine the amount of daily traffic that could be added to a roadway before its residents
would notice. The values of the TIRE index range from 0 to 5, with 0 representing no traffic and 5
representing extreme traffic. The amount of existing daily traffic directly correlates to the amount of that
could be added before residents would notice. In an attempt to quantify the perceptions of its residents,
the TIRE index was applied to the surrounding residential streets. Daily traffic counts were conducted on
October 31, 2007 and November 1, 2007 (Wednesday and Thursday, respectively) to determine the
existing traffic levels. The results are summarized as follows:
Existing Change in ADT .Number of Daily Trips
Street ADT Threshold Added By Project Noticeable
Increase (YIN) 85`" Percentile
Speed2
Oak Rim Way 924 220 37 N 23.7
Placer Oaks Road 709 140 45 N 24.8
Frank Avenue 340 79 25 N 28.1
Izorah Way 464 114 15 N 26.2
Note: Sum of project trips is greater than the project's total daily trips because project trips must use one roadway to reach
another.
' Denotes the amount of daily traffic that could be added to a street before residents wou ld perceive an increase in traffic.
ZAverage Daily Traffic (ADT) and Speed Data provided by AutoCensus.
JulvE, 2009 15
•MITIGATED NEGATNE DECLARATION -PLACER OAKS
Based on the above traffic volumes, Hexagon determined that: (1) none of the surrounding roadway
segments would experience a noticeable increase in traffic with the addition of the proposed project; and
4.,..
(2) the sped of traffic on the existing roadways is-sortable-for-residential frontage: Although-the project - -
would increase traffic on surrounding neighborhood streets, Hexagon concluded that the project's
increase in peak hour traffic is so low that it would not significantly affect existing or future cut-through
traffic patterns on-the Town's~treet network. -- -- ~. _ __ _ _ . ___ _ - _- .__ _ _ ___ ___ . _
In addition to the TIRE index, Hexagon reviewed the accident history of the area. Town accident data
indicated there was a total of 4 accidents over the past 3 years on the neighborhood street of Farley Road;
Frank Avenue, Izorah Way, Leroy Avenue, Placer Oaks Road, and Oak Rim Way. There were no unusual
patterns observed in the accident data and none of the accidents would have been correctable by physical'
improvements. Based on this recent accident history, the existing neighborhood does not appear to have
an existing accident problem.
Residents living along. Placer Oaks Road would be subject to temporary construction-related traffic
increases..The proposed grading plan indicates 2,797 cubic yards (c.y.) of cut and 4,551 c.y. of fill,
resulting in net total of 2,017 c.y. of fill. With one haul truck being filled or unloaded every 20 nunutes, .
there would be an average of 3 trucks per hour for 8 hours per day over 7 days. Since the only available
access to the site is from Placer Oaks Road and Frank Avenue, the Town will require-the applicant to
work. with the Town Parks and Public Works Department Engineering Inspectors to devise a traffic
control plan to ensure safe and efficient traffic flow under periods when soil is hauled on or off the project
site. This would include, but would not be limited to, provisions for the developer/owner to place
construction notification signs noting the dates and time of construction and hauling activities, or
providing additional traffic control. All trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose debris will be required
to follow a designated route between Los Gatos Boulevard and the project site (as specified by the-
inspector) and be covered (or at least two feet of freeboard must be maintained): These requirements will ~,
reduce potential traffic safety hazards to aless-than-significant level. `~~
A total of 46 parking spaces would be provided on-site as follows: 18 garage spaces (nine, two-car
garages), 18 spaces in driveway aprons, and 10 on-street parking spaces. The Los Gatos Parking Code
requires three parking spaces for residential unit. At this rate, the proposed 9=unit residential development
would require 27 parking spaces and the project would meet this requirement. Therefore, proposed
parking facilities would be adequate.
lb. Utilities and Service Systems: Utilities. are currently provided to contiguous residential' properties to
the north and east and this project is considered an in-fill development. A 12-inch sanitary sewer line and
easement as well as a 20-inch water main and easement currently traverse the project site in a north-south
direction. Along the northern project boundary, there is a PG&E easement. There is also a 6-inch sewer.
line and storm drain that traverse the site adjacent to the the northern project boundary. No development
is proposed in the vicinity of the 20-inch water main,. PG&E easement, 6-inch sewer line, or storm drain
and therefore, no direct impacts: on these utilities would result from. project development. However, the
12-inch sewer line and easement are proposed to be abandoned and relocated. The relocated sewer line
would extend from the southern project boundary across Lot 2 (near the Lot 1 boundary), then. extend
along the proposed private street to its northern terminus, and then follow the western project boundary to
the northwestern corner of the site. The existing sewer easement across the site would be vacated and a
new easement would be established along the relocated sewer line to allow for maintenance access.
Proposed homes would connect to the sewer main that is proposed .to be relocated to the project's access
road. Water, electricity, and gas would be extended from Placer Oaks Road to project homes. Water and
storm drain lines would be extended to project homes via the proposed private street (see Section 8, ~'
i
JUNE, 2009 ~ 16
MTI'IGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION -PLACER OAKS
Hydrology and Water Quality for discussion of storm drainage facilities): The proposed Utility Plan
indicates a joint trench containing electricity and gas lines. would be extended to project homes along the
proposed private street.
The project will be required to install~public fire hydrant(s) at location(s) to be determined jointly by the
.Fire Department and San Jose Water Company. The required fire flow for this project is 1,750 gpm
.(gallons per minute) at 20 psi (pounds per square inch) and the Fire Department determined that the
adjusted fire flow is available from area water mains and fire hydrant(s), which are not spaced at the
required spacing. As an alternative to hydrant installation, the Fire .Department allows provision of
approved sprinkler systems in project residences Adequate fire apparatus (engine) access will need to be
provided on the private street (including minimum width of 20 feet, vertical clearance of 13 feet~6 inches,
unobstructed pavement width, minimum turning radius of 36 feet outside and 23 feet inside, a maximum
slope of 15%), and the turnaround at the end of the street will need to meet Department standards. The
proposed plan will be subject to formal plan review by the Santa Clara County Fire Department to
determine compliance with adopted model codes.
Copies of the Initial Study used to make the above recommendation are on file and available for public
inspection during regular business hours at the Town Community Development Department, 110 East
Main Street, Los Gatos, California.
~~ C~
Date ~ endle R. Roo ey, Director of Comm i Development
JUNE, 2009 _ 17
l
I\