county of santa clara - city of san josecounty of santa clara ... initial study for the proiect, ......

County of santa Clara

Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration

A noliee~ pttrsualtt to the California Envil’on~entat Quality Act el 1970, as ame~xdoJ (Public ResourcesCode 21,000, el see.) that the following project will not have a signifi&ant effect ~n ~e e.n~,ironment.

Vise Subdivision Residential Su~iv~sion

Chades Vise Same

507 Po~er ~aa¢, San Jose

Reposed 20 1o! sul~division of a 4.06 acre property loc~d on the w~t side of Porter Lmle in unin~D~dSan Jose. Nineteen o[lhc twenty tots are ~twecli 6#18 ~md 7,~8 square feet in size (net) with theremaining lot being ]7,658 square feet in size and will coil*din the oxistiilg residen~ on the property.to a majority of the lots will be provid~ by ~ new access roa{i to bc built mid dedicated as a public to~d. Thelots will be provided sattital~ sewer f~om Comity Sanitation Dis~dct 2 / 3, ~nn~ting to ~ exisdtxg sewerline ~hictx cross#~ the sott[hwest~rn edg~ of tl~e pl~perty. Water wiiI bc provided by San !ose Water.drainage fl~m a ma$odly of~he proj~t site will bo ~ptm~ atxd (lir~ted to existing facilities in ALlmlena~ne and F!~ming A~,emte south*est ~ the proj~t site. In order to mitigate for additional stormwmer ~noffand ~lalcfl water quality impacts, retention trench~ will be installed wkhin the on-site dtainage system.Subdivisioa i~provemcms will r~ult in the demolition of se~c~l outbuildings and a tennis court o~t theproperty along with the realOVal of 17 o~dinance sized t~, of width 12 are palm ~ces. .

The purpose of It)is notice is to inform yoI[ that the COtlAty Planning Staff has l~mt~en~ed that a MitigatedNegative DcdamtioI1 be approved for this proj~t. Co~mty o[ Santa Clara Planning StMf has revicw~ theInitial Study for the proiect, and based u~n su~a~fial eviden~ ia the ~cord, finds that althoughpt~pose~ pl’oject could initially have a slgnifiea~t effec.t on fl~e en~i~nment, changes or alterationsha,e ~en incorporated into the p~ject to avoid or t~duce impae~ to a poittt where clearly nosignificant effee~ frill occur.

A public hearing for the propose4 project is tentatively scheduled for the Planning Commission o~ September’¢7, 2006 i;~ th~ County Govelmncttt Center,Board at Supd~iso[’~ ~.~l~b~ix, It should b~ not~ that theapp~va~ of a Mitigated Negative Declaradott does not ~nstitute approval of the project tm~er ~nsideration.The decisio;t to approve o~ deny the 0~ject will be made sepmalely.

Public COIII!IIeIIIs tCgal’dJtlg the corl’cC~t~ess, coinpl¢[cttes.% or adequacy of this negative declalatiolx a~[nvit~ and must be received o~i or before the hearing din& Such commen~s should be based o~t specificcnvhonmctital contents. Written ~ments si~ould be addressed Co the Guilt)" of Santa Clara Planni~g

Board of Supervisors: Blanca Alvarado. Donald F. Gage, Pete MeHugh, James T. Bed11 Jr., Liz KnlssActir~g Cour~ty Executive: Pete Kutras, Jr.

Exhibit C

DRAFT--Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.

Office., County Government Center, 70 W, lledding Street, San Jose, CA 95110, Te!: (408) 299,5770Oral comments ~ay be made at the h~a~ug. A fJ.l~ comainiag additional information on this ~t ~ay bereviewed at tt~ Planning ~f~c~ u~der ~¢ file number app~ri~g at the top o£ this fo~m. For additionali~formation regarding this p~ec~ and t[l~ Mitigated Negative D~Ia~ion. please contact Rob F.astwood at(408) 29%5792 ¯ ~ ~. . _.~

(1) Santa Cla~ Coumy PImming ~fic~ 70 W~st Eedding Str~L ~t Wing, 7~ Fl~r, S~ Jose, CA 95110(2) ~ming O£fic¢ Website ~y.sccpl~n~i~ (E~vironmemal Documeu~ under "Find(3) ~lum R6ck ~brary 75 ~,~t~ White~p~,_~h Jo~e

Nolle

A [ R QUALFI’Y

The I’o]fowh~g dusL comte] measure.~ wii[ be ndller’c.d to during ~nstr~etion for all ~ubd~viSi0n [mprovemems. Ftna~

[]np~vctnet~t plans / grading plans for 0to subdivision improvements most conlai~x Language r~qoiring that ~e folLowing

¯ Water MI ~eti~e conshucfion ace~ a! le~L twice daily., Cover ~tll t~’ucks binding ~eit, sand, and olher loose materials o~ require all t~cks to 0~in~,m at least two feet of

f~bo~rd,, Pave, apply water Ihree times daily, or apply (aon-to~c) soft stabilizers on all ~npaved a~.ss r~ds, parking areas

¯ Sweep daily (with waler sweepers) all paved aeces~ r~ds~ parking areas ~nd ~!~ging ~r~ al constn~ction stt~-¯ Swap slreets da~ly (wifl~ wa~er sweepers) if visible so~t mmer[~l is carried onto adjacent public ~e~.¯ Hydr~e~ or ~pply 0to~-toxic) soil ~labiIiz~ts to i~efive ~ns~uctioo ~rea~

E~iel~e, cover, wat¢~ twt~. daily or apply (nOn-toxic) ~l bhxdc~ lo expo~ s~ckpi]es (dirt, sand, etc,)

- lns~![ sandbag~ or other erosion conUo[ measures to prewar 8itl t~ntoff to public to.ways,Replmlt vege~ali~n tu disturb~ zreas ~ quickly a~ possible.

. Install wheel wazher~ for all exit~vg truck~, or wash off fl~fires ~r tracks of all trucks and equipment leaving the silo.

Suspend ~xcavation mid grading activity when winds (instantnne~ttg gusts) exee~ 25 mph.

BIOLOG[CA I. IMPACTSTree RemovalAll ordinance ~ized trees to Ire removed on the project site writ be tepiaeed at the following ratios:

3:1 ratio replacement for the removal of native trees, with the iflanllng of 36" box native trees.l:t ratio replacement r¢~r the removal ~f nml-native tree.~, will~ 1be p]an~ing of 36" box ~lative trees.

their r~placcment at the ral~o~ s~cified above. Replace~ncnt ~ees may be planled ~ streez u’ees fgr d~e new ~ss roador on individual lots, Ati r~p[aeemem tre~ 8hall be irdgaled and adequately mainlined for a period ~f tbr~ year~ ~en~r~ sur~i~al.

FOr trees which amy be removed ~ []art of individual site ~:le~’eLopo~e~t. t~ removal shall be 8howe on individualbvilding p[an.~ wilh Iree replacement per Ih¢ t’atios li~ted above.

The 14" o0k Located along the w~torn proper~’ lh~e of lot six sh~dt be rotain~ u~dt~,~s a report b~-’ a certified arlw.a’is~.submitted for approval by the Planning Office as part of devet0pme~t of the it~divid~al silo re¢o~nmep, ds its removral.


qualifi~ ~m[tl~ologist ~ idcmify active m~tOr ncs~ that may ~ dj.stu~bed during proje~ imp~mcn~fion, ~¢tween~a~u~y an~ Apd] (inclusive) pre-eons(ruc~km ~rveys shall b~nductcd no mor~ ~han 14 days p~[or to the initiation ofconstruction ~dviti~ or trec removal, Between May a~fl A~g~sl (inc]u.~ive), p~-cons~ucti~ st]treys m0;e lba. ~J~.(3 O) days prior to th e tai~iaii~ of these activ ities, [f a~ aetiv e raptor .e~ t J~ tou.d in or close enough to ~he construction

Oame, desig.me a consl~ction free buffer rune (bt)i~]]y 250 f~t) around the nest.

The alrplieant sha!l cv idence ot a contract with a qual~.ficd ornithologist to cor~duct fl~e p~construet~on sm’veys priortssuan~ ~f final gmdh~g [~rm~ and the orntflmlogist must submit a repor~ ind~dag ~he result of the ~urvey and any

Prepared by:Rob F.astwood, Senior P]mmer, AICP

Approved ~’:Rob F~astwood, S¢~.ior Planner, AtCP

Date

Signature Date


100 0 100 200 Feet

Location MapViso Subdivision

File 9160-05S


I/

/ ,,

IIII


INITIAL STUDYEnvironmeJltal Checklist and Evaluation for Smlta Clara County

9160-05SResidential Sulodivsion

507 Porter Lane, San Jose, CA

Charles ¥isoSame

August 16, 20066t2-21-056. 120

San Jose

Proposed 20 lot subdivision of a 4.06 acre property tocated on tim west side of Porter Lane in unincorporatedSan Jose. Nineteen of lhe twenty lot~ a~e between 6,018 and 7,448 square feet in size (~et) with the mmai~inglot being 17,658 square feet in size and will conhain the exisling reside,me on lhe pl-Ope~ty. Access m a majorilyof the Iot~ will be provided by a uew access road ~ be built and dedicated as a public mad. The lots wi!! beprovided sanitary sewer from County Sanita6on District 2 ] 3, connecting to an existing sewer line which ¢ross~stim southwesten~ edge of the pmp~y. Water will be provided by San Jose Water_ Storm drainag~ from amajority of the project site will be captured and di~eted to existing facilities in Altadena La~e a~d FlemingAver, tin southwest of the project site. In order to mil~gate for additional stormwater rvnoff a~}d rdaled waterquality impacts, retention trenclms will be it~stalled within the on-site drainage system. Subdivisionimprovemenls will result in the demolitioa of seve~al outbuildings and a tennis court on the property along wi~tim re.movat of 17 ordiuance sized trees, of which 12 are palm tr~s. Up to 10 addilional ordinance sized treesmay be removed as part of buitding sRe improvements o~ h~dividual lots. Approximate grading quantities~meiated with the subdiwisio~a improvements are approximately 993 ~ubic yards of cut and 3,901 cubic yards of

T~e 4 acre sit~ is located on the western side of Po~er Lane, appro~ma~ely 850 feet south ~ the i~te~ecfion ofPo~er I~ne and tqemi~xg Aveaue. The project site co,~sists of lwo legal lots, of 2 and 2.06 acres in sizz. a~dcurrently eonlains z singte family house and a vineyard, The single family house is located in the southerncorner of the property, a~d was built circa 1928. Asmdated residential improvements on the property include acottage [ garage, deck, leunis eoart, and several sheds and outbuildings. A vineyard is local~ on the northernportion of the property, encompassing approximately 1.5 to 2 acre. Potions of the project site are heavilywooded, ¢o~ttai~ting a wide variety of native and non-native tree~, inehtding Redwoods, Hnes, Oaks, Palms,Cedar, and Pepper. 1~ total, the site contai~s over 60 ordinan~ sized (over 12" in diameter, mcasured 4.5 feetabove ground)trees. The project site is relatively flat (less than a 10%) slope, with fire highest porOon of theproperty aloug the Porter Lane fro, lage in the norflmrn comer of the proper~. The project site is 10cat~d in aresidential neighbod~ood within an unincorporated area of eastern San Jose. The majofty of the surmm~dingresidential properties range from 13,000 s.f. to ~,0~ s.f. in size.


ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED

[] Aesthetics [] Agriculmre Re~ourees [] Air Quality

[] Biological Resoavees [] .Cultural Resour~ [] GeMogy / Soils

[] Ilazards & Hazardous [] Hydrology / Water Quality [] Land ldseMaterials

[] Noise [] Population / Housing []:] Publie Seawi¢~

[] R~ourc~ t Recreation [] Transportation / Traffic [] Utilities/Service Systems

[] Mandatory Findittgs of Significance [] None

~E°I[9~RMIN&TJ~_ON: C[’o be compJeJ~l.by 0~� Lead

[] [ fi]td tha& the pn~p~sed project COULD NOT have ~ ~ignifieaJtt eff~t oa ~¢ ¢nvirom~.er~t, mid a NEGATIVEDECLARA°I’ION wJl] be plepared,

[] t find that although Ihc proposed pro~e¢t ¢outd haw a significant effect on the ~nlvironmeat~ thel’� wiil not be asignifiea,~t effect io this ea,ze ~ea~l~e ~viSiOl~S in~ ~c project have bcetx m~de by or agreo:l ~o by-th~ project proponent, AMITIGATP.]D NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

signlificant effcct~ (a) havo be~ analyT~d ~dequately in aa~ earlier EIR or NEGATIV~ DEC~TION pursuant toapplicab]~ .standards, and (b) have been avoid~ or miligal~ pursua~xt to that earlier EtR o~ N~AT~EDEC~TION, i~ciuding ~visions or m[tigali~o me~¢u~ that are im~ed upon die propo~d project, nozki~lg fitrt~er~s require~,

[] [ fh~d th~l ti~e proposeod pto.icet MAY have a slgntlTeant effect on the envkoome|~t, anld an| ENVIRONMENTALIMPACT REPORT is re~iuired.

Signature Date

Printed name For


ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKIJST AND DISCUSSION OF iMPACTS

IMPACTWOULD THE [~ROJECT: YES NO

SOURCES

vista?b} Subslat~tialty damage scenic resources along [] [] I~ [] 3, 6a, 17f

a deslgaated scenic highway?c) Sub~ntl~llydeg~de the e~sting visual ~ ~ ~ ~ 2,3

cha~o~[ or quali~ of the site and

d} C~e~ a new s~ur~ of suSs~nti£1 light or ~ ~ ~ ~ 3,4gla~ which ~uld adve~ely a~ct day~]gh£ime views in the

e) If SebJect to ASA, be 9ene~lly in non- ~ ~ ~ ~ 11compliance wi~ the G uidelinesA~i[ectu~ ane SiIe

I) If s~bJ~te Design Review, be geneml~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 3,4,12non-complisn ce with th ~ Guideli~es for Oesig nReview ~p~al?

g) 8e bcat~ on er near a ~dgeli~e v~sib~ from ~ ~ ~ ~ 2,17~¯ e ~a]ley fl~# ................

DISCUSSION: The 4.06 act’e site is located within tile lower foothills of eastern San Jose,However, the subjecl property is ~oeat~d ~ear the ba~e of these foothills, and there are nop~mincnt views from the project site of the San~ Clara Valtey floor or vi~ versa, Po~er Laneis not scenic road a~d the prq~ect she is not visibl~ fro~ any known scenic roads ~u ~e region.The project site curteet}y consists of a single family house (with several ancillary buildhag~) anda ~ineyard. As viewed from Poacr Lane, the site appears some~hat wooded wit[~ open areas forthe vhzeyard and ~side~ttiat improvements (deck, tennis court). Bail(t out of the subdivisionwmdd e~il coastructio, of a zzew public road into the prope~y and the construction ~ singlefamily homes facing the new ac~s ~ad and Porter Lane. This will be consider~ ~ distinctive.visual change from the existing set~ng. However, as the project site does not fro~t a scenic roador cont~b~ any unusually distinctive visual cl~araeterist[cs, deve!op~ent of the site into sh~glefamily homes will not be consider~ a significant v~sual impact.

MITIGATION: Nolle Required ’

e. AGR=C~’~URE RESOU’R’CE~ "

to the Ca’lfornia AgricJltural Land Evaluation and S}te ~sessmeat M~el (1~91) p~pared by ~he California Dept. orConsolation as en optional model ~ use in ~ess~ng Im~c~ on agri~ltu~ and ~rmlan6,

I {MPACT sourceWOULU TH ~ ~OJECT: YES i NO


61aseified as prime hl f, he report Soils ofSanta Ciere Cou#~ ~ non-sgr~cultu~l use?

b) Conflict wi[h exis~ng zoning for agricul~ml ~ ~ ~ ~ 9,21a

o) CoaXial with an e~isling Willlam~n Ac~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1Gourmet?

d) Involve emer changes in the existing . ~ ~ ~ ~ 3,4,26enrichment wb~h, Cue ~ ~eir Io~tien otna~m, could result in ~nve~ioh of Pa~land,to non~g~cuih~l gse?

DISCUSSION: The subject property is not under a Williamson Act Contract attd .is de.~ignatedas urban [and by the State Department of Conservation. While a portion of the property iscurrently used for viney,~rd production, it i~ not a unique ag~-icultura~ resource due to its limitedsize and location withi~ an urbzn ztea. h~ summary, construction of the 20 lot subdivision will.ot result in zny pore.tinily sig,~ificant impacts to zgricultural resources.

MITIGATION: None Reqt~ir~d

C. AIR QUALITY

Where ava[labte, the ~ign[lfoan~e criteria e~tablished by th, a applicable a~r quaEty management ~r air pollution controldistriCt may be relied up~a to make the following determina~ns,

," ’IMPACT

THE PROJECT:"i ip~

YES NO

SOURCEPobentiatl~

a~-) - ~o.fliet with or ob~iJ~ i~pI~m~n~£~n of the ~ .... ~ ~ ~ 5,28appl~ble a~r quati~ plan?

b) Miola~ any air quali{y s~ndard or cont~bute ~ ~ ~ ~ 5,29subs~nt~al~y ~ an existing or prOjecte~ airqueli~ vlo!~on?

c) Resell i~ a ~m~latively considerable ne~ ~ ~ ~ ~in~m~e of a~y cdtefi~ £ellu~n~ for wR[~p~oject region i~ no~-altei~ment under ~app!~ble ~e~l er s~te ambien[ a~r~an~rd (~ncludlag ~leasi~g emissions ~exce~ quantitative thresholds ~r ezo~e

d) 5~ose ~n~iti~e ~cep~o~s t#subs~snSal ~ ~ ~ ~ 5.29pollutant ¢ence ntration¢?

e) C~a~ obJec~onable ede~ er dust ,Peking a ~ ~ ~ ~ 5,21,29, 47sub~ta~tial number ef people?

DISCUSSION: Co.struction and buildout of the 20 lot subdi~rision will not result in the creationof any on-site staliona,’y sources of pol|utants, If the proposed subdivision were t~ create a

4


significant nttmber of ~ew traffic trips, this could potentially restllt in a significant increase inpollutants �foaled by amomobile emissions (Nitrog~ Oxide, Carbon Monoxide).

A traffic report was prepared for the project by Hexago~ Traffic Consultauts (see T~ansportatiouS~ction). As disclosed within the report, the subdivision will tikely generate 13 new vehicle tripsdaling th~ AM peak hour and 22 new [rips during the PM peak l~our, A~ordi~g to th~ thresholdseonbined with[ n th~ Bay Area Air Quali~ Management District (BAAQMD) C~Aguidebook, a reside~tial subdivision would ae~ to generate approximately 2,000 trips per day orsubslantially impact the level of service (LOS) level at regional intersections in order to generatepotlulants which would be considered "signifi~nt". As the subject subdivision does notgenerate substantial traffic sad will not adversely impact.regiona! infractions (as disclosed iatl~e traffic repot0, it will not create any significant air quality impact~ related to vehicleemissJol~s.

Fugitive dust wil~ be created dr, ring the construction of the subdivision improvemenls. Due totb~ size of the property, subdivision improvements required, and immediate proximinity toneighboring residences, this dust has the pot~tial to result in short term air quality impacts toany nearby ~en~ilive receptor.~ (neighboring residents). In order to mitigate any short term airquality impacts which could result from this, the following mitigation measures will be adheredto in conformance with standard (tllst control measures as stipulated by the Bay Area Air QualityManagement District.

MITIGATION:

The following dust control me~sure.s will be adhered to during construction for all subdivisionimprovements, t;inal improvement plmas ! grading plus for the subdMsion improvements mustcontain la)guage requiring ~at the following control measures be ilnpIemented.¯ War.- al! active conslruction a~s at least twi~ daily.¯ Cover all ~eks hauling soil, sand, ~d other loose materials or require all ~cks to maintain

at least two f~et of freeboard.¯ Pave, apply water tl~e times daily, or apply (tmn-toxie) soil stabilizffs oa all unpaved access

roads, parking areas and ~taging areas at construction sites.Sweep daily (with water sweepers) alt paved access muds, p~king areas and slaging areas at

construction sites.Sweep slreets daily (with water sweepers) ~f visibte soil material is ea~ed onto adjacent

public s~eets.Hydroseed or apply (nondoxie) soil stabilizers 1o inactive consm~ction areas

(previously graded areas inactive for ~n days or more),, Enclose, cover, water twice daily or apply (n~n-toxie) soi! binders to expos~ stockpiles (di~,

sm~(l, etc.)Limit kaflic speeds on un~aved roads to 15 mph.Install sandbags or other erosion control meagures to prevent silt ronoff to public roadways.

’ Repl~mt vegetation in dist~bad areas as quickly ~ possible.’ Instil wl~eel washers for all exiting t~¢tcks, or wash offthe tires or trac~ of all ~cks ~d

equipment leaving am site.Suspend excavations and ~ading activity when winds (instantan~s gus~) exceed 25 nlp~.


D. Bi6LO~ICA[. ~,EGOUR~I=S ’

u.mnu

~OU LD "I’HE PROJ ECT: YES

Le~sThfl~ SOU RCES*Questions rela[]ng b the California Depar~nler~t ofFish & Game "de m[nimt~s impact finding" for the wi~

Certificate of Fee Exemption are listed in italics,

regina!piano, po#~es, ot ~ula~b~s, orby

or U.S. Fisi~ and ~’~lifob) Have a suSS~n~a; adve~e effect on atw ~ ~ ~ ~ 3,7, Be, 1Zb,

fipafia# habit! or olher sensiti~ natant 17e, 33community ~t~d in loca! er regional plans,

Depaf~nt of F[sh a#d Game or US Ft~ and~Wtdiife 8owt~ ?

c) Have a subsfan~af advome ef~et o~ ~demlly ~ ~ ~ ~ 3, 7, 17n, 32pro~cted we~tattds as define# by sec~,bn 404ot the C~an Water Act (Wctud#~g,fimite~ to, marsh, vema~ poo~ ~tai, e~.) or

defined by ~ection 3~[d) ef #~e Clean-We~r

d) tnteffe~gubatantia~ywffh theorems!of ~ ~ ~ ~ 1,7, 17b, 17o

mlg~tory ~’iWfi~e coMdo~, or impede ~e use

e) Oonfl~t with ~he p~visio~s clan adop~d ~ ~ ~ ~ 3,4Habitat Con~af~bn Plan, Netumt

epp~ved local, reg~net or elate hab~t

~ Confli~w~h any local pol~ies erord~nan~p~tect~g biological ~sou~s:

i) T~e Prese~a~n Q~na~ [So,ion C16]; ~ ~ ~ ~ t,3,31

i[i) Riparian HaOflat fGP ~#c~ R-RC 3~4~j?,., ~ ~ ....... 3, 8a,, ~ ~

DISCUSSION: The subject 4.06 acre property is located in an Urban area of eastern San Joseand does .or contaitr any .~ensitive natural habitatS, such a~ creeks, dpada. Imbitat, wethmds,s~rpentine soils, oak woodla.ds, or other natural c~mlnunitie~ recognized as "sensitive" by statemid I’ed~ral reg.l~lery agencies, With the exception of raptors and other bird~ affordedprotection u.der the Federal Migratory !~,~ra [reaty Act, tl~e site does not provide any suitablehabitat for a~y "special status" wildlife or plant species. The project site is somewhat woodedm~d in totat ¢ontah~s a total of 60+ trees of over 12" i. diameter. Subdi’cision improvemertts toinstall the main access roi~d a.d a~sociated utility imp~oveme~ts is expected to r~snlt hr the lossof approximately s~venteen ordinance sized trees, of which 12 ~re palm trees. The devebprn~ntof building sites on ~nd~vidual is expecled to result in ~he remo’~al of np to 10 additional


ordinance sized trees, which includes a mixtut~ of pines, palms, redwoods, and one oak tree.Several of fl~s~ trees may not need to be removed, based on the propos~ house design for therespective indi~qdual lot, which is ~aknown at this time. Al~ough the ~ubj~t properg is notlocated in ~n area of ~h~ County which requires a lt~e remora1 permit, ~e removal of up to 27ordinance s~zed trees on th~ projec.t site, including 11 ~aliw trees, coukl be considered abiological impact, In addition, construction activities associated w~th either removing on-sitetre~ or c~nstruet~ng the access road ~ou~d disrupt any n~sting raptor bird species on ~h~ site.which are protected by tt~e Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

In order to prevent any significant intpacts to biological resources assoeiated with tree removaland the ’+taking" or disturbance of nesting raptors, the following mitigation wil! 1++ required.

’ NMI rlG~TIO :

I)’ee RemovalAll ordinance sized trees to be removed on the project site will be replaced at the followingratios:

3:I ratio replacement for fl~e removal of ~ative trees, with the planting of 36" box native trees.1:1 ,-alio replacement for the removal of non-nati’¢e tree~, with th~ planting of 36" box nativetrees.

Fin,ql improwment plans for the subdivision improvements shall show all ordinance treesprvposed for removal and their replacement at the ratio’s specified above. Replaeemcqt treesmay be planted as street trees for fire new access road or ~n individual lots, All replacement tre~sshall be ~rrigated and adequately maintained for a period of three years to en~ure survival.

For trees whictt may be removed as part of individual site development, tree removal shall beshown on i,~dividual building plans with tree replaeeme~t per the ratios liste<l above.

The 14" oak located along the western property line of lot six shall be retained unless a report bya certified arborist recommends its approval. This report sl~all be submitted for approval by thePlanni~g Office as part of the individual site development of lot six if this tree is intended forremoval.

If any of fl~e preserved trees are proposed for removal in the future, a tree removal permit shallbe reqnired.

Nesting Rapiers[f p~ssible, tree removal and construction should be scheduled between October and December(h~ctusive) to avokl tim raptor nesting s~son, If this is not possible, pre-construction su~eys for~esting rapiers shall be conducted by a qualified ornithologist to identify active raptor nests thatm~y be disturbed durh~g proj~t iml>lementafion, Between Jnnua~’ m~d April (inclusive) pre-conrtntction surwys shall ~ conducted ~to more fl~an 14 days prior to the inflation ofconstruction activities or tree removal. Betweet~ May and August (inclusive), pre-conslruetions~rveys more them thirty (30) days prior to the initiation of these activities. If an active raptor .nest is found in or close enough to the construction m-ca to be disturbed by these ac~vities, ~eornithologist, shall, in consultatiot~ with the California Department of Fish & Game, designate aeonstn~etion free buffer zone (typically 250 feet) around the nest.

7


Yha applicant shalt evidence of a contract with a qualified ornithologist to conduct thepreeonstrtnction surveys prior to issum~ce of final grading pennltz and the orui~ologlst mustsubmit a report indicating the result of the s~rvey and any desig~mted buffer zones to thesad sfaction of tim Planning Office prior to the issuance of finn occupancy,

E, CULTURAL RESOURCESIMPACT

WOULD T~ E PROJECTSOURCE

~} Cause a su’l~ta~lial advelse change iri the ~ ~ N ~’ ’" 3. 16, 19, 40,

significance el a kistori~l ~sour~ pu~uant 41

to ~1~N,5 of Ne CEQA Guidnlines?b) Cause a substantial adve~e change in ~e ~ ~ ~ ~ 3, 19, 40, 41,

s~gnifi~nce of an a ~aoologie~ re~ume asdefined in ~15064.5 of ~e CE~ Guidelines?

c) Directly o~ indirectly destroy a unique ~ ~ ~ ~ 2,3,4,,40,41pa~tological ~sou~ or site or unique

d) Disturb any ~un]an re~ins, including those ~ ~ ~ ~ 2, 40,41inter~d outsNo ~f formal ~eme~d~7

e) Change or aeeot any msourcelis~din the ~ ~ ~ ~ 16Coun~ Historic Resour~s Da~base?

DISCUSSION:

In order to evahmte any potential impacts to historic [esources which may be present out timproject site, a cultural resources evaluation was prepared by Archeological ResourceManagement, With respect to Archeological resources, the Northwest Informatio~ Center atSoaoma State University indicated that the project s~te has a low possibility of containingunrecorded archeological sites,

The cultural (historic) resources evalualion prepared by Archeologieal Resource Managementincludes the preparation of California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) forms todocument the buiIdi;~g.g on the subject property attd determine if they could be considered"historic resources" as defined by CEQA. As evaluated withi;~ tim report, the existing residenceou the property was constructed in 1928 and built within the French l=.lectic Style. Several otheroutbuildings on the subject property include a detached garage / cottage unit (built in 1986), acarport, storage slmds, deck, swimming pool, and tenniis court,

The u’cport deterTnined tlmt the property and none of the existing stiuetunes onsile are el[giNe fox’listing in tim California Register of Historic Places. A~ such, there are ~)o knowu "historicresources" on the property and implemet~tatidn of the subd~vislon will not result ~n any potentialsignificant impacts to historic resources. In accordauce with Slale and County codes, &efollowing controI measure will be adhered to d.ring al! construction activities:


[n the event that hum~t~ skeletal remains arc encountered, the ~pptic~( ~ mq~ircd by Coumy O~in~n~By. BS-lg to imm~[at¢ly notify lh~ C2m~t~ Coroner. Upon ~c~m~nafio~ by ~h~ Coumy Com~¢r ~ha~~hc ~wn~ias am Na~vc American, ~ ~mnar shall comact lh~ California Nadvc Am~;~c~nCommission, pnfsua~t to ~ubdivision (¢) of s~tion 7050.5 of the Health and S~ety Code ~d ~h~ CountyCoordinator of Indian affairs, No further 6ismrbance of the sito may be ~ade e~cept as au~oriz~ b~’ theCounty Coordinator Of Indian AffMrs in accoMal~ with the provisions of ~te law andartifacts are fbtmd oli ttl¢ ~ite a qualified archaeologist shall be contacted along wit~ file CounVOffice. No £orttmr disturban~ of tile aaifacts may bc n~dc except as authofi~d by the County PlanningOffice,

MITIGATION: None

GEOLOGY A~’D SOILS ’"’ "IMPACT

WOULD TH’~-’ PROJECT: YES NO

SOURCE

substantial adverse eflects, incteding the risk ofloss, inju~, or dea~i) Rup[ure of a k~own ear[hq~ake ~ult, as ~ ~ ~ ~ 6, 17L, 43

d~lineated on O~e most recent Nquist-~olo Eadhquake Fault ~n~ng Map .[ss~z~d by ~e S~te Geologist ~r B~eor base0 on ~ther substantia~ evideace ofa known fault7 Rear to DMsion of Min~and Geology Special PublicaS~n 42.

ii) S#ng seismicgroLrnd shaking? ~ ~ ~ ~ 6. 170,18b

]il} Seismic.re~ated ground~ilu~, inc~udin~l iquefactb n?

~18b

Iv) Landstees? ~ ~ ~~

6, t7L, 118b

b) Resul[;n subs~ntiM sol1 e~s~n er ~e loss of ~ ~ ~ 6, 2.3

c) Be #~ted on a geologic unil or soil the~ is ~ ~ ~ ~ 2,3.176.23.unstable, er ~at woutd he.me uns~51e as a 24.42result ~the p~ect, a~d ~teatia[ly ~sultemor off4ite landslNe, ~te~lsubsidence, lique~ction er

d) Be loca(ed on expe~s~ve ~ell, as de,ned in ~he ~ ~ ~ ~ 14.23, 24,=epe~, SOit~ of San~ Clam County. crea~ngS~bstantial risks # life or pr~e~

e) Have soits incapable of adequately suppling th~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 3,6, 23.24,use of septic tat~ks or alternative wastewate,di~posat systems where s~e~ a~ not availablefor t~e disposal of waste wate~

~ Cause subs~ntM1 compaction or over-coveting of8oi1 either 0n-s~te or

g) Cause subsMMial change in bp~graphy or ~ ~ ~ ~ 2, 3, 6, 42uns~ble soil conditions f~m o~avafion,9r~i~g, or fill?

DISCUSSION’Tim site is located elatir~ly within a County Fault Rupture Hazard Zone and partially withinLandslide H,azard Zo,m. A fault trac~ is =napped ac,o~s tt~e eastern portion of th~ parcel.

9


In order to evalt~ate potential impacts related to th~se geologic hazards, a geology repurt was~epar~ by PGE entitle~ "~ngineering G~t~gie Investigation" which evaluated the g~logieha~.ard o~ the prope~y and any potential impac~ wlfich could occur throngh construction of the20 lot s~bdivjsJon. The County Geologist evaluated the repo~ a~td required additionalinformation. Subsequea0y, additional reports by ~E "Supplemental Fauk InvestigationFindings" report ( daled 3annary 20, 20~) and Bo~chardt’s "Pedochronological Report" (datedJm~uary 13, 2~06) were presented which presented the findings of supplemental 0’enching, Noevidence of faulting was found on the prop~rty. The County Geologist deemed the reportcomplete and approved, and do~ not require an additional analysis or m~figations of the projectThus, l!~e proposed subdivision will not have any potential significant impacts related to geNogichazards.

The rextuired grading will be carried out in accordance with the recommendations set forth by tt~eCounty Surveyor’s Office aM the County Grading Ordinance. At the time & constrt~ction, allgraded areas shat! be reseeded in conformance with the Couixty Grading Ordinance to ensure thatthe project will minilnize the potdnlial for erosion on the site. All other land use and engineeringaspects of thi.~ project will be conditioned by the recommendations set forth by the Counly LandDevelOpment Engi neering Office.

MITIGATION: None

-G. H/~’ARDS & I!/~Z~ROOUS M.~Ti~RIALS. ,_,.. _ IMPACT

WOL)LD "rH P-’ P ROJEC’I"i i la

YES NOSOURCE

P~:hti~lllZ

i~) C[eatoas[gniffcanthazord k) the pubh~ or [] [] [] l~- 1 3,4, 5

envi~onmen~ through the ro~Jne transport,use, or disposal of hazardous material?

b) Create a slgni~nt hazard # the public etthe ~ ~ ~ ~ 2, 3, 5environment ~rough reason any fo reseeableupset aad 6~dent ~nditiens invo~i~~les~ of hazardeonvi~nmenG

c) Emithaza~ous em;ssions or handle ~ ~ ~ ~ 46h~e~ous or a~telySubs~nces, or waste within ~14 ~ile of anexisting er

d) Be ~ted on a s~e which Js incled~ on a ]is~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 47of hazardous me~erlals si~s ~mpil~dpumuant b Govemmeat Code Section65962,5 and,sipnifica~t haza~ to

e) For a p~jcct ~ccated witNn an ai~o~, lanOplan ~N~I area or, where su~ a plen hasnet been adopled= wlg~in ~o miles of a publicairpo~ er public use ei~o~, or I~ ~e vicinity ofa pri~ato alrsNp, w~ul~ the preje~ ~sult in asafe~ hazard ~r people resi6ing or wo~ing Inthe pmj~t area? ...

10


DISCUSSION:The project will ,tot include the use of hazardous maleriats and the project site is nol known 1ocontain hazardous materials. ImpIemm~tation of the prRiect will not intelfel’e with a emergencyresponse plan or any public or private airports,

MITIGATION: None Required

H. " HYDROLOGY ~D WATER QuAL.~T¥IMPACT

WOULD THE PROJECT: YES NO

SOURCEP~LIalI~

Inc,~j:~mled

a) VLolete any wa~er quality standardsdischarge requirement?

b) Subs~nt[ally deplete groundnut supplies orin~edere substanl~ally w~ g~u~d~ter~cha~e such that ~ere ~u~ be a net deficitin aqui~r ~olume or a lowering ef ~e localground~tor ~b~ level (e,g., ~o p~ionrate of pre-exisgng nea~y wellsa level which would no[ sup~ exis~ng landuses or pla~oa ~se~ for ~ch perm~ h~vebeen 9~n~d?

c) Subs~nlial~ alter the existing d~inagepatten) of the site or area, Includingthe ai~tien ef ~e cou~e of a ~tream orfiver, 16 a manner wNoE woutd ~su~l~ u b~ta~t~a~ e ros~o£ e r si1~tbn on- or ~#4i~?

d) Subs~nti~lly alter ~e exiting ~rainagepa~tern of the s)~e or area. inolud[ng through~e elteratio~ o~ the ~urs8 of a slmam orliver, or sub~miatly increase the m~ arameun[ of suffa~ runoff i~ ~ man~er wNch

policy regaling ~ood m~tion ~n water~ameand ms{oratbn of ri~adan vege~tion lot West

11


’~i Create er co~ribule ine~ased’[m#e~,~ussu~c~s and assodated ~noff wa~er which

pla~od s~rmwa[er drainage systems orp~ide substantial adei~na~ sources

~ O~he~ise substantially deornde water q~alit~

g) Place housing wi~n a 1O0-yearflood haza~area as mapped en a ~ee~l F~d HazardBoundn~ or Ft~d I~u~c~ Ra~ Map orother ~d haza~ delineation map?

h) Pla¢e witl~i~ a ~0O-yeatflood ~ezardstructures which would ~mp~e or ~ed;reol

Expose people or st~ctures ~dskof loss, inju~ or dea~ involving flooding,~ncluding flowing as a result of the ~ilu~levee or dam?

j) Be locale6 in an a~a ofs~aal wa~r quali~co~ (e.g.. Los Ga~s or GuadaMpeWate~hed)?

k) Be Ioca~d in an area ~6own to have~ nit~t~s [a we~l

I) Result ir~ a septic fiel~ being ~nstm~ed onsoil where a high water ~bM ~xten6s closethe nn~ral land

m} R~ult ia aseptic~old being Io~tedfoot of a d~inage ~a~; ~00 ~et of any well~ter ~urse or ~ter bodyor 200 feet~sewoir at

21a

1,3,53,18b,~nd

3,18b, 18d

2,3,4

4r 68.,

4

3

DISCUSSION: Implementation ef the subdivision will not signiiicantly alter existin#patterns either on silo or downstream of tl~e property. Curl-eatly drainage on-Nte flows to thesouthwest which is tlxo lowest portion of tile prepe~y. The subject properly is predominantlyundeveloped and thus currently does not c~eate extensive stormwater runoff offConstructiou of the subdivision will entail the co~struclion of a public ac~ss road and bu~ldit~gsites on ~9 of Ihe 20 lots (one lot wiiI contain fl~e e~isting residence). These impro~emen~ willsubstm~tiM ly increase t~e amount of impervious surfaces onsite, which will ia turn i~xcreaseamount of ztormwater which runs off sit&

Impacts to stormwater quality associated with the proposed plojeet were evaluated in consistencywith the C3 provisions applicable to projects which creat~ at least one ~cre of new impervious.~n,’faces, as stipulated nttder tt~e NPDE$ permit for the San Frmmisco Bay Regional W~erQuality Colitr~i Board. In vrder to comrol both potential impacts to water quality (increasedpollutmxts in stormwat~r) and downstream flooding, the p~oject ha~ incorporated a series ofsite drainage facilities which includes the installation of retent]ol~ ~enches, As shown onpreliminary development plans, at least four reten~oa trenches will be installed beneathstormwater inlets i~ the n~w access ro~td w~ich captures runoff both f~m the road and individnalresidealia~ Jots. These relenlion trenches will atlow the infiltration of water into on-site soilsslow down t~e velocity of stormwater exiting the project site. Storm drainage for the lots facingPorter lane will drain to facilities within Porter ~ne. The remaining drainage will be colleet~in pipes w h~cll com~ect to facilities i;x A;tadcna Lane, south of the subdivision. ~-eliminaryhydrology emendations have been prepared and submitted to estimate the general size of drainagefacilities needed and final drainage calculations will be submitted as part of the required

[2


subdtvi.~[on improwments. In summatN, the proposed project wilI not have potentiallysignificn~[ hydrology and wa|~r quality rctatcd impacts,

MITIGATION: Noae Requi~d

IMPA~T

WOULD THE PROJECT: YES

SOURCEP~nl~-~ L~ss Th.~n

.!.~.~ .

b) Conflict with, any applicable land use plan, [] [] [] [] 8a, 9, 18apolicy, or regulation of an agency wi~h~urisdiction over the p~jec[ (incfudi~g, bu[ notlimited 1o the gene~l pla~, 8peelSc plan,zoning ordi~anee~ ado pted ~r Ib~ pe~e ofavoiding or mR[gating an e~,ironmen~1

o) Confli6t with special ~ticie£:

i) Sa~Mar~n ~or $ouih ~L=nty?ii) LOS Gates Specific Plan or Lexington ~ ~ ~ ~ 1,3, 8a, 22c

Wate~ed?iii) New Almaden H~st~rical A~a~Guadalupe ~ ~ ~ ~ t, 8a

Wate~hed?iv) St~n~?v) C~[y of Mo~an H~lt Urban Gro~h

Bounda~vi) West Valley Hillsides Prese~a~ion A~ea? ~ ....... ~ ~ ~ 1,8a ,

DISCUSSION: The proposed subdivision is consistent with the applicable Zoning and GeneralPlan designations sad will not have m~y potentially significant la~d use impacts.

MITIGATION: No.e Required,

J. NO1SEIMI~ACT8 .... ¯ ..........

W(~U~’O THE PROJECT: YES NO

SOU ROEL~ Tbart

a) Restllt ~n ¢XpO~u’r~’of p~rsons to or generai’i~n’ [] L~ L.~ [] 8a, 13, 22a,of noise levels ia excess of standards 45eslablish~d in t.~e local general plan .or noiseordinance, or appl[caNe ~andafds of o~heragencies?

b) Result in exp~ure of persons to er#eneration [] [] [] [] 13of excessive g po undbo me vibra[ion o rgr~r~dbome noise levels?

13


Re~t[l(.in a substantial permanent increaseambient noise levels in

d) Result in a sub~tan~al ~mpo~ er p~riodi¢inc~a J~ a~bient nuise I~WrS in the p~jectvicini~ above levels exlstiag ~out theprojeci?

e) For a p~je~ bested wJ~in an al@o~ land usepla~ referral area or, whe~ sud~ a ptan hasno~ been adop[ea, with]~ ~ miles efa publicairpod or public use a~, or priva~ air,ripwould the p~j~[ ex~se people ~siding or,.vo~ng in ~e p~jectlevels?

[] [] [] [] 1,5, 22a

DISCUSSION:Implementation of tile project will not result i~l tt~e establishment of any new significant long-term statio,~ry noise sore-cos o~ tile site whicla would zlot be inconsistent with the surroundingresidential neighborhood. In order to substantiMly increase traffic noise along Porter Lane andaffect adjace~t offsite properties: tl~e subdivision would need to double existing traffic levels. Asevaluated w itMn die traffic report prepared for tt~e project, the project will qot double existingtraffic levels in the area.

Demolition of tt~e onsite residenti~d bt~ildings, tree removal, and construction o1" the access roadarm ~ew residences will create temporary t~oise impacts i,r the vicinity of the project site. Asrequired o1 all conslruction projects, the project strait conform to the County Noise Ordinance.The Counly Noise Ordinance (Section B11-192) sets maximum exterior noise levels for land usecategories, and comptia,rce with these ~pecifications wil! ensure that tire neighboring propertiesare not significantly impacted.

MITIGA’IqON: None Required

K. POPULATION AND HOlJ$il~’~

i~PACTWOULD THE PROJECT: NO

SOURCEL~Ik~_~

-~) induce substar~tial gre,~ih i. aa area, either ....~1 [] ~ ~ t~. 4d ire~ly (lot e~m ple, by prOp0Si~g new homesand businesses) or indi~etty (for ~ample,th~ug h ex~ns~on of ~ads or o~e rinf~structur~)?

b) DigpM~ substantial numbe6 o~exis~ng ~ ~ ~ ~ I, 2, 3, 4hous in9 a r peo ple. neoess[ta[~ng thecons{A~c{ion ~1 ~plac~meat housing

DISCUSSION: Implementation of the project will not reslllt in any ~ignificatlt population orhousMg imFacts.

MITIGATION: No,to Required

14


L~ P~J BLIC SERV{CESIMPACT

i n umnmu

WOULD THE PRO JEt’T: YES NO

Po~ntiall~

associated with [he provision ~1 new. orph, ysioally altered govemmenlai facilities, need~r new or physioalt~ alte~d govemm~llao[li~es, the ~as~ion ofwhi~ ~uld causes ignite nt environmen~l imp a~s. in o ~er toma[ntai~ aecep~bIe se~i~ ratios, ~s~nsetimes or ether pefforman~ obj~t~,es for anyof the public so.ices:i) FI~ Protection? ~ ~ ~ ~ 1, 3.5

ii} Police Protection? ~ ~ ~ ~ 1, 3.5

iii) School (a~itffies? ~ ~ ~ ~ , 1.3.5

iv) Perks? ~ ~ D ~ 1.3, S

DISCUSSION: l,nplementalion of the pl-oject will not resuIt in any potentially significa~timpacts related to public services.

MITIGATION: Notae Required

M, RESOURC~-S AND RE~’REATION ....nMPACT

W--’~)-I~LD 3"HE PRo~’ECT:

SOURCEPolenl~lly.

15


DISCUSSION: Tllere are no known trails, parks or rniaeraI resources in dm vicinity of theproject site and the proposed 20 lot subdivisio]~ will not substantially increase the use of parkssuch that substar~tial physical deterioration of the facility would occur.

MITIGATION: None Requke~L

N. TRANSPORTA’rlON f’~RAFFIC .......IMPACT SOURC~

WOULD 3HF_’~ROJEC3": YES NO

|n~nr~m~,d

~ubstantial in relation to the existing traffic load 49, 53and capacity o(~e street system (Le., ~sult ina so~antbl inc~se in Nthor the number~ehiole [tips, thg ~ol~me ~ ~pacJ~ ratio, or~g~stion at l~te~e~io~?Exceed, eitha~ k~dMdually or cumulatively, a ~ ~ ~ ~ 6, 49, 50, 53level of ~wice standa~ establJsh~Coun~ ~nge~tlo~ management ggency forde~lg~at~ roads or highw~s?Result in a ~ang~ in air tra~o pa~em~,including either an i~ase in tra~ ~ewls ora chenge in l~tlen that results in ~ubs~ntial$=fetyS~bs~ntial~ ~nc~o8e ha~s due to a design ~ ~ ~ ~ 3, 5, 6,7, 53fea~ (e.g., sha~ ~s ar daage~usintemecOons) or ~n~tible use9 (e.g., farmequi~e~t)?Result In inadequate eme~en~ access ? ~ ~ ~ ~ 1, 3. 5, 48, 53

~sult in inadequate parking ~pa~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~

52, 53Con~iot with adopted policies, plan~, er ~ ~ 8a, 21apr~ra~ sup~Nag altemaWe(e.g., b,~ turnout, bicycleNot provide ~a{e access, obst~ct access to ~ ~ ~ ~ 3, 6, 7, ~3nea~ uses or fai~ to p~vlde br lucre streetright of way? ’

DISCUSSION: In ~rder to evaluate any potential transportation /traffic impacts which wouIdresutt from con~t[t,ctio~ and build~ut of the ~ lot subdi vision, a traffic report wa~ prepared byHexagon Transportation Consul~nts, dated Septe~nbcr 14, 2005. The scope of work for thatraffic report was to (a) determine whether sight distance at the inte~ectioa cf Porter Lane andthe ~ew access road was adequate and (b) evaIuate potential level of service (LOS) impacts tothe interseclion of Porter Lane and Alum Rock Avenue.

~6


According to the traffic study, Ahtm Rock ! Porter Lane intersectioil currently has LOS orB,which is cat,sNored a good level of service will! minima! delay, The 20 lot subdivision isc×pected to gel~erate 13 new trips during the AM peak hour and :22 ~ew trips during the PM peakhour, with a tolal of 208 daily trips. In evaluating the impact of these ,,ew trip~ upon the AiamRock ! Porter Lan~ intersection, the report co,lcludes that LOS would decrease from B to C in theAM peak bout but remai~ at B during the PM peak hour. As LOS C is stiI1 considered allacceptable love1 of service, tiffs i~ not considered a significant impact. With respect to sightdistance, the report concluded that ~iglat distance is li,~ileA by a benn near the Porter Lane /Alum Rock intersection but that finis is an existi~g problem which will not be exacerbated bysubdlvision proposal.

In summary, construction and build out of the prolPo~ed 20 lot sub(liv] sio,~ will not have a,~ypotentially significant traffic impact&

MITIGATION: None Required

O. UTiLITIE~ AN’I~ SERVICE SYSTEMS -

iMPACTWOUL~"TfIE PROJIEC÷: YES NO

SOURC~FeY entialt’,,,S~en~car~t

the applicable Regional Water Quali~y ControlBoard?

b) Reo~ai~’e or result in (he c~nstru~io6 of new ~ ~ ~ ~ 1,3, 5, 21a,ws~er or was~water t~a~ent fa~lilies or 38expansion of existing ~acllitles, ~e ~ n,truotionof which could cause signifi~nt enrichment1effects?

c} Require or ~ult In the ~nsl~ction of n~’~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1,3,5s!~tm water d~nage racili~’es or ~.pans~n ofexi¢~ng fa~lities, ~e constru~ion ~ which~ld ~ase signifi~nt environmental

d) Requi~ new or expanded entitlements in ~ ~ ~ ~ 1,3, 5, 21,e~er to have sufficient v~ter suppliesavailab~ ~ sere the

e} R~ult in a delefmi~a~On by the wastewater ~ ~ ~ ~ 1, 3, 5treatment p~viderwhichth8 pre~ that it has inadequate capaci~sere the p~ect’s projected deman~ inaddition to the p~lder’s existingcomm[tme~k?

f} NOt be able to be se~,ed by a landfill wilhsu~ient permitted c~paci~ ~ a~mmod~the p~ject’s sol~d waste d;sposal

g) Be ia no~omplian~ with federal state, and ~ ~ ~ ~ 5, 6

waste7’

DISCUSSION: huplementatioz~ of the project will not result ia any utilities or service ~ystomrdated sigzfificant impacts.


MITIGATION:

MANDATORY FINDING OF SIGN[F~.GANCE

IMPACT

WOULD THE PROJE~T: YEs NO

SOURCE"Questions relating to the C01ilornia Department ofFish & Game "de minimus impact Ending" for theCertificate of Fee Exemption am li~ted in italics-

caus~ o fl~t~ or wiYd~i~ population to d~p

the RumOr o# ~str~t the r~n~e of

i~poffatff examples of fie major per~ds ofCa#lom~ h~$toW or pmhiMo~?Ooos the project have impao~ that a~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ 53~£dMdual~ limi~d, but cumula~elyconsiderable ("Cumulative~ ~nsNemble"means that lhe ~nommdn~t e~cts ofindividual pro;oct am ~nsiderable whenviewed in ~nnection with the eftec~#~Jec~, ~o effec~ of other cur~ntand ff~e effec~ of probable ~l~re pmje~)?Do~ #~e pro~ have eeviron~n~l effeots ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ to 53wh~h will cause subs~nSa[ adve~e eff~s onhuma~ beings, either di~ctly or indir~tly?

DISCUSSION:Inlplementation of the 20 lot subdivision will not trigger any mandatory findings of siguificance.

EARLIER ANALYSIS

I) Earlier Analysi.q Used: NIA

2) Impacts Adcquatel3 Addressed: N/A

3) Mitigation Measures: NfA

18


Initia| Study Source List*

~. Environmental tnforraatLot~2, Field Inspection3, Pro~ect Plans4~ Planner’s Knowi~d~e of Area5. Experience Wffh Other Projects of This Size and

N~re6. Coun~ Expe~ Sources: Ge0[0gist, Fire Ma~hal,

Roads & Airoo~s, Egvimn~entel Health, L~ndDevaloo~ent Engineeri~g, Parks &Zo~igg Administration, Co~prehensiv~ Planning,Architectural & Si~ App~val C~mml~ee

7. A~oncy Sources: ~anta Clam Valley Wa~rD~stdct= 8anm Clara V~lle~ T~aspo~tionAgthoriff, M[dpen[naula Openspa~e RegionalDis~ict, O.S. Fish & Wild[lie $e~[c~, CA Dept. of

Engineers, Regions! W~ter QualiW Cont~ol Board,Public Works Depts~ of Individual ~i~es, Pl~gningDepts, of individual ci~ies,

8~. S~ta Clar~ Coun~ (SCC) General8b. The South Coun~ Joint A~a9. SCCZon~n9 Regurat[ons10- Count~ Grading

Approval1~. ~ Devetopment ~ul~elino~ ~or Desl~o13. Go~Z ~ndard8 and P~l~e[es l,.lanuaf ~ol. I-Lan~

Development)14_ Tabl~ 18-t-B of the Uniform ~uilding C~de [199~

15, Land Use ~atabase16. Santa Clara County Heti~ge Resource (l~cluding

~es) In~ento~ [computer database]

a. SCC Genes! Plan L6nd ~se, and Zo~in~b, Natural Habitat Areas & Riparia~c. Relative Sersmic S~bili~d. Archaeological Resourcese. Water Resources &W6ter Problemsf. V~ewshedand Scenic Roadsg. Fimh. Parks, Public Open Space, and T~i[si, Heritage Resou~esj. Slope Const~intk, Serpentine soilsI. State of California, Al~uist=Pdoto E~ffhquake

Fa~l~ Zones, and County landslide & fault

m. Wate~ PtoblemtResomce~. USGS ~opo Quad, and Liquefactiono. ~ept. of Fish & Game, N~tura~ D]versi~ Datap, FEMA F~ood ZonesBase Map Overlays & Textual Repo~s

t8. Paper MapsSCCZoningBarc]ay’s S~nta Clara Co#~ Locaide StreetAtlas

¢, Color Air Photosd- Santa Cl£re VelICY W~ler District - Maps ~f FloodCon#el Facili[ies & Limi~ of ~% Floo~inge. Soils Over~ay A~r Photosf, "Future W]dt~ Line" map set

19. CEQA Guidelines [Current Ed[tlon]

Ar.ea,~peeifl_c: San Martin, Slanfor6, and Other Aroas.

20a.$an Martin Integrated Design Guidelines20b,San Martin Wa~er Quality Study20c.Memorandum of Unders~ar~dir~g (MOU) betweenSanta Clara county & Santa Clara %~’~]ley Water D[.~trict

2ta. Stanford University General Use PermitCommunity Plan (CP), Mitigation and Menitorin~Reporting Program {MMRP) and Environmental ImpactReport (EIRt21b, ~tanford Protocol and Land Use Policy Agreemer~t

pther Areas22a.ALUC Land Use Plan for Areas SurroundingAirports [tgg2 version]22b.Los Gates Hillside~ Specific Area Plan22c.County Lexing[on Basin Ordinance Rela~ingSewage Disposal

23.USDA. SOS, "~oi[s el,Santa ~ fara Cou~ly24.USDA, SOS, °8~iI Survey of Eastern $~nta Clara

A_q_rbultural Re so~rce_~_O_ pen S~G..~25. Right.to Farm Ordinance2.6. State Oept, of Con~ervatlort, "CA Agricultura~

Land Evatuation and Site Assessment Model"27, Open Space Preservation, Report of the Preser’~t~tion

2020 Task Fo~ce, April 1967 [Chapter IV]

28.Air Qu_a_l_i:t.y

BAAQMD Clea~ Air PlanBAA.QMD Annual S[immary of ContaminantExceSses & BA.&QMD, "Air Quality & UrbanDevelopment ~ Guidelines f~r Assessing Impa~tsof Projeet~ & Plans" [1999]

Biological Resourcesf"Water Ouali~ & Hvdre_1o~Lc_~l

Utili~es.~ Se~[ce S~stems"30. Si~-Specifi¢ Brologlcal31. Sa~ta Clara Coun~ Tree Presew~t[on Ordinance

Section 01632, C~een Wa~r Act, Section 40433. Rip£rian Invento~ of Sa£ta Cl~re Coen[y, G~enb~t

C~al~8o~, N0vemb~r 198834 ,CA Re glo~a~ Wa [er Quality Con ~m~ Boa rd, Water

Qual~[y Contfo~ Plan, San F~neisco Bay Region

35. Santa Clara Valley Water Dist~ct= P~ve[e Well Wa~rTesting Program [1248]

36_ SCC Nonpeint Source Pollution Genii p~gmm,Urban Runoff M~nagement Plan [1997]

37.Coun~ Envl~n mentsI Health ~ Septic Ta~k S 8wageDisposal System - 8ullet~n "A"36,Ceun~ ~nv[ronmentsl Heal~

and Repo~


Initial Study Source l,ist*

39,Calphoto9ht|p;flwww.elib.cs.bcrkeley,ed~J~’photos

Arch,,a~_o_lOglica_l Resou r¢~,46.State ArchaeologIcal Clearinghouse, Sonoma State

University41. Site Specific Archaeological Reconnaissance

Report

_Geolo.qical RO.seu rce~42, Site Specific Geo!o~li¢ Report43,State Oepartment of Minos and Geology, SpecialReport #4244. Slate Department of Mi=]es and Geology, Specie|Report #-t46

Nois~e45, County Noise Ordin~tnce

14azards, ~, H~z_a_rdeus Materials,46.So.ion 21 !.,~1..4 of California Pubtic Resources Code

47, S~te Department of Toxio £ubstanees, HazardousWaste and 8ubstar~¢es 81tee List

48, (;ou~Ity Office of Emergency Se~toe~ EmergencyResponse Plan [~994

Tra n s portat~or~rT’faffi~49. Transportation Research Board, "Highway

Cap~oity Manual", Special Repo~ 2~9, ~995,50. SCC Cgnge¢~on Management A£e~, "2000

Monitoring and Conformance51. Official Co~n~ Road Book52. CounW Off-Str~eg Parking Standers53. Site~pe~ifi~ Tragic ImpaO Analysis Repoff ......*l~ms lis~d in bold are the m~t fmpo~ntand should be ~fer~d ~ dudng tl~e ~t review of theproject, when they a~ available. The planner should~[er to ~e other souses for ~ pa~icu~orenvironmental fagtor If the ~tmer indicate a potentialenvi=~nmental impact.


V|so ~abdivi~ion PhotosFile 9160


View of the exislir~g driveway, looking northeast from the center of the l’ZOjeCt site.


u


!1


Archaeological Resource ManagementRobert R. Cartier; Ph.D.

496 North 5th &met.7~m ,lose, CA 95t 12

Telephone (408) 295-13--3Fro- (40~?) 286-?040

email: [email protected]

Mr. Charles J. VisoC/O: Westfall Engineers14583 Big Basit~ WaySaratoga. CA 95070FAX: (408) 296-3438

October 25.2005

Dear Mr. Viso:

As per your request our fim’t is submi~tirsg the enclosed historical evaluation of the mainresidence and ancil[au structures at 507 Porter lane in ~he Count?’ of Santa Clara. Based uponthe requirentents of the CourtI.’,-of Santa Clara. a methodology ,,,,as designed which includedfollo~virtg ser,-’ices:

- a SIate Historic Resources Evaluation form (DPR 523) [’or tl~e structuree,, aluadon of the structure using the criteria of the National Re~ister of Historic Placesancl the Calitbmia Register

Based upon the results of ~his investigation, it was detem~ined that the primav,.’ residence al 507Porter t.ane does no~ appear to be eligible for [isling in either the California Register of HistoricResources or Ihe national Register of Historic Pfaces. However. as a~ example of the Frencl~Eclecdc style of arch.[~ecmre, the slructure does appear to t~a,,°e limited local significance. Theproposed project plans as currently designed call [’or retention of the primar). residence, anddemolition of the ancil]a~ structures, ittcluding the garage/cottage un]I. None of these structuresappears to have historic signilicance. Yheretbre no fi~rther recommendations are be[tag made.

Robert Cartier. Pb,D,Principal Investigator


~t~te of C~lito~n~ - The Resources AgencyOE~PARTM ~.[’,[q" OF PARKS AND RECREATION

PRJMARY RECORD

Pt. Other Identifier:

P2,

Primary #HR:I

TrfnomialNRHP St~t~s Code

OtherReview Code Reviewe~" ..... Date

ResourceName ot # 5,0,7 ,P,q.rter Lane

Not for Publication x Unrestricf, edand (P2b and P2o or P2d. Attach a Lc, cation Map as necessary,)

"b. U~GS 7.5’ Cluad: Cale~eras Res. Date: 1978 T¢. Address; 507 Porter Lane Ci~:d, UI~: 6 04 702mE/41 37 571mNe. Other Locations1 D~t~: re.9., parcel #. d!rections ~o resoarce e!eva[ion, e;c.. as apprcpdate)

APN 612-21-056

County Santa Clara

1/40f 114 OfeeC ;Zip; 95127

Prehis~r~-Pr.~rnary Residence constr~cted ciroa 1928

*P& Reco[ded by:Robert Cartie[Archaeological Resource Management496 North 5~’ StreetSan Jose, CA 95112~pg, Date ~eeo~ded’, 10/25/05~PIO. Survey Type: Intensive

*P11. Repot’~ Citation: (C~te Survey Report ~n~ other sources, or onto[ "none.")None

"Altachments. __None X Locatian Map ~Ske:ch P~lap X Continuation Sheet __~X Building, Structt~re, and Object Record_~rc~seolog~,cel Record __D~stric[ Record~Linea~ Feature Record iMiffing S~ation Record __Rock An Record __ArtifactRecord ~9ho~ographic Record ._..Olher

DFR 523A *Required Inf0.rma.tioI1


ISt:ale ~[ C~,liiernis - The Resources Ageacy Prlma~ ~

BUILDING, S~RUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORDPage 2 of 1~

*Resource Na~e or # {~signed by re~er)B1, Historic Name: Wi~ho~ ResidenceB2. Co.men Name; 507 Po~te~ LaneB3, Origins! Usa: Residential B4, Present Use:*BS, A~hitectura~ Style: ~ Ecle~ic"~6. Construction Histo~: (Constru~ion date, ~l~e~o~s. ~nd ~a~e ~ a~erations~

Status Code._5.0.~g~r Lane

Residential

Based upon visual evaluation and available archival documentation, the structure at 507 Porter Lane was constructed in!928. Several modifications have been made to tl~e structure since that time, An original covered porch was enclosedcirca 1945 by Charles S. Vise, grandfather of the current owner. Tt~e northern wing of the resider=ce was added in 1986as a garage, and was later Converted to a recreation (com. A narrow addition was made the same year along theeastern fa~;ade of the residence. "lhe ir~terior of t~he structure I~as been heavily ~emodeled, including conversion ~)f theattic into living space prior to 1943.*BT. Moved7 _~ No Yes ~ Unknown Date: Origit~al Location:*~38. Related Features:Several additional buildings and struclures are present on the property. These are described below on ContinuationSheet. Page 4. .Bga. Architect: Ukn._~wn b, 6uitder: Unknown*B1O- Significance: Theme Architeclure and Sheller Area Couely 0fSan~a ~ara ....

Period of Significance ~ property Type Private Applicable CriteriaThe proper~y on which lhe slruClures at 507 Porter Lane now stand was originally a portion of the Palo Rancho, andwitIlin San Jose Pueblo tract No. 1. On November 7, 19!0, the land was subdivided, as t~he Alta Dena Tract. Thesubject property consists ot a portion of Lot I6 of Altadena, Based upon visuaf evafuation and available archivaldocumentation, the primary residence at 507 Porter Lane was constructed in 1928 Tt~e original owners, Frank aridBetty Wishon, had purchased the property in on January 8, 1926 from a Ms. Wilda H. Jones. Frank Wishon wasemployed at the Hotel Montgomery, based upon Polk City Directories of San Jose. On June 29 of 1928, the Wishonssold a portion of the proped.y to a Mr, John ~-. Roundt~ee. In the early 1930’s the property was sold to Re~qo and LeolaHoefler, who owr~ed the property until 1944, at wi~ich time it was purchased by Charles S. an(/Jessie O. Viso, husbandand wife. The Viso’s may have lived in the home starting in late 1943, ~.efore the property transfer was finalized (viso,c. 2005), Charles wozked as a butcher in a grocery store. The property has since remained in the Viso family, andnumefoL~S ramify relations have lived at various times in the home. tn 1961 Lhe property passed to Charles’ son JamesJ. Viso upon his dealb. James Viso was a plumbing contractor, On December 23, 1985 the property passed to thecurrent owner, Charles J. Viso. who works as a plumbing and sheet metat contractor.

See Continuation Sheet, Page 5~II. Additional Resource Attributes: (Li~! attr, ibuiles and codeS)

*Bt2. References:See Continuation Shoe(, Page 6

Remarks:

¯ B14. Evai~u~tor: Rober~ R Cart, or’Date of e.valuation; 10Y2~o5

SKETCH MAP

DPR 5~3A *Required Information


State or California - The Resources AgencyDEPAR-f’MENT Ol~ PARKS ~ND RECREATION HR~ ¯ ¯

LOCATIONPage ~ of ~ Resouroe Name ¢r # (Assigned by recordezj ...507 Po~er Lane¯ Map Name:. San ,to~&E~_~ "Scal~: 7.5 t~inule *Date of Map:


Stale of California - The Resources Agency Priraary #

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RJECRI=AT!ON - HRI #

CONTINUATION SHEET friae ial

Page 4 of 18 ~Resou~e ~ame or # ~As~i~ned¯ Recorded by Archaeo~ogi~l Resource Msn89ement Date

Co~tin~ f~m P3a: "

507 Pe~ter L#.neX Continuation Update

French Eclectic style. The western of these lv~ chimneys features a targe"W" in decorative script, referring to thename of the original owner of the home. Mr Frank Wishon. Windows throughout the structure are wooden framed,primarily in double=hung sas,h configuration, The panes in al~ cf these windows have been replaced by the currentowner, wilh the exception of the large slained glass window a~.ove the main entry, and a few smaller leaded glasswindows. The large wooden main er~try door is accessed via a semi-ettclosed set of steps, and is surrounded by false~exposed" brickwork,

The interior of the structure is in good condition, although somewhat altered from its original form, The main entryopens into the front room. beneath the stairway leading to the second floor. North of the front room, the formal diningroom features new~y painted wa~s. To the south is the living room, which has been extensively redecorated by thecurrent owners, and includes a large fireplace, lhe far..ade of which is not original to the structure. The kitchen hasbeen completely modernized, containing all new fixtures, countertops, and tile, However the ceramic pavers that linethe floor appear to be original. The projecting northern wing of the residence, beneath a lower side gabled roof,contains a recreation and television room, This area was conver~ed from what was once a garage. TO the rear of thestructure, a large covered porch was enclosed as a sunfoom. The second floor includes the master bedroom, and Iwosmaller bedrooms, none of w~ict~ feature notable architeclu~al detailing. The third floor conve.,ted attic space, and nowincludes two bedrooms and a small bath~’oom.

Continued from Ba:

In addition to the pdmary residence, several other buildings and structures are present on t~he pro#erty. These arebriefly described below.

North of the main residence is a deta~;hed garagelcottage unit. This strt}ct~rfe, built in 1986, includes a garage andsingle bedroom living uniL converted from storage space. Tl~e roof is side gabled, and surfaced wilh wooder~ sl~ingles.The exterior walls are surfaced will] stucco, painted white wiLh green trim.

A smaflflat-roofed carport is situated east o~’ the driveway directly behind t,he entry gate, Acoo{ding to the currentowner, th~s carport was b~tilt using the remains of a wooden storage shed or small barn.

Also present ca the property, to the southeast of the primary residence, is a fro~t gabled storage shed, converted [oruse as a game room. The exterior wal~s are surfaced wilt) wooden plywood, painted off-while, This structure was builtcirca 1950 by Charles S. Vise (Vise, C, 2005).

AIso presenl on the properly are a swimming pool. a tennis cou~t, a deck and outdoor bar area, statuary, as well as agazebo with associated pond and landscaping. These structures were all added by the current owner after 1986.

Continued from Bt0:

ca#retain Register of H~s~oric Resources C#tena

A cultural resource is considered "significant" if it qualifies.as etJgible for ~isting in the California Register of HistoricResources (CRHR). Propert,es thai are eligible for listing in the CRHR must meet one or mo~e e[r the foflowmg criteria:

1. Asset,align with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regionalt~islory or the cL~ltural heritage or CaNomia or the United States;

2. Assoc~alion with [he lives of persor~s im#ortant to local, California, ofnahor~al h~st, ory

3 Embodying the distractive charactenstics of a type, period, region, or method.............. ..of..c.on~Ir.uc!!,on. o.r ~egre_se_£1in9 the wo__£k_#f__a master, &r posse.s_.s.i.~g..~g_h ..............


State o! Ca~i~’ornia - The Resoorce~ Agency Primary #

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND R~CREATiON HRi #

CO NTINUATION SH EET Tdno ia!

P~e ~ o~ 1~ *Resou~e Name or # (Assign~ by ~c~tde~)

"Recorded by Archaeo~ogi~l Resource M~agemenl Date 10~5~5

arl:is~ic values; or4. Has yielded, or has the potential to yield, i~iformation impo~lant to the

prehistory or history of the local area. California. ot the nalion.

507 Poder Lan~X Continuation Update

A property may be automatically listed in the CRHR if it is formally deter’mined eli~tibfe for the National Register ofHistoric Places. Properties that are formally determined eligible for the NRHP are those that are designated as suchthrougt~ one of the federal preservation programs administered by the California Office of Historic Preservation (i.e..the National Register, Tax Certification, and Section 106 review of federal underlaki~gs).

The CRHR =nterpre~ tl~e integrity of a cultural resource based upon its physica] authenticity. An historic culturalresource must {etain its hislodc character or appearar~ce and thus be recognizable as an historic resource. Integrity isevaluated by examining the subject’s location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. ~f thesubje¢~ has retained these qualities, it may be said to have integrity. It is possible that a cuffural resource may notretain sufficient integrity to be ~isted in the National Register of Historic Places yet still be eligible for listing in theCRHR. If a cult~rat ~esource retains the potentLal to convey sigr~ificant historical[scientific data, it may be said to-retainsufficient integrity for potential listing in the CRHR.

The structure at 5,07 Porter Lane is not currently listed on the California Register of Historir, a] Resources. In addition,the structu{e does not appear to be e~igible tot inclusion in this register. The structure is not associaled with anyknown significant historical events or persons. The structure is a large and well elaborated example of the FrenchEclectic style of architecture, however additions and modifications made to the residence have compromised itsafct~itectura~ integrity. In addit|on, it does not appear to be likety to yield information important to the history of theCeur~ty of Santa Clara. California. or the nation.

Nafiena~ Register

The National Register of Historic Places was first establisl~ed in 1966, with major revisions in 1976. The register is setforth in 36 CFR 60 which establishes lhe responsibilities of tl~e State Historic Preservation Officers ~SHPO), star~dardsfor their staffs and review boards, and describes the sl~tewide survey and plar|nin# process for historic preservation,Within this regulation guidelines a~e set forth concerning the National Register of Historic Places (36 CFR 60.6). inaddilion, further regulations are found in 36 CFR 63-66, 800, and Bulletir~ 15 Which defir~e procedefes for determinationof eligibility, identification of historic propertieS. ~eeovefy, reporting, and prote~ion procedures.

The Nationa[ Register of Historic Places was eslablished to ~ecognize resources associated with the accomplishmentsof nil peoples who have contributed to the country’s history arid heritage. Guidelines were designed for Federal andState aoencies in nominating cultural resources to the National Register. These guidelines are based upon integrityand s,gnificance of the resource. Integrity applies to specific items such as location, design, setting, materials,workmanship, feeling, and association. Quality of significance in American history, architecture, archaeology.e~gineering and culture is present in resources that possess integrity of location, design, set-tin#, materials,workmanship, fee~in9, arid association, and meet at ~east one of the following criteria:

a. that a~e associated wilh events that have ~nade a significant contribution to broad patterns of ourhistory;

b. [hat are associated with the ~ives of persons significant in our past;c that embody distinctive characteristics of type. period, or method of

construction, or that represent Ibe work of mas~er, or that ~ossess high artistic values, or lh, alrepresen! a significant and d~stinguisbable ent;ty whose components may lack individualdist,ncbon.

d that have yielded, or are likely to y~eld, informat~or~ important in 9reh~story or h~story.

Integrity ~s def=r~ed in Bulletin. 15: How to Apply the Na~.ional Re.qister Criteria for Evaluation, (U.S. Oepartment of the._l_~.t.eri0r,._N..a.ti_.o.~_a_lP_a.£k .S..e..~i._c. e .~_9_8._2). as: .............

DPR 523A (!195) "Required hfforrnation


Stale o,f California - The Reseu~-ces AgencyDEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECR EATION

CONTINUATION SHEFT

PrimaryHR| #Trlnoml"al

Page 6 of "i.~__~ *Resounte Name or # (A~s~r=ed by reCk-tale0 507 Potter Lane¯ Recorded ~y Archaeological Re,~our~e Management Date 5,~25/05 X Contlnuat~on Update

the authenticity of a p~operty’s historic identity, evidenced by the survival of physicalcharacf.e~islics that e×isted duriRg the property’s historic or preit}istori¢ period. If aproperly relains the physical characteristics it possessed in the pasl ther~ it has theca!~¢ity !o convey ~ssoc.iation wilh historical patterns or persons, arohitect~Jral orengineerin~ design and technology, or information about a culture or peoples.

There are also seven aspects of integrity which are used. These aspects are:

1. location 5: workmanship2. design 6. feeling3, setting 7. association4. rnatenals

The structure at Porler Lane is not ~;u[rentty listed on [.he National Register of Historic Places. In addition, it does notappear to be potentia]ly eligible for listing in this register. The structure is not associated with significant historic eventsor persons, thus it does not appear to be potentially eligible for listing under cdteria a or b. The residence at 507Porter Lane is en example of the French Eclectic style of architecture, However it does not appear to be a significantenough example to qusfify for inclusion under criterion c. In addition, tt~e structure does not appear to be likely to yieldinformation important in p~ehistory or history.

Continued from B12:

Assessor’s Office, County of Santa C~ara2005 Record search ef assessed value and associated taxes for the property at 507 Porter Lane.

No.over, M. et al1965 Historic Spots in California $Ianford University Press, Stanford California,

McAlester, V. and L McA~ester997 A Fie~d Guide to American Houses. Alfred A. Knopf, New York.

Polk City Directories1870- City o~ San Jose Directories on file at the California Room, Dr. Martin1979 Luther King, Jr, Main Library, Sa~ Jose Public Literary. San Jose, California.

Recorder’s Office, Coenty of Santa Clara2005 Record sear~;h of recorded information for the property at 507 Porter Lane.

US Departmenl of the Jatenor1990 The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Reha~,ilitating Historic

Build~ngs

US Department of Ihe lnte[ior1982 Bulletin 15 - "How to Apply [.he Nationa~ Register Cr!teria for Evaluation."

Viso, Charles2005 Persor, al communication with. Mr. Charles Viso regarding the Ilistory of the property at .507 Porter Lane.

Whiffen, Marcus1992 Ar~en¢#n Architecture since 1780. Revised Edition. The MIT Press, Csmbndge Mess.

DP£ 5Z3A 111195} *Required lr~fc, rmatier~


~ ot Cali;o.,n~e - The ~esources Agenr.~ primar! #

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION MR~ #

~ CONTtNUPTtON S HEET

*Re~o~de~ by Archaeological Resource Managemem D~te 10~25~5 Update

DPR 523A (1~95} "Require6


DE?ARTMENT OF PARKS A~O RECREATION

CONTiNUATiON SH~T Td~omiarPage~Re~orded by Archaeo’.og;~i Resource M~na~eme~[ D~te 10,~5f05

~07 Po~ter LaneX Conti~ation

’Req-’4ire#


IState o~ California o The IRessurces Agency

Primary

DEPAIRTMEN’] OF PARKS AND RECREATION

CONTINUATION SHEET~Resource N~me 507 P_~o~.d..e..r.L._.a.ne

DPR 52;~A (1195) - Required In{o~mat~e~


Slate ef Ca~.~lcmia - The R, esourC~S Agenc:~,DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION

CONTINUATION SNiEET T,ri n,o.~ia[

Page 1~0 of ~_i~ ’ Resource Neme or # (A~,signed #y re4;orc~e.’j-Re¢orcled by’ Arcbse~logic~ Resource Mar;~,gemenl Date 10,"25i05 X Continuation Update

OPR 523A (1/95) ’Required II~forra,~{io~


State of California -DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RF.CREAi"ION

CONTINUATIOPage 11

X CoBtinu~tioit Update

DPR 523A ~1,~g5)"Required Inft~rmatlon


Stale cf California - ]he ReSCu*ces AgencyDEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND REC[~ATtON

CONTINUATION ,SHEET

Primary #HRI #Trinomi~l

Page 1.~2=. of 18 "Resource Name o= ~. {.Assi~jned by recorder)"Recorded by Archae~)logical ResoL-,rc~ tV~,#,gem~:i Date 10;25/05

507 ,~or~er LeneX Continuation Update

l~hoto ] t: Small sittin# room [:] ~t~ode.u~ eastern addi-~ion to the home.

DPR 5Z~A t,l (95) - Rec-aire~l Info~’~at[or~


[StSf,~ of California - The Resources A.ge]~-cy Pdma~ #

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION

CONTINUATIO N SHEETPage ~ of 1~ "Reseurce Name or # I~signed cy reorder)

*Recorded by Archaeologi~l Resou~ R~anagemeal D~te~_5.0._7. Perte~ La~.e

,X C:ont~nu~tior~ Update

OPR 523A (1195} +Required ~Mormatien


State ef CaI[,~ornia - The Resources Agency Primary #

DEPARTMENT OF PAR)(S AND RECREATION HRI #

CONTINUA TION S HEET Trinomial

*Re¢orde~ by Archaeoleg~l Reso~-rce Managersen[ Da~ 10/25/05

Photo 15: view of~he garage.-"cotaage unit fbom the somho

~;07 Porl,er Lane

DPR 523A {1J’95] -Reqt, lre~ lnformatien


DEPARTMENT OF ~ARKS ANO RECREATION

CONTINUATION SN E ETpage 1~ of _!~ ~Eesou~e 507 PcMer L&O.e.

× Gonti~ation Update

"Req u ired lnfOrmat~en


State of CaJif~,rn~a - The Resou.,-coes f~,gencyBEP.i~RTMEt’,,1T OF PARKS .AND RECRE.ATION

CONTINUATION SHEET

Primary

T~i~omiN

of _i...8, ’R;esou[ce Name of # tAssigned by recorder)

*Recorded by Archaeel0#ical Resource Mana~eme~-’- Date t0/26~05

Porter LaqeContinuation Ut3 clare

Photo l 9.: E×ample (~f.~atttary placed by tt~e current owne[s oa the property.

]~hota 20: View ,.~t’lh~, ou~do,~r b::r and pado, wilh tcnnis court beyond.

I


Slate of Califom~ - The Resources Agehc~’ 9rimary ~,

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATIONHRI ~

~f ~.1~ *Resource Name or ~ ~sG~0 ~y re~o~d~0"Recorded b~ Archacalogi~ Reso’a~e M~nag~w, en[ Da~e "~0/25/05

"Re q uired l qiorma~io~,


Stale o~ Cal~ernia - The Resou-~¢e.~ AgensyD~EPARTf~ENT OF F~ARKS AND R~_CREATIQNCONTINUATION SHEET Tr~nom~a I

"Re~o~ded by Archaeo~ogioa; Resource Manageme.~~. Date 1Q~25t’05

Photo 2_~" Carl;on ea£t of m~i~ ~�]~[~y 8ate.

"ReqUlmd lnf<~rm~-tlen


MEMORANDUM TO:

FRO M:

SUP,4Ecr:

Charles Viso

Gary Black

.September 14, 2005

Viso Subdivision Traffic S~udy

Hexagon Transportalion Co~ulmnts, Ir~c-, has eompteted a uaffic analysis of the propose~ Visosubdivision on Poaet Lane in uniaoorpor~’,,e6 Santa Clara County. The project consists of 20 homes on asite cuzcently occupied by two homes, an increase of 18 homes, This memomudum sarr~aatizes thefindings oflho traffic study.

Scope of Work

Task 1 -- Sighl Dis~noe: l-iexagon de’~ermined by visiting the site whether the sigh! d]stau~ at theproposed driveway location is adequate for the slreeds on Pont Lane.

Task 3 - Documentation: Hexagoh is providing a written raemo~ndum report with the studymethodolog% conclusions, azd recommendations.

Propo~d Project

The proposeci project consists of 20 hom~s on a site now occupied by ~wo homes, an increase of 18homes. Aa existing tideway would beaddition, a four-foot sidewalk wotdd b¢ built along bo~h sides of ~,l~e proposed project driveway, and onPorter Lane along ~he project

Existing Conditions

The project zite is located sou:tbwesr of lhe intersection of Ahma Rock Avenue and Porter Lane in aaunincorporated area of Santz Clam Co~mty. The si~e carre,uly consists of two homes, witi~, sever~tsmatler, aon-residenfiat ,~rtue~tt.ms and a vlaeyard. Existing driveways to ~hese homes are gated. Thepos~ed speed limit on Poorer Lane, a two-lane, two-way roadway, is 30 MPH. Parking is pernfitted oabo’d~ sides of 11~¢ s=t-ecL a=~d a raised sidewalk is found on the oas~ side of Porte2 Lane.

’T’hc in~er.~ection or Ahm~ Rock Aveotte and Po~er Lane ~s side strut s~op~ontzolled, wi~h Po~er Laneconlrolled by a STOP s~gn. Alum R~k Avenue ts a t~.~laac, two-way roadway, a~o d~ignaled as SR

near Porter Lane, ~desmans can be found ~s~ng ~ised din ~rms along Alum Rock A~nue.

40 South Market 8freeL Suite 600 ¯ San Jose, Galilrornia 95113phone408,~?~.6~O0 ¯ fax408.OFt,610~ * ~.hoxl~as,~rn

OFFICE


Table tExistin~ Intersection LOS Surama~

Alum Rock Avenue (SR |;~0) & Porler Lane

Intersec~n F~eak CountCentral Hour Oate LOS

Mir~� Street ig~ gtSFZ005 8 14.9(Potter) Slop PM 9/i~2005

Sight Distance

The pcop~scd project &ivcway wou~d b¢ locatod a~at 8~) f~t ~t of AI~ Rock Avenue andL~�, ~d a~at 315 f~t w~l of Hidden V~II~ ~ac, ~ig p~ &iv�way would ~ situa~ on

p~o~d d~ve~ray ~ven the ~ s~d li~ on Po~ L~.

The cai~d I~rm and vegeh~tion on the sea,west comer at A!~ R~k A~nue ~d Po~ L~e li~t the

Trip Generation and Distribution

The r~gaitudc of traffic g~:nera~:d by the proposed proj~t w~ esdnmted by applying to lhe si~ of the

(ITE) ~nual entitl~ Trip ~e~fion, Seventh Edition, 2003. ~e [~ stan~ tcip ge~mlio~ ~t~ forsingie family de~ach~ housing were appli~ to the pm~sed project.

On lbe basis of the I,T..E jdp geacration rates for single famiJy ~,h~ ho~igg, it is esfi~ted that th~

Using dm specified 3~[~un~ou~bound splits, zhc oTojec~ would pr~ 3 new [n~and tri~ and !0 newOut~und trips during the AM ~ak hour and 14 new ~nbomzd and 8 ncw outbound t~ d~ing the PM~-ak hour. "labE¢ 2 ~hows the efips generated by d~e net incren~ of ehc propped project.

40 South Markel S~reet, Suite 600 ¯ San Jose, California 95113phone 408971.6f00 ¯ fax408.g71.61~2 ,. www.he×~ran~.Oorn


Mr. Charles ViseSeplember 14, 2005Page 3 of 3

T~ble 2Viso Subdivision THp. Generation E~timates

Out

2’10 2.8d.u. 11.83 237 1.17 25% 75% 7.3 6 17 1.26

8FDH- "210 2d.u. ~4.22 28 &42 22% 75% 11 3 8 1..,~ 63% 37% 3 2 ~.

Ne! Trips la 208 t3 3 10 22 14 8

single

The trip distribution pattern for the proposed p~jeet was estimated based on existing travel patterns in tL~area and ~he locations of complemen~ry lm~d uses. The ptojee~ trip assignment is show~ graphically o~Figttre 1.

Project Intersection Leve! of Service Analysis

The level of ~r’4ce for project eor~ditions w~s calcalatcd at the intersection of A~um Rook Avenue (SR130) gad P~tter Lane in order to determine po~t[al projee~ impacts. Under the"plu.~ project" eonditior~,the LOS at Alum Reck Avenue and Porter Lane during the AM peak hour would change from LOS B ~oLOS C, and remain at LOS B during the PM peak hour. As LOS C is widely recognized as an acceptablelever of service, the p~jec~ a~ proposed would not result in any adverz~ impaet~ to this in~ersec6on (~Table 3). The level ofseawice ezleutation sheets am included a~ theeaa of this memorandum.

Table 3Intcrscclioo LOS Summ~

!30} 6, !~:~ler La~e

P~ak Cetl~tHour Date

Exislfng + ProjectDelay Delay t~er. In

LOS _(_~__=_) _. LOG __~ee)_Dela~r

AM 9/8/~005 B 14,9 C 15.2 0.3PM ~8¢2005 B 13,5 B 13,8 0,3

40 Sour# Market $~roet. ,Guile 600 ¯ San Jose. Cali|bmia 95113phi>he 40807~.6100 ¯ fax4DS.971.6102 ¯ www.h~×trans.o3m


LEGEND

NORTH

TRIP DISTRIBUTION ANDASSIGNMENT


Mr, Ch~lo~ VisoSep~mbor ] 4, 2005

Conc|usions

The Vise Subdivision project as ploposed would have ao adverse impact ontra~portation facilities in the study area. The proposed project drive, ray on Porter Lanewould have adequate sight distance. Improvements are recommended for the intemecotionof Alum Rock Avenue and Porter Lane to increase si~t distance. However, this is anexisting problem and not an impact of the project.

40 South Market S~.reet. Su~te 600 ,, San Jose, California &5113phone 408.971.6100 *, fex408.£7’~.6182 t www,hextrans,cOl’~


S~A CLAP.~ COUN’CY PLANNING OI~ICE

GE+~L PLAN CO+O~ANCm AND~O~TIGUI~y / ANNE~TION

This +m m+t be cmpleted by: (a) the +++

~qair~ for gcn~ral p]~ c~nfo~n~ aStOrsubmiard within 6 monks of the da~ of~odetermination will be

~ .Conformance

SUBDIVISION, USE PE~IT, or ~NE

withi~ a cfly’s ~n sc~ ~r~ mustto ~e applicable use a~d deasi~ p~si~s of~h¢ ¢i~ general pl~n. ARC~ECT~ ANDSITE APPROVAL fo~ mu~d-hmfl~ residential

genora[plan ~f~ance.. ’

~1 Nm Applicable

Contiguity !Annexation

[~ Appli¢smg ~mpostng ARCBIT~ A~D

n~ ~si~ce, BUILDING S~TE A~PROVALfor a new ~side~o, S~DI~StON, USEPE~[T, or ZON8 CHANG~ on~inc~ra~ !~ within a ¢i~’s ~hans¢~c~ a~ deemed "~nzig~s’" to that ci~~y b~ subjoot to ci~"Coatiguo~" m~as p~p~y is miner:abug~iag ei~ bounda~, (b) directly ~ss thes~mt + ~un~+, or (O’ ~++io 300 fret of~da~ m¢~s~ed ~[o~g a public road and

-wi~hi~tc&~to~ enti~ly ~u~n~ by ci~(ies).

Not Ap!~lic~)¢

TO BE COMPLETED BY OW]~R OR APPLICANT

Property Description:

5-07

Existing Use:

Exhibit


CiTY OF 488 2’?7 3258 P,@3/IB3

TO BE COMTLETED BY COUNTY STAFF

Genera! Piaa Conformance Contiguity t Annexation

Involved City:

TEL# DATE

TO BE COMPLETED .BY CITY PLANNING DEPARTMENT

Cc~forms to ~ity geae~a[ p$~ lan~ ~se an~or~si~n~ ~si~ ~E~es (application ~y ~~t~). ’D~s not ¢onf~ w ~i~ g~ pl~ t~d use

may ~t ~e filed).

Contiguity/AunexaCt.un

~ City W~ive~,a~tiou .at ~is time.

’ dcvel~¢m. ~pli~ ~y n~t Qe flied

Pmj~t ~es ~o~ q~i~ for ~=~on d~ to

City Comments:


county of santa clara - city of san josecounty of santa clara ... initial study for the proiect, ......

Documents