TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS StaffReport to the Planning Commission

Transcription

1 Attachment 8 TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS StaffReport to the Planning Commission March 1,2012 RE: PREZONING OF UNINCORPORATED OLIVE TREE HILL AREA: TWENTY FIVE PARCELS (APPROXIMATELY 31.7 ACRES) BOUNDED BY THE TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS TO THE WEST, NORTH, AND EAST AND MID PENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT TO THE WEST; # MISC. FROM: Cynthia Richardson, Planning Consultant W APPROVED BY: Debbie Pedro, AICP, Planning Director cyf RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission: Forward a recommendation to the City Council to approve the proposed prezoning ofthe unincorporated Olive Tree Hill area and adopt the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration. (Attachment #1) BACKGROUND On May 2, 2011 the Town received a letter from the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) requesting the Town consider annexing the remaining island pockets that are within the Town's Urban Service Area (USA) (Attachment #2). On September 22, 2011, the City Council reviewed the request and approved an annexation plan that was sent to LAFCO on September 26, In addition the City Council authorized staffto begin the prezoning process. One ofthe islands to be annexed is located along Stonebrook Drive, Olive Tree Lane and Northcrest Lane. This neighborhood is almost entirely surrounded by the Town of Los Altos Hills. It is one offive unincorporated islands identified in the Town's General Plan as areas subject to future annexation by the Town. Prior to annexation by the Town, the unincorporated area must be prezoned. Prezoning will establish the zoning district which will apply in the event ofannexation to the Town. The project area will be prezoned "R-A" (Residential-Agricultural). The zoning classification established through the prezoning procedure will become effective and enforceable when the annexation is approved and will have no force or effect on the subject properties until that time. The area subject to this prezoning consists of 25 developed parcels. Each parcel maintains a single family home with associated structures and paving. See Attachment #3 for a list of the parcels included within this annexation along with information regarding each parcel. A map ofthe project area is included as Attachment #4. Roads within the project area include Olive Tree Lane and Northcrest Lane both ofwhich are private. Stonebrook Drive serves as access to several parcels however this portion of Stonebrook Drive is already within the Town limits and is considered a private road. An emergency access easement connects Stonebrook Drive to Laura Court.

2 StaffReport to the Planning Commission Prezoning ofolive Tree Hill Area March 1,2012 Page 2 of3 SANTA CLARA COUNTY ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION The County zoning designation for the subject parcels is RHS (Urban Hillside Residential). The existing RHS County designation allows single-family residential development as follows: Zoning Comparison Land Use Minimum Lot Size Min. Front Yard Setback Min. Side Yard Setback Min. Rear Yard Setback Maximum Height Maximum Floor Area Maximum Development Area Second Dwelling Units Single-Family Residential 1 Acre 30' 20' 25' 35' No limit No limit Max. size 800 sq. ft. Single-Famil Residential 1 Acre 40' 30' 30' 27' - 32" Varies er Section Varies er Section Max. size 1,000 sq. ft. Portions of the County's development standards for this area can be found in Chapter 2.20 ofthe Santa Clara County Zoning Ordinance (Attachment #5). TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS PREZONEAND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION The Olive Tree Hill area already has a Land Use Designation of Residential (R) in the Town's General Plan. The proposed prezoning will change the zoning designation ofthe Olive Tree Hill Area from the County's RHS zone to the Town's R-A (Residential Agricultur~l) zoning designation at the time ofannexation. The R-A (Residential-Agricultural) zoning designation allows single-family residential development with a minimum lot size of one-acre. If annexed into the Town, the Los Altos Hills R-A zoning standards will apply. PATHWAYS The Town's General Plan Master Path Plan indicates one existing pathway located along Stonebrook Drive which currently does not connect to any other paths. The Plan also shows a connection at the end of Olive Tree Lane onto the Mid Peninsula Regional Open Space District property which connects to the Chamise Trail. The Pathways Committee sent a letter to the owners letting them know that they would be available prior to their regular meetings on January 23, 2012 and February 27, 2012 to discuss the importance ofthe pathway system within the Town and informed the potential new residents about the pathway system dedication procedures. Los Altos Hills Municipal Code Section (a) states that each property shall have direct access to a

3 StaffReport to the Planning Commission Prezoning ofolive Tree Hill Area March 1,2012 Page 3 of3 pathway or indirect access via a vehicular right-of-way. New pathway dedication and construction may only be triggered by a subdivision, construction of a new main residence or secondary dwelling, cumulative development of 900 square feet ofhabitable floor area or a barn greater than 900 square feet (see General Plan Pathway Element Goals 4.2 and 4.3). In the future, a General Plan Pathways Element Master Path Plan amendment will be considered for this area. CEQA STATUS In conformance with CEQA requirements, staff prepared an Initial Study and Negative Declaration. A Notice of Intent to adopt a Negative Declaration was published in the Town Crier on February 8, The notice was also submitted to the Santa Clara County Clerks Office for a 20 day public review period which began on February 10, 2012 and ends on March 1, CONCLUSION Staffrecommends approval ofthe proposed Prezoning ofthe Olive Tree Hill area for the following reasons: 1. The project is consistent with Policy 5.2 ofthe Town's 2008 General Plan Land Use Element and with Policy H, Program 6 ofthe 2002 Housing Element (Attachment #6). 2. The current residential land use in the project area is in general conformance with the Town's Residential (R) Land Use designation. 3. The prezoning would have no force or effect on the subject properties until the area is annexed into the Town. Since the Olive Tree Hill Drive neighborhood is built-out, if the area is annexed into the Town, there should be little or no change to the make up ofthe existing area or community. PUBLIC COMMENT As of this date the Town has not received comments from the public regarding this project. ATTACHMENTS 1. Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration 2. Letter from LAFCO 3. List ofparcels within area to be prezoned 4. Map ofarea to be prezoned 5. Excerpts from the Santa Clara County Zoning Ordinance 6. Excerpts from the General Plan

4 ::LAFCO Local Agency Formation Commission of Santa Clara County May 2, 2011 Debbie Pedro, AICP Planning Director Town oflos Altos Hills Fremont Road Los Altos Hills, CA RE: Status of Unincorporated Lands within the Town of Los Altos Hills' Urban Service Area (Unincorporated Islands), Dear Ms. Pedro: Inlate October 2010, the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAPCO) ofsanta Clara County directed its staff to develop an inventory of the remaining unincorporated islands and to report back to the Commission on each city's plans regarding its islands. Five Unincorporated Islands Remain in the Town of Los Altos Hills The Town has five unincorporated islands within its Urban Service Area (USA). See table below and attached maps. ;,iti~~~itt~z- --- Total West Hedding Street II th Floor. East Wing San Jose. CA 9S t r0 {408J ( Fax INWWsanracrara.lafco.ca.gov COMMISSIONERS: Pete Constant. liz KniSs. Margaret Abe-Koga. Mike Wasserman. Susan Vlcklund-Wilson ALTERNATE COMMISSIONERS: Sam liccardo. Al Pinheiro. George Shirakawa. Terry TrumbUll EXECUTIVE OFRCER: Neelima Palacherla

5 Annex Islands that Qualify fo.r the ~treamlined Annexation Process Islands LAH01, LAH02, LAH03, and LAH04 consist of primarily residential development and rural estates and are eligible for annexation through the strearrilined annexation process. Islands such as these, are substantially developed and create inefficiencies / confusionin terms of the provision of emergency and other municipal services. Furthermore, residents of such islands are politically disenfranchised n:om the city government that surrounds them. Annexation of such islands is a high priority for LAFCO and the County. In order to encourage these annexations,lafco continues to waive its fees for island annexations and the County continues to provide financial incentives including covering the costs for preparing Assessor and Surveyor reports and maps, paying the State Board of Equalization filing fees, and budgeting for road improvements in islands approved for annexation. As you may be aware, the law streamlining the annexation process for qualified unincorporated islands sunsets on January 1, We 'encourage the City to take advantage of this process and the incentives currently being offered by both the County and LAFCO ror such annexations. Please provide us with an update on.the City's plans and time-line for'annexing LAH01, LAH02, LAH03, and LAH04.. Review RemeJining Island In terms of the Town's large remaining island (LAH05), please review this island and consider opportunities to annex all or portions of it. As you know, LAFCO has approved several out of agency contracts for sewer service to many developed lots in Island LAH05. LAFCO approved those contracts in order to address an existing health and safety concern and with the understanding that the Town would annex these areas as soon as it becomes feasible. Annexation of these areas is now feasible, as they are now contiguous to the Town or would be~omecontiguous a~ th~rq~..'.i.dp~x~ ~~.~P;; w:h~re LAFCO appr9v~d these outof agency contracts for sewer service... A Response is Greatly Appreciated LAPCO staff is willing to work With and assist the City in resolving these island issues. We would appreciate knowing the City's annexation and/or urban service area amendment plans for these isiands as soon as possible and no later Page 2 of3

6 thanjune 10, If you have any questions or concerns or would like to meet to discuss the City'splans,! can be reached at (40B) or or you may contact Dunia Noel, LAFCO Asst. Executive Officer, at (408) / Thank for you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Neelima PaIacherla LAFCO Executive Officer Attachment: Maps of Unincorporated Islands in City's Urban Service Area prepared by the Santa Clara County Planning Office Cc: Carl Cahill, City Manager, Town of Los Altos Hills Los Altos Hills Town Council Members Jody Hall Esser, Director, Dept. of Planning & Development, Santa Clara County LAFCO Members Page 3 of3

7 Attachment #3 Olive Tree Hill Annexation LIST OF PARCELS FOR ANNEXATION APN Owner Address Lot Size Use Year Built House Size (Acres, approximate) Schneider Olive Tree Ln 1.06 Residence , Arjani Olive Tree Ln 1.31 Residence , Ot Property LLC Olive Tree Ln 1.00 Residence , Ghazvini Olive Tree Ln 1.00 Residence , Stjohn Olive Tree Ln 1.13 Residence , Defaii Olive Tree Ln 1.00 Residence , Sahiwal Olive Tree Ln 1.32 Residence , Sood Olive Tree Ln 1.11 Residence , Sliwa & Tosaya Olive Tree Ln 1.01 Residence , Heel Olive Tree Ln 1.01 Residence , Gardner Olive Tree Ln 1.01 Residence , Chan Stonebrook Dr 1.08 Residence , Malachowsky Stonebrook Dr 1.08 Residence , Malachowsky Northcrest Ln 1.11 Residence , Lo Stonebrook Dr 1.64 Residence , Sheldon Northcrest Ln 1.51 Residence , Consorti Northcrest Ln 1.22 Residence , Russell Northcrest Ln 1.30 Residence , Shoemalcer Stonebrook Dr 1.20 Residence , Walia Stonebrook Dr 1.00 Residence , Pak Stonebrook Dr 1.10 Residence , Pappas & Sandor Olive Tree Ln.91 Residence , Soby Northcrest Ln 1.38 Residence , Manber Olive Tree Ln 1.61 Residence , Wuerthner Olive Tree Ln 1.05 Residence ,883

8 Sr.:de:.. = 400' Olive Tree lane PrezQolng Pr:>pOf>6d Prez:lrirg Area 'T.:)IhTl ::flj.'l~ Hl~ ~"'j.:m," :f L:)!t Nt~ His. ;;':JU1'C3rf Ure

9 LA to3 19\k\} e...:t('ee., ~ \\ SANTA CLARA COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE CHAPTER 2.30: URBAN RESIDENTIAL BASE DISTRICTS CHAPTER 2.30 URBAN RESIDENTIAL BASE DISTRICTS Sections Purposes Use Regulations Development Standards Slope-Density Requirements in RHS District Purposes The purpose ofthis chapter is to define allowable land uses and property development standards for the urban residential base districts, which include the RI "One-Family Residence," RIE "One-Family Residence-Estate," RHS "Urban Hillside Residential," RI S "Low-Density Campus Residential," R3 S "Medium-Density Campus Residential," R2 "Two-Family Residence," and R3 "Multi-Family Residential" districts. The overall purposes ofthe urban residential base districts are to provide for appropriate uses in the unincorporated areas ofthe county that are within the urban service areas ofcities and to regulate the type and intensity ofdevelopment in these areas in a manner consistent with the general plan ofthe applicable city. The further specific purposes of each of the urban residential base districts are described below. A. R1 One Family Residence. The purpose of the One-Family Residence district, also known as the RI district, is to provide for single-family dwellings, and for the orderly and efficient arrangement ofdwellings, yards, accessory buildings, and other residential site improvements. B. R1E One Family Residence-Estate. The purpose ofthe One-Family Residence-Estate district, also known as the RIE district, is to provide for lowdensity single-family dwellings, and for the orderly and efficient arrangement of dwellings, yards, accessory buildings, and other residential site improvements. C. RHS Urban Hillside Residential. The purpose ofthe Urban Hillside Residential district, also known as the RHS district, is to provide for low-density residential development and limited agricultural uses on foothill lands adjacent to incorporated cities. RHS districts include areas that are particularly vulnerable to natural hazards and environmental degradation. Development density shall be determined by slope-density formulas that consider availability ofpublic water and sewer, and by the severity ofgeologic and natural hazards. Note that applies to this district. REV: MARCH 20 I 0

10 SANTA CLARA COUNTY ZONfNG ORDfNANCE CHAPTER 2.30: URBAN RESIDENTIAL BASE DISTRICTS D. RlS Low-Density Campus Residential. The purpose ofthe Low-Density Campus Residential district, also known as the RlS district, is to provide for urban low-density housing (up to eight units per acre) on the lands of Stanford University, and to provide for limited neighborhood-supporting non-residential uses. This designation implements the specific land use policies for low-density housing prescribed by the 2000 Stanford Community Plan by encouraging more compact and efficient urban development. E. R3SMedium-Density Campus Residential. The purpose ofthe Medium Density Campus Residential district, also known as the R3S district, is to provide for urban medium-density housing on the lands ofstanford University, and to provide for limited neighborhood-supporting non-residential uses. This designation implements the specific land use policies for the medium-density housing prescribed by the 2000 Stanford Community Plan. F. R2 Two-Family Residence. The purpose ofthe Two-Family Residence district, also known as the R2 district, is to provide for one- and two-family dwelling units, and for the orderly and efficient arrangement ofdwellings, yards, accessory buildings, and other residential site improvements. G. R3 Multi-Family Residential. The purpose ofthe Multi-Family Residential district, also known as the R3 district, is to provide space for multiple family residential development commonly found in an urban environment. The R3 district is intended for intensive residential uses at readily accessible urban locations Use Regulations The following tables, Tables and , specify the allowable land uses for the urban residential base districts, listed by use classification as defined in Chapter The regulations for each district are established by letter designations as follows: "R" "s" "A" "U" designates use classifications that are permitted by right. designates use classifications permitted with a special permit, subject to the provisions ofchapter 5.60, Special Permit. designates use classifications permitted with architecture and site approval, subject to the provisions of Chapter 5.40, Architecture and Site Approval. designates use classifications permitted with a use permit, and architecture and site approval, subject to the provisions ofchapter 5.65, Use Permit, and Chapter 5.40, Architecture and Site Approval. REV: MARCH 2010

11 SANTA CLARA COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE CHAPTER 2.30: URBAN RESIDENTIAL BASE DISTRICTS " " designates use classifications that are not allowed. Supplemental regulations for the establishment and conduct ofa use are referenced in the "Supplemental Regulations" column ofthe table. Use classifications not listed in the table are prohibited in the urban residential base districts. Table RESIDENTIAL USES IN URBAN RESIDENTIAL BASE DISTRICTS iii Permitted by Right IS~i Special Permit (Ch 5.60) Z&i ASA (Ch 5.40) ~wl Use Permit! ASA (Ch 5.65,5.40) - Not Permitted USE CLASSIFICATIONS ZONING R1 R1E RHS R1S R3S Supplemental R2 R3 Regulations Residences Single-Family Two-Family iii iii iii Multi-Family Residential Accessory Structures & Uses iii iii iii Community Care Limited Ii] iii iii Expanded W IJ!JI~ lif!~ Domestic Animals Dogs & Cats iii iii Ii] Small Animals iii iii iii Horses iii iii iii Home Occupations General iii iii iii Expanded s':. ~:s;,; [&}; Residential-Communal lwr lye WJ1fi Institutional Rooming Houses, Fraternities, ~WJj ~tll; & Sororities Secondary Dwellings iii iii iii Temporary Residence / Construction iii iii m I NOTES: iii 'A' m iii Note 1, 2 (RIS) iii ~A m iii Note 1, 2 (RIS) A A :A iii iii iii iii Note 3 (R3S) Ii] iii m iii , Note 4 raw ~'lt.: [ill ~lf!~ iii iii iii iii Note 5 iii iii iii iii Note 6 m Note 7 film ~$: scsi, iii iii [5;$' , Note Notes 1,9, 10 iii iii REV: MARCH 2010

12 SANTA CLARA COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE CHAPTER 2.30: URBAN RESIDENTIAL BASE DISTRICTS 1. Single-family dwellings, including certain additions, new secondary dwellings, and duplexes, may be subject to the building site approval provisions ofsections C et seq. ofthe County Ordinance Code. 2. In RI S districts, ASA is required for new single-family residences on lots smaller than 10,890 square feet (0.25 acre). Two-family residences are not pennitted on lots smaller than 10,890 square feet, and ASA is required for new two-family residences on lots smaller than 21,780 square feet (0.50 acre). ASA is not required for additions or remodels ofexisting dwellings. 3. In R3S districts, accessory structures not meeting the criteria of may be allowed subject to ASA. 4. Facilities qualifying as "Large-Family Day-Care Homes," serving between 7 and 14 children, are subject to an administrative pennit, per the provisions ofdivision B24 ofthe County Ordinance Code. 5. Not to exceed two (2) dogs and five (5) cats over four months ofage on parcels less than five acres, or three (3) dogs and five (5) cats Over four months of age on parcels five acres or more, unless the required pennit is secured pursuant to Division B31 ofthe County Ordinance Code. 6. Small Animals - Limited. Not to exceed a total oftwelve (12) ofany ofthe following small animals: rabbits, guinea pigs, chicken and fowl, and similar species as approved by the Zoning Administrator. Roosters, peafowl, guinea fowl, geese or quacking ducks are not allowed. 7. Horses. Minimum lot size for the keeping ofhorses in urban residential districts is one-halfacre. Not to exceed two horses per acre. 8. Expanded home occupations are permitted on lots ofone acre or larger. See for other criteria. 9. In R3 S districts, no secondary dwelling may exceed 640 square feet, and the number ofsecondary dwellings in a given development may not exceed 25% ofthe total primary units allowed by the applicable density limitation. 10. In districts where pennitted, detached secondary dwellings are subject to a 10,000 square foot minimum lot size. See (C) for other criteria. Table 2.30~2 NON-RESIDENTIAL USE CLASSIFICATIONS IN URBAN RESIDENTIAL BASE DISTRICTS iii Permitted by Right ig'~ Special Permit (Ch 5.60) fafj ASA (Ch 5.40) ~j Use Permit! ASA (Ch 5.65, 5.40) Not Permitted USE CLASSIFICATIONS ZONING Rl RIE RHS RIS R3S Supplemental R2 R3 Regulations Agriculture Note 1 Antennas - Commercial Minor Major Churches (See "Religious Institutions") ;A~P'.' ;If.", ~wl ~V!~ ~M 2A:; A <A 'JS..~; ~AA $W~ iji.lj! REV: MARCH 2010

13 SANTA CLARA COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE CHAPTER 2.30: URBAN RESIDENTIAL BASE DISTRiCTS Table NON-RESIDENTIAL USE CLASSIFICATIONS IN URBAN RESIDENTIAL BASE DISTRICTS iii Permitted by Right,S}' Special Permit (Ch 5.60) A:~ ii!!~ ASA (Ch 5AO) Use Permit! ASA (Ch 5.65, 5AO) Not Permitted USE CLASSIFICATIONS + Z_O_N_IN_G ~,,Supplemental Community Care Limited Expanded Golf Courses & Country Clubs ~~ Historic Structures - Use Conversion Hospitals & Clinics Museums Nonprofit Institutions Religious Institutions Retail Sales & Services - Local Serving Schools Swim & Tennis Clubs Utilities and Public Facilities Minor Major Wireless Telecommunication Facilities Co-location Minor Major NOTES: Rl RIE RHS RIS R3S R2 R3 Regulations mlijm iii iii iii iii , Note 3 fw~ {oll ~~I rtcri1 ~:ri~~ [U] ~!lli~ 'C'A,c ~QJ).: iai' ifaf ~m!w[~ '~A~' ra~ ml m :t~~' 1.~?: la' ~A: ;j~'::; da"i :1!ifY [~~ Note 2 Note 4 A A A~ A " "A" A A 4. 10AOO, Note 5 :~J; If.~,'lj"s A~ "1\, :A ~ 4 10 AOO lidli ~:o:~!liel :I,\'j: ';f(,'i [lll~ i~~ 4. 10AOO I. On lots 2.5 acres or larger in RHS districts, all agricultural uses permitted in HS districts as a matter ofright (see Table ) shall be allowed. 2. Commercial and service uses permitted in RI S, R3S and R3 districts shall be limited in scale and in their service market to primarily serve the residents ofthe subject residential development. For residential support uses in RIS and R3S districts applicable to Stanford University lands, a business plan is required demonstrating that a preponderance ofcustomers will be Stanford residents or employees. REV: MARCH 2010

14 SANTA CLARA COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE CHAPTER 2.30: URBAN RESIDENTIAL BASE DISTRICTS 3. Facilities qualifying as "Large-Family Day-Care Homes," serving between 7 and 14 children, are subject to an administrative permit, per the provisionsofdivision B24 ofthe County Ordinance Code. 4. Utility structures and facilities may be exempt from local zoning regulations ifthey are establishedby a government agency. There may also be federal or state laws that provide exemptions for certain types ofutilities. 5. Co-location ofwireless telecommunication facilities may be eligible for an ASA small project exemption ( ), where consistent with the provisions of this ordinance. Where the proposed co-location meets the criteria in Government Code (b) relating to previously approved facilities permitted by a means ofa discretionarypermit issued on or after January 1, 2007, and either a negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration, or environmental impact report was prepared and adopted, the co-location shall be reviewed for consistency with the approved plans, mitigation requirements, and conditions imposed on the existing facility, and if found consistent, will be subject only to a building permit or other applicable permits required by Title C ofthe County Ordinance Code Development Standards A. Standards. Table establishes property development standards for the urban residential base districts. A "-" indicates there is no applicable standard or requirement. Table URBAN RESIDENTIAL BASE DISTRICTS: PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Minimum lot area (sq ft) Rl RIE RHS RIS R3S R2 R3 For lot creation 5,000 5, Note 1 Note 2 5,000 Note 3 For building site 3,750 3,750 3,750 Note 1 Note 2 3,750 Note 3 With lot size combining districts Setbacks (feet)6 See Chapter 3.10, Lot-Size Combining Districts Front Note Side Note Comer lot side Note Rear Note Scenic road Note Exceptions , Setback Exceptions REV: MARCH 2010

15 SANTA CLARA COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE CHAPTER 2.30: URBAN RESIDENTIAL BASE DISTRICTS Table URBAN RESIDENTIAL BASE DISTRICTS: PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Rl RIE RHS RIS R3S R2 R3 Maximum height 6 -Feet Stories Lot covera~e - buildings Accessory Buildings Note Note % See Chapter 4.20, Supplemental Development Standards NOTES: 1. Development density for all housing types in RlS districts shall not exceed eight (8) units per net acre. For the purposes ofthis provision, net acreage shall exclude street rights-of-way, but shall include driveways and other common access ways. 2. Development density for all housing types in R3S districts shall be no less than eight (8) units per net acre and no more than 15 units per net acre. For the purposes ofthis provision, net acreage shall exclude street rights-of-way, but shall include driveways and other common access ways. 3. Development density in R3 districts shall conform to the density allowed by the applicable city general plan. 4. Setbacks and maximum height in R3S districts shall be as stipulated by the ASA Committee to promote quality design, and to assure adequate buffering and compatibility with adjacent land use and development. 5. Side and rear setbacks for single-family and two-family dwellings in RlS districts shall be as indicated in table. Side and rear setbacks for multi-family development shall be as stipulated by the ASA Committee to promote quality design, and to assure adequate buffering and compatibility with adjacent land use and development. 6. Setbacks and height limits may be modified for permitted non-residential uses by the ASA Committee for appropriate functioning ofproposed uses, compatibility with adjacent development, or to otherwise achieve excellence of development consistent with the purpose of ASA and the intent ofthe zoning district. B. Flag Lots: Height Restriction. On any flag lot ofless than 20,000 square feet, the maximum height ofdwellings shall be 21 feet and shall not include more than one (1) story. C. Measurement. Standards shown in Table are subject to the following rules ofmeasurement: 1. Where a lot abuts a road, setbacks from that road shall be measured from the edge ofthe ultimate right-of-way (see "setback" definition in ); REV: MARCH 2010

16 SANTA CLARA COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE CHAPTER 2.30: URBAN RESIDENTIAL BASE DISTRICTS 2. Setbacks from all property lines not abutting a street shall be measured from the property line unless otherwise specified; and 3. Height shall be measured according to the provisions of Chapter 1.30: Definitions: General Terms. 4. Development density in R1S, R3S and R3 districts shall be calculated over the project area, which, excepting existing or new street rights-of-way, includes the entire area ofany lot or assemblage ofcontiguous lots upon which development or redevelopment is proposed, and for which one development application is submitted. Any portions ofthe project area designated as open space by the applicable subdivision or ASA conditions shall be enforceably restricted to prevent increased density ofdevelopment beyond that allowed by the zoning ordinance. 5. Precision ofnumbers for the purposes ofmeasurement and calculation shall be as stipulated in : Precision ofnumbers/rounding Slope-Density Requirements in RHS District Table describes the required minimum land area per dwelling unit, or density of development allowed, as well as the minimum parcel sizes, for the RHS district, based on the availability ofpublic water and sewer. Density ofdevelopment may be further restricted based upon site-specific characteristics ofproposed lots and building sites, including slope, geologic stability, drainage, and other factors. Table LOT SIZE / SLOPE-DENSITY FORMULAS INRHS Water/Sewer Allowed Density: Lot Area Minimum parcel Availability Land Area per Dwelling Range 2 size3 an 4 Unit! With public acres 1 acre water and sanitary sewer *8 With sanitary ac 1.75 acres sewer, without public water *8 Without public ac 2.5 acres water or sanitary sewer *8 REV: MARCH 2010

17 SANTA CLARA COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE CHAPTER 2.30: URBAN RESIDENTIAL BASE DiSTRICTS NOTES: I. The variable "s" represents the average slope ofthe entire property that is the subject ofthe application. Average slope is detennined according to the fonnula S= ( x IL)/A, where I is the contour interval in feet; L is the combined length of contour lines in scale feet; A is the gross area in acres of the subject lot or area of land; and, S is the average slope expressed as a percentage. The maximum number oflots or dwelling units allowed is detennined by dividing the gross land. areabythe minilnum lahd-afeaper dwelling tiriitiindrouridirig down 1:0 the nearestwhole number. 2. Where the average slopeof the parcel is less than 10%, the land area per dwelling unit shall be equal to the lesser value in the lot area range. Where the average slope ofthe parcel is greater than 50%, the land area per dwelling unit shall be equal to the upper value ofthe lot area range. 3. Minimum parcel size requirements are expressed in gross acres and may be waived through the approval ofa cluster pennit issued in confonnance with applicable general plan policies and the cluster pennit procedures ofchapter 5.45 ofthis ordinance. 4. Pennanent dedication ofopen space and development rights shall be provided as necessary and appropriate to ensure that the maximum density ofdevelopment (total number oflots) does not exceed that which is pennitted by the applicable slope-density fonnula REV' MARCH 2010

18 Adopted May 8, 2008 GOALS Ensure that the Town's growth will proceed in an orderly, planned manner in order to provide efficient and economical urban services. Policy 5.1 Issues within the sphere of influence shall be monitored for their ~ effects on thetowri~ ~._----- Policy 5.2 Policy 5.3 Program 5.1 Program 5.2 Program 5.3 Any proposed annexations shall be consistent with the Town's General Plan land use designations and adopted annexation procedures. Maintain a cooperative working relationship with Santa Clara County regarding land use issues. Request that Santa Clara County and other applicable agencies refer all proposed projects and programs within the sphere of influence to the Town of Los Altos Hills for review and comment, and act favorably on the Town's recommendations. Review annexation proposals to assure that they are consistent with sphere of influence boundaries, General Plan land use designations and established annexation procedures and criteria. In evaluating proposed annexations, require the preparation of a fiscal impact analysis to determine the costs and benefits to be received by the Town as a result of the proposed annexation. Land Use Element Los Altos Hills General Plan Page LU-25

19 Housing Goals, Policies, Programs, and Objectives Town oflos AltosHiIls 2002 Housing Element The prompt processing of subdivision and design review applications and building permits has resulted in average construction rates consistent with the projected demand for housing in Los Altos Hills. The Town will continue to assist the property owners and development community in the housing development process. Time Frame: Responsible Agency: Quantified Objective: Ongoing (Yearly Update) PlanninglBuilding 212 above-moderate units 6. Program Continue the annexation of lands within the Town's Sphere of Influence to increase the Town's supply of lands suitable for residential development. (Formerly Program 7) In 2002 the Town prezoned a total of 286 acres of land known as San Antonio Hills that includes primarily one-acre lots. It is anticipated that most of these lands will be annexed to 'the Town oflos Altos Hills though not all within the timeframe of the 2001 Housing Element. In late 2002, the 58 acres of Ravenbury Area within San Antonio Hills was annexed by'the Town. This will add to the supply ofavailable housing unit~ in the Town of Los Altos Hills. Additionally, all lots of oneor more acres in size can potentially accommodate a secondary unit thus increasing the supply of affordable rental units. Time Frame: Responsible Agency: Quantified Objective: June 2003 (Ravensbury Annexation) Planning/City Council 3 very low, 3 low and 3 moderate 7. Program Study and pursue additional sewer capacity for the Los Altos Basin area. The Town is in the pro_cess of preparing a Sanitary Sewer Master Plan to serve as a strategic planning guide for the grading, improving and expanding of the Town's se,ver infrastructure to meet existing and total "build-out" needs. Currently, 1,827 lots or approximately 60% of the Town's parcels are served by septic systems. It is anticipated that less than 10 percent of the existing systems cannot be replaced by new septic systems and thus will require sewer services f~om Page 42