Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-09-2002 Planning Commission PacketCITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, October 9, 2002 - 7:00 p.m. PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROLL CALL: Commissioners Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Kurasch, Roupe, Zutshi and Chair Jackman Absent: None Staff: Planners Oosterhous, Livingstone Est Welsh, Director Sullivan and Minutes Clerk Shinn PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE MINUTES: Draft Minutes from Regular Planning Commission Meeting of September 25, 2002 (APPROVED 7-0) ORAL COMMUNICATIONS -Any member of the Public will be allowed to address the Planning Commission for up to three minutes on matters not on this agenda. The law generally prohibits the Planning Commission from discussing or tahing action on such items. However, the Planning Commission may instruct staf f accordingly regarding Oral Communications under Planning Commission direction to Staff. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on October 3, 2002. REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS y _ If you wish to appeal any decision on this Agenda, you may file an "Appeal Application" with the City Clerk within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the decision, pursuant to Municipal Code 15-90.050 (b). CONSENT CALENDAR - None PUBLIC HEARINGS All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. If you challenge a decision of the Planning Commission pursuant to a public hearing in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing(s) described in this agenda, or in written correspondence delivered to the Saratoga Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. In order to be included in the Planning Commission's information packets, written communication should be filed on or before the Monday, a week before the meeting. 1. APPLICATION #02-013 (503-69-02) - AMINI-MOAZENI, 13815 Pierce Road; -Request for Design Review to demolish an existing single story house and construct a new two story house with 6,099 square feet on the main and upper levels and 2,569 square feet in the basement. The property is a 1.72 acre lot in the Hillside Residential District. The height of the structure will be 26 feet. (WELSH) (Continued from 9/11/02) (APPROVED 6-1, KURASCH OPPOSED) 2. APPLICATION #02-176, (Reconsideration of DR-O1-006, TUP-Ol-003, and UP-O1-002 and related applications) (APN's 397-22-017, 397-22-019, 397-22-015, 397-22-012, &r 397-22-042) - SARATOGA FIRE DISTRICT, 14380 Saratoga Avenue Est 20473 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road: - Request for Conditional Use Permit, Design Review, Lot Line Adjustment, and General Plan Conformity Determination for vacation and abandonment of George Whalen Way (City alley located behind the existing fire station) and transfer of Heritage Plaza property from the City to the Saratoga Fire Protection District for a new fire station with variations to setback and landscape standards. Existing fire station and building at 14380 Saratoga Avenue proposed to be demolished, temporary facilities proposed to be located at 20473 Saratoga Los Gatos Road during construction of new fire station proposed for 14380 Saratoga Avenue. (LIVINGSTONE) (Continued from 9/25/02) (DENIED 3-3, JACKMAN RECUSED, BARRY, GARAKANI, KURASCH OPPOSED) 3. DR-O1-035, UP-O1-013, ED-O1-002 (393-25-022) ST.ANDREWS PARISH AND SCHOOL; 13601 Saratoga Avenue; -The applicant requests design review and use permit approval to construct new facilities for St. Andrew's School and Parish. The Planning Commission will take public testimony and will conduct a formal discussion of issues. The Planning Commission will not take action to approve or deny the project at this time. The proposed project includes the demolition of existing buildings and the construction of the following facilities: Performing Arts/Gymnasium, Sunday School Rooms, Administration Offices, Classrooms, Clergy Offices, Parish Center, and a Bell Tower. The project also includes: a memorial garden, covered walkways, an outdoor eating area, re-grading and reconfiguring the parking lot and eliminating off-site queuing. New building construction will total 72,345 square feet and will include six new structures. The existing sanctuary is to remain. (OOSTERHOUS) (CONTINUED 7-0 TO OCTOBER 23, 2002) 4. APPLICATION #02-197 (CITYWIDE) -CITY OF SARATOGA; -The proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment would revise side yard setback requirements for structures over 18 feet in height in the R-1-10,000. R-1-12,500, R-1-15,000 and the R-1-20,000 Districts. (SULLIVAN) (CONTINUED 7-0 TO OCTOBER 23, 2002) COMMISSION ITEMS - Commissioner's sub-committee reports COMMUNICATIONS WRITTEN - City Council Minutes from Regular Meetings on August 7, 2002 ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING - Saturday, October 12, 2002, at 9:00 a.m. in the Administrative Conference Room 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA If you would like to receive the Agenda's via e-mail, please send your e-mail address to planning@saratoga.ca.us • CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION LAND USE AGENDA DATE: Tuesday, October 8, 2002 -10:30 a.m. PLACE: City Hall Parking Lot, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue TYPE: Land Use Committee SITE VISITS WILL BE MADE TO THE FOLLOWING ITEMS ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA FOR WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 9, 2002 ROLL CALL REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA AGENDA 1. Application #02-013 - AMINI-MOAZENI Item 1 13815 Pierce Road 2. Application DR-O1-035, - ST. ANDREW'S SCHOOL Item 3 UP-O1-013, ED-O1-002 13601 Saratoga Avenue LAND USE COMMITTEE The Land Use Committee is comprised of interested Planning Commission members. The committee conducts site visits to properties which are new items on the Planning Commission agenda. The site visits are held Tuesday preceding the Wednesday Bearing between 2:30 and 4:30 p.m. It is not necessary for the applicant to be present, but you are invited to join the Committee at the site visit to answer any questions which may arise. Site visits are generally short (5 to 10 minutes) because of time constraints. Any presentations and testimony you may wish to give should be saved for the public hearing. Please contact staff Tuesday morning for an estimated time of the site visit. • CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA DATE: Wednesday, October 9, 2002 - 7:00 p.m. PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROLL CALL: Commissioners Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Kurasch, Roupe, Zutshi and Chair Jackman PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE MINUTES: Draft Minutes from Regular Planning Commission Meeting of September 25, 2002. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS -Any member of the Public will be allowed to address the Planning Commission for up to three minutes on .matters not on this agenda The law generally prohibits the Planning Commission from discussing or taking action on such items. However, the Planning Commission may instruct staf f accordingly regarding Oral Communications underPlanning Commission direction to Staff. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on October 3, 2002. REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS If you wish to appeal any decision on this Agenda, you may file an "Appeal Application" with the City Clerk within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the decision, pursuant to Municipal Code 15-90.050 (b). CONSENT CALENDAR - None PUBLIC HEARINGS All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. If you challenge a decision of the Planning Commission pursuant to a public hearing in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing(s) described in this agenda, or in written correspondence delivered to the Saratoga Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. In order to be included in the Planning Commission's information packets, written communication should be filed on or before the Monday, a week before the meeting. APPLICATION #02-013 (503-69-02) - AMINI-MOAZENI, 13815 Pierce Road; - Request'for Design Review to demolish an existing single story house and construct a new two story house with 6,099 square feet on the main and upper levels and 2,569 square feet in the basement. The property is a 1.72 acre lot in the Hillside Residential District. The height of the structure will be 26 feet. (WELSH) (Continued from 9/11/02) 2. APPLICATION #02-176, (Reconsideration of DR-O1-006, TUP-Ol-003, and UP-O1-002 and related applications) (APN's 397-22-017, 397-22-019, 397-22-015, 397-22-012, &r 397-22-042) - SARATOGA FIRE DISTRICT, 14380 Saratoga Avenue ~sz 20473 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road: - Request for Conditional Use Permit, Design Review, Lot Line Adjustment, and General Plan Conformity Determination for vacation and abandonment of George Whalen Way (City alley located behind the existing fire station) and transfer of Heritage Plaza property from the Ciry to the Saratoga Fire Protection District for a new fire station with variations to setback and landscape standards. Existing fire station and building at 14380 Saratoga Avenue proposed to be demolished, temporary facilities proposed to be located at 20473 Saratoga Los Gatos Road during construction of new fire station proposed for 14380 Saratoga Avenue. (LIVINGSTONE) (Continued from 9/25/02) DR-O1-035, UP-O1-013, ED-O1-002 (393-25-022) ST.ANDREWS PARISH AND SCHOOL; 13601 Saratoga Avenue; -The applicant requests design review and use permit approval to construct new facilities for St. Andrew's School and Parish. The Planning Commission will take public testimony and will conduct a formal discussion of issues. The Planning Commission will not take action to approve or deny the project at this time. The proposed project includes the demolition of existing buildings and the construction of the following facilities: Performing Arts/Gymnasium, Sunday School Rooms, Administration Offices, Classrooms, Clergy Offices, Parish Center, and a Bell Tower. The project also includes: a memorial garden, covered walkways, an outdoor eating area, re-grading and reconfiguring the parking lot and eliminating off-site queuing. New building construction will total 72,345 square feet and will include six new structures. The existing sanctuary is to remain. (OOSTERHOUS) 4. APPLICATION #02-197 (CITYWIDE) -CITY OF SARATOGA; -The proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment would revise side yard setback requirements for structures over 18 feet in height in the R-1-10,000. R-1-12,500, R-1-15,000 and the R-1-20,000 Districts. (SULLIVAN) COMMISSION ITEMS - Commissioner's sub-committee reports COMMUNICATIONS WRITTEN - City Council Minutes from Regular Meetings on August 7, 2002 ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING - Wednesday, October 23, 2002, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers/Civic Theater 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA • If you would like to receive the Agenda's via e-mail, please send your a-mail address to planning@saratoga.ca.us -M • MINUTES SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: PLACE TYPE: ~~q~p Wednesday, September 25, 2002 Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA Regular Meeting Chair Jackman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Jackman, Kurasch, Roupe and Zutshi Absent: None Staff: Director Tom Sullivan znd Associate Planner John Livingstone PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF MINUTES -Regular Meeting of September 11, 2002. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded by Commissioner Kurasch, the regular Planning Commission minutes of September 11, 2002, were approved with corrections to pages 9 and 11. AYES: Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Jackman, Kurasch and Roupe NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Zutshi REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Director Tom Sullivan announced that, pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda. for this meeting was properly posted on September 19, 2002. REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS Chair Jackman announced that appeals are possible for any decision made on this Agenda by filing an Appeal Application with the City Clerk within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the decision, pursuant to Municipal Code 15.90.050(b). a Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of September 25, 2002 Page 2 ~, ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Mr. William Breck, 20375 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road, Saratoga: • Reported continued tree damage from work related to 14480 Oak Place. • Reminded that this is his ninth time before the City since January. • Said that there is excessive cutting occurring on oak trees, which is causing distress to these trees. • Said that the City's excuse is that 30 percent of a canopy can be trimmed per growth period. • Added that there is continued construction of the wall despite a stop work order and that sandblasting from this site is causing asthma problems to some in the neighborhood. • Complained that there is no enforcement of the City's resolution. • Questioned whether the Planning Commission could impose fines and pointed out a recent article that demonstrated that Los Altos recently levied someone with a $27,000 fine. • Asked that the Commission direct staff to pull (or rescind) permits, impose fines and enforce tree protections. • Advised that per his study of the Code, the Planning Commission can add,an emergency item to its agenda with four members' support. • Pointed out that there has already been athree-and-a-half-week delay thus far regarding getting the Arborist on site to evaluate the situation. Commissioner Roupe asked Director Sullivan to elaborate on the Planning Commission's authority as far as levying fines. Director Tom Sullivan said that he had checked with Los Altos and also looked at their Municipal " , Code. The Authority to levy fines rests with their Council also. The fine mentioned by Mr. Breck was imposed for the illegal demolition of a historic structure. Saratoga does not have the same provision. There are, however, provisions for civil remedies. Mr. William Breck asked about the revocation of permits. Commissioner Barry advised Mr. Breck that the Oral Request section of the agenda couldn't lead to any action tonight. The Commission has heard what he has said and the information will be passed on. Commissioner Hunter said that she just recently visited a friend whose property is adjacent to the Cutler property. That friend's tree is being decimated. Director Tom Sullivan stated that it took two weeks to obtain verbal and written permission from Mr. Cutler to gain access to his property. The City had been on the verge of going to court. Commissioner Hunter advised that the tree company that trimmed the tree on her friend's property climbed a wall from the Cutler property in order to access her friend's property to cut the tree. Asked if this is legal. Director Tom Sullivan said that this is considered trespassing and the Sheriff should have been called immediately as it was occurring. Commissioner Kurasch asked what the next ste should be. P Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of September 25, 2002 ~ Page 3 x Commissioner Hunter said the City shouldn't wait until no trees are left. Chair Jackman reminded that the Commission is unable to take action but can simply direct staff to continue to work on the matter. Director Tom Sullivan promised to bring the newest concerns raised by Mr. Breck with the City Attorney the next day. He added that he tried to reach one of the three attorneys today but all were unavailable. Stated that the Sheriff and Code Enforcement staff responded today and found no infraction. Commissioner Barry asked about developing an emergency resolution. Mr. William Breck advised that action is needed today and quoted sections 2-10.020(b) and 2-15.050 of the Municipal Code. Commissioner Barry assured Mr. Breck that Director Sullivan will follow through on these issues to the full extent that he has the legal authority to do so. Ms. Holly Davies, 14478 Oak Place, Saratoga: • Stated that the Houston's beautiful heritage oak was cut today. • Added that on June 14`", her tree was heavily cut. • Said that on June 28`", her tree was cut again very heavily. • Said that she called Code Enforcement today and was told that a tree can be pruned up to 30 percent of its canopy. • Pointed out that in a report by Barrie Coate prepared on April 22, 2002, the tree was valued at $10,000. • Declared that if a tree is cut 30 percent each time, the tree could be gone in three weeks. The fines are nominal, about $1,000 for an oak and from $100-300 for pines. Commissioner Kurasch asked Ms. Davies if photographs were taken today. Ms. Holly Davies: • Replied yes, the tree on the Houston's property was photographed today. • Added that this lovely heritage tree is visible from her property and had been valued at approximately $20,000. • Advised that a new report is underway by Barrie Coate. Chair Jackman advised that a Tree Subcommittee of the Commission is working up regulations to give more "teeth" and provide more ability to take action. It is hard to enforce things if they are not in the Code. Commissioner Barry asked if Barrie Coate has been asked to expedite the report. Director Tom Sullivan replied yes. He added that the four members who can enact an emergency agenda item are Councilmembers. He added that afour-fifths vote is mandated under law to avoid an action on items that the public has not been properly notified about. Should the Commission decide to Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of September 25, 2002 Page 4 ~- interpret the Code differently, he advised that more than four votes be cast in favor prior to undertake such action. He added that usually, Planning Commissions do not deal with urgency items. Commissioner Kurasch asked what could be done with any emergency action. Director Tom Sullivan replied only things that he would be doing anyway. Commissioner Barry advised that the Commission has directed staff to take every action possible. Commissioner Hunter said that since the Commission is the tree authority for the City, it is correct to come to the Commission with tree-related concerns. Director Tom Sullivan agreed but stated that the Commission has taken its action and provided direction to staff. It gave 30 to 60 days for a new tree report to be prepared by Barrie Coate. Ms. Lee Matas, 20385 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road, Saratoga: • Quoted from several communications from City staff: • A June 21, 2002; letter from Director Tom Sullivan, in which he states that Mr. Cutler would be required to fully implement the arborist's recommendations. • An email from July 3, 2002, said that the City would do an inspection and if tree protection is not adequate, no house permits would be issued. • A Jurie 6, 2002, letter from Ann Welsh which quoted section 16-05.030(g), stating that the Building Official shall not issue additional permits if violations exist until said violations are corrected. • Added that despite these communications from staff, on July 16, 2002, Mr. Cutler was issued permits to remodel the main house. • Declared that she could not understand why ten neighbors have no clout while Mr. Cutler is allowed to do what he wants. ' Commissioner Roupe asked Director. Sullivan to reply to these comments. Director Tom Sullivan said that the positions taken in both his and Ann's letters were overruled by the City Manager while he was out of the office. CONSENT CALENDAR (ITEM NO. 1 and ITEM N0.2) APPLICATION #02-197 (CITYWIDE) -CITY OF SARATOGA: Adoption of a Resolution of Intent to amend the Saratoga Code as it relates to side yard setbacks. (SULLIVAN) APPLICATION #02-210 (CITYWIDE) -CITY OF SARATOGA: Adoption of a Resolution of Intent to amend the. Saratoga Code as it relates to tree regulations. (SULLIVAN) Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hunter, seconded by Commissioner Roupe, the Planning Commission approved Consent Calendar Items No. 1 and 2 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Jackman, Kurasch, Roupe and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: None Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of September 25, 2002 Pa e 5 ABSTAIN: None ~**_ PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM N0.3 GATEWAY DESIGN GUIDELINES: Design Guidelines for the Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road Gateway have been prepared to guide new development in this district. The streetscape improvement plan has been adopted to address improvements within the public street right-of-way to create a new northern gateway to the City. The Guidelines provide direction for the redevelopment and mixed-use projects that introduce a component of residential uses within the Gateway district, as provided for in the General Plan Housing Element. (SULLIVAN) _ Director Tom Sullivan presented the staff report as follows: • Reminded the Commission that this item had been brought before them for public input. Subsequently, the Commission directed staff to coordinate one more Task Force meeting and Commissioners Barry and Roupe were assigned to attend that meeting. • Advised that two additional Task Force meetings were actually held. At the first, the bulk of issues were worked out. At the second, the topic was mainly signage: • Stated that good solid discussion was had. • Advised that a summary was provided in the packet of the development standards with the June 6, 2002, final report. • Said that for the July meeting, all commercial interests were notified. • Stated that a table depicting proposed changes has been distributed and that both Co-Chairs were given a copy of the table in the lobby this evening. • Recommended that changes be made to either draft. • Described some specific staff-proposed changes as follows: • Page 2, Part I (Intro) -minor language changes on applicability. This proposed change has been agreed to by everyone involved. • Page 5, staff recommends that the Planning Commission policy requiring applicants to meet with neighbors be added. • Item 9, requires the inclusion of public amenities when they would not infringe on adjacent residential properties. Chair Barry asked about the maximum density of 20 units per gross acre in relation to a mixed-use development. Director Tom Sullivan: • Advised that the net site is considered not the gross and that the whole use of the lot, both commercial and residential components, would be considered. . • Item 16, advised that a lot of discussion was held regarding encouraging businesses that are limited in size so as to be local serving as opposed to big box type commercial businesses. • Added that no property in the Gateway is large enough to accommodate a big box type business. Commissioner Kurasch asked where office uses would be permitted. Director Tom Sullivan: Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of September 25, 2002 ~ Page 6 a • Replied that office uses would be permitted either the first or second floor. This upholds the status quo. • Page 8, staff suggested compromise language regarding the need for pedestrian connections and to promote/encourage shared parking where possible. Added that they are not talking about parking on one lot to patronize another lot but rather shared parking for mixed uses on one property, which is a fairly -common planning and development concept. Commissioner Kurasch asked why #8 on page 8 was dropped regarding mitigating adverse impacts. Director Tom Sullivan: • Replied that the commercial folks thought it was onerous. Staff did not propose to add it back in because it is already covered in design review. • Page 9, #6, Buildings on Corners. Initially, there was a desire to have entrances and/or display windows on both facades. That was changed at the July meeting. Staff is proposing another change to include street frontage facades. . • Page 10, #15, would call for visible and identifiable entrances. • #19 was slightly revised to include decorative paving materials. • Page 13, #5, Screening. In July the Task Force wanted to take out screening so buildings are visible from the road and parking lot. Staff is proposing that the site should be oriented to be a pedestrian friendly environment. • Page 14 -defines mature. Originally, a 20-foot deep rear yard buffer was required between commercial and residential lots. In July, that was changed to 5-foot. Staff proposes to return this to a 20-foot minimum requirement. Commissioner Kurasch asked what is now required between residential and commercial uses. Director Tom Sullivan replied that in the C-V Zone, the rear yard setback is a minimum of 30 feet, with 10-foot minimum side setbacks. In the C-N Zone, there are no minimum requirements unless the commercial property is adjacent to R-1 at which time the minimum setback requirement is 30 feet. Commissioner Kurasch asked if this precludes parking. Director Tom Sullivan replied correct. Commissioner Roupe asked Director Sullivan to identify issues on which these Guidelines are more restrictive than existing Code. Director Tom Sullivan said issues such as landscape requirements to create screening, staggered- setbacks for first and second stories where adjacent to existing single-story residential developments; which would have the second story portion of a building situated toward the center of the lot rather than to the front or rear. Commissioner Hunter said that she observed one office building with a 30-foot strip while another had a driveway at the rear near residential uses. Director Tom Sullivan said that there is the ability to close the rear parking lot in that building in the evenings and on weekends. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of September 25, 2002 ~ Page 7 Commissioner Hunter asked if a 20-foot buffer is required. Director Tom Sullivan replied no. He added that 30-inch box trees would create screening within five years. The landscape requirement is that the parking lot be 50-percent shaded within so many years. Commissioner Garakani pointed out that no balconies or windows would be permitted at the second story on sides and inquired about the rear. Commissioner Kurasch asked whether there are any side abutting residential properties to commercial. Director Tom Sullivan advised that he has told the consultant that his job is done and staff will take it from here. Chair Jackman opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1 at 8:02 p.m. Ms. Zoe Alameda, Owner, Saratoga-Cupertino Funeral Home, 12341Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, Saratoga: • Said that she has served on the Task Force since 1995. • Thanked Tom Sullivan for his leadership, adding that he has a hard job and has done it wonderfully. • Complimented Commissioners Barry and Roupe. • Added that all involved staff have done a good job working with everyone and achieving compromise. • Said that she is happy with what has been developed. • Said that she is pleased to obtain reassurance that in the event that her business burned down, she will be able to rebuild. • Acknowledged that if the property is to be more than 50 percent redeveloped, these new development rules would kick in. • Thanked everyone involved. Mr. Al Saah, 1220 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, Saratoga: • Expressed appreciation to Tom Sullivan and Commissioners Roupe and Barry. • Stated that this has been a difficult process and that many alterations have been made to the draft guidelines. • Said that some things have been removed that were unfair, namely the requirement fora 20 foot buffer between single-family and commercial properties. • Added that this causes a great deal of property to be unusable. • Asked Director Tom Sullivan to come to his property to review the benefits and/or disadvantages. • Declared that in his case, this 20-foot buffer would be a taking and is excessive and would require landscaping and ongoing maintenance of that landscaping. • Added that under Code, the required buffer was five feet, which is how his building was built and that he believes that this five-foot buffer is enough. • Suggested that if the 20-foot buffer were to be required, parking should be allowed there. • Cautioned that this would have great ramifications. Commissioner Roupe said that Mr. Saah's point is well taken and will be taken under consideration during the Commission's discussion. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of September 25, 2002 Paee 8 Commissioner Kurasch asked what the buffer requirement is currently. Director Tom Sullivan replied five feet although it is not always applied. Commissioner Garakani suggested supporting the 20-foot recommendation. This could always come back to the Commission for change. Director Tom Sullivan pointed out that these guidelines would only be used when more than 50 percent of a property is redeveloped and that an applicant can always ask for an exception due to hardship. Commissioner Hunter asked whether a 20-foot setback would be imposed on a commercial property in the future if a new house were to be built adjacent to commercial property. Director Tom Sullivan replied no. This requirement applies only regarding existing single-family residences. Mr. Bill Benevento, 12270 Kirkdale Drive, Saratoga: • Advised that he served on the Task Force. ' • Pointed out that current maximum heights for commercial properties is 20 feet and was proposed to be raised to 26 feet per the June 6~' draft (Page 5, #10). On July 26`t', the limitation of 18 feet maximum height for commercial properties adjacent to residential properties was also removed. With the change, it would be possible to have a 26-foot high structure located 20 feet away from existing residential properties. • Stated that setbacks should be greater than 20 feet. • Questioned what Napped to the concept of privacy for adjacent residences, which are mostly single- story residences. • Said that allowing a 26-foot height would result in buildings overlooking into the backyards and homes of existing residents. • Pointed out that on Page 2, #10, the required landscape buffer has shrunk to just five feet while he understands that staff proposes to put it back to 20 feet. • Said that when he originally got involved, he was interested in how the entrance to Saratoga appeared but riders were added to the initial concept and he is uncomfortable with that fact. Commissioner Barry. asked staff for a clarification on height issues adjacent to residential properties and potential privacy impacts. Director Tom Sullivan: • Said that on Page 6, Item #12, deals -with mixed-use projects and #13 deals with commercial buildings. The transition of setbacks is still there. Mr. Jeff Walker, 20451 Seagull Way, Saratoga: • Said that he has not seen the table distributed to the Commissioners. • Said that he is not pleased with the current state of these guidelines. • Pointed out that he participated in 10 to 12 meetings on these guidelines but that they now reflect the interests of an overwhelming number of business owners and legal representatives. • Added that the guidelines do not reflect the goals of beautification of the entrance and/or signs. • Said that he recently took a walk in this area and found the signs there to be overwhelming. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of September 25, 2002 -Page 9 Commissioner Barry said that she too had noticed the proliferation of signs in the area. Mr. Jeff Walker: • Said that these guidelines have gone from being more neighbor-friendly to being more business friendly. • Suggested that they be sent back to the Task Force with more balance in its composition. Commissioner Kurasch asked Mr. Walker what he would change. Mr. Jeff Walker said that the building setbacks between commercial and residential should be 30 feet both from the rear and side. Additionally, a 15-20 foot landscape buffer should be provided. signage should depict character and be consistent. Commissioner Roupe said that signs would be addressed in a broader review that would be Citywide in scope. Commissioner Kurasch said that it appears no consensus has been reached per the report. Commissioner Barry said that issues such as lighting and signage are taken very seriously. Director Tom Sullivan reminded that the August 23rd Task Force meeting focused on signage and that some sign guidelines are included on pages 11 and 12 of the draft guidelines. Mr. Bill Guthrie; 20422 Seagull Way, Saratoga: • Said that setbacks and heights are his main issues. • Said he understood the City's desire to allow denser development to improve the City's retail tax base as well as to implement its Housing Element by enticing developers to build more housing. • Said that changes to underlying Code will have to be made to implement this plan and that extensive Zoning Code changes would also be required. • Advised that the C-V Zoning District has a requirement for a minimum rear yard setback of 30 feet with one additional foot added for each foot of additional height above 14 feet. In the C-N Zoning District, the minimum setback is 30 feet. Both Zones have a maximum 20-foot height at this time. • Suggested that it appears that setbacks and heights need to be carefully considered. Commissioner Kurasch asked Director Sullivan to address this. Director Tom Sullivan pointed to Page 27, Item #14, that states that underlying zoning is still enforced. unless otherwise outlined within the Guidelines. Mr. Bill Guthrie said that many buildings in the area already have exceptions to existing Code and that exceptions should not be granted so easily. Commissioner Zutshi pointed out that buildings can have a maximum height of 26 feet. Director Tom Sullivan advised that a lot of properties back onto single-family single-story homes. For commercial uses adjacent to R-1, the side and rear setbacks would be 30 feet. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of September 25, 2002 Page 10 Mr. John F. Mallory, 12258 Kirkdale Drive, Saratoga: • Informed that he has resided in his home since 1967 and has been a City supporter and participant for 25 years. - • Stated he is lucky to live in a community with high standards. • Advised that he joined the Task Force in 1995 and was again pleased to work on it until the project was put on hold. • Said that the Task Force was started again last year and he was glad to work on upgrading the area. • Advised that he is concerned with mitigating the impacts. • Said that he liked the consultant's vision and style and that design meetings went reasonably well. • Suggested that the City needs an entrance it can be proud of, with design standards outlining new goals and development standards for buildings. • Added that things have not gone well in that respect and the group had trouble reaching consensus. • Informed that at the July meeting, only four residents participated while there were 24 commercial property owners. There were a lot of changes made without consensus. Letters from lawyers and tense communication focused discussions on protecting property, which did not have good concept for a Task Force with inconsistent representation. • Stated that there was not a strong commitment to focus on goals. • Added that there are unfinished items that need Planning Commission attention. Commissioner Barry asked Mr. Mallory if he has seen the table put together by staff depicting the various recommendations. Mr. John T. Mallory replied yes. Comrrussioner Barry asked Mr. Mallory what area or column he is dissatisfied with. Mr. John T. Mallory replied all. Chair Jackman asked staff what the Commission is to do this evening. Director Tom Sullivan replied that the Commission -would forward the Guidelines to Council with recommendations. The Commission can elect to create a fifth column with its own recommendations. The Commission's action is not final as the Council takes the final action. Another alternative is to continue this item to a date uncertain. Commissioner Barry suggested a continuance to a date certain and have the Commission create the fifth column to the extent possible this evening. Chair Jackman said that comments for a fifth column are possible but that perhaps a workshop would be a better venue as well as receiving written comments from the public. Director Tom Sullivan advised that the next action is for the Commission to take. Recommended a continuance to the November 13~' meeting. Commissioner Hunter said that she hears the concerns expressed and has no problem continuing this item. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of September 25, 2002 Page 11 Commissioner Zutshi questioned the imbalance between commercial and residential property owners and how a better balance could be obtained. Mr. John T. Mallory replied that he was unaware of the additional meetings and had scheduled a vacation when they occurred. Ms. Zoe Alameda, 12341 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, Saratoga: • Reminded the Commission that the commercial uses along this street pre-existed the residences. Her funeral home has been on its site for 33 years. Therefore, people knowingly purchased their homes adjacent to existing commercial businesses. • Stated that signage will be addressed on a Citywide basis. Mr. Al Saah, 12200 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, Saratoga, suggested that a cost estimate and a study of the damages that could be caused by these guidelines should be considered when developing this fifth column to the table. Chair Jackman closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3 at 8:52 p.m. Commissioner Kurasch suggested reviewing the columns one by one. Chair Jackman questioned whether it should be done this evening or later. Commissioner Roupe suggested a Study Session at which time each Commission would have prepared what they would like to have included on the fifth column. The hearing this evening can be continued. Commissioner Kurasch pointed out that a Study Session was held just last week. Chair Jackman pointed out that this was prior to public comment. Commissioner Roupe said that he is willing to continue discussion or set up a Study Session. Commissioner Hunter said that this is a process that the Commission needs time on and needs to slow down this process. Chair Jackman said that she too would like this item continued. Commissioner Roupe asked what would be done between now and the next Planning Commission meeting. Chair Jackman said a meeting to develop a fifth column. Commissioner Barry agreed and said that she would like to see the Commission's decisions published as the fifth column and handed out. Asked if there are any comments on what has already been covered. Director Tom Sullivan stated that it appears the Commissioners want to draft a fifth column and provide copies to all participants. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of September 25, 2002 ~ Page 12 Commissioner Garakani asked if the consultant could provide pros and cons on every specific impacted property. Director Tom Sullivan advised that he has neither budget nor staff available to do that level of detail or to keep the consultant working any longer. Commissioner Kurasch expressed support for a Study Session to generate another column and distribute that information. Director Tom Sullivan suggested that the Commissioners notify Kristin of available meeting dates for early October. Chair Jackman asked if the material could be posted on the Web site. Director Tom Sullivan replied sure. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded by Commissioner Garakani, the Planning Commission continued consideration of the Gateway Design Guidelines to its meeting of November 13, 2002, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Jackman, Kurasch, Roupe and. Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Chair Jackman called for a break at 9:04 p.m. and turned the gavel over to Commissioner Kurasch since she resides within the notification area for the next agenda item and will have to recuse herself. *** Acting Chair Kurasch reconvened the meeting at 9:15 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM N0.4 APPLICATION #02-176 (Reconsideration of DR-O1-006, TUP-O1-003, UP-O1-002 and related applications) (APN's 397-22-017, 397-22-019, 397-2-015, 397-22-012 & 397-22-042) - SARATOGA FIRE DISTRICT, 14380 Saratoga Avenue and 20473 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road: Request for Conditional Use Permit, Design Review, Lot Line Adjustment and General Plan Conformity Determination for vacation and abandonment of George Whalen Way (City alley located behind the existing fire station) and transfer of Heritage Plaza property from the City to the Saratoga Fire Protection District for a new fire station with variations to setback and landscape standards. Existing fire station and building at 14380 Saratoga Avenue proposed to be demolished, temporary facilities proposed to be located at 20473 ,Saratoga-Los Gatos Road during construction of new fire station proposed for 14380 Saratoga Avenue. (LIVINGSTONE) Acting Chair Kurasch advised that one speaker has asked to speak immediately in order to leave for another meeting. Acting Chair Kurasch opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4 at 9:15 p.m. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of September 25, 2002 Page 13 Mr. Daryl Ishizaki, Manager for Post Office Operations, San Jose: • Said that he has shared the Post Office's concerns throughout the process and believes that they have been addressed to his satisfaction. Advised that of particular concern are the five parking stalls located at the street, in front of the Post Office. They are firm in their requirement that these five spaces stay there in order to allow them to continue to provide quality service to the community. Added that with that requirement met, they are willing to cooperate in support of the project. Commissioner Garakani asked if backing out from those spaces is even safe at this point. Mr. Daryl Ishizaki said that he has the same concerns but it is important to maintain access to these spaces. If there are modifications to the roadway, the stalls must be maintained in a safe manner. To remove these spaces impacts their ability to support this project. Commissioner Barry asked Mr. Ishizaki to provide the Post Office's position in writing so that it would be on the record and prior to the next Public Hearing. Mr. Daryl Ishizaki said that the current project is acceptable outside of the possible loss of those five parking stalls and roadway modifications and he is willing to put this in writing. Commissioner Roupe asked that prior to the next hearing the Public Works Director address these five spaces and the future roadway projects. Mr. Daryl Ishizaki reiterated his agreement with the project with the two concerns met. Commissioner Zutshi said that her experience parking in those spaces has not been that good. Commissioner Hunter said that she uses this Post Office once or twice a week and backs out of these spaces without a problem. Stated that this is a wonderful Post Office and extended her thanks to Mr. Ishizaki for keeping it there. Acting Chair Kurasch closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4 at 9:25 p.m. Associate Planner John Livingstone presented the staff report as follows: • Pointed out that Page 6 is a duplicate and should be disregarded. • Advised that the City Clerk provided a list of names to be notified and staff called each one as well as sending notices. , • Stated that an updated project traffic assessment was prepared. • Stated that the applicant is seeking a Conditional Use Permit, Design Review and Lot Line Adjustment for both a new and temporary fire station. • Suggested that this evening an initial review should be taken but that no final action be taken until the Mitigated Negative Declaration is finalized. It has not yet been approved by the Fire District. • Advised that the item should be continued to the October. 9, 2002, meeting. The Public Hearing should be open tonight and speakers allowed to address the Commission on the proposal and the Commission can provide feedback. • Gave a background on this project. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of September 25, 2002 Page 14 • Stated that on September 5, 2001, Council denied an application for a new fire station at 14380 Saratoga Avenue. An Ad Hoc Committee was formed with representatives from many jurisdictions including the Fire District, Sheriff's Office, County Administration, Federated Church, neighbors and representatives of the Planning and Public Safety Commissions. • Advised that on July 17, 2002, a Settlement Agreement was reached consistent with Scheme A. • Said that on August 7, 2002, the application was made for the reconsideration of this project by the Planning Commission. • Advised that at the next Planning Commission meeting, the Commission will be asked to act on two separate issues. The first is Design Review, Conditional Use Permit and Lot Line Adjustment for the new and temporary fire stations with variations in setback. The second is to make the determination on General Plan Conformity for the abandonment of the alley and the easement transfer to the Fire District. • Stated that the existing Contempo building would be demolished and a temporary fire station (module buildings) would be placed on that site. The existing fire station would then be demolished and a new fire station constructed. When the. new fire station is completed, the module buildings would be removed and parking added onto the Contempo site. • Said that the abandonment of the alley and the transfer of Heritage Plaza property from the City to the Fire District and pedestrian easements on Saratoga and Saratoga-Los Gatos Road are also part of this project. • Declared the project to be in character with the neighborhood, incorporating a Julia Morgan style architectural design and using material that fit into the area. The new fire station will be pulled back significantly from the road to improve sight distance. • Described the parking requirements under Code to be one space for each employee. There are a total of 24 employees. There would be 18 parking spaces on Fire District property with an extra six • spaces in the additional parking lot where the Contempo building is currently located. Ten public parking spaces will be provided. • Stated that draft resolutions have been provided and that necessary findings can be made for General Plan conformity and for the Use Permit. • Recommended that the Commission allow public comment and continue this item to October 9, 2002, to allow the finalization of the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Commissioner Barry asked that all three traffic reports prepared for this project be provided by the next meeting, including the one done by CalTrans. Associate Planner John Livingstone said that he could obtain copies. Added that staff has suggested the Fire District hire its own Traffic Report due to the City's involvement with the Traffic Engineer who prepared one of the reports for the City. Commissioner Roupe asked staff to have the differences between the three reports drawn out. Associate Planner John Livingstone: • Said that a consulting Traffic Engineer would review Fire's traffic report on the City's behalf. This consultant prepared the Traffic Report for the Ad Hoc Committee. • Stated that the General Plan conformity on the easement, roadway and transfer of property would be forwarded to Council with a recommendation by the Commission. Commissioner Garakani asked if the alle is Cit -owned land. Y Y Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of September 25, 2002 Page 15 Associate Planner John Livingstone replied that it is public right-of-way. Commissioner Garakani asked if land is being swapped. Director Tom Sullivan said that other considerations are being provided including moving the monument arches and 10 permanent public parking spaces. Acting Chair Kurasch asked about the difference between a Variance and variations of standards and why exceeding standards is necessary. Associate Planner John Livingstone replied that they are necessary to develop the best possible fire station for the public's safety. Commissioner Roupe discussed the 10 parking spaces and substantial improvement of the intersection and made the point that these issues have been decided as part of the Settlement and therefore the Commission has no authority of fuss around these details. Associate Planner John Livingstone agreed that these are directly from the Settlement. Commissioner Hunter expressed support for achieving the best fire services possible for the community. Commissioner Garakani asked for ways to assure these 10 public parking spaces. Associate Planner John Livingstone stated that there would be a legal agreement prepared by the City Attorney. Commissioner Garakani pointed out page 3 of the staff report, which depicts the maximum proposed lot coverage as being 29.6 percent out of a maximum allowable of 30 percent. Said that upon review of page 2 of the plans, the building represents 32 percent of lot coverage with 8,987 square foot building lot coverage on a 30,274 square foot lot while the actual fire property is only 27,917 square feet. Questioned which figures are correct. Associate Planner John Livingstone advised that the 27,917 square foot lot does not include the alley. With the alley, the total lot is 30,274 square feet. He added that several agreements will have to be finalized with the Post Office, Fire District, Church and City. Commissioner Barry asked if the Commission could call out these required agreements in the findings. Associate Planner John Livingstone replied that they are included in the Conditions of Approval. Commissioner Barry asked if one agreement fails to be finalized would this approval be null and void. Director Tom Sullivan replied yes. Commissioner Garakani asked if a survey could be provided. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of September 25, 2002 Page 16 Associate Planner John Livingstone said he could provide revised plans. Commissioner Garakani said he prefers to see the survey. Associate Planner John Livingstone said that this could be provided at the next meeting. Acting Chair Kurasch said with 18 on-site parking spaces for fire staff and 6 off-site parking spaces, where would the 10 public spaces be located. Associate Planner John Livingstone replied that spaces 17 through 26 are labeled on page 4 of the plans. Acting Chair Kurasch reopened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4 at 9:55 p.m. Ms. Mary McGrath, Representative of the Fire District: • Described the phases of the project. • Phase I includes the current conditions and the plan to bring two modular buildings onto the Contempo site to house the temporary fire station. Additionally, a temporary shelter/cover would be installed for the apparatus. The curb ramp at the alley exit would be reconfigured to Saratoga for greater public safety. A total of 24 parking spaces would be provided. A variation on rear setbacks is required to place the temporary shelter for the apparatus. The construction period for the new fire station will extend for 12 to 14 months. • Phase II includes moving the monument, demolition of the existing fire station, closing the alley and the temporary relocation of the .Post Office drop box. .Described the site easements as including an 8 foot pedestrian bike easement, a 7.5 foot water utility line easement that the Water District intends to vacate, an access easement for water and phones that will stay in place and 10 public parking spaces permanently dedicated to the City. Said that in the future, the Federated Church hopes to purchase a portion of the Contempo property to provide additional parking and access for the church. Additional components of Phase II include the landscaped pedestrian plaza, a new right turn lane from Highway 9 onto Saratoga, the widening of Saratoga for an additional travel lane with the Fire District to.pay for curbs, gutters and sidewalks and a new apron area for the fire station. • Stated that the total site as 30,274 square feet with a building footprint consisting of 8,987 square feet for a total lot coverage of 29.6 percent. . • Stated that porous pavers and drainage basin are included to provide natural water drainage. Commissioner Garakani said that he finds it difficult to combined two unconnected parcels when evaluating this project's lot coverage. Ms. Mary McGrath: • Described plans for site circulation, including plans to relocate the Post Office drop box, a plan to reverse the alley to improve traffic, plans for the sale of a portion of the Contempo site in the future to the Church with an agreement to provide six parking spaces to the fire station and improved access for Post Office parking. • Stated that the total building consists of 15.,435 square feet (within a basement, first and second floor) and will incorporate four bays with three front line response vehicles with a goal to use a Julia Morgan style vernacular. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of September 25, 2002 Page 17 Commissioner Roupe asked where the mail drop would be moved temporarily. Ms. Mary McGrath replied to the right of the temporary fire station. Commissioner Roupe asked if this placement of the Post Office mail drop could interfere with the operations of the fire station. Ms. Mary McGrath stated that there is a doublewide access and that vehicles could go by. Commissioner Garakani asked about the proposed generator. Ms. Mary McGrath advised that this generator would be located eight feet underground. __ Commissioner Garakani said that this is good. Commissioner Barry asked about the concerns expressed by the Post Office official about the front parking. Ms. Mary McGrath said that this project does not interfere with those parking spaces. When the road is widened and restriped, it may interfere. Commissioner Barry pointed out that the road widening is related to where the fire station is placed. Ms. Mary McGrath said that it is the City that wanted the street widened not the Fire District. Director Tom Sullivan said that the Public Works Director could address these public improvements as he would be in attendance at the next meeting. Acting Chair Kurasch expressed concerns about a switch in direction of one-way alley use and suggested that access be permitted from Highway 9 to reach the public parking as well as the drop box. Ms. Mary McGrath said that the alley would be accessed from Saratoga. She said that Highway 9 was really studied and it was determined that the alley egress and circulation is less likely to be blocked by traffic on Saratoga than Highway 9 and its busy intersection. Commissioner Hunter questioned the plans for the number of colors for the freeze band tiles. Ms. Mary McGrath said that they are open to suggestions on colors for the tiles. Commissioner Hunter offered Oak Street School as a good example. Commissioner Garakani asked about the roof color. Ms. Mary McGrath replied red the with different hues. Acting Chair Kurasch asked about public parking accessibility and proposed a no exit sign from the alley to Saratoga but atwo-way entrance at Highway 9. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of September 25, 2002 Page 18 Ms. Mary McGrath said that she would have to study that suggestion. Chief Karl, Saratoga Fire, introduced the Fire District's Attorney. Mr. Hal Toppel, Attorney for Fire District: • Stated that the Post Office parking in front is not a subject of this application. • Said that he had comments on a few of the Conditions. • , Suggested that the condition requiring a monthly newsletter to be distributed to area residents with construction updates, be modified to quarterly and asked for clarification on the intended targeted circulation. • Said that Condition 9 needs to be clarified. While the Fire District is negotiating with the Church for the sale of the Contempo property, no agreement has been reached. Commissioner Barry asked if the Fire District is prepared to have an alternative design ready that shows the Fire District retaining the Contempo parcel in the event that it is not sold to the church. Mr. Hal Toppel, Attorney for Fire District, said that this is possible. Commissioner Barry asked what would occur until that time. Mr. Hal Toppel, Attorney for Fire District, said that until it is sold, the Fire District owns it all. • Associate Planner John Livingstone stated that staff agrees with the applicant on Condition 9. Mr. Hal Toppel, Attorney for Fire District, said that the church needs the access it would gain with the purchase of the Contempo parcel and the Fire District needs the money that would be generated from the sale. Asked that Condition 10 be deleted since the City is doing that. Associate Planner John Livingstone suggested that a letter requesting .these proposed changes be provided so staff can work with the City Attorney. Mr. Hal Toppel, Attorney for Fire District: • Said that they are working on a bond for planting landscaping and relocating the trash enclosure for the Post Office. • Stated that Condition 25-L, which calls for improvements to the signal has not yet been agreed upon but they hope to have this issue resolved by the next meeting. • Said that pertaining to Condition 27, they are willing to indemnify the City against third parties but not itself. • Asked that the project be approved at the next meeting. Associate Planner John Livingstone said that feedback on Condition 8 is required. The applicant is making improvements to the trash enclosure on Post Office property. Acting Chair Kurasch reiterated that the necessary agreements need to be finalized to move forward. Mr. Hal Toppel, Attorney for Fire District, suggested that this. is work for the City. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of September 25, 2002 ~ Page 19 Commissioner Roupe expressed agreement with the reduction in newsletter frequency from monthly to quarterly and suggested a distribution within 500 feet. Commissioner Hunter suggested:-that the information. provided should be much like the information circulated by the School District on the bond issue. Mr. Hal Toppel, Attorney for Fire District, said that the Fire District already sends out a regular newsletter to the community. Commissioner Hunter agreed that the newsletter does not need to be monthly. Commissioner Garakani suggested that an ad in the Saratoga News might be a means of communicating with the public. Mr. Hal Toppel, Attorney for Fire District, said that an ad would not allow sufficient detail. Commissioner Barry clarified that the intent of the newsletter requirement is to provide information on construction related activities. Commissioner Hunter pointed out that the entire community would be impinged upon during construction. Mr. Robert Egan, 14890 Montalvo Road, Saratoga: • Identified himself as a Fire Commissioner. • Thanked staff and reminded the Commission that the voters approved a bond for a new fire station. • Expressed need for a safe and efficient fire station and that the Task Force worked on the project and Plan A has been approved. This plan was reviewed with citizens to make this an ideal fire station for the community. It was also reviewed with each shift. • Cautioned that delays are costing hundreds of thousands of dollars to the project. The longer it takes, the more costs go up. • Asked the Commission to take into consideration the amount of work undergone to come up with this proposal. Mr. David W. Dolloff, 20685 Seagull Drive, Saratoga: • Said that he served on the Ad Hoc Committee and never received notification of this evening's Public Hearing, which he finds incredibly negligent. • Said that he never approved Plan A but rather supports Plan D. • Pointed out that three traffic engineers have prepared reports, one from CalTrans, one for the City and one for the Fire District. All three stated that there would be access and egress problems. • Suggested that CalTrans verification is necessary before the project goes forward. Acting Chair Kurasch asked Mr. Dolloff for his comments on the proposed changes in circulation on site. Mr. David W. Dolloff said that during construction there is the ability for engines to go out on Highway 9. Said that it is critical to work with the Post Office. If the Post Office says no, the whole thing goes down the tube. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of September 25, 2002 Page 20 Mr. John Keenan, 22215 Mt. Eden Road, Saratoga: • Said if the staff had not requested a continuance he would have proposed one since he just learned of this hearing two days ago. Mr. Preston Wisner, 20400 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road, Saratoga: • Said that he is with Our Lady of Fatima Church and served as Treasurer of the Bond Measure for this new fire station. • Asked that the Commission .approve this project at its October 9a' meeting. • Said he does not see an egress issue and that there is no history of a problem. • Agreed that the longer the delay, the more costs incurred. Mr. Arvin Engelson, 20381 Seagull Way, Saratoga: • Said he is affiliated with Federated Church and served on the Ad Hoc Committee. • Said that the Church is prepared to enter into an agreement for six parking spaces during construction and is interested in the future purchase of about 40 percent of the Contempo parcel. • Added that in the future, they would love to develop underground parking for about 80 cars on the Contempo property. Mr. Gordon Duncan, Assistant Fire Chief: • Said that the orientation and direction of circulation for the alley has been looked at in great length. • Said that they could technically respond in either direction if it became necessary. • Added that if they should ever be prevented from leaving the site,- they would call communications and get another station to respond. • Said that he had asked for FACT meeting notification and never received any. Mr. Bob Egan said that he has met with CalTrans and they are very supportive of this proposal. Commissioner Barry asked if documentation of that fact could be provided. Mr. Bob Egan said he would obtain that support in writing. Acting Chair Kurasch said that this would be helpful. Acting Chair Kurasch reclosed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4 at 10:50 p.m. Acting Chair Kurasch said that the Commission needs to formulate its feedback. Commissioner Barry thanked all for their presentations. , Commissioner Hunter stated that Mary McGrath's presentation was marvelous. Commissioner Roupe asked staff to carefully. look at structuring the Conditions to take into consideration the number of players (Church, Post Office, CalTrans, etc.) involved since he does not want to see this project come undone if one of the agreements does not come to pass. Acting Chair Kurasch agreed that future agreements may need to come. sooner rather than later. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of September 25, 2002 Page 21 Commissioner Roupe said that it is reasonable to have CalTrans comments in writing. Commissioner Garakani said that he has a problem hearing that the Post Office parking considerations for the five streetside_parking stalls are not relevant... _ _ Commissioner Hunter said that the City could consider the accident record. Added that it is vital, once a bond passes, to have the project go forward. Stated that she hopes the Commission can make up its mind at the October 9`h meeting. Commissioner Garakani said that he agrees but is concerned that the Post Office streetside parking may already be unsafe. Commissioner Hunter pointed out that this Post Office is open from 12 noon to 4 p.m. prior to heavy traffic in the area. Commissioner Garakani cautioned that he does not want to see a death occur before corrective action takes place. Commissioner Roupe stated that Public Works would look into this matter. Reminded that the Post Office representative made it clear that their support for this project depends upon the retention of these five parking spaces. A definitive answer on those parking spaces is needed by the next meeting. Commissioner Garakani questioned whether there is any way to combine the two lots so they are one parcel. Commissioner Barry asked if he means legally or physically. Asked if the concern is that the second parcel not be sold separately in the future and developed. Commissioner Garakani pointed out that the permit is being based upon 29 percent lot coverage on two unconnected parcels. Commissioner asked if there is a way to pass this legal issue. Associate Planner John Livingstone said that the Fire District's attorney could address a way of dealing with this issue. Acting Chair Kurasch reopened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4 at 10:57 p.m. Mr. Hal Toppel, Attorney for Fire District, said that they are separate parcels but that some sort of covenant restricting will tie the parcels together legally but not physically to assure the provision of parking spaces for the fire station site. Acting Chair Kurasch reclosed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4 at 10:58 p.m. Acting Chair Kurasch stated that usually parcels are not separated. The coverage is based upon an aggregate. When you look at one lot, it represents 80 percent coverage. Suggested that the agreement be crafted by the next meeting and that a land survey be provided. Finally, a study should be done on the potential of reconfiguring the parking access for the public. Saratoga Planning Commission Mi~~utes of September 25, 2002 Page 22 Commissioner Roupe stated that the Sheriff's Office has not been heard from. Director Tom Sullivan replied that the Sheriff is moving in a direction to solve their own parking problem. Acting Chair Kurasch stated that actual architectural comments would be discussed at the next meeting. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Barry, seconded by Commissioner Roupe, the Planning Commission continued consideration of the Fire Station project to its meeting of October 9, 2002, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Kurasch, Roupe and Zutshi ___._ NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Jackman *** Acting Chair Kurasch returned the gavel to Chair Jackman at 11:05 p.m. DIRECTOR'S ITEMS There were no Director's Items. COMMISSION ITEMS • Tree Committee Director Tom Sullivan advised that the draft of the revised Tree Ordinance is 95 percent complete and will be agendized for the October 23, 2002, meeting. Timing of Site Visits Commissioner Garakani said that he couldn't make 2:30 p.m. site visits. Chair Jackman suggested returning to 3 p.m. site visits. Commissioner Barry said she is willing to try mornings. Director Tom Sullivan suggested that the Commissioners try the next site visit at 10 a.m. Housing Tour Commissioner Hunter said that she and Chair Jackman would be participating on an Affordable Housing Tour on Friday, September 27`h Business Development Meeting ~. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of September 25; 2002 ~ Page 23 ,, Commissioner Hunter announced the new Business Development website that can be accessed via saratoga.ca.us. Librar~Tour , :. - - Commissioner Zutshi announced a Library construction tour on October 2°a COMMUNICATIONS There were no communication items. ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Chair Jackman adjourned the meeting at 11:16 p.m. to the next regular meeting set for Wednesday, October 9, 2002, to begin at 7 p.m. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk I• iR ITEM 1 'r REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION • • Application No./Location: 02-013-DR, 13815 Pierce Road Applicant/Owner: Mike Amini Staff Planner: Ann Welsh, AICP -Assistant Planner Date: October 9, 2002 ~, APN: 503-69-02 Department Head: 13185 PIERCE ROAD 000001 ~., EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CASE HISTORY Application filed: Application complete: Notice published: Mailing completed: Posting completed: PROJECT DESCRIPTION 4/16/02 8/13/02 8/14/02 8/14/02 8/7/02 The applicant proposes to construct a new 5,993 square foot two story residence with a 2,379 square foot basement and three car attached garage on a 1.759-acre lot, which presently contains a single story residence. The style of home is Mediterranean with terracotta concrete file roof and beige stucco walls. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the Design Review application with conditions by adopting the attached Resolution for application # 02-013. ATTACHMENTS 1. staff Analysis 2. Draft Resolution for application 02-013 3. Arborist Report dated May 14, 2002 4. Revised Arborist Report dated July 18, 2002 S. Saratoga Fire District report dated April 26, 2002 6. City Geotechnical Review dated Apri130, 2002 7. Geotechnical memo from GeoQuest, Inc. dated July 29, 2002 8. Plans, Exhibit 'A" date st mped August 13, 2002 • • LJ ~~0~0~ Attachment 1 STAFF ANALYSIS ONING: Hillside Resider ' Z teal Distract GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: RHC -Residential Hillside Conservation MEASURE G: Not applicable PARCEL. SIZE:1.759 acres gross AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: Average Slope of the lot is 25.6% GRADING REQUIRED: The proposed project requires 640 cubic yards of cut and 430 cubic yards of fill. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposed project consisting of an addition to a single-family residence is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, "New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures", Class 3 (a) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction or conversion of up to three single-family residences. The project site is in an urbanized area and is connected to utility and roadway infrastructure and consists an addition to asingle-family residence. MATERIALS AND COLORS PROPOSED: The house is to be composed of beige stucco walls and terra cotta concrete roof tiles. 000003 • LOT COVERAGE Building Footprint Walkways, patios Driveway TOTAL FLOOR AREA Main Floor Upper Floor Garage (Basement) TOTAI= - ._ PBUPOSED. - .. _. CODE REQUIREMENTS MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE 14,999 SQ. FI'. 25% OR 15,000 SQ. FI'. WHICHEVER IS LESS 4,032 SQ. I~ r. 6,550 SQ. Fr. 4,417 SQ. Fr. 14,999 sQ. Fr. MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE 3,379 sQ. r~. 1,961 sQ. I~ r. 653 sQ. FT. (2,379 sQ. i; r.) 5,993 sQ. Fr. 6,000 SQ. FT.i SETBACKS MINIMUM REQUIREMENT Front 38+ I;T. 30 FT. Rear 220 Fi. 60 FI'. Side 60+ Fr. 20 t;-r. Height Residence 26 Fi. 26 FI. 1 Maximum allowable floor area reflects a reduction for slope (Municipal Code Section 15-45.030(c)(d)). • • .ooo~o~ PROJECT DISCUSSION DESIGN REVIEW The applicant proposes to demolish an existing single story residence and construct a new two-story residence on the 1.75 acre heavily wooded, steeply sloped property located at 13815 Pierce Road The proposed home is a 5,993 square foot two story residence with a 2,379 square foot basement and three car attached garage. The parcel is located on Pierce Road near the intersection of Via Regina. The style of home is Mediterranean with a concrete file roof and stucco facade. The plans depict arched windows at each elevation: The front elevation contains a projecting entry portico with-twin columns supporting each corner of the gable roof. A balustraded patio connects to the portico and extends west along the front of the house to the three- car garage. Four balastraded balconies project from the second floor at each window of the front second story facade. The rear of the house contains a balustraded balcony at the second floor and two balustraded light wells one of which has an entry staircase to the basement and a patio. The east elevation contains a 1,425 square foot ballustraded patio, which provides access via walkway to the pool. The rear 200-foot portion of the lot is unusable since the property drops off steeply at the end of the existing rear patio. The steep topography dictates the location and orientation of the house and pool. The applicants propose to create a 190-foot long circular driveway that runs in front of • the house parallel with Pierce Road taking access from Pierce Road at the existing driveway and exiting west near Via Regina. The driveway location conflicts with the root system of the surrounding trees. The azborist has recommended that the driveway be eliminated in the vicinity of the trees. This would eliminate the possibility of a circular driveway in front of the house. An alternative is to allow two curb cuts for access but eliminate the connection in the vicinity of the trees, which provide canopy and privacy to the front of the house. Also, the azborist has recommended that the house be moved back ten feet in order to minim;7e the damage of the basement on the root system of the trees. The applicant has provided a Geotechnical report which indicates that moving the house back 10 feet would put the structure in an area of unstable soils. Also moving the house back ten feet would eliminate much of the rear yard of the house. The applicant has not indicated a willingness to compromise on either of these points and staff recommendation is to eliminate the driveway in the vicinity of the front yard trees and move the house as faz back as possible while avoiding the unstable soils. NECESSARY FINDINGS The Zoning Ordinance, Section 15-45.080 identifies the following findings as necessary for granting Design Review approval. (a) Avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. The height, elevations and placement on the site of the proposed main or accessory structure, when considered with reference to: (i) the nature and location of residential structures on adjacent lots and within the neighborhoods; and (ii) community view sheds will avoid. unreasonable OOOO~JS. interference with views and privacy. (b) Preserve natural landscape. The natural landscape will be preserved insofar as practicable by designing structures to follow the natural contours of the site and l~nimi~ing tree and. soil removal; grade ..changes will_ be.. mi_nim~ed .and will be in keeping with the general appearance of neighboring developed azeas and undeveloped areas. (c) Minim~e perception of excessive bulk. The proposed main or accessory structure, in relation to structures on adjacent lots and to the surrounding region, will IlLinimi7e the perception of excessive bulk and will be integrated into„the environment. (d) Compatible bulk and height. The proposed main or accessory structure will be compatible in terms of bulk and height with (i) existing residential structures on adjacent lots and those within the immediate neighborhood and within the same zoning district; and (ii) the natural environment; and shall not (iii) unreasonably impair the light and air of adjacent properties and their ability to utilize solaz energy. (e) Current grading and erosion control methods. The proposed site development or grading plan incorporates current grading and erosion control standards used by the City. (f) Design policies and techniques. The proposed main or accessory structure will conform to each of the applicable design policies and techniques set forth in the Residential Design Handboe!~. ACTUAL FINDINGS DESIGN REVIEW The following findings have been made regarding the proposed new construction. (a) Avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. The height, elevations and placement on the site of the proposed main or accessory structure, when considered with reference to: (i) the nature and location of residential structures on adjacent lots and within the neighborhoods; and (ii) community view sheds will avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. The lot at issue is heavily wooded and the existing trees contribute to the canopy along Pierce Road as well as to the privacy between neighboring residences. Although the footprint of the proposed house does. not extend far beyond the boundaries of the existing house the impact on surrounding properties could be significant due to the amount of disturbance that is proposed. The excavation fora 2,379 square foot basement and the creation of a 190-foot long driveway running under the canopy of four mature coast live oak trees would have a substantial impact on the root system of the existing tree canopy. Thus the long-term impact of the proposed construction may be to destroy the tree canopy along Pierce Road. For this rea~:,n in order to maintain the privacy and wooded continuity that the current landscape provides to the surrounding neighbors, the driveway should be bisected to avoid damaging the root system of the front yard trees. • The two-story house that is proposed would not interfere with the privacy of neighbors to the north, east or west since there is considerable distance between the structures on ~~~0~6 these properties. However, the privacy of the neighbor across Pierce Road may be compromised if the existing tree canopy is not retained since this neighboring single story house is closest to the proposed house. (b) Preserve Natural Landscape. The natural landscape will be preserved insofar as practicable by designing structures to follow the natural contours of the site and minimizing tree and soil removal; grade changes will be minimized and will be in keeping with the general appearance of neighboring developed areas and undeveloped areas. The site is heavily wooded and although the applicant has stated that their intention is to retain the existing trees, the development plan will compromise the long-term viability of the existing trees. In order to reduce the impact of development on the surrounding landscape, the plans should be revised to eluninate the driveway in the vicinity of the coast live oak trees that are in front of the house. The plans should also either eliminate the front porch or construct it in such a manner that does not compact the roots of the trees adjacent the front.~nrch. The arborist has recommended that the house be moved back 10 feet in order to reduce the impact of the basement on the roots of the oak trees in front of the house. Given the topography of the house, moving it back ten feet would be difficult since the property is very steeply sloped to the rear and this additional setback would eliminate much of the usable rear yard. Since the plans depict a basement with 2,379 square feet and a 30-foot long light well along the front of the house it appears that size of the basement could be reduced to eliminate disturbing the area immediately in front of the trees. If the light well is eliminated in this area and the house is moved back as much as possible then the disturbance to the trees in front of the house will be minimized and the house will not encroach on the slcped area to the rear. Given ,the topographic constraints of the property this design change appears to be a reasonable compromise. (c) Minimize perception of excessive bulk. The proposed main or accessory structure in relation to structures on adjacent lots and to the surrounding region will minimize the perception of excessive bulk and will be integrated into the environment. The two-story home has a number of architectural features, which minim~e the perception of excessive bulk. The front facade has a varied roofline with a projecting entry portico, hipped and compass roof elements. The upper Iloor balconies, balustraded porch and projecting bay window all serve to punctuate the horizontal expanse of the front facade. The rear elevation with second floor terrace and large expanse of balustraded porch has both hipped and gabled rooflines. The left elevation, which contains the garage, has a single entry door and a gabled roofline. The right elevation contains a varied roofline, bay windows, French doors and a large balustraded patio with stairs and a pathway leading to the pool area. This design breaks up massing and with the use of natural materials and colors soften the impact of the building. (d) Compatible bulk and height. The proposed main or accessory structure will be compatible in terms o f bulk and height with (i) existing residential structures on adjacent lots and those within the immediate ~~~0®~. neighborhood and within the same zoning district; and (ii) the natural environment; and shall not (iii) unreasonably impair the light and air of adjacentproperties to utilize solar energy. The proposed house is located in an area that has a mixture of single story and two story homes. A drop in elevation vertically sepazates the adjacent homes to the west; these consist of a single story and atwo-story home, which aze not visible to the subject house. The home located east of the site is a single story structure that is approximately 180 feet from the subject property. Given the distance between structures, the visual impact of the proposed two-story structure will not be significant if the existing tree canopies are retained. The homes south of the property across Pierce Road aze a mixture of single story and two stories. The home closest to the proposed house is located directly across Pierce Road, approximately 100 feet to the south. The visual impact of the two-story structure on this property is greatly mitigated by the tree canopy and vegetation that exists in front of the subject property. Thus in order to maintain privacy and reduce the visual impact of the proposed construction on this neighboring property it is important to retain as much of the existing vegetation as possible. The area north of the site is undeveloped and since the rear yazd is steeply sloped, abuts the Santa Claza Valley Water District lands and is heavily wooded, the proposed house is naturally screened from surrounding properties. (e) Current grading and erosion control methods. The proposed site development plan incorporates currentgrading and erosion control standards used by the Ciry. ite lan indicates. that the storm water will be retained on site throu h a well The s p g dry system, which will drain all of the runoff to the rear of the property. The applicant has requested that a grading and drainage plan be submitted after approval of the plans. The arborist will review the grading and drainage plan to ensure compatibility with surrounding trees. Since the stormwater is to be retained on site the site development plan does comply with the City stormwater runoff policies. (fl Design policies and techniques. The proposed addition conforms to the applicable design policies and techniques set forth in the Residential Design Handbook. The proposed project complies with Residential Design Handboo'.c Policy #1 to minimize the perception of bulk through use of natural materials and colors as well as having a varied roofline and facade and architectural features which breakup massing. The plan if revised to reduce the length of driveway and minimize disturbance to the front yard trees; may conform to Policy #2; integrate structures with the environment. Also the use of natural earth tones with stucco facade and concrete rile roof helps blend the structure into the environment. With attached gazage, all structures aze integrated into one building on the site, which minimT~es the visual impact on the environment. The proposal if revised to reduce the azea of the driveway and move the house to the rear complies with Policy #3; avoid interference with privacy by retaining the existing tree • ~0~©Q8 canopy, which provides privacy between surrounding neighbors. Polic #4, maxir~e views but avoid conflicts with privacy is addressed by retaining Y existing landscaping and maintaining sufficient setback to avoid encroaching on the view shed of surrounding homes. Policy #5, design for energy efficiency, is addressed by locating the main living areas of the house along the southeast exposure. Also the west facing window openings are minimized. Retaining existing tree canopy will control winter and summer exposure to the sun. _ _ Thus the above analysis concludes that if revisions to the site plan aze made as recommended above the necessary findings required for granting design review approval can be met. The City Arborist and the Saratoga Fire District and City Geotechnical consultant have reviewed this application. Their comments aze included as conditions of approval. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1. Exhibit "A" date stamped August 15, 2002 shall be revised to reflect the conditions outlined in this report. 2. Prior to submittal for Building Permits, the following shall be submitted to the Planning Division staff in order to issue a Zoning Clearance: Four (4) sets of complete construction plans incorporating this Resolution and the Revised Arborist report and mapof July 18, 2002 as a separate plan page and containing the following revisions: a. The site plan shall be stamped and signed by a Registered Civil Engineer or Licensed Land Surveyor. b. The site plan shall contain a note with the following language: "Prior to foundation inspection by the City, the RCE or LLS of record shall provide a written certification that all building setbacks are per the approved plans." 3. The site plan shall be revised to eliminate the circular driveway in the vicinity of the protected trees located within the front yard as identified in the azborist report. 4. The location of the house shall be moved back as far as geotechnically possible or 10 feet whichever is less. If necessary the light well in the front of the house should be eliminated in order to achieve sufficient setback from trees #28, 27 and 29. 5. Fireplaces: Only one wood-burning fireplace is permitted per dwelling unit. 6. A storm water retention plan shall be provided indicating how all storm water will be retained on-site, and incorporating the New Development and Construction -Best Management Practices. The plan shall indicate the size and location of the proposed dry 000009 wells. 7. A ading and drainage plan shall be submitted with the final construction documents and this plan shall be reviewed and approved.by the City Arborist. 8. Soil and Erosion Control Plans -The applicant should submit a soil and erosion control plan which identifies the techniques for minimizing the impact of disturbance on adjacent properties. 9. The applicant shall submit a fence plan, which depicts the area of proposed enclosure. COMMUNITY INPUT The applicant has provided signatures from 10 surrounding property owners. All have indicated their approval of the design. No written or oral communication has been received from neighbors other than these signatures. Fire Protection District The Saratoga Fire District reviewed this application on April 26, 2002 and their comments are as follows: 1. The fire flow required exceeds hydrant capacity.l3Rsprinkler system required. 2. The property is in a designated hazazdous fire area. 3. Roof covering shall be fire retazdant, Uniform Building Code Class A prepared or built up roofing. 4. Eazly Warning fire alarm system shall be installed and maintained in accordance with the provisions, City of Saratoga Code Article 16-60. (Alternative requirements, sprinkler systems,16-60-E) S. Early warning fire alarm system shall have documentation relative to the proposed installation and shall be submitted to the fire district for approval. 6. Automatic sprinklers shall be installed in newly constructed attached/detached garages (2 heads per stall), workshops, or storage areas, which are not constructed as habitable space. To ensure proper sprinkler operation, ;the garage shall have a smooth, flat horizontal ceiling. The designer/architect is to contact San Jose Water Company to determine the size of service and meter needed to meet fire suppression and domestic requirements. • 7. Automatic sprinklers are required for the new 8,669 square foot residential dwelling. A 4 head calculated 13R sprinkler system is required Documentation of the proposed installation and all calculations shall be submitted to the fire district for approval. The sprinkler system must be installed by a licensed contractor. Note: NFPA 13R with no X00010 exceptions, no FDC. 8. Drivewa s: All drivewa s shall have a minimum width of 14 feet lus one-foot Y Y P _. shoulders. Secondary access is not required • Slopes from 0% to 11% shall use a double seal coat of O ~ S or better on a 6" aggregate base from a public street to the proposed dwelling. • Slopes from 11% to 15% shall be surfaced using 2.5" of A.C. or better on a 6" aggregate base from a public street to the proposed building. • Slopes from 15% to 17% shall be surfaced using 4' PCC concrete rough surfaced on a 4' aggregate base from a public street to the proposed dwelling. • Driveway shall have a minimum inside radius of 21 feet. 9. Parking: provide a parking area for two emergency vehicles at the proposed dwelling site or as required by the fire district. Details shall be shown on the building plans. CITY ARBORIST REPORT The City Arborist inspected this property twice at the request of the applicant. The first report is dated May 14, 2002 and the second revised report is dated July 18, 2002. The report addressed tree protection measures on this wooded property. The arborist notes that there are thirty-three trees on the site exposed to some level of risk by construction. Twenty of these trees are identified as fine specimens and nine as fair specimens. Tree #8 is in conflict with the proposed root structure and is considered a loss. Trees # 10,11, 13,16,17 and 28 are located within a few feet of the proposed footprint of the new residence. The excavations of the footings for the residence and for the basement would result in severe root loss to these trees. As an example, tree #28 is a 23-inch diameter coast live oak. The basement light well is proposed within 6 feet of the trunk of tree #28. However, the actual cut would be at least 2-4 feet beyond the edge of the proposed light well retaining wall to provide workspace for construction. Thus, the actual cut would be within 2-3 feet of the trunk of tree#28. At this distance, this tree would lose approximately SO% of its root system and it would be rendered unstable because the cut would no doubt remove buttress roots, which are essential for the stability of the tree. Preservation of tree # 28 would require a minimum distance of 18 feet between the trunk and the edge of the actual soil cut. This means that the footprint of the house would have to be relocated approximately 10 feet further west. Since tree #28 is only in fair health, it is less tolerant of root loss. The proposed excavation for the light well would pose a serious risk to trees #27 and 30 as well at the location proposed. Tree #27 is a coast live oak with a trunk diameter of 30 inches. In order for tree #27 to survive, there must be no cuts or excavations within 18 feet of the trunk. If t7ie location of the residence were moved 10 feet toward the west, this distance should be sufficient to expect the survival of these trees in their present condition. 0000~.1~ If a soil cut of even 4 inches depth would be made to construct this driveway, trees #1, 23, 24, 27, 28, 29 and 30 would likely suffer significant root loss. In my opinion, trees #27, 28, 29, and 30 would not survive -construction .of the ~ driveway for that portion that is proposed across the root zones of these trees on the east side of their trunks. The arborist makes a number of recommendations among them are the following. 1. Redesign the driveway as presented in the attached plan. 2. Relocate the footprint of the residence 10 feet to the west in order to maintain the survival of trees #27, 28, and 29. 3. Construction period fencing must be provided and located as noted on the map, which accompanies the report. Fencing must be of chain link, a minimum height of 5 feet mounted on steel posts driven 2 feet into the ground. The fence must be in place prior to the arrival of any other materials or equipment and must remain in place until all construction is completed and given final approval. The protection fencing must not be temporarily moved during construction. Fencing must be located exactly as shown on the attached map. 4. A root buffer should be required on the entire south side of the residence between the foundation anal the protective fencing. 5. The grading and drainage plan must be reviewed by the city arborist. 6. Excavated soil must not be piled or dumped under the canopies of trees. 7. Any pruning must be done be an International Society of Arboriculture certified arborist and according to ISA Western Chapter Standards. 8. Sprinkler imgation must be designed not to strike the trunks of trees. Further, spray irrigation must not be designed to strike inside the canopy drip lines of oak trees. 9 Replacement trees are recommended for trees that are to be removed. The following trees are expected to be removed Trees #8, 10, 11, 13, 16, and 17. They have a value of $18,199 this is equivalent to three 48 inch boxed and two 36 inch boxed or one 72 inch boxed and one 48 inch boxed native trees. 10. The combined value of all the other trees is $189,753. A bond equal to 15% (=$28,463) of their total value should be provided prior to issuance of building permit, to assure their protection. Geotechnical Revisions Geotechnical Clearance with conditions was granted on April 30, 2002 for the project at 13851 Pierce Road Revised conditions of approval, based on the review memo from the 00®0~~ Ciry Geotechnical Consultant dated Apri129, 2002 aze: 1. The Project En ' eerie Geolo ' t and Project Geotechnical En ' eer shall review and J ~ g ~ - ] 1~ approve all geotechnical aspects of the final development plans (i.e., site preparation and grading, landslide mitigation, and design pazameters for foundations, pavement and retaining walls) to ensure that their recommendations have been properly incorporated. The results of the plan reviews shall be summarized by the Project Engineering Geologist and Project Geotechnical Engineer in a letter(s) and submitted to the Ciry Engineer for review and approval prior to issuance of the Grading Permit. 2. The Project Engineering Geologist and Project Geotechnical Engineer shall inspect, test (as needed), and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project construction. The inspection shall include, but not necessarily be limited to: site prepazation and grading, site surface and subsurface drainage improvements, and excavations for foundations and retaining walls prior to the placement of steel and concrete. 3. The results of these inspections and the as-built conditions of the project shall be described by the Project Engineering Geologist and Project Geotechnical Engineer in a letter(s) and submitted to the Ciry Engineer for review and approval prior to finalization of the Grading Permit. 4. The owner (applicant) shall pay any outstanding fees associated with the City Geotechnical Consultant's review of the project prior to project Zone Clearance. 5. The owner (applicant) shall enter into agreement holding the City of Saratoga harmless from any claims or liabilities caused by or arising out of :,oil or slope instability, slides, slope failure or other soil related and/or erosion related conditions. CONCLUSION Staff recommends that these plans be approved on the condition that revisions eliminating the driveway and the location of the house be addressed in the final plans. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the Design Review application with revisions and subject to conditions by adopting the following resolution. `~ ~~ao~~ • THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK . 0000.4 Attachment 2 RESOLUTION N0.02 - APPLICATION NO.02-013 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA AMINI -13815 PIERCE ROAD WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Design Review to construct a 5,993 square foot two story dwelling with 2,379 square foot basement; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and Whereas the project is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, "New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures", Class 3 (a) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction or conversion of up to three single-family residences. The site is in an urbanized area and is connected to utility and roadway infrastructure and involves construction of a single family structure; and WHEREAS, the applicant meets the burden of proof required to support said application for Design Review approval, and the following findings have been determined: Policy 1, Minim~e the perception of bulk The proposed project minunizes the perception of bulk through use of natural materials and colors as well as having a varied roofline and facade with architectural features, which breakup massing. Policy 2, Integrate structures with the environment The plan conforms with the policy to integrate structures with the environment through use of natural earth tones with stucco facade and concrete file roof. With attached ~; ' garage, all structures are integrated into one building. Policy 3, Avoid interference with privacy If revised to eliminate portions of the driveway and maintain the necessary setback from the protected trees in the front yard, the plan will retain the tree canopy and therefore avoid interference with privacy. 000035 Policy 4, Preserve views and access to views The house is desi ed such that living areas are oriented toward the high quali view to ~ ty the rear of the property. If the tree canopy is retained neighbor's privacy will be protected. Policy 5, Design for maximum benefit of sun and wind The policy to design for energy efficiency is addressed by the south-eastern orientation of the main living areas of the home. Also the minimal west window openings limit exposure to the elements. Retaining trees helps control winter and summer exposure to the sun. Now, TxEREFOItE, the Planning Commission of the City of Sazatoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After cazeful consideration of the site plan, azchitectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application by Mike Amini for Design Review approval is granted subject to a number of conditions. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1. Exhibit "A" date stamped August 15, 2002 shall be revised to reflect the conditions outlined in this report. 2. Prior to submittal for Building Permits, the following shall be submitted to the Planning Division staff in order to issue a Zoning Clearance: Four (4) sets of complete construction plans incorporating this Resolution and the Revised Arborist report and map of July 18, 2002 as a separate plan page and containing the following revisions: a. The site plan shall be stamped and signed by a Registered Civil Engineer or Licensed Land Surveyor. b. The site plan shall contain a note with the following language: "Prior to foundation inspection by the City, the RCE or LLS of record shall provide a written certification, that all building setbacks are per the appioved plans." 3. The site plan shall be revised to eliminate the circular driveway in the vicinity of the protected trees located within the front yard as identified in the azborist report. 4. The location of the house shall be moved back as faz as geotechnically possible or 10 feet whichever is less. If necessary the light well in the front of the house should be eliminated in order to achieve sufficient setback from trees #28, 27 and 29. S. Fireplaces: Only one wood-burning fireplace is permitted per dwelling unit. 6. A storm water retention plan shall be provided indicating how all storm water will be 000©i6 retained on-site, and incorporating the New Development and Construction -Best Management Practices. The plan shall indicate the size and location of the proposed dry wells. 7. A grading and drainage plan shall be submitted with the final construction documents and this plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Ciry Arborist. 8. Soil and Erosion Control Plans -The applicant should submit a soil and erosion control plan which identifies the techniques for minimizing the impact of disturbance on adjacent properties. 9. The applicant shall submit a fence plan, which depicts the azea of proposed enclosure. FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT The Saratoga Fire District reviewed this application on April 26, 2002 and their comments are as follows: 1. The fire flow required exceeds hydrant capaciry.l3R sprinkler system required. 2. The property is in a designated hazardous fire area. 3. Roof covering shall be fire retardant, Uniform Building Code Class A prepared or built up roofing. 4. Eazly Warning fire alarm system shall be installed and maintained in accordance with the provisions, City of Saratoga Code Article 16-60. (Alternative requirements, sprinkler systems,16-60-E) 5. Early warning fire alarm system shall have documentation relative to the proposed installation and shall be submitted to the fire district for approval. 6. Automatic sprinklers shall be installed in newly constructed attachedldetached garages (2 heads per stall), workshops, or storage azeas, which are not constructed as habitable space. To ensure proper sprinkler operation, the garage shall have a smooth, flat horizontal ceiling. The designer/architect is to contact San Jose Water Company to determine the size of service and meter needed to meet fire suppression and domestic requirements. 7. Automatic sprinklers are required for the new 8,669 square foot residential dwelling. A 4 head calculated 13R sprinkler system is required. Documentation of the proposed installation and all calculations shall be submitted to the fire district for approval. The sprinkler system must be installed by a licensed contractor. Note: NFPA 13R with no exceptions, no FDC. 8. Driveways: All driveways shall have a muiimum width of 14 feet plus one-foot shoulders. Secondary access is not required. ~~~~~~ • Slopes from 0% to 11% shall use a double seal coat of O ~St S or better on a 6" aggregate base from a public street to the proposed dwelling. • Slopes from 11% to 15% shall be surfaced using 2.5" of A.C. or better on a 6" aggregate base-from a public street ~to the proposed-buildi~g° ' - ~- ~ ~- ~ ~ - - ~ ~ - • Slopes from 15% to 17% shall be surfaced using 4' PCC concrete rough surfaced on a 4' aggregate base from a public street to the proposed dwelling. • Driveway shall have a minimum inside radius of 21 feet. 9. Parking: provide a parking area for two emergency vehicles at the proposed dwelling site or as required by the fire district. Details shall be shown on the building plans. CITY AxsORIST REPORT The City Arborist inspected this property twice at the request of the applicant. The first report is dated May 14, 2002 and the second revised report is dated July 18, 2002. The report addressed tree protection measures on this wooded property, The azborist notes that there are thirty-three trees on the .site exposed to some level of risk by construction. Twenty of these trees are identified as fine specimens and nine as fair specimens. Tree #8 is in conflict with the proposed root structure and is considered a loss. Trees # 10, 11, 13, 16, 17 and 28 are located within a few feet of the proposed footprint of the new residence. The excavations of the footings for the residence and for the basement would result in severe root loss to these trees. As an example, tree #28 is a 23-inch diameter coast live oak. The basement light well is proposed within 6 feet of the trunk of tree #28. However, the actual cut would be at least 2-4 feet beyond the edge of the proposed light well retaining wall to provide workspace for construction. Thus, the actual cut would be within 2-3 feet of the trunk of tree#28. At this distance, this tree ~n~ould lose approximately 50% of its root system and it would be rendered unstable because the cut would no doubt remove bumess roots, which are essential for the stability of the tree. Preservation of tree # 28 would require a minimum distance of 18 feet between the trunk and the edge of the actual soil cut. This means that the footprint of the house would have to be relocated approximately 10 feet further west. Since tree #28 is only in fair health, it is less tolerant of root loss. The proposed excavation for the light well would pose a serious risk to trees #27 and 30 as well at the location proposed. Tree #27 is a coast live oak with a trunk diameter of 30 inches. In order for tree #27 to survive, there rr~ust be no cuts or excavations within 18 feet of the trunk. If the location of the residence -were moved 10 feet towazd the west, this distance should be sufficient to expect the survival of these trees in their present condition. If a soil cut of even 4 inches depth would be made to construct this driveway, trees #1, 23, 24, 27, 28, 29 and 30 would likely suffer significant root loss. In my opinion, trees #27, • 28, 29, and 30 would not. survive construction of the driveway for that portion that is ~00~.~8 proposed across the root zones of these trees on the east side of their trunks. The arborist makes a number of recommendations among them are the followin . g 1. Redesign the driveway as presented in the attached plan. 2. Relocate the footprint of the residence 10 feet to the west in order to maintain the survival of trees #27, 28, and 29. 3. Construction period fencing must be provided and located as noted on the map, which accompanies the report. Fencing must be of chain link, a minimum height of 5 feet mounted on steel posts driven 2 feet into the ground. The fence must be in place prior to the arrival of any other materials or equipment and must remain in place until all construction is completed and given final approval. The protection fencing must not be temporarily moved during construction. Fencing must be located exactly as shown on the attached map. 4. A root buffer should be required on the entire south side of the residence between the foundation and the protective fencing. 5. The grading and drainage plan must be reviewed by the city arborist. 6. Excavated soil must not be piled or dumped under the canopies of trees. 7. Any pruning must be done be an International Society of Arboriculture certified arborist and according to ISA Western Chapter Standards. 8. Sprinkler imgation must be designed not to strike the trunks of trees. Further, spray imgation must not be designed to strike inside the canopy drip lines of oak trees. 9 Replacement trees are recommended for trees that are to be removed. The following trees are expected to be removed Trees #8, 10, 11, 13, 16, and 17. They have a value of $18,199 this is equivalent to three 48 inch boxed and two 36 inch boxed or one 72 inch boxed and one 48 inch boxed native trees. 10. The combined value of all the other trees is $189,753. A bond equal to 15% (=$28,463) of their total value should be provided prior to issuance of building permit, to assure their protection. Geotechnical Revisions Geotechnical Clearance with conditions was granted on April 30, 2002 for the project at 13851 Pierce Road. Revised conditions of approval, based on the review memo from the City Geotechnical Consultant dated Apri129, 2002 are: 1. The Project Engineering Geologist and Project Geoteehnical Engineer shall review and 0000,9 approve all geotechnical aspects of the final development plans (i.e., site prepazation and grading, landslide mitigation, and design parameters for foundations, pavement and retaining walls) to ensure that their recommendations have been properly incorporated. The results of the plan reviews shall be summarized by the Project Engineering Geologist and Project Geotechnical Engineer in a letter(s) and submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to issuance of the Grading Permit. 2. The Project Engineering Geologist and Project Geotechnical Engineer shall inspect, test. (as needed), and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project construction. The inspection shall include, but not necessarily be limited to: site preparation and grading, site surface and subsurface drainage improvements, and excavations for foundations and retaining walls prior to the placement of steel and concrete. 3. The results of these inspections and the as-built conditions of the project shall be described by the Project Engineering Geologist and Project Geotechnical Engineer in a letter(s) and submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to finalization of the Grading Permit. 4. The owner (applicant) shall pay any outstanding fees associated with the City Geotechnical Consultant's review of the project prior to project Zone Clearance. 5. The owner (applicant) shall enter into agreement holding the City of Saratoga harmless from any claims or liabilities caused by or arising out of soil or slope instability, slides, slope failure or other soil .related and/or erosion related conditions. CITY ATTORNEY 1. Applicant agrees to hold City harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the City or held to be the liability of City in connection with City's defense of its actions in any proceeding brought in any State or Federal Court, challenging the City's action with respect to the applicant's project. 2. Noncompliance with any of the conditions of this permit shall constitute a violation of the permit. Because it is impossible to estimate damages the City could incur due to the violation, liquidated damages of $250 shall be payable to this City per each day of the violation. Section 2. Construction.. must be commenced within 24 months or approval will expire. Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met. Section 4. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15-90 of the Sazatoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. OOOJ O PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 9`h day of October 2002 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission This permit is hereby accepted upon the express terms and conditions hereof, and shall have no force or effect unless and until agreed to, in writing, by the Applicant, and Property Owner or Authorized Agent. The undersigned hereby acknowledges the approved terms and conditions and agrees to fully conform to and comply with said terms and conditions within the recommended time frames approved by the City Planning Commission. Property O«~ner or Authorized Agent • Date 000021 • THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK . • 00002 •~G~ BARRIE D. COATS and ASSOCIATES Horticu[ural Consultants 23535 Surnmit Roed Los Gatos, CA 95033 408!353-1052 Attachment 3 TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECONIlVIENDATIONS AT THE AMINI PROPERTY 13815 PIERCE ROAD SARATOGA Prepared at the Request of: Kristin Borel Community Planning Department City of Saratoga 13777 Fnutvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 • Site Visit by: Michael L. Bench Consulting Arborist May 14, 2002 Job # 04-02-071 Plan Received: 4.22.02 Plan Due: 5.23.02 • ~ ~~~a~~ ~ JUN 0 S 2002 CITY OF SARATOGA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 000023 TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECDMMENDATIONS AT THE AMIIQI PROPERTY 13815 PIERCE ROAD SARATOGA Assignment At the request of Community Development Department, Planning Division, City of Sazatoga, this report reviews the proposal to demolish the existing residence and to construct a new residence with a basement in the context of potential damage to or the removal of existing trees. This report rates the condition of the trees on site that aze protected by City of Saratoga ordinance. Recommendations aze included to mitigate damage to these trees during construction. The plans reviewed for this report are the construction plans prepazed by the Craftsman's Guild, Inc., Cupertino, Sheets 2-8, undated. No Grading and Drainage Plan is provided with this set of plans. Summary This proposal exposes 33 trees to some level of risk by construction. One tree is directly in conflict with proposed construction. However, at least 6 additional trees would be so severely da*naged that they would not be expected to survive. Replacement trees, which equal the values of the trees removed, are suggested. Procedures are suggested to mitigate the damage that would be expected to the retained trees. A bond equal to 15% the value of the retained trees is suggested in accordance with the levels of the expected risks. Observations There are at least 33 trees on this site, which are large enough to be controlled by city ordinance that may be exposed to some level of risk of damage by proposed construction. The attached map shows the location of these trees and their approximate canopy dimensions. Each tree has been tagged with a metallic label with an assigned number. The 33 trees are classified as follows: Trees # 1, 2, 7, 33 'Valley oak (Quercus lobata) Tree # 3 California bay laurel (Umbellularia californica) Tree # 4 Coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirerrs) Trees # 5, 18, 32 California black oak (Quercus kelloggii) Trees # 6, 9, 10, 12-16, 19-24, 26-31 Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) Trees # 8, 11 Monterey pine (Pirrus radiata) Tree # 17 Deodar cedar (Cedrus deoclara) Tree # 25 Pacific madrone (Arbutus menziesii) The particulars regarding these trees (species, trunk diameter, height, spread, health, and structure) aze provided in the attachments that fcllow this text. PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST MAY 14, 2002 +000i~24 TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS AT THE AM*'dI PROPERTY 13815 PIERCE ROAD 2 SARATOGA The health and structure of each specimen is rated on a scale of 1 to 5 (Excellent - Extremely Poor) on the data sheets that follow this text. The combination of health and structure ratings for the 33 trees are converted to descriptive ratings as follows: Exceptional S ecimens Fine S imens Fair S ecimens Marginal S ecimens Poor S ecimens 2, 5, 6, 9, 10, 1, 3, 4, 14, 16, 8,.15 19 11, 12, 13, 20, 17, 18, 28, 30 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 29, 31, 32, 33 Fine specimens must be retained if possible but without major design revisions. Mitigation procedures recommended here are intended to limit damage in order to prevent decline. Fair specimens are worth retaining but again without major design revisions. Mitigation must prevent further decline. Marginal specimens are typically worth retaining but could be removed if necessary to facilitate construction. Mitigations recommended here are intended to prevent significant decline. Poor specimens cannot significantly improve regardless of care. For any which are considered hazardous, removal is recommended. For those retained, mitigation may not be typically requested. Existing Condition The root collar of Tree #6 is covered by fill soil. This condition exposes the tree to several serious diseases, which attack the root collar when conditions are favorable. Risks to Trees by Proposed Construction Demolition of the existing residence, the existing garage, and the existing out building may be highly damaging to the adjacent trees. Mitigation procedures would be required to prevent significant root loss, broken branches, or bark injuries. Tree #8 is in conflict with the proposed terrace structure. I recommend that this tree be replaced. Trees #10, 11, 13, 16, 17, and 28 are located within a few feet of the proposed footprint of the new residence. Trenching for the footing'and the construction of the basement would severe the roots of all of these trees. After this, the construction activity on top of the remaining root zones of these trees would result in root loss. The total root damage to these trees would be severe. In addition, all of these trees would lose a significant quantity of their canopy in order to construct the new residence. The root losses and the PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L BENCH, CONSULTINO ARBORLST ~ MAY 14, 2002 000025 TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS AT THE AMINI PROPERTY 1381 S PIERCE R04D SARATOGA canopy losses combined would be quite severe. Root loss and canopy loss are not separate and unrelated. These trees should all be considered a loss. Trees #1, 23, 24, 27~ 28, 29, and 30 would-all suffer severe root losses by construction of the driveway as proposed. ff any underground utilities must be replaced or upgraded, it will be essential that the trenches must be planned prior to construction and that the trenches are located outside of driplines. These locations must not be left up to contractors or to the utility providers. Comments Because of the location of the clusters of trees at this site, it will be difficult to design a new residence of significant size between the clusters of trees without some losses. Because of the density of the trees behind the house, in my opinion, it is preferable to sacrifice some of those trees (Trees #10, 11, 13, 16, and 17), than to risk those trees in front of the house. If Trees # 10, 11, 13, 16, and 17 are removed, I also recommend the removal of Trees #15 and 19, which are poor specimens, primarily due to crowding. However, I believe that Trees #27, 29, and 30 must be preserved, partially because of their large size. The light well is only 6 feet from the trunk of Tree #28. This means that the cut to construct the light well would only be about 3 feet from the trunk. Tree #28 would require a minimum of 15 feet between the trunk and a construction cut to expect it to survive. This same distance is required for Trees #27, 29, and 30. It will not be feasible to construct a circular driveway adjacent to Trees #27, 29, and 30. Construction of the residence on the west side of these trees would cause significant root damage by itself. A soil cut of 10-15 inches is normally required in order to construct "Turf Block" paving. In this event, it would not be feasible to construct the driveway between Trees #23 and 24 with the turf block. Tree #23 requires a minimum of 18 feet between the trunk and a soil cut, and Tree #24 requires a minimum of 1 S feet between the trunk and a soil cut. Either the driveway must be constructed on top of the existing soil grade or one of these trees must be sacrificed for the other. In the event of the latter, I recommend that Tree #23 be retained because of its larger size and better condition. Bear in mind that interlocking pavers usually require a cut of 12 to 14 inches in order to provide a stable roadbed. The plan appears to show that the driveway is to be constructed approximately 2 feet closer to Tree #1 than the existing driveway. In this event, Tree #1 would not be expected to survive. Recommendations 1. I recommend that the plans be dated. Undated plans often present significant problems during construction, where plans are changed after permits are issued. 2. I recommend that the driveway be redesigned. I have presented an alternative on the attached plan. Bear in mind that the other trees, such as Trees #3; 6, 31, and 33 have PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORLST MAY 14, 2002 oooo~s TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECOMI :ENDATIONS AT THE AMINI PROPERTY 13815 PIERCE ROAD 4 SARATOGA minimum distances that must be maintained between their trunks and soil cuts. The minimum distance that these trees require is as follows: Tree #3 10 feet Tree #6 18 feet _ Tree #31 20 feet Tree #33 18 feet 3. I suggest that construction period fencing be provided and located as noted on the attached map. Fencing must be of chainlink, a minimum height of 5 feet mounted on steel posts driven 2 feet (minimum) into the ground. The fence must be in place prior to the arrival of any other materials or equipmerrt and must remain in place until all construction is completed and given final approval. The protective fencing must not be temporarily moved during construction. Fencing must be located exactly as shown on the attached map. - 4. I recommend that a root buffer lbe required on the entire south side of the residence between the foundation and the protective fencing, adjacent to Trees #14, 18, 20, and 21. A root buffer consists of 6 full inches of coarse bark. chips (shredded redwood is not acceptable for this purpose due its compressibility) over the existing grade, which must immediately be covered by 1 inch plywood (full sheets), tied together, and secured to prevent slippage. 5. It will not be feasible to trench for a drain between the trunks of Trees #20 and 21 and the foundation of the residence. If this is planned, it must be redesigned. 6. I recommend that Grading and Drainage Plan be provided and reviewed by the city arborist. • 7. There must be no grading, trenching, or surface scraping inside the canopy driplines of retained trees (either before or after the construction period fencing is installed or removed). Where this may conflict with drainage or other requirements, the city arborist must be consulted. 8. Trenches for any utilities (gas, electricity, water, phone, TV cable, etc.) must be located outside the canopy driplines of retained trees. For any tree where this cannot be achieved, I suggest that the city arborist be consulted. 9. I suggest that the root collar of Tree #6 must be excavated to expose the tops of the buttress roots without injuring the root bark. This must be done by an air spade or pressure washer to remove the excess soil. A minimum space of approximately 12 inches around the trunk must be exposed. Air spade operators include: Aire Excavating Company 650/298-8937 and Urban Tree Management 650/321-0202. 10. Any old irrigation lines, sewer lines, drain lines, etc., under the canopies of the existing trees, if unused, must be cut off at grade and left in the ground. ' root buffer PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L BENCH, CONSULTING ARHORLST MAY 14, 2002 O~~V~ TREE SUR .TEY AND PRESERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS AT THE AMII1I PROPERTY 13813 PIERCE ROAD 5 SARATOGA 11. Supplemental irrigation must_be provided to retained Trees #1,6, 14, 18, 20, 21, 27, 29, and 31 during the dry months (any month receiving less than 1 inch of rainfall). Irrigate with 10 gallons for each inch of trunk diameter every 2 weeks throughout the construction.period. This can be achieved Eby the use' of a simple soaker hose, which must be located near the dripline for the entire canopy circumference. 12. Excavated soil must not be piled or dumped (even temporarily) under the canopies of trees. Loose soil must not be allowed to slide down slope to cover the root collars of retained trees. 13. Any pruning must be done by an Imernational Society of Arboricultural (ISA) certified arborist and according to ISA, Western Chapter Standards, 1998. 14. Landscape pathways and other amenities constructed under the canopies of trees must be built completely on grade without excavation. 15. Landscape irrigation trenches (or any other excavations), inside the canopy driplines of~rees, must be no closer than 15 times the trunk diameter, if the trenching direction is across the root zone. However, radial trenchesZ (i.e., like the spokes of a wheel) may be done closer if the trenches reach no closer than 5 times the trunk diameter to the tree's trunk, and if the spokes are at least 10 feet .apart at the perimeter. 16. Sprinkler irrigation must be designed not to strike the trunks of trees. Further, spray irrigation must not be designed to strike inside the canopy driplines of oak trees. 17. Lawn or other plants that require frequent watering must be limited to a maximum of 20% of the entire root zone and a minimum distance of 7.times the trunk diameter away from the trunks of oak trees. 18. Bender board or similar edging material must not be used inside the canopy driplines of existing trees, because its installation requires trenching of 4-6 inches, which may result in significant root damage. 19. I suggest that the species of plants used in the root zones of oak trees be compatible with the environmental and cultural requirements of the oak species indigenous to this area. A publication about plants compatible with California native oaks can be obtained from the Califortia Oak Foundation, 1212 Broadway, Suite 810, Oakland 94612. 20. Landscape materials (cobbles, decorative bark, stones, fencing, etc.) must not be installed directly in contact with the bark of trees because of the risk of serious disease infection. s radial treaches PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L BENCH, CONSULTING AR,BORLST MAY 14, 2002 • ~O~V~~ TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION REC7MMENDATIONS AT THE AMIIQI PROPERTY 13813 PIERCE ROAD 6 SARATOGA 21. ff trees are in the path of discharge of drain dissipators or downspouts, those devices must be relocated. The discharge must be directed a minimum of 1 S feet to the side of the trunk of any tree. _ 22. Materials or equipment must not be stored, stockpiled, dumped inside the canopy driplines of trees, or buried on site. Any excess materials (including mortar, concrete, paint products, etc.) must be removed from site. Value Assessment The values of the trees are addressed according to ISA standards, Seventh Edition. The following try Tree # 8 Tree # 10 Tree #11 Tree #13 Tree # 16 Tree # 17 Tree #28 ~s are expected to be removed. - $2,088 $4,026 $3,608 $4,831 $2,442 $1,204 706 They have values as follows: Total $22,881 This is equivalent to four 48-inch boxed specimens. Replacements are suggested. However, it will not be feasible to replace this value with small specimens. There may be room for three 60 inch boxed trees which have approximately that value. The combined value of all of the other trees is $185,047. I suggest a bond equal to 15% (=$27,252) of their total value to assure their protection. Acceptable native tree replacements are: Coast live oak - Quercus agr~lia Valley oak - Quercus lobatar Big leaf maple - Acer macrophyllum California buckeye - Aesculus californica Coast Redwood -Sequoia sempervirens MLB/s PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L BENCH, CONSULTINO ARBORLST Respectfully sub ed, / , ^~^ i ~~ "~\ Michael L. Bench, Associate X11 C/4'~r~D Barrie D. Coate, Principal MAY 14, 2002 000029 TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS AT Tl~ AML*~I PROPERTY 13815 PIERCE ROAD 7 SARATOGA Enclosures: Glossary of Terms Tree Data Accumulation-Charts Tree Protection. Before, During and After Construction Protective Fencing Radial Trenching Beneath Tree Canopies Platform Root Buffer Map • • • PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L BENCH, CONSULTIIdG ARBORIST MAY 14, 2002 O~0~~0 Job Tide: Amini Job Address• 13815 Pierce Road Job #04.02-071 Mea surem ent Con dition Pr unin Cabiln Ne eds Pest/Diseas e Pro blems Recom mend . BARRIE D COATS o `/ , and ASSOCIATES ~ ~ ~ F ~ ~ ~ ~ y ~ ~ (108)3531052 W ~ ~1 ~ ~ ~ o r ~ ~ ~ ~ $ ~ F c~ 5~ ~ ~ ~ ? S ~ 235355usadAotd ~ ~ ~ ~ w ~ F ~ Z_ N N Z ~ ~ ~ }a U ~ ~ O LaGtloe,U 15030 to ~ 0: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ W o: ~ ul w N v ~ ~ ~ 3 ~ W o. ~ ~ o ~ F ~ ~ Y ~ ~. K ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ey / Phnt Nams g 1 to x v~ ~ v C~ ~ 1 Vel Oak 28.0 28 45 80 3 2 5 Quercus k~bats . In 531 X:27/sq. In. ^ :14,328 X sp. class 100% ~ i 14,328 X cond. 80% : 8,597 X loc. 85% ^ i 5588 Total Value 2 Val Oak 29.0 x 12.0 30\1 45 55 2 1 3 . in 718 X 127/sq. in. ^ s 19,388 X sp. lass 100% 119,388 X cond. 90% = 17,447 X loc. 85% ^ i 11 341 Total Value 3 CalMomla ea 11.0 x 10.0 7V 1118 40 30 1 3 4 Umbslluhrla calHomla 13 11 ~B . In 213 X 127/sq. in. ~ i 5,751 X sp. class 50% ~ :2,878 X cond. 75% s 2,137 X loc. 50% ~ : 1,078 To6sl Value 4 Coast Redwood 28.0 28 50 30 3 :2 5 S uoh sem revs . in 531 X 127/sq. In. ~ :14,328 X sp. class 90% ~ 112,895 X cond. 80% i 7,737 X loc. 50% ^ i 3889 ' ~ Totet Value 5 CalHbmh Bhck Oak 11.0 13 15 25 1 2 3 Quercus kN it . In 95 X 127/sq. in. ^ s 2,565 X sp. class 100% ^ =2,585 X cond. 90% ^ = 2,3p8 X ~, 80% ^ = 1385 ToW Value 8 Coast Live Oak 28.0 36 35 35 1 3 4 3 Quereus rifolla . In 815 X 127lsq. fn. a S 18,817 X sp. class 100% = 118,817 X cond. 75% ^ = 12,483 X loc. 83% ^ 8101 Total Value ~ ' T TREE VALUES REPLACEI-4E1V ~ gal .536 15-gal =5320 24"box ~ 5~ 36"box = 51,320 !8"box ~ 55,E 52"box = 57,000 va"~.,.,... t+e mn Ma 14 2002 1=BEST, 5 =WORST Paan 1 n~ ~ 0 (.J N. Job Title: Amini job Address: 13815 Pierce Road Mea surem ents Con dition Pru nin abli Nee ds PestlD iseas e Pro blems R ecom mend . BARRIE D, COATS and ASSOCIATES ~+oe-3s3io~s 23535 SuaA Aofd laCrla,U lS030 K i Plant Name sY ~ $ " ~ ® ~ ~ } ~ ~ ~ ~ W ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ m ~ ~ x ~ w ~ ~ m s ~ F ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ F ~ ~ ~ ~ % ~ ~ tai ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U ~ N ~ ~ ~ d w ~ ~ ,~ o ~ Z N ~ ~ gaga ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ w _ ~ ~ ~ $ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Y 7 o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ F- ~ ~ ~ 3 ~ ~ O ~ (~ ' 7 Va 25.0 28 50 35 1 2 3 ' . in 491 X 127/sq. In. ~ :13,247 X sp. class 100% - 113,247 X cond. 8096 ~ :11,922 X loe. 85% • : 7 749 Total Velue 8 Pins 25.0 28 80 25 3 1 4 Pinua tedlab . In 491 X 127/sq. In. ~ = 13,247 X_sp. class 30% - 13,974 X cond. 75% - = 2,981 X loe. 70% ~ = 2088 Total Value 9 Coast lJve Oak 30.0 x multl multl multl 40 40 1 3 4 . In 1824 X S27/sq. In. - :43,848 X sp. class 100% ~ :43,848 X cond. 7S% ~ s 32,888 ~ X loc. 75% - 24 885 Tohl Valus 10 Coast l.iw Oak 19.0 21 40 30 1 3 4 . In 283 X 127/sq. fn. ~ i 7,851 X sp. lass 100% - 17,851 X cond. 75% ~ = 5,739 X loc. 70% - j 4 017 Total Vahs 11 Pine 30.0 33 80 30 1 2 3 . in 707 X 127/sq, in. ~ i 19,078 X sp. class 30% ~ =5,723 X cond. 90% ~ = 5,150 X kx:. 70% ~ : 3,805 Total Velus 12 Caast lJw Oak 38.0 x 25.0 2311 multl 45 75 1 3 4 . In 1134 X S27lsq. In. ~ =30,808 X sp. class 100% ~ 530,808 X cond. 75% ~ = 22,954 X loc. 80% ~ 18383 Total Valus REPLACEMENT TREE V ALLIES 5-gal -536 15-gal -5120 24"box 36"box -51,320 1-BEST, ~ORST !S"box00 52"box -57,000 ~ ~~ "l~f~Y -H R.11fN1 Page 2 of 6 job # 04-02-071 Ma 14 2002 ob T~• ' J e. Am><n>< Job Address: l 15 Pierce Road Job # 2-071 Ma 14 2002 Mea surem ent Con dition Pru nin ablin o Nee ds PesflD lseas e Pro blems R ecom mend . BARRIE D. COATS and ASSOCIATES t+oe-3s31osz 23S,15SwilAad LaGfa,U !5030 Key f Plant Nams ~ g ~' '~ ® ~ ~ `? J ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ iy ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ v ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N s ~ ~ Z4a F b ~ ~ c~ F p ~ ~ ~ uZ~ U ~ v ~ z_ ~ ~ ~ ~y ~ ~ V ~ v~ ~ ~ ~ d u~7 ~ ~a ~ W W N t3 r `! ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ W ~ W ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ •• ~ ~ ~ ~- ~ ~ ~ ~ F ~ W ~ a ~ H ~ ~ ~ ; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C ~ ~ o~ ~ > 13 k 19.0 21 40 50 1 2 3 . In 283 X =27lsq. In. - = 7,851 X sp. class 100% - 17,851 X cond. 9096 - i 8,888 X loc. 70% - 4 820 Total Valw 14 Coast LNa Oak 19.0 22 40 35 2 2 4 . In 283 X 127/sq. in. ~ i 7,851 X sp. class 100% ~ 17,851 X cond. 75% - i 5,739 X loc. 70% ~ i 4 017 Total Valus 1 S Cant lJw Oak 12.0 14 15 20 2 4 8 . In 113 X i27lsq. in. ~ i 3,052 X sp. clans 100% ~ 13,052 X cond. 45% ~ i 1,373 X loc. 50% - 887 Tohl Valw 18 Coast lJw Oak 18.0 18 40 30 2 2 4 . in 201 X 127/sq. in. - i 5,428 X sp. class 100% - 15,428 X cond. 75% ~ = 4,089 X loe. 80% - 2442 Total Valw 17 Deodu Csdar 15.0 18 BD 30 3 2 5 Csdrus dsodera . In 177 X i27lsq. in. - i 4,789 X sp. clans 70% - 13,338 X cond. 80% - i 2,003 X loc. 80% - 1 02 18 CalHomla Black Oak 18.0 18 40 50 3 2 5 . M 201 X S27lsq. in. - i 5,428 X sp. lass 100% ~ =5,428 X cond. 80% ~ = 3,258 X loc. 80% - i 1853 Total Valw Q 0 W REPLACEMENT'1REEVALUSS 5-gal •536 15-gal -5120 ` 24"box ~ 520 36"box -51,320 48"box ~ 55,000 52"box -57,000 72"bex - gi5.000 1 ~ BEST, 5 -WORST Page 3 of 6 0 Job Title: Amini Job Address: 13815 Pierce Road Mea surem ent Con dition Pru nin ablin Ne eds Pest/D iseas e Pro blems R ecom mend . BARRIE D COATS s . and ASSOCIATES @ ~ w c o F ~ ~ W ~ W (Illln 3531051 g ~ Gj ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ Gj ~ ~ a ~ I3S35SwtAood ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ F Z J rj ~ u'3 ~ Gj ~ ~ ~ p la4YayU'!S~ 0: v ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ b Y > ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ V W ~ ~ E- ~ Key i Plant Nams ~ ~ y = N v v 19 D• 14.0 1 S 30 15 4 4 8 164 X;27/sq. In. ^ ; 4,154 X ap. class 100% ;4,154 X cond. 15% ; 823 X Ioc. 40y6 ; 24g ToEal Value 20 Coast lJw Oak 20.0 21 40 35 1 2 3 314 X;27/aq. In. ^ ; 8,478 X ap. class 100% ;8,478 X cond. 90% ^ ; 7,830 X loc. 80% ^ .. , .; 4,578 Total Value 21 Coast live Oak 34.0 38 50 30 1 2 3 907 X;27/sq. In. • ; 24,501 X ap. Bless 100% ^ ;24,501 X cond. 60% ^ ;22.051 X loc. 80% ^ •' 13 231 ToEsl Value 22 Caaat lJw Osk 23.0 24 40 30 1 2 3 a .; .. 41S X;27lsq. In. ^ ; .11,212 X ap. elw 100% ;11,212 X cond. 9096 ^ ; 10,091 X loc. 76% ~ ::.~ 7588 • "` ToW Valus 23 Coast tJw Oak 28.0 30 45 35 1 2 3 '" ~ ~ v w 815 X i27lsq. In. ^ ; 18,817 X sp. clams 100% ;18,817 X cond. 90% ^ ; 14,956 X loc. 75% ~ ~,".' 11 18 toEsi Valus 24 Coast LJw Oak 23.0 25 40 30 2 2 4 ~ . .~+ 1 415 X;27/sq. In. ^ ; 11,212 X sp. class 100% • ;11,212 X cond. 75% ^ ; 8.409 X loc. 75% . ~ ' ! 8307 ?otal Value r REPLACEMENTTREE VALUES . 5-gal x;36 15-gal ~ 5120 24"box~0 36"box ~ 61,320 ~ 1 ~ BEST, ~OR3T !8"box 52"box ~ 57,000 ~~ 72"box ~ S1 S.[~P Pane 4 of 6 Job # 04-02-071 Ma 14 2002 Job Title: Amini Job Address: 13815 Pierce Road • „ Job # 04-02-071 Mav 14, 2002 Mea surem ent Con dition Pru nin ablln Nee ds PestlD iseas e Pro blems R ecom mend . BARRIE D, COATS and ASSOCIATES (!08)3531052 2~355unilAad LaCda,G !5030 Key i Plant Nams ~ ~ $ iii ~ ~ F ~ ~ F ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o: ~ W ~ ~ _ ~ ~ aj ~ ~ T W ~ ~ S3 ~ s ~ ~ ~ F ~ ~ ~ F ~ ~ ~ ~ u~. U ~ Z ~ Z F ~ v~ ~ ~ V ~ N ~ ~ V ~_ ~ Z w ,~ ~ w ~ N t3 ~ ~' p~-C O~ ~ ~' ~ ~ j ~ W ~ ~ W ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Y Z ~ W ~ ~ ~ H ~ W N ~ S ~ F' ~ ~ ~ 3 ~ ~ F ~ ~ ~ ~ Z W ee o~ = Q~ a o. 2S MadroM 8.0 x 8.0 13 20 20 1 2 3 Arbutus mensJssil 84 X i27/sq. in. ^ s 1,728 X sp. dsss 50% 1884 X cond. 90% = 778 X loc. 70% ^ i 544 Total Valus 28 Coast Live Oak 9.0 10 20 15 1 2 3 83.8 X i27lsq. In. ^ = 1,717 X ap. class 100% ^ 11,717 X cond. 90% ^ s 1,545 X loc. 70% ^ = 1082 27 Coast tJw Oak 30.0 30 3S 40 1 2 3 707 X 527/sq. In. ^ 5 19,078 X ap. class 100% :19,078 X cond. BO% ^ = 17,188 X loc. 75% ~ 5 12 878 Total Valus 28 Coast Live Oak 23.0 24 40 55 1 4 5 4 415 X 127/sq. in. ^ :11,212 X_sp. daas 100% ^ 511,212 X cond. 80% ^ : 8,727 X loc. 70% ^ = 4 709 Tohl Valus 29 Coast UYe Oek 21.0 22 40 35 1 3 4 4 348 X S27/sq. In. ^ 5 9,347 X sp. doss 100% 59,347 X cond. 75% ^ = 7,010 X toe. 70% ~ : 4,907 Total Value 30 Cost Law Oak 21.0 23 40 30 3 2 5 348 X 127/sq. in. ^ i 9,347 X sp. class 100% 59,347 X cond. 80% ^ : 5,808 X toe. 70% ^ = 3928 Total Value 0 0 REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES 5-gal •536 15-gal -5120 ~. 24"box - 5420 36"box -51,320 !8"box ~ 55,000 52"box -57,000 wn,~. _,. _. w+• nnn 1-BEST, 5 -WORST Job Title: Amini Job Address: 13815 Pierce Road Job # 04-02-OT1 IVlav 14, ZO(n Measurement Condition PrunindCablin Needs PestlDisease Problems Recommend. BARRIE D. COATS ~ ~ ~ and ASSOCIATES @ a ~ ~ ~ ~ W ~ ~ a W c4ae~3s~1052 g ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ `~~ 23535 Su.at lod ~ ~ ~ ~ w ~ F ~ z ~ N Z ~ ~ ~ p" ~ ~ ~ r p La C1oa U (5030 ~ ~ ~ ~ o U ~ ~ ~ w ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 3 ~ ~ Or Y t ® F ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Z ~ ~ > Key! Plant Name ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 31 k 38.0 40 40 40 1 3 4 1134 X 527/sq. In. ~ :30,808 X sp. class 100% ~ :30.808 X cond. 75% ~ i 22,954 X lac. 7S% ~ = 17 218 Told Valus 32 Callfomla Black Oak 10.0 12 25 20 1 2 3 78.5 X 527/sq. in. ~ = 2,120 X sp. class 100% ~ :2,120 X cond. 90% ~ s 1,908 X loc. 70% ~ = 1335 Total Value 33 Vdl Oak 28.0 30 45 40 1 2 3 815 X S27/sq. In. ~ s 18,817 X sp, class 100% ~ :18,817 X cond. 90% ~ = 14~ X toe. 75% ~ 5 11.218 Total Value ~ REPLACEMENT TREE V ALLTES 5"gal' S36 15-g'1' 5120 24"bo 36"box ~ 51,320 1 ! BEST,~ORST 48"box,000 52"box ~ 57,000 ~ " ~~"t,,... ~ ~ e nm Paoo f. ~~ F • • • BARRIE D. COATS AND ASSOCIATES Horficultural Consultants (408) 353-1052 Fax (408) 353-1238 23535 Summit Rd. l.os Gatos, CA 95033 GL06SARY t..o-dominant (stems, branches) equal in size and rotative importance, usually associated with either the trunks or stems, or scaffold limbs (branches) in the crown Crown -The portion of a tree above the trunk including the branches and foliage. Caltivar - A named plant selection from which identical or nearly identical plants can be produced, usually by vegetative propagation or cloning. Decnrrent - A term used to describe a maturo tree crown composed of branches lacking a central leader resulting in around-headed tree. Eacnrrent - A term used to describe a tree crown in which a strong central leader is present to the top of a tree with lateral branches that progressively decrease in length upward from the base. Girdling root - A root that partially or entirely encircles the trunk and/or large buttress roots, which could restrict growth and downward movement of pliotosynthates. Indnded bark -Bark which is entrapped innarrow-angled attachments of two or more stems, branches, or a stem and branch(es). Such attachments aro weakly attached and subject to splitting out. Kinked root - A taproot or a major root(s) which is sharply bent and can cause plant instability and reduction of movement of water, nutrierrts, and photosynthates. Root Dollar ,The flared, lower portion of the base of a tree where the roots and stem merge. Also referred to as the "root crown". . Leader -The main stem or trunk that forms the apex of the tree. Stem -The axis (trunk of a central leader tree) of a plant on which branches are attached. Temporary branches - A small branch on the trunk or between scaffold branches retained to shade, nourish, and protect the trunk of small young trees. These branches are kept small and gradually removed as the trunk develops. DeSnition of Woody Parts Trunk -The main stem of a tree between the ground and the lowest scaffold branch. Scaffold branches - In decurrent trees, the branches that form the main structure of the crown. Limb - A major structural part. Branch - A smaller part, attached to a limb or scaffold branch. Br$ochlet - A small part, attached to a branch. ~vig -Avery small part attached to a branchlet Leaf- The main photosynthetic organ of most plants. OOO~J3'7 HARRIS D. COATS AND ASSOCIATES Horticultural Consultants - _ __ - ~` - (408) 353-1052 - _. Fax, (408) 353-1238 - 23535. Summit Rd. Los Gatos, CA-9~033:~-~ .~~ _- -- - ~< . _ - _ _ , .:,_- TREE PROTECTION BEFORE, DURING, AND AFTER CONSTRUCTION - These are general recommendations And may be superseded by site-specific instructions ,. BEFORE _. ~,~: ,: 7 :-. - . Plan location of trenching to avoid all possible cuts beneath tree r.auopies. This includes trenches for utilities, irrigation lines, cable TV and roof drains..- Plan construction period fence locations which will prevent equipment travel or material storage beneath tree canopies... Install fences before any construction related equipme~ is allowed on site. This includes pickup trucks. - Inform subcontractors in writing that they must read this docuniem. Require return of signed copies to demonstrate that they have read the docume~. Prune any tree parts, which conflict with construction between August and January. Except for pines which may be pruned between October-January. Only an ISA certified arborist, using ISApruning instructions maybe used for his work. If limbs are in confiid with the construction equipment before the certified arborist is on-site, carpenters may cut off offending parts of 6" diameter or less, leaving an 18" long stub, which should be recut later by the arborist. Under no circumstances may any party remove more than 30% of a trees foliage, or prune so that an unbalanced canopy is created. DURING Avoid use of any wheeled equipmenrt beneath tree canopies. Maintain fences at original location in vertical, undamaged condition until all contractors and subcontractors, including painters aze gone. Clear root collars of retained trees enough to leave 5-6 buttress roots bases visible at 12" from the trunk. Irrigate uses adjacent to construction activity during hot months (June-October). Apply 10 gallons of water per 1" of trunk diameter (measured at 4 '/z') once per 2 week period by soaker hose. Apply water at the dripline, or adjacent to construction not azound the trunk. Apply mulch to make a 3" deep layer in all areas beneath tree canopies and inside fences. Any , organic material which is non toxic may be used. AFTER Irrigate monthly with 10 gallons of water per 1" of trunk diameter with a soaker hose, placed just inside the dripline. Continue until 8" of rain has fallen. Avoid cutting irrigation trenches beneath tree canopies. Avoid rototilling beneath tree canopies since that will destroy the small surface roots which _ absorb water. ~ - - ::-~ Avoid installation of turf or other frequently irrigated plants beneath ,tree canopies. 000®~$ 3 ~ I3ARRIh: I). CoA'1'I~ ANn AssoclA~rrs 23535 Summit Rd Los Gatos, Ca 95030 (408)353-1052 Horticultural Consultants Consulting Arborists ;~ _ ~=•`- i ~ ~~ ~Y ~ : s`.~ t ..r.. ~` ~~ ~ ` ~~ ~~~, '~ ~ 4~ •~ v ~5~~ •~ ~~ •~~ !l I, t ~ ~ ~ i '1'i_~~E~ F'rest>r_vat_ion Protective Fencing • Construction period protection for trees should be provided before grading or other equipment is allowed on the property. Top of fence hung with fluorescent fla8gine tape every 10 feet. ~- 6' chain link or welded wire -~~-- mesh 8' fence post of 2" diameter GI pine or T-angle post ' ~ Fence pt_aced at drip line i t (,,,/~~~ or SOY greater than the tree ~~~ canopy radius ~,t-ere possible Foadway V~en construction is to take place beneath a I~ canopy on one side, the lence should be sQ~f 2-3 leet beyond that construction but Fence/ /i sitino t e ,i ff construction or paving is to take place throughout the area beneath ,the canopy and dripline fencing is not practical snow fencing should be used to protect trunks from damage I Three layers of wire and lath snow fencin~\ _ ~ to t3' above Rround on y t ~ ~• ii, ~ ,t , trees where. construction t' -_il~ ~ will take place beneath ~ .; 8 the canopy ~~~ ~~~ ~ ~~' ~~ between construction and the tree trunk. ~ f-/' ~_~~,~_, ~• Barrie D. Coate ~ - _ - _ 1 ' s, £r Associates ~ Radial Trenchins~ ~ " "~~'"__.-- _ ~-~--1-~~\ ' f ' + (408) 353-1052 .~-_ ~:;~---' grip Life ~ ~, 23535 Summit Road ~ .--Y-' ~`• The Do's and Don'tr of Irrigation -• -.- ~ ~ x~ 95033 ~ ' r:•-_ =~'=°"- ~, Los Gatos CA ~ ""~~~~•~ ,:' Trenching Beneath Tree Canopies ~, =r ~ - I =~ ;" ;' -~-~;~ HORTICULTURAL CONSIILTArITS •~ ~-~ .~ • ~'j'i ~• ~ ~"'^~-~" ~ ~' ,Certified Consultin Arno st . ~ ~~.,• ~"`` y~-w- + ` _ '~`^ ~>. `' ~" 1 4.41 ~ ~ ~ T N (i q * ~ ~ ~ ~. . r ~ I ~ J, - ) 4 ~ f, ,~~,: , ~ ~ ~ ~~ r-~ ~ .~ Root P otection Zone . ~ ="L •~_ .r of ~. .tea abst~~,~~ ~~ ~s° ~~• ~.t'~ ~ r ~ ~ 1 % times the Dripline ~,~`/~j/~~-~~_,~'~. ~..~.-; ~ '~~.~,:~ ~ t~,r ~~~~ ~}~~r, '~' ~ ~.r ~ ~.yh~ ~ Tt.,µr~:~.` .:r14`~tr~ ji ~ .. ';' -~/~.-. •,Y•w~~ ~ ~ .;wx~l' ;~ s' ~~;~ ~~, ~: ~..:~ ;~..t ~ Diameyter ~=~-.~fi~'~ r ,.,•~ ::,~~• ~ ,~ ~# ~i~~, •p}~~ C fit'. r ~.. ~~~' .,;H. f~; ~' „'~' • A'~I C~r., ~~. ` w..i i .h I~ ,ir-~.- ~ r ~ ! r y _ .:a ii~ ;.. ~ r„~ ~f''., h.4~' ~j r~ .1 `1'' j t~ ~ 'os: w~'!'rwl~~a ~!-a;~ ~ 1,. ~t 7 . ~'h 1.` rl..;-v ~ ~~. ~ ~ b.~ 'p1e~ ~•.. N~ ~' ~'7".i, ~ .;,,..~P i .r iv ~' 1tiw~ _ t ir,j Z4 ~~' ~~ ~~r ~1'=ii.1; ,>.'. N~ ~~r', rY ~:..~. r a.+ ~t~T~t .~~ t ~ ayo.~s '!4~r ~y . 7,' ,, ~ ~ r. .{ ~~~ 11 "¢4 : ~~ F ,. ii"i y+ , a. r+,..ry4a.. - •,. ~~:;iS .•z. t .v . y. ~ +~~ 3 'Ir n T 1 a 1 FI~ r ?. ld i . • ,F. 3+R ~. ~f ~ us ,:F, ~i,„ ~" Y it A, [,~,,;R~. ,~ fir" 'F ~: .~ +, i, .t, h ~,F .,< ,,..d r~i' ~ ~~` r y ~ ~ {,y.,.r .. ~, +; t ,~,: t. '~' .~-~~ ~`~~ !'&,1~i~,~ _~ ~,T;~B .' :a. 1f. + .Y ~. ~, ,:~i / +-" ' :i d~ d y• *~I,F.:~~ a .'; '. iA ..,`r~ ;_ `. J;~-•~F~'~, .S t .'~C .; '~ ,.~.~ ~C .,~.F' y,'~.• .4"• i"~t` ~ ' 1j~' ..•~!. ~P.',,~w.j'.~+• 0 tr a~ ~1 '2°F l~Kl 7~ ~1"' 'Y. 1.7::e 1~/ a. 'e' ~~~, /w I .:r ~.` ~ e 1 ~ " r~,y, ~r~ ~y ~`'~ 9pt~IrL ~~' ~`~~' - e1., d~~ ~ r ,~~ r tr ~'+Ve /~ ~ ~ ~a~ ~f~? ~, ~;•r3 .'~ ~~~ ,~~•: , :~~'s~ ~ r 7 ~~ra ~ ~i y ~~,,. r ,'~~ ~ ~ 1 xs~t'L ~ ~;~ ~ ~ r s t~ ~~i~ e/`i . ~ ~1 a~~ +~ ! ~ ~ ~~ r~ ~ ~~~~+~~ w; i a, t •• } }; ~" ~~r,#~;y t'~ ,a~j ~ i~~'~ r ~~ ~. 1'~°j ':[: 1 ~j4 r ~f+ * ~• OL F, s:~'F~ ~1~; r,,. ~wir~! t f ~C r$~' j ~ 1 ,~ ~ Y .:~ilt'~ilky~c '' vs.'~ti ` ~`~+. ~~- ,}v~ ~'~' i! ~ - ,i~ ~~T~NI' St ~ ~~r4 9~ ~ 'a l~ ft ~~ ,r ~ ~ ~ ~44 ~ ~ ~~ ~P. ~ ~ L. I ~'• 4 ~. 't s. c .) 1 ,r Al~~..; ~y ..vs~~~.,~'r.~~.?' ~~ ~.~ ^» t ~1 .. ~~, a~i' a +y,, ~, G_ `, '. t.." y. N +' ~'i:'l~''~ ' ~~j'!'pp^if~,, ti '(•Y', ti" _ r... S x7., 5'y. t ~• 4. ~ « •µ. sn •, . ,~, ~, 't ~t"1 _~ i .1~'i' i 3 ~ t A, ~ ~.~ ...~",., ~ t'. 3. ~ i '. :i ~ f r ~ . '`~r~~atlon~A[lat~ .~l,lirtes'may !ie` installed ,` ~ '' ~. %'~,p ~,~ >' ~' ~"~`~~'~~!,' {M1 Y i i .li•'. ~` 1inche~' ~e irt~hand dN'• ~ren'~ches in areas ~ ~~3 ,. J~~~r ~`~,•~~ ~ °~ ~~~~` ~fl ~dr~r f .Y,. ~ L',- v. ~• _a~.. r ,/ , ka :r. a+i '`Ct~ntal~iin~sh~~llQwa ab$orbing roods if' :t ~ - :t `~ ii ~~ ~ ~~ 3 ~~etrenches~~e~at~right angles to the trunks= ~., _ ,~,~, .f `~ ~~ `'~` ~, r r . pposed ta;.~uthn acrossahe :root mass area: ~' ~. ~ 1 . f tau ~•.. 8 , .. , . , ~ , - ~ t'r r: r y. M Ma~nllnes ~~°F~~tnches,,deep) must be installed outside •~ ~ ~ ~, ; . '' •• ~•~`~ ~(,)f~ 3 e roc~~p~rdtecbQt~~torle.^ Yn case may sprinklers wet ;.F • ~~ ~ i~ea•~- " t •'='ti ~ es:the tKundiameter of the trunk. f is ''r y'v' ,{SKI .~ ~ 77{~~~..~ T r t 1: `,ti @`(r r.: a ~. 'y .. '~ l"~ r yn~ ~: ],`t'A+'s. 1'44 F;„~` t •~ ~ _ ~ 1~~. ~.5; . 1 ~~1 ~,^ i i. ~ v '~ %~ ~'t~,rti~. >>:: ~;~ ' r . ;: u~ . Q*,1 ~ ~ ;~ ;f: n r ~ ; ,, \ r. 1 ,~,~4 •~ ';;3r ~~ ~ : ~~, y ~ n~~ °~ r _;. ing , ~ ' t. r ~ ~;: pp,5'~ ~-( 1"-;~. :n,~ 1, *~ 11 Y Y A 1 ' ~M' ~ ! ~i{ . •+7 ' a , a ,L ~ ;.~; ~ ~ y.. , j 1 .. f ,~ • A ~-inch Plywood and Wood Chips Platform Buffer _ for Areas Beneath A Tree Canopy which Must Be Used for Foot Traffic • Prepared by: Barrie D. Coate £r Associates s::. -Horticultural Consultants _:ti~.~°+ _ (408) 353-1052 -~: __~~ _ __ 23535 Summit Road s:,: ,.. ~~ `"~T Los Gatos, CA 95033 ~~0~~~ ,r ~ ~ - %' .~ ~ ~ __ __ - /' ~ PPP111 p ~ "/ ~ / ~ - "/" ,f..-.~ _, ~' ~' ~ ~~:.~s ,°, ~ RI PROTECTTVE FENCING ga / GAG,- _ __~~_ 1 ;;,~ "~~~ 441.0 ~~ -~~~~ ~"`. _ E ~ y /' ~~ ~. .. ,tT r ail ~. ' ~~I }. _ .~ ~ / , I~ .k ^ "~~ - ~ _ ~- / • ® o ~ \ ' i ~; ~ .., c ~ '! ~ ~' •, i ,`, gyp. l ~" 1. P,. ' T ~,~ S.~ ' ;A 'Z l ~ ~ ~ ~ / P3~Gti~~V p,CO '~.f~ ~~ -~ ~ I ~ ~ U S I ~ I ~ i ~~~0 Q P~ ~ II ~~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~, ~ ~ F~ .~~~~~ R9' ,.,~~'•~~ •. BARRI E D. COATS Attachment 4 and ASSOCIATES Horticutural Consultants 23535 Summit Roed Los Gatos, CA 95033 X081353-1052 REVISED TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS AT THE AMINI PROPERTY 13815 PIERCE ROAD SARATOGA Prepared at the Request of: Kristin Borel Community Planning Dept. City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 • Prepared by: Michael L. Bench Consulting Arborist July 18, 2002 Job # 04-02-071 A ~~~~o~~~ JUL 2 5 2002 CITY OF SARi1TOGA ~'OMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ~" OOOOa 3 REViSID TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECOMtv~VDATIONS AT THE A1-gNl PROPERTY 13815 PIERCE ROAD SARATOGA Assignment At the request of the Community Development Department; Planning Division, City of Saratoga, this report reviews the proposal to demolish the existing residence and to construct a new residence with abasement inthe.context=of~potential damage to or the removal of existing trees. This report rates the condition of the trees on site that are protected by City of Saratoga ordinance. Recommendations are included to mitigate damage to these trees during construction. ' The plans reviewed for this report are the construction plans prepared by the Craftsman's Guild, Inc., Cupertino, Sheets 2-8, but are undated. No Grading and Drainage Plan is provided with this set of plans. We prepared a previous report regarding this property on .May 14, 2002. Summary This proposal exposes 33 trees to some level of risk by construction. One tree is directly in conflict with proposed construction. However, at least 5 additional trees may be sufficiently damaged that they would not survive. Replacement trees, which equal the values of the trees removed, are suggested. Procedures are suggested to mitigate the damage that would be expected to the retained trees. A bond equal to l 5% the value of the retained trees is suggested in accordance with the levels of the expected risks. Observations There are at least 33 trees on this site that may be exposed to some level of risk of damage by proposed construction. The attached map shows the location of these trees and their approximate canopy dimensions. Each tree has been tagged with a metallic label with an assigned number. The 33 trees are classified as follows: Trees # 1, 2, 7, 33 Valley oak (Quercus lobata) Tree #3 California bay laurel (Umbellularia calrfornica) Tree #4 Coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) Trees #5, l 8, 32 California black oak (Quercus kelloggii) Trees #6, 9, 10, 12-16, 19-24, 26-31 Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) Trees #8, 11 Monterey pine (Punts radiata) Tree # 17 Deodar cedar (Cedrus deodara) Tree #25 Pacific Madrone (Arbutus merriesii) The particulars regarding these trees (species, trunk diameter, height, spread, health, and structure) are provided in the attaehme>irts that follow this text. PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L BENCH, CONSULTINQ ARBORIST NLY 18, 2002 000044 REV ISF.D TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECOMIvIDdDATIONS AT THE AIuQTTi PROPERTY 2 13815 PIERCE ROAD SARATOGA The health and structure of each specimen is rated on a scale of 1 to 5 (Excellent - Extremely Poor) on the data sheets that follow this text. The combination of health and structure ratings foi the=33 trees are converted to descriptive ratings as follows: Exceptional S imens Fine S 'mess Fair S imens Marginal S 'mans Poor S imens 2, 5, 6, 9, 10, 1, 3, 4, 14, 16, 8, 15 19 11, 12, 13, 20, 17, 18, 28, 30 21, 22, 23, 24, - 25, 26, 27, 29, 31 32 33 Fine specimens must be retained if possible but without major design revisions. Mitigation procedures recommended here are intended to limit damage in order to prevent decline. Fair specimens are worth retaining but again without major design revisions. Mitigation must prevent further decline. Marginal specimens are typically worth retaining but could be removed if necessary to facilitate construction. Mitigations recommended here are intended to prevent significant decline. Poor specimens cannot significantly improve regardless of care. For any which are considered hazardous, removal is recommended. For those retained, mitigation may not be typically requested. The root collar of tree #6 is covered by fill soil. This condition exposes the tree to several serious diseases, which attack the root collar when conditions are favorable for the disease. Risks to Trees by Proposed Construction Demolition of the existing residence, the existing garage, and the existing out building has the potential of causing damage to the adjacent trees. Mitigation procedures would be required to prevent significant root loss, broken branches, or bark injuries. Tree #8 is in conflict with the proposed terrace structure. I recommend that this tree be ; considered lost. Trees # 10, 11, 13, 16, 17 and 28 are located within a few feet of the proposed footprint of the new residence. The excavations for the footing of the residence and for the basement would result in severe mot loss to these trees. As an example, tree #28 is a 23-inch diameter coast live oak. The basement light well is proposed within about 6 feet of the trunk of tree #28. However, the actual cut would be at least of 2-4 feet beyond of the edge of the proposed light well retaining wall to provide a workspace for construction. Thus, PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTWG ARBORIST JULY IR, 2002 ~00~~~ REVISED TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECCN~A~ATIONS AT THE AMINI PROPERTY j t38I5 PIERCE ROAD SARATOGA the actual cut would be within 2-3 feet of the trunk of tree #28. At this distance, this tree would lose approximately 50% of its root system, and it would be rendered unstable, . because the cut would no doubt remove buttress roots, which are essential for stability. Preservation of tree #28 would require a minimum distance of 18 feet between the trunk and the edge of the actual soi] cut. This means that the footprint of the house would have ~ ~~ to be relocated approximately 10 feet further west. Also, bear in mind that tree #28 is only in fair health. A tree that is in less than ideal, health is less tolerant of root loss. This has a bearing on the proportion of root loss which it will tolerate. The .proposed excavation for the light well would pose a serious risk to trees #27 and 30 as well at the location proposed. Tree #27 is a coast live oak with a trunk diameter of 30 inches. In order for tree #27 to survive, there must be no cuts or excavation within 20 feet of the trunk. Tree #30 is also a coast live oak that has a trunk, diameter of 21 inches. In order for tree #30 to survive, there must be no cuts or excavations within 18 feet of the trunk If the location of the residence were located 10 feet toward the west, this distance should be sufficiern to expect the survival of these trees in their present condition as well if protection of the root zone betwcen the house and tree trunks is effective. However, this relocation of the residence would put tree #9 at risk unless the terrace is redesigned. This is partially based on the assumption that the proposed terrace is a masonry structure that would require a footing. If a soil cut of even 4 inches in depth would be made to construct this driveway, trees # 1, 23, 24, 27, 28, 29 and 30 would likely suffer significant root losses. In my opinion, trees #27, 28, 29, and 30 would not survive construction of the driveway for that portion that is proposed across the root zones of these trees on the east side of their trunks. If any underground utilities must be replaced or upgraded, it will be essential that the trench locations be planned prior to construction and that the trenches are located exactly as planned. This must not be le~~ up to contractors or to the utility providers. Comments Because of the location of the clusters of trees at this site, it will be difficult to design a new residence of significant size between the clusters of trees without some losses. Because of the density of the trees behind the house, in my opinion, it is preferable to sacrifice some of those trees behind the house, oak trees #l0, 13, 16, Monterey pine #11, Deodar cedar # 17, than to risk those trees in front of the house. If trees # 10, 11, 13, l 6, and l 7 are removed, I also recommend the removal of trees # 15 and 19, which are poor specimens primarily due to crowding. However, I believe that trees #27, 28, and 29 must be preserved, partially because of their large size and excellent health. Tree #30 is also large but of poorer health, a condition which may be correctable. A soil cut of 10-15 inches is required in order to construct "Turf Block" paving. In this event, it would not be feasible to construct a turf block driveway between trees #23 and 24. Tree #23 requires a minimum of 18 feet between the trunk and a soil cut, and tree #24 requires a minimum of 15 feet between the trunk and a soil cut. Either the driveway must be constructed on top of the existing soil grade or one of these trees must be sacrificed in PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST JULY 18, 2002 D~~aQs REVISED TREfi SURVEY AND PRESERVATIO*T RECOl~9~NDATIONS AT THE AM>TII PROPERTY 4 i 3815 PIERCE ROAD SARATOGA order for the driveway .to be moved. In the event of the latter, I recommend that tree #23 . be retained because of its larger size and better condition. The plan appears to show that the driveway is to be constructed approximately 2 feet closer to tree # 1 than the existing driveway. In this event, tree # 1 would not be expected to survive. Recommendations 1. I recommend that the plans be dated. Undated plans often present significant problems during construction, where plans are changed after permits are issued. 2. I recommend that the driveway be redesigned. I have presented an alternative on the attached plan. bear in mind that the other trees, such as trees #3, 6, 31, and 33 have minimum distances that must be maintained between their trunks and soil cuts. The minimum distance that these trees require is as follows: Tree #3 -10 feet Tree #6 -18 feet Tree #31 - 20 feet Tree #33 -18 feet 3. I recommend that the footprint of the residence be relocated 10 feet toward the west in order to expect the survival of trees #27, 28, and 29. This relocation would require a redesign of the terrace. There must be no soil cuts within 20 feet of the trunk of tree #9. 4. I suggest that construction period fencing be provided and located as noted on the attached map. Fencing must be of chainlink, a minimum height of 5 feet, mounted on steel posts driven 2 feet (minimum) into the ground. The fence must be in place prior to the arrival of any other materials or equipment and must remain in place until all construction is completed and given final approval. The protective fencing must not be temporarily moved during construction. Fencing must be located exactly as shown on the attached map. I recommend that a root buffer be required on the entire south side of the residence between the foundation and the protective fencing, adjacent to Trees # 14, l 8, 20, and 21. A root buffer consists of 6 full inches of coarse bark chips (shredded redwood is not acceptable for this purpose due its compressibility) be spread over the existing grade, which must immediately be covered by 1 inch plywood (full sheets), tied together, and secured to prevent slippage. 6. It will not be feasible to trench for a drain between the trunks of trees #20 and 2l and the foundation of the residence. If this is planned, the drain location must be redesigned. 7. I recommend that a Grading and Drainage Plan be provided and reviewed by the city arborist. PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST JULY 18.200': Q~~~~~ REVISED TIc6E SIJR VEY AND PRESERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS AT TI-IR AMiNI PROPERTY 13815 PIERCE ROAD SARATOGA 8. There must be no grading, trenching, or surface scraping inside the driplines of • retained trees (either before or after the construction period fencing is installed or removed). Where this may conflict with drainage~or other requirements, the city arborist must be consulted. 9. Trenches for any utilities (gas, electricity, water, phone, TV cable, etc.) must be located outside the driplines of retained trees. For any tree which this cannot be achieved, I suggest that the city arborist be consulted. l 0. I suggest that the root collar of tree #6 must be excavated to expose the tops of the bumess roots without injuring the root bark This must be done by an air spade or pressure washer to remove the excess soil. A minimum space of approximately 12 inches around the trunk must be exposed. Air spade operators include: Aire Excavating Company 650/298-8937 and Urban Tree Management 650/321-0202. 11. Any old irrigation lines, sewer lines, drain Lines, etc., under the canopies of the existing trees, if unused, must be cut off at grade and left in the ground. 12. Supplemental irrigation must be provided to retained trees #l, 6, 14, 18, 20, 21, 27, 29, and 31 during the dry months (any month receiving less than 1 inch of rainfall). Irrigate with 10 gallons for each inch of trunk diameter every 2 weeks throughout the construction period. This can be achieved by the use of a simple soaker hose, which must be located near the dripline for the entire canopy circumference. 13. Excavated soil must not be piled or dumped (even temporarily) under the canopies of trees. Loose soil must not be allowed to slide down slope to cover the root collars of retained trees. ] 4. Any pruning must be done by an ISA certified arborist and according to ISA, Western Chapter Standards, 1998. 15. Landscape pathways and other amenities constructed under the canopies of trees must be done completely on grade without excavation. 16. Landscape irrigation trenches (or any other excavations), inside the driplines of trees, must be no closer than 15 times the trunk diameter, if the trenching direction is across the root zone. However, radial trenches (i.e., like the spokes of a wheel) may be done closer if the trenches reach no closer than 5 times the trunk diameter to the tree's trunk, and if the spokes are at least 10 feet apart at the perimeter. 17. Sprinkler irrigation must be designed not to strike the trunks of trees. Further, spray irrigation must not be designed to strike inside the driplines of oak trees. • YRF.PAItID BY: MICHAEL. L. BENCH, CONSULTING ARAORlST JULY 18. 2002 oooo~a REVISED TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVAT:DN RECOhRv~NDATIONS AT THE AMlNJ PRC?PERTY 13815 PIERCE ROAD sARA71D('A 18. Lawn or other plants that require frequent watering must be limited to a maximum of 20% of the entire root zone and a minimum distance of 7 times the trunk diameter away from the trunks of oak trees. 19. Bender board or similar edging material must not be used inside the dripIines of existing trees, because its installation requires trenching of 4-6 inches, which may result in significant root damage. 20. I suggest that the species of plarrts used in the root zones of oak trees be compatible with the environmental and cultural requirements of the oak species indigenous to this area. A publication about plarrts compatible with California native oaks can be obtained from the California Oak Foundation, 1212 Broadway, Suite 810, Oakland 94612. 21. Landscape materials (cobbles, decorative bark, stones, fencing, etc.) must not be installed directly in contact with the bark of trees because of the risk of serious disease infection. 22. If trees are in the path of discharge of drain dissipators or downspouts, those devices must be relocated. The discharge must be directed a minimum of 15 feet to the side of the think of arty tree. 23. Materials or equipment must not be stored, stockpiled, dumped inside the canopy driplines of trees, or buried on site. Any excess materials (including mortar, concrete, paint products, etc.) must be removed from site. Value Assessment . . The values of the trees are addressed according to ISA standazds, Seventh Edition. The following trees are expected to be removed. Tree # 8 $2,088 Tree # l 0 $4,026 Tree # 11 $3,608 Tree # 13 $4,831 Tree # 16 $2,442 Tree # 17 $1,204 Total $18,199 They have values as follows: This is equivalent to three 48 inch boxed and two 36 inch boxed or one 72 inch boxed and one 48 inch boxed native trees. Replacements aze suggested. The combined value of all of the other trees is $189,753. I suggest a bond equal to 15% (=$28,463) of their total value to assure their protection. Acceptable native tree replacements aze: PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTWCT ARBORIST JULY 18.2002 DD~~d REVISID TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECOMW4?iDA77ONS AT THE AMWI PROPERTY 7 13815 PlI~tCE ROAD SARATOGA _ Coast live oak - Quercus agrifolia Malley oak - Quercus lobata Big leaf maple - Acer macrophyllum California buckeye - Aesculus californica Coast Redwood -Sequoia sempervirens Respectfully submitt , Michael L. Bench, Associat~e•~ ~ . ~~ (~o`~ Barrie D. Coate, Principal ~ '' ~''' MLB/sl. Enclosures: Refer to Report May 14, 2002 PREPARFJ~ BY: MICHAEL L_ BENCH, CONSULTWG ARBORIST JULY I8, 2002 • • • 000~~0 SARATOGA FIRE /~ 406 B67 2760 04/29/ - Attachment ~ BUILDING SITE APPROVAL CHECK LISZ N/A means NOT APPLICABLE FILE #: 02-013 DATE: Apri126, 2002 # OF LOTS: ONE APPLI ANT. ~/K~r1 ~ -- LOCATION: 13815 PIERCE ROAD ~/oQ-~~~ 1: Water supply and access for fire protection are acceptable. NOTE: FIRE FLOW REQUIRED N EXCEEDS HYDRANT CAPACITY.I3R SPRINKLER SYSTEM REQUIRED. Y~ 2: Property is located in a designated hazardous fire area. Y f 3: Plans checked for weed/brush abatement accessibility. 4: Roof covering shall be fire retardant, Uniform Building Code Class A prepared or built-up roofing. Re-roofing less than 10% shall be exempt. (Ref. Uniform Fire Code Appendix 3, City of Saratoga Code 16-20:210.) 5: Early Warning Fire Alarm System Shall be installed and maintained in accordance with the provisions, city of Saratoga Code Article 16-60. (Alternative requirements, sprinkler systems, 16-60-E.) 6: Early Warning Fire Alarm System shall have documentation relative to the proposed installation and shall be submitted to the fire district for approval. Y J 7: Automatic sprinklers shall be installed in newly constructed attached/detached garages (2 heads per stall), workshops, or storage areas which are not constructed as habitable space. To ensure proper sprinkler operation, the garage shall have a smooth, flat, horizontal ceiling. The designer/architect is to contact San Jose Water company to determine the size of service and meter needed to meet fire suppression and domestic requirements. (City of Saratoga Code 16-15.090 [I]) N/A 8: All fire hydrants shall be located within 500' from the residence and deliver no less than 1000 gallons/minute of water for a sustained period of 2 hours. (City of Saratoga Code 14-30:040 [C]) 9: Automatic sprinklers are required for the new 8669 sq. ft. residential dwelling. A 4-head calculated 13R sprinkler system is required. Documentation of the proposed installation and alI calculations shall be submitted to the fire district for approval. The sprinkler system must be installed by a licensed contractor. NOTE: NFPA 13R WITH NO EXCEPTIONS, NO FDC. • lon~anecker-02-0f3-138!5 pierce rd.wpd 000051 SARATOGH FIRE 40o Sol 27tiv ~O-'/25/02 05~'+oar, r. ~.,~_ 2 -Building Site Approval Check List #: 02-013 _ ..._ N/A 10: Fire hydrants: developer shall install fire hydrant(s) that meet the fire district's specifications. Hydrant(s) shall be installed and accepted prior to construction of any building. Y ~ i 1: Driveways: All driveways shall have a 14' minimum with plus 1' shoulders. Secondary Access not required A: Slopes from 0% to I I % shall use a double seal coat of O &. S' or better on a 6" aggregate base from a public street to the proposed dwelling. B: Slopes from 11% to 15% shall be surfaced using 2.5" of A.C. or better on a 6" aggregate base from a public street to the proposed dwelling. . a C: Slopes from 15% to 17% shall be surfaced using a 4" PCC concrete rough surfaced on a - 4" aggregate base from a public street to the proposed dwelling D: Curves: Driveway shall have a minimum inside radius of 21'. N/A E: Turnouts: Construct a passing turnout 10' wide and 40' long as required by the fire district. Details shall be shown on building plans. N/A 12: Turn-azounds: construct aturn-azound at the proposed dwelling site having a 33' outside radius. Other approved types must meet the requirements of the fire district. Details shall be shown on the building plans and approved by the fire district. Y ~ 13: parking: Provide a parking azea for two emergency vehicles at the proposed dwelling site or as required by the fire district. Details shall be shown on building plans. N/A ~ 4 ~ Security Gate: Gate width shall not be less than 14'. Gate access shall be through a Medeco lock box purchased from the fire department. Details shall be shown on building plans. N/A ~ 15: Bridges: All bridges and roadways shall be designed to sustain 35,000 pounds dynamic loading. ..~„ % . VED: ~' .. Chief Ernest e • longe~ieckcr-02-013-13815 pierce rd.wpd ~V UU V a,~iGr r .o o ~~ - o ~~~~ o~ ~' Attachment 6 ~~~ ~2~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~O~_ 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 • (408) 868-1200 Incorporated October 22, 1956 April 30, 2002 Mr. Mike Amini 10566 S. De Anza Boulvazd Cupertino, CA 95014 RE: 13851 Pierce Road Geotechnical Clearance Dear Mr. Amini, COUNCIL MEMBERS: Evan Baker Sian Eogosian John Meha/1ey Nrck Slreit Ann Wai;onsrnilh We have issued revised Geotechnical Clearance for the above referenced pmject. It is based on the Supplemental Geotechnical Review Memorandum prepazed by the City Geotechnical Consultant, dated Apri129, 2002. If ou have an uestions r y y q egazdmg this, please do not hesitate to call me. Sincerely, ~~ ' Iveta Harvancik Associate Engineer (408) 868-1274 Attachments: 1. Geotechnical Clearance Conditions memorandum prepared by Iveta Harvancik, dated Apri130, 2002 2. Supplemental Geotechnical Review Memorandum prepazed by the City Geotechnical Consultant, dated Apri129, 2002. Cc: Community Development Department, City of Sazatoga 00003 P.r ntp ~! nn or unl or'! nZnp. i MEMORANDUM TO: Community Development Department CC: Applicant FROM: Iveta Harvancik, Associate Engineer SUBJECT: Revised Geotechnical Clearance Conditions for Amini,13851 Pierce Road DATE: Apri130, 2002 Geotechnical Clearance is approved for the above referenced project. Revised conditions of approval, based on the review memo from the City Geotechnical Consultant dated April 29, 2002 are: 1. The Project Engineering Geologist and Project Geotechnical Engineer shall review and approve all geotechnical aspects of the final development plans (i.e., site preparation and grading, landslide mitigation, and design parameters for foundations, pavement and retaining walls) to ensure t~ their recommendations have been properly incorporated. The results of the plan reviews shall be summarized by the Project Engineering Geologist and Project Geotechnical Engineer in a letter(s) and submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to issuance of the Grading Permit. 2. The Project Engineering Geologist and Project Geotechnical Engineer shall inspect, test (as needed), and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project construction. The inspection shall include, but not necessarily be limited to: site preparation and grading, site surface and subsurface drainage improvements, and excavations for foundations and retaining walls prior to the placement of steel and concrete. The results of these inspections and the as-built conditions of the project shall be described by the Project Engineering Geologist and Project Geotechnical Engineer in a letter(s) and submitted to~ City Engineer for review and approval prior to finalization of the Grading Permit. -1- 000054 J /~ 4. The owner (applicant) shall pay any outstanding fees associated with the City Geotechnical Consultant's review of the project prior to project Zone Clearance. 5. The owner (applicant) shall enter into agreement holding the City of Saratoga harmless from any. claims or liabilities caused by or arising out of soil or slope instability, slides, slope failure or other soil related and/or erosion related conditions. -2- ~~ OOOJ~S .- 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408)867-3438 MEMORANDUM TO: John Cherbone, Public Works Director FROM: City Geotechnical Consultant SUBJECT: Supplemental Geotechnical Review (S0061B) RE: Amini 13815 Pierce Road • DATE: Apri129, 2002 At your request, we have completed a supplemental geotechnical review of the subject application using: Supplemental Letter - Geotechnical Geological Investigation (letter), prepazed by GeoQuest, Inc., dated April 12, 2002. In addition, we have reviewed pertinent technical documents from our office files. DISCUSSION • The applicant is proposing demolition of an existing one-story residence, and construction of a new, two- story residence with basement and. attached garage in the general location of the existing residence. No grading plan indicating the extent and amount of earthwork quantities has been provided for our review. In our first review memorandum (dated February 5, 2002), we noted that the proposed development is potentially constrained by slope instability associated with reactivation of an underlying large landslide (Ols), shallow landsliding on the existing cut and fill slopes in the northern and central portions of the property, potentially expansive soil and rock materials, downslope creep and shallow landsliding of colluvial and non- engineered fill materials, and strong seismic shaking. Consequently, we recommended that an engineering geologic and geotechnical engineering investigation be performed to address the potential constraints involved with proposed development of the property. In our second review memorandum (dated April 12, 2002), we noted that the Project Engineering Geologist had conducted an Engineering Geologic Study and concluded that the underlying lazge land ' Ols is relativel stable and that the ro osed develo ment is feasible from a eolo 'c stand oint. !!fie ( ) Y P P P g gl P Project Engineering Geologist also concluded that active shallow landsliding occurring in the northwestern ~~~~~s John Cherbone ~ -~ Apri129, 2002 .Page 2 S0061B . portion of the property does not threaten the proposed improvements. However, if additions aze proposed for this area in the future, we recommended that additional geotechnical investigations be performed to determine geotechnical feasibility. We also noted that the Project Geotechnical Engineer had investigatesi_the site conditions and provided geotechnical design criteria. However, the two independent consultants' understanding of the extent and thickness of existing fill material was inconsistent. Specifically, on Page 6 of the previous GeoQuest report (dated Mazch 29, 2002), the Project Geotechnical Engineer stated that "Coyle (the Project Engineering Geologist) estimates the house area fills to be as thick as 10 feet." However, no design recommendations were presented for the basement structure to address this fill material. Consequently, we recommended that supplemental geotechnical evaluations be performed to clarify the nature of the existing artificial fill and whether the proposed basement will extend through the fill materials. We also recommended that the Project Geotechnical Engineer re-evaluate recommended design criteria for the emplacement of piers through the existing fill materials (if necessazy), especially considering the close proximity of the proposed development to creep prone slopes. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDED ACTION • -Our review of the above referenced document indicates that the Project Geotechnical En eer has gm considered our comments and addressed our previous concerns. The Project Geotechnical Engineer states that no fill is anticipated in the azea of the basement. In addition, the Project Geotechnical Engineer has reiterated the design criteria for the basement (noting that the basement should be supported on a rigid structural mat) and the design criteria -for the house foundation (noting that the non-basement portions of the house should be supported on deep drilled friction piers). The Project Geotechnical Engineer also states that any piers located within 20 feet of the adjacent north-facing slope should be designed to resist creep forces to a depth of 8 feet below ground surface. Consequently, we recommend that the following conditions be satisfactorily completed prior to issuance of permits: 1. Geologic and Geotechnical Plan Reviews -The Project Engineering Geologist and Project Geotechnical Engineer shall review and approve all geotechnical aspects of the final development plans (i.e., site prepazation and grading, landslide mitigation, and design pazameters for foundations, pavement and retaining walls) to ensure that their recommendations have been properly incorporated. OOOJ~'7 --~ - John Cherbone ~ ~' Apri129, 2002 Page 3 S0061~8 The results of the plan reviews shall be su_*n*nar~ed by the Project Engineering Geologist Project Geotechnical Engineer in a letter(s) and submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. 2. Geologic and Geotechnical Field Inspection -The Project Engineering Geologist and Project Geotechnical Engineer shall inspect, test (as needed), and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project construction. The inspection shall include, but not necessarily be limited to: site preparation and grading, site surface and subsurface drainage improvements, and excavations for foundations and retaining walls prior to the placement of steel and concrete. The results of these inspections and the as-built conditions of the project shall be described by the Project Engineering Geologist and Project Geotechnical Engineer in a letter(s) and submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to finial project approval. This review has been performed to provide technical advice to assist the City in its discretionary permit decisions. Our services have been limited to review of the documents previously identified, and a v~ review of the property. Our opinions and conclusions aze made in accordance with generally accepted principles and practices of the geotechnical profession. This warranty is in lieu of all other warranties, either expressed or implied. • oO~V4 V ,,~u 1 29 02 07: 57a i , GeoQuest, Inc. 408-8 Att chment 7 i ;. ~:. ..., .:.,-~~ _. %r• GeoQaest, Inc. 29 July 2002 Project No. 02-105 Mr. Mike Amini, Craftsmen's Guild 10566 S. De Anza Blvd. Cupertino, California 95014 Subject: RESPONSE TO CITY REVIEW - GEOTECHNICAL/GEOLOGIC INVESTIGATION Proposed MoazenVAmini Residence 13815 Pierce Road Saratoga, California • Dear Mr. Amini: In accordance with your request, GeoQuest, Inc. is pleased to provide this response to the City of Saratoga review of your project for the proposed residence at l 3815 Pierce Road in Saratoga, California. GeoQuest, Inc. previously submitted a 29 March 2002 Geotechnical investigation report for the project (hereinafter "Report"). Mr. John Coyle of John Coyle & Associates, Inc., Engineering Geologists ("Coyle"; Los Altos, California) also performed a geologic evaluation of the property and presented the results in a March 28, 2002 report. In addition, a 12 Apri12002 Supplemental Letter was submitted by GeoQuest, [nc., responding to City of Saratoga (hereinafter "City") concerns presented in an April 12, 2002 review Memorandum from the City. It is understood that the City now is considering requiring that the planned house be moved ] 0 feet further back (north) on the site. Moving the house back would extend both the basement and the non-basement portions of the house significantly closer to the unstable intermediate slope north from the house area. This cut-fill slope is as steep as 1.25 horizontal to 1 vertical, likely contains up to 10 feet of fill material, and has failed in two places. The City's earlier Memorandum expressed concerns about the proximity of the house to the slope, which were addressed in GeoQuest's supplemental letter. The previous Report, Mr. Coyle's work, the City's Memorandum, and the supplemental letter were based on the placement of the new house at the approximate • - 20Z2U Fourth Slrect,1117 5nrnto~a. CA 9507(1 phone 40R.8G8.O1G8 lax 90R.8G8.I06R t jmaurer,a;pacbell, nct 00009 „sal 29 02 07:57a GeoQuest, Inc. ~- 408-868-9068 P•2 Proposed Moazeni/Amini Residence Project No. 02-105 • 13815 Pierce Road 29 July 2002 Saratoga, California -- - _~_~~ - - Page 2 location of the existing house. This provides sufficient clearance from the steep intermediate slope to the house such that the basement will be supported on non-fill insitu soils, and the remainder of the house and improvements, provided they are drilled pier-supported, will be provided sufficient buffer from the unstable slope. It also is understood that moving the house may entail the removal of several trees on or near the steep slope behind the house, resulting in further de-stabilization of the slope. The undersigned has discussed moving the house closer to the slope with Mr. Coyle, and both the undersigned and Mr. Coyle recommend against such a move. This letter consists of professional opinions and conclusions by a consulting geotechnical engineer. The onlywarranty orguarantee made bythe consultant in connection with services performed for this project is that such services are performed with the. care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of this profession practicing under similar conditions at the same time, and in the same or a similar locality. We trust that this letter sufficiently addresses the City's concerns. If you have questions, please call the undersigned. Sincerely, 1 7 ` .~ Frederick Maurer, Jr. Geotechnical Engineer • GeoQuest, Inc. OOOJ~O q .(i t l~ M1 '4+11 I'-Z f F, A ~ ' hY' /~ ~ ~ .... "~-;,. `. MOAZENI ~ ~\MINI U L7 V ~ ~ V Ll U AUG 13 2002 crrv ur snen~roca ~~tl~O4tl ~Y',~ (!~ t5 • • w11 A\\ \ TT ~\ _ ~ tuuewu~r. + rU 1G0. ~ \• nlow°w \ ~o s tow.lo. o .zz• r ` ru nonm. ~ omc ~ ~ \ ro a vrctm. o rtlF~rn ~ ~za• • r ro a va+oso. ~ ro a team. \1 ~: / 1 ~ ~e~.oa+ t I'CRN i ro a tents. ~ ~i 1 vv ~~ ar . ~ r ~ .N T /// / :1U PA0. I ~ 0.ICll¢ \ Q t 2''d "~ C / d, ` ~~ (E~ 51T~ PL,4N .''~ , 7,. , NOT TO SDALE j , ` -- I \\\ ~~,:`/ ~ \~CZ~ 1 ` ~' PROPOSED EIASEhIENT `~ I ~~ ,,~I~, BHOUM 5NADED AREA • /'~W ! lOA9V ;~ a , • \ 1 ` \ ~ I ` - F'ROP05ED HAM FLOOR SHOUM SINGLE HATCHED LIFE. 9 V ~ ` I a° Y 6 1 I , r I w ~\ ~ ° PROPOSED UPPER FLOOR F u' \ 4 0 ~ SNOUN DOUE'LE HATCHED LME. I ~ \ ~ ~'. ~ \ 1 iP I R I 4 .' RR~ T ~ 10 ~\ 1 `1 }.. O \ \~ I 1 1 1l, + ~~\ • ^ ~ i/ f 1~.\ ~.. VV 1 I 1 0 ;ill 7. o \ v 16' ^1'//' 1 d ~ \ el \ ( 'r" 1 I a r'e„~ Iz a ,~ Izr e 1 4 ` o \ I az o e• , -- ------ - - - --- --- Frs 1 ~ _ ~ ~1 NOTE : ~ C \ ~ \\ L. \ THE STORN DR4MAGE WILL EIE RET41N WITHIN THE PROPERTY THROUGH DRT DELL STlTEH ~ N !Y/O'!0~ ! 10 .~ CA 511E PLAIN ~--~ err SCALE: r.7m~•m~ 'Z GOVERA6~ 4 P.A.R. 511E ARE4 ~ 16bl7 y0. FT. (1.1591 dCEIZy ) ALLOlU16LE F,AR 61515 SQ FT, HAx P1PERVI0U6 CAVERAfiE~ IlA00 50. FT, TABULATION GdRAGE ~ 5!!ID0 50fi. HAM FLOOR AREA : !319.00 SOIFT. UPPER FLOOR dREd: 196175 ya FT. TOTdL: 599375 6t7FT. CASEHENT AREd : 7)19 60. FT. NOTE SEE Att4CNED CALCULATION 6 4YER4GE SLOPE AND FLOOR dREA DT: LEE ENGMEERS. pll PARK AVENUE ,SAN JOSE . CA, !!p6 TEL: !10517!3.3533 SHteT INDpX AIp SITE RAN I PLAM!!13 DATA AI.I dREA CALOILATION D14GRYIB. A7D S45EHENT FLOOR PLAN d7,1 MdM FLOOR PLAN 477 UPPER FLOOR PLAN A3.I ROOF PLAN, al ExTER10R ELEVA110N (fRONiI M7 ExTERIOR ELEVATION (REAR) dIJ lxTERIOR ELEVATION (LEFT I RIGLR 1 A!a EuaDING secnoNS. A57 WILDING SECTIONS. !d! SJILDING 6EOnR16. CL. CQICEPIU4L LdND50APE tOPOGRAPHIC HAP. pLMKN3 ~ 1~1~~ i~+T>)~I~z~l) ~I~F+d![~i~il, ~( g;[iii[ll~lllll o~ Q t` ~ O ~ ~ W Q d V U W Q a~ N 0 ~ ~a N vl.l ~ a ~s~ $E~~ &d w 8~~ ~ ~~~ U -~~ WO °m0R ..m ~, ~~ A1.0 fl. ~~ • 721 MAIN FLOOR D1,~6R,4M ~~ UPPER FLOOR DIA~6R~4M BASEMENT DIa6R~4M • 1sl.s 5a.~r. GARAGE AREA : 653 50FT, MAIN FLOOR AREA : 3319 SOFT. TOTAL 4032 SOFT. l1PPER FLOOR AREd : 196175 50FT. GARAGE AREA : 693 SOFT, MAIN FLOOR AREA : 3319 50F1. ZIPPER FLOOR AREA : 196175 SOFT. TOTAL 599375 5OFT. BA5EMENT AREA : 7319 BOFi. TOTAL N999 SQFT. IMPERVIOUS LOT coYER~6E D1~6R~M RtY15~ONS ~ 11l ,~ I l fli~~'~~'I~i~ il~~~ il~t~l~ 1 ,1 11'1 ~ ~' ii~[}i11I~I~II o~ Qn o° __ ~ ~ wQ y U U 3 wd a~ 0 N F ~ ~ Q •- Vf ~~.V.yy E ell to ~ 9 V 3 a g,gfedd~ Ye ~ e~~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~~~ erg: ~, wa elms w mw we ~~- A1.1 PATIO I 936 BgfT, PATIO 7 7006 SOFT, PATIO 3 1475 SOFT. WALKWAT 785 50. FT. WALKWAY 1 AROIND POOL 1061 SQ FT, SWIM9ING POOL B09 BO. FT. MAIN NOOSE 4037 SOFT. • [7 • i i ~~ ~~ i i ----------- 10375' ror a xm ~ ~ lbLLMJSY i i ii - tl~nl6 ~! C~ ~tl ~ ~ ~ ~ BASEMENT PLAN ec~ w~.r.p Il~t~r~illl II~~I'I~+~~il~ !~ g-~~r~li!~~~I o~ an o0 ~~ m wQ ~ V U w as ~ O ~ ~ Q :~~ w ~ ~8~ a~~ ~ ~~ ~ a~~ ~ ~~' V _~~ a. w 0 oeo w Mp A ~C I~IIq Ally A2.0 • • PIR5T FLOOR PLAN eu v~•~r•o~ AMS~ ~ "~ ,rII i~ 1lj~~~~!i~11 ,~ ~;G!~Ill~i~il o~ <n 0 ~~m WQ ~ U U W a~ ~o 0 ~ ~Q ~~ "d~ :a ~ • a ~ ~ q ~e~ ~ ~~~ ~~~ ~ a~~ ~~ v ~!~ _~ w ~~ w, aa. ~ +es' A2.1 • HENSIONS B! [: .~. ~~, ~ ..~ 1'• 0 ~ ~ a , , , ~ o o ~ r------------~ -___ __ ~___. -~ i i „. i i ~,•~ i i ~-y i i i i i i i i i i ~ i i i i i ~ i i i i _._ __ i i '~ i i ~ ii .. i~ }------------{ e_y i`:~i 12325' i i ~ _.~tl~iCld1C Fc. i i -------- ~\___~ i ; i i •: i :. i . . i ~ooM ~ e ~ • i i i i i i L. _._.- -'--- -. _.J T• ' SEGOND FLOOR PLaN ea w••r•~• ii~l~r~i~>i, ~ ~~ I li~~~;11~;~~, ~r~~~~,~ ~;[Q~~~la~~i O ~ Qn ~ p o ~ ~ wQ d U U wQ a~ 0 o "~ _ ~a ~~ "d ~ << P u MI ~71~ 66~~~ ~ ~~~ ~ a~~ ~~ ~ ~~~ y M V pmi R. WM a • A2.2 ~a ---------- I ~~N I I I x5:11 5:12 - ------------ SLP. SLP. -.T---- ------- -------- I 5:11 I ~ I I I S P r(N I , I i I 5:12 ro~ i I I I SLP a i I I 5,- li I ~ I I SLP. i I ~ I 5:12 5:12 _ I ~ I 5~ LP. SLP. I I I ~ NN I I I I ; ~U ~~r I N~ ~_ ~ I I ON • ~N I NN V N C~II' I sL . / I _5:I II S~LFI. 5:12 I 5LP I I I I rN- ~ I roN I I I F5 ~2 I SLP. I I I \\ --- ~ FLAT AREA 5:12 _ SLP. I I 5f 17 .~TL~ I SLP. I I RT Le4f r. ~ V I.I T 11 N I ~5d2 5:12 I I SLP. SLP, attar eaLewrt I -------- -------- I ~ I ~ I I __~~__- ~_-_ T__ ro1N_ ROOF PLAN x. ua•r•o• • ~eN:.~ i ' ~', ~Il~l,i~~~~ii, a,i~,i~ ~r ~;~~f~ll;~al o~ Q ~ ~ O ~ _ ~ N wQ ~ ~ U ~ w a ~ ~, o ~ Q r ~ "C~ a- P u Ap ~8 W ip{[~~ ~d• ~ a~~ ~~ ~ ~~~ ..oo ass ~ ..a m A3.1 a ~~ ~: 131,2 DEL, TOP RAT! 1731Y IPPER 0.0011 Ll~tl 4 113] FWN 80011 LlM. 11lA116~AfI0N ~~.D a~~. 6iJAfIOd WM10N P1101R 6NATION FRONT ELEYA~TION !f~ VI'.I'•p o!a LIKL 138_ u01R. LRAT ~ 174 DEL. 10P IiAT! p(gp,115 .1 ~~It,~1I1 ~~ li~~~~~;,~u Si~l,'~ ~~~~) ~;[~~~11;~~~1 o ~ Qr 0 ~ rn W Q 1b ~ U 3 Wa a~ ~ O ~ M Q ~~ P ~ 58~ a ~~~ ~ ~~ 4g~ ~ ~~~ ~" ~~~ U oq w w a4 ~~ A4.1 • • NENSi0N5 BY ~~~It`,I1,li ~i~~~a~~~i~~~~ gi~ui~1{~I~ oa Qr ~ O° ~~ wa ~ ~ U w a ~ 3 N ~O ~ ~ Q N ~~ ~ P ~s~ q ~-~ ~, ~~~ ~~ ~ a~~ ~~ ~ ~~~ ~.~ w ~. w~ ~~ A4.2 M A ~ I 1!M miJATIOd LSE ND~' a N 6NAffON a A7fON 13Bm0' ~. ICM 6NATON YR/~! D 'NNR~. c 6NM10d 6NATOM !'BONY 6NAfI0N 131r~ wa aaa 173Y Odl U~ll 4 Iii oca ~~~ nMS0a5 BY ~~~~~~fl~li It~l~dlll~~~l a,~,r~~~ gi{i~i~~~li+l~ O ~ Qn o° Z ~~ wQ ~ ~ U W as N ~ i ~ a ~~ ~~ :r~ r~ 3 ~ A ~~~ ~d. ~ d~ ~ a~~ ~ ~~~ U -~~ ^. w v amo e w •wn m aroma A4.3 4, L' • l 139.00' w . uwr, Lnlr Y rorwR•rz ~31y5'A_ ox. ray Rare ~ ~; a ~ , ~ 4 17415' Y i i ~ ~ TOr RAT! ox 17315 ~' WRR FLOOR IFKL ~ ' ~ ~ 117D0' ~a~'rur itoaM ~ tleLlYlaY tldL{! ![sY FMlbl F'd710 L!y!L 1131 - . NlM BOOR LF~tL N6N RCOR LlKL 111.00' 117.75' N41WAL GRdoE LM[. RNIlN fiaRdO! FLOOR IIOIDO~ w7uaaL cRao! LM! MR ~"•••~~ !~"! llbLLtlSY iEltl d 5EGTION A-r4 6G VY.I'•0' T ii~l'h~l~,~ ,i, ~i;fA;~I~r'~ 8i~ui~~~l~+l~ oa Qr 0 _ ~ rn Q U Q ~ ~ U w W a~ ^~ N ~ F- ~ ~ Q ~~ ~rq U~` ~ ~~~ W a~~ ~ ~~~ V d'~ R YN OR1m h `M@ 400 Lq A5.1 ~'~~ ~~ • 5EGTION B-B SECTION G-G 6G I/P.I'•p RENSIp/3 Bt "I ~r 1~! 11~~~~~~~111 ~i~E~~;~1~f~i~ ,.~~, ~~i,~ ~i[i~i~~~ll+l~ o~ a~ 3 po ~ ~' wQ y~ ~ U W aQ ,~ o i ~ a ~N b~ f P u J` ~8L 6~~~ ~ a~~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~~~ V aw w u Omi R. 1111 - RYiI RW A5.2 ~~~ • AMS~ ~ IBC 1~, ~hi~'~~~~~~ ~i~~~~i(~~~ilf ~ i, a ,t Sri ~i~l~il~l~l+1~ • oa Qn 0 _°~ Q U Q ~ ~ U W d Q N ~ F ~ ~ a 'd ~ r~ V ~ ~ ~8 SECTION D-D ~,~,..,,.o. S~GTION E-E d- Mi ~~ :1r 4 W 8~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~~~ ~.~ ~R .am ~~. A5.3 ., (~l'r9 ~~, /., ~ ~; . --~ --~- ~ ~ -•. ~~ •' OLEA EGROPEA "SUTAN NILL" ° //~' ~ ~ m~ r'~~ ~'rv" ~ !OL!VE 'NOPJ FPo,JIIING'7 P\¢~ n~\ \ E ~\\ \\ \ ~ K ~ - \~i AROT05TAPH7L05 HOOKERI ~'~'" ~ " MONTERE7 CARPET " ~~~ iMANZMIITA GROIAIDOOVER7 - s ~ 36" EsOX -~ ,;.~ I' Q . .. ~•x , ,s\ ~. ~ NATIVE GRASSES SEGtUOiA SEMPERvIRENS - lCOAST f~DW00D! , ;/- -. _.._- - . , ~a ~ /~, ~a" Box °/ •~ ~-_ ,, ~~ ~` ACER CiRCINATUM ° / o ~~ -~ "~ (VINE MAPLE; ° q v , `~:.` "...._. \ ~ P~ ~. 0 /' '. lN1 POOL ° ~ 36" BOx ~ ~ <~ ~ ~ ~ ~ f• / ~ \ ~Y SEOtI01A SEMPERVIRENS ° ''Y ~ a1~" !COAST f~DW00D> ~ ~ ~; a ~ ~ ~ Cl / °` ~ ~ ', / / \ / \. ~ / ~ ~~ ~ v . VS ~ ~ SHRUBS ~, f , ~~ . ~ r:' ~ `°'' ~ i• ' ~ ~~ fib - I ~. ri, '~ 1 t '~ 0h Q \ ,~ ~ \ r I ~ ~ , f ~ ~ ~ :~ I ~I ~ ~ s ~ 1 I My~ +,` ~ 1 i ~ ~h ~ ~ ~t6°n4~~.~, -" ~ ~ ,$~° dzti .- ~ 1 `,, ~ r,,~~~ ~~~.~, 5. I ~' ~~ - ~ ~ ,`, _ ~` +. ~ _ - • ,. ~ ~ :; i ~• - ~ - ~ -~ i ~ I ~ ~ ~ --r-~-+* ~ y'. ~` ~ C. GONGEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN i r NATIVE GRASSES " CEANATMI5 "JULIA PHELPS" lOALIFORJIA LILAOI PP \ ~ ~ L y `. ;. :j ` \~ . -~. ~~, \ hs ' ~CrF; - 1k' ~.. ~ ~ \ `, r V n. \_~~\ / I ~ \ ~(• G ~ / •\ ~~ \ \ G 1~ NATIVE GRaS5E5 36" BOx OLEA EUROPEA "SWAN HILL" (OLIVE 'NON FRUITING") AENSi0N5 B7r ~'( 1>> ~~~~i1~l~~,T ~~~1~e~Ell~;-E Bi~~{i~~~~~~ii O O Q t` Z ~ ui ~ o. ~ ~ a w N a ~ a ~n O 0 ~ ~a ~~ ~~ V 3~~ ~ ~8 Zpyyy ~; rL ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~~ V ~~ C.L. ,_~~ , ~" ~, ,z' +~,, NOTE REFERENCED ASSUMED B.M.: TOP OF SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE ON PIERCE ROAD IN FRONT OF DRIVE WAY EL.: 100.15 a>r LEGEND -~-- SET 3!4' LP. RCE# 28551 -~- FOUND 314' LP. PER BK. 114, PG. 16 --- DISTINCTIVE BORDER LINE -,---- WOOD FENCE CHAIN LINK FENCE EOP EDGE OF PAVEMENT • ,.~ S 0°26'54' E 90.08' 49 \ \ \\ 5. 83 _\ s2. 2Ba P 3.7 / B i5D.79 11 J 4 ~ SD.73 ~.. / JI ,50.39 m22' / 1 68 // 50.91 / / .2 49. 50.29 r ,^~ .p r 5. ~ m 16' 3 ~ J 0 P to G~ 27.6 ~~ ~ ~ I/, 50.04 ~~~51.02 ._.._..... ~ 68 16.50 PP 96,11 6;\\ 9570 . f 94,95' `~ ~~ 95.ID\ ~ 9\6.91 \s N 41°52'30' E ~ 10.86' 5.59 r: . s~~ • mzr '~ .7e y-_~t ,. _ `.196.71 ~ `.\. /,-' ~ r 9e l mzo' J1D0.37 8.55 96.76 10 !5 ' 99.1 \ 9 1 60 ~ ~Or ~ ~~ \ PP IS ~~•m2z' 9067 . 802.31 100.7 2 m't ' \ --~~~ IDD7s loz.z6 ' ~ -Imo . 2 POOL MOUSE 022. ~: lOP'29 ~~" 101. 9~ / r° m Js ~ 401 ~ m1z' ~ez7s. ~'C`i ', 's ~I - 4alo' . L ~~ ~.' 105.6' }-._ ': .- A ~ OT I 2.75 S~ 102.23 m24 ~`. ~V03~ `~ 29~t~ 22 .+I}06,90. ~ l ~ 02.0 Iw,76 ~I ,1oB.u. \ ~~~ JoyC \ ~ A / mz6'~~ W ~ \ t los,l6 \ 'v,~~ 103. D I{ ~ !~yOZl7 ~ ` ``7 10 7 aD~~ 5.81 ,~-.~ ~ 030 ', , \ i~ . ~ IOB38. 'L ~A m21' ~ IOZ -'-~ IO .55 SD -., '106.58 C ...mz , 10895 ~ ~d6w J. " \ v --coos o9 ~ ~ o, 1o6b1 ,1 ~ ' IID ~ vv ~~ ?<.~ 4 0107.62 p 1~ 1 0.38 ' m76~ - STORAGE~~ ~ ~ m21' '. DECK 10' `~ f \ VY •510.71 ~ 4 D p l 100.60 ~B 4 ` 0 7B 7}e ,.ay1.3A ~Qd 1 ~r ID "azo• m2o' p '. V11.0OB.5/ 5, 6 1 r. B~ !11.10 VV V '' ~ 9. S~4ir 1. 1 ~ 0 ~ .. m26' 9~ ,4,.m7o• ~ ', ~1 PP6 Iz ` j8.7 `, \ ~ Panu '': n ' ..,, 1 /N 59°00'30' E ~; es ', 6118 94 ~ 56.71 S 0°19'48' W 360.51' ~ uz6 ' ~ \ 26 28' ' s . , ~. 1 7 ~~ ., \ :0.09 ~ y ~ { ~\ . .9 ~ / {~ C',00 _ , Oi~ -s 12.60. ~ ~ P ., pVV i ~0 1 12.18 '.ill. V'~. }12.42 \ 106 0zo Q ~ u ~ , 10 ) ml6'p ~ ~ ~~~l• v? 2.11 , ^ %~ ~ ~~ \'', e ' ~ ;~'~~ ' .~, ~ ~ - t W 11237 P~~'~~,,({' ~•112.17 ~ P"' ~ ~ 13.85 S~ hT' 12. `~, 1 ~ +t, m30' f'~121' rt^1 ~ ~ 1 77 ,l Cq t.y. 1 1 1145 •`Fd .! 01 1 ~ ~ .8311324 'A ~ ~ m2 ~ - ,~ 18, m ~ 1112.62 _ 11522 \ •~~91 L - II - - - '1 I - - - - 8 6 ;112.2 \ ', MiS '515.29 ~ I . .9 B',97 (~ 15: 111.95 ~ ~ \ V q10. 116.09 \ _ - i 90, 3 96. - - - ~~ 07.91 \ \ /9 _ 1J 79,21 ~~85.73 9L2B IOB,ID N 59°00'30' E 108.32 , rA 10.00' '~ ~r4 9 (U ~I ~~ I - ~~- IJ.J J Q c~ A ~~d ARE0. = 16,652 SOFT. 11.7591 ACRES. ) ~° t ~l S: \:. 1 } r.' h . a} 9. 0~ °hb 99. b 5~ \ 5023 S '1/9J ~ 99.84 ~\ 5022 ~~ C 'i. 15P ITEM 2 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No./Location: App # 02-176/ 14380 Saratoga Avenue and 20473 Saratoga Los Gatos Road Applicant/Owner: City of Saratoga Staff Planner: John F. Livingstone, AICP, Associate Planner Date: October 9, 2002 APN: 397-22-019, Department Head: and 015, 042, 012 t I i ~, I ~, ,~ ~ ~,\ \ \\ ;~ V~ A~ ~ i ~' ~~ / ~\_\ I ~, , \ ~ ~., ~ ,~ ~~ i ( \ ,~ ,,- \ ~;, \; \ '~ ~ ~ N .~ \ \ / \\\'~~0 \ \ \ - 8 400 Feet __ 14380 SAR.ATOGA AVENUE n00001 STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: PA (Professional Administrative) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: PF (Public Facilities) MEASURE G: Not applicable PARCEL SIZE: 27,917 AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 4% GRADING REQUIRED: 1,191 Cubic Yards ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION • As the project sponsor, the Saratoga Fire District is the lead agency for this project and has circulated an Initial Study and proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration according to the procedures set by the California Environmental Quality Act. The document is attached to this staff report and forms the basis for much of the analysis presented belov~~. The City is a responsible agency under CEQA and cannot act on the project until an environmental document has been adopted by the lead agency. The Fire District expects to consider adoption of the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration before the Planning Commission's October 9, 2002 meeting. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant is requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit, Design Review, Lot Line Adjustment, and General Plan Conformity Determination. The Conditional Use Permit is for a new and temporary Fire Station with variations to setback and landscape standards. The existing Fire Station building at 14380 Saratoga Avenue is proposed to be demolished and a temporary facility is proposed at 20473 Saratoga Los Gatos Road (The existing Contempo Building Site) during construction of new Fire Station proposed at the same location as the existing facility at 14380 Saratoga Avenue. The. General Plan Conformity Determination is for vacation and abandonment of George Whalen Way (City alley located behind the existing Fire Station), the transfer of Heritage Plaza property from the City to the Saratoga Fire Protection District, and the acceptance of two pedestrian and bicycle easements. 000002 • • MATERIALS AND COLORS PROPOSED Exterior finish will be a beige and tan stucco with ceramic the accent bands. The roofing material v~Till be a Mission the roof. Color and material samples will be available at the public hearing. Lot Coverage: Floor Area: First Floor Second Floor Basement TOTAL Front Setbacks: Rear Left Side (interior side) Right Side (exterior side) Height Landscape: Fire Station Fire Station PROJECT BACKGROUND Code Requirement/ Proposal Maximum Allowance 29.6% 30% Maximum allowed s,9s7 sq. ft. 4,171 sq. ft. 2,277 sq. ft. 15,435 sq. ft. The P-A Zone district does not specify a maximum floor area; it specified only a site coverage maximum. Minimum allowed 25 ft. 0 ft. 0 ft. 15 ft. 30 ft. None in the front yard 25 ft. 25 ft. 16.4 ft. 15 ft. Maximum allowed 30 ft. Code requires 10 ft. of landscaping in the front yard At its September 5, 2001 meeting, the City Council adopted Resolution 01-060 upholding an appeal and denying the application of the Saratoga Fire Protection District to build a ne~v Fire Station at 14380 Saratoga Avenue and to maintain a temporary Fire Station during construction of the neu,~ Fire Station. Following adoption of the resolution in September 2001, the City sponsored a collaborative planning process for the site of the proposed Fire Station. The stakeholder group for this Ad Hoc Committee included the Fire District, Santa Clara County Sheriff's Office, County Administration, the United States Postal Service, FACT, the Federated Church, neighbors, and representatives from the City's Planning and Public Safety Commission. The group presented its final report to the City Council on April 17, 2002. The City Council then directed staff to work with the Fire District to develop a plan for a new Fire Station reflecting the key design concepts included in the group's "Scheme A." On July 17, 2002 the City Council approved a settlement agreement with the Fire District in response to litigation filed by the District challenging the City's denial of the original 000003 application. The settlement agreement establishes a process for consideration of a new Fire Station design consistent with "Scheme A°, including a front apron of at least 59 feet and compliance with the City's height limitations and standard front yard setback. The "Scheme A" approach requires variations from the City's rear and side-yard setback requirements and front yard landscaping requirements. The agreement requires preparation of an environmental analysis of the new design by the Fire District and review by the City Planning Commission. The agreement also requires the City Council to consider, (1) vacating the alley between the existing Fire Station and the post office and, (2) transferring the Heritage Plaza property to the Fire District in exchange for ten new public parking spaces in addition to the 24 required by the District, and bicycle and pedestrian easements along Saratoga Avenue and State Route 9. The agreement specifies that nothing in the agreement restricts the City's discretion in considering these matters. _ The agreement requires the City and the District confer regarding proposed changes to the project. At the July 17, 2002 City Council meeting, a motion was made to place Resolution 01-060 on the next agenda for reconsideration before the Ciry Council pursuant to Section 2- 10.110 of the City Code that allows the Council to reconsider any action (other than an ordinance, license, or permit approval) at any time. At the August 7, 2002 meeting the City Council reconsidered that matter and directed the applicant to submit revised plans to the Planning Commission. In light of the work of the Ad Hoc Committee and the subsequent design efforts of the Fire District, the Council referred the project with direction that the Fire District revise their application to generally conform to "Scheme A" as described in the Settlement Agreement, and that the Planning Commission review the revised plan to ascertain its general conformance with "Scheme A" and the settlement agreement, and concurrently re~~ie~~, (1) the proposed vacation of George Whalen Way (the alley behind the existing Fire Station) and, (2) the transfer of the Heritage Plaza property to the District for conformity with the City's General Plan pursuant to Government Code section 65402(a). PROJECT DISCUSSION Issues Raised at the September 2S`h Planning Commission Meeting During the first re~~iew of the project at the September 25, 2002 Planning Commission meeting the following issues where raised by the Commission: Request that the Post Office provide a letter to the City agreeing to the proposed project. The applicant has not received the letter as of the writing of this report. The Post Office did verbally agree to the proposed project at the last Planning Commission meeting as reflected in the minutes for the meeting. Report on the status of the Sheriff Department parking. As of October 1, 2002 the Sheriffs will- be using the City Parking District public parking spaces for their private vehicles. Confirm that the restriping of Saratoga Avenue will not have a negative effect on the existing five parking spaces in front of the Post Office. The Director of the Public Works Department has confirmed that there will be no negative impact to ~~~®o~ the existing parking spaces and will include this in the City Traffic Analysis Report. (The report was not available and will be forwarded to the Commission separately) 4. A member of the public requested a letter from Caltrans. I have attached a letter from Caltrans. The letter contained two minor comments. ~. The Commission asked to see the prior traffic report for the project. Staff has included this as an attachment. 6. The applicant will provide different rile color and roof samples at the meeting. 7. At the request of the Commission the applicant will provide an attachment illustrating the parking area that is proposed to be sold to the church, showing it as part of the Fire District property. 8. The applicant will also provide an attachment to the plans showing the construction staging areas. 9. The Commission requested that the applicant provide a condition of approval linking all of the Fire District parcels together. This condition has been added. In addition to the above information staff met with Fire District staff and reviewed all of the project's conditions of approval and have agreed upon the conditions as shown on the resolutions. Design Review Staff feels the proposed project meets the design criteria stated in Section 15-46.040 based on the following: The project is in character with the neighborhood in that the design of the Fire Station is modeled after a Julia Morgan design. The Federated Church located to the rear of the Fire Statiori was designed by Julia Morgan. The materials and architectural features proposed help the project fit in with the character of the neighborhood. The design has been pulled back significantly from the existing location on the corner of Saratoga Avenue and Saratoga-Los Gatos Road to reduce bulk and improve sight distance for drivers along that intersection. The design also includes a plaza area that will add a pedestrian scale element to the corner. The applicant is proposing a hand troweled finish to the exterior of the building. The quality exterior finish with the Mission rile roof will make the building blend in with the older buildings nearby. The proposed landscape plan and plaza area will also soften the elevation on Saratoga-Los Gatos Road and act to enhance the entrance to the downtown village area. The applicant is proposing to enhance the existing site with a new landscape plan that will provide trees the entire length of the parcels on Saratoga-Los Gatos Road and use colored bricks to distinctively mark the pedestrian zone on the pavement on the front apron. The landscape plan also includes a retention basin to help meet Storm Water Quality requirements. Conditional Use Permit The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required in the PA zone for the types of structures proposed and to allow the new and temporary Fire Station structures to be within the required setbacks of the zone district and limit landscaping in the front 000~os yard area. Where a Use Permit is required section 15-55-.030 of the City Code gives the Planning Commission discretion to allow variations from the standard site area, coverage, structure height, yard minimums and other standards for the Zone District. In light of the numerous competing design and land use considerations reflected in the Ad Hoc committee's Scheme A, staff feels that the necessary findings can be made to support the Use Permit as follows: That the proposed temporary and permanent Fire Stations with code variations are in accord with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the purpose of the district in which they are located in that they are conditionally permitted uses that will be replacing the existing Fire Station and will have no significant traffic impacts. The Fire Stations are necessary to provide fire protection for the City. The setback and landscaping variations will allow the permanent Fire station to have a 59-foot front apron that will avoid safety problems and will allow for circulation improvements at the intersection of Saratoga Avenue and Saratoga-Los Gatos Road. • That the proposed Fire Stations and the conditions under which they will be operated will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, nor materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity in that the proposal is a continuation of the existing use. The proposed new Fire Stations will provide adequate parking for the 24 employees that will use the Fire Stations and will have no significant environmental or traffic impacts to the property or surrounding area. • That the Fire Stations comply with each of the applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance in that the location, height, coverage and use proposed is conditionally permitted in this zoning district per section 15-55.030 -and .15- 18.030 of the zoning regulations except for the Code variations described above which the Planning Commission has determined are necessary to achieve the safety and circulation objectives described above. Lot Llne AdjUStments The applicant is proposing several lot line adjustments to both the Contempo site and the Fire Station properties. The existing Fire Station property will be merged with the City property and the lot line separating the two Contempo lots will be moved to enlarge the parcel that will become parking for the church. Staff recommends the following findings be made in accordance with the zoning regulations to approve the requested lot line adjustment: • The proposed lot line adjustment is consistent with the General Plan in that the lot line adjustment will allow for a larger lot area for-the new Fire Station and improve the current parking situation between all of the involved parcels. d in • The proposed lot line adjustment is consistent with the regulations containe the Zoning Ordinance and this Chapter in that the lot line adjustment is ~0~~0~ specifically approved by the advisory agency through the granting of a Conditional Use Permit under chapter 15 of the City Code. • The proposed lot line adjustment will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large for access through or use of the subject properties in that the new circulation pattern will provide adequate public access to the site. Parking The Municipal Code requires the Fire Station to have one space for each employee for a total of 24 spaces. The Fire Station will have 18 parking spaces on site, and will satisfy an additional 6 spaces located off site. (The District proposes to sell a portion of the Contempo property to the Federated Church and to obtain an easement or other permanent agreement from the Church for use of six spaces in the Church parking lot.) In addition to the 18 Fire Station spaces located on the Fire District property, 10 spaces are proposed to be provided for public parking controlled by the City pursuant to an easement or other permanent agreement with the District as part of the land transfer with the -City. During construction of the permanent Fire Station the District will provide 18 parking spaces on site and will satisfy the remainder of its obligations through an agreement with the Church for use of six spaces in the Church parking lot. During construction the parking for the Post Office will be temporarily short 5 spaces that are currently accessed from the alleyway that is proposed to be vacated. The District has proposed to grade the site so that after construction the 5 spaces can be accessed from the main parking area for the Post Office and Sheriffs Office parking. Trees The City Arborist report dated March 15, 2001 contains recommendations for the protection of existing trees on the site. There are eight 8 Olive trees on the existing Fire Station property potentially at risk of damage by construction. Only two of the trees are ordinance protected The applicant proposes to transplant the trees that are able to be transplanted, and replant native specimens to replace the value of any trees lost. The Contempo property has several Liquid Amber trees that surround the building of which none are ordinance size trees. All of these trees will be removed for the temporary Fire Station. The large Magnolia in the front will remain. Staff has added conditions of approval for the Contempo site to protect the Magnolia tree. The Arborist Report contains recommendations for the restoration and protection of the health of all trees on the existing Fire Station site. All of the Arborist's recommendations have been made conditions of approval in the attached Resolution. GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY The proposed Fire Station, Vacation of George Whalen Way, Transfer of the Heritage Plaza property to the Fire District, acceptance of the ten public parking spaces and the Bicycle and Pedestrian Easements are consistent with the following General Plan Goals and Policies. CI.7.Oa Provide adequate parking for non-residential uses to minimize intrusion into adjacent neighborhoods. Finding: The proposed development will meet all required parking ~~~~0~ standards in the zoning ordinance including bicycle parking and locker room facilities and the land transfer and accompanying dedication to public use of ten parking spaces will minimize existing intrusions into adjacent neighborhoods by providing new public parking spaces controlled by the City of Saratoga. CI.~.1~ Require the provision of secure birycle parking as part of all future development projects that include multi family residential, commercial, industrial, office, and institutional uses. Finding: The proposed development will meet all requited parking standards in the zoning ordinance including bicycle parking and locker room facilities the land transfer and easement acquisition and will enhance opportunities for bicycle access by providing easements for bicycle use. CI.5.19 Encourage non-residential development projects to include amenities such as showers and lockers for employees to further encourage bicycling as an alternative to automobile use. Finding: The proposed development will meet all required parking standards in the zoning ordinance including bicycle parking and locker room facilities and the land transfer and easement acquisition will enhance opportunities for bicycle access by providing easements for bicycle use. 4.0 To ?-educe the danger of property damage and loss of life due to fire in both urban and rural areas of the City. Finding: The vacation and property transfer will allow development of a fire station design with a front apron of sufficient size to avoid safety problems associated ~t~ith backing fire apparatus into the existing bays and with a sufficient setback from the intersection of Saratoga Avenue and Saratoga-Los Gatos Avenue to minimize the bulk of the structure and improve line-of-sight at the intersection. CI.~.6 Provide Safe and direct pedestrian routes and bikeways between and through residential areas linking transit centers and important community centers such as the village center. Finding: The proposed development will include clear pedestrian zones and a plaza entry. The land transfer and easement acquisition will enhance opportunities for pedestrian and bicycle access by providing easements for pedestrian and bicycle use. Conclusion The proposed Fire Station, and Temporary Fire Station do not interfere with views or privacy and will minimize the perception of bulk so that it is compatible with the neighborhood. The proposal further satisfies all other zoning regulations in terms of allowable floor area, setbacks, maximum height and impervious coverage through the Conditional Use Permit process. Correspondence and Commissions Review Staff received one letter to date in opposition of the proposal and has included it as an attachment. The Public Safety Commission reviewed the project September 16, 2002. The Commission supported the project design and asked that a condition be added that requires the applicant to provide a newsletter to the neighborhood regularly updating ~~0~08 them on construction time frames and construction activities that will impact the intersection at Saratoga Avenue and Saratoga-Los Gatos Road. Staff has added this as a condition of approval. The Heritage Preservation Commission reviewed the design on September 10, 2002. The Commission supported the proposed project's site plan and design. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Following receipt of a final CEQA document, the Planning Commission can take action on the project. 1. Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve the Design Reviev,~ and Conditional Use Permit by adopting the attached Resolution. 2. Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the Resolution recommending the Vacation of George Whalen Way, transfer of the Heritage Plaza property from the Ciry to the Fire District, and the acceptance of two pedestrian and bicycle easements to the Ciry Council. Following the Planning Commission's action on the project, the City Council will hold a public hearing on the vacation of the alley, acceptance of the easements, and the conveyance of the Heritage Plaza property to the District. This hearing would be at the October 16, 2002 City Council meeting. Attachments 1. Planning Commission Resolution of approval for the Design Review, Conditional Use Permit and Lot Line Adjustment ?. Planning Commission Resolution of General Plan Conformity 3. Traffic Reports (3) 4. Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration ~. Settlement Agreement 6. Letter from the Department of Transportation ~. Letter from Arron L. Katz S. Project Plans (Planning Commission only) • 000009 • THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK . U000~0 Attachment 1 RESOLUTION NO. CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA SARATOGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT;14380 SARATOGA AVENUE WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received from the Saratoga Fire Protection District ("Applicant") an application for Design Reviev~~, Conditional Use Permit, and Lot Line Adjustment for the approval of a new Fire Station at 14380 Saratoga Avenue and Temporary Fire Station at 20473 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road to be used during construction of the new Fire Station; and WHEREAS, on September 2~, 2002 and October 9, 2002 the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga has considered the application and all testimony and other evidence submitted in connection therewith; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application for Design Review, Conditional Use Permit and Lot Line Adjustment approval, and the following findings have been determined: Environmental Review The Saratoga Fire Protection District, as lead agency, has issued a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed project. The Planning Commission has considered the environmental effects of the project as sho~~n in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Design Review The proposed project meets the design criteria stated in Section li-46.040 based on the follo~~~ing: The project is in character with the neighborhood in that the design of the Fire Station is modeled after a Julia Morgan design. The Federated Church located to the rear of the Fire Station vas designed by Julia Morgan. The materials and architectural features proposed help the project fit in with the character of the neighborhood. The design has been pulled back significantly from the existing location on the corner of Saratoga Avenue and Saratoga-Los Gatos Road to reduce bulk and improve sight distance for drivers along that intersection. The design also includes a plaza area that will add a pedestrian scale element to the corner. The applicant is proposing a hand troweled finish to the exterior of the building. The quality exterior finish with the Mission the roof will make the building blend in with the older buildings nearby. The proposed landscape plan and plaza area will also soften the 000~~1 elevation on Saratoga-Los Gatos Road and act to enhance the entrance to the downtown village area. The applicant is proposing to enhance the existing site with a new landscape plan that will provide trees the entire length of Saratoga-Los Gatos Road and to use colored bricks to distinctively mark the pedestrian zone on the pavement on the front apron. The landscape plan includes a retention basin and provides drainage from the parking area into the landscape areas to help meet Storm Water Quality requirements. Conditional Use Permit The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required in the PA zone for the types of structures proposed and to allow the new and temporary Fire Station structures to be within the required setbacks of the zone district and limit landscaping in the front yard area. Where a Use Permit is required section 15-55-.030 of the City Code gives the Planning Commission discretion to allow variations from the standard site area, coverage, structure height, yard minimums and other standards for the Zone District. In light of the numerous competing design and land use considerations reflected in the Ad Hoc committee's Scheme A, the necessary findings can be made to support the Use Permit as follows: That the proposed temporary and permanent Fire Stations with code variations are in accord with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the purpose of the district in which they are located in that they are conditionally permitted uses that will be replacing the existing Fire Station and will have no significant traffic impacts. The Fire Stations are necessary to provide fire protection for the City. The setback and landscaping variations will allow the permanent Fire station to have a 59-foot front apron that will avoid safety problems and will allow for circulation improvements at the intersection of Saratoga Avenue and Saratoga-Los Gatos Road. That the proposed Fire Stations and the conditions under which they will be operated will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, nor materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity in that the proposal is a continuation of the- existing use. The proposed new Fire Stations ~~ill pro~~ide adequate parking for the 24 employees that will use the Fire Stations and will have no significant environmental or traffic impacts to the property or surrounding area. That the Fire Stations comply with each of the applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance in that the location, height, coverage and use proposed is conditionally permitted in this zoning district per section 15-55.030 and 15- 18.030 of the zoning regulations except for the Code variations described above which the Planning Commission has determined are necessary to achieve the safety and circulation objectives described above. OOOOi2 Lot Line Adjustments The applicant is proposing several lot line adjustments to both the Contempo site and the Fire Station properties. The existing Fire Station property will be merged with the City property and the lot line separating the two Contempo lots will be moved to enlarge the parcel that will become parking for the church. Staff recommends the follov~~ing findings be made in accordance with the zoning regulations to approve the requested lot line adjustment: • The proposed lot line adjustment is consistent with the General Plan in that the lot line adjustment will allow for a larger lot area for the new Fire Station and improve the current parking situation between all of the involved parcels. • The proposed lot line adjustment is consistent with the regulations contained in the Zoning Ordinance and this Chapter in that the lot line adjustment is specifically approved by the advisory agency through the granting of a Conditional Use Permit under chapter 15 of the City Code. • The proposed lot line adjustment will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large for access through or use of the subject properties in that the new circulation pattern will provide adequate public access to the site. Now, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter together will all public testimony and other evidence submitted during the public hearing, the application for Design Review, Conditional Use Permit, and Lot Line Adjustment approval is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1. The development shall be located and constructed as shown on Exhibit "A" incorporated by reference. Any changes to the approved plans are subject to the Community Development Director's approval. Any changes to the approved plans must be submitted in writing and each change indicated on the plan set with a cloud. 2. The following shall be submitted to the Building Department for review of the construction level drawings: a. Four (4) sets of complete construction plans incorporating this Resolution as a separate plan page. i. All recommendations of the City Arborist set forth in the report of March OOOOi3 1~, 2001 shall be adhered to and included as a separate plan page. ii. The site plan shall be stamped and signed by a Licensed Land Surveyor. , iii. The site plan shall contain a note with the following language: "Prior to foundation inspection by the City, the LLS of record shall pro~~ide a written certification that all building setbacks are per the approved plans." . b. Four (4) sets of complete grading plans incorporating this Resolution and March 15, 2001 Arborist Report as a separate plan page. The grading plans shall demonstrate that: i. No Retaining wall shall exceed five feet in height and three feet within the front yard setback. ii. All applicable recommendations of the City Arborist will be implemented. No Ordinance-size tree shall be removed without first obtaining a Tree Removal Permit. 4. No fence or wall shall exceed six feet in height and no fence or wall located within any required front yard shall exceed three -feet in height with the exception of temporary construction fencing. ~. No structure shall be permitted in any easement. 6. A storm water retention plan indicating how all storm water will be retained on- site, and incorporating the New Development and Construction - Best Management Practices required by State and federal regulations. If all storm water cannot be retained on-site due to topographic, soils or other constraints, an explanatory note shall be provided on the plan. 7. All exterior stucco finishes shall have a hand troweled finish. 8. Pro~~ide a quarterly newsletter to residents of the District ad~~ising them of the location of the temporary fire station and regularly updating them on construction time frames and construction aeti~~ities that will impact the intersection at Saratoga Avenue and Saratoga-Los Gatos Road. 9. The District shall retain.ownership of all lands at 20473 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road (APN 397-22-019, Olt, 042, 012) in order to satisfy all parking requirements for the project or, if a portion of said lands are to be sold, shall secure a recorded easement or other interest running with the land granting the owner of the land at 14380 Saratoga Avenue (APN 397-22-019) permanent access to six parking spaces on the Federated Church property (APN 397-22- 012,). If the six parking spaces shown on Exhibit A as being on the Federated Church Property are to be provided instead at 20473 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road , 000034 the Applicant shall file revised building plans showing the new location of the parking: 10. No building permit shall be issued unless (1) George Whalen way has been vacated by the City of Saratoga and (2) title to the Heritage Plaza has been transferred from the City of Saratoga to the Fire District. 11. All mitigation measures identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration shall be implemented prior to final building inspection of the new Fire Station. 12. Five (5) ft. chain link tree protective fencing shall be shown on the site plan as recommended by the Arborist with a note "to remain in place throughout construction." The fencing shall be inspected by staff prior to issuance of a Building Permit. 13. A note shall be included on the site plan stating that no construction equipment or private vehicles shall park or be stored within the dripline of any protected trees on the site. 14. All trenching for any utilities shall be located outside the driplines of all retained trees. If this cannot be achieved a project Arborist shall be retained to determine acceptable locations. 1~. No excavated soil shall be stored below the canopies of any trees. 16. Prior to issuance of a Demolition, Grading, or Building Permit, the applicant shall submit to the City, in a form acceptable to the Community Development Director, security in the amount of X4,166 pursuant to the report and recommendation by the City Arborist to guarantee the maintenance and preservation of trees on the subject site. 17 . Prior to Final Building Inspection approval, the staff shall inspect the site to verify compliance with tree protective measures. Upon a favorable site inspection by the .Arborist and, any replacement trees having been planted, the security referenced in the preceding Condition shall be released. 18. The Magnolia tree on property line in front of the existing Contempo building shall be maintained along with as many of the existing trees as possible that are located in the existing parking landscape area on parce1397-22-015. 19. Provide a solid door on the trash enclosure. 20. Replace the existing broken fence on the retaining wall in the .existing parking area. 21. Prior to issuance of a building permit the applicant shall provide the City of ~~~~~s Saratoga with a covenant. applicable to the Fire District parcels to assure the required number of parking spaces will be provided for the proposed project and ensure continued compliance with the applicable site coverage requirements. 22. All construction vehicle. parking and private vehicles of construction workers shall be on site or on adjoining properties by permission of the property owner in accordance with Section 15-35 of the parking ordinance. 23. Prior to the demolition of the Existing Fire Station the applicant shall pro~~ide an agreement with the adjacent church property to provide for six additional parking spaces for the Temporary Fire Station. The agreement shall include a shared parking plan with a schedule of shift changes and church activities. _ 24. The proposed temporary tent used to park the fire apparatus under shall be 5 feet from property lines and the .membrane structure shall be fire retardant, non- combustiblefabric (CBC 3112.2) or fire sprinklers will be installed. PUBLIC WORKS 25. The Applicant will share responsibility with the City of Saratoga for design and Construction of improvements to the Highway 9/Big Basin Way intersection, Improvements to Saratoga Avenue, and the relocation of the Memorial Arch to Blaney Plaza as follows: The Applicant shall be responsible for the following design and improvement items: A) Design of right turn lane improvements from northbound Highway 9 to eastbound Saratoga Avenue. B) Construction of concrete curb and gutter improvements associated with Condition (A) above. C) Design and construction of concrete sidewalk improvements along the Highway 9 frontage of the Applicant's property. D) Design and construction of concrete curb and gutter improvements along the Saratoga Avenue frontage of the Applicant's property. E) Design and construction of sidewalk improvements along the Saratoga Avenue frontage of the Applicant's property, which shall be marked distinctively (e.g., with colored concrete or brick work) to distinguish the pedestrian zone from the remainder of the driveway apron improvements. F) Design of lane line (striping) modifications on Saratoga Avenue that will add a dedicated right turn lane from westbound Saratoga Avenue to northbound Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road. G) All costs associated with the relocation of the Memorial Arch to Blaney Plaza including removal, transportation, foundation construction, and installation. The City of Saratoga will be responsible for the following design and improvement items: ~UOt71.6 H) Construction of asphalt pavement improvements associated with Condition (A) above. I) Design of signal modifications to the Highway 9Big Basin Way intersection associated with Condition (A) above, which will include the capacity for a signal interuptor. J) All costs relating to the design of Blaney Plaza and all Blaney Plaza improvements other than the foundation for the Memorial Arch. The Ciry of Saratoga and the Applicant shall share in the responsibility of the following design and improvement items: K) The Ciry and the Applicant shall enter into a cost sharing agreement for the construction costs associated with the signal modifications at the Highway 9 and Big Basin Way intersection associated with Condition (A) above. L) The City and the Applicant shall jointly prepare and submit all necessary permit applications to Caltrans for the above conditions. Final design plans for the improvements described above shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department prior to construction. CITY ATTORNEY 26. Applicant agrees to hold City harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the City or held to be the liability of City in connection with Ciry's defense of its actions in any proceeding brought by any third party in any State or Federal Court, challenging the City's action with respect to the applicant's project. Zr. Noncompliance with any of the conditions of this permit shall constitute a violation of the permit. Because it is impossible to estimate damages the City could incur due to the violation, liquidated damages of $250 shall be payable to this City per each day of the violation. Section 2. Construction must be commenced within 24 months or approval will expire. Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Go~~ernmental entities must be met. Section 4. Unless- appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15-90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. • ~~0~~~ PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 9th day of October 2002 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission • This permit is hereby accepted upon the express terms and conditions hereof, and shall have no force or effect unless and until agreed to, in writing, by the Applicant, and Property Owner or Authorized Agent. The undersigned hereby acknowledges the approved terms and conditions and agrees to fully conform to and comply v~~ith said terms and conditions within the recommended time frames approved by the City Planning Commission. Property Ov~~ner or Authorized Agent Date • 040~~8 Attachment 2 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF GENERAL PLAN CONFORMITY CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA SARATOGA FIRE DISTRICT; 14380 SARATOGA AVENUE WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Design Review, Conditional Use Permit, and Lot Line Adjustment for the approval of anew Fire Station. The project as proposed also includes vacation of George Whalen Way by the City of Saratoga, and a land exchange between the City of Saratoga and the Saratoga Fire Protection District whereby the City would transfer the Heritage Plaza property to the Fire District in exchange for ten public parking spaces and certain bicycle and pedestrian easements. Pursuant to Government Code section 65402 the Ciry Council has requested that the Planning Commission review the proposed vacation and land exchange for conformity with the City of Saratoga General Plan; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing on September 25, 2002 and October 9, 2002 at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has approved the application for Design Re~~ievt~, Conditional Use Permit and Lot Line Adjustment approval subject to the City Council's approval of the vacation of George Whalen Way, transfer of the Heritage Plaza property to the Fire District, and acceptance by the City of ten public parking spaces and certain bicycle and pedestrian easements. The following findings have been determined: The proposed Fire Station, vacation of George Whalen Way, transfer of the Heritage Plaza property to the Fire District and acceptance of ten public parking spaces and bicycle and pedestrian easements as specified in Exhibit A to the resolution appro~~ing the Design Review, Conditional Use Permit and Lot Line Adjustment are consistent with and conform to the following General Plan Goals and Policies: Police CI.7.Oa Provide adequate parking for non-residential uses to minimize intrusion into adjacent neighborhoods. Finding: The proposed development will meet all required parking standards in the zoning ordinance including bicycle parking and locker room facilities and the land transfer and accompanying dedication to public use of ten parking spaces will minimize existing intrusions into adjacent neighborhoods by providing new public parking spaces controlled by the City of Saratoga. CI.5.15 Require the provision of secure bicycle parking as part of all future development projects that include multi family residential, commercial, industrial, office, and institutional uses. Finding: The proposed development will meet all required parking standards in the zoning ordinance including bicycle parking and locker room facilities the land transfer and easement acquisition and will enhance opportunities for bicycle access by providing easements for ~OOOOg9 bicycle use. ent ro'e include amen' i h shower an 1 CI.5.19 Encourage non-residential developm p ~ cts to tt es suc as s d others for employees to further- encourage birycling as an alternative to automobile use. Finding: The proposed development will meet all required parking standards in the zoning ordinance including bicycle parking and locker room facilities and the land transfer and easement acquisition will enhance opportunities for bicycle access by providing easements for bicycle use. ' 4.0 To reduce the danger of property damage and loss of life due to fire in both urban and rural areas of the City. Finding: The vacation and property transfer will allow development of a fire station desig:~ with a front apron of sufficient size to avoid safety problems associated with backing fire apparatus into the bays-and with a sufficient setback from- the intersection of Saratoga Avenue and Saratoga-Los Gatos Avenue to minimize the bulk of the structure and improve line-of-sight at the intersection. CI.~.6 Provide Safe and direct pedestrian routes and bikeways between and through residential areas linking transit centers and important community centers such as the village center. Finding: The proposed development will include clear pedestrian zones and a plaza entry. The land transfer and easement acquisition will enhance opportunities for pedestrian and bicycle access by providing easements for pedestrian and bicycle use. Now, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter together will all public testimony and other evidence submitted during the public hearing, the Proposed vacation of George Whalen Way and exchange of the Heritage Plaza property for teri public parking spaces and bicycle and pedestrian easements is hereby found to conform to the City of Saratoga General Plan subject to the following conditions: That the fire station and temporary fire station be developed in accordance v<~ith all conditions set forth in the Planning Commission resolution appro«ng the application for Design Re~~ievt~, Conditional Use Permit, and Lot Line Adjustment for a new Fire Station at 14380 Saratoga Avenue and Temporary Fire Station at 20473 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road to be used during construction of the new Fire Station. • oooa~o PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 9th day of October 2002 by the following roll call vote: A~ Es: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission This permit is hereby accepted upon the express terms and conditions hereof, and shall have no force or effect unless and until agreed to, in writing, by the Applicant, and Property Owner or Authorized Agent. The undersigned hereby acknowledges the approved terms and conditions and agrees to fully conform to and comply with said terms and conditions within the recommended time frames approved by the City Planning Commission. Property Owner or Authorized Agent Date • 000021 • THIS PAGE HAS BEEN - INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 000022 Attachment 3 FEHRSTPEERS ASSOCIATES. IBC. ~f'CII?>~~(11~(QriC~11 C(~F;~!!iI(i%?C> 2» tiorth Market Street, Suite ?oi~ S:~n Jose, C.~ 9~1 its T~~~?i~-ilhl) • F1\~l~c5~i~-1'1 «u,,:iehr~~ndpeer~ ~on~ 1VIE~IORANDUM To: Mary McGrath, RRM Design Group ,n From: Sohrab Rashid l.. Date: February 6, 2001 Subject: Proposed Replacement ofSarrrto~a Fire Station -Traffic Stirdy~ loos-.tos Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. completed a traffic study for the proposed building replacement of the fire station located at the southeast corner of the Saratoga Avenue'Saratoga-Los Gatos Roacl (State Route 9) intersection in the City of Saratoga. This memorandum presents our key findings and conclusions followed by the study approach and methodology. Key Findings and Conclusions The replacement of the Saratoga Fire Station building at the southeast corner of the Saratoga Avenue/Saratoga-Los Gatos Road (SR 9) intersection is not expected to result in a change in the number of trips generated by the project site. Thus, no capacity improvements to the intersection are required. However, fire district personnel will still be required to temporarily control traffic on Saratoga Avenue as emergency vehicles back into the new building bays. The westernmost wall of the new building will be pulled back from the southeast corner of the intersection to improve sight distance for drivers on northbound Saratoga-Los Gatos Road. This design feature will allow removal of the existing "No Right Turn on Red" signs for westbound Saratoga Avenue traffic. The increased sight distance will also enhance the visibility of pedestrians traveling between the southeast corner of the intersection and the adjacent raised median island. To maintain adequate sight distance, all objects within the sight line area must be less than two feet above grade. Overall, the proposed project will improve circulation in the vicinity of the site and no major street modifications are recommended. A "Keep Clear" designation should be painted on westbound Saratoga Avenue immediately in front of the building bay doors to delineate an'- area for vehicles to exit the building during emergency calls. ~00~~ • Additional improvements could be made at this intersection to further enhance capacity and safety, but are not required as part of the proposed project. These improvements include a separate westbound right-tum lane and modifying the curb at the southeast corner of the intersection to reduce pedestrian crossing distances. The design of the proposed project accommodates these potential future improvements. Study Approach and 1Vlethodology Existing Conditions Street Lcn~out The fire station is located on the south side of Saratoga Avemie immediately east . of Saratoga-Los Gatos Road, which is also designated as State Route (SR) 9 and is maintained by the California Department of Transportation (Caltraris). North of Saratoga Avenue, Saratoga-Los Gatos Road is known asSaratoga-Sunnyvale Road. Similarly, Saratoga Avenue is designated Big Basin Way west of Saratoga-Los Gatos Road. Big Basin Way is also designated as SR 9. This intersection is controlled by a traffic signal. (Although it is generally aligned in anortheast-southwest direction, Saratoga Avenue is .assumed to extend in an east-v~-est direction for purposes of this analysis.) The existing street layout in the immediate vicinity of the fire station is shown on Figure 1. The westbound approach to this intersection includes a separate left-turn lane and a shared through/right-turn lane. The east-west approaches are controlled by separate signal phases such that all eastbound traffic proceeds and then stops, followed by traffic on the westbound approach. Overall, the intersection operates at Level of Service (LOS) D during both the morning (A.iv1) and evening (PVI) peak hour based on traffic counts presented in the City of Saratoga General Plan Circulation and Scenic Highway Element. Level of service is a qualitative measure of intersection operation from LOS A with little delay (the best) to LOS F with excessive congestion (the worst). The City typically considers LOS D the minimum acceptable operating level and is now an official policy included in the recently adopted Circulation and Scenic Highway Element of the City's General Plan. Parking for the fire station is shared with the post office (located directly east of the station) and with the Santa Clara County Sheriff's Department Station located behind the post office. Five angled parking spaces are provided directly in front of the post office and are posted with a 15-minute time limit. The westernmost space is designated for disabled persons only. When vehicles back out of these spaces, they encroach into the eastbound travel lane. The only other nearby on-street parking spaces are located on the north side of Saratoga Avenue immediately west and east of the uncontrolled, painted crosswalk shown on Figure 1. • 2 000024 Access to the fire station's rear lot is provided by a 14-foot wide inbound only driveway between the fire station and the post office. Vehicles must exit the lot via an outbound only driveway on Saratoga-Los Gatos Road (SR 9). Bike lanes are painted on the north side of Saratoga Avenue (between the uncontrolled crosswalk and the signalized intersection) and on the south side east of the uncontrolled crosswalk. Both bike lanes are six feet wide. Traffic Operations The existing station is built at an angle relative to Saratoga Avenue and the western building edge is built immediately behind the sidewalk at the southeastern corner of the intersection. This configuration limits the sight distance for northbound through vehicles on Saratoga-Los Gatos Road as they approach the intersection. Drivers of these vehicles cannot see westbound vehicles turning right from Saratoga Avenue to northbound Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road. The posted speed limit on northbound Saratoga-Los Gatos Road is 35 miles per hour. The design speed of a roadway is typically five miles per hour higher than the posted speed, resulting in an estimated design speed of 40 miles per hour. According to data presented in the Caltrans Highway Design Manual, the minimum stopping sight distance for a design speed of 40 miles per hour is 315 feet. The corresponding sight distances for design speeds of 35 and 45 miles per hour are 255 feet and 360 feet, respectively. All three of these sight lines are presented on Figure 2 and show the line of sight from a northbound driver's view to the point where an westbound vehicle turning right would enter the traveled way. This illustration shows that none of these sight distances are provided with the current fire station layout. To minimize the potential for vehicle conflicts, the City has posted "No Right Turn on Red" signs at three locations on the westbound approach of Saratoga Avenue. In many cases, right-turning vehicles would be precluded from turning right on red because of the shared lane configuration on this approach (i.e., through vehicles queued in this lane would block vehicles from turning right). The number of westbound vehicles currently turning right from Saratoga Avenue is 100 in the AM peak hour and 70 in the PM peak hour. The existing fire station building layout and street layout also cause t~vo other operational . problems. Drivers in northbound vehicles on Saratoga-Los Gatos Road turning right to Saratoga Avenue cannot see: 1) pedestrians enter the crosswalk between the curb and two raised median islands in the intersection, and 2) emergency vehicles exit the two western bays of the existing fire station. In addition, some drivers turn right at a higher than reasonable speed to get ahead of eastbound traffic originating from Big Basin Way or turning left from southbound Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road. The wide lane immediately in front of the fire station is used as an extended merging area by some of these drivers. 3 400025 • When emergency vehicles exit the fire station, the adjacent traffic signal is overridden from within the station. This override turns the westbound signal "green" to clear out traffic on this approach and to give emergency vehicles the right-of--way through the intersection. Because the fire station does not have "drive though" access, emergency vehicles must be backed into bays while traffic on Saratoga Avenue is manually controlled by fire station personnel. Proposed Project The replacement of the City of Saratoga Fire Station will include upgrading of the building structure; modernization of the facilities, and consolidation of the bays for emergency vehicles. The building replacement will improve public access to the station and will comply with design standards set forth by the American with Disabilities Act (ADA). The proposed building design and existing topography was obtained in digital fornlat from the January 24, 2001 site plan prepared by C3 Design Alliance and RRM Design Group. With the proposed project, the replacement building will be built within the property line and will be pulled back from the southeast corner of the intersection, which will improve sight distance at this location. The approximate location of the proposed wall with the building replacement is shown on Figure 2, and indicates that adequate sight distance would be provided based on a design speed of 45 miles per hour (this assumes an actual travel speed of 40 miles per hour). It should be noted that all objects (e.g., walls, ramps, landscaping) within the sight line should be less than two feet above grade to ensure that a vehicle at the intersection would be visible by a driver traveling north on Saratoga-Los Gatos Road (SR 9). The proposed improvement would permit removal of the "No Right. Turn on Red" signs for westbound Saratoga Avenue traffic. The increased sight distance will also improve the visibility of pedestrians beriveen the fire station and the raised median island at the southeast corner of the intersection. In addition, the total of five emergency vehicle bays will be reduced to three, and the new bays will all be located on the east side of the property (i.e., farthest from Saratoga-Los Gatos Road). This site modification will reduce the potential for conflicts between northbound right-turning vehicles and emergency vehicles entering or exiting the fire station. Since drive through access is not feasible as part of the building replacement project, fire station personnel will have to continue to manually control traffic on Saratoga Avenue while vehicles back into the three remaining bays. Under any scenario, a "Keep Clear" designation should be painted on westbound Saratoga Avenue immediately in front of the fire station's vehicle bays. Keeping this area clear would help emergency vehicles exit the building in . a more timely manner and clearly delineate where westbound vehicles should stop when emergency vehicles are in Code 3 response with sirens and lights. If this designation is not effective in maintaining an appropriate gap in front of the station, the street can be re-painted and small "chatter bars' 4 000026 can be installed that would physically restrict this area; however, emergency vehicles could drive through or over these bars. The proposed replacement project is not expected to change the number of vehicle trips generated by the station. Thus, an analysis of intersection operations is not considered necessary for this study. Overall, the proposed project is expected to slightly improve traffic operations on Saratoga Avenue in front of the fire station and at the Saratoga-Los Gatos Road/SaratoQa Avenue intersection. The improved sight distance and bay closures will help to reduce potential vehicle conflicts with other vehicles and pedestrians. Also, the removal of the "No Right Turn on Red" sign on westbound Saratoga Avenue will reduce delays for some vehicles. Notwithstanding the expected traffic benefits of the proposed project, the Saratoga Fire Protection District has requested that additional street design modifications be investigated to further improve traffic operations in the immediate vicinity of the project. The development of potential roadway improvements is presented in the next section. Potential Road~vav Improvement Alternatives The following roadway improvements were assessed in terms of their potential benefits and impacts to circulation: 1. The addition of a separate westbound right-turn lane from Saratoga Avenue to Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road; 2. Re-construction of the curb return at the southeast corner of the Saratoga-Los Gatos/Saratoga Avenue intersection to slow northbound right-turning vehicles. These improvements are not required as part of the proposed project to provide adequate circulation, but represent additional enhancements that could be made in the vicinity of the project site. Both of the potential improvements is discussed separately below and a third alternative combining both improvements is also presented. Scpa~-ate 6~'estboz~nd Right-turn Lane A separate westbound right-turn lane on Saratoga Avenue could be added by re-striping the roadway. There are several issues to be addressed with this modification: • Provide proper channelization of eastbound traffic; • Maintain access to the driveway between the fire station and post office; • Maximize the eastbound lane width near the angled parking spaces next to the post office; and • Maximize the length and maintain the width of the existing bike lanes. 5 ~00~~~ Based on these considerations, aplan was prepared to re-stripe Saratoga Avenue as shown on Figure 3. This figure shows the new right-turn lane plus atwo-way center left turn lane (TWLTL). This lane is designed to maintain access to the driveways on either side of the post office and to help channelize westbound traffic as it approaches the signalized intersection. The TWLTL should not be extended east of the crosswalk east of the post office so as to allow full access at the easternmost driveway shown on Figure 3. With removal of the sight distance restriction caused by the existing building and removal of the "No Right Turn on Red" sign, the capacity benefit of adding a separate right-turn lane would be realized. As noted previously, a "Keep Clear" designation should be painted on westbound Saratoga Avenue immediately in front of the fire station's vehicle bays. This will help emergency vehicles exit the building without having to drive around queued vehicles. This proposed re-striping would have to accommodate full-size buses operated by the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA). Application of bus turning templates shows that northbound buses turning right would not be affected. To minimize the potential for southbound left-turning buses conflicting with westbound vehicles queued in the left-turn lane, a painted stripe should be installed approximately five feet behind the crosswalk (see Figure 3). Since the turning templates are considered consen~ative, this vehicle setback should be adequate. A~Iodify Adjacent Curb (No Separate Right-turn Zane) Another potential improvement is to relocate the existing curb at the southeast corner of the intersection. This improvement, which is shown on Figure 4, would accomplish the following: • Eliminates the sight distance hazard experienced by pedestrians conflicting with northbound right-fuming vehicles from Saratoga-Los Gatos Road; • Better channelizes eastbound traffic by eliminating a large, uncontrolled merging area; • Reduces the crossing distance for pedestrians and their exposure to ` vehicles; • Eliminates the hazard of having a raised median and fixed object in the "middle" of the intersection The proposed curb modification would require substantial roadway construction including installation of new curb, gutter, and sidewalk. The modified section on Saratoga Avenue in front of the new bays would likely have to include rolled curb or no curb to accommodate inbound and outbound emergency vehicle movements.' 6 ~OD~o~B • The signal pole on the existing median island would have to be relocated to the sidewalk and could require installation of pole with a mast arm. With this configuration, the crossing distances for the eastern and southern crosswalks at the intersection would be reduced by approximately 24 feet. Further, the southern crosswalk could be re-aligned straight across Saratoga-Los Gatos Road (SR 9) and the existing pedestrian button in the median could be eliminated. Similar to the lane re-striping shown in Figure 3, bus turning templates were applied to Figure 4 to ensure that VTA buses could negotiate turns without encroaching into adjacent or opposing travel lanes. Also, a "Keep Clear" designation should be painted on westbound Saratoga Avenue to accommodate emergency vehicles exiting the fire station. This improvement would increase the sight distance for northbound traffic turning right, reduce the potential for vehicle-pedestrian conflicts, and provide better visibility in front of the fire station's vehicle bays. Provide Separate Rrght-turn Lane and Modify Adjacent Curb This third option shown on Figure 5 is a combination of the improvements illustrated on Figures 3 and 4. The separate right-turn lane would be added on the westbound Saratoga Avenue approach and the "free" northbound right turn movement would be eliminated by modifying the curb on the southeast corner. The "Keep Clear" designation on westbound Saratoga Avenue would still be required, and this option would provide all of the benefits of both improvement alternatives described above. • 000029 0 GJ Q. Note: Plan is conceptual only and is not a design drawing. Figure 1 EXISTING STREET LAYOUT • ,oos-cos-, po-u-oo) Fehr s Associates, lnc. Snrntoga l~irc ,Station l3uilctin~ Rci~fnccrnent T rrrJ%ic .S'tud ~~ • Sarato;a ri,-~~ .S~nlion Buildin~ Replaceuicnt TrnfFic snide O 0 W Note: Plan is conceptual only and is not a design drawing. ,Figure 2 SIGHT DISTANCE LINES loos-cos-~ po-u-ooh Feltr & Peers Associates, /nc. ~~ Note: Plan is conceptual only and is not a design drawing. .:.Figure 3 RE-STRIPE SARATOGA AVENUE AND ADD EASTBOUND RIGHT-TURN LANE coos-cos-, coo-u-oo) Fehr 's Associates, Jnc. , Surnlu,~rc Fire .S1alic~n 13~~ihiin; Kehlurr'nu•iN 7'ra%%ic ,S'hai~~ • Note: Plan is conceptual only and is not a design drawing. 0 GJ W ;Figure 4 MODIFY ADJACENT CURB (NO RE-STRIPING) rocs-sos-r tro-u-oo> Fehr & Peers Associates, hu•. Snratos,~a Fire .S'trrtiou Bnildirr Rr~/~larcmeut 7'rrr%Jir~ .Study Snrntus;u Fire .Stutinn Bnildin,;r Rchlnl.rnrent TrcrtJic' Snuh' D D: N 10 C I N O i N rq Install "Keep Clear" designation. To remain as a Bike Lane ' d Drrvewa Drivewa Drivewa Red Curb Whilo Curh Crecn Cmb 15 min Drive a Rel .:r tli Remove all existing paint and Y re-stripe street as shown 12 J :move median islands ~~ r~ -~ ~ ~ "' "' "" ~ "' ~' ~ "'" ~ ~ ~ ~ r ' 12' d relocate signal poles _~ r. ~ ..r - ~ e r..r w r... ~ ~ nr ..~ r new curb. Install new curb, gutter, and sidewalk 20• 15' / (rolled•cu~b as necessary for access/drainage). ~ n.~,~s;ar~cM Y~~,,ar Green Curb (15 ruin.) N w o; Possibly re esign fire station to increase Post Office ~$ sight ance (requires ROW purchase or exchange). • p- c N do Fire Station N a Saratoga Avenue f~ N Scale: 1" = 40' O Note: Plan is conceptual only and is not a design drawing. ~ RE-STRIPE SARATOGA AVENUE, ADD EASTBOUND RIGHT-TURN LANE .Figure 5 C.~ AND MODIFY CURB P • t00~-3pS-t (~-6-Ot) Felu• t:c A.rsociales, /nc. F~xR~P~RS ASSOCIATES, INC. ~ - Transportation Camultants 255 North Market Street, Suite 300 San Jose, CA 95110 ' 408 278-] 700 • Fax 408.278-1717 www.[ehrandpeers.com 1~~)~~~.1~UM To: David Anderson, City Manager, City of Saratoga . John Cberbone, Public Works Director, City of Saratoga Chief Ernie Kraals, Saratoga Fire District From: Sohrab Rashid, P.E. ' . Date: August 29, 2001 Subject: Saratoga Fire Station Replaeenie~e~ 7Ya, f,~ic Assessment of Proposed Temporary Circulation Plan coos-so3 The proposed upgrade to the Saratoga Fire Station involves temporary relocation of emergency service operations to the former Contempo Real Estate building located south of the existing station. The current plan shows that the fire apparatus and ambulance vehicles will be pazked around the building, Vehicles will enter the site from Saratoga-Los Gatos Road and will exit the site using the existing one-way driveway located east of the Post Office. The proposed circulation pattern is illustrated on Exhibit A. Two issues have been raised regarding the proposed circulation pattern for temporary operations: l) potential problems for pedestrians crossing the exit driveway next to the Past Office, and Z) optional circulation patterns around the Contempo building. Each of these issues is addressed below. Pedestrian Issues at the Post Office Driveway Exhibit B provides a schematic representation of the existing configuration of the driveway located immediately east of the Post Office building. Pedestrians traveling eastbound towards Pazk Place must cross the driveway in as angled crosswalk. Once across, pedestrians will do one of three things: 1) cross Saratoga Avenue in the painted crosswalk; 2) continue east towards Park Place on an unpaved sidewalk, or 3) wait at the existing bus stop for Routes 27 and 54. Vehicles exiting the driveway must stop prior to the angled crosswalk as indicated by a posted stop sign. Vehicles used by the fire department, County sb.eriff, private citizens currently use this driveway. ~OD~i7e~s z abed :WdBZ~~ ZO-6Z-6nV ~LIL~ 8LZ 80b :sa~eioossb s~aad g .~yad :1~8 ~t When emergency vehicles exit the site during temporary operations at the Contempo building, these vehicles will have their lights and sirens on to wam vehicles and pedestrians on Sazatoga Avenue. I3owever, a pedestrian walking close to the Post Office building could still step out into the existing angled crosswalk in front of a vehicle if they were not paying attention. To improve visibility for pedestrians and drivers, the crosswalk could be realigned to be parallel to Saratoga Avenue and further away from the edge of the adjacent Post Office building (see Exh~~it C). ~ This would regture constructiah of a new curb extension and handicap ramp plus some sort of fence or planter arrangement to align pedestrians prior to crossing the driveway. Emergency vehicles would still be required to stop with this layout, but the proposed improvements would provide a more standard configuration and sight distance would beincreased. Other measures iv increase visibility of approaching vehicles to pedestrians include the installation of a curved mirror on the existing stop sign pole. The curved mirror would allow a pedestrian to view oncoming traffic in the alley without having to look around the Post Office Building. Another measure ie the installation of a "CAR COMING" sign that would flash as a vehicle approached (activated by. a physical or magnetic trigger as the vehicle passes over it) as shown on Exhibit D. These measures are alternatives, but are not considered necessary if the improvements on Exhibit C are implemented. Vehicle Circulation As noted above, ~ the proposed circulation pattern for emergency vehicles is to errter from Saratoga-I.os Cxatos Road (SR 9) and exit onto Saratoga Avenue via. the driveway located east of the Post Office. Afield test of the d.epartrnent's engine indicates that all vehicles can complete .the required tum maneuvers (see Exhibit A) without _ encroaching .into 'the opposing travel lane. This is the preferred circulation pattern because vehicles wauld exit onto Saratoga Avenue, which has lower traffic volumes than SR 9 and would require fewer vehicles to clear the intersection when the traffic signal pre-emption is activated by the Fire Department. In addition, this pattern- maintains the existing on-site circulation pattern and does not affect any of the angled parking spaces next to the Contempo building. Three other circulation alternatives were 'assessed to determine if another pattern could be implemea~ted without resulting in potential safety concerns. The three alternatives (1,2, and 3) are illustrated on Exhibits E, F, and G, respectively. It should be noted that the department's fire engine was used to~field test all of these patterns and mould negotiate all of the turns provided vehicles are not parked in most of the spaces on the south and east sides of the Contempo building: L'ach of the alternate circulation plans is briefly described below. 2 • • OOOa36 E abed `•WdBZ~~ ZO-6Z-6nt/ `LtLI 8LZ 80ti `sa~eioossd sued ~ Dyad :1~9 ~.u~ Alternate'1 (Exhibit E) 'This scheme includes the same inbound path as the proposed circulation plan (Exh~~it A); but emergency vehicles would exit out of the driveway on the -north side of the Contempo building. The exit pattern conflicts with the entrance pattern to the five angled parking spaces along this driveway and also requires the larger fire engines to cross the painted median island (i.e., two sets of double yellow Imes) on SR 9. Alternate 2 (Exhibit F) This pattern is the reverse of Alternate 1 in that vehicles enter the driveway north of the Contempo building and Exit the site from the south driveway. Similar to Alternate 1, entering vehicles would be required to cross the painted median on SR 9. Vehicles exiting the site would ~be opposite Oak Street, and no major modifications would be required to provide adequate sight distance in both directions except for the possible removal of several directional signs. Sight distance at the south driveway is considered superior to the north driveway for exiting vehicles according to fire department staff and f eld observatyons. Alternate 3 (Exhibit G) This plan would require vehicles to enter the site from Saratoga Avenue via the driveway east of the Fost ~ Office. Sinvlar to Alternate 2, emergency vehicles would exit the site via the southern driveway on SR 9. With this pattern, the pedestrian issues described above would not be of concern because drivers'of entering vehicles would have a clear view of pedestrians crossing the driveway. Even with the improvements proposed on Exhibit B', fire engines would be able to enter from Saratoga Avenue' without encroaching into the opposing travel lane. To implement this alternate circulation plan, the oxisting one-way circulation for the Post Office driveway would have to be reversed, which would require all traffic from the fire station, sheriff's station, and Post Office to exit the site via the driveway north of the Contempo building. This would require drivers of vehicles parking the angled spaces north of Contempo, to perform and amultiple-point rum to rum their vehicles around and exit the site. Ail of the alternate circulation plena could be implemented without resulting sight distance problems, vehicle turning restrictions or other physical circulation issues. However, the following traffic operations issues regarding exit maneuvers on SR 9 should be noted: • lyith the existing Saratoga Avenue driveway, 62 percent of response calls required emergency vehicles to travel through the adjacent signalized intersect9oa according to 600 year-to-date apparatus responses in 2001. Driveway access on SR 9 would ' require emergency vehicles responding to 88 percent of all calls to pass thmugh the traffic signal. 3~ ' 0~0~~~ ti abed `WdBZ:ti Zo-6Z-6~tf :LLLt 6LZ 80ti :sa~eTCOSSd s~aad ~ .~yad :/Ig ~u The combined two-way traffic volume in front o£ t11e SR 9 fire station driveway is • 47 percent sad 55 percent higher than the volume in front of the existing Saratoga Avenue driveway during the AM and PNS peak hours respectively. As noted above, northbound queuing on SR 9 o$m exteads south of Oak Street during the AM peak hour. For the SR 9 driveway, it is assumed that the existing signal pre-emptioa could be modified such that all signals. tum red to clear northbound vehicles on SR 9 during an, emergency response. However, this would require at least 32 vehicles in two lanes to move out of the way, as opposed to 8 vehicles in two lanes near the existing Saratoga Avenue driveway. • Observed travel speeds are higher on the northbound section of SR 9 as compared to westbound Saratoga Avenue because of the cbange in character of the madway and the downhill grade towards the traffic signal at Saratoga Avenue. Northbound vehicles on SR 9 are traveling at 35 miles per hour or more as they approach the alternate site driveway. Drivers of westbound vehicles vn Saratoga Avenue tend to slow as they approach Big Basis Way and the Village area. The higher speeds would make stopping traffic on SR 9 snore difficult if pull-through access is not provided at the alternate fire station site. In summary, the proposed circulation plan for the temporary fire station (with the exit on Saratoga Avenue) is preferred because of lower overall traffic volumes, shorter queues to clear at the signal, lower travel speeds on the roadway in front of the fire station, and fewer emergency vehicles that must travel thmugh the traffic signal. r~ L 4 040~~8 z1/g abed :Wd6Z:b Zo-6Z-~~t! :LGLI 8LZ 80~ :sa~.e~aossd s~aad +g .~ya~ :l(g ~,u~ • a • N m rn a. ~. rn N N O Q) N Q AAT 1_ N 0 .~ .~, U O N N Q N d a~ a L t m +~ 0 V C~0 Saratoga Fire Slatio~t Building Replacenwu . - r.,~c snrd~ I l; Source: RRM Design Gnwp and C3 Design Alliance - Note: Plan is conceptual only end is not a design drawing. Exhibit A PROPOSED CIRCULATION PLAN ~ - - - ~ooe-~+ alas-o+) - - peter dr Peera Asrxiates, Inc. - N d rn m a a 0 v N O d1 N D1 7 Q m N m a N m i-+ N U O N N Q N L N N a ~ 0 L O L ^ G1 ~+ m O Saratoga Fire Station Banding Replacement TrafJSc Sttedy Drivewa Drivewa Red Curb White Curb ~ Greeen Curb 15 min. Drive ~~ Saratoga Avenue Green Curb (15 min.) Post Office Note: Plan is conceptual only end is not a design drawing. Q< m ~' Edge of Pavement Existin +~ Stop S n . . N. SCale: ~~ = 2d Exhibit B DCiSTING DRIVEWAY LAYOUT '~ ao~~ aim-o~) ,p. ,R Pssr~ A~eni-inht lrrr N m a~ rn m a. ~~ a 0 v N O N ~f 7 Q ti N m O v N m i~ N rl V O N N Q N L m d a L O L Q m m ~ c r Soraroga Fire Station Banding Replacement ' Traffic Study ~ Drive ray ~ ~ Driveway ~ Red Curb I White Curb ~ ~ Green Curb (15 min.) ~ Drive New curb end Green Curb (15 rnin.) i Fence or planters Post Office Nate: ,Plan is aonoepWal only and is not a design drawing. Saratoga Avenue Ik Edge of Pavetnenl' N cuCB~B: ~ ~ o ~ Exhibit C ~ ~ PROPOSED DRIVEWAY MODIFICATIONS {~ Fchr do Peers Assotlates, Inc. ' Saratoga Fire Station Drrifding Repfaceneent Traffic Study / Driveway ~ Red Cuff ( While Curb - ~g m Green Curb (15 min.) ~ Orive Saratoga Avenue -® ~_ m N m Lighted "CAR COMING" sign O `~ Green Curb (15 min.) m .~, o N N Post Office Q - N L ..__.._. _. m m a °~ O Nate: Plan is oonaep~al onlyy and is not a design drawing. L m 0 m ~ c ~~ - ~dge of Pavement: New mi or - - N y. Exhibit D ALTERNATE DRIVEWAY MODIFICATIONS 'F ~ p-is-m~ 4r Q~ Peers Asaoctafea. Irrc. - ~i. Sar+atogn Fire Station Building Reptacinwtl ' ~ Tn~ic Study i i, N , N ~+ t0 U O N N - Q - Source: ARM Design Group end C3 O~eaign Albance n. ~ O - No6a: Plan b conceptual only and is not a design dranving. ~ Q ~ ~ . m W ._ Exhlbil E ~ ALTERNATE CIRCIiLATION PLAN 1 - r FEl1r ~ PCCl,S AJSOCjarGf~ I/~. N a a N O OI N Q n r ti N m O d' N N (0 +i U O N N Q N L m a~ a ~ O L O t m ~ ' Saratoga Fire Staliori Building Replacement T.r,~;c sandy i i~ Source: AflM Design Group and C3 Design Aplerxe Note: Plan is conceptual only and is not a design drawing. Exhibit F ALTERNATE Cii~CUI.ATION PLAN 2 ~ '~ r e-tr ~ reers Associates, inc. N N d (0 N C7 N O N D1 Q ti m ti N CO O N d N .~ U O N N Q N L m m a on L t ~. m +~ c m d Q Sa.rrogQ Fire Slatiorr Building Replarineen- • Tragic Stxd~ 1 t f 5ouroe: RRM Design Group and C3 Design Alliance Nate: Plan is vonoeptuel only end is not a design drawing. ~Exfiibit G ~ ALTERNATE CIRCULATION PLAN 3 Fels & Peers Arsociaref, lnc. • THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK . OOQ~46 • Draft Report Saratoga Fire Station .Project Traffic Assessment Prepared for: ;~ Prepared by: 1 Korve i Engineering • Saratoga Fire District 1570 The Alameda, Suite 222 San Jose, CA 95126 September 18, 2002 _ .: ; ~ ~. r 00004'7 Drafrf3eport Saratoga Fire,Station Project Traffic Assessment Table of Contents INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 1 EXISTING CONDITIONS .......................................:................................................................... 1 Existing Traffic Volumes ......................................................................................................... 1 Future Traffic Volumes .........................................................................:................................. 3 Existing Parking .........................:............................................................................................ 3 Future Parking ........................................................................................................................ 7 CIRCULATION ........................................................................................................................... 7 COMPARABLE FIRE STATION PARKING ...............................................................................13 CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................................................14 List of Figures Figure 1 Existing Traffic Volumes ........................................................................................... 2 Figure 2 Future Traffic Volumes ............................................................................................. 4 Figure 3 Parking Areas ........................................................................................................... 5 Figure 4 Phase 1 -Interim Project Signage and Striping ........................................................ 9 Figure 5 Phase III -Complete Project Signage and Striping ........................................:.......10 List of Tables -;x. Table 1 Volume Summary ..................................................................................................... 3 Table 2 Parking Occupancy ......................:.......................................................................... 6 Appendix (Fire Stations with comparable parking) San Mateo Fire Station No.26 Montecito Fire Station No.2 Brea Fire Station No.2 San Mateo Fire Station No.21 • • • Korve Engineering, fnc. i September 1y~~p~n~~ Draft Report _ Saratoga FireStation Project Traffic Assessment INTRODUCTION The existing conditions at the Saratoga Fire Station and Post Office site consist of a combination of poorly designed circulation and parking that does not represent an ideal environment for automobile access, parking, fire station access, or pedestrian movements. Access and circulation will be improved with the redevelopment of the site and the reconfiguration of access. The purpose of this traffic engineering assessment is to consider the existing conditions, evaluate an initial construction phase to determine if improvements should be made to resolve any existing shortcomings, and finally evaluate the final completed project condition and determine if the ultimate project provides an improvement to all access modes, including automobiles, service vehicles, fire trucks, and pedestrians. The primary focus will be on safety issues associated with the design. EXISTING CONDITIONS Existing Traffic Volumes While traffic to most facilities has pronounced peaks in the AM and PM peak hours that roughly correspond with the peak of adjacent street traffic, traffic to the Post Office/Sheriff's Office/Fire Station is more consistent throughout the course of the day. Existing traffic counts were conducted on September 4 and 5, 2002. These counts were undertaken to understand the level of activity that currently occurs at the facility. Figure 1 illustrates the existing traffic volumes. The inbound and outbound movements are identified by the letters A through F. The traffic volumes noted on Figure 1 are hourly totals-for five hours of the day. Two hourly counts were collected in the morning (7:30 am to 8:30 am and again from 10:00 am to 11:00 am), one during the noon hour (12:00 pm to 1:00 pm), and another two in the afternoon (2:30 pm to 3:30 pm and :ti 4:30 pm to 5:30 pm). The land uses of the site are expected to remain the same as today with the reconstruction. Therefore, the traffic volumes are not expected to change. However, because of the access reconfiguration, the volume movements at any one location will change. Table 1 summarizes the existing traffic volumes by hour and for the total five hours that were surveyed. The traffic volumes are fairly modest in the morning with approximately 50 vehicles either entering or exiting the area during each hour surveyed. At noontime and through the remainder of the afternoon the traffic volumes are double what were observed in the morning. The volumes at noon and during the traditional PM peak hour from 4:30 pm to 5:30 pm were slightly over 100 vehicles per hour. . Korve Engineering, Inc. 1 September 18,002 n Draft Report Saratoga Fire~Station Existing Cond-tions Figure 1 Existing Traffic Volumes • .~. ~~` ~ ~ \ ~ _~~ ~~ w J U Q ~- Z cn w w Korve Engineering, Inc. 2 September9~^~ ~J~V a~ Draft Report - Saratoga Fire Station Project Traffic Assessment Table 1 Volume Summary Driveway Movement Direction 7:30 - 8:30 10:00- 11:00 12:00- 1:00 2:30- 3:30 4:30- 5:30 Total A Outbound 5 5 8 4 10 32 B Inbound 19 21~ 54 30 41 165 C Outbound 14 15 40 40 24 133 D Outbound 11 0 0 8 6 25 E Inbound 0 8 8 0 24 40 F Outbound 0 1 0 0 3 4 Totallnbound 19 29 62 30 65 205 Total Outbound 30 21 48 52 43 194 Total Hourly 49 50 110 82 108 399 For the total 5 hours surveyed, the inbound and outbound traffic was fairly balanced. A total of 205 inbound vehicles were observed and a total of 194 outbound vehicles. The total traffic of 400 vehicles over five hours represents 80 vehicles per hour on average, approximately 40 vehicles in and 40 vehicles out. • Future Traffic Volumes Figure 2 shows the expected traffic volumes with the reconstruction of the fire station and the change in overall access and circulation. The inbound movements from Saratoga Avenue are expected to slightly decrease with the reconfiguration. The traffic using Saratoga/Los Gatos Road will increase with the reconfiguration, mainly because this will be the only exit for the entire site. The shift in traffic volumes will not cause traffic congestion at any of the driveways or intersections in the immediate area. In concurrence with the previous study conducted by the city, the existing conditions at the adjacent intersections will not be affected by the project. The ,traffic volumes are not large enough to cause access, queuing, or congestion problems. Existing Parking Currently, there are 69 parking stalls distributed throughout the site. This total includes 8 stalls at the rear of the Contempo Realty property that were observed to be used throughout the day. Out of the total 69 stalls, 36 are designated for sheriff parking, five stalls are marked for 15- minute parking for high turnover public use, and the remaining 28 stalls are not marked with any restrictions. Figure 3 illustrates the parking areas located on the site. The letter references on Figure 3 correspond to the parking areas noted on Table 2. Parking occupancy was observed at five times throughout the day as noted on Table 2. The occupancy was observed to be between Korve Engineering, Inc. 3 September 18, 2002 000051 0 cep A ~~ 5 IO 42 20 42 '~ FIGURE 2 -FUTURE TRAFFIC VOLUMES Q C~ . • T) Legend 7:30 - 8:30 am 10:00 - 11:00 am 12:00 - 1:00 pm 2:30-3:30 pm 4:30-5:30 pm T tG C N C C A -I -~ d ci O C N k d ~~ ~O ~ v a ~. ~~~ ~ ~~ ! !~ m v O~ A~ C~ W d~ PNiQq A g~ L' ~~ - cos cams ~ FIGURE 3 -PARKING AREAS .r w -~ n d N m k ~ o °°'~ a~~ ~, ~ o_g ~a~ Draft Report Saratoga Fire Station Project Traflic Assessment Table 2 Parking Occupancy 0 a fA ki P ng ar Available 8:15 AM Parking Handi- Handi- Area S s. ca Restriction S s ~ ca A 4 1 Sheriff/Post Office 3 1 __.....__....._ ..._..._.._.. B ._.... ...~.._ ._..._ ........ 10 ................_. ---.._..._ ... ............_......._....................................._..........._......_ Sheriff ..............._............... 8 ........_.............._....._... .. C 5 15 min 1 D 6 None . 5 _ _........ .._ ....._._ E ... .. .. ... . _. ... _._ _. _.. .._21.._...__. _...._....... . . _ _ . _ _ Sheriff 13 _L.. . . . F . 8 1 None 6 1 G 4 1 None 4 ~ 1 H S None 3 Total 66 3 43 ~ 2 Unmarked 4 ~ Occupancy 71% 10:45 AM Handi- S s. ca ....._3........_ ...................._..._1...._....._. 8 1 3......._............_......__ ........ _._1.3 ...................._._.._............_..__... 6 3 1 8 45 2 4 74% 2:30 PM Handi- S s. ca _4.........._..._..__..... ......................,.. 9 .................. 5 ..__s.........._ ........................ _~ 2..._............._ ................_.............. 5 3 8 52 4 84% 4:45 PM _.....2...._.. 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 _.....3........ _9_-... 6 3 7 40 4 67% 1 1 2 Inc. Draft Report - Saratoga Fire~Station Project Traffic Assessment 67% and 84% throw hout the da The maximum 84% occu anc occurred Burin g y p y g the mid- afternoon. The parking-occupancy figures include#our vehicles-that were parked in unmarked stalls. These spaces were immediately behind the fire station, behind the post office, and along the eastern access roadway between the project and the church. The adjacent church parking lot was also observed to be used by persons wishing to access the site. The parking data in Table 2 separates the handicap parking from the other parking. The handicap parking had fairly high use throughout the day, and was 100% occupied at the observation time immediately after noon. Other areas with fairly high parking use were the spaces on Saratoga Avenue in front of the Post Office, the sheriff's parking in Lot B immediately behind the Post Office, the area noted as Lot G in front of the Contempo Realty building, and the area noted as Lot H immediately behind the Contempo Realty building. Future Parking The future parking conditions are expected to remain similar to existing. As designed, the proposed project will have 46 parking spaces, in addition to the unchanged number of the Post Office parking. Of the 46 spaces, 18 spaces will be dedicated to the Fire Station, 10 spaces will be dedicated as public use and 18 spaces will be part of the property sold to the church. Of the 18 spaces sold to the church, 6 will be marked as shared with the Fire Station. Based on current demand, these spaces will adequately serve the project. To accommodate peak parking demand, the project has made arrangements with the adjacent church to use a portion of their existing lot for both the temporary layout during construction and the final project. Peak demand for the fire station/post office/sheriff's office do not coincide with peak parking demand at the church. CIRCULATION The project will be developed in two stages. The first stage is the interim stage where a temporary fire station will be constructed in the area currently occupied by the Contempo Realty building. Once the temporary fire station is built, the existing fire station can be demolished and the permanent fire station built in its place. Figure 4 show the interim condition and Figure 5 the completed project. There are several improvements to circulation that will be achieved with the ;' reconfiguration. Some of these improvements will occur with the interim project and some will not occur until the final completed project, as noted below. The following is a summary of the proposed improvements. • The existing inbound George Whalen Way located between the fire station and the _ Post Office is a narrow opening located near the Saratoga Avenue/Saratoga-Los Gatos Road intersection. A high speed right turn is possible from northbound Saratoga-Los Korve Engineering, Inc. 7 September 18, 2002 ^ C ~~Q~~C Draft Report Saratoga FireStation Project Tragic Assessment Gatos Road to eastbound Sarato a Avenue with the current desi n. Also the 9 9 , narrowness of the roadway and .the. parking-maneuvers that currently take place along this roadway can cause queuing back onto Saratoga Avenue. With the new design, this access point will be eliminated and the radius of the right turn tightened to slow turning traffic. The access point will be removed as part of the interim project and will not be replaced. The improvement to the northbound right turn from Highway 9 will not occur until the completed project. These two changes will eliminate vehicles turning into this driveway while other vehicles are turning right from Saratoga-Los Gatos Road at a fairly high rate of speed, just a short distance away, with limited sight distance. The current situation is exacerbated when several vehicles turn into the driveway in succession causing a queue of cars. This opening is noted on Figure 4, but it will be permanently closed as noted in Figure 5. • An interim fire station will be constructed on the Contempo Realty site while demolition of the current site occurs. Figure 4 notes this interim condition. The proposed circulation is to enter from Saratoga-Los Gatos Road (Highway 9) and exit onto Saratoga Avenue via the driveway located east of the Post Office. The fire truck movements as proposed were tested in the field and these movements can occur without encroachment into opposing travel lanes. This interim condition is an improvement over existing conditions because the driveway east of the Post Office is approximately 80 feet farther from the Highway 9 intersection, improving sight distance and reducing the likelihood that queues from the intersection would be blocking the driveway. Also, as noted below, pedestrian improvements at the corner of the Post Office, which are part of the interim___improvements, will improve pedestrian visibility to drivers exiting at this driveway. The inbound movements to the interim fire station would occur from Highway 9. It is preferable to have inbound movements occur from the more heavier traveled roadway and outbound, movements onto the lesser traveled roadway. .ti • Korve Engineering, Inc. 8 September 18, 2002 QOQQ54 • • • 0 a 3 O~ A V ill .~ "One woy' Sign DO NOT ENTER Signs I~~ n~ Aro Cti088WA1J(~ ~ `~ L~~7 ~1 ~ ` ~ ~ FIGURE 4 - PHASE I -INTERIM PROJECT SIGNAGE AND STRIPING A d t/1 fD w Z 3~ 0 To' to cc m cc c~ m a .~- .0 3 !O T ~ =. ro° i w ~?1~ ~~~. ~~~ ~, ~~-~ ,~~ N 7 ~D 7~ W ~D ~. n 0 ~~ q~ oD ~ ngnT ~ FIGURE 5 -PHASE III -COMPLETE PROJECT SIGNAGE AND STRIPING • .~ One way , AROW 'T1 ~Q C CTI a1 N fD I n O 3 .o co .r tD O n w 7 d' A m a .. -. v' • ~~ ~°~o ~ a,~, ~mW ~ ~~ Draft Report Saratoga Fire'Station Project Traffic Assessment • • Pedestrians desiring to cross Saratoga-Los Gatos Road from in front of the fire station must currently cross the high speed right turn lane noted above to reach the refuge island where the pedestrian push button is located. Pedestrians in this area are vulnerable because they do not have signal protection while crossing this area, right turns are being made at a higher rate of speed, and the location of the fire station building at the corner limits visibility of the pedestrians by motorists. The complete project will widen the sidewalk in front of the fire station, move the pedestrian push button onto the sidewalk, and tighten the corner radius to slow the speed of .turning vehicles. This is a major improvement to pedestrian safety. • The turning volume for right turns from northbound Saratoga-Los Gatos Road is 48 vehicles per hour in the AM peak and 116 vehicles per hour in the PM peak. Currently, the right turns are made from the same lane as the .through movements to Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road. With one or two vehicle waiting to travel through the intersection, right turns on red cannot occur. The reconstruction of the fire station for the completed project will enable a separate right turn lane to be constructed on the northbound approach to the intersection. This lane will increase the traffic capacity of the • intersection and reduce congestion and delay. This right turn lane is noted on Figure 5. • The driveway at the eastern edge of the Post Office is currently for outbound movements only onto Saratoga Avenue. Furthermore, exiting drivers cannot readily see pedestrian walking in front of the post office and crossing this driveway. For the interim project, this circulation pattern will be maintained with exits occurring at this location onto Saratoga Avenue. Additionally, as noted above, fire trucks will use this . exit during the interim condition. To improve the visibility of pedestrians, the sidewalk will be "bulbed-out" at the driveway to improve visibility. For the ultimate construction, the circulation pattern will be reversed and this will be an inbound driveway which will .~. totally eliminate any current pedestrian visibility problems. The improvements are noted in Figure 4 for the interim condition and Figure 5 for the complete project. • The driveway at the east edge of the Post Office has one-way circulation northbound today and this will be maintained with the interim condition. However, with the ultimate condition, this circulation will be reversed to one-way southbound. When this change in circulation occurs, there may be some confusion for the local drivers, particularly at the south end where drivers may attempt to exit Highway 9 and travel north on this roadway as they do today. Figure 5 notes a Do Not Enter sign to be permanently placed at this location to discourage this movement. In addition, temporary Do Not -corve tngmeenng, tnc. 1i September 18,.2002 00059 Draft Report Saratoga Fire-Station = - Project Tragic Assessment g , q g o cur at George Whalen Way. These queues and turning traffic near the Highway 9 intersection will be eliminated in the interim and remain so with the complete project. Also, eliminated are the egress movements onto Highway 9 behind the existing fire station. The interim location of the mail drop box will require access for both left and right turns from Highway 9. However, the traffic volumes are less than one vehicle per minute during the noon peak and generally less than one movement every two minutes for the remainder of the day. The egress onto Saratoga Avenue for the interim mail drop box is located sufficient distance from the Highway 9 intersection and pedestrian :~ improvements are made at the sidewalk to maintain safety for the temporary condition. The permanent drop box will have circulation patterns similar to today, however, with two key improvements. First; the access intersection from Saratoga Avenue will be located farther from the Highway 9 intersection than the current condition improving ' sight distance to the intersection. Also, the drop box will be located farther from Saratoga Avenue and will have a separate queuing area that will eliminate the queues onto Saratoga Avenue that currently occur. Second, the egress movement onto Highway 9 will not be located immediately adjacent to another driveway as currently occurs. Both of these improvements will make the permanent drop box location and access significantly. better that the current location and access. Korve Engineering, Inc. 12 September 18, 20x2 Enter si ns may also need to be placed in the roadwa aisle until the local residents 9 Y get used to the change in circulation. • Two closely spaced driveways are located behind the existing fire station accessing Saratoga-Los Gatos Road. One is the one-way outbound driveway between the fire station and the Post Office and the other is for inbound and outbound access to the sheriff's parking. The first driveway will be removed. as part of the project. This modification will improve traffic movements and pedestrian flow in the area. As noted on Figure 5 this driveway is eliminated. • With the closure of the George Whale Way between the Post Office and the fire station, the mail drop box will need to be relocated. The interim location is noted on Figure 4 on the west side of the circulation roadway across from Contempo Realty. Because the circulation on this roadway will be reversed for the completed project condition, the permanent location will be on the opposite side of the roadway about midway between Saratoga Avenue and Highway 9, noted on Figure 5. A queuing area is noted on Figure 5 to allow vehicles dropping off mail to pull out of the through traffic lanes. This queuing area is a significant improvement over existing conditions. • The location of the interim and permanent mail drop box is an improvement over the . existin location. As noted above ueues onto Sarato a Avenue can c ~~Q~~~ Draft Report Saratoga Fire Station ct Traffic Assessment • Construction access will be required to demolish the existing fire station and build the replacement building. The-existing circulation roadway between the existing fire station and the post office could serve as construction access. Figure 4 shows this concept. The access to Saratoga -Los Gatos Road would be restricted to right turns only, just as it is today. Figure 5 shows these two- access points closed with the completed project. A construction staging area will be established in the park behind the existing fire station for the demolition of the current facility. For the construction of the new facility, a second staging area will be located on the proposed apron area in front of the new facility. • Figures 4 and 5 also illustrate several One Way signs, Directional Arrow pavement markings, Do Not Enter signs and Keep Clear pavement markings for the interim and for the completed project. These signs and markings will control traffic in and around the project site to enhance safety for general automobile traffic and for fire truck ingress and egress. • Figure 5 shows a large paved plaza area in front of the new fire station. Fire trucks will be able to drive directly onto this plaza and then back into the station without protruding onto Saratoga Avenue. This improvement will reduce significantly the time that they currently block traffic on Saratoga Avenue and through the Saratoga Avenue/Saratoga - Los Gatos Road intersection to re-enter the station. COMPARABLE FIRE STATION PARKING The parking demands of a fire station are generated by the number of companies serving the station, the number of administrative staff and the number of public visiting the station. A company consists of 2 to 4 personnel on each piece of apparatus. Parking to accommodate the increased demand during the shift change is based on individual department procedures. Each fire station is also required to accommodate accessible public parking. The appendix provides examples of recently constructed fire stations and the parking demands relative to the number of companies assigned. San Mateo Fire Station No. 26 is a one company station served by 4 personnel and provides 4 fire fighter parking spaces. The Station shares access to a public accessible space and other public parking for use during shift change. Montecito Fire Station No. 2 is a two company station served by 5 personnel that provides 7 fire fighter parking spaces and one accessible public space. The site has been designed to utilize tandem parking during shift change to accommodate the movement of vehicles during this operation. Brea Fire Station No. 2 is a two company station with accommodations for a B.C. Officer and is served by 8 personnel. It also has a community room that is available for use by the public. It provides 14 firefighter parking spaces, 2 B.C. Officer spaces and 6 public parking spaces which includes an Korve Engineering, Inc. 13 September 18, 2002 000061 Draft Report Saratoga Fire Station Project Traffic Assessment accessible space. San Mateo Fire Station No. 21 is a two company station that provides 8 • firefighter parking spaces and shares access to a public on street accessible space and other on street public parking for use during shift change. These current examples illustrate how the proposed two company station project, meets the standard parking demands and accommodates the more stringent parking policy during shift change. CONCLUSIONS The reconstruction of the existing Saratoga Fire Station will result in several improvements to pedestrian and vehicular circulation and safety. Along Saratoga Avenue the inbound access point at George Whalen Way will be eliminated and shifted to the west side. This change provides additional spacing from the Saratoga Avenue/Saratoga -Los Gatos Road intersection. A northbound right turn lane will be added to Saratoga -Los Gatos Road at the Saratoga Avenue intersection. This modification will improve capacity of the intersection and will slow traffic turning onto Saratoga Avenue. The sidewalk in front of the fire station will be widened and the signal pole will be placed on the sidewalk. The widening will improve pedestrian visibility to motorists and the relocation of the signal pole will allow pedestrians to actuate the pedestrian crossing signal without first crossing traffic lanes. As part of the pedestrian improvements in front of the fire station, a plaza area will be constructed. This area will allow fire trucks to pull directly off Saratoga Avenue prior to backing into the station. This will greatly reduce the blocking of traffic on Saratoga Avenue and through the Saratoga Avenue/Saratoga -Los Gatos Road intersection. Pedestrian improvements will also be made at the northwest corner of the post office to align the crossing directly across the driveway. This modification will improve pedestrian visibility during the interim condition. For the completed project, the circulation of this driveway will be reversed and vehicles turning from Saratoga Avenue into this driveway will have sufficient visibility of pedestrians in front of the post office. One existing driveway will be eliminated from Saratoga -Los Gatos Road. This driveway which currently only allows for right turns will improve traffic movements and will also eliminate a vehicular crossing of the sidewalk. The mail drop box will be located farther away from Saratoga Avenue than is currently the case, and a queuing area for cars dropping off mail provided. -These modifications will eliminate queuing back onto Saratoga Avenue. • Korve Engineering, Inc. 14 September 18, 2002 OQO~62 • • •. 'r 1 F.F. Parking L'.. J c San Mateo Fire Station No.26 . ~ 4 Parking Spaces O ~ ... ca i ~~ o 0 o ~- - - - ---~- - - - - - -~_ - - - - - - - - O~ / ~ - - - --- - - - -- ~ O-- i I i ~ I 1 Company Station O 8,000 s.f. r ~ ~ I -. ~I ~. i 0 I ~ uc S I I Public Parking 4~I I ~ I I I I i 3 i F.F. Parking 2 I I I L----------------- ----~ ----------- - ------1 O - _ ~ ~_ ontecito Fire Station N o o° m o. 2 ~ Parking Spaces ! ~ ,, _ V • NOR7N ORANGE AVENUE ~$ ~~ w 0 • ~ ~ 3 14 ' - iz 'n fro ~1 e F.F. Parking 3 a 3 i /~ O 0 #~ B.C. , `, T Parking\:. ~ i ~ 2 Company Station w/ B.C. Station 13,134 s.f. 0 . w \3 t 2 Q' -* Public Parking s -~ t~ Q Q C7 0 ~ ~ ~ t _ area Fire Station No. 2 . __ . ~2 Parkins Spaces O O 0 E RETNNWC n: +- _ i{_._ _ _ _ WN.L TO REI,UIW _ _ -' ' -- - ~ ---" - - SRICCO EklI5F1 I 1 - _ ._--- ~ 6'-p' ABOVE i -----' -- ---... GRADE 1 i ,, EXISTIND FIRE PERSONNEL ~, ~ _ :;~ - ~ . PMNWC (4 SPACES) - ~~' -.- - .. ~ _. '._ . ~ `:. _ __ r= '*'J \ J~ t ©'7.20' N 7' 3'E _ - _ ~ +r ' - I - 3.32 _ ~ ~ ~2 - ~ lI~ b'( - .. ~ i' I ~' -~ K~,L~'t l{I 1 :4 I +I ~ ' I + c h i:.:i=0 -G .,:.~t~. + . ~j ~ I~' I I ii ~ ,I'i!1 II.,'u, i II Ii + , ~~ i:i IiI '0 , tz F.F. Parking 1 '' ' ._ ~; i' . - . 1 I I II ,III ,~ II ~ III ~ ~1~~~ I _ I %a, .% I _ ~I { ' l `~ -1~ ` ~ Public Parkin a .I ,'{,~,,,; ~ (__ 'ti~h~ ~ (~ On Street _ ~ ,' I ~ rr,',ki';r i F.F. Parking (_ 'r _.. By agreement ~, I;I , III ;I~ ,,I, ! I,I', , ' ~, ro ' With adjacent ~ ----~------- - liF~i~, i r ^ r;' 4 ~hti „I I Ir e Z ~,,~ .~k ~i, property •N 'III iI'I ' I{'~' i~' ,I I'' l'i~Il~, : ~~j~l , ,~I;,I ilf,I '' ,_.~~ '~,, + ,, ,.,,.,. ~n { I{VIII 1 Il.~~i~, I i II,i~{I I~ , I li ~ I ~ I,I; I ~ _ ---__---- ~ 1 I , , , ~ , , ' -~ ~ - tfi j~~'~~!!Il j~I~l~ !`IIiJ,~lli ,'~tl ! Iil {~ , ... i. _.. _ L_. --- ._ - . 2 Company Station ~ ---~,-- - - -,. '~ I -_ _ _ '; r(N) ANEENNAE ToWEx - 14,874 s.f. - ! { I I+ !~ I r ij1+1 I li; ~ I I 1 _ - +tl I ,! illulll Y + , If+ ! ! u ., ' . - Z_~.1._ _N`.~7:C';~~-= -- - ,' +1 ~,, i +.l ~ {{I { I{I~{i~'11i51~~ i~llli , 4'{I I - ~ ~ __ -:.. :I , .VIII I+ '{I++ (It Ii ~~', ~r ~• I •II.7 11 {II 1 + E7(RIWC /, _ 1+ii''• ,II ~I'~ 1 I ,III I~~ II 1 I '''1 II I 'Illi 11 ~'I~ -..y ; S SSIII - I ' ~ --{I~IIIIII 1 I II I 1 RE7NN4lC MAIA ~~ '\ 'I~ 11;.~-~~ i ~ ~• .1 III I~I ( - ~ ~ L_~ 1~ b t..L '~. 1 ( Jr I 11, ! ~. I I +. II I" ',+ i I t ~,i i~ ~ jl{ III ,~~ I I < -___ N)PARKMD-2 SPACE (E)PARKWp-0 SPACE I, + , 1 (If I I , +Ij I ~ 1',I I + I°~iI ~~ ` , •# I =- ~- -#----- ~" I ! , ,II 1 Ii~III i ,I-'11 !i I I -~I'IiII ,:~ 1+ IItI {I + II! ' I ~ - - - (N) GARBAGE ,IIt i ;I ~~ 1 ,'I, II' I II ,I :.IIiI I ,l , n IIt' Itl 1 r ~ _ N) Stipp ENCLOSURE I Il :; I I •u II t {! , .L;. If I I ,I Llil : III +~ I t I:,II.I:, ~ ~J I ' - __ BUA.OY10 1 - - -_ --_-_ _-~-_.-_ .. _ -_ --_ ~T - I - N) CONCRETE PAVING---~ . ~ --' -'-_p{yp,Iip~~ ~p1f.,EFIJI~fID~.~ , '-S~ _ I III II ~ - - Y _ _ rJ-' __ ~ R OF WORK { ~` e ". n o a 206.75' N57'03'E -•- =- = ~ __ _--. m -. San Mateo Fire Station No.21 $+~king Spaces .. Attachment 4 RRM DESIGN GKOUP ~ir~fi:rr ~rvi5arrrrrrvri; %~~rr%r c:r~c~ September 3, 2002 State Clearinghouse 1400 Tenth Street Sacramento, CA 95814 --- Re: State Clearing House # 2002082090 Gentlemen: The Saratoga Fire District is hereby submitting 15 copies of a Recirculation of the Draft Initial Study with New Information, and Mitigated Negative Declaration for Saratoga Fire District Headquarters Fire Station, Saratoga, California. The original was submitted to the State Clearinghouse on August 23, 2002. New information became available, and comments from the City were received which necessitated this Addendum. This package includes the Initial Study excerpts which focuses on the relevant environmental information . affected by the new information, Mitigations Summary, a Notice of Completion, a Negative Declaration, and the original Initial Study /Negative Declaration package submittal of August 23, 2002. Sincerely, RRM DESIGN GROUP Dierdre Callaway Planner ~~ c/a98034\env\AddendumCoverLetter • ~Ur i.;rr: t :•br>~k, . 1 )[i~"rrirlr . ~Irrrl ti ~'i,U r, . LOS ;1 f. ;a.l P.+ ~J0006Mq. .-r:;'„•i,r8 i', ucr:~ L,... ., tiui:: ,,._ ..;n lvi:l), o-1,;. i alil..•rni:~ q;{r„ .. i'h~:rn•: `:r:':, -u.: • I~, • ~ ~ - ,~•ww.rrm rsrgn.com Document Transmittal Form for Addendum Mail to: State Clearinghouse, 1400 Tenth Street, Sacramento, CA 95814 9161445-0613 SCH p Project Title Saratoga Fire Station I IUOZU8Z09I Lead Agency: Saratoga Fire Disyict Contact Person: Asst Chief Gordon Duncan Sveet Address: 14380 Saratotra Avenue City: Saratoga County: Sans Clara Zip: 95070 Phone: (408} 867-9001 Project Location 14380 Saratoga Avenue & 20473 Los Gatos Saratoga Road County: Santa Clara City/Community: Saratoga Assessor's Parcel No. 397-22-017,019 Section: Twp. Range: _ Cross Sneers: Saratoga Ave., Los Gatos Saratoga Road For Rural, Nearest Community: Within 2 Miles: State Hwy >Y: State Route 9 Airports: N/A Railways: N/A Waterways: Saratoaa_Creek Document Type CEQA ^ NOP ^ SupplemendSubsequent EIR NEPA: ^ NOI Other: O Joint Document O Early Cons (prior SCH No.) ~ ^ FONSI O Final Document ^ Neg Dec ^ NOE ^ 'Draft EIS ^ Other ^ Draft EIR ^ NOC ^ Eq ^ NOD Local Action Type ^ General Plan Update O Specific Plan ^ Rezone ^ Annexation ^ General Plan Element ^ Master Plan O Prezone ^ Redevelopment ^ General Plan Amendment O Planned Unit Development ^ Use Permit ^ Coastal Permit ^ Community Plan ^ Site Plan ^Land Division (Subdivision, etc.) ^ Other Development Type ^ Residential: Units Acres O Office: Sq.jt. _ _ Acres" Employees O Commercial: Sq ft. _ Acres Employees O Industrial: Sq,ft. _ Acres .Employees ^ Water Facilities: MGD ^ Transportation: Type ^ Mining: ^ Power: ^ Waste Treatment: ^ OCS Related ^ Other: Public Facility Mineral Type _ Type _ Watts - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Tota! Acres 35,484 SQ 1='I' (.8 acres) Total Jobs Created N/A - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Project Issues Discussed in Document O Aesthetic/Visual ^ Agricultural Land ^ Air Quality ^ Archeological/Historical ^ Coastal Zone ^ Drainage/Absorption ^ Ecotromic/Jobs ^ Fiscal ^ Floodplain/Flooding ^ Forest Land/Fire Hazard ^ Geologic/Seismic ^ Minerals ^ Noise ^ Population/Housing Balance O Public Services/Facilities ^ Recreation/Parks ^ Schools/Universities ^ Septic Systems ^ Sewer Capacity ^ Soil Erositin/Compaction/Grading O Solid Waste ^ Toxic Hazardous ^ Traffic/Circulation ^ Vegetation ^ Water Quality ^ Water Supply/Groundwater O Wetland/Riparian ^ Wildlife ^ Growth Inducing ^ Land Use O Cumulative Effects OOther Funding (approx.) Federal S State S Total $ Present Land Use and Zoning Professional-Administrative Project Description: The project is a continuation of an existing use within the Professional Administrative (P-A) zone. The Saratoga Fire District is requesting a Temporary Use Permit, Set-back modification, Design Review, Alley Vacation, Conditional Use Permit and a Lot.Line Adjustment. The project includes demolition of two existing buildings; the 7,690 s.f. existing Fire Station, and the 4,000 s.f. "Contempo" office building south of the Fire Station at 20473 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road, installation of a temporary fire station, and construction of a new Saratoga Fire District Headquarters Fire Station at 14380 Saratoga Avenue. The total site area of the two lots is 35,484 square feet. The total number of employees is 20; 8 firefighters and 4 administrative staff, and 8shift-change firefighters. The Project will be implemented in three phases Signature of Lead Agency Representative ~ v'W- Date ~ •' NOTE: Clearinghouse will assign identifigtion numbers for alt new projects. If a SCH ttumber already exists for a project (e.g. f m a once of Preparation or previous draft document) please fill it in. ~~1'-'Ln-Ll~j(1~` ~Ypv~ 1 ~1 Wtnt~ YO OYoL/ n~ J •. RECIRCULATION of Draft Environmental Document Initial Study and Negative Declaration for Saratoga Fire District Headquarters Fire Station September 3, 2002 State Clearing 1-rouse #2002O8209O Original Submittal August 23, 2002 Project Location The project is located at the Southeast corner of the intersection of Saratoga Avenue and Saratoga -Los Gatos Road (also designated as SR 9) in the town of Saratoga, California. Address: 14380 & 20473 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road. Project Description "The project is a continuation of an existing use within the Professional Administrative (P-A) zone. The Saratoga Fire District is requesting a Temporary Use Permit, Set-back modification, Design Review, Alley Vacation, Conditional Use Permit and a Lot Line Adjustment. The project includes demolition of two existing buildings; the 7,690 s.f. existing Fire Station, and the 4,000 s:f.. "Contempo" office building south of the Fire Station at 20473 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road, and construction of a new Saratoga Fire Department Headquarters Fire Station at 14380 Saratoga Avenue. The total site area of the two lots is 35,484 square feet. The total number of employees is ?(128; K-1.6 firefighters and 4 administrative staff, and 8shift-change firefighters. There will he a total of 12 employees on site at any one time, except during shift-change (for one hour) when there will he a total ~f ~0 The Project will be implemented in three phases as follows. Phase I This initial phase will be the demolition of the existing Contempo office building located at 20473 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road (Hwy 9), and the installation a temporary Fire Siation (which requires a Temporary Use Permit and Setback tr~V:u-i;ition) in two modular buildings. The temporary fire station will have 17 temporary parking spaces, including fire apparatus parking with a temporary enclosure. Additional personnel parking will be provided via an agreement with the City to use 7 spaces offsite. A second existing alley bisects the entire block and is currently used as access to the post office and existing Contempo building. This second alley is not proposed to be vacated and will continue to provide access for the temporary fire station and post office. ,. .. ~, .. -The alley has none-way travel direction which flaw` toward S~Uati~ga Avenue which ~yill he utied as the response direction for tore apparatus. The existinc angled crosswalk from the Post Office acrotis the alle t Last corner of the alley will he realigned to he p•uallel with S•u-•tto~~a Avenue and a curb e~ctemion installed at the Post Officz ~•i~rner on the alley. The Veterans Memorial Plaza and Monument adjacent to the existing fire station on Hwy. 9 will be protected in place during construction. Phase II ~ ' ' The existing fire station will be demolished. The northernmost driveway (of the three driveways on Hwy. 9) will be closed permanently in Phase II. Existing olive trees adjacent to the old fire building will be removed, boxed and relocated in Phase III. An existing magnolia tree will be saved and relocated in Phatie III Any trees that are not deemed suitable to be saved by the City Arborist will be replaced by the applicant. The Memorial Plaza property will be transferred from the City of Saratoga to the Di~trirt The Plaza will be demolished and the Monument, a State lieted historic structure. relocated by the District to its previous historicall r documented on anal location in Blaney Plaza on .Hwy 9 across the street. from the fire station. The City ~;rill be respon~ibte for design and improvement of the Blaney Plaza and will be reviewed under a separate application. 00009 The project will require an abandonment by the City of the alley currently located behind the existing fire station and adjacent to the Post Office. This alley is currently used by the fire district personnel for parking and access to _ the rear of the fire station and patrons of the Post Office for post drop-off and five parking spaces accessed from t alley. The post drop-off will be relocated during demolition to a tempor:trLlocation acceptable to the Post Offi chrrin~ conttntction, and the 5 parking spaces will be reconfigured ~•~~°~ ~"°•~ ~'~:~••~~ ro a final location pendine Post (=)ffice apTroval in Phase III, to be accessible from the Post Office parking lot (subject to agreement by the Post Office). The rear of the new building will be built to the property line in the middle of the former alley. The San Jose Water Company pipeline in the alley will also be abandoned in place. The new Headquarters Fire Station (approx.15,435 s:f.) will be built with a 25' setback from the corner of Saratoga Ave. and a 15' setback from Saratoga Y.os Gatos Road. A new apron area, three apparatus bays and one ambulance bay will have ingress and egress from Saratoga Road. The appazatus bays will be setback 59' from the curb, the ambulance bay will be set back 40' from the curb. The building will be a two-story reinforced masonry structure with a concrete slab floor at grade and a basement below a portion of the ground floor. The azchitectural style reflects that of the Federated Church building in the same block inspired by the Julia Morgan vernacular. The materials and design of the far~ade will fit into the existing character of the neighborhood. A landscaped pedestrian plaza will be located at the corner of Saratoga Avenue and Hwy. 9. There will be a total of 12 employees at the replacement facility, except during shift change (approx. 1 hour) when there will be a total of 20. Fire district personnel will park at the new parking lot (of Phase III), and the existing parking will be shared with the Post Office patrons. Upon completion of the Fire Station the traffic flow from the Post Office will be redirected to exit onto Hwy 9. Saratoga Avenue lane reconfigurations and new corner configuration will be designed by the City. The Fire District will fund the new curb, gutter and sidewalk at the corner of Saratoga and Hwy. 9. These improvements will be installed at the time of new Headquarters improvements. Phase III The temporary modular Fire.Station buildings will be removed from 20473 and this property will be developed as~ parking area. It will be provide a total of 464.1- parking spaces. Out of these spaces, 18 will be dedicated for fire district use. 10 spaces will be dedicated for public use. The fire district is currently negotiating with the Federated Church for sale of approximately 8,900 s.f. of this property to the Church. The parcel to be sold includes 3-I- l8 parking spaces and will provide aeee,;~-e~,ress tee SK 9 from the church property I-~. If a sale transaction is accomplished, it will include an agreement between the Fire District and the church- to allow continued use by the District of 6 parking spaces needed to comply with the City's parking requirements of 24 spaces. . In this phase the postal drop-off will be relocated on the driveway behind the Post Office. Lead Agency: Saratoga Fire District .'- 14380 Saratoga Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070 Contact:. Ernest Kraule, Fire Chief Environmental Factors Potentially Affected by Addendum: Hydrology/Water Quality, Traffic & Circulation, Aesthetics. 2 ~Q~®~0 !. ~r • Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES (see attachments for informatio~r sources) a) Impacts to ground water quality Discussion ^ ^ O 1- -1-Potential impacts from truck washing that currently drains into storm drains will be mitigated with site improvements which will result in less than significant or no impact. 2) One undercri>und stoi~ive tank (UST) is believed to be under the sidewalk on Saratoga Avenue in front of the ezistinr Fire Station. This tank may have had a X00 gallon capacity and may have contained gasoline or waste uil (source: Limited Onsite Uffsite Source Assessment. 2/3/1999). The Fire District bolievee the LIST was remediated in the 19~U'c when the existin~~ fire statiim was built (Source: phime converti•ttion on 9/O'~1U~) • • The proposed project will not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements as regulated by the Water District; the Sanitary District, and the City of Saratoga Public Works Department. However, measures will be in place to address the potential short-term impacts of grading and construction activities for the fire station. Mitigations IV.1 Installation of catchments and sewer connections for redirecting gray water into the City sewer system. IV.2 During construction, washing of concrete, paint or equipment shall occur only in areas where polluted water and materials can be contained for subsequent removal from the site. A designated area for washing functions shall be identified. IV.3 The UST site will he verified by the Fire Dep.u•tment a5_a storage tank and the soils will be tested for contamination. If contaminants are found, the tank area will be over-eYCavated by 2 feet and backfilled with new soil. «'ith this remediation procedure the impacts will be reduced to less than significant. VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the Proposal result in: b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? 3 ^ O ^ :^ 000°~~71 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES (see attachments for information sources) Potentially; "r Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Discussion ~ _- __ -_- : _ _ Because the new Headquarters Fire Station will be-setback off the corner of Saratoga Avenue and Saratoga-Los Gatos Road, and will incorporate a traffic signal interrupt, and a new street corner configuration, the visual distances will be improved and right turn traffic will be required to stop thus creating a benefit for an existing dangerous condition. The new Fire Station design incorporates a large apron on the frontage to Saratoga Road which will allow emergency vehicles to back into the facility without stopping traffic on Saratoga Road. ?} Two extsun~, crosswalks present unsafe conditions on both sides of the Post Office (PO) on Sarato~Ta Avenue The an~zled crosswalks across the alley drivewayti make visibilih' difficult for,liedestrians and emer~Tencv response vehicle 3} The mm~osed abandonment of the existing alley will remove direct access to the side of the Yost Office however the other remainine driveway will maintain postal personnel acres> emergency and other patron access to the Post Office. The closure of this alley will reduce traffic safety contlicts h~~ reducing the amount of drivew_~~_s_frort~ the ,ite onto State Route 9. This will reduce the impact to less than significant. Mitigations VI.1 Setback the new Fire station Facility 25' from curb and the apparatus bay doors 59' from curb on Saratoga Avenue. 1?xteild the apron to align with the POparking on Sarato=a Ave tJse patterned surf'acin~ for the t~edestrian sidewalk area next to the apron to keelpedestrians away 1~rom the apron area VI-2 Provide a new striped crossing along Saratoga Road to the median at the Post Office parking area in the front of the Post Office on the west corner. VI-3 The District will move the bus stop 50 to 75 feet North of current location. ~' 1.=1 at the alley. st c A d) Insuffirientparkin~c_a acih' em-site o_r_off-site'? Q Q ~$ Q Discussion I i The removal of ~ parking spaces will reduce p•irking•ivailablz to Pcict Office titmris? buf thi,'vr;il'I hL~ a~ temporary condition until the new Headnu:u•ter Fire Station is complete, at which time the 5 sp•irec will be reinstalleii. 2) The drop-off boxes will be located to a temporan~ location suitable to the Post Office durin~~ constnictiai and will be re-located in the alley adiacent to the Yost Office duringph•3se III of the project XIIl. AESTHETICS. Would the Proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? ^ ^ .~ o ~ Discussion 11 The proposed project will not have any adverse effect on any scenic vistas. ~-~'+ :tfEertCC~. The teml~orarv .buildings will be visible from St~ue Route 9, which is a scenic h is a temporary condition and the temporan° buildin~~s will he removed upon completion of the new Fire Station (P}Iase iIIJ. The project is compatible with the existing neighborhood_ "') The New Fire Station will he larger than the existing facility, however the new desi~n_ ~drlirinn:~l lanils~ b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? p Q ^ ^~ 4 fl~Q~~~ ._ ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Potentially. ~r (see attachments for information sources) Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Discussion 1') The Temporary Firc Station modular buildings may not be compatible with the neighborhood However they are a tcmnora~~ condition and necessary in ordor to replace the- fire station and to maintain emergency Tire services to the community. ' 1 The project architectural style is compatible with neighboring buildings on Saratoga and Saratoga-Los Gatos Roads and will have a positive aesthetic impact on the site and the surrounding neighborhood. The architectural style similar to the "Federated Church" inspired by the Julia Morgan vernacular and the proposed character and quality of the style will enhance the site and its surroundings. c) Create adverse light or glare effects? O ^ ^ ^ Discussion -' The proposed project will not create a significant increase to the existing lighting levels of the existing fire station. The proposed exterior lighting to the site and building will be in areas where they are required for safety and operations. Exterior fixtures on the building_will txovidz li *l~iting for entrances inrludin~y apparatus bay door, and three pedestrian entries. The fixtures will be wall mounted at 6-12 fefeet above eround. The wall mounted Fire Station sign will be illuminated with an un-light Thesc fixtures will not produce glare onto neighborin~propertie~ The parking lot lights XVII. DETERMINATION. On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATNE DECLARATION. will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have X been added to the project. A NEGATNE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an '~ ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. DATE • SIGNATURE FIRE CHIEF, SARATOGA FIRE DEPARTMENT 5 040'73 MITIGATION MEASURES SUMMARY FOR ADDENDUM IV. WATER Description - N-1 Installation of catchments and sewer connections for redirecting gray water into the City sewer system. N-2 During construction, washing of concrete, paint or equipment shall occur only in areas where polluted water and materials can be contained for subsequent removal from the site. A designated area for washing functions shall be identified. 1V-3 I'he UST site ~c~ill be verified by the Fire Den:u-tuient as a tE~rake tank and the soils ~vill he tetited for contatni.tlation. If contaminants are found. the tank area will be over-excavated by 2 feet and hackfilled «-ith new soil With this retnediation procedure the- impacts ~~•ill ho reduced to leti~ th,u~ significant. VI. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION VI-1 Set the new Fire station Facility back 25' from curb and the apparatus bay doors 59' from curb on Saratoga Avenue. Extend the apron to alit n with the PO parking on Saratog a Ave. Use patterned surfacing for the pedestrian sidewalk area next to the apron to kee,~pedestrians away from the apron area VI-2 Provide a new striped crossing along Saratoga Road to the median at the Post Office parking area in the front of the Post Office on the west corner. VI-3 The District will move the bus stop 50 to 75 feet North of current location. VI.=t l.nctall a curb exten~icm on the bast. corner of the 1'O and Sarato~•a A~~e. to create a parallel pedestrian crostiin~ at the alley. • D00~'74 NEGATIVE DECLARATION for ADDENDUM Declaration That Environmental Impact Report Not Required For Design Review #O1-006 and Use Permit 01-002 and TUP-Ol-003 and LL-O1-003 Saratoga Fire District The undersigned, Fire Chief for the Saratoga Fire District, after study and evaluation, has determined and does hereby determine pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Environmental Quality Act of 1970, Section 15063 through 15065 and Section 15070 of the California Administrative Code, and Resolution of the City of Saratoga, and based on the District's independent judgment, that the following described project will have no significant effect (no substantial adverse impact) on the environment within the terms and meaning of said Act. Project Description: Request for Temporary Use Permit, Conditional Use Permit, Lot Line; Adjustment, and Design Review approval to demolish an existing Fire Station and office building and construct a new 15,435 square foot Headquarters Fire Station at 14380 Saratoga Avenue. A Temporary Use Permit and Setback Variance is necessary for the temporary Fire Station to be located at 20473 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road during construction. The site for the proposed fire station is 18,228 square feet, and the site for the temporary building & parking is 17,250 square feet. Both are located within a Professional Administrative (P-A) zone district. Project Location: 14380 Saratoga Avenue -New Fire Station 20473 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road -Temporary Fire Station Applicant: Saratoga Fire Department Lead Agency: Saratoga Fire District 14380 Saratoga Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 . ~.. Reason for Negative Declaration on Adde::dum: The proposal is not anticipated to cause any substantial adverse impacts on the environment. Although the proposal will modify the existing use of the site, and have minor modification impacts, the attached mitigation measures will insure that the project will not cause significant environmental impacts pursuant to the terms of the Environmental Quality Act. Executed at Saratoga, California, this day ERNEST KRAULE, FIRE CHIEF, SARATOGA FIRE DEPARTMENT ~O~D~`75 ~•:y : h" n i~k.'e~j'?'~. . I n ~I wutm~ - ur a=e ma ~ _.~.. -.K .a. ra w iN•.f r rrrw.~sl e..~O".~as es ~S v,~. EI e .~ ~~; ::~:, ;~~3 f i,' =~~ i ~~ ~ tia, . :i~ ~ r^ _ ~.~ ~ ~. .}; 4!: ^'~ ~~~ `~; i i R^r = iiKi ~w . d:~ ~{ :~: a ~`_' ~ :~f LOT COV ~• G •~~ Saratoga Fire Department tleadquacters Stab • o a ~ ~ o x o a o u~ Au~u112~ 1001 ....................»...~..................._..~. i1w+~+ ..............«..»«........... .....»........................»..».....»»«......«...~ ~! McAM $F~' ® St . . ~N { e l'~10' ~„ `_ PLAN ~ ~.: # ~_ • t Draft Environmental Document Initial Study And Negative Declaration for Saratoga Fire District Saratoga Fire District Headquarters Fire Station • Prepared for: Saratoga Fire District 14380 Saratoga Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 ~~ Prepared by: RRM Design Group 3765 South Higuera Street, Suite 102 San Luis Obispo, California 93401 August 21, 2002 oooo~~ 08/22/2002 15:20 4088671330 TRINA 4~iITLEY Notice o Completion an Envllronmen Document Transmittal Form Mali to: State Clearinghouse, 1400 Teeth Sweet, 5acrarnenm, CA 95814 916/445-0613 6CH Prgjed Title Lead Agency: _ 5arato~a Fire District Coquet Person: Chief Ernest Kraule Street Address: 14380 5antoaa Avenue Cjry; ~inatoaa 'CouOry: Sateen Ciao Zip: 93070 Pt-one: (4081867-9001 , PrOjeCt Location 14360 SBA ve ~ dr 04 '~J~ Gat~aSancoea Road County; Santa Clara Ciry/Comtnunjry: Sattitoaa Asaeasor'e Parcel No. 397-22-017,019 Seedon: Twp. Range: Cross Streets: SaruoBa Ave., Los Gatos Saratoga Road Fo[ Rural. Nl;w~eu Coanmuniry: Within 2 Miles: Star Hwy M: State Route 9 Airptnte: N/A Railways: NIA wate[waya: Saratoga t''teek Documgat ~'Pe CEQA D NOP O Supplemeru/Sub:etryent BIR 1VBPA: O NOI Other: D Joint Document O Early Cons (prior SCH No.) O FONSI O Pimd Document ^ Neg Dec O NOE D Draft 1?iS O Other O Daft E1R D NOC D EA ^ NOA Local Action Type ^ Geaerad Plan, Update O specific Plan O Ret:one ^ Atutexatiwn O General Plan Element O Master Plan O Ptezone ~ Rtuieveltrpnteru ^ General Plan Amendment ^ Piattned Uttit Development ^Uu Permit O Coastal Permit O Community Plan ^ Six Plan OLturd Division (Subdivision, etc.) ^ Other Developmwtt Type O Residential: Unitr _~lcrst _ O Office: Sgft. ^ Acne F.n~p(oysu, O Commercial: sq,Jl. At:ru Entp(oytet D ladwtrial: Sq~ ft. Aaea F~ptoyew O Water Facilities: MOD O Transportation: type PAGE O Mtttigg: Mineral O Power: type worry D waste Treattmeat: type O OCS Related ^ Other: Public Faelliry Total Acres Total Jobsi Crated N/A ^ Water Quolity D Water Supply/Gtnundwater D wWsod/Ripatian D Wildlife O Growth Inducing O Land Use D Granulative Effects Do~ae[ Issues Discussed in Document D Aeathetic/Visual O Agriculauai Land ^ Air Quality D Art:heological/Historical ^ Coatsnl Zoac ^ Drainage/Absorption D Economic/Jobt ^ Fiscal O FloodpWdPloading D Forest Larad/Pue Hazard . O GeologWSeiaroic O Minerals ^ Noise O Popttlation/Housiog Balance D Public Serrices/Factlitiea ^ Reett:artiot/Pa[b O Schoolc/Uoiver:ities D Septic Syatrmrs D Sowc[ Capacity O Soil Erosion/Compsctjoo/Orading O Solid waax ~ Toxic Hazardow ^ TaaPflclCirculation D vegetation Ittmdiog (approx.) Federal S State S Land Use wad Zoning Protessimrd-Adroinisrrui+e Total S 82 Project Destxiption: The project is a c~tiiontadion of an existing use withiuor the Ptofeasional Admiaisbrative (P-A) tome. The Saratoga Fire District is requesting a Temporary Use Permit, Set-back Variance, Design Review, Alley Vacation, Conditional Use Permit and a Lot Lice Adjusttnetn. The pmjeu includes demolition of two existing buildings; the 7.690 s.f. existing Fire 5tadon, and the 4,000 a.f. "Contempo" office bufl(Wtg south of the Fire Station at 20473 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road, installation of a temporary fire station, and cotlsuuction of a stew Saratoga Pin Deparunent Headquarters Fire Station az 1431 Saratoga Avenue. T'be total site area of the two lots is 35,484 square feet. The total mtuuber of ezaployees is 20; 8 flxefigh and 4 administrative staff, and 8shift-change fue~Tbe Project will be implemented in thm phases I IVpeGearinghouse w~iu~ eml~ tf a aDt~ e. horn a N t-t oleae 511 it fa P 1~ (F Ptepsratioa or ptaioa!~ ~ Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration Saratoga Fire District Saratoga Fire Department Headquarters Fire Station Pursuant to Sections 15072 and 15073. of the State CEQA Guidelines, the Saratoga Fire District hereby gives notice that the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Saratoga Fire District Headquarters Fire Station is available for review and comment. Project Location. ' The project site is located at the Southeast comer of the intersection at Saratoga Avenue and Saratoga-Los Gatos Road (also designated as SR.9) in the town of Saratoga. Project Description. The project is a continuation of an existing use within the Professional Administrative (P-A) zone. The Saratoga Fire District is requesting a Temporary Use Permit, Set-back modification, Design Review, Conditional Use Permit, Alley Vacation, and a Lot Line Adjustment. The project includes demolition of two existing buildings; the 7,690 s.f. existing Fire Station, and the 4,000 s.f. "Contempo" office building south of the Fire Station at 20473 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road, installation of a temporary Fire Station, and construction of a new Saratoga Fire Department Headquarters Fire Station at 14380 Saratoga Avenue. The total site area of the two lots is 35,484 square feet. The total number of employees is 20; 8 firefighters and 4 administrative staff, and 8 shift-change firefighters. The Project will be implemented in three phases as follows: Phase I This initial phase will be the demolition of the existing Contempo office building located at 20473 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road (Hwy 9), and the installation a temporary Fire Station (which requires a Temporary Use Permit and Setback modification) in two modular buildings. The temporary fire station will have 17 temporary parking spaces, including fire apparatus parking. Additional personnel parking will be provided via an agreement with the City to use 7 spaces offsite. A second existing alley bisects the entire block and is currently used as access to the post office and existing Contempo building. This second alley is not proposed to be vacated and will continue to provide access for the temporary fire station and post office. The alley has cone-way :~ travel direction which will be reversed to flow toward Saratoga Avenue for use as the response direction for the fire apparatus. The Veterans Memorial Plaza and Monument adjacent to the existing fire station on Hwy. 9 will be protected in place during construction. . Phase II The existing fire station will be demolished. The northernmost driveway (of the three driveways on Hwy. 9) will be closed permanently in Phase II. Existing trees adjacent to the old fire building will be removed, boxed and relocated in Phase III. Any trees that are not deemed suitable to be saved by the City Arborist will be replaced by the applicant. The Memorial Plaza will be demolished and the Monument relocated by the District to its previous location in Blaney Plaza on Hwy 9 across the street from the fire station. The project will require an abandonment by the City of the alley currently located behind the existing fire station and adjacent to the Post Office. This alley is currently used by the fire district 04~~'~9 personnel for parking and access to the rear of the fire station and patrons of the Post Office for post drop-off and five parking spaces accessed from the alley. The post drop-off will be relocated during demolition to a parking lot across Hwy 9, and the S .parking spaces,w~~1.,~e recq~f}gyred after alley closure, accessible from the Post Office parking lot (subject to.agreement by ,the Post Office). The rear of the new building will be built to the property line in the middle of the former . . alley. The San Jose Water Company pipeline in the alley will also be abandoned in place. The new Headquarters Fire Station (approx.15,435 s.f.) will be built with a 25' setback from the corner of Saratoga Ave. and a IS' setback from Saratoga Los Gatos Road.-A new apron area, three apparatus bays and one ambulance bay will have ingress and egress from Saratoga Road. The apparatus bays will be setback 59' from the curb, the ambulance bay will be setback 40' from the curb. The building will be a two-story reinforced masonry structure with a concrete slab floor at grade and a basement below a portion of the ground floor. The architectural style reflects that of the Federated Church building in the same block inspired by the Julia Morgan vernacular. The materials and design of the facade will fit into the existing character of the neighborhood. A landscaped pedestrian plaza will be located at the corner of Saratoga Avenue and Hwy. 9. There will be a total of 12 employees at the replacement facility, except during shift change (approx. _ 1 hour) when there will be a total of 20. Fire district personnel will park at the new parking lot (of Phase III), and the existing parking will be shared with the Post Office patrons. Upon completion of the Fire Station the traffic flow from the Post Office will be redirected to exit onto Hwy 9. Saratoga Avenue lane reconfigurations and new corner configuration .will be designed by the City. The Fire District will fund the new curb, gutter and sidewalk at the corner of Saratoga and Hwy. 9. These improvements will be installed at the time of new Headquarters improvements. Phase III The temporary modular Fire Station buildings will be removed from 20473 and this property will be developed as a parking area. It will be provide 41 parking spaces. Out of these spaces, 10 spaces will be dedicated for public use. The fire district is currently negotiating with the Federated Church for sale of approximately 8,900 s.f. of this property to the Church. The parcel to be sold includes 31 parking spaces and will provide access to and from the church property via Hwy 9. If a sale transaction is accomplished, it will include an agreement between the Fire .District and the church to allow continued use by the District of parking spaces needed to comply with the City's parking requirements of 24 spaces. In this phase the postal drop-off will be relocated on the driveway behind the Post Office. Identification of Significant Environmental Impacts. The Initial Study/MND identifies potentially significant environmental effects in the following areas: hydrology/water quality, air quality, transportation, hazards, and noise. The Initial Study also addresses all other environmental issues, finding that they would be less than significant. Pursuant to disclosure requirements of Public Resource Code Section 21092, the subject site is not a listed toxic site. ,: Review Period and Document Availability Location. The Draft MND and support documents are available for review and comment from August 23 through September 25 at the following location: Saratoga Fire Station 14380 Saratoga Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070. ~~~~~0 • ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Prepared for: _ __ _ Saratoga Fire District Proposed New Headquarters Fire Station DRAFT August 22, 2002 Project Description: The project site is located at the Southeast corner of the intersection at Saratoga Avenue and Saratoga-Los Gatos Road (also designated as SR 9) in the town of Saratoga. The project is a continuation of an existing use within the Professional Administrative (P-A) zone. The Sazatoga Fire District is requesting a Temporary Use Permit, Set- back modification, Design Review, Alley Vacation, Conditional Use Permit and a Lot Line Adjustment. The project includes .demolition of two existing buildings; the 7,690 s.f. existing Fire Station, and the 4,000 s.f. "Contempo" office building south of the Fire Station at 20473 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road, and construction of a new Saratoga Fire Department Headquarters Fire Station at 14380 Saratoga Avenue. The total site area of the two lots is 35,484 square feet. The total number of employees is 20; 8 firefighters and 4 administrative staff, and 8 shift-change firefighters. The Project will be implemented in three phases as follows: Phase I This initial phase will be the demolition of the existing Contempo office building located at 20473 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road (Hwy 9), and the installation a temporary Fire Station (which requires a Temporary Use Permit and Setback Vaziance) in two modular buildings. The temporary fire station will have 17 temporary parking spaces, including fire apparatus parking. Additional personnel parking will be provided via an agreement with the City to use, 7 spaces offsite. A second existing alley bisects the entire block and is currently used as access to the post office and existing Contempo building. This second alley is not proposed to be vacated and will continue to provide access for the temporary fire station and post office. The alley has aone-way travel direction which will be reversed to flow toward Sazatoga Avenue for use as the response direction for the fire apparatus. The Veterans Memorial Plaza and Monument adjacent to the existing fire station on Hwy. 9 will be protected in place during construction. Phase II Thy existing fire station will be demolished. The northernmost driveway (of the three driveways on Hwy. 9) will be closed permanently in Phase II. Existing olive trees adjacent to the old fire building will be removed, boxed and relocated in Phase III. Any trees that aze not deemed suitable to be saved by the City Arborist will be replaced by the applicant. The Plaza will be demolished and the Monument relocated by the District to its previous location in Blaney Plaza on Hwy 9 across the street from the fire station. ; ; The project will require an abandonment by the City of the alley currently located behind the existing fire station and adjacent to the Post Office. This alley is currently used by the fire district personnel for parking and access to the rear of the fire station and patrons of the Post Office for post drop-off and five parking spaces accessed from the alley. The post drop-off will be relocated during demolition to a location acceptable to the Post Office, and the 5 pazking spaces will be reconfigured after alley closure, to be accessible from the Post Office parking lot (subject to agreement by the Post Office). The rear of the new building will be built to the property line in the middle of the former alley. The San Jose Water Company pipeline in the alley will also be abandoned in place. The new Headquarters Fire.Station (approx.15,435 s.f.) will be built with a 25' setback from the corner of Saratoga Ave. and a 15' setback from Saratoga Los Gatos Road. A new apron azea, three apparatus bays and one ambulance bay will have ingress and egress from Saratoga Road. The apparatus bays will be setback 59' from the curb, the oooos~ ambulance bay will be set back 40' from the curb. The building will be a two-story reinforced masonry structu~ with a concrete slab floor at grade and a basement below a portion of the ground floor. The architectural sty reflects that of the Federated Church building in the same block inspired by the Julia Morgan vernacular. The materials and design of the facade will fit into the existing character of the neighborhood. A landscaped pedestrian plaza will be located at the corner of Saratoga Avenue and Hwy. 9. There will be a total of 12 employees at the replacement facility, except during shift change (approx. 1 hour) when there will be a total of 20. Fire district personnel will park at the new parking lot (of Phase III), and the existing parking will be shared with the Post Office patrons. Upon completion of the Fire Station'the traffic flow from the Post Office will.be redirected to exit onto Hwy 9. Saratoga Avenue lane reconfigurations and new corner configuration will be designed by the City. The Fire District will fund the new curb, gutter and sidewalk at the corner of Saratoga and Hwy. 9. These improvements will be installed at the time of new Headquarters improvements. Phase III The temporary modular Fire Station buildings will be removed from 20473 and this property will be developed as a parking area. It will be provide 41 parking spaces. Out of these spaces, 10 spaces will be dedicated for public use. The fire district is currently negotiating with the Federated Church for sale of approximately 8,900 s.f. of this property to the Church. The parcel to be sold includes 31 parking spaces and will provide access to and from the church property via Hwy 9. If a sale transaction is accomplished, it will include an agreement between the Fire District and the church to allow continued use. by the District of parking spaces needed to comply with the City's parking requirements of 24 spaces. In this phase the postal drop-off will be relocated on the driveway behind the Post Office. ~~ U • OVQ~Bi`r Project Location: 14380 Saratoga Avenue. -New Fire Station 20473 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road -Temporary Fire Station Assessors Parcel Number- 397-22-019, 017 Adjacent Uses; North- Commercial ,South- Church, East- Post Office ,West- Commercial Applicant: Saratoga Fire District Lead Agency: Saratoga Fire District 14380 Saratoga Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070 Contact: Earnest Kraule, Fire Chief ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or is "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated," as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.. ^ Land Use/ Planning ^ Biological Resources ^ Population /Housing ^ Energy/Mineral Resources ^ Geology/Soils ®Hazards & Hazardous Materials ® Hydrology /Water Quality ®Noise ® Air Quality ^ Public Services ® Transportation /Traffic ^ Utilities /Service Systems • ^ Aesthetics O Cultural Resources ® Recreation ® Mandatory Findings of Significance ^ Agriculture Resources ^ Fire Hazards Q0~~~3 SARATOGA FIRE STATION -LOCATION MAP -' ~ihAPQ~E's'T ., j .ti ~ ~.~. ,~a ~'300m ---=,.ti- - ~w. ,~ (~, _i ~ v,,vm~ams ~u$_ r ; ~v~'~-Sara~o'ya ti. ~r ,r--~ T-`~ ~;f ,,,;, ~ ter ~+,'. O ~: `ter, ~ _ ~- ,#`~ { ~. i {--' ~ ; ~ { ~ t~' ~-t--•._~ . ~ - , f`.~ Any? . { ~ ~ `~'' ~ ~~ ;~' " r -• ~ X~ .~. .{y ~': ~ , i HIV ~~'~. `~ . ~~ ~ ~ ~ 4~ ti rf ~J .,~~ ttiL;C e r1i ete~r ~ -`~~e ~ ~ ,t''" } ~ ~ ,, i? ~~ 8~anni~ Bra G°- 2000 Ma pQ uest.co m, I nc.; ~ 2004 Maviaatio n Tech no bq ias 'r, • • • ©~~~~4 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Potentially (see attachments for informntion sources) Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the Proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? O ^ O ^ Discussion This is a continuation of an existing historic use of the site for fire station use. It does not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy or regulation with the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. A fire station use is a conditionally allowed use in any zoning district with a conditional use permit and is consistent with the Saratoga General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. No mitigation is necessary. b) Conflict with applicable environmental or land use plans ^ O ^ ^ or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? Discussion This project does not conflict with environmental or land use policies since it is a necessary emergency service, and is a conditionally allowed use. See comment in a above. c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? ^ ^ ^ ^ Discussion The alley abandonment and relocation of the fire station into the adjacent alley will change proximity to adjacent uses and slightly alter circulation patterns. The second existing driveway will replace this circulation by providing access to the Post Office parking and the temporary Fire Station. The Fire Station is an existing and necessary emergency service. d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g., impacts ^ ^ ^ ^ to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? Discussion No agricultural resources are on or near the site since it is located in an urban setting. e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an ^ ^ ^ ^ =`~ established community (including aloes-income or minority community)? Discussion The proposed project is in keeping with the historic use of the site for a fire station use. No impacts are anticipated. . II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the Proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local O ^ ^ ^ population projections? Discussion The proposed project will not introduce population growth or require additional infrastructure. The new fire station facility will provide fire protection to the existing service azea and there is no change to the service intensity. No impacts are anticipated. ~Ili'Q ~~C ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Potentially (see attachments for information sources) Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or ^ ^ O ^ indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? Discussion See comment on a. above. c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable ^ O O ^ housing? Discussion -Housing will not be affected by the project since it is a replacement of an existing facility on site. III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the Proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? ^ ^ ^ ^ Discussion There are no mapped active faults that cross or are adjacent to the site, therefore, the potential for surface rupture at the site is considered to be low. The closest seismically active faults are the San Andreas and Monte Vista Shannon Faults. b) Seismic ground shaking ^ ^ ^ ^ Discussion There are no mapped active faults that cross or are adjacent to the site, therefore, the potential for horizontal ground acceleration at the site is considered to be low: c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? O O ^ ^ Discussion The potential for liquefaction at the site is considered to be low. d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? ^ ^ ^ ^ Discussion The potential for wave action or volcanic activity is considered to be very low. .~ e) Landslides or mudflows? ^ p ^ ^ Discussion The potential for landslides at the site is considered to be ve low f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil ^ ^ ^ ^ conditions from excavation, grading or fill? Discussion Based upon the findings in the Soil Engineering Study, there are no soil erosion or special fill requirements other than compaction, for the fire station project g) Subsidence of the land? ~ ^ ^ ^ ^ Discussion Based upon the findings in the geologic hazards investigation, the potential for subsidence is considered to be very low. 2 ~QQQ~~s ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Potentially (see attachments for information sources) Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact h) Expansive soils? ^ ^ ^ ^ Discussion Based on the Soils Engineering Report low to moderate expansive soils were found on site and no mitigation was recommended. i) Unique geologic or physical features? ^ ^ ^ ^ Discussion The site is flat with no unique geologic features. IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the ^ ^ ^ ^ rate and amount of surface runoff? Discussion Most of the existing drainage conditions will remain. The amount of impervious surfaces will be decreased slightly by removal of the Memorial Plaza. The application includes 2% drainage swales to accommodate and improve site drainage where necessary. b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards ^ ^ ^ ^ such as flooding? Discussion No water related hazards are anticipated. According to the Geologic Hazards Study the site is located within a Zone B (100 to 500 year) flood zone. c) Discharge into surface waters or other alterations of ^ ^ O ^ surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen, or turbidity)? Discussion The project site currently channels runoff from truck wash-down into storm drains. With the Project improvements this condition will be improved to no impact. Mitigation Refer to h) IV.I d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water ^ ^ ^ ^ body? Discussion The project is not near a water body and therefore no change to the amount of surface water will occur. e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water O O O ^ movements? Discussion The project is not near a water body and therefore no change to water movement will occur. f) Change in the quantity of groundwater, either through O ^ p ^ direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception 3 Q~'~~8~ ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Potentially . ("see attachments for information sources) Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact of an aquifer by cuts or excavations, or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? Discussion . . The project does not substantially change the amount of impervious surfaces from the existing site condition and therefore will not change~groundwater conditions. g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? ^ ^ ^ ^ Discussion No impacts are anticipated since this is a replacement of an existing facility. h) Impacts to groundwater quality? ^ ^ ^ ^ Discussion Potential impacts from truck washing that currently drains into storm drains will be mitigated with site improvements which will result in less than significant or no impact. The proposed project will not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements as regulated by the Water District, the Sanitary District, and the City of Saratoga Public Works Department. However, measures will be in place to address the potential short-term impacts of grading and construction activities for the fire station. Mitigations IV. l Installation of catchments and sewer connections for redirecting gray water into the City sewer system. 1V.2 During construction, washing of concrete, paint or equipment shall occur only in areas where polluted water and materials can be contained for subsequent removal from the site. A designated area for washing functions shall be identified. i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater ^ O ^ ^ otherwise available for public water supplies? Discussion The proposed project will not substantially deplete the existing groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater discharge since it is an existing historic use that relies on City water service. V. AIR QUALITY. Would the Proposal: - - a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an D ^ O ^ existing or projected air quality violation? • 4 Q~'~ ~S8 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Potentially (see attachments for information sources) Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Discussion There is a new emergency generator proposed in this project to provide power during emergencies. The emissions from the emergency generator will be within the requirements of the Air Pollution Control District and will not have a significant impact on the existing air quality on the site and surrounding area. • • Demolition of the 2 existing buildings may have the potential to impact air quality. Implementation of APCD standard practices for dust control such as provide water spray during demolition. Grading activities are expected to last approximately 2 weeks, Due to the age of the existing Fire Station and Contempo Building, it is probable there is asbestos present. A hazardous materials survey will be completed for the project and the Demolition Plan for the project will include approved methods for removal and disposal of asbestos. Mitigations V.1 Implement APCD standards for dust control during demolition and project grading to reduce the impact to less than significant. V.2 Prior to Demolition, the applicant shall notify the Air Pollution Control District 10 days before demolition begins and asbestos removal work begins. V.3 Follow the steps as described in the attached Mitigation Summary for testing and handling asbestos. V.4 Follow National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants during demolition as described in the Mitigations Summary. b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? ^ ^ ^ D Discussion Short-term air quality impacts caused by dust generation and emissions from construction equipment could occur during the proposed demolition and construction. Adoption of standard APCD dust control measures (See V.1.) would reduce potentially significant dust generation associated with such construction activities to less than significant levels. Emissions are expected from gasoline and diesel-powered grading and paving equipment and fugitive dust generation associated with earth moving activities. c) Alter air movement, moisture or temperature, or cause D D D ^ any change in climate? , Discussion No impact is anticipated. d) Create objectionable odors? ^ D ^ ^ 5 ~aQ~~9 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Potentially (see attachments for information sources) Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Discussion The proposed project will contain an emergency generator. The emergency generator will be tested on a regular schedule once a week for approximately 5 minutes. Short-term use will be limited to power failures and emergency situations. The small amount of emissions from the exercising of the emergency generator on a weekly basis is less than significant level of impact. VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the Praposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? ^ ^ ^ ^ Discussion According to the Traffic Study ,Feb. 2001, no new trips will be generated since it will be replacing an existing facility. Existing traffic impacts will be mitigated as noted in VI. b) below. b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., sharp ° ^ ^ ^ ^ curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Discussion Because the new Headquarters Fire Station will be set back off the corner of Saratoga Avenue and Saratoga-Los Gatos Road, and will incorporate a traffic signal interrupt, and a new street corner configuration, the visual distanc~ will be improved and right turn traffic will be required to stop thus creating a benefit for an existing dangerous condition. The new Fire Station design incorporates a large apron on the frontage to Saratoga Road which will allow emergency vehicles to back into the facility without stopping traffic on Saratoga Road. Mitigations VI.1 Setback the new Fire station Facility 25' from curb and the apparatus bay doors 59' from curb on Saratoga Avenue. °`c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? O ^ ^ ^ Discussion The proposed abandonment of the existing alley will remove direct access to the side of the Post Office however, the other remaining driveway will maintain postal personnel access, emergency and other patron access to the Post Office. No impacts are anticipated. , d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? ^ O ^ ^ Discussion The property on which the existing Fire Station is currently located has insufficient parking to serve the station. However, the Fire District has purchased the property just south of the existing Fire Station (where the temporary Fire Station will be located) at 20473 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road. This will comply with City requirement for 24 spaces. This project design reduces this impact to less than significant. The Temporary Fire Station will have adequate parking with 17 spaces. 6 00000 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Potentially (see attachments for information sources) Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant- No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? ^ ^ ^ ^ Discussion Pedestrian safety may be at risk between the Fire Station and the Post Office where there is a jog in the sidewalk and curb at the Post Office corner. The alley will be closed and an ambulance bay door exits on this corner. Mitigations VI.2 Provide a new stripped crossing along Saratoga Road to the median at the Post Office parking area in the front of the Post Office. f) Conflicts with adopted polices supporting alternative ^ ^ ^ O transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Discussion There is a bus stop (Line #27 West Valley College) located at the edge of the driveway where ingress to the temporary fire station will be on Saratoga-Los Gatos Road. Mitigation VI.3 The District will move the bus stop 50 to 75 feet North of current location, thus mitigating it to no impacts. g) Rail, waterborne, or air traffic impacts? ^ O D ^ Discussion The Project site is not within the vicinity of rail, water or air traffic facilities. VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the Proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats O ^ ^ ^ (including, but not limited to, plants, fish, insects, animals and birds)? Discussion The proposed project is located on the existing fire station site. There are no habitats or special status species established on the existin¢ site. L b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees)? ^ ^ O ^ Discussion One existing magnolia tree will be removed for the Temporary Fire Station improvements. It is not a heritage tree and therefore will not be replaced. Four existing olive trees near the Memorial Monument will be extricated, boxed and relocated on site. c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., oak ^ ^ ^ ^ forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? Discussion There are no designated natural communities on or near the site. d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? ^ ^ ^ ^ Discussion There are no wetlands on or near the site. ~ ~aQ~91 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Potentially (see attachments for information sources) Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact e) Wildlife dispersal or mitigation corridors? ^ O O ^ Discussion This is an urban setting, no wildlife is present. VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the Proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? ^ O ^ ^ Discussion Energy conservation practices will be implemented in the new fire station building according to California Energy standards, including: dual paned windows, energy efficient appliances, insulation, energy efficient lighting. b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and ^ ^ O ^ inefficient manner? - Discussion Reusable building materials from demolition will be recycled. c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral ^ ^ ^ ^ resources that would be of future value to the region and state residents? Discussion No known mineral resources exist on the site. IX. HAZARDS. Would the Proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous ^ O O ^ substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? Discussion There will be no routine transportation, use or disposal of hazardous materials. b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan ^ ^ ^ ^ ,, or emergency evacuation plan? Discussion The proposed project is a part of the Saratoga Fire District's adopted emergency response plan. Construction of the new fire facility will provide the Fire Department with a building code compliant "essential services" facility for emergency response. c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health ^ ^ ^ ^ hazard? Discussion The proposed Project is not anticipated to create new health hazards as a result of new Fire Station operations. There will be no significant hazardous materials present on this project after the removal of existing asbestos materials by a licensed hazardous materials contractor (see d below). ~~ s -OaQ~9~ ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Potentially (see attachments for information sources) Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential ^ ^ ^ ^ health hazards? Discussion As discussed in Air Quality, V.a. above, there is potential for asbestos in the bu ildings to be demolished. e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, ^ ^ ^ ^ grass or trees? Discussion The proposed project will not expose people or structures to the risk of wild land fires. X. NOISE. Would the Proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? ^ ^ O ^ Discussion The proposed project is in keeping with the historic use of the site for a fire station use. The fire station will expose neighbors and generate noise typical for it's daily uses, but not exceed any standards established by the local noise ordinance. The proposed project will not intensify noise levels above the existing use. There is no change in use of the site. The proposal includes two emergency generators. One for the temporary fire station and one for the new permanent Fire Station. These generators will only be used in times of emergencies as back-up power. There are neighbors behind the Church on Park Place potentially impacted by noise in the event of an emergency. Mitigations X.l Prior to issuance of a building permit the City. will ensure that the application includes a wall to enclose the generator at the South of the new Fire Station. X2 Sound insulate the temporary unit or enclose it to meet the standards set forth in the City Noise Ordinance. This would reduce this impact to less than significant. b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? O O ^ O Discussion No severe noise impacts are anticipated. Also see a) above. XI: PUBLIC SERVICE. Would the Proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services, in any of the following areas: a) Fire Protection? ^ ^ ^ ^ Discussion The proposed project will create a positive impact for the Fire District and the existing community. The replacement project will provide the District with a building code compliant "essential services" facility. The new facility will improve the Fire District's emergency response plan after a seismic event or other natural catastrophe. The fire protection services of the Station will continue to be provided from the existing site during construction. There will be no interruption in fire protection services during the construction period. Temporary facilities for the fire personnel and equipment are proposed to remain on site. b) Police Protection? ^ ^ ^ ^ 9 +~~Q393 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Potentially (see attachments for information sources) Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Discussion The proposed project will not create an impact on the existing police services. c) Schools? O ^ ^ ^ Discussion The proposed project will not create an impact on public or private schools as a result of this project. d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ^ ^ ^ ^ Discussion Since the project is the continuation of an existing use on existing roads no new services or maintenance will be required. e) Other governmental services? ^ ^ ^ ^ XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the Proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? ^ ^ ^ ^ Discussion The project is a continuation of an existing use on the site and therefore will not a need for a new system or altera~ to an existing service. b) Communications systems? ^ ^ ^ ^ Discussion ' The project will not affect communication systems. c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution ^ O ^ ^ facilities? Discussion The proposed project will not exceed the wastewater treatment requirements. `d) Sewer, septic systems, or wastewater treatment and ^ ^ ^ ^ disposal facilities? " Discussion Adequate new water and wastewater facilities exist for the needs of this project. e) Storm water drainage? ^ ^ ^ ^ Discussion Greywater runoff from truck cleaning on Saratoga Road currently drains into the storm water system. The project will include improvements to re-direct drainage into the sewer system during truck wash-down. This will reduce the impact to less than significant. Refer to discussion and mitigation in Water III.h. f) Solid waste materials recovery or disposal? ~ ^ ^ Discussion The Sanitary District has adequate existing facilities to service the needs of this project. g) Locat or regional water supplies? ^ O ^ ^ io O~Q~94 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Potentially (see attachments for information sources) Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No - Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Discussion Adequate water supplies exist to service the needs of this project. XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the Proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? O O ^ ^ Discussion The proposed project will not have any adverse effect on any scenic vistas. No public views w ill be adversely affected. The project is compatible with the existing neighborhood b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? ^ ^ ^ ^ Discussion The project architectural style is compatible with neighboring buildings on Saratoga and Saratoga-Los Gatos Roads and will have a positive aesthetic impact on the site and the surrounding neighborhood. The architectural style similar to the "Federated Church" inspired by the Julia Morgan vernacular and the proposed character and quality of the style will enhance the site and its surroundings. c) Create adverse light or glare effects? ^ D ^ ^ Discussion The proposed project will not create a significant increase to the existing lighting levels of the existing fire station. The proposed exterior lighting.to the site and building will be in areas where they are required for safety and operations. XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the Proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? ^ ^ ^ ^ Discussion No paleontological resources are anticipated to be impacted. b) Disturb archaeological resources? ^ ^ ^ ^ Discussion There are no known resources on the site however the following mitigation measures will be required to reduce potential of project specific impacts to archeological resources. Mitigations XN.1 At the commencement of project construction, a qualified archaeologist shall give all workers associated with earth disturbing procedures an orientation regarding the possibility of exposing unexpected culturalremains and directed as to what steps are to be taken if such a find is encountered. If any cultural resources are encountered during construction, construction shall cease immediately and procedures established by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation concerning the protection and preservation of historic and cultural properties shall be followed. In this event, a qualified archeologist with local expertise shall be consulted immediately in order to assess the nature, extent, and possible significance of any cultural remains encountered. XN.2 This condition will be rinted on all buildin and adin lans. c) Affect historical resources? ^ ~ ^ ^ ^ ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Potentially (see attachments for i~tforniation sources) Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Discussion No historical resources are anticipated on the site. d) Have the potential to cause a physical change, which O O ^ O would affect unique ethnic cultural values? Discussion No impact to unique ethnic cultural values is anticipated. See b) above. e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the ^ ^ ^ ^ potential impact area? Discussion No impact is anticipated. XV. RECREATION. Would the Proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks ^ or other recreational facilities? Discussion No impact is ^ ^ ^ b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? ^ ^ ^ ^ Discussion The proposal incorporates relocating the existing Memorial Park and Monument to its previous location offsite. It may better serve the community in a less congested intersection with better accessibility. This relocation will reduce the impact to less than significant and to a benefit. Mitigation XV.I The District will move the Memorial Park and Monument to Blanel Park. XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. L a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the ^ ^ ^ ^ quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, ~, " reduce the number or restrict the range of rare or endangered plants or animals, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short- O ^ ^ ^ term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? 12 ©~~~'~s ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Potentially (see attachments for information sources) Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact c) Does the project have ampacts that are individually O ^ ^ ^ limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the increment effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) d) Does the project have environmental effects that will ^ ^ ^ ^ cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? • • 08/22/2002 14:14 4088671330 ~ TRINA WHITLEY PACE 02 XYIL DETERMINATION. On the basis of this initial evaluafion: I Sad the proposed pt+oject COULD NOT have a significant effect on the envimamemt, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION wdl be prepared, I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect is this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have X been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WIIrL BE PREPARED. 15nd the proposed project MAY have a aigtificant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL 1MPACT REPORT is required. DATE SIGNA FIRE CHIEF, SARATOGA FIRE DEPARTMENT • • Q~o.~~8 (~ 08/22/2002 _15:20 4088671330 TRINA WHITLEY PAGE 83 NEGATIVE DECLARATION Declaration That Environmental Impact Report Not Required For Design Review #O1-006 and Use Permit 01-002 sad TLTP-Ol-003 and LL-O1-003 Saratoga Fire District The undersigned, Fire Chief for the Saratoga Fve District, after study and evaluation, has determined and does hereby determine pursua~ot to the applicable provisions of the Environmental Quality Act of 1970, Section 15063 through 15065 and Section 15070 of the California Administrative Code, and Resolution of the City of Saratoga, and based on the District's .- independent judgment, that the following described project will have ao significant effect (no substantial adverse impact) on the environment within the tenors and meaning of said Act Project Aescriptioa: Request for Temporary Use Permit, Conditional Use Permit, and Design Review approval to demolish an existing Fire Station and office building and wnstcuct a new 15,435 square foot Headquarters Fire Station at 14380 Saratoga Avenue. A Temporary Use Permit and Setback modi fication is nteeessary for the temporary Fire Station to be located at 20473 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road during construction. The site for the proposed fire station is 18,228 square fcct, and the site for the temporary building & parking is 17,250 square feet. Both are located within a Professional Administrative (P-A) zone district. Project Location: 14380 Saratoga Avenue -New Fire Station 20473 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road -Temporary Fire Station Applicant: Saratoga Fire Department Lead Agency: Saratoga Fire District 14380 Saratoga Avenue Saratoga, CA 9507p Reason for Negative Declaration: The proposal is not anticipated to cause any substantial adverse impacts on the environment. Altbough the proposal will modify the existing use of the site, arad brave minor modification impacts, the attached mitigation measures wi11 insure that the project will not cause significant environmental impacts pursuant to the terms of the Environmental Quality Act. Executed at Sarato a, California, this day g ZZ Q Z ERnrxST ICRAULE, i+', SARATOGA FIRE DEPARTMENT 15 ~~Q~~9 MITIGATION MEASURES SUMMARY IV. WATER Description IV-1 Installation of catchments and sewer connections for redirecting gray water into the City sewer system. IV-2 During construction, washing of concrete, paint or equipment shall occur only in areas where polluted water and materials can be contained for subsequent removal from the site. A designated area for washing functions shall be identified. V. AIR QUALITY Asbestos Mitigation Measures Completion of the following mitigation measures is required in order to determine whether asbestos containing materials are present as a result of the proposed project. V-1 Prior to demolition, the applicant shall notify the San Luis Obispo APCD of all facility demolitions at least ten working days before asbestos stripping or removal work begins. The information required for the notification must be reported a "Notification of Demolition and Renovation" form that can be obtained at the APCD. This form includes demolition of facilities that may contain no asbestos. V-2 Prior to demolition, the applicant shall implement the following steps: 1. The facility shall be inspected and building materials sampled and tested to determine the presence or absence of asbestos. 2. Samples must be tested by an EPA accredited analytical laboratory, and with an approved EPA asbestos method to determine the percent of asbestos present. 3. Inspections and testing should be completed and results obtained by the owner, operator or contractor prior to the start of the renovation or demolition. 4. Test results should be kept on site and made available to the APCD upon request. V-3 Prior to and during demolition, the applicant shall assure the following steps are completed: 1. Demolition may begin when it is determined that asbestos containing materials are not present, and all notification of the National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) are met. 2. If asbestos containing materials are present, demolition activity must be done in compliance with the NESHAP. 3. If proof of inspection and building material testing cannot be provided to the APCD, demolition activity will be required to stop. 4. Activity may resume only with APCD approval. 5. Upon receipt of an adequate "Notification of Demolition and Renovation", the APCD will issue a written Authorization Letter and fee invoice to the owner/operator of the facility. 6. The primary purposes of the Authorization Letter are to verify project start and end dates, to assure that all parties are aware of APCD and EPA requirements, and that those requirements will be " " adhered to during the abatement. VI. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION VI-1 Set the new Fire station Facility back 25' from curb and the apparatus bay doors 59' from curb on Saratog~ Avenue. VI-2 Provide a new striped crossing along Saratoga Road to the median at the Post Office parking area in the front of the Post Office. _ 16 O~O~OU VI-3 The District will move the bus stop 50 to 75 feet North of current location. X. NOISE X-1 Prior to issuance of a building permit the City will ensure that the application includes a wall to enclose the generator at the South of the new Fire Station. X-2 Sound insulate the temporary unit or enclose it to meet the standards set forth in the City Noise Ordinance XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES XIV-I Ai the commencement of project construction, a qualified archaeologist shall give all workers associated with earth disturbing procedures an orientation regarding the possibility of exposing unexpected cultural remains and directed as to what steps are to be taken if such a ftnd is encountered. If any cultural resources are encountered during construction, construction shall cease immediately and procedures established by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation concerning the protection and preservation of historic and cultural properties shall be followed. In this event, a qualified archeologist with local expertise shall be consulted immediately in order to assess the nature, extent, and possible significance of any cultural remains encountered. XIV-2 This condition will be printed on all building and grading plans. XV. RECREATION XV-1 The District will move the Memorial Park and Monument to Blanel Park. • 17 ~~~~~~ INFORMATION SOURCES: A. City of Saratoga Departments Consulted: Planning and Development B. Other Sources and Documents: Reference # Document Title Available for Review at: 1 Neighborhood Zoning Map Attachment #1 2 Lot Coverage Exhibit Attachment #2 3 Project's Site Plan Phase I-Temporary F.S. Attachment #3 4 Project's Phase II & III Site Plan Attachment #4 5 Project's Lower & ls` Floor Plans Attachment #5 6 Project's 2nd Floor & Roof Plans Attachment #6 7 Project's Conceptual Exterior Elevations Attachment #7 8 Project's Building Sections Attachment #8 9 Project's Grading & Drainage Plan Attachment #9 10 Project's Conceptual Planting Plan Attachment #10 11 Traffic Study, Fehr & Peers Associates 12 13 Soils Engineering Study, Earth Systems Consultants i d G l H S d E h S eo c azar og s tu y, art ystems Consultants 14 Limited Onsite and Offsite Source Assessment ~.. 18 ~~'~~.0 G • • • ' I I I i i I (womero (tnaen) CNb) I ArN I I n17 ~-o» I »:oTn I i iON! !1.10,000 r•A I I ~. ~ .~~ - ( . ArN,'• ..L..~ ION! ~ ~ ~~ tl•10.000 C i Otle~!•,~ ~ -', ~ ~. ,:`: ~ - :orle ~ ~ : , ; - ~: I ~ ~~ ~ ~ ' ~ srp ~ a \ . ~~ v-ol~, ~ e`~~ i'~ IOM! _~ ~;: I ~ y rA ~ -.AM ~ ~~. ~ .-~ ~.-aldrq ` ~ ~~'~171t 011,; / A =^Ef ~ ', ~~~ ~ - K LONt \ ~' ~ ~ ~ ,` . . ~,~ i , i ~ A .~ l ~~ ~ ~. ; . ''~ j ~% ~~.. SMUTOW -LOS f/~TOf NMD ~~~ aaw oasiol+ oleoar 2002 MRIN Scale 1"=20' ng MaP, ' . . epartment Headquarters a ~..~ P1 ~__ -~+n oeor-arr ~~+_ ~ ~ nor cw~ce - ~ •. ..r. ,~...: =- wm w[ r n'r• r ano.o ramp Iw! gMaY011 f[ M4 ~ s,' tors asv iucr \ '.\ .\ •\ ,\ .\ .\ •\ \ \ 5 L nn~TUn~ / ~ ~~ `~ -. `....._.. ~..1.r. _ . b SAUITDW - lOS f~TOt IlOhD Mi011IM ~~~ SCOI2 1"=2~ LOT COVERAGE PLAN , ;~ ° e~,;,;,,°.,;,~;,; ° ° ~ Saratoga Fire Department Headquarters Station '=^41~,;~ «;~~-__ ~ Ao~nst Z2, 2001 A98034 2 ,~ s i ~., • • ~ 3~ F 3AM111W - lOf WTO3 ROAD Q• ~ =--•__ -_ I ' ~. .~ c I I ~ ~- ~\ I i m eIIRnRa ~ ~ \ ~~ d PANIQrD \. '. ~ =- ~~~ (a'~tEFw oea~orE oROU- ~, wG+Nr:~~Ar+61RL t~ t trR+wr ~~ \ . ~ T~ ~ ... tRauR3 -.. to : ~ Q' ~ ,. . PT10P'9RfD ` a '\ ~r'C ~ ., ` ~ bR / • PROJECT DATA- TEMPORARY FIRE STATION PARKING REQUIRED: R ON-OUI'I NREPG11RR3 IP+UISIRIC(1 R Off-0UTi NRERG11RR3 (DURwO SWFI CMANGEI ~ ADMRiISIRAiION STAN f 1 PIIaUC N SPAC IEMPORARi PAR[MG PROVDEO: ON 311E • I7 3-ACB 11 NCI Off SDE • 7 S-ACB' IP-A 061RIC1) IOIAI • Sl SPACB II MCI •ADDIIIONAI IFMPORMi Off SIZE PARRf1G VM1L DE ORTARiED aT 111E f•IRf ODRCI A-N: ERIE STATION PROPERTY 1 SPS-nOlf APN: CONTEMPO PROPERII' R rl-n-013, r7•no+7 a rl-f7dlE ..r ADDRESS: IESID SARAIOGA AVE. ~; owNER3 NAME: cm or sARA1ocA .-~' ERaTno usF: HRf suT10N ' al;a 30NTN0 D6IRICT: P-A (PRO. ADMIN. ORiCq - rxaTlNO3orsur. P.3T~ss PROrosEO Tot s1eE: as..e. sF ~ `: i IEMPORAIIY USE • VARIANCE REQUESTED 1. FRONT SETRACR VARIANCE fOR PSACfMEM OF IENIPORARY MODUAR RUIDRIG ON CONIErMO PROPERI'I ~ 3ET3AC[ REQURfOa3' I 3ETRACR REQUBT[D:O ..}~ -., q F:' Scde I'=20' SITE PLAN PHASE I-TEMPORARY FIRE STATIOta , `_. ........... A33~E3at 22, 2002 ............. I Of0'-6I arr• ~ ~ BDI IOGIUR P ~~ \ \ ~\ NC ~1 BItOPiO ' \ Yl '\ 9 ~ \. m PAHOlIO AND S \ D ~ \ I I I IO~Rq !S '\ \ \ \ ~\ _iiF1~115[ w ln~ p~.\eRrn \~ ~ \ ~\ ~Rr -.~ r \ _ _ .. _ O PAIeOq = \ ~\ ~\ RS /R fwP TO pEA1fH \ ~ a \ I ~ ~ \ 7 'S~,l \ APRON :'„ m PAPoSNO '\ \ '\ AREA -~\ s* \ \ ~ Illy /~ vy\ IFPl,AOEAEM ` 1 jl _~ er T1GN ~. - \ - \ \ \ \ ~ \ ~ Q °' - b _ ~~ - - --: _ \ ~ RR If [¢ tuR IN[ r - - PROJECT DATA -REPLACEMENT STATION IAR[MG REOUREO: a ON-DUA RRERGIIIERS IP-A OISt~I a OFF-pUIY iRIEFIGI1IERf (DIIRRiG SNF1 CNANGEI 1 ADMRRIRAIgNSIAff 1 -UeIIC 71 PAC -AR%IN(' FRONDED: OM SIZE • 77 SPACES IOIAI (1 NCI DEDICATED 10 CIA • IO SPACES Off SITE • 7 SPACES IP-A D31eInI APN: NRE fIAl10N PROPERA f 7P)-77-0IP APN coNIEMro PROPERA Ran-77-0IS. m-na7 ~ SP7-Ja-01: ADDRESS: I ISeO SMAIOGA AVE. OWNER? NAME: CRr OFSMAIOGA ~ ., f%fSIRiG USE: f1RF SIAIRJN ~~ lONRSG D61RIC1: P-A II'ROi. ADMIN. Oa1CE) F%6TRiG l0T SUE: 1.771 SF -ROPOSEO l01 SQE: 77,11) fF •fOIIOW RIG IIIE SALE Of A PORIgN OF I14 CONIEMfO PROPERA AIIOWMIF iICOR AREA: , _ e1REDRic APE: V-N occuPANCr TIPE: [ MLOWMIE NEIGNI/MFA: 7 SIORIES/e.000 Sf Ja MEOW. Sf w/ AUTO. 7 ~ e.000 Sf • I/.000SF SPRM[lER PER 199e cec sos s PROPOSED RUR.ORR' AREA: BASEMEN 7.777 Sf - MMN aR. e.Re) Si ZIPPER aR 1 171 Y . . wIM Is.lusf IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE: RuRDwc-AD: e.ro)si AM. RAr APRON /IeSO DINER IIARDSCAPE: e.7fOSf IOIM: 71,167 Sf ~/67i Of l01 SUFI AVERAGE SOf SIOPE: 11S i:• ~~~ Rl1IEDNG SEIRAC[ VFRRiCAIIDN NOIF: PRpR ro iO1RioAi1DN RISPECfION Rr IIIE cnr. THE RCE OR LIS a RECORD SNML /ROVpE A WRIIIEN CERIIfICAl1ON INAt All RUIDNG fETeACtl ARE PETS `~~ INE A-PROVEO Mr6. - - VARIANCE REOIIBIED: 1. SDF SEIRAC[ VARN/KE REGUESTEO AI SEIRAC[ ALONG VACAI~ AUEr ' SE/eAC[ REDURFD: IS SFIRAC[ RFOUFSIED:O 110RIM Scde 1"=20' ~~~ SITE PLAN PHASE II & III . ~ '• M D 8 e 7 G W O Il U U ~ Saratoga Fire Department Headquarters Station '~' 4' ~~6..I...+-sya __ ....................................:............................................................................ Aagast 22, 2002.................................................... ...................................................................................... A98034a 1.1 ` ~7 • • • iw~ e na! P, eta ~; ~'; R!~ r~ ~eS ~~ `}el+ A~: !~!A~ 7 1~1 ((e~~w+~; !4^-'4 . Lower Floor Plan ~~~ M DBeION aROU- r^^~ ~J .1 First Floor Plan ~~: M~ '~.:.'J~ MORM i ® ~~; ~~ Scale I/8'=1' , :~ FLOOR PLANS ~ Saratoga Fire Department .Headquarters Station ...................:............................................................................. ADguet 22:2002....................................................................................... ................................................... A9803; r----------------------------i i ~ ~ L'__'l 1 ~ 1 I 1 1 L_____~ 1 1 1 L__~ L_____________.~ 1 I 1 1 I 1 `~ 1 1 1 I I 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 '_~ 1 I Second Floor Plan ~~~ RM DHSIDN Roof Plan `Si!i! ~', ~ d~ ~' ~~ '~ ~! ~~~I 'E~ }~t ~ aT'7 f R9I r, 1~. M.'~ '¢5 i 110111M 3 ~ ® ~f „ Scale 1~8"=1' ` ; .r:., FLOOR PLANS 4~` U R D U Saratoga Fire Department Headquarter .~ _ .................................. ......................................................................... An~nst 22, 2002...................................................................... ................................... • • ion ~ 6 A98031 • ~.1 • • • ~. `~i w nes~or- oaou~ ~~ North Elevation East Elevation .~ M,~: ~:'• .~. .~;'• C~ ~+ € ~; ++ ~~ °° ~: ~' ~~ '~ ® ' ,~ kale I/8"=1' ' EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS ~, Saratoga Fire Department Headquarters Station August 22, 2002 A98034 ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... .. ~ °° ~ M. r.GW a M. ~4...00~ 116 M. ~~ 1@ I~ 1[ N ,-,11~ T. ~ ~ ._ ~, . ~ :~ A Hl West Elevation - .O. ~, k+ ~~ '~ ~~_~ ~1 :Y4 1 *yP I P! ~ ~ r.:' ^ o l ~'t~ J P„~ '?:df '#e: South Elevation ®rt Scale I/8"=1' '~~ `~, EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS I• R M DBE a l O N o R o ~. Saratoga Fire Department Headquarters Station Qa ~~ ~~_ ___ Aa~ast 2l, 2002 A98034 v v, • • • BUILDING SECTION A-A lie-= t•~• wuoa~• ~. ~aa~ro..ao ,„•.., SITE SECTION A-A - ~•=so•-0- tv•~ " (~M,.~ ~.~ K INEW ~(it. oor j SECTION B-B tie-= ra ~~~ i~1f:M DHf ION OROU~ d..... ~ - aa.i ~. ww Itatllpur t t0 R. 7]'-0'I. r a ~.~-o'A7 I.n o0 r r. - u~m7 t t011 . ael "tat Q ~ f~f Q '~ f~ y R"~ 4 •I ~ . BUILDING SECTIONS i ae. con.o f----- ----1 rtwatowu rewrwaato 1 ca~mo 1 ,~ ,w,., ~ ~ ..~ 1 ...r. ~. ~ ..r..... ,I d~ :,~,~,~ eauioo~.lof amf leas w.uuvs un orrcr wun. Gana. /1.~2A Irl.m.rr ~ Sarato~a Fire Department Headquarters Station ........AO~ast 22:.Z ................................. ...................................... ............................................................................................................. LEGEND C~ _ ~" .... .~ .~ 1'- SO PROPOSED STORM DRAW 5 SEVER LINE O! PROPOSED DROP INLET TC TOW OF CURB TG TM C1~ CRATf fC fIN/SNED CRADE fl FLOW LINE '..\ FF flNISNEO fLOQ4 ~ SOMN PROWOSCD STQ4LI GRAIN MANNd E ~ . ~ ~~` ! ~ ~^ ~\ ; ; ,; .. NEW AC PAVEMENT -\~~^~~ ~~\ j////////// PAl£MENI TO Bf REMOVED "~\: PROPOSED COWCREIE ~ L ~~ \ Q . `~ ` ~ x,\ ~ ~ O: .- ~~~ R~~ oe~~aN ~~~~~ l Saratoga -~_"" ~ ~:~:~:_.~=_ ............................... .................... ........................................................ August 22,2002.......... ~~ A A ~, .-. ' ~ a L ~ .~ ~ r /.~., I wp.. A /I. o ~~ ~: ~. GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN , U~' partment Headquarters Station "~~~' A98034 a, . ..................................s......................................................................................................................................................... PEOe6v zooz `zz i~~v uor;u; sla~gnbpgag ;uaur~edaQ asi,3 ego;~~ss i~ ,~=.~ a.~ ~, ~a~c ~,~„ a>. ..s ~+ Ems' "Gflt wyuolWq. :~ ~o ~N~a uool•aw C k~ ~ w ~~a ~, ~WYPp~ ~odooO WwioJ i l W wro oJob~ WMO ~~ tt9y (J oNuoiuoW furs uuuodsoukpoJoewon mH WMO Agog onyoy Wuof YfOg70y 0l0~7 ""o+~+ol4AOPol'bDm1~L ~~~ Ypb'i Dopey iea a a00 oHl ii00~ P00w90Q ~Ikk~Od PMDO11 u+o1~M apo~ osuox~ opoW osouodof ~IOPldh~l4 m~pouaWOd • saw, ~s!~+w oNlu ~plgAV gozwuwH / s{uaoov a,ow, o~,apW / / .W Ww+e, opyayo viyou,soa tPp0A4 ~4~oN JFIuo7ip4 X18 ~410uDG~ .q~d ~L ApW AW~~Y J~~ PW+a++3. ~IWdol~ol~v .l-A :ae~oapuno~ PJ~oWh 7 oNid .uoPW W IOW, ^~1 uhN+p4d ~ A e p +!•oi uo~o l9 sgaaa w><~ o~Jtoo oJaJuotlio~ sa,~odt gouw~ opYl~ giol~Y >~N~ ~H .£-.l :sgrvys wrypaW P4714Po~pob>o /~ PolDagoM oq of owt oMp mg V uiowoy of wq Oull?r3 - O. S33t11 ~JNLLSIX3 4011+ u+~o~O ~ (~ eolJousr>t++o~' J ololuoq»o aaw~ woin~ap sivpo~olo~ I ~C uuyougod raoy S33M1 ~sl~ 6ul~uold lon~daouo~ anoyo nolcaa w ~~~ • • • • THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK • C ®00:.4 Oii19i02 11:50 a SHL"TE . a I HALT Attachment 5 • 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1.7 ', 18 19 zo 21 22 23 24 2~ 26 27 28 ELLISOI~i FOLK (State Bar No. 149232) RICHARD TAYLOR (State Bar No. 139037 ) MARLENA BYRNE (State Bar No: 212251) SHUTS, MIHALY & WEINBERGER LLP ', 396 Hayes Street San Francisco, CA 94102 ~~ Telephone: (415) 552-7272 'I Facsfm~le: (415) 552-816 Attorneys for Respondents and Defendants CITY OF SARATOGA SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA -- COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA SARATOGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT, ) Case No. CV 803540 Petitioner and Plaintiff, ) STIPULATION AND jPROPOSED] ORDER ~. ESTABLISHING PROCESS FOR SETTLEMENT CITY Of' SARATOGA, and CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA, ) Respondents and Defendants. ) ~~r,nn•~. n~- Petitioner and Plaintiff Saratoga Fire Protection District ("District") and Respondents and Defendants City of Saratoga ("City") and the City Council of the City of Saratoga ("City Council"), (collectively, "City"), hereby agree and stipulate as follows: 1. The District and the City (collectively, "the parties") enter into this Stipulation Establishing Process for Settlement ("Stipulation") upon the basis of the following facts, understandings and intentions of.the parties: A. The District's action arises out of the decision of the City to deny the District's March 6, 2001 applications for design review, and use permits (collectively, "Application") to demolish an existing fire station, maintain a temporary fire station, and construct a new fire station at the intersection of Saratoga Avenue and Saratoga-Los Gatos Road ("Pmject"). c~ ~. cv aoas4o sr~tnnnaTr nt~n tpxoposWl oRnsR ESTAHI.ISHING PROCESS FOR SETi7~Nr 1 ~~'Q~~S Oi/19/0. 11:50 ~ SHUTE.MIHALT 1~U03'Ui- 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11' 12 13 14 l5 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 B. The District's existing fire station building is located on the Project site and has been found seismically unsound according to an engineering study commissioned by the District. Additionally, the District seeks replacement of the existing. fire station because it has determined that the current building is too small to meet the space needs of the District and its employees. in 1998, the District commissioned a conceptual design for a new station on the Project site and in 2000, the voters of the Saratoga Fire Protection District approved $6,000,000 worth of bonds for the purchase of property adjacent to the Project site and the construction of a new station. In preparation for permitting and constructing the new station, the District, among other preparations, commissioned a traffic study, which concluded that the development of a new fire station would produce no additional impacts to traffic. C. The District submitted its Application to the Ciry on March 6, 2001. The District also requested a temporary use permit to relocate the existing fire station to the adjacent property, which currently houses the °Contempo Building." The District's Project proposal would have required the City to adjust the property line of the District's property (a lot-line adjustment) and to transfer 529 square feet of City-0wned property, now encompassing the City's heritage Plaza, to the District. As initially proposed, the District's Project would have required exceptions from the City's zoning code, which code currently limits site coverage to 30 percent of the Project site and requires setbacks of 25 feet on all sides. In addition, the 35 foot height of the Project would have exceeded the 30 foot height (imitation of the applicable zoning district. D_ The City Planning Commission held hearings on the Application on June 13 and June 27, 2001 and approved the Project as proposed. In approving the project, the Planning Commission made several findings, including finding that the , ; . building's elevation, height, and placement did not unreasonab]y interfere with views and privacy and that the proposed Project was compatible with the surrounding environment, includng surrounding structures, and with the City's Zoning Ordinance. Following the approval, two members of the public appealed the Planning Commission's action to the Cate No. CV 803540 s'rBUt.ATiON AND [PROPOSED( ORDER FSTA8L15rOT1G PROCESS FOR SErIIENtENI' 2 O~Q :.~.6 • Oi%1902 11:50 'B' 1~ 2 3 4 S 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 I3 14 i5 16 17; 18~ 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ~ City Council. SHCTE,MIHALL" i~00~3~ U1~ E. On September S, 2001, the City Council heard the appeal. After extensive discussion and testimony from the public, the City Council upheld the appeal and denied the District's Application. Among the reasons cited in support of the denial were the mass of the building, the lack of setbacks, the 100 percent site coverage and the Project's incompatibility with the neighborhood and lack of consistency with existing zoning. The City denied the Application without prejudice. F. Following the City's denial of the District's Application, the District filed a petition for writ of mandate on D ecember 4, 2001, claiming that the City abused its discretion in denying the District's Application and that the denial effected a taking. On February 23, 2002, the Court sustained the City's demurrer to the 1istrict's second cause of action alleging that the City's denial resulted in a taking of their property. The Court ruled that the District's claim was not ripe for adjudication. The Court granted leave to amend and District served the City with an amended complaint on March 1 S, 2002, alleging the same claims for abuse of discretion and a taking. On April 15, 2002, the City filed a second demurrer to the District's second cause of action alleging a taking. G. Following the denial of the Application, the City instituted a planning process for development of a public safety center, including a fire station, at the intersection where the current fire station is located. An Ad Hoc Committee including representatives of the City, the District, several adjoining landowners, and interested members of the community was created to develop a public safety center plan. The Ad Hoc Committee developed alternative conceptual plans for the site which were reviewed by the City Council is a public meeting on April 17, 2002. H. As a result of this planning prnccss and the District's involvement as an active participant, settlement between the parties has become a viable option. At the April 17, 2002 City Council wetting the City Council directed City staff to work with the District to facilitate a lead exchange between the City and the District necessary to allow development of the "Scheme A" conceptual design presented at the April l7, 2002 City coo xo. cv so3s.o s~vc~nox nrto 1PROPOSEOI ottnnt ESTASL~FIING PROCESS FOR SAM 3 ~OQ:.~;7 0 i /19/02 11:51 $ SHL"TE.ILIHALl ~ 00~ O1_~ 2 a 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Council meeting. The City Council also directed staff to cooperate with the District as it prepared a revised plan for the development of a f:ir station-consistent with the Scheme A conceptual design. Before the District filed an opposition to the Ciry's second dcmurte:, the parties stipulated to a stay of litigation, which stipulation was signed by the .Court and filed on June 6, 2442. That stipulation stayed all proceedings in the litigation, including the Ciry's second demurrer, for sixty (60) days from the date of the stipulation in order to II facilitate settlement. I. The parties have engaged in extensive discussions for the purpose of negotiating the terms of a settlement of the pending litigation. The District and the City have now reached agreement on the terms of a settlement of this action that they consider to be a just, fair, adequate and equitable resolution of the claims raised in the petition. J. By this Stipulation, the parties seek to set forth the terms of their settlement agreement and to establish the procedures aad processes by which the settlement will be incorporated into a Stipulation for Entry of Final Judgment. 2. All proceedings in this action shall be stayed, including all pleadings and other materials which might otherwise be filed. Any applicable time deadlines, times within which the matter must be brought to trial, andJor statute of limitations are tolled from the date of the Order herein to the date of termination of this Stipulation, if any, by either party hereto. The District shall pay the normal fees and costs charged by the Ciry for processing the modified applications referred to herein, as established by the City's adopted fee scheduled. c~~ rb. cv so3.s4o sr~tn.n~noN ,+rrn ~+ROPOSEnI aatnER FSTABI.LSHING PROCESS POR SErrLFMEtPI' 4 3. The terms of the settlement agreement and the process to incorporate that settlement into a Stipulation for Entry of Final Judgment arc set forth below: A. The City Council shall entertain a motion for reconsideration of its September 5, 2001 denial of the Application pursuant to Saratoga City Code section 2- 10.110(f): The motion for reconsideration will propose that the City Council: (a) resciad the denial; (b) direct the District m return to the lPlanning Commission with a modified application consistent with the Ad Hoc Committee's "Scheme A" modified to show all • • • ~9t~~.~8 • • 0719%02 11:51 '~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 2z; 23 24 25 26 27 28 SHL'TE . M I I~LI parking for the District and City on land owned by the District and with an alternative ~UUU U,. parking design including lands owned by_:adjoiaiag landowners that could be implemented at the option of the District sad adjoining landowners; and {c) direct the Planning Commission to review the design for general conformity with Scheme A. A copy of "Scheme A" is attached as Exhibit 1 sad is hereby incorporated by this reference. B. The City Couneii shall initiate proceedings to consider vacating the public right-of--way in the alley adjacent to the existing fire station and shall request the Planning Commission to review the proposed vacation and the transfer of the Heritage Plana property to the District for conformity with the City's General Plan pursuant to Government Code section 65402(x). C. The District will develop plans for a fire station based on the Ad Hoc Committee's Scheme A. The design will, at a minimum, meet the City's height limitations and standard front and side yard setback requirements, except as otherwise provided herein. The design will include a frost apron of at least 59 feet. The City acknowledges that an exception to the City's rear and side yard setback requirements will be required for the portion of the structure along the southeast property line and that an exception to the City's site coverage requirements will be required because the project is being developed on multiple adjacent lots. In no event, however, will the project's site coverage exceed 30 percent of the total area of all of the lots combined. City staff will cooperate with the District in seeking to define design elements that will promote site compatibility, consistent with the District's intended use of the site. D. As the project sponsor, the District will act as lead agency under the California finvironmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), Public Resources Code § 21000 et se°.. and will prepare a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the new design. The project description will include the new fire station and temporary fire station as well as the vacation of the alley and the transfer of the Heritage Plaza property necessary for the new fire station design. The City will be a responsible agency under CEQA. E. The District will endeavor t4 submit the proposed Mitigated c..~ rb. cv so3s4o srtQUCnnoN grin tPROPOSEnI oRnER ESTASLLSHIrIG PROCESS FOR SE77IF11~NT $ ~~~'~! :.~.9 O i/ 19 / 0 2 11:51 '~ SHL'TE . M I yALl tE; u u~ u i ~. 1 Negative DeclarationJInitial Study and its completed application for the new fire station 2 and the temporary. facility to be used during construction of the new fire station to the 3 City by August 23, 2002. 4 F. The Community Development Department, after receipt of the 5 District's application and the proposed Mitigated Negative Deelaration/Initial Study, shall 6 promptly review the application to determine iu completeness and consistency with 7 Scheme A and shall thereafter notice s public hearing before the Planning Commission to 8 consider the application and the vacation of the alley and transfer of the Heritage Plaza 9 property. The City will endeavor to have these taatters heard by the Planning 10 Commission at its meeting of September 25, 2002. The District will provide the City 11 with its approved Mitigated Negative Declaration no later than one week before the 12 matters are to be heazd by the Planning Commission. I3 G. In the event that any decision of the Planning Commission regarding 14 the application is appealed, the City will act to schedule the appeal for consideration by 15 the Ciry Council at the first available meeting following the appeal consistent with all 16 applicable City policies. 17 H. Following Planning Commission review of the proposed vacation of 18 the alley and transfer of the Heritage Plaza property, the City Council will hold a public 19 hearing to consider whether to vacate the public right-of--way in the alley and whether to. 20 convey the Heritage Plaza property to the District. The City will endeavor to have these 21 matters heard by the City Council at its meeting of October 16, 2002. The conveyance of 22 the Heritage Plaza property to the District shall be in exchange for the following: (1) 23 dedication to permanent public use of at least ten (10) public parking spaces controlled 24 by the City in addition to the twenty-four (24) spaces required by the District pursuant to 25 a shared use parking agreement in form and content acceptable to the City to be recorded 26 in the office of the County Recorder; (2) an easement eight feet in width for passage of 27 pedestrians and bicycles within the setback of the western side of the Fire Station 28 property along State Route 9; and (3) an easement ten feet in width for passage of I' c,..~ xo. Cv so~o srrPt,rt.+norr nxn ~xorosEn7 oan~ Esrasust~mrc rROCESS goR sEtri~rr 6 • ~'V~i~/o • • Oi-19%02 11:52 $ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16~ 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SHL'TE.MIHALT ~,vob• u_° pedestrians and bicycles within the front apron of the firs station adjacent to Saratoga Avenue. The property subject to the easement along Saratoga Avenue shall be marked distinctively (e.g., with colored concrete or brickwork) to distinguish the pedestrian zone from the remainder of the Fire Station apron. The District shall cover costs associated with relocating the Memorial Arch in the Heritage Plaza to Blaney Plaza including removal, transportation, foundation construction, and installation. All costs relating m the design of Blaney Plaza and ail Blaney Plaza improvements other than the foundation -- necessary to support the Memorial Arch shall be paid by the City. Nothing in this agreement shall obligate the City to pay any costs that maybe associated with relocating the San Jose Water Company water lint located iat the alley subject to vacation proceedings. I. The Community Development Department staff shall diligently seek to expedite consideration of the District's application. Nothing herein contained shall be deemed to restrict the discretion of the Ciry to consider such matters as maybe appropriate, provided, however, that if, as a result of the public hearing process or for any other reason, the City proposes to or makes any change in the District's application that would cause it to be inconsistent in any material;cspect with this Stipulation the parties shall meet and confer in good faith with the goal of resolving the inconsistency. The parties shall take the following steps to attempt to resolve any differences regarding changes or proposed changes in the application: 1. The parties may agree to the proposed change or changes; 2. If all parties do not agree to the proposed change or changes, the parties shall endeavor to develop a mutuallyagreeable alternative for recommendation to the City Council and the District, but if no agreement is reached, either parry may terminate this stipulation, and if so terminated, the stay provided in paragraph 2 shall be dissolved. 4. If the City approves the District's application as submitted or as modified with the consent of the District, and if the City also vacates the alley and approves the c~~ ~. cv sossao sr8tn.aTta¢~t Ewa [rxorostnl oanr~ • Fsrna~smrrc peoeess troll ~• 7 ~~Cl:.:1 0i /19/02 11:52 ~' SHLTE.MIHALT ~ 008 0]_~ L 6 .~ 8 9 10 11 12 13 14' 15 161 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 transfer of the Heritage Plaza property to the District (collectively the "Project Actions") then a Stipulation far Entry of Final Judgement and proposed Final Judgement shall be filed with the Court within 10 days after the date on which the last Project Action becomes final. The Stipulation for Entry of Final Judgement shall provide for a release of all the District's claims and relief sought against the Ciry, its employees, agents, and elected officials and shall include the tams of this settlement agreement set forth in paragraphs five (5) through twenty-six (26) below. If the City does not approve one or more of the Project Actions then this Stipulation may be terminated at the option of either parry and, if so terminated, the stay provided for in paragraph 2 shall be dissolved. Termination of this Stipulation sad dissolution of the stay provided for in paragraph 2 shall be the sole remedy for breach of any agreement in paragraphs 3 and 4 of this Stipulation. 5. Each pazty releases and forever discharges each other party and their respective successors, assigns, boards, councils, departments, officials, officers, directors, employees, subsidiaries, pazents, affiliates, contractors, agents, representatives, and attorneys (collectively, "Released Parties"), from and against any and all claims, demands, actions, causes of action, proceedings, obligations, liabilities, damages, losses, costs and expenses (includin; attorneys' fees and costs) of any nature whatsoever, at law or in equity, known or unknown, foreseen or unforeseen, contingent or noncontiagent, which the Ciry or the District (each a "Releasor") now has or may hold, based upon any fact, act or omission occurring prior to the date of this Agreement related to this action or in any way arising out of or in connection with: (a) the City's denial of the Application including all actions alleged in the District's claim for damages filed with the City and subsequent filings with the Superior Court; (b) subsequent acts or omissions of the City with respect to such denial occurring prior to the date of this Stipulation; and (c) the commencement, prosecution or defense of this action (collectively, "Released Claims"). 6• Each Releasor hereby waives the provisions of section 1542 of the :alifornia Civil Codc, which reads as follows: ra. cv so3sao nrt7i.~-noN nxp 1PROposaD) ORDER ~'aBLtSffiNG PROCfigs FOR S£TItFMfiNZ' 8 • • ~~~~~~ Oi/19/02 11:52 • • '$ SHL'~TB . MIHAI-T Cmolo: oi' 1 A general release does not extend to claims which the creditor does not know or suspect to exist in his favor at the timc of 2 executing the relcase, which if known by him must havc materially affected his settlement with the debtor. 3 The parties fully understand that the facts presently laaown to them may later be found to 4 be different and each of them knowingly and expressly accepts and assumes the risk and S responsibility that the facts may be found to be different. 'The parties further agree that, 6 notwithstanding any such differences in facts, this Agreement shall be efTective in all 7 respects in accordance with its farms. This relcase shall not be construed to limit the right 8 9 of any party to assert any claim or cause of action arising is connection with any event, fact, circumstance, or violation of law oeeuning after the date of this Agreement. This 10 release also shall not be construed to Limit the rights of any party, or their members, 11 representatives or agents, from taking positions adverse to each other on matters other I2 than the instant action. Notwithstanding nay provision herein to the contrary, the release 13 and waiver and other provisions of this section shall not release oz excuse any party to 14 this Stipulation from performing its respective obligations under this Stipulation. 15 7. Bach party to this action shall bear its own attorneys', experts', and other 16 consultants' fees and costs incurred in connection with this action, and, without limiting I7 1 S any other provision of this section, each party fully and forever waives and releases any claims against the other parties for the recovery, reimbursement or payment of nay such 19 fees or costs and any such fees or costs in connection with the negotiation, preparation or 20 implementation of this Stipulation. 21 8. Each Releasor covenants and agrees that, from and following dismissal of 2z this action pwsuant to this Stipulation, it shall forever refrain from instituting, 23 prosecuting, maintain.iag, proceeding on, or participating in any lawsuit, action, or 24 proceeding (judicial, arbitration, or administrative) against any Released Parties which 25 arises out of, or is or may be, in whole or in pa=t, based upon, connected with or related to 26 any Released Claims. The parties acknowledge and al*tee that this Agreement is a 27 complete defense to any lawsuit, action, or proceeding which may be instituted by or on 28 c~ rao. Cv ao3s4o sr~urartoN ntvn [rxoposEnl owe Esrnsusrtnac pxocESS Fox sern.~rrr g 000:.23 Oi/19/0. 11:5 $ SHUTE,MIHALT ~ Oll ui 1 behalf of a party at any time against any Released Parties wherein any Released Claims 2 are or maybe asserted. -- 3 9. Subject to the provisions of this Stipulation, this Stipulation constitutes a 4 fully binding and complete settlement between the parties. This Stipulation includes S binding contract rights and provisions. 6 10. The parties acknowledge and agree that this Stipulation and all further 7 documents and actions hereunder are made in compromise of disputed claims and do not 8 constitute, and shall not be construed as; any admission of liability or responsibility of any 4 kind on the part of any party to the Action or any other Released Parties. 10 11. The parties represent; warrant and covenant to each other that they are the 11 sole owners of the Released Claims and that they have~not assigned, transferred, sold or 12 conveyed all or any portion of their rights or interests in or to the Released Claims. Each 13 parry agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the other party from and against any 14 and all claims and demands brought by any third party claiming to have succeeded to any 15 such rights or interests or otherwise arising out of the breach of any representation, 16 warranty or covenant made by the indemnifying party in this Stipulation. 17 I2. In any action or proceeding at law or in equity between any of the parties to 18 enforce or interpret nay provision of this Stipulation, each party shall bear all of its own 19 costs, including attorneys' and. experts' fees. 20 13. The parties acknowledge that they have been represented by independent 21 legal counsel throughout the negotiations that culminated in the execution of this 22 Stipulation. The parties further acknowledge that they have been fully advised by their 23 attorneys with respect m their rights and obligations under this Stipulation and understand 24 those rights and obligations. The parties also acknowledge that, prior to the execution of 25 this Stipulation, they and their legal counsel have had an adequate opportunity to make 26 whatever investigation and inquiries were deemed necessary or desirable with respect to 27 the subject matter of this Stipulation. 28 14. Any notice or commwnieation required hereunder betareen any parties must c.~~ rro. cv ao3s,w s7Il'clL.nnoN AND [PROPOSHDi ORDER ESfABUSFIING PROCESS POiZ ~ 1 ~ • • • ~~q.l~. _ Oi %19%0= 11:53 ~$' SHL~E,MI$AI,T ~IU1~ Oi- 7 • • • 1 be in writing and shall be delivered personally, by facsimiles (with original forwarded by 2 U.S. Mail), or by Federal Express or othersimilar courier promising overnight delivery. 3 Notice shall be deemed to have been duly given and received: (a) when delivered if 4 personally delivered to the recipient; (b) when fully transmitted to the recipient's 5 facsimile device if sent by facsimile during normal business hours, provided such device 6 is capable of generating a written confirmation of such transmission and receipt and an 7 original is deposited in the U.S. Mail, first class, within two (2) business days thereafter; ~8 or (c) on the fast business day following delivery to an overnight delivery service, 9 provided delivery is confnmed by the delivery service. Any party hereto may at any time, 10 by giving three (3) days written advance notice to the other parties hereto, designate a 11 new address and/or facsimile number for notices and communications pursuant to this 12 Stipulation. I3 If to the City: Cathleen Boyer 14 City Clerk City of Saratoga 15 13777 Fruitvale Ave Saratoga, CA 95070 16 With a copy Richard Taylor (which copy shall City Attorney 17 not constitute Shute, Mihaly 8t Weinberger LLP notice) to: 396 Hayes Street 18 San Francisco, CA 94102 19 If to the District: Ernest 0. Kraule 20 Fire Chief Saratoga Fire Department 21 14380' Saratoga Ave Saratoga, CA 95070 22 With copy to: Harold S. Toppel 23 Atkinson-Farasyn, LLP 660 West Dana Street 24 Mountain View, CA 94042 25 15. This Stipulation; including all recitals hereto, constitutes the entire 26 agreement between the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof and supersedes 27 any and all prior or contemporaneous understandings, negotiations, representations, 28 promises, and agreements, oral or written, by or between the parties with respect to the Cato No. CV 8035/0 ~TION AND (PAOPOSIDI ORDER . ESTAHt1THiN0 PROCF.sS FOR SE7TI~TTT 11 aaa~.s 0i/19/o2 11:53 $ S~~E.MIHALT ~Ola'O1," 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 I3 14 15 16 17 18 I9 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 subject matter hereof. 16. The provisions of this Stipulation may not be amended, modified, or otherwise changed or supplemented except by a writing signed by duly authorized representatives of all parties to the Stipulation. 17. This Stipulation shall be construed and enforced pursuant to the laws of the ~~ State of California. I8. This Stipulation shall be interpreted and construed in the manner best calculated to carry out its purpose of achieving a settlement of this action. As used herein: (a) the singular shall include the plural (and vice versa) where the context so requires; (b) locative adverbs such as "herein," "hereto," "hereof," or "hereunder" shall refer to this Agreement in its entirety and not to any specific section or paragraph; (c) the terms "include," "including," and similar texas shall be construed as though followed immediately by the phrase "but not limited to;" and (d) "shall" is mandatory and "may" is permissive. The parties have jointly participated in the negotiation and drafting of this Agreement, and this Agreement shall be construed fairly and equally as to the parties, - without regard to any rules of construction relating to the party who drafted a particular provision of this Agreement. 19. If any term or provision of this Stipulation is ever determined to be invalid or unenforceable for any reason, such term or provision shall be severed from this Stipulation without affecting the validity or enforceability of the remainder of this Stipulation. 20. Each of the parties agrees to execute and deliver all further documents and to take all further actions reasonably necessary or appropriate to carry out the provisions of this Stipulation. 21. All references in this Stipulation to "days" shall mean calendar days unless expressly referred to•as "business days." If the day for performance of any obligation under this Stipulation is a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, then the time for performance of that obligation shall be extended to the first following day that is not a c~ rb. cv eossao s~vz.nnox,-xn (~toros~l oRn~ . m'A8L15HING PROCESS !OR s8r1t,EMFxr j ,2 • • 4~0:.~6 [7 Oi/19 /02 11:54 $ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Z2 II 23 24 ~ 25 26 27 28 SHLT'rg , MIgALI i~Ul~l ~Ui" Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday. 22. This Stipulation shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the parties and their respective affiliates, successors and assigns. 23. The parties represent and warrant to each other that they have taken aII requisite action to approve, authorize, execute and deliver this Stipulation and that each person executing this Stipulation on their behalf has all requisite power and authority to execute this Stipulation aid to bind the parties to the provisions of this Stipulation. 24. Notwithstanding any provision herein to the contrary, this Stipulation shall not be effective unless and until it is executed by all parties. 25. This Stipulation shall be interpreted and construed in the manner best calculated to carry out its purposes of achieving a settlement of this action- This Coup shall retain jurisdiction over this action until after the planning and Zoning approvals and the. environmental review described herein has been completed for the purpose of enabling the parties to apply to the Court for any further orders and directions that a m ybe necessary or appropriate to construe, implement or enforce compliance with the terms set forth in this Stipulation. 26. Each signatory hereto represents that he or she is authorized to execute this Stipulation. so as to bind the parties on whose behalf he or she is a signatory. This Stipulation may be executed in separate counterparts. The parties shall be entitled to rely upon facsimile copies of the parties' signatures to this Stipulation and any instrument executed in connection herewith. DATED: July 2002 DATED: July _, 2002 SARATOGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRrcT ~ cte ut.wrsoav wxn [PROrosID~ oxuFx :sTwsrsxnrG Pxoc~ss Prnt sartt~sa~rr• 13 ~~~ CITY OF SARATOGA, et al. 07/19/02 11:54 '~ SHLTE,MIHP-LT iQ015• CLl~ d 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 I3 I4 IS 16 I7 18 19 zo zl 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 By 1 K STRE R Saratoga City Council APPROVED AS TO FORM: DATED: July; 2002 APPROVED AS TO FORM: DATED: July, 2002 SHUTE, MIHALY & WEINBERGER LLP By: RICFIARD S. TAYLO Attorneys for Respondents and Defendants City of Saratoga, City Council of the City of Saratoga ATKINSON=FARASYN, LLP By: OLD S. T B Attorney for Pctitioncr and Plaintiff Saratoga Fire Protection District s'r~cn.wriorr wrrn [PROpos~~ oRnsR PSTABL15HIIdG PROCESS FOR SErrLEMF3di' 14 • • ®~vi ~~ j ~~ • • Oi/19/02 11:54 $ 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SHL"TE.MIHALT The Court, having reviewed the Stipulation of the parries in regard to settlement, approves the Stipulation and enters it as an order of t~G Court. ~! DATED: , 2002 II PP~ISARAT00A1FD1SetNemeaNngD001autlameocv5.~vpd u ge o e Superior ourt o e County of. Santa Clara I~j016~ 01- ., rz~utanox rwn ~PROros~) o~ STABL1SHiNG PROCESS POR SErTi~Nr I S 00~~.?9 i ~ ~ ~~'~®. ~~~.-- c eme ~~- . Unchanged Parking Qption s1 r a n A ~~ O N f r/ X. ~~ J 7' 1 t~ t .. _ ,r -- sl-~-~`- ~, ~r ~ _''- _ ~ - t ~ 1 r ~, ~. ~ ~ _~ <T ~-~_, ~ -- ~ ~ ~. If parking agreement is not reached with the Post Office the Fire Station can stand on its own. Provides adequate parking for Fire Station g 24 Required 24 Provided ••o--- -r--~..+.-....-.,._- .-e..,..-±,..~_~.-.........,.•n4 ;,,_,-.VTR'{ M r ~C V' ---.~_. _ 10/02/02 15:50 FAX 5102865513 TRANS PLANNING B STATE OF CALIFORNIA BUSINESS T SPORTATION tV0 HOUS NG AGENCY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION P. O. BOX 23660 OAKLAND, CA 94623.0660 (510) 286-4444 (510) 286-4454 TDD October 2, 2002 Assistant Chief Gordon Duncan Saratoga Fire District 14380 Saratoga Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Deaz Assistant Chief Duncan: Attachment 6 <. ,_. .; a~^ :: `~~~ Flex your pou~erl Be energy a/fcientl SCL-9-7.40 _. SCL009094 SCH 2002082090 Saratoga Fire Station -Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration Addendum (HIND) Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation (Department) in the environmental review process for the proposed project. We have reviewed the MND and have the following comments to offer: Pedestrian Refuge Island The site plans do not show whether there is an existing refuge island at the State Route 9 (Saratoga-Los Gatos Road) southern median, to aid and protect pedestrians crossing the roadway. If a refuge. island is not already included in the project, the project sponsor may want to consideration adding it, depending on the width of State Route 9. Encroachment in State Rieht o,~Way Since the project is proposing to re-stripe a crosswalk and reconstruct a curb return within State right-of--way (ROW), an encroachment permit will be required. To apply, a completed encroachment permit application, environmental documentation, and five (5) sets of plans (in metric units), cleazly indicating State ROW, need to be submitted to the following address: Mr. Sean Nozzari, District Office Chief Office of Permits California Department of Transportation, District 04 P. O. Box 23660 Oakland, Ca 94623-0660 In addition to the information above, during the encroachment permit application phase please provide justificarion for a new striped crosswalk (Mitigation VI.2) and show details of this crosswalk. "Caltrans intproues mobility across Californla° ,' 00031 10/02/02 15:50 FAX 5102865513 Assistant Chief Gordon Duncan/ Saratoga Firs District October 2, 2002 Page 2 TRANS PLANNING B I~ 003 Ii We look forward to receiving a copy of the response to our comments when it is completed. Should you require further- information or have any questions regarding this letter, please call Maija Cottle, of my staff at (510) 286-5737. Sincerely, t -J~i ~. TIlVIOTHY C. SABLE District Branch Chief IGR/CEQA c: Katie Shulte Joung (State Clearinghouse) • • 'Caltrans improves mobility across California" 0~~~~~ •10/02/2002 01:08 408-741-8927 SKIING FOR SMARTE Attachment 7 L October 2, 2002 City of Saratoga Planning Commission ["the Commissio~a"] Attention: Mr. John F. Livi~agston, Associate Plaz~t~ier . 13777 Fruitvale Ave. '1'RA.I~TSI~'IE'>~'11;~ BX FACSAVIILE Saratoga, CA. 95070 ~ ~ ~ ~ . (408) 868-1269 FAX (408) 867-8555 Re: Saratoga Fire District ["SFD"] Application No. ~2-17'6 ['Reconsideration of DR-O1- 006, UP-O1-002, LL-01003 & TUP-A1~003] --14380 Saratoga Ave., Saratoga, CA. ["the application"] -October 9, 2002 Commission Heariz~ . Dear Mr. Livingston: As a result of ow telephone corrversation of this morning,~please include this letter in the packet of materials submitted to the Commission with respect to the application. introduction: I object to the application for two reasons: the SFD's failwe to incorporate use of the former Contempo Realty Builduag; and, .the aesthetic design elements associated with the proposed reconstructed fire station. Page 000004 of the 5taffReport accurately recites, "...the [City] Council referred the project [back to the CommissiomJ with direction that the [SFD] revise [its] application to generally conform to `Scheme A' as described in the Settlement Agreement and [it directed] that the Planning Commission review the [application] to ascertain [and enswe] its general conformance with `Scheme A' and the settlement ageement..." Page 41ine, 24-Page 4, line 5 of the settlement agreement states as follows: "...The City Council shall entertain a motion for reconsideration of its [former) denial of the Application... The motion for reconsideration will propose that the City Council... direct the [SFD] to return to the Planning Commis- sionwith amodified application consistent with the Ad Hoc Committee's "Scheme A' [as] modified... and direct the Planning Commission to review the design for general conformity with `Scheme A.' A copy of `Scheme A' is attached as [an] Exhibit...and [it] is hereby incozporated by reference..." Page 5, lines 11- ofthe settlement agreement states as follows: "...the [SFD] will develop plans for a fire station based on the Ad Hoc Committee's `Scheme A' ..." A synopsis of the Ad Hoc Committee's "Scheme A" is set forth at page 4 of its April 17, 2002 report. Simply stated and insofar as the application is concerned, it recommends inclusion of the fol- }owing design elements: ; , 1. Additional SFD support space to be located i~a the former Con~tempo lE~ealty building; and, 2. Seismic upgrading/remodeling of the former Contem-po 1Eie~lty building so the SFD can use it as support space and as a temporary fire station during construction. ~J 000~3~ 10/02/2002 01:08 408-741-8927 SKIING FOR SMARTEN PAGE 02 Notwithstanding the foregoing, page OOOi7~'I 'the StaffReport reties, "...The [SFD] proposes to sell a portion of the (former] Cornempo [Realty Building] property to t1~e Fa~erated Church.:." after the building itself has been razed. Simply stated the application is neither in, coiifeirnuty with "S~ieme A," the settlement agree- ment [which explicitly incorporates "Scheme A" by reference] nor fire City Council's direction to the Comuztission that it ensure "...general conformance ~v~ith `Scheme A' and the settlement agreement...". When I raised the deficiencies of the applicati~~to staffl.was~told the settlement agreement does not compel the SFl7 to strictly adhere to the recornitiertdations made the subject of"Scheme A." I disagree. Although page 7, lines 13-15 of the settlern~nt agreement states that if the City proposes changing any of the above-factors over the ~SFD's objecxion either party may terminate it, insisting the SFD use the former Contempo Realty Building as a temporary fire station and as additional support space constitutes no change. Why It's Important the SFD be Required to Use the Formex Contempo Jl~ealty Building: There are four reasons why the SFD must be compelled to incorporate its use of the former Contempo Realty Building into the application. First, this is what it agreed to in the settlement agreement. Second, this is what the City Council directed the Commission to approve. Third, the size and bulk of the current proposed fire station has increased dramatically to make up for the deficiency. The fire station square footage proposed by the application now totals 15,234 on a 9,274 square foot parcel. Unbelievably this is even more square faotage than was proposed in the SFD's original developmern application! Although technically there may be no formal door area ratio limita- tion, more square footage translates into greater bulk and over ezacutxzbering of a ry sensitive noncon- forming building site. By transferring square footage from the fire station proper onto the former Contempo Realty Building site as "Scheme A" contemplates, the Comuaxissiozz can mitigate the massive- ness of the fire station proper and comply with the City Council's directive. Additionally it can further mitigate the traffic flaw deficiencies presented by the fire station proper design proffered. Finally, the residents of the SFD have been terribly deceived by its misrepresentation of the alleged need for acquisition ofthe former Contempo Realty Buildieg and we are the ones who have paid for it. The Bond measure which was intended to fund construction of the new fire station did not state the monies generated would be used to condemn and acquire the former Contempo Realty Building. Yet well over $2 million has been spent to acquire this alleged "necessary fire station property" and as a result of a successful appeal by its former owner, it is likely the final cost will total over $3 million! But now the application tells us the former Contempo Realty Building is going to be razed meaning its acquisition was necessary for what purpose? A parking lot? ' • • Although the application states a portion of the former Contempo Realty Building will be sold to its neighbor the Federated Church, the SFD has confirmed there is no agreement wn place as and for its sale! Even if there were it is extremely unlikely anon-profit church will pay the SFD anything close to the more than $3 million it will have invested in its acquisition for what amounts to another parking lot for it to use. ><f indeed the SFD's acquisition of the former Cornempo Realty Building were neces- sary, it should be compelled to use it. If it was not, it should be compelled to resell it in the improved condition received [its highest and best use] to recoup the public's monies which have been spent on it. ~oQ~,~4 s `10/02/2002 01:08 40B-741-8927 SKIING FOR SMARTEN PAGE 03 ~~ Although at ;first blush the Commission znay Conclude these issues are not technically design concerns; given they were legitimate City Council development concerns and the Council has directed the Commission to incorporate the upgrading and trse of the former Contempo Realty $uildzng into the application; they are concerns the Commission must consider. The Structure's Design is NOT Compatible With the Surroua8ing Neighborhood: Lest not the Commission forget the subject site is one of the zttost visible aad sensitive in all of Saratoga as it highlights the entrance to our village. Rather than focusing on the Federated Church remodel AROUND T$E CORNE>Et [i.e., mostly facing Oak Street] front the subject development, the Commis- sion should be concentrating elsewhere when it comes to considering ~ghborl~ood "compatibility." How compatible is the proposed developmerrt~with the small, $at roofed, single story post and sheri$'s offices next store? What about the Federated Church's administrative offices just to the north of the Sheriff s Office? What about the three office buildings across the street and to the north of Saratoga-Los Gatos Road [i.e., fronting Saratoga A,ve.)? What about the condominium complex adjacent to these ofI'zce buildzngs? What about the design elements of the buildings across Saratoga-Los Gatos Road at the entrance proper to the Village? What about the wood exterior Foothill Club building around the corner [which interestingly is also a much da$'erent rulia Morgan design)? I do not feel a Spanish Mission file roof type designed building is compatible with the surround- ing neighborhood. Furthermore, I feel it continues to accentuate rather than mitigate the proposed fire station's mass. I would personally rather see an exterior wood design. Conclusion: When the SFD's initial application came before the Commission I had many addi- tional concerns. Many have been addressed and mitigated by the settlement agreement and the Ad Hoc Committee's "Scheme A." We're now down to two in my mind; the massiveness of the fire station proper [which can effectively be mitigated by the SFD's use of the former Contempo Realty Building], and its aesthetic exterior design [Spanish IVfission]. I ask the Commission to defer final action on the application directing the SFD to address both of these concerns. I thank the Commission for its collective courtesies, consideration and assistance with respect to this important community development decision and, ALK/a AARON L. YCA'.TZ `~ P.O. Box 116 Saratoga, CA.. 95071-0116 (40S) 741-1008 (408) 741-$927 e-mail ~ sn:arten~_,skririps.net ~00~,35 ~_ THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK • • Q®Q~.~6 ~' 4. ~V t I~ • 14380 Saratoga Avenue ~ Saratoga, CA 95070 Plannin Review Submittal g August 22, 2002 Saratoga Fire Department Headquarters Station SARATOGA FIRE DISTRICT ICiNETY MAP ~11PR0JECT SITE AGENCIES SARATOGA RRE PROTECRON DISTRICT ROBERT G. ELAN: BOARD CHAIRMAN JOE LONG JR.: COMMISSIONER JAY R. GEDDES: COMMISSIONER ERNESTO.KRAULE: RRE CHIEF 14380 SARATOGA AVENUE SARATOGA, CA 95070 406-867-9001 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING DIVISION JOHN UVINGSIONE ASSOCIATE PLANNER 13777 FRUffVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CA 95070 4p6-868-1231 CITY OF SARATOGA PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT JOHN CHERBONE: PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR 13777 FRUfNALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CA 95070 4011-868.1241 CITY OF SARATOGA BUILDING INSPECTON DEPARTMENT BRAD UND: SENIOR BUILDING INSPECTOR 13771 FRUINALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CA 95070 ' 408-868-1224 ~~a~a~;~ V ®~ ~~ ~i: ®: /~ ~: ~: ~~ ~: ®; Pi; ~: ~; ~~ ~: ®; ~; L~; P~9 ~: ~; PROJECT DIRECTORY PROJECT SUMMARY SHEET INDEX ARCHITECT- RRM DESIGN GROUP MARY McGRATH: PRINCIPAL IN CHARGE 310150UfH HIGUERA STREET SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 805-$43.1794 JOHNIURTCHIN: PROJECT MANAGER 3101 SOUTH HIGUERA STREET SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 805-543.1794 - TRAFFlC ENGINEER - FEHR & PEERS ASSOCIATES SORAB RASHEED: 255 NORTH MARKET STREET - SUITE 200 SAN JOSE, CA 95112 408-278-1700 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT- RRM DESIGN GROUP JEFF FERBER: PRINCIPAL IN CHARGE 3701 SOUTH HIGUERASIREET SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 805-543-1794 CIVIL ENGINEER- RRM DESIGN GROUP JERRY MICHAEL: PRINCIPAL IN CHARGE 3701 SOUTH HIGUERA STREET SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 ~5-543-1794 SURVEYOR- WESTFALLENGINEERING KAREL CYMBAL: 14583 BIG BASIN WAY #3 SARATOGA, CA 95070 SOIISENGINEER- EARTHSYSTEMS-N. CA. BILL IEHRBACH: 47853 WARM SPRINGS BLVD. FREMONT, CA 94539 510-353-0320 - . the project site ¢ located at the Southeast comer of the intersecflon at Saratoga Avenue and Saratoga-Los Gatos Rood (also designated as SR 9j in the town of Saratoga. The project is a continuation of on existing use within the Professional Adminishative (P-A) zone. ilre Saratoga Rre District B requesting a Temporary Use Permit, Set-back modification, Design Review, Alley Vacation, Conc%itional Use Permit and a Lot Line Adjustment. The project kndudes demolition of two exhting buildings; the 7,690 s.f. existing Ere Station, and the 4,000 s.f. "Contempo" office budding south of the Rre Station at 20473 Saratoga-Los Gatos Rood, and conslnclion of a new Saratoga Rre Department Headquarters Fhe Station at 143~rSaratoga Avenue. The total site area of the Mro loh is 35,184 square feet. The total number of employees is 20; 8 fuefghters and 4 administrative staff, and Bshift-change frefighters. The Project will be implemented in three phases os follows: Phasel This initial phase v411 be the demolition of the exsting Contempo office building located at 20413 Saratogalos Gatos Road jttwy 9), and the installation a temporary Fhe Station (which requires a Temporary Use Permit and Setback Variance) in two modular buildings. fie temporary fire station wt11 trove 18 temporary parting spaces, IncWtling Ire apparatus parYJng. Atltlflionai personnel parking will be provitletl via an agreement with the Federated Church to use 6 spaces affsite. The existing Contempo building parking vnTl be reconfigured and a temporary Post Off ce drop box witl be placed at this parking area. A second e>asfing alley bisech the entire block and k cunenhy used as access to the post office and existing Contempo building. This second alley B not proposed to be vacated and vn# continue to provide access to the temporary Fhe Station, temporary Post Office drgp boz and Posf Office. fie dleyhas none-way hovel diecBon that Bows toward Saratoga Avenue far use as the response deection fa the fire appaahx. The Veterans Memorial Plaza and Monument adjacent to the exhBng fre staBorr on Hwy. 9 vnll be protected in place during construction. Phasell The existing fire station will be demolshed. The northernmost drHeway jai the three driveways on Hwy. 9) will be closed permanently in Phase II. Existing olive frees adjacent to the old fire building will be removed, boxed and relocated'm Phase III. Any bees that are not deemed suitable to be saved by the Cry Arbohst will be replaced by the applicant. The Plaza wi11 be demolished and the Monument relocated by the District to ifs previous location in Blaney Plaza on Hwy 9 across the sheet from the fire station, The project will require an abandonment by the City of the alley cunently located behind the existing fire station and adjacent to the Post Office. This alley B cunently used by the fre district personnel for parking and access to the rear of the fire station and patrons of the Poll Office for post drop-oB and five pafdng spaces accessed from the alley. The post dropoff vnTl be relocated during dernol8ion to a location acceptable to the Post Office, and the 5 paiang spaces wifi be recanigured aRer a9ey closure, to be accessble from the Post Office poling lot (subject to agreement by the Post Office). The rear of the new buBrEng will be butt to the property line in the middle of the former alley. The San Jose Wafer Company pipeline in the alley vn71 also be abandoned in place. The new Headquaders Fre Staton (approx.15,435 s.f.j will be butt with a 25' setback from the comer of Saratoga Ave. and a 15' setback from Saratoga Los Gatos Road. Anew apron area, three apparatus bays and one ambulance bay wfil have ingress and egress from Saratoga Road. The apparatus bays will be setback 59' ham the curb, the ambulance bay will be set back 40' from the curb. The building will be a hvo-story reinforced masonry shucture w'th a conaete sbb floor a1 gade and a basement bebw a portion of the ground Boor. fie architectural style reflech that of the Federated Church building in the same block insp'ued by the Jufa Morgan vernacular. The mafeials and design of the fagode will fit into the existing character of the neighborhood. A landscaped pedestrian plaza wfil be boated tlt the comer of Saratoga Avenue and Hwy. 9. There will be a total of 12 erployees at the replacement facility, except doing sMff change japprox.l hour) when there will be a total of 2D. Rre district personnel wip park at the new parking lot (of Phase III), and the e>asting parking w61 be shared with the Past Office patrons. Upon completbn of the Rre Station the traffic flow from the Post Office will be redhected to exit onto Hwy 9. Saratoga Avenue lane reconfigurations and new comer configuration wiu be designed by the City. Rre Rre DisMCt will fund the new curb, gutter and sidewalk dt the comer of Saratoga and Hwy. 9. These improvemenh will be installed at the time of new Headquarters knprovements. Phase III The temporary modular Rre Station bu1din~ wd9 be removed from 20473 and thh propedy will be developed as a parking area. It vnTl provide 46 parting spaces. Out of these spaces,lD spaces wdl be dedicated fa pubic use. The fire district h currently negotiating vrith the federated Church fa sale of approximatety 8,900 s.f. of thh h h h. Th r I I I 1 rtin will vide access fo and ham the church a via H 9. B o sale hansaction is property fo t e C uro a pa ce to be so d Inc odes 8 pa g spaces and pro prop rry wy accomplished, it will include an agreement beHreen the Rre District and the church to allow continued use by the Disfict of 6 parking spaces needed to comply with the Citys parking requiremenh of 24 spaces. The alley behind the Post Office wBl be reversed in d'vection and wtl contain a queing isle fa the final location of the postal drop•off. COVER SHEET 1 NEIGHBORHOOD ZpNING MAP 2 LOT COVERAGE PLAN 3 PROPERTY LINE, SETBACK AND EASEMENT PLAN 4 PARKING PLAN 5 SITE PLAN PHASE II 6 SITE PLAN PHASE III 1 LOWER & FIRST FLOOR PLANS 8 SECOND FLOOR 8 ROOF PLAN 9 ELEVATIONS (p ELEVATIONS 11 BUILDING SECTIONS 12 GRADING and DRAINAGE PLAN 13 LANDSCAPE PLAN 14 PROJECT DETAILS PROJECT DATA ZONING DISTRICT: P-A (PROF./ADMIN.OFFICE) APN: # 397-22-019 OCCUPANCYIYPE: B CONSTRUCTION TYPE; V-N ALLOWABIE HEIGHT: 30'-0" PROPOSED HEIGHT: 29'-2' PROPOSED BUILDING AREA: BASEMENT 2,2775E MAIN FLR. 8,987 SF UPPER FLR. 4,1715E TOTAL 15,435 Sf PARKING REQUIRED: 8 ON4lUtt RRERGHTERS IP-ADISiRICT) B OFF-0UTYRREFIGHTERS jDURING SHIFT CHANGE) 4 ADMINISTRATION STAFF 4 PUBLIC A PARKING PROVIDE: TOTAL ON SITE: 46 SPACES (INCLUDING 1 HC) DEDICATED FOR FIRE STATION USE: 18 SPACES (INCLUDING 1 HC) DEDICATED TO CITY: (iOSPACESI FUTURESALETOCHURCH: (18 SPACES( CHURCH SPACES MARKED AS SHARED: 6 SPACES` WITH FIRE STATION TOTALFOR FlRESTATION: 24SPACES (INCLUDING I HC) RRM DESIGN G R 0 U P ( Saratoga Fire Department Headgglar~ers Sxation ~~~~~~~~~~ „~~r~~,9~o5~K,.s,~re,a~.smw~~~~a~~mp~~ Aagast22, 2002 ~ Tl Ph~ s~sss_nes.r,. ~,54r,~....rtma~~~~, A98O34; .. ~. ~ ~ , ~ .. ~ ~ a ~, ~ ~. M F.. ~... ,. ~ ~ ....................................................................................................................... .............................. ............................. ................................................................................................. . G~i ;, ~~, i ~ I ~ (Womens {Church) Club) ~ APN • APN ~ 397.22.023 347.22.023 ~ ZONE i ZONE R1.10,000 P'A L. ~_ /~`~ . ~~ ^ ~f 1 t_ _ ~•tl "_ _ _ 4m•. J W ~' > ' u F R' N (E) Post Office ..~_ ~.,` ~ ..,, \h;ro,,~ . \y,,~ -• \ ~••1..~. .~ S. ~1 B• •,. h~ v, ~• ~~ , ff A~ ,' - ~ APN ~ "~ 397.22.046 ~ - ~ LONE ~ PA f~ APN ~- Of5 > 7 3 39X :~; ( T y ~ ~C 1 (Church) APN 397.22.044 ZONE R1.10,000 rA~ ~ ~~ , a ~ . x ~',~ ' ; . « A ~' _ ~ k•) ~ ~ ~ : APN ~,` 397.22.011 >A ZONE ~Conftr~po ' °~ PA L ~1klingj ~ . _ ;'Ara - C r i~ ;~ 5'~ \ } I ~ .y. ' `~ v.F ~'C-~~~'/~• ~:µ `b~~~~ L ~~~ifY W k7 ~ .L iU1~tL ~" - Nre 31pdcrt- ~ t'A r: =~ APN *r ~, ~~a \ - fl ~ ruEur¢_ ~ X347 22 6!_4 \ ~^' \ ._~ ~ ~atY41nQ - IONS ~ ~, ~~ \g ~"'i \ ~ ~. / r - - ~R- M (Y E~ A 1 t3 i '~ - ` f~-'~~111'-OFSARA~OG~4 ~ 1 ~ .r ~' ~ ~,~.,,• s - - APN ~~ ;~;• ~ _: 34.22=A1.4 ~''~,• ~~,~'`~. ~°,~•, Tw'' .•'' c r ~ ,~ ~, 'd1 '' ~ . t~ _ = ~{ - ~ -~ ~`~ 4 ~ • • ~ ~'~ '~ ~~~'~~~/, STATE OF CALIFORNIA giY ~- ~ ~• s ~, ~~~ • ~ PROPERTY "~` v ~ ,~...•,.Y• y...~"-:-.:~ _".~ APN "~"` " "•"'" " ~~ 397.22-014 STATE OF CALIFORNIA PROPERTY SARATUGA -LOS GATOS ROAD APN 397.22.020 ~Rrn b Scole 1 "=20' Neighborhood Zoning Mop RRM DESIQN OROUP ~ ~ ~•••••••"+ ~~, Saratoga Fire Department Headquarters Station 1 3,65 ~^ "~ 5,~ ~"` ~~. ~° W" ~°a ~,~p 9"0~ August 22, 2002 A98034 Phme B]SISq-1791•F~ BOS/5{)-IBU3•m.mmtlesgn.can ......, , ~ ~ ~.., ... , ~ ~ ~ m.., ~,.. y... ,~ ., ................................................................................................................................................... ............................................................................................................................................. ~~ • •~~ -.._ ,. ., T ~~ o" \'• A S 4 \I t „y~~ ~ fly . ~ . ~ 'ti z REMAIN / . t~ ,~ f ~,' j ~` o ~ ~r µ Td~: ~_na', r ~: 1 ~~~` yam„ \ 1 \ ~ ~ ~ !• 4 ~.A ~~ ~~ rx~~ ~ - _ _ s`~~ ~ v~' ~ 6 ~' . '; ,~ ~ ~ ..; . ..~ lY •' ~ ..`: M IiW, . 'inn ... ~ ti • ..: 1'~"~~ +1 :~ ~., ~Ai ~ K' Ril f a. w. SARATOGA -LOS GATOS ROAD .~ ~~ NpRTH ~ Scale 1"=2p' LOT COVERAGE PLAN R & MAD E SCI G NAG R O~U P Saratoga Fire Department Headquarters Station `"~"r~"" Pnone: 805/SVS-,1B~. ~u 8~5/SIJ-1609.....rrmaragRCan "" ~'" "~°' ~'~` ~""'~'.~° w~ ~'~° `""°°~ 9N°' August ~2, 2002 A98034; 2 .,,..,....4~.~,,,,, ~~~~,..,...~..~.,,.,,~ ............................................................................................................................................................ ................................................~.,.............................~.~.~.......................~...............~.....,.... F q • • ,~~ WOMENS CLUB PROPERTY APN n 397.22.023 SARATOGA -LDS GATDS RDAD • iii CHURCH PROPERTY APN 391.22.023 CONTEMPQ PROPERIY(Cj ~ APN .397.22.012 •g `. .~h .` •; BUSINESS PROPERTY APN 397.22.011 /'' STATE OF CALIFORNIA PROPERTY aPN 341.22.014 STATE OF CALIFORNIA _ PROPERTY APN 397.22.020 PROJECT DATA -REPLACEMENT STATION (P-A DISTRICT) APN: FIRE STATION PROPERTY # 397-22-019 APN: CONTEMPO PROPERTY # 397.22-015, 397.22-042 & 397.22-012 ADDRESS: 14380 SARATOGA AVE , :i OWNER'S NAME: CITY OF SARATOGA EXISTING USE: FIRE STATION ZONING DISTRICT: P-A (PROF. ADMIN. OFflCE( EXISTING LOT SIZE: 9,274 SF PROPOSED LOT SIZE: 27,917 SF' 'FOLLOWING THE SALE OF A PORTION OF THE CONTEMPO PROPERTY '' ~ ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA: ! BUILDING TYPE V-N OCCUPANCY TYPE: 8 R Ind ; ALLOWABLE HEIGHilAREA: 2 STORIES/8,000 SF 2% ALLOW. SF w/ AUTO. 2 x 8,000 SF = 16,000 SF P~ ' ~ SPRINKLER PER 1998 CBC 505.3 ~ e~ PROPOSED BUILDING AREA: BASEMENT 2,277 SF MAIN FLR. 8,987 SF ® UPPER FLR. 4,171 SF :~ TOTAL 15,435 SF BUILDING SETBACKS: FRONT SETBACK (ALONG SARATOGA AVE.) ~'j SETBACK REOUIRED:25' SETBACK PROVIDED:25' ;; SIDE SETBACK (ALONG SARATOGA-LOS GATOS ROAD) ; i SETBACK REQUIRED:15' ' ~ SETBACK PROVIDED:15' '~~ 5;~ VARIATION REQUESTED: 1, SIDE SETBACK VARIATION REQUESTED AT SETBACK ALONG VACATED ALLEY SETBACK REGUIRED:16.4' ~ ;li SETBACKREQUESTED:O' SIDE YARD AT YACAIED ALLEY SETBACK CALCULATION ' zaarcorswmc• S®FTMD N!I~ACx • 10%M'• LP m~ o nm . xearoucrc ,s,• .w a uwxxmoE SIDF TAFO fEIIApI•.ID %AY6G1GE1f1E WDIN HtlGHf E%CBIIDN: r r ~ ;j •I ~oe turuns[,wa.oreworwaencr~mn e o AVEUGE SDEN7DTM•N' wnrnavwiawermxx~anxmMu OiP¢NY Wf1YEroI AIJ1 YA6FitTBVIO~RBJI@IN HiCN1 . 6UIIDIMG XBOM . a•r .u 1{' / Z . B' ADDDIDNALFEIIACII TOFAI WFSNIF TANEfl6ACL• Id.f BUILDING SETBACK VERIFICATION NOTE: ; ~, PRIOR TO FOUNDATION INSPECTION BY THE CITY, THE RCE OR LlS OF RECORD SHALL PROVIDE A WRffTEN CERTIFICATION THAT ALL BUILDING SETBACKS ARE PER THE APPROVED PLANS. R ;'j EASEMENTS: WATER LINE EASEMENT: THE REMAINING T-6" OF THE ALLEY ABANDONMENT ACCORDING TO SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT JA ~' ~, PEDESTRIAN AND BIKE EASEMENT: 10' WIDE EASEMENT ALONG SARATOGA AVENUE` 8' WIDE EASEMENT ALONG SARATOGA AVENUE 'THE PROPERTY SUBJECTT0IHE EASEMENT ALONG SARATOGA AVENUE SHALL BE MARKED DISTINCTIVELY WITH TO DISTINGUISH THE P~ESTRIAN ZONE FROM THE REMAINDER OFTHE flRE STATION APPARATUS NORM ® ; " Scale 1 =20' PROPERTY LINE, SETBACK AND EASEMENT PLAN • CHURCH PROPERTY APN 397.22•D44 R R M D E S I O N G R/ !O~ ~U~ P Saratoga Fire I)epartinent ~-Ieadquarters Station ana sso-a~ s,~w~:OAlvnp 93wi A98 Fp-. ~5~_,~•F•t FDS~Si]_1A09. mm~a..~ Augast 22, 2002 ............. .....................•................................................................~~~ F' PROJECT DATA -REPLACEMENT STATION ~, BJTRY RIOM p ~ IPARKDI~G~~EQUIRED: g OFF-DUTYFIRE~FIGHTERS (DURING SHIFT CHANGE) 4 ADMINISTRATION STAFF 4 PUBLIC _ 24 SPACES PARKING PROVIDED: TOTAL ON SITE: 46 SPACES (INCLUDING 1 HC) DEDICATED FOR FlRE STATION USE: 18 SPACES (INCLUDING 1 HCI DEDICATED TO CRY: (IflSPACES) FUTURESALETOCHURCH: (18 SPACES) CHURCH SPACES MARKED A$ SHARED: 6 SPACES' WRH RRE STATION TOTAL FOR FIRE STATION: 24 SPACES (INCLUDING 1 HC) ' OFFSRESPACESPROVIDED ASSHARED PARKNG ON ON ADJACENT PROPERTY SOLD TO CHURCH r ~/ ~~ • FIRESTATION ON SITE PARKING FIRESTATION OFF SITE PARKING ~~_ I G~~ PARKING PLAN PHASE III r~~r - I -.~ai aw~a ~• ii ~ ~~Yai iiii~iai ii~aua~uai ici a ~iaiiwii 7165 SwM Hlg a Slrtet 5uY< 102 • San Wis OEbpa Colilwniv 97101 August 22,.2002 ~oQ Phona' B08J51Y7791•far, 805J%Y/8W•nn.rrmdvsign.aam LLVO~~ •rr~v rieMUnm rreraauw.r~r.e..uzw xexnaw ~~~~~~~~~~~~•~~~~•~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~•••~~~~i~~•~~~~~~~•~•~~~~~~~~~~•~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~i~~~ •~•• •~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ •~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~•~~~~~~•~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~••~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~•~•~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~i PROJECT DATA- TEMPORARY FIRE STATION • • • ~~ PARKING REQUIRED: (P-A DISTRICT) TEMPORARY PARKING PROVIDED: (P-A DISTRICT) APN: FIRE STATION PROPERTY APN: CONTEMPO PROPERTY ADDRESS: OWNER'S NAME: EXISTING USE: ZONING DISTRICT: EXISTING LOT SIZE: PROPOSED LOT SIZE: 8 ON-DUTY RRERGHTERS 8 OFF-0UTY FlREHGHTERS (DURING SHIFT CHANGE) 4 ADMINISTRATION STAFF 4 PUBUC 24 SPACES ON SITE =18 SPACES (INCLUDING I HCj OFF SITE = 6 SPACES' TOTAL = 24 SPACES (INCLUDING 1 HCI 'OFF SRE SPACES PROVIDED AS SHARED PARKING ON ADJACENT CHURCH PROPERTY # 397-22-019 # 397-22-015, 397-22-042 & 397-22-012 14380 SARAiOGA AVE. CITY OF SARATOGA FIRE STATION P•A (PRO. ADMIN. OFFICE) 9,274 SF 35,484 SF TEMPORARY USE -VARIATIONS REQUESTED 1. FRONT SETBACK VARIATION FOR PLACEMEM OF TEMPORARY MODULAR BUILDING ON CONTEMPO PROPERTY SETBACK REQUIRED: 25' SETBACK REQUESTED:O' 2. REAR SEBACK VARIATION FOR PLACEMENT OF TEMPORARY TENT APPARATUS COVER ON CONTEMPO PROPERTY SETBACK REQUIRED: 25' SETBACK REQUESTED: S' TEMPORARY USE • BUILDING CODE EXEMPTION REQUESTED 1. UNIFORM BUILDING CODE NON-RATED CONSTRUCTION SETBACK EXEMPTION FOR PLACEMEM OF TEMPORARY TEM APPARATUS COVER ON CONTEMPO PROPERTY SETBACK REQUIRED: 20' SETBACK REQUESTED: S' ` I EOSTWC ~ TT ON PROPFR(Y~ 9,471 S.F. CITY OF SW171dOCA PROPERTY (6) 3,136 SF. vAaTm ATifY PAOPERII m FlIiE OEPARINENf ICl 5.849 Sf. TOTAL 1~3F. FA51WG CONIEYPO PROPERTY 17,718 SF. QNCWD6 D, E. f 6 G) PAOPENII' 10 BE SOLO TO 7,681 SF, FLPERAT;D pIUAIN QNCLUOF.9 F 4 G) RECONFlGIptED CON161P0 PROPERTY (INCUIDES D k Q 9,661 SF. imAl RAE STATION PROPEAIY 35,184 SF. (BEFCA~ SAlE 70 FEDERATED CHUACN) imAL FpIE STAiKN PROPERTY 27,917 $f. (AFTER SALE TO Fd1ERATFD CHURCH) imAL AllEY 8]UNDm Iif CDNIENPO PROPEfl11' (D 6 E) 2357 SF. 7mAL POSE PROPEItIY 21,760 Sf. NORTH Scale P'=20' SITE PLAN PHASE I -TEMPORARY FIRE STATION .I i ~ ~° ~ ; R R M D /E~ ~S~,,~_I a N O R O U P I Saratoga Fire Department Headquarters Station """~"' 365 5°5°WM1 HiWC° fitra°~w`~'~'°' ' August 22 2002 A98034's 5 ..,_,..~u~.~,~..a~~.~..~. ~..,.... .................................................................................................................................................................... ................................,............................................................................................... BUS sr~ TO ~ ~ ' F~.OCATED FIIRTFIER c ALON6 SARATOOA AVE m ~ ~ ~ t~W CI1R8 RAAi ~I d ~ ar®cxoeaxax IETK RAIlDIG WWNI A9E v+eaeeAle e~aanar avMlew ) ,AUe~9rAm~ maAriwr ( >wvRC~ecrt (g g ~ r ~ ~~'i~ P I p pq ~ ) ( ) (q BUILDING I ) H I I >s>R v vaoeewe ua ~ ~1 1 ----- - 4 ` ~I S~}~ ^ Y31~ " 4M¢ /UI ~IAl1R veaen ~ ~ a9em "rR°I APRON a7c `~~ NEW Flip STAnoN 8 ~ ~ $' ~ / I • l 4 ~ II I ~ ~ea~~~o I ~ t I >> ~ +~ %~ ~ ~ m ~ ~ NEW 12' WIDE TIiRN LANE - ~ ~ r i~il ~ FDCE OIF-WAY Iq PARKR AND LOADM( AREA _-I !m ~:: WAY / ~ rturw~rro ~rtArn9 StiE AREA SUMMARY EgaBNa FWe SrAIDN PROPERR' (/a 9,771 SF. CDY OF S4R410a4 PADPERIY (8) 7,158 57. vAanD AllE1' PRDPOm ro 5,819 Sf. roru I s . E17a8Ra CONIF7JPo PROPERLY 11,718 SF. (IXCWDES D, C F ! G) PROPFRrr ro eF san ro rs9r s.F. FEDERATED CMAiLN (xaEwEa F 3 c) rdCOKx;VRED CDNTF9IPD PROPFAfI' (NCLWES D B q 8,861 S.F. Toni Fl9E srATxs+ PROPERLY 55,484 sF. IeEFDRE sve ro FTLflUtm clnmcll) roUL FIRE SFATION PROPElaY 77,917 Sf. (AFTER 54e TO FE7kPA7ED tl91ACH) roru Auer 9anmED a>• cararaPO PROPERLY (D t q 7,SSr s F. rare Pear DFFlCE PROPETDr 1L7sD xF. PROJECT DATA -REPLACEMENT STATION PARKING REQUIRED: BON-DUTY FIREFIGHTERS (P-A DISIRIC71 B OFF-DUTY FIREFGHTERS (DURING SHIFF CHANGE) 4 ADMINISTRATION STAFF 4 PUBUC 24 SPACES PARKING PROVIDED: TOTAL ON SITE: 46 SPACES (INCLUDING 1 HC) DEDICATED FOR FIRE STATION USE: 18 SPACES (INCLUDING 1 HC) DEDICAIEDTOCffY: (IOSPACES) FUTURE SALE TO CHURCH: (18 SPACES) CHURCH SPACES MARKED AS SHARED: 6 SPACES' WITH FIRE STATION TOTAL FOR FIRE STATION: 24 SPACES (INCLUDING 1 HC) APN: FIRE STATION PROPERTY N 397-22-019 APN: COMEMPO PROPERTY q 397-22-015, 391-22-042 & 397-22-012 ADDRESS: 14380 SARATOGA AVE. OWNER'S NAME: CITY OF SARATOGA ~ EXISTING USE: FIRE STATION ZONING DISTRICT: P-A (PROF. ADMIN. OFFICE) EXISTING LOT SIZE: 9,214 SF PROPOSED LOT SIZE 27,917 SF 'FOLLOWINGTHESALEOF Q APORTION OFTHE CONTEMPO PROPERTY ALLOWABLE F100R AREA BUILDINGTYPE: V-N OCCUPANCY TYPE: B ALLOWABLE HEIGHT/AREA: 2 STORIES/8,000 SF 2x ALLOW. SF w/AUTO. 2 x 8,000 SF =16,000 SF SPRINKLER PER 1998 CBC 505.3 PROPOSED BUILDING AREA: BASEMENT 2,277 SF ~ NAINFLR. 8,987 SF UPPER FLR. 4.171 SF 10TAL 15,435 SF IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE: BUILDING PAD: 8,981 SF APP. BAY APRON 4165 SF c~ OTHERHARDSCAPE: 8,290 SF *`' TOTAL 21,462SF (769 OF IOTSQE) AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 49 BUILDING SETBACK VERIFICATION NOTE PRIOR TO FOUNDATION INSPECTION BY THE COY, THE RCE OR LLS OF RECORD SHALL PROVIDE A WRTfTEN CERTIHCATION THAT ALL BUILDING SETBACKS ARE PER THE APPROVED PLANS. VARIATK)N REQUESTED: 1. SIDE SETBACK VARIATION REQUESTED AT SETBACK ALONG VACATED ALLE ' Y 7 PP~~°°11 SETBACK REQUIRED: 16.4 ' SETBACK REQUEST®:0 2. LANDSCAPE VARIATION REQUESTED AT APPARATUS APRON AT FROM OF STATION. LANDSCAPE REQUIRED:10' LANDSCAPE REQUESTED:O' SOILS REPORT NOTE: THE UNDERGROUND TANK BELIEVED TO BE LOCATED UNDER THE SIDEWALK ON SARATOGA AVENUE IN FRONT OF THE EXISTING FIRE STATION SHALL BE INVESTIGATED DURING CONSTRUCTION AND THE SOILS WILL BE TESTED FOR CONTAMINATION. IF CONTAMINANTS ARE FOUND, THE TANK AREA WILL BE OVER-EXCAVATED BY 2 FEET AND BACKRIIED WffH NEW SOIL I SIGNAGE NOTE: N ~ 'I SIGNAGE DETAILS TO BE SUBMBTED UNDER SEPARATE APPLICATION. ® ~, " Scale 1 _ SITE PLAN PHASE II & III R R M DESIGN G R O U P ~ Saratoga Fire department I~eadquarters Station ~""""' "°'~~~"~ Aagast22,.2002 6 ..~.,~.u~.,~~~~-..~.~.~,..m,,,. ..................................................................................................................... ................................................. ............................................................,............................................... ,.... ® EW POSTPI ® DROP-DFF ~^n \ ~, BOIIOfATION .~ 0~ • • -----, ~ ~- I L-------------~ I I I I I I I I I I I --~ L__~\ \~~ \\~ Roof Plan ~'~ _' r NORTH Scale 1~8"=1' F100R PLANS a Second Floor Plan RRM DESIGN GROUP G+.K~,y ~l+.aumnls7~egrls ~i~' f . enm.4 BO5/5~3-n9a var eoslsi~~s~•n`,mmdalgn.rnnw ................................................................. ~~ r~ V/ ~~ ~~ v 4~ i~ € •.a EC 0 CC ~€ Saratoga Fire Department I~eadquarters Station ~"~~~~~~~' n August 22, 2002 A98034'; lX/ << • NOTE; SIGNAGE DETNIS TO BE SUBl~NII UNDER SEPARATE APPUCAiION C~ North Elevation ~~ • East Elevation LO.P~Q 7C-1'h iAPA41 E11J'-O~h OF 17P. ~Y ~ Ff. 7-U'~ ~~~ L NORfH Scale ll8"-~1' EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS epy r'~r~ ~1 1~ la ,:, ~, 0 ~~ v 0 a ~a .~.r w€ G~ 0 ~+ --- R R MAD B SCI G NAG R O~U P Saratoga Fire Department Headquarters Station ~""~~~" 3,~s 5~U „~a~~ ~~~¢oz.5~ w~~ moo. ~~~,amm 9,,0, August 22, 2002 9 • LJ h 1.OAIXE H'-Y NO1E: SIGNACE DEiNLS TO BE SUB~11i1ED UNDER SEPWihTE APPUCAiWN h Ff. G-0' ~~171W~ ~ s West Elevation Ff. 11 c~ h inm~ H'-r Ff. il~ F.F. O'-0' _ (~~ South Elevation r~t •: 0~ ~: ~; 0~ ~' a e~: v 0; ~; a ~~ ~; rr~ ~1 R M DESIGN GROUP Saratoga Fire Department Headquarters Station ~~~~~~~~~' )165 SwN Migutta Snttl, Smle 107•`..m Lu¢ Ob~o. Co4lttnq 93101 ~~~~ ~~' 2OO~ ~~ ~5~-I~~.FaK ~,5y mm~tt~~,m a9so~a; 1 .~...,.u,~..~~. >~~~.. ~. ~ ........................................................................................................................................................................... ............................................................................................................... . ... p1~ I ^ ^~ Ip ^ l^ ^ NORTH Scale 118"=1' EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS (~ ,,. o ~ • • • T.O.PL. 23'-D'h DECK MECHANICAL DAYROOM MEN'S RESTROOM WOMEN'S RESTROOM HALL IAN. BUNK 9 BUNK 7 F.F. la'-D"h EXISTING PARKING AREA 4 ~ (aBD.DD') OFFlCE OFFlCE MEN'S HALL WOMEN'S MEDICAL CAPTAIN'S RADIO flREFlGHiER SCBA GENERATOR RESTROOM RESTRDO STORAGE WORK ARE4 WORK AREA (473.00') F.F. 0'-0" (4 STORAGE COMM./ FF SPARE RESERJE ELECTRIC TOILET TURNOUT LOCKERS f.F. -10'-O"h (463.00') ~~ BUILDING SECTION A-A - iis~~=~,-0" ~ ~I ~~ NEFEN i0 BIIININ6 SECTION A-A GEN. pp gNGNAREA NEWPARIGNG I ~ EXISTING I ~ 2, PSI (as:.IST ~ I BANK ~ ( 7 SARATOGA• APRON GEN. LOSGATOSROAD (47is2T (47sm) rvruNECONrtuPO ExlsnNC ~~ PROPERtt LINE PROPERTY LII i . SITE SECTIONA-A - r~=2o~~~ ~~ ~ i.0.RIOGE 29'-2" T.O.P 2~ T.O.P 23'-0" D T.O.P. 22 -6 MECHANICAL SCREEN WALL T.O.PL. 23'-0~ r '~---•- ----_ -1 T..PARAPET 20'-0• _ _ _ ~_ Z _ 1 _~_ _ L ~ - . ~ i 0 APP. BAY ___ __~ DAYRDOM DINING PP~11 ATTIG e~I F.F. 14'-0~ (E) BUILDING IEZlmrvc ExISrINC SARATOGA • LOS GATOS ROAD PROPERTY PROPERTY LINE LINE (E) SIDEW ANEW AMR APPARATUS BAYS OFFlCE HALLWAY RECEPTION PLAZA (475.77 (E) CRADE p R RESTROOM V~~~ppp (474.00') f.F. 0'-0" (473.00') ® ~ SECTION B-B - i~s~~= ~~~~ ~ BUILDING SECTIONS R R MAD E SCI 0 NAG R~O~U P Saratoga Fire Department Headquarters Station A98O 11 7185 ~~ N~~aa 51rte1, Suile INZ• ~~ W~n ~,~o. ~~, 9~1~ August 22, 2002 34. P,mw: A~5/513-IIBI•FOe 805/54]~609••••.rtmEes'gn.com •~~~..~...••...••...••.•••••.•••••..•.••...........•..••.••.........••••.••••.••..•...••..••••.•....•. •..•....•••. •. •...••••.•.....~• •• r. Wrmm cm unm +isi¢aauun.rr...w•uwmw.•..•.••...•...........•.•.....•••.••.•.•..•.....•..••...•..•..•..•.•••••..•..•..•..•.•...r...•••.••......•..•..•••..•.•. •........•••••.. ••...•..•••..• •.• LEGEND ~» • .~ t ~ SD PROPOSED STORM DRAIN ,~ ~, S SEWER LINE :: ~,~ ~ro r wcx ~ ruu D! PROPOSED DROP INLET Ku TC TOP OF CURB y ~ •' `~ `;;~?°^' ' `~ ~ m ~ ~'.s,,~, TC TOP OF GRATE I " .w; ~' I `~~-``- t ~ ~ FG FlN1SNED GRADE I ~ °~ ~a ~ \ cwarrrni¢wwcrawa~ ;" FL FLOW UNE z I ' Q I t Ex. PosT oF>7cE ~ \~ \~~ oo u\ '°^~ ..,~ FF FlNJSHED FLODR ~ : a I ~F ~ °'~ °~ i'~ µM\~ SOMH PROPOSED STORM DRAIN MANHOLE " ~ .~... J. EX. LOAD/Nt~ AREA \ ./ ~ 1~ " _ ~ _ \ \ NEW AC PA CEMENT '_ '~ r~ ,,", l . ";1 .~ aew ~ \~ ~. ~ (~~ .~_ ~_ <.,~\ ~~ ~ % PAVEMENT TO BE REMOI/ED 1 ~ _ ~ ~~ "`" ""~ ~ /% '"~`r= \ PROPOSED CONCRETE I ~„ ~~ ~ r =.* 6~' ~~ ~ ~~~ ~~ \ NEW POROUS PAVERS a~' ~c - ~rao _~, F ..~ _r _ EX. PARKING - .~ ' '~\, I `fir- ~ ~ _ ~ , ~, A . ~ RAM RR 5 IQf. E ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ \ .Y( .~ 'R ~ ~~ ~ ~ V ~:.~;~ ~ ~ . FTgi ~ x r mtn R c ~ i ;d ~ ~ ~ \ ~ ® : ° ~ .o f ~ rkw area ` ~ M rsar ~ "' i ~~ \ o ' ~ NEW FIRE STA7JON ; ,~ ;•~y` / `~''~ AP'F~ ~ ~' i~ i .\ \ ' . ~ ~ cwermva nv was / i ~ : ~ ~ ~ 4 Fr4na .r' ~ r ~ ~` ~ ~' ~~ ~~ `"'' ~: ~ }~d Arro v~~~ off( ,~* ~ VA ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ A~ r~t~i" ~~ y~t~ uvs ~~2 ~ •'' ~ 1 s `' %~ 'i'RtrAMMCr ~~ ~`~~,Jz ~yoo-•a ~-: ~ y ~: ~• •I . ! a ''~ ~~ J I ° \ ~ ! ~ ~ ^ ~ ~ ~ _~ a \ s'rrcrAMMC RAU U ---- -- -_ - hY RAffRS _~_ _"_90E1Y~~ ~ I -t-.' ~/ ~ Hp. b ~R a SAf2A7t7GA -LOS GATES ROFD e M( tNGM~~ ~ , NOTE RalN79.It Mvaau ADA CURB RAMPS AT RETURN - - - - - ~a-S~ ~ -~~~ ~~n0-" °~ "~" °~0 x"57 p'Rg rq~ OF ~~~` ~ WILL BE LOCATED PfR DfS1GN A• TO BE PRODDED 8Y THE CITY. ` \ ~: b 0 Po ID (M FEE7) ® : 7 INp! = 20 Fl. ~: : GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN R R M DESIGN G R O U P Sarato a Fire De artment Head uarters Station """"" ,~5,,~~~~,~, g p q 12 ~r ~,n~,-,ra.F~ ~,~,_,~~.....~~,~ ~ August 22,2002 A98034 .M...~.n~.~.~a=r~~,..~..u...,... ...................................................................................................................................................................... .............................................................................................................................. ;~ ,~ ,., i~ d~~~ 1~~~ n Conceptual Planting List TREES Acerpalmafum Japanese Maple Calocedrus decurrens Incense Cedar Cercis occidentalis Western Redbud Comus nottalhi , Pacific Dogwood Quercus agrrfoila Coast Live Oak EX ISTING TREES O - E>asting Tree to Remain Existing Olive Tree to be Relocated or replaced in Idnd. (31 only. Medium Shrubs: l'-3' Azalea species Brunfelsia palciflora Camellio species Carpenteda califomica Cistus species Erigeron karvinskianus Mimulus aurantidcus Phormium tenax'Maori Mai Pittosporum t.'Variegata' Polystichum munitum Groundcovers: 0'-1' Arctostaphylos'Emerald Ca Ceanathus griseus horizonta Heuchera hybrids Rosmarinus officinalis'Prostr Mahonia repens Accents Hemerocallis hybrids Iris douglasiana Imperata cylindrica'Rubra' Liriope muscari ~ne5 ~ Parthenocissustriduspidata den' rpeY lis atus' Azalea Yesterday, Today & Tomorrow Camellia Bush Anemone Rockrose Santo Barbara Daisy Sticky Monkey Hower Dwarf Flax Variegated Pittosporum Sword Fem Manzanita Carmel Creeper Coral Belts Rosemary Mahonia Daylily Pacific Coast Iris Japanese Bload Grass Big Blue Lily Turf Boston Ivy Imgation Statement: The irrigation system shall be a fully automatic vnth a programable controller and a combination of low volume spray, drip ,and bubbler emission devices. The system shall be designed so it reduces the amount of overspray, drift, water usage and waste. ~Zi rioerrr SCALE: l "=20'-0" DSCAPE PLAN ~" 0 ~C ~` 4~`•. 0€ ~€ .,~ R R M DESIGN GROUP I Saratoga Fire Department Headquarters Station - ~•~~~~~~" 7,65 ~h ~~~ro str~l, ~~ ,~~. ~~ ~~m ate. ~oh,~~~o 97101 August 22, 2002 A98034 ~ 3 Phme: 865/517-1,9/•ia,: 9Mf593-16a9•~n.mmkayn.rom n r,~r. wYnu,wm.wnwwu~iuus.ur.,e.woe•,xxou IDx ~~~~~•.~..~.•~~e~ee~e~~e~e~~~~~~~~~~~~ee ~~ee~e ee ee~~~~~~~~~~~•~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~•~~~~~~•~~~~~~~~~~~~~• •~~~~ •~~~~~~~e~~ee~~e~~i ~~~~~~~~ee ~~~~~~e~~~~~~~~~~~~e~r~~~~~~~•~~~~~••~~~~~~~~~~~e~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~• ~~~i :~ i~ TEMPORARY APPARATUS BAY • ~di EXTERIOR BUILDING LAMP TWD PIECE MISSIDN TILE b~2S2~~2S~?'~C~ERAMIC BANO ALUMINUM , , - , WINDOW ~-CEMENf PLASTER .~-CEMENT PLASTER BANDING WINDOW ELEVATION ruu aausurff ruu, rn uL { wws GENERATOR ENCLOSURE -cax~TE srB ~' GIBE aim aim IaLea~Lr ~r ~ caum rr~lir ~a+ ~~ u>E CELIQB R,11TLA RN-EMBm 9EEVE INfO CDNO~IE SUB , TRASH ENCLOSURE Scale 1"=20' DETAILS ~~ c R R~ P Saratoga Fire Department Headquarters Station ~"'"~~~~ was xum n~wp~ srcnt wne im, su, wiz m~yo, w~rmm sum August 22,, 2002 ~ ~ 4 ,: ~, eos qa-~~e~.r~eos/~u~so~•....mme~na~~* i170UJ~; ..w ~~ +~ ~,~,...~... ~ .........................................................................................n.......n.................. .... .....................u............................... .......................................................uu.o.................... ....... .... .^ j j *4. ~ ,= BEYABOM BIKE RACK BOLLARD TEMPORARY PORTABLE STRUCTURE PARKING LOT LAMP _~ , ~ o o L\ ONE WAY \\ ONLY SIGN 18 ,~~\\ 1 ~ ~~ ONE 17\ • WAY 17 2 \ \\ „ 16 18 \ ~ 3 ~ti 6 14 ~ ~ 1\ ~~~ 19 ~o ' 13 " ~ 6 - 20 ~ 4 ~~ ° (E) PARKING ~ 7 y ~ ~, ~ FUNRE PARKING AND TO REMAIN 21 ~ ~ DEVELOPED B ~ BE ADJACENT CHURCH. ~ ' 8 NEW ~ ~ PARKING 9 22 ~~ 5 ~ ~ ~ " 9 A ~ ~\ ,o ~ - 23 10 4 6 ~~ TWO ~~ 3 WAY - 24~~-0 cE) 7 LIGHT " ~ ~~,o 2 25 1 26 ~ / 27 ;' TRASH 28 HC ~o ~~- Fso~ ~ '~ ~ 1 3` \ ~ N ~ . ;APE AR / ~ :2~ ~ ; Alternate Site Circulation Plan . ......... R R M D~ o u r Headquarters Station 7765 Swth Higuera 5tr<et. ~,~~~ ~o~. =a~ ~~~, OCBPC. ~a~~a~~o 9J.0i - August 22, 2002 A98034 Phone: 805/547-794 • Fos: 805/543-4609 • www.rrm0esign.com W w^•n .'gflWO rniuffiYNS ~S yr.•n re.. i.r.w wW.n rtu wwwww wwwwwwww~~www www~ww~wwww~w wwwww~~wwwww~wwwwwwwwwwww~wwwwwwww~~w~~wwww •w •ww •wwwwwwww wwww~www~w• ., . s i SC ~ q~f /'c /O• ~~ ~~$ 1 (E) PARKING / AREA TO REMAIN /~ i / ,. ,', ~~?~~ ~ 10 SPACES ~~ DEDICATED ,~ 41 ~~ ; ;,; TO PUBLIC ~ ~; ~ ~~ ~ !//{if ~ /~ ~ PARKING ~~~/ . I 18 ~ 28 . ~ f /"/ ~ .~ ;, 39'~~/ 29 ONE ,~. ~ . 19 ~qY ~l,~8 ~ \ ~ ~ ' 20 ~ , ,i f, \ 21 ~ 37,x, " i~ ~.~ 31 f r, ~ ( i 22 ~~'~ \ _ 23 32~F ~ ~~,36, " \ / 24 ~~; ~ . 25 ~ 34 HC " ~ 26 ~ . t . ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~.: <_~., 1:30 Alternate Parking Plan - w/o sale to church .......... R R M DESIGN GROUP Headquarters Station ~~.~~ - 2 D65 Samtt Higuem 5~r~.r. ~i,. ,OZ. 5~, ~~~, oe~o. ~di,anw 93.a, August 22, 2002 A98034 Phone: 805/5~3-179<• Fos: 805/53-4609 •..w rrmdesign.com .t u.xm+n •wm a uwo.r~r w> so: nW u u.. an r•s.. rwr.. e.swi ss .......................................................................... • ............................... i • ~~ ~ _r ~~~ fi U ~ P ~ ~~ ~ '^ 8 ~ ~ Q> T bGH W®D FENCE s~+cf • m' ~ +ra ~~ r o ~ _ IRy I~TAL RAILING ~ - y := ~ ~ ~ o o ~, t11 ~ ~ • . ~ ~~ z ~l W ~ ~o~ • 4 "g W I ~:o ni > i e s ~ ~ as I (E) BUILDING \ ~~ ';A . O u ~~~ O ~ ~ "d a ' (E) PARKING / • • I AND \ LOADING / ~ AREA • . ~ (E POST OFFICE PROPERtt U E ~ • / SITE ACCESS C \ PRIOR TO / CONSTRUCTION OF _~ ~ TO REMAIN ~ ~ b,~ ~ NEW STATI ~~ ~ \ ~~ SITE ACC SS ~;% ONSTRUCTION"~' ~ ~ • DURIN i LAYOOT;AREA,' ,,< E N ~ ONBTRUCTI N 0 " , ~,"F6LLOWfNG~,~,' ~ (E) PARKING • tJ ~ NEW STAT ON .~ ~, DEMO~.ITION" OF ; ~` AREA TO C ~ ~ ~-,EXISTTING FIRE i ~ , ~ ~ REMAIN ~ ~ '' STA170N~ /~ ~ EXISTING FIRE lV ~ ~ STATION TO BE ~ DEMOLISHED ~' ,i '~/ / „um, z ~ ~~ "~ ~ , fIEPLACEMENT ~ ~ ~ ~l ~ • ^~ ;~ ~.~~ iF1RE $TA~fICj+l~ i 1~-` ~. ,~ ~ , '' ~ ~ ~` ~ ~ ~ ,CONSTftUCT10~~ _ . cn ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ LIjYOUT AA,cA , ~ -~~ ~ ~ "PA!C3F~ T " ~ • C ^AP~S ~tiCT~ON ~ ~ ~f,NF1+1 ~f6iE ~ , ~ %I~DDIJ-Q 5TATlON, ~ , ` ~ ' 1,AYOU`~/Af~EI~, _ ~ .;, ~ -N~~"•~ r- EXI6TING CURB 9 M^r ~ .0~ SITE ACCESS O SARATOGA -LDS GA70S RDAD DURING ~ ~ -Ct- DEMOLITION AND ~ ,~ J CONSTRUCTION , :O .~ -~_ -rte ITEM 3 S REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No./Location: ED-O1-002, DR-O1-035 ~ UP-O1-013 13601 Saratoga Avenue Applicant/Owner: St. Andrew's School and Parish _G Staff Planner: Christine Oosterhous AICP, Associate Planne~.~- ~ Date: October 9, 2002 APN: 393-25-21 Department Head: ~ • 000001 13601 Saratoga Avenue PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant requests design review and use permit approval to construct new facilities for St. Andrew's School and Parish. At the October 9, 2002 meeting, the planning commission will take public testimony and conduct a formal discussion of issues. The planning commission will not take action to approve or deny the project at this time. Staff has recommended specific project revisions. Staff recommendations are located throughout'this report in bold and italics and are summarized at the end of this report. The planning commission may endorse, modify, or add to staff recommendations as they see fit. The proposed project includes the demolition of existing buildings and the construction of the following facilities: performing arts/gymnasium, Sunday school rooms, administration offices, classrooms, clergy offices, parish center, and a bell tower. The project also includes: a memorial garden, covered walkways, an outdoor eating area, re-grading and reconfiguring the parking lot and eliminating off-site queuing. New building construction will total 72,705 square feet and will include six new structures. The existing sanctuary (11,446 square feet) is to remain. The project site is five-acres or 217,800 square feet. The zoning is R-1 20,000. The General Plan designation is Quasi-Public Facility. St. Andrew's provides schooling for children at levels pre-kindergarten through the 8`h grade. Existing enrollment is 430 students. The maximum number of _ employees is 68 (52 for school and 16 for parish). No increase in student or parishioner enrollment or employment are proposed; however, the proposed project maybe growth inducing. An increase in capacity on-site may create a negative impact on the community. Staff recommends any increase in student enrollment shall require planning conunission approval. The following is a description of the proposed facilities: Per forming Arts/Gymnasium Building The performing arts/gymnasium building consists of 15,168 square feet for sports activities such as basketball and volleyball, locker rooms, storage, theater, and food service facilities. Located above the locker rooms and storage areas is a 3,250 square foot area that houses some of the Sunday school classrooms. The proposed maximum height of the performing arts/gymnasium building is 39 ft. Ceiling heights in this building are greater than 15 feet. Administration/Classroom Wing Classrooms and administration offices are located in a three-story 24,928 square foot building, which has a maximum height of 40 feet. A discovery center, which includes a school library, is also located in this building. This building serves as the main entry to the campus. It is the largest building in the proposed ~~, OOC1OO~ development and is located near the center of the site. The administration/classroom wing is linked by a pedestrian annex to the nearby north classroom wing. North Classroom Wing The north classroom wing is a two-story 16,332 square feet building. It houses 1 ~ classrooms and related support spaces. The maximum height of the north classroom wing is 30 feet. Clergy Offices Building The clergy offices building is an 8,660 square foot three-story building. This building houses all of the administrative functions for the Parish as well as the remaining Sunday school classrooms. This building has multiple meeting and conference rooms and a lounge. The maximum height of this building is 36 feet. Parish Center The one-story parish center will be utilized for parish functions such as wedding receptions, after service activities, and group meetings. A nursery is located in the parish center building to provide care for infants and small children during Sunday services. Ceiling heights in this building are greater than 15 feet. Bell Tower The proposed bell tower is a 54 foot tall wood clad structure to be located adjacent to the existing sanctuary. For comparison, the existing sanctuary is 98 feet to the top of the steeple and approximately 50 feet to the main roofline. The proposed bell tower would have a full peal of eight bells in the key of F. The bell ringing schedule proposed by the applicant is described on page 3 of this report. The applicant has provided a compact disc (attachment 6 of the enclosed initial study). The track recorded is St. Vedast, Foster Lane. It is the sound of six bells in the key of F, which is similar to the proposed ring of eight bells. Covered u'al~-wavs and Outdoor Eating Area Pedestrian site circulation between the various buildings will occur under covered ~valk~vays made of redwood posts and rafters, with low sloped roofs. The proposed outdoor eating area would be covered by a redwood deck and located at the northwestern tip of the property. The cover or roof will be similar in construction to that of the covered walkways employed throughout the campus. It is an outdoor space framed by trees and will be used for school group activities and as a student lunch area in nice weather during the school year. Memorial Garden St. Andrew's proposes to extend the existing memorial garden. According to the applicant, the memorial garden in its current capacity was approved under a use permit granted in 1986 subject to the Health and Safety Code of the State of California. In the memorial garden, the cremated remains of a person are placed ~. into a linen bag, which is buried two feet below the surface. The grass of the 2 OOU403 existing memorial garden is kept trim, and a hedge surrounds the entire site. Three rose bushes, a cross, and a bench for mediation accent the existing garden. The proposed memorial garden will be located between the church and bell tower, with a hedge surrounding it for privacy. A meditation labyrinth will be mowed - into the pattern of the grass, following an English custom. Bell Ringing Schedule St. Andrew's proposes the following bell ringing schedule for the peal of eight bells to be mounted in the bell tower: Regular Schedule Sunday mornings: one bell rung ten times at 9:55 am and one peal of bells rung for a five-minute duration at 11:15 am. ~ecial Events Weddings: average 20 per year. Funerals: brief tolling. Occasional concerts by visit'ng bell ringing teams from around the world. Holidays New Years Eve: at the stroke of midnight for five minutes Christmas Eve: five minutes at 7:00 pm, five minutes at 10:00 pm, and five minutes at 12:30 am. 4`h of July Parades. Practice schedule to be determined. During practice louvered sound baffles are proposed to remain closed. Staff reconunends tl:ebe1l-ringing schedule be modified so that the frequenc3~ a~:d duration of proposed ringing is reduced. Staff recommends tl:e frequei:c}~ of ri~rgi~tg be specified for weddings, parades, and practice. Surrounding Land Uses The project site is surrounded by a variety of land uses. Predominately single- family residences surround the site; however, the City library is located across the street from the project site and another private school and church campus is located nearby. Residential Properties Single-family dwellings are adjacent to the project site. The single-family dwellings adjacent to the project site are two-story. The single-family dwelling to the south of the project site is listed on the City's historic resources inventory. The Saratoga Creek abuts the rear property line of the project site. Single-family residences abut the creek. 3 0~~©04 City Library The City library is located directly across Sazatoga Avenue from the project site. For companson, the library is approximately.35 feet at its highest point.. It is located approximately 90 feet from Saratoga Avenue and 85 feet from Fruitvale Avenue. Sacred Heart Church and School Sacred Heart is a similar facility in that it offers a weekday preschool and elementary schooling program. It is located in close proximity to the proposed project and is adjacent to the City library. Sacred Heart is located at 13724 Saratoga Avenue. Sacred Heart School and Church are located on an 11.3 acre parcel within the R-1 20,000 zoning district. According to documents on file with the Community Development Department, the Sacred Heart facility (including Church, School, Hall, Rectory, Parish Center) is approximately 66,178 square feet and its maximum height is 26 feet. Total school enrollment at Sacred Heart is approximately 360 students. Setbacks range from a minimum of 179 feet to a maximum of 390 feet to the property lines. Use Permit (UP 01-013) Pursuant to municipal code section 15-55.030, Variation from Standards: A conditional use maybe permitted by a use permit to have a different site area, density, structure height, distance between structures, site coverage, front, side and rear yard minimums and off street parking and loading requirements, other than those listed under the specific regulations for unconditional permitted uses m the zoning distnct m which it lies. The following is a list of exceptions requested by the applicant. Conditional Use (Religious and Educational Facility) The project site is located in the R-1 20,000 residential zone district. Permitted uses in the R-1 20,000 zone district include residential land uses. Religious and educational facilities such as St. Andrew's require a conditional use permit to operate in residential zone districts. Any modification to a conditionally permitted use requires use permit approval. Use permits on file with the Community Development Department date back to 1962 for St. Andrew's Episcopal Church. The seven use permits on file indicate the facilities on the site have been slowly expanding since the 1960s. Site Coverage The R-1 20,000 zone district limits the ratio of impervious coverage to sixty percent of the size of the lot. The proposed impervious coverage is eighty five percent. The existing impervious coverage is eighty percent. Please see the attached project data spreadsheet (attachment A) for more detailed figures on impervious coverage. Parking The number of parking spaces required by the municipal code varies by type of land use. The following land uses are present on the site: school, place of public 4 ~~U~~S assembly, worship, theater, and auditorium. The required parking for those land uses pursuant to municipal code section 15-35.030(f)(h) are listed below: (f) Schools and day care-One space for each employee, including teachers and administrators, plus such additional spaces as determined by the planning commission to be adequate for student and visitor parking. (h) Places of public assembly; including religious institutions, theaters, and auditoriums-One space for each four seats or one space for each forty square feet of floor area unusable for seating if seats are not fixed, plus one space for each two employees. Under the proposed project St.Andrew's provides 202 spaces. Under existing conditions St. Andrew's provides 200 spaces. The traffic study concludes the proposed project provides an adequate number of parking spaces because enrollment is not increasing, the existing parking capacity accommodates the student body, and the library parking lot can accommodate any overflow parking on Sundays. Floor Area The R-1 20,000 zone district is limited to a maximum allowable floor area of 6,000 square feet. The proposed floor area figures supplied by the applicant and included in this staff report have not been doubled for interior heights of fifteen feet or greater as required by 15-45.030(a). The gymnasium and parish center buildings both have interior ceiling heights greater than 15 feet. Allowable floor area is subject to a further reduction of 1.5 percent for each foot over 18 feet in height. Staff recommends the applicant revise the floor area figures so that any interior lieiglit ojl S feet or greater shall be doubled consistent with IS-45.030(a). Please see the project data sheet (attachment A) for proposed floor area figures supplied by the applicant. Height Limits The height limit in the R-1 20,000 residential zone district is 30 feet for a main structure which is not asingle-family dwelling. Maximum heights of the proposed buildings range from 24 to 54 feet. Number of Stories Portions of the proposed project are three stories. According to MCS 15-12.100(c), No structure shall exceed two stories, except that pursuant to a use permit, a three story structure maybe allowed for an institutional facility located upon a site designated for quasi-public facilities in the General Plan, where the average slope underneath the structure is ten percent of greater and a stepped building pad is used. The proposed project meets the slope criteria above. The slope underneath the three story structures is 5 OOU006 12%. In contrast to the zoning ordinance, the General Plan states, "No structures shall be over two stories...". Setbacks Pursuant to MCS 15-45.040, the proposed project is subject to an increase in required setbacks by one foot for each foot of new construction over 18 feet in height. Required setbacks prior to applying the height penalty are: front-30 ft side-15 ft and rear-45 ft. Proposed and required setbacks to each of the structures are listed in the attached project data sheet (attachment A). Of the requested use permit exceptions, staff recommends the following be referred back to the applicant for further reduction: proposed floor area, overall heigl:t, and three-story elements. The east or right side setback for tl:e Parish Center shall be increased. Design Review Prominent architectural elements of the proposed development include gable rooflines, large-scale single-form buildings, a variation of materials, rectangular windows, and vertical entryways. A rural or rustic theme is projected in the rooflines and lapped horizontal siding material. Architectural detail and elements are lacking on the classroom buildings. Building materials vary between the six buildings. Materials include a mixture of 8-inch lapped horizontal siding and cement plaster. Proposed colors include: brown siding and a brown and light-beige cement plaster. Roof materials include brown asphalt shingles. The mass and bulk of the development and how it will adversely affect views and quality of life for the residences m the surrounding area are staff's primary design review related concerns. The staff finds tl:e following project elements need restudy by tl:e applicant ii: order for the project to support the design review f~:di~igs: • Three story elements should be reduced to a maximum of two stories. • The mass and height of entry to the clergy building should be reduced. • .Architectural detail and elements should be utilized to break up massing on the classroom buildings. • Rooflines should follow hillside contours. • The proposed cement plaster "color #2" (attachment 12 of the initial study, sheet M-1) should be more of an earth tonality to mitigate the visual effects of the proposed large-scale buildings. Staff recommends the applicant consider implementing the following design policies detailed in t1:e Handbook: • Follow hillside contours. • Use materials and colors to reduce bulk. • Minimize building height. • Use architectural features to break up massing. • Use natural materials and colors. • Follow natural ground with roof-slopes. • Avoid large, single form solutions. Story poles will be constructed prior to the October 9, 2002 planning commission meeting. The applicant has provided a legend or key, which illustrates the proposed building heights at several locations around the building's footprint: The story poles will be an invaluable tool to further assess the project's impact on views, privacy, mass and bulk. The story pole key is attachment 11 of the draft initial study. Noise Study A Noise Assessment Study, dated June 11, 2002 was prepared for the applicant by Edward Pack Associates, Inc. The municipal code requires stricter noise standards (dba) for n©ise sensitive uses than the Noise Assessment Study has applied. The municipal code lists schools, churches, and libraries as noise sensitive uses. Furthermore, the General Plan states, "As a matter of policy, the City considers all residentially-zoned property in Saratoga to be noise sensitive". The municipal code also restricts single event noise in residential zone districts to a stricter standard than was applied by the noise assessment study. Staff recommends the planning commission refer the noise assessment study back to tl:e applicant for restudy: (l) to apply the ambient noise standards for noise sensitive uses to both the site and surrounding uses MCS 7-30.040(b) and (2) to compl}~ will: MCS 7-30.050(a) which restricts single event noise in any residential zoning district to i:o more than 6 d ba above the ambient noise level at the location where the sii:gle event noise source is measured. Existin Conditions g The existing sanctuary accommodates 724 adults, however, using all pews, extra cathedral chairs, 100 folding chairs and an area of standing room in the rear can increase the count to 824 occupants. The total square footage of the existing facility is approximately 50,000 square feet. Of the approximately 50,000 square foot existing facility approximately 15,000 square feet is utilized for classrooms and 12,000 square feet is utilized for a sanctuary (to remain). Eighty percent of the site is covered with impervious surfaces. Four acres are impervious and one acre is pervious. Consistency with the General Plan Staff has researched the following General Plan Goal and Policy statements for the Planning Commission to consider prior to taking action on the proposed project: • As a matter of policy, the City considers all residentially zoned property in Saratoga to be "noise sensitive" (Noise Element, pg 1). Specific types of land uses such as public and private schools, parks and open spaces, community facilities, retirement and convalescent homes and churches are considered to be noise sensitive. St. Andrew's school and church, .Sacred Heart, and Saratoga Community Library, are facilities included under this identification (Noise Element, pg 11). In addition to transportation-related noise, commercial activities (including shopping centers), recreation complexes and other site of outdoor public assembly OU~~~8 such as churches and school sites have been identified as periodic sources of noise complaints (Noise Element, pg 11). • Overall Height Limit: No structure shall be over two stories in height except for structures located within the Village boundary as defined in the Village Area Plan (Land Use Element, pg 3-5). • Protect the existing rural atmosphere of Saratoga by carefully considering the visual impact of new developments (Goals and Policies, C0.6.0, pg 2-19). • The importance of the views of the mountains and hills from Saratoga shall be reviewed when considering a development application within the City and its Sphere of Influence (Goals and Policies, CO.1.1, pg 2-16). • Congestion at Schools -Over the last five years, vehicle congestion around several City schools has become a controversial issue. The increased traffic is due in part to increased student population, but is more related to a trend of driving students to school instead of walking or bicycling. Most schools in Saratoga generate a higher than typical number of vehicle trips due to a lack of sidewalks on many streets and the ability for students to attend any school within the City (Circulation and Scenic Highway Element Background Report/Goals, Policies, and Implementation Measures, pg 15). • Trails, sidewalks or separated pathways should be provided in areas where needed to provide safe pedestrian access to schools, along arterials streets and along collector streets (Goals and Policies, CI.6.8, pg 2-10). • Review trails and pathways to plan to determine if adequate access is provided to schools along streets (Goals and Policies, CI.6.8, 2-10). • Nonresidential and industrial uses shall be buffered from other uses by methods such as setbacks, landscaping, berms and soundwalls (Goals and Policies, LU.4.1, Pg ?-3). • The City shall use the design review process to assure that new construction and major additions thereto are compatible with the site and the adjacent surroundings (Goals and Policies, LU.5.0, pg 2-3) • Quasi-Public Facilities- This subcategory contains religious uses (churches, synagogues, religious schools, and novitiate). These are institutional uses that provide a public service but are not controlled by a publicly elected governing board. Allowable building intensity varies and is governed by the Zoning Ordinance. All uses or their expansions are evaluated through the use permit process and must comply with criteria indicating their compatibility with adjacent uses (Land Use Element, pg 3-5). Neighborhood Meetings Conducted by the Applicant The applicant has conducted a total of three neighborhood meetings on the expansion of St. Andrew's School and Parish. Two of those meetings were held on a substantially different project than what is currently being proposed. The current proposal has been downscaled from what was previously submitted in July 2001. The revised project was re-submitted in June 2002. St. Andrew's mailed approximately 50 addresses a letter inviting them to attend a meeting on August 27, 2001 to review the plans and voice concerns and comments. 8 ~ t~0~1~~9 Approximately ten individuals from the public attended this meeting. On September 16, 2001 another letter was mailed to residences within 500 feet of the project site inviting neighbors to review the plans and comment. Approximately five individuals from the public attended this meeting. A neighborhood meeting was held on the current proposal on June 17, 2002. Approximately six individuals from the public attended this meeting. Staff has received a letter in opposition to the proposed project (attachment E). Planning Commission Study Sessions The Planning Commission has conducted two study sessions on the expansion of St. Andrew's. One study session was conducted on the revised project on July 24, 2002. The meeting minutes are attached for your reference (attachment C). Planning Review Timeline Staff has reviewed the following planning project review timelines with the applicant: • June 12, 2002: Applicant re-submitted a revised project to the planning department for review. • July 24, 2002: the Planning Commission held a study session. • September 11, 2002: The applicant was scheduled for the September 11, 2002 Planning Commission meeting for a formal discussion of issues. Due to scheduling conflicts the applicant rescheduled to October 9, 2002. • October 9, 2002: Formal discussion of issues to be held by the planning commission on the St. Andrews Expansion. October 25, 2002, the applicant resubmits project revisions to staff addressing the concerns and issues of the planning commission. • November: Staff reviews project revisions, finalizes environmental documents, and circulates documents for public review and comment. • December 11, 2002: Planning Commission holds a public hearing to take action to approve or deny the proposed project. Environmental Documents The proposed project is not exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); therefore, an initial study must be prepared to assess the project's environmental impacts. A draft initial has been prepared (attachment E). The findings for the draft initial study conclude that a mitigated negative declaration and mitigation monitoring program shall be prepared. Prior to taking action to approve or deny the project the planning commission will adopt the environmental documents. The environmental documents will be advertised for public review and comments over a 20- day period. A Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration will be published in the Saratoga News, posted on and off-site in the area where the project is to be located, directly mailed to the owners and occupants of property contiguous to the project, and posted at City Hall and the County Clerks office. Arborist Review The City Arborist is reviewing the revised project. Arborist comments are not available at this time. 9 ~100~10 Standards for School Construction The proposed facility was compared to standards outlined by The Council of Educational Facility Planners, International Guide for School Facility Appraisal. According to the Council, classrooms are designed for 20-30 students. In an academic classroom, regardless of the age of the student, the per student square footage allowance is usually 2~-30 square feet. Suggested Classroom Size: Minimal Acceptable Ideal Kindergarten (and Pre-K) 900 1050 1200 Elementary School 700 800 900 Middle School 650 750 850 The St. Andrew's program ranges from junior kindergarten to eighth grade. The proposed classrooms located in the north wing and administrative offices wing are generally in the "acceptable" size range according to the Council's suggested academic classroom size. The Council suggests 1,050 square feet is an acceptable classroom size for kindergarten students. The kindergarten and pre-kindergarten classrooms proposed by St. Andrew's are less than the "minimal" required size compared to the councils suggested classroom size. The Council suggests 800 square feet is an acceptable classroom size for elementary students. The elementary classrooms proposed by St. Andrew's are predominately in the "acceptable" size range. The Council suggests 750 square feet is an acceptable classroom size for middle school. The English, math, and social studies classrooms intended for middle school students are belov~~ the "ideal" size recommended by the Council. The ideal size recommended by the Council is 850 square feet. The standards suggest larger areas for art, science, language, technology, and music classrooms. The proposed project is consistent with suggested classroom sizes in these subject areas. St. Andrew's has 430 students. At 25 students per classroom St. Andrew's would require approximately 17 classrooms. Approximately 18 classrooms are proposed. Staff finds the classroom sizes proposed by St. Andrews for pre-k to middle school students meet the standards and are not excessive in square footage based on the Council of Educational Facility Planners International Guide for School Facility Appraisal. Vehicle Queuing During the school year, vehicle queuing at St. Andrew's each morning and afternoon results in a backup onto Saratoga Avenue. To eliminate this backup the traffic study to t~0U011 recommends Exhibit B and C which increase the vehicle queuing area by 170 feet (along the entire front of the school) and introduces an additional vehicle queuing area at the . rear of the site. To ensure vehicle queuing is improved and-eliminated on Saratoga Avenue staff requested that the applicant explore another option for vehicle queuing as illustrated in Exhibit D. Staff recommends implementation of Exhibit D (an addendum to the Traffic Report dated June 21, 2002). Tliis scenario will increase the length of vehicle queuing by a total of approximately 370 feet from Saratoga Avenue to the Sunday school rooms and includes the additional drop-off area to the rear of the site adding an additiona161 S feet of queuing from Saratoga Avenue to pick-up drop off area behind the gym. A total of approximately 1,000 linear feet of additional queuing area will be provided on- site. Parking The proposed parking supply with the master plan will include a total of 202 spaces. This is slightly more than the existing supply of 200 spaces. The traffic study does not recommend St. Andrew's increase the number of parking spaces. The existing large expanse of parking lot is underutilized (except for Sundays when overflow parking can be accommodated by the City library parking lot across the street). The zoning ordinance requires each standard parking space shall be not less than eighteen feet in length and nine feet, six inches in width. Each compact parking space shall be not less than sixteen feet in length and eight feet in width. Additionally, not more than 25% of the number of required off-street parking spaces may consist of compact spaces. The proposed project provides 202 parking spaces (50 spaces are compact spaces). The proposed size of both the standard and compact parking spaces meet the zoning requirements. Impacts to Intersections According to the traffic study, the intersection at Saratoga/Fruitvale Avenue operates at a Level D during both the AM and PM peak hours. The City of Saratoga has defined Level D as the minimum acceptable operating level. The traffic study does not recommend any chances to this intersection because the operating level is acceptable and enrollment is not increasing at this time. Public Improvements Public right of way improvements, including raised medians and re-stripping are planned by Spring 2003 (attachment 9 of the Initial Study). The Public Works Department has requested the applicant provide the following: (1) to preserve sight lines there shall be no parking from the intersection of Saratoga Avenue and Crestbrook Drive for a distance of 1 I O feet north; (2) a pedestrian walkway shall be installed along Saratoga Avenue from Crestbrook Drive to the project site; and (3) the exit apron at the project site shall be pushed out approximately 15 feet for better visibility and easier access to the "safety zone" for vehicles making a left turn. 11 OOU312 Staff Recommendations • Staff recommends any increase in student enrollment shall require planning commission approval. __ __ • Staff recommends the bell-ringing schedule be modified so that the frequency and duration of proposed ringing is reduced. Staff recommends the frequency of ringing be specified for weddings, parades, and practice. • Staff recommends the applicant revise the floor area figures so that any interior height of 15 feet or greater shall be doubled consistent with 15-45.030(x). Staff recommends the applicant provide a schematic drawing to illustrate the floor area calculation. • Of the requested use permit exceptions, staff recommends the following be referred back to the applicant for further reduction: proposed floor area, overall height, and three-story elements. The east or right side setback for the Parish Center shall be increased. • The staff finds the following project elements need restudy by the applicant in order for the project to support the design review findings: o Three story elements should be reduced to a maximum of two stories. o The mass and height of entry to the clergy building should be reduced. o Architectural detail and elements should be utilized to break up massing on the classroom buildings. o Rooflines should follow hillside contours. o The proposed cement plaster "color #2" (attachment 12 of the initial study, sheet M-1) should be more of an earth tonality to mitigate the visual effects of the proposed large-scale buildings. Staff recommends the applicant consider implementing the following design policies detailed in the handbook: o Follow hillside contours.. o Use materials and colors to reduce bulk. o Minimize building height. o Use architectural features to break up massing. o Use natural materials and colors. o Follow natural ground with roof-slopes. o Avoid large, single form solutions. • Staff finds the three story elements of the administrative wing building are too massive. Staff recommends the parish and school classrooms be combined where feasible to reduce the mass, bulk, and number of stories of the administration wing building. • Staff recommends the libraries, meeting rooms, lounges, conference rooms, and teen room be consolidated between the parish and school facilities where feasible to reduce the overall mass and bulk of the three story clergy offices building. • Staff finds the bell tower is too massive and imposing given its height (54 ft) and proximity (40 ft) from Saratoga Avenue. Staff recommends the bell tower be reduced in height, eliminated, or relocated a greater distance from Saratoga Avenue. If the bell tower is relocated it shall not create a nuisance to existing residences. 12 tl00013 • Staff recommends the planning commission refer the noise assessment study back to the applicant for restudy: (1) to apply the ambient noise standards for noise sensitive uses to both the site and surrounding uses MCS 7-30.040(b) and (2) to comply with MCS 7-30.050(a) which restricts single event noise in any residential zoning district to no more than 6 d ba above the ambient noise level at the location where the single event noise source is measured. • Staff recommends implementation of Exhibit D (an addendum to the Traffic . Report dated June 21, 2002). This scenario will increase the length of vehicle queuing by a total of approximately 370 feet from Saratoga Avenue to the Sunday school rooms and includes the additional drop-off area to the rear of the site adding an additional 615 feet of queuing from Saratoga Avenue to pick-up drop off area behind the gym. A total of approximately 1,000 linear feet of additional queuing area will be provided on-site. • Staff recommends the applicant provide the following right of way improvements for vehicular and pedestrian safety: (1) to preserve sight lines there shall be no parking from the intersection of Saratoga Avenue and Crestbrook Drive for a distance of 110 .feet north; (2) a pedestrian walkway shall be installed along Saratoga Avenue from Crestbrook Drive to the project site; and (3) the exit apron at the project site shall be pushed out approximately 15 feet for better visibility and easier access to the "safety zone" for vehicles making a left turn. ATTACHMENTS: A. Project data spreadsheet. B. Guide for School Facility Appraisal. C. Study Session Minutes, dated July 24, 2002. D. Letter in opposition to the proposed project, dated July 18, 2002. E. Draft initial study. INITIAL STUDY ATTACHMENTS: 1. Feasible Control Measure for Construction Emissions of PM10, Table 2. 2. Geotechnical Hazard Evaluation, Key for Map 1. 3. Earthquake Intensity, Modified Mercalli Intensity. 4. Standards of Construction in Special Flood Hazards (MCS 16.66.090). 5. Noise Control Standards (MCS 7-30.040(b)). 6. Compact disc sample recording of proposed peal of bells (planning commissioner packets only). 7. Noise Assessment Study by Edward Pack, Associates dated June 11, 2002. 8. Traffic Study by Fehr & Peers, dated June 21, 2002. 9. Proposed Ultimate Striping Plan for Saratoga Avenue dated July 25, 2002. 10. Public Works Conditions dated August 6, 2002. 11. Story pole legend provided by the applicant. 12. Reduced set of project plans dated July 5, 2002. • • 13 UDU`J14r St. Andrew's School and Parish Lot Coverage: proposed paving proposed building footpring existing sanctuary to remain Total Impervious Proposed 123,542 sq ft (57%) 50,288- sq ft (23°l°) 11,446 sq ft (5%) 185,511 sq ft (85%) ATTACHMENT A Code Requirement 60% maximum Floor Area: Square Footage by Level Lower Main Upper Total Performing Arts /Gym 15,168 3,250 0 18,418 Administration /Classroom Wing 8,308 8,310 8,310 24,928 North Clasroom Wing 8,166 8,166 0 16,332 Clergy Offices 2,833 3,072 2,755 8,660 Parish Center 0 4,007 0 4,007 Bell Tower 0 360 0 360 Total New Construction 34,475 27,165 11,065 72,705 Sanctuary -Existing Construction 11,446 Total Square Footage 84,151 6,000 sq ft.' Setbacks: south east west north front right left rear front right left rear Performing Arts /Gym 235 ft. 130 ft. 25 ft. 88 ft. Administration /Classroom Wing 225 ft. 118 ft. 154 ft. 130 ft. North Clasroom Wing 305 ft. 28 ft. 163 ft. 51 ft. ClerRv Offices 202 ft. 78 ft. 271 ft. 225 ft. Parish Center 160 ft. 13 ft. 349 ft. 258 ft. Bell Tower 42 ft. 160 ft. 378 ft. 428 ft. 30` I S` I S ' 45 Number of Stories: Perforn~in~_ Arts / Gvm Administration i Classroom Wine North Clasroom Win v Clergy Offices Parish Center Bell Tower Height: two three two three one n/a three 3 Performing Arts /Gym 39 ft. Administration /Classroom Wing 40 ft. North Clasroom Wing 30 ft. Clergy Offices 36 ft. Parish Center 24 ft. Bell Tower 54 fr. 30 ft. 4 'Allowable floor area should be further reduced by 1.5% for each foot over 18 ft. (MCS 15-45.030(f)). `Setbacks should be further increased by 1 foot for each foot over 18 ft. (MCS 15-45.040). 3 Three stories may be permitted for QPF where the average site slope underneath the structure is 10% or greater and a stepped building pad is used (MCS 15-12.100(c)). o~U~15 ° No main structure shall exceed thirty feet (MCS 15-12.100(a)). • THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK • 00(1016 ATTACHMENT B 5.0 Educational Adequacy The educational adequacy of school buildings, in a sense, represents the purpose of the entireappraisal process. This is true becattse schools existprimarily to serve the educational needs of a community and school.district. The determination of how adequate -the facility is, in the final analysis, must be derived from the relationships between educational program and physical structure Individual behavior results in part from the environment. The environment provided by the school building will deter or enhance the instructional program. The criteria found in this section are categorized according to academic leanning, specialized learning and support space. The quality as well as the quantity of the space in the school is a major focus in the analysis of facility adequacy. 5.1 Size of academic learning areas meets desirable standards. [Elementary School (25)], [Middle School (15)],[High School (10)] Academic classrooms are those used for basic subject fields, such as social studies, mathematics and English. Usually such classrooms are designed for 20-30 students. Somewhat surprising in school design is the practice of reducing the size of the room as the student becomes more mature. Young children have need for more movement within classrooms, especially since they tend to spend more of their instructional time in one room. Secondary schools are allocated fewer academic space points and more special learning points than elementary school. l Standards for the size of academic learning areas vary from state m state. Some states mandate minimums, others provide recommendations. There are no national standards. The allocation of space for academic areas seems to have evolved from practice rather than from sound educational research. In an academic classroom, regardless of the age of the student, the per student square footage allowance is usually 25-30 (2.33-2.79 square meters). When the state or the school district determines the numbers of students per class or section, the calculation of room size therefore is determined. The following represent generally accepted room sizes: Suggested Academic Classroom Size Minimal Acceptable Ideal Kindergarten (and PreK.) 900 (83.70*) 1050 (97.65). 1200 (111.60) Elementary School 700 (65.10) 800 (74.40) 900 (83.70) Middle School 650 (60.45) 750 (69.75) 850 (79.05) High School 600 (55.80) 700 (65.10) 800 (74.40) *Values in parenthesis represent metric equivalents. Schools designed with the "open space" concept as an educational philosophy tend to provide instructional spaces that do not coincide with the above standards. For those schools the square footage standard for a per student calculation is applicable. 34 The Counal of Educational Fadlity Planners, International Guide for School Facility Appraisal 00~~17 5.5 Storage for student materials is adequate . [Elementary School (10)], [Middle School and High School (5)] Students have at least two different needs for storage. Depending upon the climate and the season, wearing apparel must be accommodated. For all except the young student, metal lockers located in the corridors will adequately serve this need. Lockers may be wall recessed or located iti locker pools (clusters). Regardless of the type of installation, the sufficiency of size and number is an important factor. Convenience of location is also a consideration. For most students (those in a departmentalized instructional program) lockers will also accommodate books and materials. In self-contained rooms, student desks will serve for most individual belongings. Cupboazds, cabinets and drawers aze often needed in classrooms to store project materials which cannot easily be taken from the room. 5.6 Storage for teacher materials is adequate. [Elementary School ('10)], [Middle School and High School (5)] The storage of personal belongings of the teacher necessitates a wardrobe or cabinet of sufficient height to accommodate afull-length coat Shelves are also very essential This storage area should have a lock to assure protection for items kept there. In some larger secondary schools, department office storage provides desirable space to take care of teacher needs. In addition, each classroom should have book and paper supply storage suffici~ to keep the materials for the specific teaching station. Seldom does a classro [Wily have enough storage space. Teachers generally express a need for more such . space. 5.7 Size of special learning area(s) meets standards. (15j In special learning areas, it is essential to determine the typical class size for the specific program. The instructional areas to be considered here include but are not limited to: remedial classes, speech and journalism, special education, computer laboratories, in-school suspension, etc. The general guideline for the allocation of space regardless of grade level is approximately 25-30 square feet (2.3-2.8 square meters) per student. For the specialized subject areas (mostly at the secondary level) the following are typical allocations of space on a per student basis: 38 The Council of Educational Facility Planners, International Guide for School Facility Appraisal t~0U018 1y - Suggested Space~f,or Special Learning Areas Area Square Footage Square Meters Art 45-50 4.19-4.65 Commercial Bookkeeping 25-35 2.33-3.26 Business Law 25-30 2.33-2.79 Related Business Education 25-30 2.33-2.79 Typing 35-40 3.25-3.72 Crafts 45-50 4.19-4.65 Industrial Arts Shop (min. 1800 sq. ft., 167.4 sqm.) 100-110 9.30-10.23 . , Mechanical Drawings 35-40 3.26-3.72 Language Laboratory 45-50 4.19-4.65 Library 30 per seated student for a minimum of 1596 of student body Music Band {min. 2000 sq. ft., 186 sqm.} 40-50 3.72-4.65 Choir 30-35 2.79-3.26 Physical Education Dressing Rooms 50-60 4.19-5.58 Health Classrooms 25-30 2.33-2.79 Science Laboratory 45-50 4.19-4.65 Special Education 35-45 3.26-4.19 Auditorium i Audience Space 10-12/seated capacity 0.93-1.12 Stage & Total Auxiliary Space 3750-4800 348.75-446.40 1 5.8 Design of special learning areas is compatible with instructional need. (10) Schools designed specifically for the program offered usually provide space that ~ at least serves reasonably well. Occasionally rooms may beodd-shaped, long and narrow, or with alcoves which may be unsuited for regular instructional needs. ' The problem referenced here more often occurs in old obsolete buildings or in buildings used originally at an instructional level and then transformed, with a minimum of modification, for use at a different level. High schools, after many years of use, sometimes are converted to elementary of junior high schools, so as ' to permit the construction of a new high school. Such a conversion often results in a building with space inappropriate for the current program. For each special learning area the design of the space should have evolved from the specific in- struction to be provided. ,,i The Coundl of Edugtional Facility Planners, International Guide for School Facility Appraisal ~®V 19 ~~.J( J 5.9 Ubrary/Resource/Media Center provides appropriate and attractive space. [Elementary School (10)]; [Middle School and High School (15)] Te1~1 a+u~:#alotape • ~~~'<~~~>~>~ This space maybe given a variety of names. Some schools accommodate media ~'°7" ~ in the same area with library materials, thus creating an instructional materials P center. Whether these needs are combined or met separately, adequacy is a signif-scant factor. Accreditation standards usually refer very specifically to this portion of the school with an emphasis on available seating and work space for 10- 15°Io of the swdent body. Design and decor are a major factor in this area. Even in schools with all hard surfaced floors the library is often carpeted. Storage and workspace for repair and cataloging is essential for an adequate center. See space Emm~a. Standards under 5.7. r?jllreiilt: z:alfgr 5.10 Gymnasium (or covered P.E. are) adequately serves physical education instruction [Elementary] (5) 5.10 Gymnasium and outdoor facilities adequately serve physical education instruction. [Middle School (10)]; [High School (15)] Physical education should be provided at the elementary level although it is not always mandated. It is assumed the program provides more than supervised play. If appropriate enclosed (interior) space is not available, then an outdoor covered area is acceptable. Sometimes lunchrooms are used as multi-purpose areas including physical education. Such an arrangement is appropriate if sufficient time is provided for class schedules. The tasks of rearrangement of furniture creates an extra workload, however. Middle school facili[ies require a gymnasium available for swell-rounded program. Bleachers are not a necessity although if they are available the gym may substitute for an auditorium. Typically, such an arrangement is less than ideal. At the high school level provision is usually made for physical education and athletics. For these upper grades, the total plant must include shower and dressings rooms, equipment storage space, adequate ventila[ion, spectator accom- modations. Title IX requirements now stress the adequacy of girls' facilities comparable in size and convenience to that provided for boys. See space standards provided under 5.7. 5.11 Pre-kindergarten and kindergarten space is appropriate for the age of students and nature of instruction. [Elementary] (10) Too often as kindergarten programs and those for four-year-olds are initiated, a regular elementary classroom is provided. This amount of space is insufficient usually for the amount of activity necessary for children of this age. Some open space, informal alcoves, and arrangements for quiet time are needed. Large play apparatus takes space and extra materials storage is essential. Direct access to a fenced play area is important. Usually restroom space.separate from that uscd by the older students is provided. Carpeted floors help to create a pleasant environ- mentand aids in effective use of the floor space. 40 The Counal of Educational Facility Planners, International Guide for School Facility Appraisal V0~~~0 5.11 Science program is provided sufficient space and equipment. [Middle School & High School] (10)~ At both middle school and high school levels science is a very important instructional area. Classroom space and laboratory space should be provided. Lab stations are needed for small groups of students (3~t) and in sufficient numbers to accommodate classes of 20-25 students. Teacher preparation space is essential. Often such space is located between two instructional azeas so as to serve more than one teacher. Note carefully the provision for the several science areas since their needs are quite different. ~ 5.12 The music program is provided adequate sound treated space. [Elementary School (5)], [Middle School (10)], [High School] (10) Music programs aze now universally accepted at all grade levels. Although in some elementary schools, the music teacher brings the program to the homeroom, separate space is highly desirable. Storage is an important factor for vocal music but becomes an increasing demand in the middle and high school instrumental programs. Partial acoustical treatment of walls and ceilings is necessary for quality instruction and also to avoid transmission of sound to other areas of the building. Tiered construction of space eliminates the need for portable risers. ~ Separate rooms for vocal and instrumental programs are usually necessary except in schools with small enrollments. See space standazds under 5.7. 5.13 Space for art is appropriate for special instruction, supplies, and equipment. [Elementary School (5)j, [Middle School (10)], [High School (10)] ; The space for the art program should accommodate either individual or small ~ grouptablespace. Lightingshouldprovidegreaterilluminationthaninmostother instructional space, and provision for natural light with a northern exposure is ~ highly desirable. Direct access to out-of-doors is especially desirable. Access to water and sinks is necessary. Storage for supplies and ongoing projects is critical in art rooms. Square footage per student is in the 45-50 range (4.18-4.65 square meters). ~ 5.14 Space for technology education, including computer labs, permits use of state-of-the-art equipment. [Elementary School (5)], [Middle School and High School (10)] Technology education now encompasses much of what in the past was provided under vocational/technical programs. Computer labs aze provided at all levels of instruction, elementary and secondary. The table that follows includes space generally considered to be vocational in nature. -. i The Counal of Educations! Faality Planners, International ~ J Guide for Scnool Facility Appraisal 1 t~0U3~1 Suggested Space for Vocational Program Areas Area Square Footage Square Meters Vocational Agriculture Shop (min. 1800 sq. ft., 100-110 9.30-10.23 167.4 sqm.) Classroom 25-30 2.33-2.79 Arco mechanics Shop (min. 2500 sq. ft., 232.5 sqm.) 150 13.95 Cosmetology Laboratory 90 8.37 Distributive Education 300 2.79-3.72 Homemaking Clothing 40-50 3.721.65 Foods 40-50 3.72-4.65 Industrial Cooperative Training 25-30 2.32-2.79 5.15 Space adjacent to regular classrooms is provided for small groups and remedial instruction. (5) There is a tendency for elementary schools to allocate all or most of its instructional space to typical classrooms. As instruction has become more oriented to small groups and individuals, a greater variety of space sizes have become necessary. Therefore, one should expect to find appropriate space f~ such educational activities as remedial reading, speech correction, federal ti programs, etc. Such instructional activities should not be regulated to corridors, libraries, stages and boiler rooms. At the secondary level a variety of space is needed to serve this instructional need. 5.16 Storage space for student and teacher material is adequate. (5) In special learning areas, storage for student and teacher materials can be critical because the amount of materials tends to be more extensive than in the regulaz academic subjects. The adequacy of storage assumes that in most of the special learning areas both open and closed shelving will be found and where necessary the appropriate security will be provided. See information provided in 5.5 and 5.6. 5.17 Teachers' lounge and work areas reflect teachers as professionals. (10) Research on facilities and learning suggests an important linkage between student learning enhancement and the manner in which professional quality space is provided to teachers. The space dedicated to teachers is one indication of the important role of teachers. The amount of space, the furnishings, access to supplies, telephone and computers among other things provided to teachers contribute to the instructional process. 42 The Council of Educational Fadlity Planners, International Guide for School Facility Appraisal uouo~z 1 Sometimes the space for teachers' lounge and work is two separate areas but often is is a combined single space. In some traditional school systems. the name lounge is avoided since there is a belief that teachers need a work room but not a lounge. This space should be well furnished with comfortable lounge furniture, preferably for coffee and snacks. Microwave equipment is no longer a luxury. In a separate room or a large combined area, table space and copy equipment are necessary. In a lazge school, several smaller teacher areas may be more convenient. Restroom facilities for both men and women teachers should be available preferably with entrances separate from but adjacent to the lounge. This total area requires about 500-1000 square feet (465-93.0 squaze meters) for each 25 teachers. 5.18 Cafeteria/cafetorium isattractive with sufficient space for delivery, storage & food preparation. (10) At the elementazy level the cafeteria may serve as amulti-purpose facility or cafetorium. In all schools effort is needed to create anon-institutional environ- ment. Most areas will be more inviting if the walls, ceiling and floorprovide a well decorated effect. Color and arrangement of tables in the dining area make a great difference in the creation of a desirable atmosphere. Where possible, some exterior dining space creates a pleasant setting during mild weather. A variation in size and shape of tables is beneficial. ~_ Serving areas should be carefully designed for sufficient space and to preclude crossing or overlapping of student lines. Fogd preparation space should be large enough to accommodate the type of meals and the number of kitchen personnel. Convenience is a major factor. It is not unusual to find food preparation azeas designed with too much space. Restroom facilities with arrangements for handwashing accommodations are a general requirements for all kitchen help. The design of arrangements for return trays is an important consideration. These standards are suggested: Area Square Footage Square Meters Kitchen 2 sq. ft. per meal served 0.19 Serving 0.5-0.8 sq. ft. per 0.05-0.07 capacity of dining area Dining 10-14 per seated student 0.93-1.30 The Counal of Educational Facility Planners, Inilemational Guide for School Facility Appraisal 1 ~OU323 5.19 Administrative offices provide an appearance consistent with the maturity of students served [Elementary School (5)], [Middle School and High School 10)] The administrative suite for an elementary school is often a secondary principal's office with less space. For elementary age students the image of the office should be that of a place to seek help. Less space is needed buc furniture, counters, etc., should be designed to fit the age of the swdents. At the secondary level this area of the school will be much larger, will have signs to identify such functions as swdent attendance, admissions, registration, administrative staff, etc. In this manner, the administrative office sets a tone for an appropriate operation of the building 5.20 Counselor's office insures privacy and sufficient storage. [Elementary School and Middle School (5)], [High School (10)] This item refers in fact to the school's guidance function. At the elementary level these services may be on apart-time basis but space in the building for student consultation on both individual and small group basis is necessary. For the middle and high schools such space is needed for full-time personnel. A modest reception areaand one or more counselor's offices will be essential. A conference room and storage for materials and supplies complete the requirements. Suggested space needed is: Area Square Footage Square Meters Reception 100.200 9.3-18.6 Counselor's Office -one or more 120-150 11.16-13.95 Conference Room 125-150 11.63-13.95 Individual Testing Roon 40-50 3.72-4.65 Storage 300 1.79-3.72 5.21 Clinic area is near administrative offices and is equipped to meet requirements. (5j The clinic (health suite) regardless of institutional level is typically located near the principal's (or other administrative) office. This is especially appropriate in a school with a modest enrollment where diversified personnel are usually not available. Restrooms, water and privacy are all essential. The following suggestions refer to space allocations: Area Square Footage Square Meters Total Suite -Elementary and Middle School 500-550 46.50-51.15 High School Office (nurse) 150.175 13.95-16.28 Exam room 275-300 25.58-27.90 Waiting Room 100-150 9.30-13.95 Rest Area (separate by sex) 100-150 9.30-13.05 Restrooms 30-40 1.79-3.72 44 The Counal of Educational Facility Planners, International Guide for School Facitify Appraisal OU~13~4 1 1 5.22 Suitable reception area is available for students, teachers and visitors. (5) D There is need for a lobby or foyer in the administrative area This petmits those entering or leaving the administrative area to avoid the heavy student traffic during the passing of classes. A minimum of 200 square feet (18.60 square meters) should be provided with increased amounts according to_ school enrollments. 5.23 Administrative personnel are provided with sufficient work space and privacy. (5) These offices will usually comprise at least a principal's office and secretary's reception area. For larger schools, space for 1-3 assistant principals and clerical personnel should be provided. A conference area. supply storage, restroom(s) and records storage may require speck assigned space. The administrative suite should be attractive and well-lighted. The office area should assure that adequate privacy is provided for all personnel for student and parent consultation. Usually the administrative space is located near the main entrance to the building. In larger schools, a decentralised staffing arrangement may necessitate the space be assigned in several locations throughout the building. These allocations of space may be helpful: Area Square Footage Square Meters Principal's O,f)ice 200-250 18.60-23.25 Asst. Principal's Office 150-200 13.95-18.60 Reception-Elementary/ Middle School 200-250 18.60-23.25 d 3 Reception-High School 300-350 27.90-32.55 Storage 75-100 6.98-9.30 Vault 50-75 4.65-6.98 Clerk 100-150 9.30-13.95 ~ Conference Room 250-300 23.25-27.90 The Counal of Educational Facility Planners, International Guide for School Facility Appraisal .~ 45 oouo~s • THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK . • OOU3~6 ATTACHMENT C MINUTES SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: Wednesday, July 24, 2002 PLACE: 13601 Saratoga Avenue TYPE: Study Session -Saint Andrew's Facilities Master Plan Present: Chair Jackman, Vice Chair Kurasch, Cynthia Barry, Jill Hunter, and George Roupe. Absent: Commissioners Zutchi and Garakani. Staff: Christine Oosterhous, Associate Planner Chair Jackman called the meeting to order at 5:10 p.m. Scott Sheldon, applicant, presented the project. Commissioner Roupe inquired about enrollment increases as a result of the proposed project. He expressed interest in establishing a limit on the number of students and parishioners and/or conditioning the project to require Planning Commission review if increases in enrollment are desired at a later date. Commissioner Hunter expressed concern with establishing limitations on enrollment size. The Commissioners requested the acoustic and traffic study. The Commissioners inquired if the parking standards are based on square feet or land use. They requested more information about whether the project is meeting the parking standards required by the zoning ordinance. Commissioner Hunter noted the proposed landscaping throughout the parking lot and noted it would be an improvement. Commissioner Kurasch suggested tying in the proposed landscaping with the Heritage Lane streetscape by utilizing native trees such as Oaks. Commissioner Barry inquired about the flow of traffic. Chair Jackman asked how many cars can be accommodated during queuing. Commissioner Kurasch inquired about changes made to the bell tower from the original proposal. Chair Jackman asked about the bell ringing schedule. • OOU3~'7 Commissioner Barry had concern about whether the existing neighbors would welcome the addition of a peal of bells to their neighborhood. She expressed interest in canvassing the neighborhood for feedback on the issue. Chair Jackman expressed an interest in getting a recording of the sound of the proposed bells. She also noted that if the bell tower were moved from its proposed location along Saratoga Avenue toward the center of the parcel it would be located closer to residences located behind the site. Commissioner Barry requested more information about an expansion the Planning Commission approved at Sacred Heart. Chair Jackman inquired if the auditorium would be available for use by persons and activities not affiliated with St. Andrew's school and parish. Commissioner Kurasch expressed concern with the height and mass of the proposed buildings and the amount of proposed floor area. Chair Jackman inquired about the distance between the buildings at St. Andrew's and the residences behind the site. Commissioner Barry commented that existing schools in the City are well screened by landscaping and expressed an interest in the same result with the proposed project. Commissioner Kurasch was concerned with the height and mass of the administration building and its impact on surrounding residences. Commissioner Barry inquired about the possibility of integrating the bell tower with the clergy building. Chair Jackman and Commissioner Roupe expressed contentment with the proposed location of the bell tower. Commissioner Kurasch found the height and size of the bell tower to be imposing. Commissioner Roupe inquired about an architectural detail on the proposed buildings. Several Commissioners expressed interest in matching the proposed roof color to the existing roof color of the sanctuary. The Commissioners liked the appearance of the materials depicted on the model verse the materials proposed in their packets. They prefer to see softer colors proposed to help blend the project into the natural environment. Commissioner Barry inquired about the proposed lighting for the parking lot. Commissioner Roupe inquired about the timeline of the proposed project. UO-U~28 The Commissioners requested staff to research and compile the following information: ^ Existing use permits on file ^ Traffic study ^ Acoustic study ^ Site coverage data (existing and proposed) ^ Parking requirements ^ Data on Sacred Heart approval. a Bell ringing schedule The Commissioners will notify staff upon review of the above materials as to whether or not they feel another study session is necessary. Meeting adjourned at 6:15 p.m. • • OOU~~9 • THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK . • OOU030 s To: City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Attention: Building/Planning Complaint From: Marc E. King 19640 Braemar Drive Saratoga, CA 95070 Eileen M. King 19640 Braemar Drive Saratoga, CA 95070 Date: 7/18/02 gyIpn), ~6[~8~~ ~~) uu JUL 2 2 2002 ~u~ CIl l' OF SAKATOGA ^OMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Re: Objection to Proposal for Expansion at Saint Andrews and Objection to Findings and Recommendations of Traffic Study Performed Ladies and Gentlemen: Introduction: We strongly object to the proposed expansion and alteration actions of Saint Andrews Church/School. We strongly object to the findings and recommendations of the traffic study reported and dated 6/21 /02 for the proposed construction action. Saratoga is a residential community. The entire community is subject to strict building restrictions, and the community has been restricted in this way for a very long time. The proposal b}' Saint Andrews in completely unprecedented and unacceptable. The facility and business of St. Andrews is not a priority for the neighborhood or for the city. It is solely a business priority for Saint Andrews. If Saint Andrews desires to expand and enhance it's business and business opportunities, then it should do so by moving away from its present residential-based area to another site more suitable for non- residential affairs. As previously objected: The neighborhood near the existing church and school is already dangerous and congested from traffic. The area on Braemar Drive alone is in genuine risk of becoming a thoroughfare as a bypass to the increasing congestion between the library and Saint Andrews. Children at play in the neighborhood are already at risk. pOt1~31 Anyone near the school who intends to sell their residence in the near future will need to disclose the building action to the buyer. This will greatly and adversely affect their property value. Future sales would also be adversely affected by the negative effect on the existing residential community. There has already been too much environmental affect by the school on the nearby Saratoga Creek area and the otherwise friendly aesthetics of the community. We completely object to any proposal that increases the physical size of any existing facility at Saint Andrews. Objections to the traffic report dated 6/21/02: This report does not read as an objective evaluation of the traffic issues in the Saint Andrews area. 1. It is highly qualitative. Words like "not substantially" and "not expected to be significant" abound when the report should be stating facts and figures. 2. A first year law student could easily underline the hearsay that has been substituted for facts and commitments regarding site population. 3. It has no adverse findings at all. Extremely surprising for any objective evaluation. 4. It ignores the fact that it is almost impossible to turn left while exiting Saint Andrews due to the traffic congestion. There is, in effect, aone-way traffic flow that has been overlooked by a supposedly objective traffic report. The report contains no information or analysis of the new construction directly opposite the Saint Andrews driveways, hardly the sign of a thorough and objective evaluation. I need go no further to discredit this report. Conclusions: An increase in physical size of the Saint Andrews facility is irresponsible. Without severe restrictions on size, without an enforced commitment to site population, and without an objective evaluation of the area traffic, this request and plan -is absolutely unprecedented for the City of Saratoga. ~0~~~~ The citizens of Saratoga will expect Saint Andrews, and the City of Saratoga, to be responsible in this matter, and will likewise expect Saint Andrews, and the City of Saratoga, to be accountable in this matter. We trust that you deal with this in a responsible and objective manner. Thank you. Sincerely, Marc E. K' g ~~ ` ~ f Eileen M. K' g ~00~1~33 THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK . ;7 OOv034 AY~~ A~ H Ivl ~ iv DRAFT • INITIAL STUDY CITY OF SARATOGA 1. Project Title: Application No. DR-O1-035 (Design Review), ED-O1-002 (Environmental Determination), & UP-O1-013 (Use Permit) 2. Project Location: 13601 Saratoga Avenue, Saratoga, California 3. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Saratoga, Planning Department, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070 4. Contact Person & Phone Number: Christine Oosterhous AICP, Associate Planner (408) 868-1286 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: St. Andrew's Parish and School 13601 Saratoga Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 6. General Plan Designation: Quasi Public Facility (QPF) 7. Zoning: Residential (R-1 20,000) 8. Description of Project: Proposed improvements to the site are as follows: demolish the existing school buildings, re-grade and reconfigure the front parking lot, enhance drop-off and pick-up queuing capability, construct a total of six new structures including classrooms, clergy offices, bell tower, administration offices, performing arts/gymnasium and a parish center 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Surrounding land uses include single-family residences. The Saratoga City Library is located across the street from the project site. The City of Saratoga Heritage Lane commences at the project site. A residence listed on the City's Historic Resources Inventory is located to the South of the project site. 10. Other agencies whose approval is required: Santa Clara Valley Water District • Draft Initial Study 13601 Saratoga Avenue City ojSaratoga, CA ~0~~35 DRAFT Environmental Factors Potentially Affected: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist below: ^ Aesthetics ^ Agricultural Resources ^ Air Quality ^ Biological Resources ^ Cultural Resources ^ Geology/Soils ^ Hazards & Hazardous Materials ^ Hydrology/Water Quality ^ Land Use/Planning ^ Mineral Resources ^ Noise ^ Population/Housing ^ Public Services ^ Recreation ^ Transportation/Traffic ^ Utilities/Service Systems ^ Mandatory Findings of Significance Determination: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. / I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potential significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but a least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been address by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Christine Oosterhous AICP, Associate Planner Date • 2 Draft Initial Study 13601 Saratoga Avenue City of Saratoga, C~oE'~,~~ DRAFT • Potentially Less than Less than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated 1. AESTHETICS. Would the project: A) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? X Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Discussion: The proposed project which includes three-story structures with heights up to 54 feet may interfere with the views of residences in the vicinity of the project. Mitigation: Story poles shall be constructed to determine the impacts of the proposed three story structures on the views of surrounding residences. Two story structures with maximum height limits of less than proposed maybe required. B) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings and historic buildings within a scenic highway? X Less than significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Discussion: The City Arborist is reviewing the revised project. Arborist comments are not available at this time. Mitigation: All recommendations of the arborist shall be met. C) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its • surroundings? X Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Discussion: The 54 ft bell tower located approximately 35 feet from Saratoga Avenue will be imposing and massive as viewed from the public right of way. Mitigation: The bell tower shall be reduced in height, relocated toward the center of the site, or eliminated from the project. D) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or night time views in the area? X Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Discussion: The proposed color #2 (attachment 12, sheet M-1) is too light and reflective. Mitigation: The proposed materials and colors shall blend with the natural environment 3 Draft Initial Study 13601 Saratoga Avenue City of Saratoga, CA OOf ~~~~ DRAFT Potentially Less than Less than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated 2. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: A) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance, as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? X No impact. Discussion: The proposed protect does not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. Refer to section 2b (Source: Fannland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency). B) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract? No impact. X Discussion: The project site is not zoned for agricultural use and is not under a Williamson Act contract (Source: City of Saratoga Zoning District Map an General Plan Map). • C) Involve other changes in the existing environment which due to their location or nature, could result in conversation of Farmland, to non-argricultural use? X No impact. Discussion: Refer to section 2a & b (Source: Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, City of Saratoga Zoning District Map and General Plan Map). 3. AIR QUALITY. Would the project: A) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plans? X No impact. Discussion: The proposed project does not include an increase in student; parishioner, or employee enrollment; therefore, no new traffic volumes are expected (Source: Review of the proposed project, Traffic Study, Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc., Bay Area Air Quality Management District). • 4 Draft Initial Study 13601 Saratoga Avenue City ojSaratoga, CA ~0~~ ~S DF~AFT • _ Potentially Less than Less than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated B) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? X No impact. Discussion: The Bay Area Air Quality Management District does not recommend a detailed air quality analysis for projects that generate less than 2,000 vehicle trips per day. Refer to section 3a (Source: Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD). C) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standards (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? X No impact. Refer to 3 a & b (Source: BAAQMD). D) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? X No impact. Discussion: A sensitive receptor is generally defined as a location such as a school, retirement facility or hospital where populations could be exposed to continuous emissions. Refer to 3 a & b (Source: BAAQMD, review of the proposed project). E) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? X Less than significant with mitigation. Discussion: During the construction phase of the project, unpleasant odors from construction materials may be present on the site overt the short term; however, the long term creation of objectionable odors is not associated with the proposed project. Mitigation: Short term construction emissions will be controlled through the implementation of Feasible Control Measure for Construction Emission, Table 2, including Basic Enhanced and Optional Control Measures of the BAAQMD Guidelines. (Source: BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines) 3. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: A) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Dept. of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? X No Impact. 5 Draft Initial Study 13601 Saratoga Avenue City ofSaratoga, CA ©OJ'~~~9 DRAFT Discussion: The propose project is not located in an area where endangered species are known to exist. (Source: Saratoga General Plan, Conservation Element) Potentially Less than Less than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated B) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural. community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Dept. of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? X No impact. Discussion: Refer to 3a. C) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? X No impact. Discussion: The proposed project does not include filling or dredging of wetland, coastal, marine or riparian areas. D) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? X No impact. Discussion: Refer to 3 a & c. E) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such. as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? X Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Discussion: The City Arborist shall review the proposed project. Mitigation: All conditions of the Arborist Report shall be implemented (Source: Arborist Reports). F) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? X No impact. Discussion: Refer to 3 a & c. 6 Draft Initial Sludy 13601 Saratoga Avenue City ojSaratoga, CA 00~~40 DRAFT • Potentially Less than Less than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated 4. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: A) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in § 15064.5? X No impact. Discussion: There are no historical resources located on the site (Source: Saratoga Historic Resources Inventory). B) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource as defined in § 15064.5? X Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Discussion: The proposed project is located adjacent to the Saratoga Creek. Waterways, including streams and creeks were often places where Native Americans (California Indians) lived or carried out activities. Mitigation: If archaeological resources or human remains are discovered during construction, work shall be halted within a 50 meter radius of the find until it can be evaluated by a qualified professional archaeologist. If the find is determined to be significant, appropriate mitigation measures shall be formulated and implemented. (Source: Northwest Information Center) C) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? X No impact. Discussion: The project site has not been identified as containing any unique paleontological or geological features (Source: City of Saratoga General Plan) D) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? X Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Discussion: Refer to section 4b. • 7 Draft Initial Study 13601 Saratoga Avenue City of Saratoga, CA U~v341 DRAFT Potentially Less than Less than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated 5. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: A) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: • (i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? X Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Discussion: Discussion: The project site is located approximately 300 feet from the Shannon Fault. The Shannon fault is one of two "potentially." active faults within the city limits. A potentially active fault is one that has moved within the last 2 million to 11,000 years and is judged to be capable of ground rupture or shaking, posing an unacceptable risk to a proposed structure. The Shannon Fault is considered "potentially" active because there is no reliable evidence of recent displacement along the Fault. In compliance with State legislation (Alquist-Priolo Geologic Hazards Zones Act) the California Division of Mines and Geology has established Special Studies Zones along faults considered to be active or potentially active. When development for human occupancy is proposed within these zones, special studies relating to seismic hazards are required and must be submitted to the City Geologist for review. At the present time, the San Andreas Fault is the only area within the City and its Sphere of Influence that the State has designated as a Special Studies Zone. The project site is not located in the San San Andres Fault Zone (I). The project site is located in the Valley Floor Zone (V). Zone V can support urban residential development. Geological investigation is not necessary, but soils analysis should be required. Mitigation measure required: A soils investigation shall be performed (Source: City of Saratoga General Plan Seismic Hazards, Key for Map 1). (ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? X Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Discussion: Ground shaking intensity in the Valley Floor Zone (V) ranges from six-eight on the Mercalli Scale. Range six on the Mercalli Scale is defined as being felt by all, some heavy furniture moved; a few instances of fallen plaster and damaged chimneys. Damage slight. Range eight on the Mercalli Scale is defined as.damage slight in specially designed structures; fall of chimneys, factory stacks, columns, monuments; heavy furniture overturn. Refer to 6a(i). Mitigation measure required: A soils investigation shall be performed (Source: City of Saratoga General Plan Seismic Hazards, Key for Map 1; Mercalli Scale). g Draft Initial Study 13601 Saratoga Avenue City ojSaratoga, CA ©©, ~A~~ DRAFT • Potentially Less than Less than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated (iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? X Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Discussion: Ground failure probability is low -medium in the Valley Floor Zone (V). Refer to 6a(i). Mitigation measure required: A soils investigation shall be performed (Source: City of Saratoga General Plan Seismic Hazards; Key for Map 1). (iv) Landslides? X Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Discussion: Landslide probability is low in the Valley Floor Zone (V). Refer to 6a(i). Mitigation measure required: A soils investigation shall be performed (Source: City of Saratoga General Plan Seismic Hazards; Key for Map 1). B) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? X Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Discussion: The proposed project will require a grading and drainage permit issued by the Public Works Department. Review of the proposed project by engineering staff will mitigate soil erosion and the loss of topsoil. Construction activity may result in short term erosion and lack of sediment control. Mitigation measure required: All conditions of the grading and drainage permit shall be implemented. Short term soil erosion and sediment control resulting from construction activity will be controlled through the implementation of Feasible Control Measures for Construction Emission, Table 2 including Basic, Enhanced and Optional Control Measure of the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (Source: Public Works, BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines). C) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? X Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Discussion: Refer to 6a(i-iv). Mitigation measure required: A soils investigation shall be performed (Source: City of Saratoga General Plan Seismic Hazards, Key to Map 1). • D) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1997), creating substantial risks to life or property? X Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Discussion: The proposed project is not located on expansive soil. The proposed project is located on soil type "Sbr". "Sbr" is identified as an area of relatively stable ground. Mitigation measure required: A soils investigation shall be performed (Source: City of Saratoga General Plan Seismic Hazards). 9 Draft Initial Study 13601 Saratoga Avenue City of Saratoga, CA~O~~~~ DRAFT Potentially Less than Less than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated 6. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: A) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? X No impact. Discussion: The proposed project does not include the transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials (Source: Review of the proposed project). B) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? X No impact. Refer to section 6a (Source: Review of the proposed project). • C) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? X No impact. Refer to section 6a (Source: Review of the proposed project). D) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Gov. Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? X No impact. Discussion: The proposed project is not included on a list of hazardous materials (Source: Government Code Section 65962.5). E) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? X No impact. The existing land use anal density on site remain the same and can be assisted by existing City-wide emergency response and evacuation plans (Source: City of Saratoga General Plan, Safety Element). F) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? X No impact. Discussion: The proposed project is located in a developed portion of the City's valley floor. There are no wild lands located within or adjacent to the project site (Source: Review of the proposed project). 1 ~ Draft /nitial Study 13601 Saratoga Avenue City ojSaratoga, CA ... ~~~~ A DRAFT • • Potentially Less than Less than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated 7. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: A) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? X Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Discussion: A grading and drainage permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer. Mitigation: All conditions of the Santa Clara Valley Water District shall be met. All conditions of the grading and drainage permit shall be met. B) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate ofpre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? X No impact. Discussion: The land use at the site remains the same. The proposed project can be accommodated within existing levels of service (Source: San Jose Water Company). C) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? ~ X Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Discussion: Refer to section 7a. D) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? X Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Refer to section 7a. E) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? }{ Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Refer to section 7a. F) Otherwise substantially degrade water? X Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Refer to section 7a. 11 Draft Initial Study 13601 Saratoga Avenue City of Saratoga, CA ~~ ~;. `~ ~ *S DRAFT Potentially Less than Less than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated G) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other. flood hazard delineation map? X No impact. Discussion: No housing is proposed (Review of the proposed project). H) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? X No impact Discussion: No structures are located in a 100-year flood hazard area (Source: FEMA). • I) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? X No impact. Discussion: The proposed project is not located near a reservoir. J) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? X No impact. Discussion: The project site is not located in an area that is prone to flooding, tidal waves, or mudflow. 7. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: A) Physically divide an established community? X No impact. Discussion: The proposed use at the site (Quasi Public Facility) remains unchanged (Source: General Plan). B) Conflict with any applicable-land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? X Less than.significant with mitigation incorporated. Discussion: The proposed project may be growth inducing. An increase in capacity on site may result in negative impacts to the community. Mitigation: Planning Commission approval shall be required in the event that student enrollment increases are desired at a later date. • 12 Draft Initial Study 13601 Saratoga Avenue City of Saratoga, C~O, ,~~~ DRAFT • Potentially -Less than Less than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated C) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? X Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. The project site is not within an area that is subject to a habitat or natural community conservation plan. Refer to the discussions of biological resources contained in Section 3 of this Initial Study (Source: City of Saratoga General Plan, Conservation Element). 8. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: A) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? X No impact. Discussion: Mineral resources within Saratoga and surrounding areas include sandstone and shale. There are no mines or quarries known to be operating in Saratoga or its sphere of influence (Source: General Plan, Conservation Element). B) Result in the loss ofavailability of alocally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? X No impact. Refer to section 8a. (Source: General Plan: Conservation Element). 9. NOISE. Would the project result in: A) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? X Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Discussion: The noise study does apply noise sensitive use standards and residential noise standards to the project site and surrounding land uses. Mitigation: The noise assessment study shall be revised: (1) to apply the ambient noise standards for-noise sensitive uses to both the site and surrounding uses MCS 7-30.040(b) and (2) to comply with MCS 7-30.050(a) which restricts single event noise in any residential zoning district to no more than 6 d ba above the ambient noise level at the location where the single event noise source is measured. B) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels (i.e. noise created inside a building, vibration transmitted through the ground, freight train line within 50-100 feet, adjacent to Army base)? X No impact. Discussion: There are no sources of ground born vibration at the proposed site (Source: Review of the proposed project). 13 Draft Initial Study 13601 Saratoga Avenue City of Saratoga, CA 0~~~~~ DRAFT Potentially Less than Less than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated C) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? X Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Refer to section 9a (Source: Review of the proposed project and experience with similar applications). D) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? X Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Refer to section 9a (Source: Review of the proposed project and experience with similar applications). 10. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: • A) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? X No impact. Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? No impact. Discussion: Not applicable. The proposed project is the demolition and reconstruction of an existing school and parish to accommodate existing students and parishioners (Source: Review of the proposed project). B) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No impact. Refer to section 10 a (Source: Review of the proposed project). X C) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? X No impact. Refer to section l0a (Source: Review of the proposed project). D) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No impact. X Discussion: Refer to section l0a (Source: Review of the proposed project). 14 Draft Initial Study 13601 Saratoga Avenue City of Saratoga, C~®~n~Q DRAFT • Potentially Less than Less than No Impact Significant Significant Significant _Im_ pact With Impact _ _ Mitigation Incorporated 11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire Protection X Police Protection X Schools X Parks X Other public facilities X No Impact. Discussion: The existing use of the site as a school and parish hall remains unchanged. The proposed facility can be accommodated within existing levels of service for fire and police protection, schools, and parks (Source: Saratoga Fire District, Santa Clara County Sheriff's Department, Saratoga City Districts, Saratoga Recreation Department). 12. RECREATION. • A) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? No impact. X Discussion: The proposed project services existing populations and includes extensive recreational facilities. The majority of users of the facility (students) are required to remain on the site (Source: Review of the proposed project). B) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? X No impact. Discussion: The proposed project includes ample recreational facilities on site, including: a gymnasium, several play yards and areas, a lunch deck, and outdoor amphitheater (Source: review of the proposed project). 15 Draft Initial Study 13601 Saratoga Avenue City of Saratoga, CAOn~~~Q DRAFT Potentially Less than Less than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated 13. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: A) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system? X Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Discussion: The proposed project will not result in an increase in vehicle trips. The proposed project does not increase student, parishioner, or employee enrollment at the site. The increased on-site vehicle storage is expected to eliminate on-street queuing on Saratoga Avenue. Mitigation: All vehicle queuing shall be accommodated on site. (Source: Traffic Study St. Andrews, Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc., City of Saratoga Circulation Element, 2001). B) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? X No impact. Discussion: The proposed project will not affect existing levels of service. (Source: Traffic Study St. Andrews, Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc.) C) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that result in substantial safety risks? Not applicable to this project. X D) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? X No impact. Discussion: Raised medians and re-stripping will be installed by the City by Spring 2003. The applicant shall install the following off-site improvements as recommended by the Public Works Department 1) to preserve sight lines there shall be no parking from the intersection of Saratoga Ave and Crestbrook Dr 110 feet north, 2) a walkway shall be installed along Saratoga Avenue from Crestbrook Dr to the subject site for pedestrians who park in the Crestbrook Dr neighborhood as overflow parking, and 3) the exit driveway apron shall be pushed out approximately 15 feet for better visibility and easier access to the "safety zone" for those making a left turn. Mitigation measure required: All recommendations of the Public Works Department and City Traffic Consultant shall be met. (Source: City Traffic Consultant, Fehrs & Peers, Public Works Department Conditions, Proposed Ultimate Striping Plan for Saratoga Avenue) E) Result in inadequate emergency access? No impact. Discussion: Refer to section 6e. 16 X ~J • • Draft Initial Study 13601 Saratoga Avenue City of Saratoga, CA ~~~ JJO DRAFT Potentially Less than Less than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated F) Result in inadequate parking capacity? X No impact. Discussion: Since no substantial change in student enrollment is expected, no increase in parking supply is required. Mitigation: Overflow parking for the sanctuary during holidays and Sundays can be accommodated by the library parking lot across the street. G) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g.; bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? X No impact. Discussion: The proposed project includes accommodations for bicycles. Bicycle lanes are striped on both sides of Saratoga Avenue. The Valley Transportation Authority provides bus service on Saratoga Avenue directly in front of the site. The proposed project does not conflict with the public transit service. Regardless of the proposed project, City capital improvements recommend consolidating bus stops in that area and relocating the bus stop in front of St.Andrew's closer to an intersection which is to be signalized in the future (Source: Traffic Study for the proposed project, Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc., Proposed Ultimate Striping Plan for Saratoga Avenue dated July 25, 2002 ). 14. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: A) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board? No impact. X Discussion: The proposed project does not include an increase in students or parishioners; therefore, an increase in capacity beyond existing is not expected. The existing use of the site remains unchanged. (Source: Review of the proposed project) B) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? X No impact. Discussion: The proposed project can be accommodated within the existing level of service. Refer to 14a (Source: Review of the proposed project). C) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? X Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. 17 Draft Initial Study 13601 Saratoga Avenue City of Saratoga, CttA~~ C V®~35~. DRAFT Discussion: The proposed project will require a grading and drainage permit issued by the Public Works Department. Review of the proposed project by engineering staff will mitigate soil erosion and the loss of topsoil. Mitigation: All conditions of the grading and drainage permit shall be implemented (Source: Public Works). Potentially Less than Less than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated D) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the~project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? X No impact. Discussion: The proposed project can be accommodated within the existing level of service. Refer to 14a (Source: Review of the proposed project). E) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? X No impact. Discussion: The proposed project can be accommodated within the existing level of service. Refer to 14a (Source: Review of the proposed project). F) Be served by~a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? X No impact: Discussion: The proposed project can be accommodated within the existing level of service. Refer to 14a (Source: Review of the proposed project). G) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? X No impact. Discussion: Refer to 14f (Source: Review of the proposed project). 15. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. A) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? X Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Discussion: No adverse impacts to wildlife or their habitat shall occur as a result of the proposed project. Refer to section 4 of this initial study for a discussion of biological 1 g Draft Initial Study 1360/ Saratoga Avenue City of Saratoga, CA oO~nC,~y DRAFT concerns. Since the project site is located along a creek the potential remains that cultural resource cold be unearthed during proposed site preparation and construction activities. With incorporation of prescribed mitigation outlined in section 5 of this initial study, no significant disruption of important examples of California history or prehistory shall occur. (Source: City of Saratoga General Plan Conservation Element; Northwest Information Center.) Potentially Less than Less than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated B) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) X Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Discussion: Subject to compliance with the prescribed mitigation measures contained herein to aid in the protection of potentially significant resources and to reduce potentially significant impacts, the effects of the proposed project are not cumulatively considerable. C) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? X Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Discussion: Refer to 17b (Source: Initial Study). ATTACHMENTS: • 1. Feasible Control Measure for Construction Emissions of PM10, Table 2 2. Geotechnical Hazard Evaluation, Key for Map 1 3. Earthquake Intensity, Modified Mercalli Intensity 4. Standards of Construction in Special Flood Hazards (MCS 16.66.090) 5. Noise Control Standards (MCS 7-30.040(b)) 6. Compact Disc sample recording of proposed peal of bells 7. Noise Assessment Study by Edward Pack, Associates dated June 11, 2002 8. Traffic Study by Fehr & Peers, dated June 21, 2002 9. Proposed Ultimate Striping Plan for Saratoga Avenue dated July 25, 2002 10. Public Works Conditions dated August 6, 2002 11. Story pole legend provided by the applicant. 12. Reduced set of project plans dated July 5, 2002 19 Draft Initial Study 13601 Saratoga Avenue City of Saratoga, CA , ~0~~~~3 lL. • THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK • • ~JO~J~.S~ BAAQIVID CEQA GUIDELINES 15 Attachment 1 .h TABLE 2 FEASIBLE CONTROL MEASURES FOR CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS OF PMIo • Water all active construction areas at least twice daily. , • Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboazd. • Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites. • Sweep daily (with water sweepers) all paved access roads, parking areas and staging azeas at construction sites. • Sweep streets daily (with water sweepers) if visible soil material is carried onto adiacent uublic streets. • All "Basic" control measures listed above. • Hydroseed or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas (previously graded azeas inactive for ten days or more). • Enclose, cover, water twice daily or apply (non-toxic) soil binders to exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.) • Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph. • Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways. • Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible. Optianat Conti QI ~J11ea'~u'~~~`~ ~ ~ ~~~to ~~ ~ ~..,Fti~~ ~ ~~ ~Y ~ ~~ ~ '~ , Encouraged at -construction sites~~~ha~+,are e~ ~~rpa ~gt~ ~A ~,-~~~ . _ b~. - + ~ a~a receptors or' which -for an T 4t~`~ ~'*~reason .m~ ~ .. ~. ~~,,,, ,x~rr~~,~~: ~~ ~~~~ a~~a ~.' ~, ~ ~ ~ ~ R ~~~ ~ S • ~ ~Y ~ , k ~ ~ f ~~.i Y f '~ '.j'. ~y~~~~ 1 r~°.~i ~`.S {fin } >retIu coons -~ . ~ , .~ ~ ~~- ~ ~ ~, ,~, ~~ ~ ~r ~ ~~ ~, ,. :~ ~~ ..~ ,. ~ s _ ..,. . _. • Install wheel washers for all exiting trucks, or wash off the tires or tracks of all trucks and equipment leaving the site. • Install wind breaks, or plant trees/vegetative wind breaks at windwazd side(s) of construction areas. • Suspend excavation and grading activity when winds (instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 mph. • Limit the area subject to excavation, grading and other construction activity at any one time. • 001055 C: THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK . • Q0~1~S6 t~ (~ Z KEY FOR MAP 1 ~ I,JJ GEOTECIINiCAL IIAZJIRD EVALUATION ANb R~.COF1Mftl DATJONS FOR SARATOGA TERRAIN UNITS D TERRAIN UNIT • Sah Andreas •~ Fault Zone Foothills Bollman S~.yline Valley F100Y' I II I I I IV. ~ V; NATURAL SEISMIC HAZARDS ' Possibility of Surface Rupture Definite Limited Limited Limited Unlike Gr d Sh ki oun a ng Intensity: M P.1'Ca ~ ( ~ Magnitude 6 - $an And;eas. ~ VI VI VI V VI Magnitude 8.3 = San Andreas ~ X VIII - IX IX IX VIII ~Yl~hsl~ Ground Failure Probability: Landslides Nigh High High Medium Low Subsidence Liquefaction Low N/A Low N/A N/A N/A N/A N Medium Ground Lurching Low Low N/A /A N/A Medium Low Flooding Possible N/A N/A N/A Local• Structural Hazards Very High High High to Moderate High ' Moderate RECOMMENDATIONS ;~: Geotechnical Terrain Unit's Ability to Support Urban Residential Development No Controlled No No 'Yes Geotechnical Terrain Unit's Ability to Support Rural Residential Development No Yes Yes Yes N/A i Geological Investigation Required N/A Yes Yes Yes N/A Soils Investigation Required • N/A Yes Yes Yes Yes Source: Fugro. lnc. for N1111ams a Mocine Geotechnical Report (1974) .• • • a • THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK . • 00~~~58 Modified Mercalli Intensity Modified Mercalli Scale Earthquake Intensity Of the two ways to measure earthquake size, magnitude based on instrumental readings and intensity based on qualitative effects of earthquakes, only intensity can be applied to pre-instrumental earthquakes. The 1931 Modified Mercalli scale used in the United States assigns a Roman numeral in the range I - XII to each earthquake effect. The methodology is simple. . At each location assign a numeral to describe the earthquake effect • Contour the zones of similar effect . The earthquake is assumed to have occurred near the region of maximum intensity . The earthquake may be characterized by the largest Roman numeral assigned to it The problems with intensity are multifold. First, it is a qualitative assessment that measures different phenomena. The lower values address human response to ground motions, the intermediate values characterize the response of simple structures, and the upper values describe ground failure processes. Another problem is that incomplete spatial coverage may lead to a mislocation of the earthquake or an underassessment of its size. This is easily visualized for offshore earthquakes or, in the case of the United States, inadequate population distribution at the time of the earthquake. Average peak velocity (centimeters per second) 1-2 2-5 Intensity value and description I. Not felt except by a very few under especially favorable circumstances. (I Rossi-Forel scale) Page 1 of 2 ATTACHMENT Average peak acceleration (g is gravity=9.80 meters per second squared) II. Felt only by a few persons at rest, especially on upper floors of buildings. Delicately suspended objects may swing. (I to II Rossi-Forel scale) III. Felt quite noticeably indoors, especially on upper floors of buildings, but many people do not recognize it as an earthquake. Standing automobiles may rock slightly. Vibration like passing of truck. Duration estimated. (III Rossi-Forel scale) IV. During the day felt indoors by many, outdoors by few. At night some awakened. Dishes, windows, doors disturbed; walls make creaking sound. Sensation like heavy truck striking building. Standing automobiles rocked noticeably. (IV to V Rossi-Forel scale) V. Felt by nearly everyone, many awakened. Some dishes, windows, and so on broken; cracked plaster in a few places; unstable objects overturned. Disturbances of trees, poles, and O.O15g-0.02g 0.03g-0.048 l~f~J~59 httn~//www.eas.slu.edu/Earthquake Centerlmercalli.html ] /31 /~2 Modified Mercalli Intensity Page 2 of 2 other tall objects sometimes noticed. Pendulum clocks may stop. (V to VI Rossi-Forel scale) 5-8 VI. Felt by all, many_frightened and run outdoors. Some 0.06g-0:07g . - heavy furniture moved; a few instances of faller'plasfer and--" - ` damaged chimneys. Damage slight. (VI to VII Rossi-Forel scale) 8-12 VII. Everybody runs outdoors., Damage negligible in 0.1 Og-O.15g buildings of good design and construction; slight to moderate in well-built ordinary structures; considerable -in poorly built or badly designed structures; some chimneys broken. Noticed by persons driving cars. (~~III Rossi-Fore1 scale) 20-30 VIII. Damage slight in specially designed structures; 0.25g-0.308 considerable in ordinary substantial buildings with partial collapse; great in poorly built structures. Panel walls thrown out of frame structures. Fall of chimneys, factory stack, columns, monuments, walls. Heavy furniture overturned. Sand and mud ejected in small amounts. Changes in well water. Persons driving cars disturbed. (VIII + to IX Rossi-Forel scale) 45-55 IX. Damage considerable in specially designed structures; O.SOg-O.SSg well-designed frame structures thrown out of plumb; great in substantial buildings, with partial collapse.- Buildings shifted off foundations. Ground cracked conspicuously. Underground pipes broken. (IX + Rossi-Forel scale) More than 60 X. Some well-built wooden structures destroyed; most More than 0.608 masonry and frame structures destroyed with foundations; ground badly cracked. Rails bent. Landslides considerable from river banks and steep slopes. Shifted sand and mud. Water splashed, slopped over banks. (X Rossi-Forel scale) XI. Few, if any, (masonry) structures remain standing. Bridges destroyed. Broad fissures in ground. Underground pipelines completely out of service. Earth slumps and land slips in soft ground. Rails bent greatly. XII. Damage total. Waves seen on ground surface. Lines of sight and level distarted. Objects thrown into the air. Bolt, Bruce A. Abridged Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale, Earthquakes -Newly Revised and Expanded, Appendix C, W.H. Freeman and Co. 1993, 331 pp. tDOJ ~~O httn~//www.eas.slu.edu/Earthquake Center/mercalli.html 1/31/02 _~ • • • dare set forth in Article 15-90 of Chapter I S of this Code and, in addition thereto, the Planning Commission shall be guided by the consideration listed in Section 16- 66.150(b) of this Article. (b) In the event a floodplain (development) permit is issued by the Planning Commission, as provided in Section 16-66.060, the Commission shall make the deter- minations prescribed in Section 16-66.080(x) with respect to such permit. (Ord. 71-167 § 2 (part), 1996) 16.66.090 Standards of construction. In all areas of special flood hazards the following stan- dards are required: (a) Anchoring. (1) All new construction and substantial improvements shall be adequately anchored to prevent flotation, collapse or lateral movement of the structure resulting from hydra dynamic and hydrostatic loads, including the effects of buoyancy. (2) All manufactured homes shall meet the anchoring standards of Section 16-66.120. (b) Construction materials and methods. All new construction and substantial improvement shall be con- structed: (1) With materials and utility equipment resistant to flood damage; (2) Using methods and practices that minimize flood damage; (3) With electrical, heating, ventilation, plumbing and air conditioning equipment and other service facilities that are designed and/or located so as to prevent water from entering or accumulating within the components during conditions of flooding; and if (4) Within Zones AH or AO, so chat there are adequate drainage paths around structures on slopes to guide flood waters around and away from proposed structures. (c) Elevation and floodproofing. (See Section 16- 66.040 defutitions for "basement," "lowest floor," "new construction," "substantial damage" and "substantial im- provement.") (1) Residential construction, new or substantial im- provement, shall have dte lowest floor, including basement (i) In an AO Zone, elevated above the highest adjacent grade to a height exceeding the depth number specified in feet on the FIRM by at least one foot, or elevated at least three feet above the highest adjacent grade if no depth number is specified. (ii) In an A Zone, elevated to at least one foot above the base flood elevation, as determined by the City. (iii) In all other zones, elevated to at least one foot above the base flood elevation.. A~ ~ I Hl~ t1 IVI CIV ~ ~+ 16-66.100 Upon the completion of the structure, the elevation of the lowest floor including basement shall be certified by a registered professional engineer or surveyor, and verified by the City's building inspector to be properly elevated. Such Certification and verif cation shall be provided to the Floodplain Administrator. (2) Nonresidential construction, new or substantial improvement, shall either be elevated to conform with Section 16-66.090(c)(1) or together with attendant utility and sanitary facilities: (i) Be floodproofed below the elevation recommended under Section 16-66.090(c)(1) so that the structure is watertight with walls substantially impermeable to the passage of water, (ii) Have structural components capable of resisting hydrostatic and hydrodynamic loads and effects of buoyan- cy; and (iii) Be certified by a registered professional engineer or architect that the standards of this Section 16- 66.090(c)(2) are satisfied. Such certification shall be provided to the Floodplain Administrator. (3) All new corstruction and substantial improvement with fully enclosed areas below the lowest floor (excluding basements) that are usable solely for parking of vehicles, building access or storage, and which are subject to flooding, . shall be designed to automatically equalize hydrostatic flood forces on exterior walls by allowing for the entry and exit of floodwater. Designs for meeting this requirement must exceed the following minimum criteria: (i) Be certified by a registered professional engineer or architect; or (ii) Have a minimum of two openings having a total net area of not less than one square inch for every square foot of enclosed area subject to flooding. The bottom of all openings shall be no higher than one foot above grade. Openings may be equipped with screens, louvers, valves or other coverings or devices provided that they permit the automatic entry and exit of floodwater. (4) Manufactured homes shall also meet the standards in Section 16-66.120. (Ord. 71-167 § 2 (part), 1996) 16-66.100 Standards for utilities. (a) All new and replacement water supply and sanitary sewage systems shall be designed to minimize or elitrii- nate: (1) Infiltration of flood waters into the systems; and (2) Discharge from the systems into flood waters. (b) On-site waste disposal systems shall be located to avoid impairment to them, or contamination from them during flooding. (Ord. 71-167 § 2 (part), 1996) 431 ~ ts~,oge ~s~n ~0~~~~ • THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK . LJ t~0z1~~2 H ~ ~ H~ h rv~ ~~ r 5 7-30.010 r • milk, buttermilk or other diary products sold, designed or advertised as certified shall be conspicuously marked with the name of the commission certifying itand certify- ing the mills from which such cream. skimmed milk and other dairy product is obtained. (c) Guaranteed raw milk. Guaranteed raw milk is market milk which conforms to the following minimum requirements: (1) The health of the cows and goats shall be deter- mined at least once each month by an official represen- tative of a milk inspection service approved or established by the Director of the State Department of Agriculture. (2) It shall be produced on dairy farms which score not less than ninety percent on the dairy farm scorecard. (3) It shall be bottled on the premises where produced and delivered in containers having the pouring lip com- pletely protected from contamination. (4) It shall be cooled immediately after being drawn from the cow or goat to fifty degrees Fahrenheit or less, and so maintained until delivered to the consumer, at which time it shall contain no more than 10,000 bacteria per milliliter. (5) It must be sold to the customer within thirty hours after production and labeled to indicate the date of sale to the consumer. All persons who come in contact with the guaranteed raw [Wilk must exercise scrupulous cleanli- ness and not be afflicted with any communicable disease or in a condition to disseminate the germs of any commu- nicable disease liable to be conveyed by milk. The absence of such germs in all such persons shall be determined by bacteriological and physical examination by the County Health Department or other person or laboratory approved in writing by the Health Departmens, conducted at the time of employment and every six months thereafter in a manner approved by the Health Officer. 7-25.070 Rules and regulations of Health Officer. The Health Officer is hereby authorized to make such rules and regulations, in addition to those contained in this Article, as in his opinion will best serve the public interest. 7-25.080 Seizure of unwholesome food. The Health Officer is hereby authorized and directed to seize and desvoy or denaturize any tainted, decayed, or partially decayed or unwholesome meal, fish. shellfish, tow(, fruits, vegetables or other unwholesome food found within the City. 7-25.090 Meat producLS; compliance with State law; inspection stamps. (a) No person. or agent or employee of any person. shall sell, offer for sale, distribute or have in his posses- sion for sale or distribution in the City; any sausage or other meat food product, unless the same has been manu- factured or prepared in accordance with the laws of the State. (b) No person. or agent or employee of any person, shall sell, offer for sale, distribute or have in his posses- Sion for sale or distribution in the City, the flesh of any caale, horse, sheep, lamb, swine or goat, unless the same -bears on each primal part thereof, the "Inspected and Passed" stamp of an establishment operating under federal inspection, state inspection or approved municipal inspec- tion. 7-25.100 Violations of Article; penalties. The violation of any provision contained in this Article shall constiwte a misdemeanor and a public nuisance, subject to the penalties as set forth in Chapter 3 of this Code. Article 7-30 NOLSE CONTROL Sections: 7-30.010 Purposes of Article. 7-30.020 Definitions. 7-30.030 Exemptions. 7-30.040 Ambient noise standards. 7-30.050 General noise restriction. 7-30.060 Exceptions for specific activities. 7-30.070 Exhaust fans. 7-30.080 Authority to require noise study. 7-30.090 Exception permits. 7-30.100 Violations of Article; enforcement; penalties. 7-30.010 Purposes of Article. This Article is adopted for the following purposes: (a) To protect the citizens of the City from excessive, unnecessary, and unreasonable noises from any and all sources in the community subject to regulation and control by the City; (b) To maintain and preserve the quiet residential atmosphere of the City; (c) To implement the goals and policies contained in the Noisc Element of the City's General Plan; 137 7-30.010 (d) To establish noise standards fer various land uses and activities within the City; (e) To prohibi[ noise which disturbs the peace and quiet of a neighborhood or causes discomfort ~ annoyance to persons of normal sensitivities. (Ord. 71.92 § 1 (part), 1991) 7-30.Q20 Definitions. For the purposes of this Article, the following words and phrases shall have the meanings respectively ascribed to them in this Section, unless the context or the provision clearly requires otherwise: (a) Ambient noise level means the composite of noise from all sources, near and far, constituting the normal or existing level of environmental noise at a given loca- [ion, excluding the noise source in question. (b) Approving authority means the commission, officer or official of the City having the authority to initially approve or deny a particular type of application. (c) Daytime means the twelve hourperiod from 7:00 A.M. to 7:00 P.M. (d) Decibel or dB means a unit of sound of noise level equal to ten times the logarithm, with base ten, of the ratio between the acoustic energy prESented at a given location and the lowest amotmt of acoustic energy audible to sensitive human ears. (e) Decibel A Scale or dBA means a measure of decibels using the "A" scale or "A" weighted network of the sound level meter. (~ Evening means the three hour period from 7:00 P.M. to 10:00 P.M. (°) Nighttime means the nine hour period from 10:00 P.M. to 7:00 A.M. of the following day. (h) Noise level means the maximum continuous sound level or repetitive peak level produced by a noise source or group of sources, as meastmed with a sound level meter. (i) Property plane means a vertical plane located at and perpendicular to the property line which determines the propem boundaries in space of the parcel over or from which the sound in questions is audibly transmitted. (j) Single event noise means noise generated from a single source which is distinguishable from the ambient noise level. (k) Sound level meter means an atstnmreat comprised of a microphone, an amplifier, an output meter and fre- quency weighing networks, used for measuring sound levels in decibel units. (Ord. 71.92 § 1 (part), 1991) 7-30.030 Exemptions. The following sources of noise shall be exempt from the provisions of this Article: 138 (a) Emergencies. Persons and equipment engaged in essential activities necessary to preserve, protect or save'fives or ProP~y from imminent danger. loss or harm (b) Alarm systems, Any outside audible alarm system for which a permit bas been issued pursuant to Article 6-10 of this Code, and which complies with the require- ments set forth in Section 6-10.060 of said Article. (Ord. 71.92 § 1 (part), 1991) 7'~•~ Ambient noise standards. (a) Except as otherwise provided in Paragraph (b) of this Section. all proposed uses and developments shall comply with the following ambient noise standards for the various zoning districts and times of day as indicated below. The indoor standards apply to noise produced by exterior noise sources. Land Use Daytime Evening Nighttime Residential Outdoor 60 dBA 50 dBA 45 dBA Indoor 45 dBA 35 dBA 30 dBA Public park Outdoor 60 dBA 50 dBA 4S dBA Indoor SO dBA 40 dBA 35 dBA Office/Commercial Outdoor 65 dBA SS dBA 50 dBA Indoor 50 dBA 40 dBA 35 dBA (b) The following land uses are hereby declared to be noise sensitive areas: (1) Nursing, convalescent, and retirement homes; (2) Schools, while in session; (3) Places of worship, while services are being con- ducted. (4) Libraries. during hours of operation. The ambient~noise standards for uses and developments to be located in and of the noise sensitive areas listed above shall be as follows: Daytime Evening Nighttime Outdoor 50 dBA 45 dBA - 45 dBA Indoor 35 dBA 30 dBA 30 dBA (Ord. 71.92 § 1 (part), 199 I ) 7-30.050 General noise restriction. (a) No person shall cause, produce, or allow to be produced, in any residential zoning district, any single event noise more than six dBA above the ambient noise level at the location where the single event noise source is measured. • • • 00~1~~4 7-30.060 • • (b) No person shall cause, produce or allow to be produced, in any office or district, any single event noise more than eight dBA above the ambient noisc level at the location where the single event noisc source is mea- sured. (c) The single event noise level shall be measured with a sound level meter as follows: (I) With respect to noise originating upon a particular site, the measurement can be taken at any point outside of the property plane for that site. (2) With respect to noise originating from a dwelling unit constituting part of amulti-family development, the measurement can be taken at any point beyond the exterior walls of such unit or at any point within the habitable interior of another dwelling unit located on the same site. (3) With respect to any situation not described in subsection (cxl) or (c)(2) of this Section, the mcasruemcnt shall be taken at the point where the noise source is located. (Ord. 71.92 § 1 (part), 1991) 7-30.060 Exceptions for speck activities. Exceptions for specific activities, so long as the noise level at any pointtwenty-five feet from the source of noise does not exceed 83 dBA, shall be permitted to exceed the standards. set forth in Section 7-30.050 under the following conditions: (a) Residential com~tirnction. Residential construction, alteration or repair activities which are authorized by a valid City permit, or do not require the issuance of a City permit, may be conducted between the bouts of 7:30 A.M. and 6:00 P.M. Monday through Friday and between the hours of 9:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. on Saturday. Residential construction shall be prohibited on Sunday and weekday holidays, with the exception of the following: (1) Construction, alteration or repair activities that do not require a City permit may be conducted between the hours of 9:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. on Sunday and weekday holidays. (2) Construction, alteration or repair activities which are authorized by a valid City permit and which do not exceed fifty percent of the existing main or accessory structure may be conducted between the hours of 9:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. on Sunday and weekday holidays. (3) Temporary construction activities authorized by the Community Development Director upon his/her determination of an emergency. A notice of applicable construction hour restrictions shall be posted conspicuously on site at all times for all exterior residential construction activity requiting a City permit (b) Commeroal mashverian. Construction. alteration or repair activities in Commercial and Professional and eve Office inning districts which are authorized by a valid City permit, or do not require the issuance of a City permit, may be conducted between the hotus of ?:30 A.M. and 6:00 P.M. Monday through Friday. Com- mercial construction shall be prohibited on Saturday, Sunday and other holidays. The Community Development Director may grant temporary exemptions upon his/her .determination of an emergency. (c) Subdivision oo~ructon. Subdivision construction activities which are authorized by a valid City permit, or do not require the issuance of a City permit, may be conducted between the hours of 7:30 A.M. and 6:00 P.M. Monday through Friday. Subdivision construction shall be prohibited on Saturday, Sunday and other holidays. The Public Works Director may grant temporary exemp- tions upon his/her determination of an emergency. (d) Garden tools. Powered garden tools except gaso- line powered leaf blowers may be utilized between the hours of 8:00 A.M. and 9:00 P.M. on Sundays through Saturdays. Gasoline powered leaf blowers may be utilized between 8:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. Monday through Saturday only. No gasoline powered leaf blowers shall be allowed on Sundays. The noise level of all garden tools including gasoline powered leaf blowers shall not exceed seventy-eight dBA at any point twenty-five feet fmm the source of noise. (e) Pool and spa equipment Pool and spa equipment located within twenty feet of a side property line shall only be operated between the hours of 8:00 A.M. and 10:00 P.M. Noise from such equipment shall not exceed fifty dBA twenty-five feet from the source of noise. (f) Set-up and cleaning of commercial establish- ments. Set-up and cleaning activities conducted at restau- rants and other wtnmetcial establishments located immedi- ately adjacent to a residential area, which generau any noise audible to the occupants of the adjacent residences, including noise generated by the operation of delivery or service vehicles, shaIl not begin prior to one hour before the normal opening time of the establishment or extend later than one hour after the normal closing time of the establishment, or such other times as may be specified in a use permit, license, or other entitlement granted by the City for such establishment (g) Live or recorded music. Commercial establish- ments shall keep all doors and windows closed during nighttime hours when live or recorded music is being played. (h) Ani~lc Noise caused by animals shall be gov- erned by the provisions of Section 7-20.190 concerning barking dogs and Section 15-11.020(h) concerning the keeping of animals as pets. (Ord. 71.92 § 1 (part), 1991; Ord. 200 § 2, 2000) 139 (saratog, s-0t ) OO~~~S 7-30.070 7-30.070 Exhaust fans. All exhaust fans and mechanical equipment shall be enclosed for the purpose of soundproofing, subject to the Planning Director's review and approval. Exhaust fans lawfully constructed prior to Augttst 2, 1991, shall be screened to the satisfaction of the Planning Director no later than two years from the date of notice from the City to the owner.. (Ord. 71.92 § 1 (part), 1991) 7-30.080 Authority to require noise study. As a condition for the granting of any license, permit or development approval the approving. authority may require the preparation of a noise study to determine whether the proposed ac:tiviry will comply with the noise standards contained in this Article. The cost of such study shall be paid, in advance, by the applicant. If the study predicts that any of the noise standards will be violated the approving authority may require implementation of mitigation measures to reduce the noise impacts, gad may further require the conduct of additional studies after the activity is commenced to determine the effectiveness of the mitigation measums. If the violation caruat be prevent- ed or corrected through mitigation meacur~es, the approving authority may deny or revoke the license, permit or development approval. (Ord. 71.92 § 1 (part), 1991) 7-30.090 Exception permits, (a) If the applicant demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Planning Director that immediate compliance with the requirements of this Article would be impractical or unreasonable, the Planning Director may issue a permit to allow exception from any or all of the provisions contained in this Article, with appropriate conditions to minimize the public detriment caused by such exceptions. Any such permit shall be for an initial term as specified by the Planning Director, not to exceed thirty days. Longer terms up to one hundred twenty days may be granted by the Planning Commission. (b) In determining whether an exception permit should be issued and the nature and scope of any conditions to be imposed, the Planning Director shall consider the following factors: (1) The lcvel and intensity of the noise; (2) The level and intensity of the background noise, if any; (3) The proximity of the noise to residential areas; (4) The time of day when the noise occurs; (5) The duration of the noise, and whether it is recur- rent, intermittent or constant; (6) The nature and zoning of the area within which the noise emanates or to which it is transmitted. (Ord. 71.92 § 1 (part), 1991) cs~~e s.ot~ 7-30.100 Violations of Article; enforcement; Peaal6es. (a) The violation of any provision contained in this Article shall cronstitute an infracton and a public nuisance. (b) It shall be the duty of all policemen, all deputies of the County Sheriff performing police services in the City, ail Community Service Officers and the Planning Director to enforce the provisions of this Article. (c) In addition to the penalties for infraction offenses and the procedures for nuisance abatement as set forth in Chapter 3 of this Code, any noise level and its source . in violation of any of the provisions of this Article may be summarily abated, which may include, but is not limited to, removal, dismantlement and taking into custody the source of such noise, and in this regard, the confiscation of any machine or device used to violate any of the provisions of this Article is hereby authorized to be held for use as evidence in any proceeding drat may be brought for such violation. (Ord. 71.92 § 1 (part), 1991) Article 7-35 REGULATION OF SMOKING IN CERTAIN PLACES I40 Sections: 7-35.010 Findings, and purposes of Article. 7-35.020 Definitions. 7-35.030 Smoking prohibited. 7-35.040 Regulation of smoking in the workplace. 7-35.050 Smoking permitted. 7-35.060 Tobacco samples and vending machines prohibited. 7-35.070 Posting of signs. 7-35.080 Unlawful acts. 7-35.090 Enforcement. 7-35.100 Violations. 7-35.010 Findings and purposes of Article. The City Council finds and determines that there is an overwhelming body of evidence indicating the adverse effects of tobacco smoke on the health and physical comfort of people. The purposes of this Article are to protect the public health and welfare by prohibiting or regulating smoking in certain places and to strike a reason- able balance between the needs of persons who SIIIOkC and the needs of nonsmokers to breathe smoke-fret air,. and to recognize that where these needs conflict, the nerd to breathe smoke-free air shall have priority. • • 00~~~6 ATTACHMENT 6 • COMPACT DISC RECORDING OF PROPOSED BELLS (ATTACHED TO PLANNING COMMISSIONER PACKETS ONLY) • • oo~~~~ • THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK • 00~~~8 s ~ ~~ ~ ATTACHMENT 7 EDWARD L. PACK ASSOCIATES, INC. 2177 NORTHAMPTON DR. Acoustical_ Consultants TEL: 408-723-8900 SAN JOSE, CA 95124 FAX: 408-723-8p99 !:w .. I.fIJL___. - NOISE ASSESSMENT STUDY FOR THE ST. ANDREW'S PARISH AND SCHOOL REMODEL SARATOGA AVENUE, SARATOGA Prepared for St. Andrew's Parish and School Saratoga, CA Prepared by Jeffre~~ K. Pack June 11, 2002 Project No. 33-009-1 • JUN 2 6 2002 CITY OF SARA'fOGA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MEMBER: ACOUSTICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA AUDIO ENGINEERING SOCIETY OQ~~~i9 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Background Information on Acoustics ............................................................. .... l II. Acoustical Setting A. Noise Standards ................................:.................................................. ....5 B. Project Description .............................................................................. ....6 C. Existing Noise Exposures ................................... ............................. ....6 III. Project-Generated Impacts A. Post Project Noise Exposures ..................................................................8 IV. Mitigation Measures A. Play Area Noise .................................................................................... 11 ............................... 12 B. Mechanical Equipment Noise ................................ C. Gymnasium Noisa .............................................:................................. ..13 D. Bell Tower Noise ................................................................................ .. 13 E. Parking Lot Noise ................................................................................ ..14 V. Conclusions ....:.......................................................:...............:........................ ..14 APPENDIX A References ............................................................................................... A-1 APPENDIX B 1. Noise Standards ................................................................................... B-1 2. Terminology ....................................................:................................... B-2 3. Instrumentation .................................................................................... B-4 APPENDIX C Noise Measurement Data and Calculation Tables .................................. C-1 ~~'~~~~ -1- • I. Background Information on Acoustics Noise is defined as unwanted sound. Airborne sound is a rapid fluctuation of air pressure above and below atmospheric pressure. Sound levels are usually measured and expressed in decibels (dB) with 0 dB corresponding roughly to the threshold of hearing. Most of the sounds which we hear in our normal environment do not consist of a single frequency, but rather a broad range of frequencies. As humans do not have perfect hearing, environmental sound measuring instruments have an electrical filter built in so that the instrument's detector replicates human hearing. This filter is called the "A- weighting" network and filters out low and very high frequencies. All environmental noise is reported in terms of A-weighted decibels, notated as "dBA". All sound levels used in this report are A-weighted unless otherwise noted. Table I, below, shows the typical human response and noise sources for A-weighted noise levels. s • o~~~~~ -2- TABLE I The A-Weighted Decibel Scale, Human Response, and Common Noise Sources Noise Level, dBA Human Response Noise Source 120-150+ Painfully Loud Sonic Boom (140 dBA) 100-120 Physical Discomfort Discotheque (115 dBA) Motorcycle at 20 ft. (110 dBA) Power Mower (100 dBA) 70-100 Annoying Diesel Pump at 100 ft. (95 dBA) Freight Train at 50 ft. (90 dBA) Food Blender. (90 dBA) Jet Plane at 1000 ft. (85 dBA) Freeway at 50 ft. (80 dBA) Alarm Clock (80 dBA) 50-70 Intrusive Average Traffic at 100 ft. (70 dBA) Vacuum Cleaner (70 dBA) Typewriter (65 dBA) 0-50 Quiet Normal Conversation (50 dBA) Light Traffic at 100 ft. (45 dBA) Refrigerator (45 dBA) Whispering (35 dBA) Leaves Rustling (10 dBA) Threshold of Hearing (0 dBA) • • • ~~~~~~ -3- • Although the A-weighted noise level may adequately indicate the level of environmental noise at any instant in time, community noise levels vary continuously. Most environmental noise includes a mixture of noise from distant sources that create a relatively steady background noise from which no particular source is identifiable. To describe the time-varying character of environmental noise, the statistical noise descriptors, L~, Leo, L50 and L90 are commonly used. They are the A-weighted noise levels exceeded during 1 %, 10%, 50% and 90%.of a stated time period. The continuous equivalent-energy level (Leq) is that level of a steady state noise which has the same sound energy as a time varying noise. It is often considered the average noise level and is used to calculate the DNL and CNEL described below. In determining the daily level of environmental noise, it is important to account for the difference in response of people to daytime and nighttime noises. During the nighttime, exterior background noises are generally lower than the daytime levels. However, most household noise also decreases at night and exterior noise becomes very noticeable. Further, most people sleep at night and are very sensitive to noise intrusion. To account for human sensitivity to nighttime noise levels, the Day-Night Level (DNL) noise descriptor was developed. The DNL is also called the Ld,,. Either is acceptable, however, DNL is more popular worldwide. The DNL divides the 24-hour day into the daytime period of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. and the nighttime period of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. The nighttime noise levels are penalized by 10 dB to account for the greater sensitivity to noise at night. The Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) is another 24-hour average which includes both an evening (7:00 p.m. - 10:00 p.m.) and a nighttime penalty. The proper notations for the Day-Night Level and the Community Noise Equivalent Level are dB DNL and dB CNEL, respectively, as they can only be calculated using A-weighted decibels. It is, therefore, considered redundant to notate dBA DNL or dBA CNEL. T11e effects of noise on people can be listed in three general categories: - subjective effects of annoyance, nuisance, dissatisfaction; - interference with activities-such as speech, sleep, learning, relaxing; - physiological effects such as startling, hearing loss. ~QQ~13'73 -4- The levels associated with environmental noise, in almost every case, produce effects only in the first two categories. Workers in industrial plants, airports, etc., can experience noise in the last category. iJnfortunately, there is, as yet, no completely satisfactory way to measure the subjective effects of noise, or of the corresponding reactions of annoyance and dissatisfaction. This is primarily due to the wide variation in individual thresholds of annoyance and differing individual past experiences with noise. Thus, an important way to determine a person's subjective reaction to a new noise is to compare it to the existing environment to which one has adapted, i.e., the "ambient". In general, the more a new noise exceeds the previously existing ambient noise level, the less acceptable the new noise will be judged by the hearers. With regard to increases in A-weighted noise level, knowledge of the following relationships will be helpful in understanding this report. • Except in carefully controlled laboratory experiments, a change of 1 dB cannot be perceived. • Outside of the laboratory, a 3 dB change is considered a just- perceptible difference. • A change in level of at least 5 dB is required before any noticeable change in community response would be expected. • A 10 dB change is subjectively heard as approximately a doubling in loudness, and would almost certainly cause an adverse change in community response. The adding or subtracting of sound levels is not simply arithmetic. The sound levels, in decibels, must be converted to Bels, the anti-log's of which are then calculated. The manipulation is then performed (arithmetic addition or subtraction), the logarithm of the sum or difference is calculated, the final number is then multiplied by 10 to convert Bels to decibels. The formula for adding decibels is as follows: Sum= l Olog(10 svio + 10 s~10) where, SL is the Sound Level in decibels. • • • ~~~~~~ -5- For example, 60 dB + 60 dB = 63 dB, and 60 dB + 50 dB = 60 dB. Two sound sources of the same level are barely noisier than just one of the sources by itself. When one source is 10 dB higher than the other, the less noisy source does not add to the noisier source. II. Acoustical Setting A. Noise Standards The noise exposures presented herein were evaluated against the standards of the City of Saratoga Noise Element, Ref. (a), which utilizes the Day-Night Level (DNL) noise descriptor and specifies a limit of 60 dB DNL for residential land uses impacted by schools and churches. S Short-term maximum noise levels created by the proposed church bells, activities within the planned gymnasium and parking lot traffic were also evaluated against the standards of the City of Saratoga Noise Ordinance, Ref. (b), which limits noise from these sources to 8 dB above the ambient level. The Noise Ordinance defines the ambient levels for residential land uses as: 60 dBA during the daytime, 50 dBA during the evening and 4~ dBA at night. The daytime period is from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., the evening period is from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. and the nighttime period is from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. Thus, the most restrictive noise limits for church and school related Eloise sources are 68 dBA daytime, 58 dBA evening and 53 dBA night. The church bells will be used between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., thus, the 68 dBA noise limit is applied. Gymnasium activities and parking lot noise may be produced between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Thus, the more stringent evening limit of 58 dBA is applicable. ~~J~'75 06/25/2002 07:45 B. 4097233938 Proiect Description ~Er r REY r: ~=':~~h -6- r ~-,.;~ ~ The planned project, as shown on the Site Plan; Ref. (c), includes the addition of a gymnasium, classrooms, kitchen; bell tower, a re-configuration of the parking lot and the remodeling of the parish, church, playgrounds and existing classrooms. The enrollment of the school is planned to remain at approximately 430 students ranging in age from 4 - 13 years old (Junior Kindergarten through 8th grade), as reported by St. Andrew's. School, Ref. (d). C. Existing Noise Ezr~osures • The existing noise exposure at the most impacted residential property line adjacent to the main playground is 68 dB DNL. Thus, the noise exposures are up to 8 dB iu~ excess of the standards of the City of Saratoga I~'oise Element. • The existing noise exposure at the zxivst impacted residential property line adjacent to the existing lunch area is 57 dB DNL. Thus, tl7e noise exposures axe within the limits of the City of Saratoga Noise Element. • The existing noise exposure at the zz~ost impacted residential property line to the west from Sunday church service parking lot traffic is 44 dB DNL. Thus, the noise exposure from the parking lot is within the limits ot` the City of Saratoga Noise Eler~aent standards. As vehicles pazk within 4 ft. of the property line, the maximum noise levels are up to 75 dBA, which are due to car doors closing and engines starting. These noise levels are up to 7 dB in excess of the daytime-limit of the Noise Ordinance and up to 17 dB in excess of the evening limit of the Noise Ordinance. Sunday church parking generates higher levels of noise than school day parking. • • 00~1~'76 -~- • • The existing noise level from the church mechanical equipment is 53 dBA at the most impacted residential property line to the north. The noise level is at the limit of the nighttime noise limit of the City of Saratoga Noise Ordinance. To determine the existing noise environment at the residential areas adjacent to the project site, continuous recordings of the sound levels were made at two locations for a 24-hour period on February 15-16, 2001 using Larson-Davis 812 Precision Integrating Sound Level Meters. Location 1 was at the north property line adjacent to the kindergarten play azea. Location 2 was at the north property line adjacent to the lunch area at the bottom of the steps. These locations were chosen as they are the most noise impacted residential property lines. Additional sound level measurements were made on Sunday, February 18, 2001 from 10:00 - 11:30 a.m. at the north property line behind the church and at the south property line along the parking lot. These measurements were performed to capture church related noise at the residential property lines. The locations of the noise measurements aze shown on Figure 1. The meters yield, by direct readout, a series of the sound levels versus time, which include the Li, Leo, LSO and L90, i.e., those levels of noise exceeded 1%, 10%, 50% and 90% of the time. Also measured were the minimum and maximum levels, and the continuous equivalent-energy levels (Leq), which are used to calculate the DNL. The DNL for the survey location was calculated by decibel averaging of the Leq's as they apply to the various time periods of the DNL index. Nighttime penalties were applied and the DNL was calculated using the formula shown in Appendix B. The measured Lei's and DNL calculations are shown in the data tables in Appendix C. • ~~~~~~ ~ ~~ ,I~~-+rf ~~+ ~ 512 ~~ - 1~ ~ / .. \~r ~/ /~ /~'f~IzeiJ~lt> > ~ ~ J ~1~tlr-tbt' PKoft . ~' Loc. 1 ns+gll ~. I+* i'4i - i>r-rrr . ~e, .. ~ ` ~_ ~/ ~~~ .- r•~ .;: : f CN`' 1'aC~ S' '(~'L - I~i~lllR; Ivy ~/ / S ''? ~ - -- fFbP~Ca I,.aN~ct~ I+f ry,R`? ,~-11i~ \ ~~ , ' " ~.~i~_ "I~.i ALL. ~~.~C-~(( ~ 1~\ ~ - ~` ~ LOC. 2 I I ~ __--a'--__ I , Loc. 3 , -"~ ~.=IcA ~~ _ _ _ ~ ~~ ~ _ _ l ' ~ I ~r~. ~ ~teu~ ' .. _~ -1. __. .. .. .. _. _ '~ t . ~ -" ' _ ' ~r~x~rd-Id > ~.. ~ j .~ . ' ~ ~ ~ r ,. _ - - ~~ i, -- , , _ ' '~ ~ ~ ~ _l. ^I ~ -~ ,' , - . _ _ V ~_~ ._`. ~ ~ FIGURE 1 ~`~~ Existing Site Plan showing the noise ,'. --`- measurement locations. l Source: Edward L. Pack Assoc. Mar. 20, 2001 •~ ~ n~ 7 A rf ~ ~ V F V 7 t R 1 i ii ~~ s ~` 06/25/2002 07:45 40o7236y38 ~~rrr~~~~ r. rF,:,r. • -8- The playground L~q's at the most impacted zsidential property line (Location 1) ranged from 47.1 to 79.2 dBA duriuag the daytime hours of 8:00 a.m. to 6:00. p.na.. During the entire daytime period, the L~q's ranged from 40.3 to 79.2 dBA. The L~q's ranged from 34.0 to 52.0 dBA at night. At the most impacted property line adjacent to the lunch area (Location 2), the school hour Lay's ranged from 46.0 to 66.5 dBA. During the entire daytime period the Lay's ranged from 42.5 to 62.5 dBA. At night the Lay's ranged from 34.5 to 51.1 dBA. The short-term measurements (10-minute Lay's), at the north residential property liune made during church services ranged from 48.4 during church service to 52.4 when church let out. The noise measurements made at the south, property line (also 10-minute Lay's) during church service were 47.5 during church service to 56.4 at the beginning of service. III. Proiect-Generated Noise Impacts A. Post Pr ject Noise Exposures • The post project noise exposure at the most impacted residential property line adjacent to the "nursery play area" will be 49 dB DNL. Thus, the noise exposure is expected to be lower than the existing noise exposure in this area, and v~Till be within tb~e limits of the City of Saratoga Noise Element standards_ • The post project noise exposure at the most impacted residential property line adjacent to the "Kindergarten play area" will be 68 dB DNL. Thus, the noise exposure is expected tv remain the same as existing for this area and will he 8 dB in excess of the City of Saratoga Noise Element standards. Q~~1~'79 -9- • The post- project noise exposure at the most impacted residential property line adjacent to the "lunch area" in the annexed portion of the site adjacent to the creek will be 56 dB DNL. Thus, the noise exposure is expected to be slightly higher than the existing noise exposure in this area, but will be within the limits of the City of Saratoga Noise Element standards. • The project-generated noise exposure at the most impacted residential property line to the west adjacent to the parking lot will be 44 dB DNL and will remain the same as existing. Maximum vehicle noise levels will be up to 75 dBA at the property line. Thus, the noise exposures will be within the limits of the Noise Element standards but up to 7 dB in excess of the daytime limit of the Noise Ordinance and up to 17 dB in excess of the evening limit • of the Noise Ordinance. • The maximum noise levels generated within the planned gymnasium could be up to 57 dBA at the most impacted residence adjacent to the gymnasium area, assuming that windows on the west side of-the gym are open duririg activities. Thus, the noise exposure is likely to be within the 58 dBA evening limit of the Noise Ordinance. • The mechanical equipment (HVAC) noise level at the most impacted residential property line behind the church is 53 dBA. The noise exposure is within the limits of the Noise Ordinance standards. It is unknown at -this time if any of the mechanical equipment will be changed or modified. If the equipment is changed or modified, an analysis of the noise emission should be performed • QV~vVQ -10- • • The mechanical equipment for the gymnasium has not been specified, thus, an acoustical analysis of the equipment has not been performed. Bell Tower Noise Precise sound levels created by the planned bell tower cannot be calculated as the exact bells have not been determined. However, information from the bell manufacturer, Ref. (e), has revealed that the estimated sound level from the bells would be 79 dBA maximum from bells in an open tower 50 ft. high and at 50 ft. lateral distance. It is our understanding that the top elevation of the planned bell tower bell openings will be approximately 46 ft. • At the nearest residential property line to the northeast (180 ft. from the tower), the un-shielded sound level will be 68 dBA. However, the church structure will provide approximately 7 dB of sound level reduction. Therefore, the maximum sound level from the bells is estimated to be 61 dBA. This sound level is within the 68 dBA daytime limit of the City of Saratoga Noise Ordinance. If these bells are rung between 7:00 and 10:00 p.m., the sound levels will be 3 dB in excess of the evening limit. • At the nearest residential property line to the south, (400 ft. from the tower), the un-shielded sound level will be 61 dBA. Thus, the sound level will be within the City of Saratoga Noise Ordinance daytime standard but 3 dB in excess of the evening standard. . • Any receptor location within a 180 ft. line-of--sight to the bells will receive a maximum sound level in excess of 68 dBA. Intervenine structures that block the line-of--sight will typically provide a minimum of 5 dB of sound reduction. • ©4~1~8~. -11- • As shown above, the project-generated noise exposures from the lower play area will exceed the limits of the standards of the City of Saratoga Noise Element. Mitigation measures will be required. The church's HVAC equipment is at the nighttime limit of the Noise Ordinance. Noise from the gymnasium mechanical equipment could not be quantified as a precise mechanical plan has not been prepared.. The sound levels created by the bells in the proposed bell tower are likely to exceed the limits of the Noise Ordinance if the bells are used in the evening. Noise from the gymnasium is likely to be within the limits of the Noise Ordinance during daytime and evening activities, however, there is potential for noise excesses if the gymnasium windows and doors are kept open during events. Mitigation measures will be required for sources that will produce noise excesses. Measures to ensure compliance with the Noise Element and Noise Ordinance are recommended, as described below. IV. Mitigation Measures A Play Area Noise To achieve compliance with the 60 dB DNL standard of the City of Saratoga Noise Element at the residential property line adjacent to lower play area, the following mitigation measures are recommended: • Construct an 8 ft. high acoustically-effective barrier along .the property line contiguous with the residence to the northeast. The barrier shall extend from the northern tip of the site for a distance of 120 ft. The barrier height is in reference to the nearest play area ground elevation. Please see Figure 2 for the location of the recommended noise control barrier. • ~~~~~~ .~ ~~~~~~~ ~`~ ~ ~ z r1'J rr~` a '~' d. 1. ~~ ~ .~~ • ~F try /• A , 1~J ~ ! 1~ ~ / ° r~e_!y Ml~ni'N1 ~ ~ Ig ~ . t~~C ~~~ ' ; .a.. i ~i~n~ tatr+t ~~ ~ ~ ~ . I •~l~r=.t 4~- ~ ~wh ~v,~wa11 ~1..+ ~.++~~ >~~ w~~ ~ e 1" ~ ~p~.~nl -~cw~eli~ehrs .0 1_ b.llb-d - hK Miry /• ~ cy(neii w~Ifw.wq n .~ . ~] e'-" ~ ~ ~ n ~ ~ ~ w*re~ .~ N, ~ rte- '•~ ~. _. ; ti l~rvKt4, 'p FIGURE 2 ~` ® ~ ~~~~~~~ Locations and heights of the recommended . ~ " ® •~ ~~ ~ $i noise control barriers. The barrier heights are in ~ ~ • ~ ~ ~ _ reference to the nearest playground or parking lot a~ '~~ _ .~-) elevation. -- - ' (~) `' EDWARD L. PACK ASSOC., 1NC. v ~• Acoas(icnl C'nmrd(uncc A 2177 Norih:unplon Drive fel:(dU8)72J-8900 bra San lose, CA 9512) Pa.~. (d08) 72 3-8099 ~~y~ June 1 ~, X002 W -- W C~nn~Prti inI I nn~~~c~~P Scheme ~t An~rPw.~ Pnri.~h R..~rhn~ -12- • To achieve anacoustically-effective bamer, it must be made air-tight, i.e., without cracks, gaps, or other openings and must provide for long-term durability. The barrier can be constructed of wood, concrete, stucco, masonry, earth berm or a combination thereof and must have a minimum surface weight of 2.5 lbs. per sq. ft. If wood fencing is used, homogeneous sheet materials are preferable to conventional wood fencing as the latter has a tendency to warp and form openings with age. However, high quality, air- tight, tongue-and-groove, shiplap, or board and batten construction can be used, provided the minimum surface weight requirement is met and the construction is air-tight. The noise control barriers must be constructed so that all joints, including connections with posts and pilasters are sealed air-tight and no openings are permitted between the upper barrier components and the ground. The implementation of the above recommended measures will reduce play area noise exposures to 60 dB DNL or less at the residential areas. B. Mechanical Equipment Noise Should noise reduction of the church's HVAC equipment be required due to increased load, modifications -or changes, one of the following measures are recommended: • Install Industrial Acoustics Company (IAC) "Slimshield" acoustic louvers in the rear wall of the church at the mechanical room. • Replace or modify, as necessary, the existing equipment with less noisy equipment or components. ~oov~s4 -13- • C. Gymnasium Noise • To ensure compliance with the Noise Ordinance and to minimize noise annoyance to the residences to the west, maintain closed all windows on the west and north sides of the gymnasium during noise generating activity periods inside the gymnasium. Noise generating activities include, athletic games and practice, social events with music, and P.E. classes. Although this measure would be re uired only after 10:00 p.m. to comply with the Noise Ordinance, applying this measure during daytime and evening hours will minimize noise annoyance to the neighbors. • Perform an acoustical analysis of the mechanical equipment once a precise mechanical plan is developed. D. Bell Tower Noise The ultimate sound levels from the bells will be predicated on precise designs of the bell tower. However, to confine the bell tower sound levels that would be in excess of the 68 dBA limit of the Noise Ordinance to the church property, partial shielding of the bell tower opening that would direct sound downward is likely to be necessary. Acoustical treatment of the interior of the tower may also be necessary, however, this may change the tonality of the bells. Achieving compliance with the standards of the Noise Ordinance is technically feasible although the sound of the bells may be compromised somewhat. Further review of the bells' sound and implementation is warranted. Designs of enclosure of the bells for practice is beyond the scope of this study. • aQv~ss -14- E. Parking Lot Noise • Construct a 7 ft. high acoustically-effective barrier along the property line contiguous with the residence to the west at the parking spaces along the property line. The barrier height is in reference to the nearest parking space elevation. - • Restrict parking at the parking spaces. along the west property line to 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. • Please see Figure 2 for the location of the recommended noise control barrier. The implementation of the above recommended measures will reduce parking lot noise to 68 dBA or less at the residential areas. V. Conclusions In conclusion, the existing and post project noise exposures generated by the large play area exceed the limits of the standards. The church's HVAC equipment is at the limit of the Noise Ordinance if the equipment operates past 10:00 p.m. Noise from the gymnasium could also exceed the Noise Ordinance limits if windows are left open during noisy activities. Sound levels from the bell tower may exceed the limits of the Noise Ordinance, depending upon the final design of the bell tower. Noise from church and school traffic in the parking lot will be similar to present levels and will be within the limits of the Noise Element standards. However, maximum noise levels from car doors and engines starting at parking spaces along the westerly fence will exceed the limits of the Noise Ordinance. Mitigation measures for the large play area, the HVAC equipment, gymnasium, bell tower and parking lot are provided in Section IV of this report. • • -15- • The study findings for existing conditions aze based on field measurements and other data and are correct to the best of our knowledge. Future noise projections are based on information provided by St. Andrew's Parish and School, the project architect and the church bell manufacturer. Significant deviations in the predicted school enrollment, site planning, future changes in school activity levels, noise regulations or other future changes beyond our control may produce long-range noise results different from our estimates. Report Prepared By: /'~~ effrey K. Pack President • ~Qv~s~ APPENDIX A References (a) Noise Element of the General Plan, City of Saratoga, Adopted by City Council, August 17, 1988 (b) City of Saratoga Municipal Code, Article 7-30, Section 7-30.050 (c) Site Plan, Saint Andrew's Parish & School, by CSDA Architects, Apri18, 2002 (d) Information on Existing and Future School Enrollment and Operations Provided by St. Andrew's School, by Telecon to Edward L. Pack Associates, Inc., March 19, 2001 (e) Information on Church Bell Sound Levels Provided by Mr. Alan Hughes, Whitechapel Bell Foundry Ltd., by E-mail to Edward L. Pack Associates, Inc., April 23, 2002 • u oQ~~Bs • APPENDIX B Noise Standards, Terminology, Instrumentation, 1. Noise Standards A. City of Saratoga Noise Element Standards The City of Saratoga Noise Element of the General Plan, August 17, 1988 specifies acoustical standards for various land uses, as shown below; Land Use Standards Commercial/Office Outdoor 65 dB DNL Indoor 50 dB DNL Public/Park Outdoor 60 dB DNL Indoor 50 dB DNL Residential Outdoor 60 dB DNL Indoor 45 dB DNL The Noise Element also contains a policy enforcing the Noise Ordinance, Article 7-30, of the Municipal Code. • B-1 ~®~1~~9 2. Terminolo~y A. Statistical Noise Levels Due to the fluctuating character of urban traffic noise, statistical procedures are needed to provide an adequate description of the environment. A series of statistical descriptors have been developed which represent the noise levels exceeded a given percentage of the time. These descriptors are obtained by direct readout of the Community Noise Analyzer. Some of the statistical levels used to describe community noise are defined as follows: L1 - A noise level exceeded for 1% of the time. Llo - A noise level exceeded for 10% of the time, considered to be an "intrusive" level. LSO - The noise level exceeded 50% of the time representing an "average" sound level. L90 - The noise level exceeded 90 % of the time, designated as a "background" noise level. Leq - The continuous equivalent-energy level is that level of a steady-state noise having the same sound energy as a given time-varying noise. The Leq represents the decibel level of the, time-averaged value of sound energy or sound pressure squared and is used to calculate the DNL and CNEL. B-2 • ~~ • ~~~~~0 • B. Da -Ni ht Level DNL v g f 1 Noise levels utilized in the standards are described in terms of the Day-Night Level (DNL). The DNL rating is determined by the cumulative noise exposures occurring over a 24-hour day in terms of A-Weighted sound energy. The 24-hour day is divided into two subperiods for the DNL index, i.e., the daytime period from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., and the nighttime period from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. A 10 dB weighting factor is applied (added) to the noise levels occurring during the nighttime period to account for the greater sensitivity of people to noise during these hours. The DNL is calculated from the measured Leq in accordance with the following mathematical formula: DNL = [(Ld+lOlog~ol5) & (L„+10+lOloglo9)] - lOlog~o24 Where: Ld = Leq for the daytime (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.) L„ = Leq for the nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) 24 - indicates the 24-hour period & - denotes decibel addition. C. A-Weighted Sound Level The decibel measure of the sound level utilizing the "A" weighted network of a sound level meter is referred to as "dBA". The "A" weighting is the accepted standard weighting system used when noise is measured and recorded for the purpose of determining total noise levels and conducting statistical analyses of the environment so that the output correlates well with the response of the human ear. B-3 ~Qa~~~~ 3. Instrumentation The on-site field measurement data were acquired by the use of one or more of the precision acoustical instruments shown below. The acoustical instrumentation provides a direct readout of the L exceedance statistical levels including the equivalent-energy level (Leq). Input to the meters was provided by a microphone extended to a height of 5 ft. above the ground. The meter conforms to ANSI S 1.4 for Type 1 instruments. The "A"_ weighting network and the "Fast" response setting of the meter were used in conformance with the applicable ISO and IEC standards. All instrumentation was acoustically calibrated before and after field tests to assure accuracy. Bruel & Kjaer 2231 Precision Integrating Sound Level Meter Larson Davis LDL 812 Precision Integrating Sound Level Meter Larson Davis 2900 Real Time Analyzer • B-4 F34~1~92 APPENDIX C Noise Measurement Data and Calculation Tables • 0t~~1~93 ~`. 0 f~ DNL CALCULATIONS CLIENT: ST. ANDREW'S CHURCH FILE: 33-009 PROJECT: SCHOOL AND CHURCH REMODEL DATE: 3/1/01 SOURCE: CHILDREN PLAY AREA NOISE LOCATION 1 PLAYGROUND LOCATION 2 LUNCH AREA Dist. to Source 20 ft. Dist. to Source 60 ft. TIME Le 10^Le /10 TIME Le 10^Le /10 7:OOa.m. 54.2 263026.8 7:OOa.m. 52.2 165958.7 8:00 a.m. 62.4 1737800.8 8:00 a.m. 54.1 257039.6 9:OOa.m. 47.1 51286.1 9:OOa.m. 46.0 39810.7 10:OOa.m. 72.0 15848931.9 10:OOa.m. 62.7 1862087.1 11:00 a.m. 64.9 3090295.4 11:00 a.m. 54.3 269153.5 12:OOnoon 73.5 22387211.4 12:OOnoon 66.5 4466835.9 1:00 .m. 69.7 9332543.0 1:00 .m. 59.6 912010.8 2:00 .m. 54.2 263026.8 2:00 .m. 52.7 186208.7 3:00 .m. 79.2 83176377.1 3:00 p.m. 57.3 537031.8 4:00 .m. 66.2 4168693.8 4:00 .m. 53.1 204173.8 5:00 . m. 60.0 1000000.0 5:00 . m. 46.7 46773.5 6:00 .m. 46.9 48977.9 6:00 .m. 45.8 38018.9 7:00 .m. 44.0 25118.9 7:00 .m. 45.2 33113.1 8:00 p.m. 45.5 35481.3 8:00 p.m. 47.1 51286.1 9:00 .m. 40.3 10715.2 SUM= 141439486.5 9:00 .m. ' 42.5 17782.8 SUM= ;:.;.9087285.2 10:00 .m. 40.7 11749.0 Ld= 69.7 10:00 .m. 42.7 18620.9 Ld= 57.8 11:00 .m. 37.9 6166.0 11:00 .m. 38.9 7762.5 12:OOmdnt 40.0 10000.0 12:OOmdnt 39.4 8709.6 1:00 a.m. 34.6 2884.0 1:00 a.m. 35.2 3311.3 2:00 a.m. 34.0 2511.9 2:00 a.m. 34.5 2818:4 3:00 a.m. 34.0 2511.9 3:00 a.m. 34.9 3090.3 4:00 a.m. 36.5 4466.8 4:00 a.m. 38.0 6309.6 5:00 a.m. 43.2 20893.0 5:00 a.m. 45.8 38018.9 6:00 a.m. 52.0 158489.3 SUM= 219671.8 6:00 a.m. 51.1 128825.0 SUM= ;; 217466.4 Ln= 43.9 Ln= 43.8 Da time Level= 81.5 Da time Level= 69.6 Ni httime Level= 63.4 Nighttime Level= 63.3 DNL= 6T.8 DNL= 56.7 24-Hour Le = 67.7 24-Hour Le = 55.9 • • • a FEHR & PEERS TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS MEMORANDUM r~ ~ ~ Hl~ h IVI ~ N T ~ ;, - ,., -. s~ ,~. ~~~~o~~~ JUN 2 6 2002 CITY OF SARATOGA ~ OMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT To: Scott Sheldon, Premier Commercial From: Sohrab Rashid/Jason Pack Date: June 21, 2002 Subject: Traffic Study for Proposed S~ Andrew's Parish and School Master Plan in Saratoga, California 1015-351A Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. has completed a traffic study for the proposed master plan for St. Andrew's Parish and School located on the north side of Saratoga Avenue just west of Fruitvale Avenue in the City of Saratoga. The traffic study was conducted to evaluate existing conditions and near-term conditions with the proposed circulation plan to determine if on-site or off-site improvements will be necessary to provide acceptable operations. This memorandum presents our key findings and recommendations followed by a detailed description of our approach and evaluation. KEY FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the results of our observations and technical analysis: • The proposed master plan does not identify a substantial change in the number of students at the campus at one time. The number of seats within the parish is not changing, although an increase in the number of church members is desired. • The proposed circulation plan includes reconfiguration of the existing parking lot, but the total number of on-site parking spaces provided will not change substantially. The amount of on-site storage for vehicle queues is also not proposed to change with the proposed project. • To better accommodate vehicle demand during peak drop-off/pick up periods, the length of the campus frontage for passenger loading/unloading activities should be maximized. Changes to the proposed site plan are included. • A separate drop-off/pick-up area should be provided in the parking area at the rear of the gymnasium for pre-kindergarten /kindergarten student loading to reduce queues at the front of the school. • 255 N. Market Street, Suite 200 San Jose, CA 95110 (408) 278-1700 Fax (408) 278-1717 OOV~gs www.feh randpeers.com FEHR ~ PEE TRANSVORTATION CONSULTA~ • The project is not expected to have a significant impact on the overall capacity of the Saratoga Avenue/Fruitvale Avenue intersection. Thus, no modifications to this intersection are recommended. • No modifications to Saratoga Avenue are recommended at this time. The increased vehicle storage in 'front and back of the school is expected to reduce or potentially eliminate on-street queuing. • The main on-site drive aisle leading from the entrance driveway and curving past the gymnasium should be 24 feet wide to provide adequate circulation. • .The drive aisle located behind the. gymnasium should be a minimum of 22 feet (and ideally 24') wide to adequately serve two-way traffic with no parking. • The existing on-site speed bumps should be replaced with speed humps (as shown on the site plan) or raised crosswalks at two locations to help maintain appropriate travel speeds in the main drive aisle and to provide a designated crossing location for pedestrians. The detailed evaluation to support these findings and recommendations is presented below. EXISTING CONDITIONS Existing Church and School Functions St. Andrew's Parish and School are located on the north side of Saratoga Avenue just west of the Saratoga Avenue/Fruitvale Avenue intersection. The campus is bordered by Saratoga Avenue to the south, Saratoga Creek to the north, and private residential uses to the east and west. The school includes children from junior kindergarten age through eighth grade. St. Andrew's School has an existing student enrollment of approximately 439 students from 329 different families. The school staff includes 45 full-time and 5 part-time employees. The church is used for worship on Sundays .with services at 8:00 am and 10:00 am. A Wednesday service is also provided at 11:45 am, but the attendance at this weekday service is substantially lower. The. church emplo}~ees 12 to 15 people: one is a full-time administrator, five are clergyman, and the rest perform administrative duties for the church. Vehicular Access and Circulation Access to St. Andrew's Parish and School is provided via one entrance only driveway and one exit only driveway on the north side of Saratoga Avenue. The easternmost driveway is for inbound traffic and, although not designed for this purpose, is wide enough to accommodate two vehicles entering at the same time. This allows a "dual right-turn" condition when vehicles turn from the outside travel lane around. vehicles that are queued back from the existing drop-off/pick-up area. The egress driveway has two lanes and allows left-turning and right-turning vehicles to exit simultaneously. 00~1~96 c FEHR & PEERS TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS Saratoga Avenue is striped to provide a northbound left-turn lane into the site at the entrance driveway. Saratoga Avenue is also striped to provide amerge-lane for vehicles exiting the site and turning left onto northbound Saratoga Avenue. On-street parking is permitted on Saratoga Avenue from the Saratoga Avenue/Fruitvale Avenue intersection to the egress driveway and includes space for approximately 16 vehicles. Parking is also permitted on the unpaved shoulder south of the exit only driveway where approximately seven vehicles can park parallel. A one-way loop road provides access to the drop-off/pick-up area and the pazking lot, eventually ending at the exit driveway. The parking aisles support two-way traffic circulation allowing re-circulation throughout the lot. The drive aisle that loops from the ingress driveway to the egress driveway is designated as a drop-off/pick-up lane immediately adjacent to the school buildings. Along the wrought iron fence separating the sidewalk from the parking lot, this one-way, two-lane drive aisle is 24 feet wide. A striped crosswalk is provided to guide pedestrians from the parking lot to the raised sidewalk serving the campus. During drop-off and pick-up periods, a staff person serves as a crossing-guard and stops vehicles in the drop-off lane to allow pedestrians to cross. The total length of on-site queuing space is approximately 380 feet, which includes a 130-foot drop-off/pick-up area. There are 187 striped, on-site parking spaces available during school pick-up/drop-off hours. An additional 13 spaces between the bollards in the drop-off/pick up area are available on weekends and outside school hours for church parking. Additional off-site parking is available on weekends at the Saratoga Library across Saratoga Avenue. No designated pedestrian crossing area is provided except at the signalized Fruitvale Avenue intersection to the east. Pedestrian, Bicycle and Transit Access Pedestrian access to St. Andrew's is relatively limited directly in front of the site. A sidewalk is provided east of the western crosswalk on the north side of Saratoga Avenue, while a sidewalk is provided on the south side of Saratoga Avenue along the entire length of the project frontage. Sidewalks are provided on both sides of Fruitvale Avenue and the.. signalized intersection includes crosswalks on the west and south approaches. A crossing guard is provided at the Saratoga Avenue/Fruitvale Avenue intersection during the morning and afternoon school peak hours. No separate pedestrian path is provided directly in front of the site or towards Crestbrook Drive to the west. Bicycle lanes are striped on both sides of Sazatoga Avenue. The lane immediately adjacent to the site is actually a combined bicycle/parking lane that is 12 feet wide. The Valley Transportation Authority provides bus service on Saratoga Avenue directly in front of the site. Routes 27 and 54 include a westbound stop immediately east of the 3 ~ 00~1~~'7 FEHR & PEE TRANSPORTATION CONSULTA~ project's exit only driveway and -the complementary=stop is located across the street. At stops near Fruitvale Avenue, service from Route 58 is also provided. School Schedules Classroom instruction begins at 8:15 AM and concludes at 3:00 PM, Monday thru Friday, for Grades K through 8. A morning junior kindergarten class begins at 8:15 am and concludes at 11:15 am Monday through Friday. An afternoon junior kindergarten begins at noon and concludes at 3:00 PM, Monday thru Friday. Observation of Existing Circulation Morning Observations Morning observations were made at St. Andrew's from 8:00 AM until 8:30 AM during February 2001. Queuing from the drop-off lane was contained on-site until 8:10 AM, after which time the queue extended back onto Saratoga Avenue. The on-street queue extended back to the Saratoga Avenue/Fruitvale Avenue intersection by 8:12 AM and was contained in the striped shoulder area next to the curb. This queue dissipated and was completely contained on-site at 8:18 AM, when bell rang signaling the beginning of instruction. Queuing out of the ingress driveway created a situation where dual nght-turns mto the site occurred. Vehicles destined for parking spaces (as opposed to the drop-off lane) turned right into the site from the outside travel lane to get around the queue in the shoulder area. As noted previously, the inbound driveway is wide enough to accommodate two vehicles traveling side-by-side. Even though this activity is illegal, it does help to minimize on-street queuing and impacts to the adjacent signalized intersection. Queuing at the exit driveway was observed to be relatively short. The separate left-turn and right-turn lanes, combined with the left-turn merge lane on Saratoga Avenue, provide efficient operations at the exit driveway during the morning peak.hour. The drop-off lane has an adjacent bypass lane, allowing vehicles that have already dropped off a student (s) to exit the drop-off lane and proceed to the exit. In general, this functions well; however, at the turn into the drop-off lane, there is insufficient width at the corner; between a vehicle in the drop-off lane and the adjacent parked car. Several times, a vehicle trying to bypass the drop-off aisle was temporarily delayed until given the right-of--way to proceed. This activity had a negligible effect on overall circulation. At 8:00 AM, there were approximately 40 vehicles parked in the parking area. At 8:30, the parking lot was approximately 60 percent occupied. During the morning period, the lot was never more than 80 percent occupied and drivers did not appear to have a difficult time finding an available space. a - 00 U~9'8. d FEHR & PEERS TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS No students were observed bicycling or walking to school. Given the school's service area, this observation was not unexpected. No students were observed alighting (i.e., disembarking) from VTA buses on Saratoga Avenue. Drivers responded well to the staff person controlling traffic at the on-site crosswalk between the parking area and the raised sidewalk. No conflicts at this location were observed, although the temporary delays did nominally contribute to the on-street queuing on Saratoga Avenue. Afternoon Observations Dismissal time at St. Andrew's School is at 3:00 PM, Monday thru Friday. Observations were made from 2:45 PM until 3:15 PM in February and March 2001. Prior to 2:45 pm, there were nine vehicles already queued in the pick-up lane awaiting student dismissal. Some vehicles traveled in the bypass lane to look for parking spaces in the row closest to the school. By 2:50 PM, the pick-up lane was completely full and the queue began to extend back out to Saratoga Avenue. At this time, two vehicles were queued in the bicycle/shoulder lane on the street. The parking lot began to fill up rapidly at 2:55 pm. The queue on Saratoga Avenue did not exceed three vehicles even after 3:00 pm because many parents parked in the lot and exited their vehicles to wait for their children on campus. In addition, many .vehicles made the "dual right-turn" azound the on-site queue at the entrance driveway. At 3:02 pm the queue began to move forwazd as students began loading at the pick-up lane. During the next three minutes, only one car was queued on the street at any one time. The on-street queue dissipated by 3:07 pm even though some vehicles on-site would not proceed to the front of the pick-up azea. Overall, the pick-up process proceeded smoothly and no students were observed entering vehicles at inappropriate locations. By 3:15 pm, only a few vehicles continued to use the pick-up lane. Similazly, the volume of the traffic in the parking lot was reduced to several vehicles. At this time, however, queues formed in the eastbound lanes on Saratoga Avenue because of delays resulting from downstream traffic signal at Fruitvale Avenue. These queues temporarily delayed traffic trying to exit St. Andrew's, but did not cause any substantial operational problems. In ; addition, these queues cleazed once the eastbound signal phase turned green. Sunday Observations As noted previously, two worship services are held at the chwch on Sundays. The first worship service begins at 8:00 am followed by the second service beginning at 10:00 am. . Observations were conducted on February 1, 2001 from 9:15 am to 10:10 am when traffic volumes on Saratoga Avenue would be higher than earlier in the morning. 5 ©Q~1~~9 FEHR & PEE TRANSPORTATION CONSULTA~ At 9:25 am, few vehicles were observed entering or exiting the site. The parking lot was approximately 25 percent full at this time and the traffic volumes on Saratoga Avenue were very low. Vehicles experienced very short delays at the Saratoga Avenue/Fruitvale Avenue intersection. Only one vehicle was parked on Saratoga Avenue adjacent to the site at this time. The volume of traffic entering the site increased over the next twenty minutes by which time the parking lot was 55 percent full. During this time, two vehicles parked east of the entrance driveway forcing all entering traffic to turn right into the site from the outside travel lane instead of from the shoulder. By 9:55 am, the lot was almost full. At no time during the observations did traffic queue back onto Saratoga Avenue. Nine cars were parked on Saratoga Avenue at this time. During the next several minutes, the lot became effectively full and vehicles began to park on Saratoga Avenue in front of the site, as well as west of the exit driveway on the unpaved shoulder. Two groups of people parked in the library lot across the street and crossed Saratoga Avenue mid-block to get to the church. The total off-site parking demand on Sunday was estimated to be 24 vehicles. Existing Intersection Operations ti v v n w r Traffic opera ons at the Saratoga A enue/Fruitvale A enue mtersectio e e analyzed to identify existing deficiencies or the potential need for traffic control modifications. Operations were analyzed during the morning (7:00 am to 9:00 am) and afternoon (2:30 pm to 4:30 pm) peak periods when school traffic is highest. Traffic counts were conducted at the intersection during both periods in February 2001. To measure and describe the operational status of the local roadway network, traffic engineers commonly use a grading system called Level of Service (LOS). Level of Service is a qualitative description of an intersection's operation, ranging from LOS A (indicating free flow traffic conditions with little or no delay at intersections) to LOS F (representing over-saturated conditions where traffic flows exceed design capacity, resulting in long queues and delays). LOS E for signalized intersections represents operations at capacity. The City of Saratoga has defined LOS D as the minimum acceptable operating level for all study intersections. For signalized intersections, the level of service methodology described in Chapter 9 of the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) (Special Report 209, Transportation Research Board) was applied .with adjusted saturation flow rates per City of Saratoga and VTA guidelines. The average stopped delay for signalized intersections is calculated using the TRAFFIX analysis software and is correlated to a level of service designation as shown in Table 1. This method is consistent with the methods used by the VTA. 6 00~~00 FEHR & PEERS TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS The results of the LOS analysis show that the Saratoga Avenue/Fruitvale Avenue intersection operates at LOS D during both the AM and PM peak hours, where the afternoon peak hour occurred between 2:30 pm and 3:30 pm (instead of during the typical 4:00 pm to 6:00 pm commute peak period). Based on .City of Saratoga standards, the intersection operates acceptably during both periods. The corresponding LOS calculation worksheets are included in the technical appendix. Table I Signalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions Usin Avera a Sto ed Vehicular Dela Average Stopped Delay Level of Per Vehicle Service Descri tion Seconds A Operarions with very low delay occurring .with favorable <_ 5.0 _ _ _ _ _progression and/or short cycle lengths.___ _ ___ _ __ _ _ l3+ Operarions with low delay occurring with good progression : 5 1 to 7.0 t l B- :and/or short cycle lengths. 1311 to 5 0 C+ Operations with average delays resulting from fair progression 15.1 to 17.0 C and/or longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures begin to 17.1 to 23.0 C- appear. 23.1 to 25.0 D+ Operations with longer delays due to a combination of 25.1 to 28.0 D unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, and high V/C ratios. 28.1 to 37.0 D- Many vehicles stop and individual cycle failures are noticeable. 37.1 to 40.0 E+ Operations with high delay values indicating poor progression, 40.1 to 44.0 E long cycle lengths, and high V/C ratios. Individual cycle failures 44.1 to 56.0 E- are frequent occurrences. 56.1 to 60.0 Operations with delays unacceptable to most drivers occurring F due to over-saturation, poor progression, or very long cycle > 60.0 len ths. Source: VTA' s CMP Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines, May 7, 1998, and Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 209, 1985. Observations showed that vehicles traveling eastbound on Saratoga Avenue formed lengthy queues during several cycles between 3:00 pm and 4:00 pm. At their longest, the queues extended from Fruitvale Avenue west past the driveway serving the library. The effect of these queues was to temporarily block access to the library entrance and to temporarily delay some vehicles turning left out of the St. Andrew's' exit driveway. However, both of these problems were temporary and did not result in any significant problems. PROPOSED PROJECT According to the project sponsor, the student enrollment is not projected to increase significantly over the next five years. The proposed expansion of building space including FEHR ~ PEE TRANSPORTATION CONSUITA~ the new gymnasium is intended to provide additional on-site amenities and would not directly result in new vehicle trips during the peak hours. Although the gymnasium could accommodate additional sporting events, these events would generate traffic before and after the evening peak commute period. Implementation of the proposed master plan does not include an increase in the number of seats in the church sanctuary building. Thus, any increase in service attendance on Sundays would likely have to be accommodated by adding services beginning after the current 9:00 am and 11:00 am services. These project parameters were-used to conduct the subsequent traffic and circulation evaluation. POTENTIAL OPERATIONAL ISSUES The impacts of a project on circulation are usually identified by criteria that address vehicular, transit, bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Typically, a significant transportation/circulation impact is defined to occur if implementation of the proposed project: • Degrades operations at a signalized intersection from an acceptable level (LOS D or better) to an unacceptable level (LOS E or F), or exacerbates operations at an intersection already operating at LOS E or F; • Exacerbates the need for a traffic signal at an unsignalized intersection that is already operating at an unacceptable level and adds more than two percent to the critical volume; • Increases parking intrusion on adjacent neighborhood streets; • Impedes travel on an existing or planned bicycle or pedestrian facility; or • Increases the potential for conflicts between vehicles and bicyclists, pedestrians, or other vehicles, or results in a hazard/safety issue. The evaluation of the proposed project based on these criteria is described below. The site plan for the proposed project used in this analysis was prepared by CSDA Architects and is dated April 8, 2002. This plan is included as Exhibit A. Approximate recommended lane widths for on-site roadways have been noted or. the plan. Intersection Operations • Since the school and church are not projecting substantial changes in attendance over the next five years, the change in weekday peak hour traffic volumes caused by the project is expected to be negligible. If church attendance does increase, it would likely be accommodated through new services since. the number of seats in the church is not being expanded. Although new services would add traffic to the adjacent roadway network, this is expected to have a less than significant impact because of the relatively low existing volumes on Sundays. oov:.oz z 0 FEHR & PEERS TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS Without the addition of substantial new traffic volumes, implementation of the proposed master plan is not expected to have a significant impact on the operation of the Saratoga Avenue/Fruitvale Avenue intersection from a capacity standpoint. Potential impacts because of queuing on Saratoga Avenue are discussed below. On-Site Circulation The pattern of traffic on-site is somewhat driven by the provision of the perpendicular parking aisles in the main lot. This configuration provides the maximum number of stalls but also requires two-way travel on at least one segment of the drive aisles surrounding the main lot. Two options have been developed for on-site circulation. One maintains the existing counter-clockwise, one-way vehicle flow along the building frontage only as shown on Exhibit B. A second provides for two-way travel around.the entire lot (see Exhibit C). One-Way Configuration Under the one-way configuration, a 14-foot minimum width drive aisle should be provided from the entrance driveway to the two-way drive aisle serving the exit driveway and rear of the gymnasium. The section of the aisle leading up to the exit driveway would ideally be 18 to 20 feet. The two-way section leading to the exit dnveway would allow re-circulation within the lot without having to use Saratoga Avenue. An 8- to 10-foot wide drop-off/pick-up lane would be provided adjacent to the drive aisle as shown on Exhibit B. Students would only enter and exit vehicles in the drop-off/pick-up lane. It is likely that the vehicle queue during peak periods will block access to the handicapped spaces located next to the sanctuary. In addition, it is recommended that the three parking spaces located next to the handicapped spaces be blocked with cones during peak periods so as to maintain flow into the site. If additional drop-off/pick-up length is needed to serve the demand, it would be possible to use the handicapped space length by installing removable bollards or cones in front of the .spaces during peak periods. The bollazds would provide protection for students and other pedestrians, are required in the City of Saratoga for public schools with similar designs, and are recommended from a safety standpoint. Under this scenario, parking in the parallel stalls located in front of the gymnasium should be prohibited during peak periods. These spaces should be blocked with removable bollards, which are recommended, or cones. Two speed humps or raised crosswalks should be provided to slow vehicle speeds in the main drive aisle. Speed humps are typically 12 to 14 feet in length and extend the width of the traveled way. Raised crosswalks are speed humps that are typically 22 feet in length and 9 ~~~J`~~J3 FEHR & PEE TRANSPORTATION CONSULTA include a flat 10-foot section in the- center that is striped diagonally. These help to direct pedestrians from the .lot to the campus area. The current site plan from CSDA shows two humps, one of which may be relocated to the south to minimize travel speeds in front of the gymnasium. The drive aisle to the rear of the campus should be constructed at a minimum of 22 feet wide (ideally 24 feet) without parking to adequately accommodate two-way travel. Use of the rear area for student drop-off/pick-up is discussed below as part of on-site vehicle queuing. Two-Way Circulation Two-way circulation could be provided by striping two travel lanes from the entrance driveway to the exit driveway around the entire length of the main parking lot. The driveways would still be maintained as one-way in at the entrance and one-way out at the exit. The lane providing counter-clockwise flow from the entrance should be 12 feet wide, and the opposing lane should be 14 feet wide. This additional width for the opposing lane would be required to because of the sharp angle required to turn down each parking aisle. The pazallel parking area shown on the site plan would have to be extended in both directions as shown on Exhibit C and would serve as the drop-off/pick-up lane during peak periods. Speed humps or raised crosswalks should also be provided under this alternative. On-Site Vehicle Queuing Since the existing available curb length results in queues that extend back. onto Sazatoga Avenue, the site plan should be modified to provide more areas for student drop-off/pick-up activities. This can be accomplished through: 1) providing a single continuous drop- off/pick-up lane along the front of the school, and 2) providing a separate drop-off/pick-up azea at the rear of the site near the pre-kindergarten and kindergarten classrooms. As noted above, use of the entire length of the campus building frontage is recommended if needed to minimize the potential for vehicles to -queue back to the Saratoga Avenue entrance. This involves the installation of removable bollards in the area of the handicapped and general spaces located next to the church sanctuary. The total drop-off/pick curb length ; provided will be approximately 300 feet (without using the handicapped/general spaces), which is approximately 170 feet more than is currently used. Use of the parking spaces would increase the drop-off/pick-up length by approximately 80 additional feet. Adequate staff should be provided to assist students during peak periods to direct parents to pull vehicles forward in the drop-off/pick-up lane. A second drop-off/pickup area at the rear of the site will increase on-site capacity and reduce demand at the front of the school. Parents would be able to drop-off and pick up younger students in close proximity to their classrooms. As shown on Exhibits B and C, the o FEHR ~ PEERS TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS rear lot would have to be modified to permit vehicles to turn around after stopping at the curb. Vehicles would be able to queue on the roadway behind the gymnasium. Given that the children are very young, staff would have to assist students entering and exiting vehicles. In some cases, parents will choose to park their vehicle and walk their child to class. Those vehicles should be parked in the main lot at the front of the school and the six spaces at the back of the gymnasium should be designated for staff parking only during school hours. The additional on-site loading areas and the use of the roadway behind the gym for queuing will help to reduce the potential for vehicles to queue back to and onto Saratoga Avenue. Saratoga Avenue Operations The additional on-site vehicle storage for queuing and additional total drop-off/pick-up curb length will reduce and will likely eliminate queuing on Saratoga Avenue. Adequate on-site staffing to increase passenger loading/unloading efficiency will help with this process. Accordingly no changes to Saratoga Avenue are recommended as part of the project. Parking The proposed parking supply with the master plan will include a total of 202 spaces. The five parallel parking spaces and the eight spaces in front of the sanctuary will be temporarily unavailable during the peak drop-off/pick-up periods, but only for a short time. This is slightly more than the existing supply of 200 spaces (i.e., 187 full-time spaces and 13 part- time spaces located in the current drop-off area). Since no substantial change in student enrollment is expected, no increase in parking supply is required. However, 24 vehicles were observed parking on Saratoga Avenue or in the library lot across the street as noted under existing conditions. Without a more substantial increase in the parking supply, drivers will continue to park on the street and in the library lot. Parking in the library lot is not an ideal condition because some church patrons will likely cross Saratoga Avenue midblock between Fruitvale Avenue Crestbrook Drive (to the southwest). This is not a legal crossing and is-not considered a safe activity even with lower traffic volumes on Saratoga Avenue on Sundays. ~ ~ ~~J~ ~.~JS L ~._~:a - • EX ~ ~ l Q T 0 ~ ~ ~~~, r>) d V~`r" S ~o~a'')l~~ j ®® o~oP- o~ are.a\ F CYr'„ ~ > \1 F~r~ ~ j j~, ";~. rye{ l _ ~~A. •`/ L r,^ ~ f ,. _ ( Y ~..( 1 r~ 1 '..~ 4 r,, ~ l ~ its ;., r u 4 ,~ ` /( ~ " ~~~ -a, 'DioP-off '`~--- i a ~ aNC 1 ti ti ~r ~• !if3 b A iA ~: . y M~ ~k l-~-I B 1 T B ~'~e. _We.l. ~'`\. C.r arc s ~.owda7- ~ E. r., r tan ~ COrf. r ~~~ ~r''. ' ?~f !v. R~~"%'~ ~. °' ``_ A ~..._. • ~~ ~xt+~~T'Gr f- _m X W ~6~ .~ c ~o ® °' • • • _ ' Typical >° Path for .~ THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK • • • K AND BUS STOP _~ aosE dttvEVAr 1 IN I-H. O A C: N M Pro~ised Ultimate Stripin~'lan for Saratoga Avenue (July 25, 2002) o ST.ANDREWS Y O O PROJECT SITE LOCATE NEV C0IHINED VTA BUS STDP m ~ INSTALL NEV TRAEEIC SIGNAL REMOVE BUS STOP s / NO PARKING ~ ~ I _ __ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ' ~ I I ~ ~ - " I I I I I l I ~ I I L I I I l ; ~ i l I ~ ~ I ~ ~ Mon-Trl 7AM to FPM ~ ~_ _ _~ __ __ .-__. _ -_____ _ ..., :. _ ~, _ ~ - _ ~_ _ i Evt..Ml ~.w...Y .,~ Eur _ ~ - ~..~ I _ . _ h ._ -_- ._ _. NO PARKING TO CORNER . .. .. Y. .. ^ .. _ ... . ..... _ - - - --- _ 110 EEET - ~_ _ _ _ i _ ___... 0Y V _ _ _ _ - -- - ~ ~ SMATOC r '~. ._ A AVE..... ' ..__'__--_ L_ _-.- ~ -. - ._ --'..._ ~ CLOSE DRIVEVAr ~~ - ~- - `~~-~~ T 4 LOCATE NEV COMBINED VTA BUS STOP ~ ~ , x~ ,j . ' . '~ ~\ .. ~: : : Y ~ .~ _ ,~~ ,, '~~~_~ LIBRARY i ' %~ ~ ~ ~ . / `,cam., ; ~ ~ ~. . i' , i , r / /; , i ~~ ~ //, ,. /,~ , //,~ / ~ ,, , , D ~. / ~ ~ i ~ ,' D ,~`~, C~ %' ~ S ~w ~ rn ~QJ` Z ,~ a, • THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK OQil~.1~ ~. ATTAC H NI E N T 1 L r C~ff'2~ ~Z o4 ~~° BOO C~~ 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 950 i 0 • (40S) 865-1200 Incorporated October 22, 1956 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE SUBJECT St. Andrews School and Parish, 13601 Saratoga Avenue Public Works Department August 6, 2002 COL;NCIL MEMBERS: Evan Baker Stan Bogosian John Mehalfey Nick Streit Ann Waltonsmith Public Works conditions of development for property at 13601 Saratoga Avenue. r 1. Developer shall extend the school's Southernmost driveway approach and curb approximately 15 feet into the Sazatoga Avenue right-of way. Smooth transitions shall be made into existing curb/gutter sections on either end of the new approach. 2. Developer shall construct a continuous asphalt berm (Caltrans type) within the City right-of--way along Saratoga Avenue, extending from the Southern limit of schooUchurch property to the pedestrian crossing at Crestbrook Drive. Additionally, developer shall construct a five foot-wide asphalt pathway that will connect the pedestrian crossing at Crestbrook Drive with the existing school parking lot. This path will run pazallel to the asphalt berm mentioned above. 3. Developer shall submit a set of plans to the Saratoga Public Works Department for review and acceptance of design for above Items 1 and 2. 4. Developer shall obtain an encroachment permit from the Saratoga Public Works Department for the above stated work (Items 1 and 2). • ., • THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK • OUP .14 .~ ~.~ i• • ITEM 4 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No.: #02-197 Location: CITI'WIDE Applicant/Owner: City of Saratoga Staff Planner: Thomas Sullivan, AICP Community Development Director Date: October 9, 2002 APN: N/A Department 000©01 Project Description Ciry Staff has received complaints regarding the interpretation of the side yard setback requirements for structures over 18-feet in height on substandard width lots. This appears to be another example of the "language of the ordinance vs. previous practice" syndrome. The imposition of the ordinance required side yard setbacks on lots with substandard widths create difficult designs. For example, a lot with a width of 50-feet would have a minimum side yard set back of 6-feet pursuant to section 15-65,160, which states, "Where the width of a site does not conform with the standard for the district, the minimum width of interior side yards shall be not less than ten percent of the width of the site or six feet, whichever is greater, and the minimum width of an exterior side yard of a corner lot shall be not less than twenty percent of the width of the site or fifteen feet, whichever is greater." However, section 15-45.040 requires that for structures over 18-feet in height that the set backs X be increased on a one for one ratio. If a design proposal for a house that is two story at 24-feet in ~ ~,,~~ b height, the setbacks increase to 12-feet on both sides. The resulting structure could only be 26- ~ +~ : , `2 feet wide. Apparently, the previous practice was to have the increased setback on the second ~a~ floor only. As the Commission can read below, Section 15-45:040 simply does not support that interpretation. 15-45.040 Setbacks. ~~~~ w Where a new structure or an addition to an existing structure, located within an R-1-10,000, R-1- 12,500, R-1-15,000 or R-1-20,000 district will exceed eighteen feet in height, the required setback from each property line of the site shall be increased by one foot for each one foot of height in excess of eighteen feet. (Amended by Ord. 71.99 § 26, 1991; Ord. 71-178 § 2, 1998) The purpose of the increased setback is the avoidance of bulk and mass at the minimum setback. For two-story dwellings the previous practice seems to meet this goal. However, this practice does not address single story dwellings that are over 18-feet in height. The Commission will recall that eve have seen several single story dwellings that are 26-feet in height. The complaints that we have received fall into two categories; first, nonconforming lots and second, second story additions wherein the first floor was built at the minimum setback. For the bath of these cases I would su est that the ordinance be amended to require that the second stare setback be the minimum plus an a ~tionarfi`ve~eet~iCh t is amendment, J would ur~th~er suggest that section 15- .0~5 40 e~de e ed`in its entirety. Single story development in excess of 18-feet we will have to use the Design Review process to avoid mass and bulk issues. STAFF RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission recommends to the City Council that they amend the Zoning Ordinance relating to setbacks for second stories by adopting Resolution ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution • 000002 • APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION No. CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received a request to amend certain sections of the Zoning Code relating to side yard setbacks; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, the staff presented sufficient information required to support said application, and the following findings have been determined: The proposed amendment will allow the implementation of the Design Guidelines without undue burden being placed on property owners. • That the proposed amendments will ease the review of applications for new dwellings on substandard parcels and for second story additions to existing dwellings. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resoh~e as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of all of the testimony and related information the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby recommend that the City Council of the City of Saratoga: Amend Section 15-45.040 by deletion; and • 000003 0 2 ~. ., • Amend Sections 15-12.090 (a) (2) and (3) to read: (a) (2) Side yards of interior lots. The minimum side yard of any interior lot in each R-1 district shall be the distance indicated in the following table for each side yard: First Floor Second Floorlndividual Individual District Side Yards Side Yards R-1-10,000 10 ft. ISft. R-1-12,500 10 ft. ISft. R-1-15,000 12 ft. 17ft. R-1-20,000 15 ft. 20 ft. R-1-40,000 20 ft: 25ft. (a) (3) Side yards of corner lots. The minimum side yard of any corn er lot in each R-1 district shall be the distance indicated in the following table: First Second First Second Floor Floor Floor Floor Interior Interior Exterior Exterior District Side Yard Side Side Side Yard Yard Yard R-I-10,000 10 ft. lSft. 25 ft. 30 ft. R-I-L,500 10 ft. ISft. 25 ft. 30 ft. R-I-15,000 12 ft. 17ft. 25 ft. 30 ft. R-1-?0,000 15 ft. 20 ft. 25 ft. 30 ft. R-I-40,000 20 ft. 25ft. 25 ft. 30 fr. ~J OOOaO4 ~~ 1 Amend Sections 15-12.090 (b) (2) and (3) to read: • b 2 Side ards of interior lots. The minimum side and of an interior lot in each R-1 ()() y y y district shall be ten percent of the lot width, or the distance in dicated in the following table for each side yard, whichever is greater: First Floor Individual Second Floor Individual District Side Yards Side Yards R-1-10,000 10 ft. ISft. R-1-12,500 10 ft. ISft. R-1-15,000 12 ft. 17ft. R-1-20,000 15 ft. 20 ft. R-1-40,000 20 ft. 25ft. (b) (3) Side yards of corner lots. The minimum side yard of any corner lot in each R-1 district shall be ten percent of the lot width, or the distance indicated in the following table: I,~ r~ First Floor Second First Second Interior Floor Floor Floor Interior Exterior Exterior District Side Side Yard Side Side Yard Yard Yard R-1-10,000 10 ft. ISft. 15 ft. 20 ft. R-1-1?,500 10 ft. lSft. 15 ft. 20 ft. R-1-li,000 12 ft. 17ft. 15 ft. 20 ft. R-1-20,000 15 ft. 2O ft. 20 ft. 25 ft. R-1-40,000 20 ft. 25ft. 25 ft. 30 ft. ooo©os ~a . PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of - California, October 9, 2002 by the following roll call vote: • AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary to the Planning Commission • • ooooos ~~ .`s- MIl`UTES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL AUGUST 7, 2002 The City Council of the City of Saratoga met in Closed Session, Administrative Conference Room, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue at 5:00 p.m. Initiation of litigation (Gov't Code Section 54956.9(c): (1 potential case) Conference With Legal Counsel -Existing Litigation (3 cases): (Government Code section 54956.9(a)) Name of case: City of Saratoga v. West Valley-Mission Community College District (California Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District No. H022365) Name of case: City of Saratoga v. Hinz (Santa Clara County Superior Court Doc. No. CV-784560) Name of case: Saratoga Fire Protection District v. City of Saratoga (Santa Clara County Superior Court No. CV-803540) Public Employee Performance Evaluation (Gov't Code 54957) Title: City Manager MAYOR'S REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION - 7:00 p.m. Mayor Streit reported there was Council discussion but no action was taken. Mayor Streit called the Regular City Council meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and requested Evan Baker, Vice Mayor, to lead the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Councilmembers Stan Bogosian, John Mehaffey, Ann Waltonsmith, Vice Mayor Evan Baker, Mayor Nick Streit • ABSENT: None ALSO PRESENT: Dave Anderson, City Manager Lorie Tinfow, Assistant City Manager Richard Taylor, City Attorney Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk Jesse Baloca, Administrative Services Director John Cherbone, Director of Public Works Joan Pisani, Recreation Director John Livingstone, Associate Planner Lata Vasudevan, Assistant Planner Cary Bloomquist, Administrative Analyst n REPORT OF CITY CLERK ON POSTING OF AGENDA FOR AUGUST 7.2002 - Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk, reported that pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2, the agenda for the meeting of August 7, 2002 was properly posted on August 2, 2002. COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS & PUBLIC ORAL COMMUNICATIONS The following person requested to speak at tonight's meeting: John Keenan, 22215 Mt. Eden Road, explained to the Council that last week his wife had a garage sale. "The Code Compliance Officer also stated that if she reported them there would be a $100 fine. Mr. Keenan requested that the City Council direct staff to treat garage sale signs like the City treats political and real estate signs. COMMUNICATIONS FROM BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None COUNCIL DIRECTION TO STAFF Councilmember Waltonsmith stated that she did not know the City had a garage sale sign ordinance and requested that this issue be agendized. City Manager Anderson stated that the City's ordinance for garage sale signs states that they are not suppose to be posted off site. Councilmember Bogosian noted that he supported Councilmember Waltonsmith's requested and asked that lost pets signs be included in the review of signs in the City. Councilmember Mehaffey also requested that car wash signs be added in the review of the ordinance. ANNOUNCEMENTS None SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS None City Council Minutes 2 August 7, 2002 CEREMONIAL ITEMS lA. PRESENTATION -CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY/INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT BOARD STAFF RECOMMENDATION: _.. Receive award. Mayor Streit noted that the City of Saratoga received an award from the California Protection Agency. CONSENT CALENDAR 2A. APPROVE COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES REGULAR MEETING -JUNE 19, 2002 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: .Approve minutes. Councilmember Bogosian and Councilmember Waltonsmith requested that item 2A be pulled from the Consent Calendar. Councilmember Waltonsmith requested the following changes: Councilmember Bogosian requested that on page 10, 4ch paragraph, Council's direction should read as follows: Council requested that the Parks and Recreation Commission explore options to possibly hire an independent consultant to facilitate community meetings. Councilmember Bogosian requested the following comments be added to page 10, Sch paragraph: Councilmember Bogosian stated, that he did not want to go down the same road the Ciry went with tl:e play fields and wanted the process for this project to be independent, rather than user group driven. Councilmember Waltonsmith requested the following changes: Page 6, 4cn paragraph. The comment should read as follows: Councilmember Waltonsmith asked about the possibility of people constructing basements under secondary units. WALTONSMITH/BOGOSIAN MOVED TO APPROVE COUNCIL MINUTES OF JUNE 19, 2002 AS AMENDED. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 2B. REVIEW OF CHECK REGISTER STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve check register. WALTONSMITH/MEHAFFEY MOVED TO APPROVE CHECK REGISTERED. MOTION PASSED 5-0. City Council Minutes 3 August 7, 2002 2C. REVIEW PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MINUTES - JULY 24, 2002 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Note and file. WALTONSMITH/MEHAFFEY MOVED TO NOTE AND FILE PLANNING ACTION MINUTES. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 2D. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT - REQUIREMENTS FOR BASEMENTS STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt ordinance. TITLE OF ORDNANCE: 206 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA REGARDING REQUIREMENTS FOR BASEMENTS Councilmember Waltonsmith requested that item 2D be pulled from the Consent Calendar. • Councilmember Waltonsmith stated that she was concerned why the Planning Commission has not reviewed basements under secondary units. Director Sullivan explained that the Planning Commission has reviewed in length the basement ordinance and has made their recommendations to the City Council. The City Council has made minor alterations to the ordinance. Director Sullivan noted that in regard to a second units ordinance amendment, staff is in the process of developing that ordinance and would provide the Planning Commissioners a draft for an independent review. The Planning Commission will the give their independent comments and hopefully start the public hearing process in the fall. Director Sullivan stated that currently an accessory structure and a main structure could have a basement. The critical issue is whether or not a basement under a second unit should count as floor area. Director Sullivan explained that the way the ordinance is currently written an accessory structure and a main structure can have a basement so conceivably if a second unit was part of the main structure it could have a basement, but it is all subject to review by the Planning Commission. Director Sullivan noted that there are no pending applications for second units at this time, although several members of the community are waiting until the City completes the ordinance with more streamline regulations. Director Sullivan requested that Council move forward with the adoption of the ordinance. WALTONSMITH/MEHAFFEY MOVED TO ADOPT ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT -REOUIREMENTS FOR BASEMENTS. MOTION PASSED 5-0. City Council Minutes 4 August 7, 2002 2E. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT -SINGLE STORY OVERLAY STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt ordinance. TITLE OF ORDNANCE: 207 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING CODE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA ESTABLISHING A SINGLE STORY OVERLAY DISTRICT FOR THE SARATOGA WOODS NEIGHBORHOOD Vice Mayor Baker requested that item 2E be pulled from the Consent Calendar. Vice Mayor Baker noted that he would be recusing himself from voting on this item and stepped down from the dais. Mayor Streit noted that he had numerous requests from the public to speak on item 2E. David Greimer, 12388 Redoyka Drive, noted that he supports the ordinance and stated that Kosick Court should be included in the overlay. Carl Nielson, 18921 Cyril Place, noted that he has lived in the Saratoga Woods neighborhood since 1973. Mr. Nielsen pointed out that the single family, ranch style homes is what attracted him to the neighborhood. Ronald Schoengold, 19000 Saratoga Glen Place, noted that he is the president of the Saratoga Woods neighborhood Association that represents 400 families. Mr. Schoengold noted that the Association fully supports the ordinance. Giovanni Barbarossa, 12430 Curry Court, noted that he opposed the proposed ordinance. Dory Albert, 12304 Saratoga Creek Drive, noted that she opposed the proposed ordinance and would like it pulled off the agenda this evening. Ms. Albert stated that this ordinance goes against her rights as a homeowner. Ms. Albert noted that the resale value on the homes in the Saratoga Woods neighborhood would plummet. Ms. Albert suggested that each lot should be looked at case by case. Ms. Albert suggested that the City should allow designated styles of two story homes if a homeowner wanted to construct a second story. Marcia Fariss, 18983 Saratoga Glen Place, noted that she supports the ordinance and presented a brief history about the Saratoga Woods neighborhood in regards to second story additions. Ms. Farris noted that the proposed ordinance ensures that current and future homeowners will know the constraints on expansion in Saratoga Woods. Ms. Farris noted that the proposed ordinance does allow for variances for individual situation and extenuating circumstances. • City Council Minutes 5 August 7, 2002 Referring to comments made by Ms. Farriss, Councilmember Mehaffey asked for an opinion from the City Attorney regarding variances. Councilmember Mehaffey asked if the variance process allows second story additions even thought he ordinance prohibits it. 2F 2G City Attorney Taylor explained that depending on the .circumstances of each case. City Attorney Taylor stated that if a property owner were to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Planning Commission that the circumstances of their property the single story restriction denied them the benefit of other people similarly situated to them. City Attorney Taylor stated that it is conceivable that such a case could be made. Mayor Streit stated that in regards to limiting expansion, the City has allowed 60% coverage on these lots due to the single story overlay. BOGOSIAN/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO ADOPT THE ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT -SINGLE STORY OVERLAY. MOTION PASSED 4-0-1 WITH BAKER RECUSING. ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING THE MANNER IN WHICH MEMBERSHIP TERMS ON CITY COMMISSIONS ARE STAGGERED TITLE OF ORDNANCE: 209 AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING STAGGERED TERMS FOR COMMISSIONERS APPOINTED TO CITY COMMISSIONS STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt ordinance. WALTONSMITH/MEHAFFEY MOVED TO ADOPT ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING THE MANNER IN WHICH MEMBERSHIP TERMS ON CITY COMMISSIONS ARE STAGGERED. MOTION PASSED 5-0. PROPERTY TAX LEVY TO SERVICE THE DEBT ON THE LIBRARY BOND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution. TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 02-057 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVING AN INCREASE IN THE CITY'S PROPERTY TAX RATE TO FUND DEBT SERVICE PAYMENTS ON THE LIBRARY GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002-03 WALTONSMITH/MEHAFFEY MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLTUION APPROVING AN INCREASE IN THE CITY'S PROPERTY TAX RATE TO FUND DEBT SERVICE PAYMENTS ON THE LIBRARY GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002-03. MOTION PASSED 5-0. • • City Council Minutes ( August 7, 2002 2H. COMMISSION ATTENDANCE RECORDS • STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Informational only. WALTONSMITH/MEHAFFEY MOVED TO ACCEPT THE COMMISSION ATTENDANCE RECORDS. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 2I. MEDICARE COVERAGE FOR EMPLOYEES HIRED PRIOR TO APRIL 1, 1986 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution. TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 02-058 RESOLTUION OF THE CITY COUNCIL AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF APPLICATION AND AGREEMENT ALLOWING THE CITY OF SARATOGA TO ENTER INTO A SECTION 218 AGREEMENT WITH THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINSTRATION AND PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIRENMENT SYSTEM (PERS) WALTONSMITH/MEHAFFEY MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION FOR MEDICARE. MOTION PASSED 5-0. ~J 2J. DESIGN SERVICES FOR BLANEY PLAZA IMPROVEMENTS STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution amending the FY 2002-03 Budget; approve proposal from Greg Ing & Associates; authorize execution of agreement; and authorize miscellaneous costs. TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 02-059 RESOLTUION THE CITY COUNCIL AMENDING THE 5-YEAR CIP BUDET TO ESTABLISH AN ADDITONAL PROJECT "BLANEY PLAZA IMPROVEMNTS" WITH AN APPROPRIATION OF $19,400 Councilmember Bogosian and Councilmember Waltonsmith requested that item 2J be pulled from the, Consent Calendar. Councilmember Bogosian stated that he felt the schedule was a bit ambitious and requested that this item come back to the Council when the architect has preliminary deigns. City Manager Anderson suggested that this item come back fora 50% design review. City Council Minutes 7 August 7, 2002 Councilmember Waltonsmith concurred with Councilmember Bogosian and also .. requested an opportunity for public input. Director Cherbone noted that the plan was going to be brought back to Council at least twice. Director Cherbone noted that he could bring this item back to Council on September 4, 2.002... BOGOSIAN/BAKER MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION AMENDING THE FY 2002-03 BUDGET; APPROVE PROPOSAL FROM GREG ING & ASSOCIATES; AUTHORIZE EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT; AND AUTHORIZE MISCELLANEOUS COSTS. MOTION PASSED 5-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA CONFIRMING REPORT AND ASSESSMENT OF WEEDS AND BRUSH ABATEMENT CHARGES STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution. TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 02-060 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA CONFIRMING REPORT AND ASSESSMENT OF WEED AND BRUSH ABATEMENT CHARGES Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk, presented staff report. City Clerk Boyer stated that under State and local laws, local govenements routinely abate seasonal fire hazards of brush on undeveloped property. For the County and several cities, including Saratoga, this brush abatement program is administered by the Coutny Fire Marshall's office. In many cases, property owners find it convenient to have the government take care of brush removal and to pay through property tax liens. City Clerk Boyer reported that this past year the County performed brush abatement on parcels that totaled $24,526.24. In order to recover this cost, it is necessary for the Council to adopt a resolution to confirm the assessments and direct the County Auditor to enter and collect the assessments on the property. WALTONSMITH/BAKERMQVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION ORDERING ABATEMENT OF A PUBLIC NUISANCE BY REMOVAL OF HAZARDOUS BRUSH. MOTION PASSES 5-0. • City Council Minutes g August 7, 2002 4. RECONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION NO.O1-060 REGARDING SARATOGA FIRE DISTRICT FIRE STATION AND TEMPORARY FIRE STATION AT 14380 SARATOGA AVENUE • STAFF RECOMMENDATION: - Approve motion for reconsideration; open public hearing on-reconsideration; close public hearing; reconsider resolution; and~provide direction to staff. TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 02-061 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO.Ol-060 AND REFERRING FIRE DISTRICT APPLICATION TO PLANNING COMMISSION FOR CONSIDERATION OF REVISED PLANS John Livingstone, Associate Planner, presented staff report. Planner Livingstone reported that at THE September 5, 2001 meeting, the City Council adopted Resolution 01-060 denying the application of the Saratoga Fire Protection District to build a new fire station at 14380 Saratoga Avenue and to maintain a temporary fire station during construction of the new a fire station. At the July 17, 2002 City Council meeting, a motion was made to place Resolution 01-060 on the next agenda for reconsideration before the City Council pursuant to 2-10.110 of the City Code that allows the Council to reconsider any action at any time. Planner Livingstone stated that on July 17, 2002 the City Council approved a settlement agreement with the Fire District. The settlement agreement established a process for consideration of a new fire station design consistent with "Scheme A", including a front apron of at least 59 feet and compliance with the City's height limitations and standard front yard setback. The "Scheme A" approach requires minor exceptions to the City's rear and side-yard setback requirements and site coverage requirements. The agreement requires preparation of an environmental analysis of the new design by the Fire District and review by the Planning Commission. The agreement also requires the City Council to consider (1) vacating the alley between the existing fire station and the post office and (2) transferring the Heritage Plaza property to the Fire District in exchange for ten new public parking spaces, in addition to the 24 required by the District and bicycle and pedestrian easement along Saratoga Avenue and State Route 9. The agreement specifies that nothing in the agreement restricts the City's discretion in considering these matters. The agreement requires the City and the District to confer regarding proposed changes to the project. Planner Livingstone noted that in accordance with the Code, the motion for reconsideration was agendized for this meeting of the City Council approve the motion for reconsideration and then conduct a public hearing to reconsider the issues addressed in Resolution 01-060. Planner Livingstone noted that reconsideration of the resolution denying the original application is the first step in the planning process set forth in the settlement agreement. City Council Minutes 9 August 7, 2002 Planner Livingstone explained that by reconsidering the resolution the City Council can take any of the actions that were available to them at the September 5, 2001 meeting. These are (1) approve the application as submitted at that time; (2) deny the applications; (3) approve the applications as submitted with modifications • specified by Council; (4) refer the matter back to the Planning Commission. Planner Livingstone explained that if the Council refers the matter back to the Planning Commission it should also request that the Planning Commission review concurrently with the Fire District application (1) the proposed vacation of George Whalen Way (the alley behind the existing fire station) and (2) the transfer of the Heritage Plaza property to the District for conformity with City's General Plan pursuant to Government Code Section 65402 (a). Planner Livingstone noted that the Settlement Agreement contemplates that the District will submit a revised application to the City by August 23, 2002. This would allow the matter to be presented at the Planning Commission at its meeting of September 25, 2002. Following the Planning Commission's action on the project, the City Council would hold a public hearing on the vacation of the alley and the conveyance of the Heritage Plaza property to the District. The hearing would be at the October 16, 2002 City Council meeting. In regards to concerns raised regarding the Council's decision to reconsider Resolution 01-060, City Attorney Taylor explained the process of the process as stated in the City code. Mayor Streit opened the public hearing at 7:51 p.m. . John Keenan, 22215 Mt. Eden Road, stated that he is disappointed that the City Council is reconsidering the decision made in September 2001. David Dolloff, 20685 Sigal Drive, stated that he is bitterly disappointed in the City Council. Mr. Dolloff noted that a group of citizens pointed out gross inadequacies of the Saratoga Fire District, formed the F.A.C.T committee, the City then formed the Ad Hoc committee, and a consultant was hired. Mr. Dolloff stated that he feels the District bullied the City Council. Mr. Dolloff stated that he feels the District got what they wanted by threatening the City with a lawsuit. Mr. Dolloff stated that the Council betrayed the citizens of Saratoga. Aaron Katz, PO Box 116, stated that he opposes the proposed action before the Council this evening. Mr. Katz stated that this situation sets a terrible message for the future of "backdoor politics". Hal Toppel, Attorney, 660 West Dana Street, Mountain View, stated that he represents the Fire District. Mr. Toppel stated that "backdoor politics" never took place regarding this issue. Mr. Toppel noted that everything has been through the public process and will continue to be a public process. Mr. Toppel urged the Council to adopt the motion for reconsideration. City Council Minutes j ~ August 7, 2002 ' Ernest Kraule, Chief/Saratoga Fire District, 14445 Springer Avenue, stated that the process has started to design new plans for the new fire station, which includes four bay doors and the creation of a basement. Chief Kraule urged the Council to adopt the resolution before them this evening. Mayor Streit closed the public hearing at 8:07 p.m. BOGOSIAN/MEHAFFEY MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION RESCINDING RESOLUTION 01-060 AND REFERRING PROJECT BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION. MOTION PASSED 5-0. Councilmember Mehaffey stated that there were no "backdoor" proceedings. Councilmember Mehaffey stated that the Council is not approving anything tonight except for sending the Fire District plans back to the Planning Commission, which any decision they make can be appealed. Vice Mayor Baker noted he resented the comments insinuating that the Council participated in "backdoor" politics. Mayor Streit declared afive-minute break. Mayor Streit reconvened the meeting at 8:30 p.m. OLD BUSINESS 5. IMPLEMENTATION FOR USAGE OF THE NORTH CAMPUS FACILITY STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept report and direct staff accordingly. TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 02-062 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL AUTHORIZING A BUDGET AMENDMENT OF $53,550 FOR EXPENSES FOR NORTH CAMPUS Joan Pisani, Recreation Director, presented staff report. Director Pisani explained that on July 17, 2002 the City Council approved the purchase of the Grace Methodist Church property located at 19848 Prospect Road. Director Pisani noted that out of the four buildings on the property it is felt that the Administration Building is in the best shape to be used by the public. Brad Lind, the City's Building Inspector, completed an inspection of this building to identify any building code requirements and ADA concerns. He felt the building was usable, as is, but he did recommend a few minor repairs before occupancy. The total cost for repairs and maintenance is $53,550. i Councilmember Bogosian asked how many people the Administration Building could accommodate. City Council Minutes 11 August 7, 2002 Director Pisani stated that the maximum occupancy is 82 6. Councilmember Waltonsmith suggested that the City hold a series of open houses to allow the residents of Saratoga visit the site. Director Pisani agreed that the City should hold an open~house. Memuna Ali, 20014 Seagull Way, stated that she has been a resident of Saratoga for the past 25 years and has been using the Fellowship Ha1160 times a year for the past 14 years. Ms. Ali noted that her group requests that the City continue to allow them to use the hall and Reverend Stone can provide the City with a referral letter. Betty Feldheym, 20184 Franklin Avenue, suggested the City use the North Campus as affordable housing. Councilmember Bogosian noted that he supports renovating the Fellowship Hall. Director Pisani noted that there are several ADA issues that may cost the City over $25,000, but she will check with Field Paoli. MEHAFFEY/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A BUDGET AMENDMENT OF $53,550 FOR THE NORTH CAMPUS. MOTION PASSED 5-0. MOTOR VEHICLE (MV) RESOLUTION PROHIBITING PARKING ALONG A PORTION OF HERRIMAN AVENUE STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution. TITLE OF RESOLUTION: MV-238 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNIL PROHIBITING PARKING ON A PROTION OF HERRIMAN DRIVE John Cherbone, Public Works Director, presented staff report. Director Cherbone noted that both items 6&7 are continued from the July 17, 2002 City Council meeting. The City Council directed staff and Public Safety Commission Chair to bring back more information. Bridgett Ballingall, Chair/Public Safety Commission, noted that in regards to the recommendation prohibiting parking on Herriman, it is currently red all around the corner on both sides. Chair Ballingall noted that every member of the PSC visited the site and the consensus was that there was clearly a visual obstruction. Vice Mayor Baker noted that he visited the site and disagrees with the PSC recommendation. City Council Minutes 12 August 7, 2002 BOGOSIAN/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION PROHIBITING PARKING ALONG A PROTION OF HERRIMAN AVENUE. MOTION PASSED 4-1 WITH BAKER OPPOSING. 7. MOTOR VEHICLE (MV) RESOLUTION PROHIBITING PARKING ALONG A PORTION OF TAMWORTH AVENUE STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution. TITLE OF RESOLUTION: MV-239 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL PROHIBITING PARKING ON A PORTION OF TAMWORTH AVENUE Bridgett Ballingall, Chair/Public Safety Commission, explained that sine the construction at Foothill School has improved and noted that the school supports this request because it increases the visibility. Jeremy Tennenbaum, 13841 Tamworth Avenue, noted that he is the property owner who requested this restriction. Mr. Tennenbaum stated that it is not a real big issue for him but more concerned with the safety of the school children BAKER/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION PROHIBITING PARKING ALONG A PRTION OF TAMWORTH AVENUE. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 10. AZULE PARK -AWARD OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Award construction contract; authorize execution of contract; and authorize change orders. John Cherbone, Public Works Director, presented staff report. Director Cherbone noted that the sealed bids for the Azule Park Project were scheduled to be opened on July 10, 2002. Unfortunately the City did not receive any bids on the project. Staff mailed bid packages directly to approximately 20 General Landscape Contractors and 10 Bid Exchanges. Staff made post-bid inquires to the most promising and experienced plan holders. A majority of the plan holders indicated that they were to busy with other contract work and hat they would not be able to perform the Azule Project in the timeline specified in the contract. They also indicated that the numerous hardscape elements in the park were more than they preferred to take on at this time. Director Cherbone noted that because the City had gone through a formal bid process as specified by the Public Works Contract Code and received no bids; staff was able to solicit bids informally. Staff decided to solicit bids from grading and paving Contractors instead of landscape Contractors. City Council Minutes 13 August 7, 2002 Director Cherbone explained two options. Option A precludes the construction of one of the two tennis courts. As recommended by the Parks and Recreation Commission and the Azule Park Task Force, the second tennis court was to be the first of the add alternative bid items to be eliminated if bids came in over budget. The cost for the second tennis court is $62,203. Option B supplements the original Azule Park Budget ($880,000) with Pavement Management Funds (PMP) in the amount of $62,203 bringing the total project to $943,203. This option would fund a portion of the asphalt pathway construction and would allow the second tennis court to be constructed. Director Cherbone explained that in order to accomplished the project in either Option A or Option B and to be able to have a reasonable construction contingency ($30,000), it is necessary to perform part of the park construction in house. This work consists of demolition, tree removal, and installation of park furniture. Director Cherbone explained that this will save the project approximately $54,593. The Public Works crew is ready and willing to perform these tasks and will begin demolition work on the park next week. Director Cherbone stated that staff recommends that Council move to award a construction contract to Duran & Venables and authorize change orders to the contract up to an amount of $30,000. Mayor Streit asked what would the City be sacrificing in pavement management if the construction of the tennis court were supplemented by the PMP funds. Director Cherbone responded that approximately 2 % miles of slurry seal and mile overlay would be eliminated. In order to spare the use of PMP funds, Vice Mayor Baker noted that he supports Option A. Tom Soukup, 12340 Goleta Avenue, thanked the City Council for moving forward with the construction of Azule Park. Mr. Soukup noted that his wife sent an email to the neighbors explaining the need to cut one of the tennis courts due to budget constraints. Fortunately, no one was disappointed not having two courts. Mayor Streit noted that he supports option A because he is not willing to sacrifice PMP funds. Councilmember Bogosian noted that supports Option A. Councilmember Waltonsmith noted that perhaps in the future when funding becomes available the second tennis court could be added. Director Cherbone noted that he could put the second court in the CIP as an unfunded project. City Council Minutes 14 August 7, 2002 BAKER/MEHAFFEY MOVED TO AWARD CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT '. TO DURAN & VENABLES IN THE AMOUNT OF $679,615.81 FOR OPTION A AND ADD THE SECOND TENNIS COURT IN THE CIP AS AN UNFUNDED PROJECT. MOTION PASSED 5-0. BAKER/MEHAFFEY MOVED TO AUTHORIZE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A CONTRACT WITH DURAN & VENABLES. MOTION PASSED 5-0. BAKER/MEHAFFEY MOVED TO AUTHORIZE CHANGE ORDERS TO THE CONTRACT UP TO $30,000. MOTION PASSED 5-0. Mayor Streit declared a 10-minute break at 9:45 p.m. Mayor Streit reconvened the meeting at 9:55 p.m. NEW BUSINESS 12. LAND USE DESIGNATIONS AT MOUNTAIN WINERY PROPERTY STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept report and direct staff accordingly. Richard Taylor, City Attorney, presented staff report. City Attorney Taylor explained that at its June 19, 2002 meeting City Council requested a report on the land use designations applicable to the Mountain Winery property and the scope of the City Council's discretion to amend those land use designations. The Council also requested a report in the status of any annexation applications filed by the Mountain Winery. City Attorney Taylor explained that the Mountain Winery property is subject to several land use designations. The portion of the property within the City limits is designated in the General Plan as Hillside Conservation Single Family (RHC) and is zoned Hillside Conservation. Santa Clara County regulates the portion of the property outside City limits. The County's General Plan designation for the portion of the Mountain Winery property outside City limits is Hillside (H). The City has prezoned a portion of the Mountain Winery property outside the city limits as Residential Open Space (R-OS). This zoning would take effect if the property were annexed to the City. The General Plan does not apply any land use designations to the portion of the property outside the City but states that Residential Open Space zoning should be applied to any lands included.in an expanded Sphere of Influence. City Attorney Taylor noted that any change to the General's Plans RHC designation for the portion of the property within the City limits would require voter approval pursuant to Measure G unless the redesignation was subject to one of the exceptions to Measure G's voter approval requirement. The City Council has broader discretion with respect to establishing a General Plan designation for the lands outside the City limits, as those lands are not subject to Measure G. City Council Minutes 15 August 7, 2002 City Attorney Taylor noted that any designation for lands outside the City limits, however, would not apply to that portion of the property and could not be used to regulate land uses on that portion unless that portion of the property annexed to the City. City Attorney Taylor noted that the Community Development Director has been in contact with the property owner and has been informed that no annexation applications have been filed for any portion of the Mountain Winery. City Attorney Taylor further discussed applicable land use regulations and the scope of the City Council discretion in considering general plan and zoning ordinance amendments. Councilmember Waltonsmith asked if the Mountain Winery could be annexed to a sanitary district without being annexed by the City. City Attorney Taylor noted that the Mountain Winery could apply to LAFCO for annexation, the City would get noticed and we would participate in those proceedings. Meg Caldwell, 20201 La Paloma, encouraged the City Council to do everything in their power to protect the Mountain Winery area. Ms. Caldwell offered her assistance in any capacity to help the City deal with the Mountain Winery issues. Vic Monia, Granite Way, noted that he encourages the City to look at Mt. Winery prezoning and clearly state what the intentions of the City are in the General plan. The City should prezone all of the sphere of influence Residential Open Space (R- OS). James Baron, 419830 Via Escuela, noted that he was also with the Saratoga Trail Enthusiast. Mr. Baron noted that the Enthusiast conducted a survey sending out approximately 475 questionnaires in regards to the Mt. Winery. Mr. Baron explained some of the residents concerns: • 42% noise • 59% septic system • 61 % regarding traffic • 21 % lights • 30% signage Mayor Streit stated that the City of Saratoga has to figure out a way to annex the Mountain Winery in order to maintain the quality of life of the people who live around the Mt. Winery and to control the development. Mr. Baron stated that there are two prior solutions to annexing the property. First, the residents could file an action to enforce the CUP conditions, go to court, prove that the Winery violated the CUP, and the County did not enforce their own conditions, and get an order to make the County enforce the Cup. Secondly, Mr. Baron noted that since the ticket taking takes place in the City, he feels the City could ask for apermit. - - Councilmember Mehaffey asked if the Mountain Winery was noticed. City Council Minutes 16 August 7, 2002 Director Sullivan stated that Mr. Hirschman is on the City Clerk's agenda mailing list and the report was faxed to him. Councilmember Waltonsmith noted that the City should make a statement in regards to all the land that surrounds the Mt. Winery. Vice Mayor Baker stated that the Mayor should write a letter to the Cupertino requesting that the City be noticed if the Winery applies for any permits and secondly approach LAFCO to redefine the sphere of influence. Councilmember Bogosian stated that the most important step is getting the dialogue started with all parties involved. City Attorney Taylor reiterated Council's direction as follow: • Staff to make sure the contacts are set up with Cupertino Sanitation District and the County concerning plans for this azea • Planning Department to look at land use designation for the General Plan for the lands in the sphere of influence not just at the Winery but all of the hillside Mayor Streit thanked City Attorney Taylor for the report. 13. CELEBRATE SARATOGA COST ANALYSIS STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept report and direct staff accordingly. Danielle Surdin, Economic Development Coordinator, presented staff report. Coordinator Surdin explained that at the City Council's request staff was directed to present all city costs and services associated with sponsoring Celebrate Saratoga, and provide Council with various options to potentially lower expenses associated with in-kind services. Coordinator Surdin noted that the City has a history of supporting Celebrate Saratoga dating back to the event's creation in 1989. Celebrate Saratoga was created not only as a community event, but as a business promotion tool to draw customers down to Big Basin Way after road closure associated with Caltrans water line improvements in 1989. Coordinator Surdin noted that today approximately 30,000 people participate in Celebrate Saratoga. Coordinator Surdin explained the funding for Celebrate Saratoga. Coordinator Surdin stated that the funding has varied during the yeazs ranging from $7,000 in seed money to only in-kind services (approximately $12,978). Coordinator Surdin presented three potential in-kind services options. Councilmember Waltonsmith asked Coordinator Surdin if she has been in contact with the Chamber. City Council Minutes 1'] August 7, 2002 Coordinator Surdin responded that she faxed the report to the Chamber on August 2, 2002. Councilmember Waltonsmith stated that Celebrate .Saratoga is a fund raising event for the Chamber.. Councilmember Waltonsmith ask Coordinator Surdin if she was .able to find out the cost to the vendors who participate in the event. Coordinator Surdin stated that staff was unable to obtain those figures. Referring to Option 3, Mayor Streit asked Supervisor Torres if he felt comfortable allowing an outside service run the event with no City employees present. Rick Torres, Public Works .Supervisor, responded that he would feel most comfortable is having the usual eight City employees present at the event, although six would be adequate. Supervisor Torres stated that his main concern is safety. Councilmember Bogosian stated that the Public Works employees have always done a remarkable job during Celebrate Saratoga. Councilmember Bogosian stated that the cost to provide in-kind services is not a lot of money to invest in the community. Councilmember Bogosian stated that next year he feels the support of the City contributes to the event in-kind services should be conditioned that the profits from the sale of liquor be given to nonprofit groups. Ray Froess, 20225 Ljepava Drive, stated that he has been participating in Celebrate Saratoga for 18 years. Mr. Froess read a statement explaining the history of the event and it's growth. Mr. Froess stated that many nonprofit groups participate in the event. Mr. Froess noted that planning for Celebrate Saratoga starts months prior with 15 committee leaders. Mr. Froess noted that the profits from the event help to keeps the membership dues the lowest in the valley. Mr. Froess stated that the Chamber feels Celebrate Saratoga is good for business, residents, and the City. In regards to the contract between the City and the Chamber, Mr. Froess explained that there are three main issues: 1) Chamber office relocation; 2) fee for service contract; 3) Celebrate Saratoga contract. Mr. Froess stated that that prior to this meeting the City provided the Chamber with a break down of services. After reviewing the labor costs, Mr. Froess stated that the Chamber feels that they pay for some of the same services the City provides such as the Sheriffs office for street closure and traffic control and an eight man crew , to empty the garbage cans. Councilmember Waltonsmith asked why the Chamber has not provided a cost break down to the City and supports cutting down on City services. Mr. Froess responded that the Chamber spends approximately $10,000 on the same services the City claims to be providing. Mr. Froess stated that this is an issue that the Chamber would like to discuss with the City. City Council Minutes 18 August 7, 2002 Mayor Streit stated that he has seen the City's trucks loaded with garbage during the event. Mayor Streit noted that the communications between the City and the Chamber must improve. Councilmember Bogosian proposed that the City and the Chamber continue discussions and try and work out all the issues discussed tonight. Councilmember Bogosian noted that he is willing to represent the City Council. City Manager Anderson suggested that the Chamber and the City have a post event meeting. Mr. Froess suggested that Supervisor Torres attend their monthly planning meetings. Vice Mayor Baker noted that he is in favor of supporting Celebrate Saratoga at a level that the City gets that job done and done correctly. Councilmember Mehaffey noted that he feels the Chamber and the Public Works department do a great job. 15. SHERIFF'S OFFICE PARKING OPTIONS STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept report and direct staff accordingly. John Cherbone, Public Works Director, presented staff report. Director Cherbone explained that the Sheriff s Office is losing its parking arrangement with the Federated Church in September. As a result, it is necessary to find additional or available parking spaces for Sheriff personnel to park their vehicles. Director Cherbone noted that proximity and availability are the two main concerns in locating parking. Director Cherbone explained that the Parking District, in particular Parking District #3, holds the greatest potential to accommodate Sheriff Office parking demand. A parking study prepared by Fehr & Ppeers from July 23, 2002 showed the peak demand for parking occurred in Parking District lots between the hours of 6-9 p.m. This coincides with the period of lower demand by the Sheriff's Office. The Sheriff's Office need for parking at this time of day is approximately 12-15 parking spaces. At 10:00 p.m. this demand is reduced to 6 spaces. Sheriff office parking demand peaks between 2:30 p.m.-5:00 p.m. Monday, Wednesday, and Friday during swing shift overlap, which is the time when administration staff is still present. Director Cherbone noted that an additional resource is Neal's Hallow where there are 18 public parking spaces available. City Council Minutes 19 August 7, 2002 Director Cherbone stated that the creation of additional parking spaces and the optimization of existing public parking lots can also provide a resource for Sheriff's Office parking. There will be 10 public parking spaces created when the new fire .station is developed and staffhas determined that an additional 13 spaces could be created in Parking District #3. Vice Mayor Baker asked that if the City designates parking areas for the employees of the Sheriff s Department that are not adjacent to the office would the employees park their personnel cars there and walk to the office or is the parking going to flow back into the neighborhood streets. City Manager Anderson noted that he toured the different parking sites with Captain Bacon and Lieutenant Hirokawa and the consensus was if personnel parking is dispersed throughout the public parking areas it should keep their personal cars out of the neighborhoods. City Manager Anderson noted that the Sheriff's Office has to work hard to regulate their employees. Lieutenant John Hirokawa, SCC Sheriff s Department, stated that in regards to the Sheriff's employees parking in the neighborhoods, if its public parking, he cannot discipline employees for parking legally, he can only stress to the them that they need to park in the other designated parking areas. Councilmember Waltonsmith noted that trying to change human behavior takes time. Arvin Engleson, Federated Church, noted that the Church has had good communications with the Sheriff's Department; the difficulty is their personnel do not comply with repeated requests such as no parking along the curb on Wednesday and Sunday mornings in which the employees still park there. Mr. Engleson noted that he~ thinks some type of restricted parking around Federated Church and throughout the surrounding neighborhood is probably a good solution. City Manager Anderson noted that he would be happy to facilitate a meeting between the Church, Sheriff s Department, and the neighborhood. Mayor Streit noted that maintaining the character of the neighborhood and keeping the Sheriff s Department in Saratoga is very important to this Council. Mayor Streit noted that some type of compromise has to be worked out. Councilmember Waltonsmith requested the Sheriff's Office report back to the Council on their progress or new suggestions and/or new problems. Consensus of the City Council to direct staff to re-strip the parking stall in parking District 3 and permission granted to the Sheriff's employees to park in any public parking area. City Council Minutes 20 August 7, 2002 14. VILLAGE PARKING STUDY RESULTS STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept report and direct staff accordingly. Danielle Surdin, Economic Development Coordinator, presented staff report. Coordinator Surdin noted that the lack of adequate parking in the Village has long been a topic of discussion within the Village business community. Most recently, the Saratoga Business Development Committee raided the issue as [part of economic development discussions. To determine whether the lack of adequate parking was a reality or a perception staff hired Fehr & Peers Inc. to gather analytical data and draws conclusions about parking availability in the Village. Coordinator Surdin noted that unfortunately last year, Fehr & Peers were unable to conduct the study until after the September 1 lth attacks and those events most likely skewed the resulting data to some degree. Many businesses have reported some decrease in traffic and revenue since the event. Council directed staff to conduct an additional parking study in Summer 2002 to compare to last years results. Coordinator Surdin summarized the results as follows: Saturday • Lots 1,2 & 4 had the same occupancy patterns with occupied spaces increasing throughout the day and peaking in the evening hours • Lot 3 is least utilized; there are spaces available all day • Lot 5 (Saratoga Village Center) peaked during the lunch hour and steadily decreased throughout the day Wednesday " • Lot 1 never fully utilized • Lots 3 & 5 experienced the majority of the demand in the midday hours between 11 a.m. - 2p.m, but never fully utilized • Lots 2 & 4 near capacity at the lunch hour and is fully utilized during the dinner hours Lot 5 (Saratoga Village Center) was only fully utilized during the lunch hour Coordinator Surdin noted that on-street parking spaces were never fully occupied in the Village area on a weekday or weekend day. The highest percentage of occupied spaces during the evening hours between 7:00 p.m. - 9:00 p.m. Coordinator Surdin explained that the survey results from the July 2002 parking Study to the September 2002 parking study noting that generally the percentages did not vary. Coordinator Surdin suggested parking management options such as: . • Improved signage to alert drivers of parking lots • Incentives such as no time limit spaces in areas farther from destinations to encourage business owners and employees to park in less used spaces City Council Minutes 21 August 7, 2002 • Better enforcement of time limits on the premium spaces nearest businesses • Development of a parking brochure that highlights all parking areas for distribution by businesses to their customers Broadcasting of parking information over the TIS radio station Vice Mayor Baker asked where the valet parking services park the cars. Councilmember Mehaffey responded that they park the cars in the public parking lot to the left of Wild Wood Park, along 4`h Street, and sometimes into the neighborhoods. ` Mayor Streit thanked Coordinator Surdin for the report. 1 1. CITY OF SARATOGA INTERIM CDBG FUNDING PROGRAM GUIDELINES FOR SEPTIC ABATEMENT STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution and guidelines. TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 02-064 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING INTERIM CDBG FUNDING PROGRAM GUIDELINES FOR SEPTIC ABATEMENT Lata Vasudevan, Assistant Planner, presented staff report. Planner Vasudevan explained that in an effort to improve underground and creek water quality in the region, the Saratoga City Council adopted a septic abatement ordinance that applies to all properties within the City. The ordinance requires abandonment of septic systems and connection to the public sanitary sewer system when a public sewer line is available within 200 feet of a property line. Pursuant to the ordinance, owners of properties that meet certain criteria may obtain a maximum five-year extension to comply with the requirements of the ordinance. Planner Vasudevan noted that property owners facing financial hardships have two options. Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 7-10.080(d), the City Council may further extend the five-year time period granted to property owners upon a determination of financial hardship. The other option is that qualifying property owners may apply for grants from the CDBG program to cover the cost of septic abatement and sewer connection. Planner Vasudevan explained that in September 2001, the City Council appointed a Sub-committee comprising of Council members Evan Baker and Ann Waltonsmith to review all applications from property owners requesting CDBG funds or an extension of the five-year period due to financial hardship. Planner Vasudevan noted that the purpose of this Staff report is to adopt guidelines for determining applicant eligibility for receiving CDBG funds to cover the cost of septic abatement. r~ u • ~..~ City Council Minutes 22 August 7, 2002 .r a Planner Vasudevan explained that staff referred to the City of Campbell's housing rehabilitation loan program guidelines to assist in developing the criteria. The evaluation of household income as well as the "Substantial resources" eligibility is the same criteria adopted by the City of Campbell. The income limits for low- income households are based on current Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Income Guidelines for Santa Clara County~unsdictions. Planner Vasudevan noted that staff was requesting that Council adopt a resolution approving the Interim CDBG Funding Program Guidelines for Septic Abatement. Vice Mayor Baker stated that the problem will not be the disclosure of income, but the additional resources that people have that does not provide income, to him this is the only gray area of the guidelines. BAKER/MEHAFFEY MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION ADOPTING INTERIM CDBG FUNDING PROGRAM GUIDELINES FOR SEPTIC ABATEMENT. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 9. SARATOGA LIBRARY ROOM-NAMING POLICY STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept report and direct staff accordingly. Lorie Tinfow, Assistant City Manager, presented staff report. Assistant City Manager Tinfow explained that in April, Council asked staff to draft a room-naming policy for donations of $200,000 or more to the library. BOGOSIAN/MEHAFFEY MOVED TO ADOPT THE PROPOSED LIBRARY ROOM-NAMING POLICY. MOTION PASSED 5-0. INTRODUCTION OF CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION DEBRIS RECYCLING ORDINANCE STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept report and direct staff accordingly. Cary Bloomquist, Administrative Analyst, presented staff report. Analyst Bloomquist reported that the purposed of this report tonight was to provide background information and introduce Council to the proposed Construction and Debris Recycling Ordinance. Analyst Bloomquist stated that the California Integrated Waste Management Act was passed by the State Assembly in 1989 to divert materials from landfills in order to preserve decreasing landfill capacity and diminishing natural resources. The bill mandates each California City and county to divert 50% of all solid waste from landfill or transformation facilities through source reduction, recycling, and composting activities by January 1, 2000. City Council Minutes 23 August 7, 2002 ;~: Analyst Bloomquist reported that the City has achieved a 56% diversion rate for the past 2 years and will most likely maintain this rate based upon the present level ° of source reduction and recycling participation by Saratoga residents and business owners. Analyst Bloomquist explamed~ that to assist the City in maintaining a diversion level above 50% and to avoid statutory penalties associated with non-compliance, it is important that the City be proactive and continue to implement cost-effective programs aimed at increasing a diversion of waste from the landfill. Analyst Bloomquist explained that construction and demolition debris recycling (C&D), as a condition of construction and demolition permits, can result in significant diversion of C&D material form Bay Area landfills. Of the programs and activities in Saratoga's Source Reduction and Recycling Element, the non- residential inert recycling program has yet to be implemented. Analyst Bloomquist stated that the Board of West Valley Solid Waste Management Authority, of which the City is a member, recommends a Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance be approved by City Council for inclusion in its permit conditions. These conditions apply to all major construction, remodeling or demolition projects over 2,500 square feet. Consensus of the City Council to direct staff to schedule the public hearing for the first reading of the construction and demolition debris recycling ordinance on September 4, 2002. COMMISSION ASSIGNMENT REPORTS Councilmember Waltonsmith noted that on September.28, 2002 the Saratoga Arts Commission would be holding their first "Art in the Park". Vice Mayor Baker noted that the Finance Commission is in the process of developing a matrix to measure efficiency. Councilmember Bogosian noted that the Library Expansion Committee recently reviewed the landscaping plans for the Library. CITY COUNCIL ITEMS None OTHER None CITY MANAGER'S REPORT None City Council Minutes 24 August 7, 2002 Y ADJOURNMENT There being no further business Mayor Streit recessed the meeting at 11:40 p.m. noting that Council would be returning to Closed Session to finish the City Manager's evaluation. Due to the fact that it is late, Councilmember Mehaffey suggested that the City Manager's evaluation be added to the September 4, 2002 agenda. Consensus of the City Council to continue the City Manager's evaluation to the September 4, 2002 City Council meeting. Respectfully submitted, Cathleen Boyer, CMC City Clerk • City Council Minutes 25 August 7, 2002