Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-23-2002 Planning Commission Packet tt t~ • • CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MINUTES ~-_ , DATE: Wednesday, October 23, 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: Commissioners Barry &z Roupe Staff: Planner Oosterhous, Director Sullivan Fsi Minutes Clerk Shinn PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE MINUTES: Draft Minutes from Regular Planning Commission Meeting of October 9, 2002. (APPROVED 5-0) 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 taking action on such items. However, the Planning Commission may instruct staf f accordingly regardingOral Communications under Planning Commission direction to Staf f. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on October 17, 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. 1. 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 FROM 10/9/02) (NO DECISION WAS TO BE MADE AT THIS MEETING, WILL BE HEARD ON DECEMBER 11, 2002) 2. APPLICATION #O1-044 (403-28-034) - AZIZI, 18360 Purdue; -Request for Design Review Approval to construct atwo-story single-family residence on a 8,040 square foot lot. The floor area of the proposed residence and attached two-car garage is 2,923 square feet. The maximum height of the residence would be 20 feet: The site is zoned R-1- 10,000. (OOSTERHOUS) (DENIED 4-1, HUNTER, JACKMAN, KURASCH ~'st ZUTSHI OPPOSED) 3. 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 FROM 10/9/02) (APPROVED 5-0) 4. APPLICATION #02-210 (CITYWIDE) -CITY OF SARATOGA; -The proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment would increase regulatory requirements related to the removal and or pruning of trees. The Amendment would also reduce the diameter of trees that would be protected by Article 15-50 of the Saratoga Code. (SULLIVAN) (APPROVED 5-0) 5. APPLICATION #02-172 (CITYWIDE) -CITY OF SARATOGA; -Consistent with the provisions of the City's Housing Element of the General Plan, this Zoning Ordinance Amendment will broaden the opportunities to obtain a Use Permit for Second Dwelling Units on Residentially Zoned Properties. (SULLIVAN) (Request to be continued to December 11, 2002) (APPROVED TO BE CONTINUED 5-0) COMMISSION ITEMS Commissioner's sub-committee reports COMMUNICATIONS WRITTEN City Council Minutes from Regular Meetings on September 4, 2002 and October 2, 2002 ADJOURNMENT AT 10:38 P.M. TO THE NEXT MEETING - Wednesday, November 13, 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 e-mail address to planning@saratoga.ca.us CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION LAND USE AGENDA DATE: Tuesday, October 22, 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 23, 2002 ROLL CALL REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA AGENDA Application #O1-044 - AZIZI Item 2 18360 Purdue Drive LAND USE COMMITTEE The Land Use Conu~iittee 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 hearing between 10:30 a.m. and 12:00 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 (S 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. ADJOURNMENT TO PLANNING CONFERENCE ROOM Continuation of Gateway Study Session Discussion 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA DATE: Wednesday, October 23, 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 October 9, 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 under Planning Commission direction to Staf f REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on October 17, 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. 1. 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 FROM 10/9/02) 2. APPLICATION #O1-044 (403-28-034) - AZIZI, 18360 Purdue; -Request for Design Review Approval to construct atwo-story single-family residence on a 8,040 square foot lot. The floor area of the proposed residence and attached two-car garage is 2,923 square feet. The maximum height of the residence would be 20 feet. The site is zoned R-1-10,000. (OOSTERHOUS) 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 FROM 10/9/02) 4. APPLICATION #02-210 (CITYWIDE) -CITY OF SARATOGA; -The proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment would increase regulatory requirements related to the removal and or pruning of trees. The Amendment would also reduce the diameter of trees that would be protected by Article 15-50 of the Saratoga Code. (SULLIVAN) 5. APPLICATION #02-172 (CITYWIDE) -CITY OF SARATOGA; -Consistent with the provisions of the City's Housing Element of the General Plan, this Zoning Ordinance Amendment will broaden the opportunities to obtain a Use Permit for Second Dwelling Units on Residentially Zoned Properties. (SULLIVAN) (Request to be continued to December 11, 2002) COMMISSION ITEMS Commissioner's sub-committee reports COMMUNICATIONS WRITTEN - City Council Minutes from Regular Meetings on September 4, 2002 and October 2, 2002 ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING - Wednesday, November 13, 2002, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers/Civic Theater 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA If ou would like to receive the Agenda's via e-mail, please send your e-mail address to planning@sarato ag Ca.US Y D MINUTES SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: Wednesday, October 9, 2002 PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: 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, Associate Planner John Livingstone, Planner Ann Welsh and Planner Christy Oosterhous PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE . APPROVAL OF MINUTES -Regular Meeting of September 25, 2002. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Kurasch, seconded by Commissioner Roupe, the regular Planning Commission minutes of September 25, 2002, were approved with corrections to pages 6, 10,15,18 and 21. AYES: Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Jackman, Kurasch, Roupe and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Director Tom Sullivan announced that, pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on October 3, 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). ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were no Oral Communication Items. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 9, 2002 Page 2 . CONSENT CALENDAR There were no Consent Calendar Items. *** PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO.1 APPLICATION #02-013 (503-69-002) - 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) Planner Ann Welsh presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that Application #02-013 seeks approval for a new two-story single-family residence on a 1.75-acre parcel within the Hillside Residential District. • Add that the existing single-story home will be demolished. • Pointed out that this parcel is steeply sloped with an average slope of 25 percent. • Described the proposed new home as including athree-car garage, Mediterranean style architecture with a terra cotta the roof. The maximum height will be 26 feet high. • Advised that there are two frontages, one on Pierce Road and the other on Via Regina, which is a private road. • Informed that the applicant has provided signatures from 10 surrounding neighbors in support of his project. • Added that a letter from the Via Regina Homeowners Association denies the applicant's request for an access easement to Via Regina and requires the removal of the existing fence. • Advised that there are questions about the Arborist report that require clarification and an updated tree report as it pertains to installing a driveway between two existing trees and the potential for impact on the health of those trees and their canopy. • Described options to deal with the driveway issue as including the reconfiguration of the proposed driveway, the elimination of the eastern driveway and/or a redesign of the home to place the house at the east side of the property. • Recommended approval once the driveway issue is resolve and with the provision of an updated tree report. Commissioner Kurasch asked if staff is recommending the Commission proceed without the Arborist report. Planner Ann Welsh replied that this would depend upon how the Commission chooses to deal with the driveway issue. Commissioner Roupe asked whether the Commission could grant driveway egress from Via Regina consider the fact that such access has been allowed for the last 15 to 20 years. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 9, 2002 Page 3 Planner Ann Welsh advised that there is no indication of a recorded easement for access to Via Regina. The Via Regina Homeowner's Association has denied that right of access. Therefore, the Commission cannot legally grant access. Commissioner Barry asked about the intent to protect the tree canopy on Pierce Road. Planner Ann Welsh said that it is important to maintain the tree canopy to minimize the perception of bulk of this structure. Added that initially it had been thought that these trees were healthy but later learned that they may need to be removed. Said that staff believes a driveway could be placed without damage to trees. Commissioner Barry asked about the enclosed fence area. Planner Ann Welsh clarified that there is a restriction of no more than 4,000 square feet enclosed fence area, with the exception of enclosing a pool, and that this property is not currently in compliance. The fencing would have to be brought into compliance. Chair Jackman pointed out .that enclosing the front of the property along Pierce Road would exceed 4,000 square feet. Planner Ann Welsh agreed that this is most likely true Commissioner Garakani asked what the regulations are for a house near a main road as it pertains to allowable fencing. Planner Ann Welsh advised that there are some streets with special provisions, such as Quito and Saratoga-Sunnyvale Roads, but that Pierce Road is not one such street. Therefore, the maximum height that is allowed in the front yard is three feet. A property owner cannot put a higher fence closer than 25 feet from the front property line. Commissioner Hunter sought clarification on the three oaks; two of which it appears may need to come down. Planner Ann Welsh advised that the third oak is healthy and there does not appear to be a reason to take it down. Commissioner Hunter stated that it has been proven in other situations that once one or two trees from a cluster are removed, the remaining ones die. Commissioner Zutshi asked if the proposed placement of the garage has been made known to the neighbor. Said she would be interested in their comments. Planner Ann Welsh replied the proposal was not favorably received. Commissioner Roupe pointed out that this house is close to the total allowable floor area ratio. Advised that the area above the foyer will need to be counted twice since it exceeds height limitations. Planner Ann Welsh said that this area, exclusive of the stairway space, has been double counted. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 9, 2002 Page 4 Commissioner Kurasch asked about the net area of the site. Planner Ann Welsh said that she is not sure. A lot of area (approximately 45 percent) is lost due to the slope. Commissioner Kurasch reiterated that approximately half of the site is not buildable. Planner Ann Welsh replied definitely. Commissioner Hunter pointed out the French doors in the basement area. Planner Ann Welsh advised that the maximum allowable depth of a light well is four feet. Commissioner Kurasch inquired whether story poles are automatically required. Director Tom Sullivan replied that the use of story poles were determined not be mandatory but rather used when judged necessary. Commissioner Hunter reminded that this applicant has sat through two meetings and had his application continued. • Chair Jackman agreed that this applicant has been very gracious. Commissioner Garakani stated that it is hard to see the need for story poles in this situation where there are lots of trees around to provide screening. Chair Jackman opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1 at 7:25 p.m. Mr. Mike Amini, ApplicanUOwner, 13715 Pierce Road, Saratoga: • Informed the Commission that this process has been going on for the last seven to eight months and that he has looked at the City's requirements carefully and designed a project that is careful not to require the removal of any trees. • Advised that the trees on this property are a key reason for his purchase of this property. • Said that the City's Arborist pointed out trees with disease but did not include it in the report. Subsequently, he hired his own Arborist. • Pointed out that he has two small children, ages 7 and 11, and he wants fencing toward Pierce Road for the safety of his children. He needs that fencing to be taller than three feet due to noise. His wife wants the fencing for privacy and safety. • Stated that his Arborist informed him that if the two diseased trees are removed, the third tree will not survive. Therefore, the City is recommending the removal of this third tree. • Said that he is willing to work with the City on the driveway to save trees but that he does not want to change the placement of the garage to the other side as it would leave him without a yard space in which his children can play. • Stated that he has worked a long time on his design to meet the City requirements and his neighbors are supportive of his project. Commissioner Garakani asked if Mr. Amini is willing to work on the driveway issue. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 9, 2002 Page 5 Mr. Mike Amini replied yes. Commissioner Kurasch asked for the minimum width required for the driveway. Planner Ann Welsh replied 14 feet pei- the Fire District. Director Tom Sullivan said that the intent of Fire's driveway width requirement is to be able to get fire apparatus close to a structure. This width is more critical when the home is located at the end of a long driveway. It is not as important in this case as the home is located close to the street. Mr. Mike Amini pointed out that for over 15 years the previous owner of his home had access from Via Regina. Commissioner Roupe said that nothing in the plans addresses fencing plans. Cautioned that a Variance would be required to fence as much area as proposed. Mr. Mike Amini said that one neighbor has asked that he not have any fencing between their properties so that she can continue to observe the wildlife that returns to the area. Director Tom Sullivan said that there is no application in for higher or additional fencing. This would have to be treated as a different application at a later date. Mr. Mike Amini asked if he could use the 4,000 square feet of fencing for his front yard. Commissioner Roupe cautioned that this 4,000 square feet represents enclosed area and not linear feet. Director Tom Sullivan suggested that the applicant could work with staff. Commissioner Barry said that Mr. Amini's general direction seems to be supportable regarding the safety of his children. Mr. Mike Amini said that he has no problem without a fence along Via Regina or between neighbors. Mr. Mike Moazeni, 21781 Via Regina, Saratoga: • Said that they have obtained the consensus of the neighbors on this project. • Said that a couple of trees block visibility from Via Regina. Mr. Steve Lee, 21818 Via Regina, Saratoga: • Identified himself as the President of the Via Regina Homeowners' Association. • Said that they met with the applicants but turned down their request for access to Via Regina. • Said that the main concern is visibility from Via Regina. • Added that they want to see the existing gate there permanently closed. • Said that the only other concern was construction. The residents have concerns about construction vehicles and parking. They do not want construction parking along Via Regina and ask that this restriction be made a Condition of Approval. Chair Jackman agreed that the larger trailers would have to off-load and leave the area. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 9, 2002 Page 6 Director Tom Sullivan agreed that there is no place to stay with a large truck. Commissioner Kurasch asked about the canopy of trees. Mr. Steve Lee said that he has no issues with trees. Their concern is visibility with the existing fence and vegetation. An area needs to be opened up to allow visibility when pulling out. Commissioner Barry suggested that the construction staging and management plan needs to be added to the Conditions. Director Tom Sullivan agreed that this could be added to the Resolution tonight. Mr. Mike Amini: • Stated that his new driveway plan provides five to six parking spaces during construction without bothering the neighbors. • Said that while he is willing to keep the gate access closed, he feels it would serve as an excellent fire access for his house and his neighbor's. • Suggested letting the gate remain. Commissioner Kurasch pointed out that he would not have a 10-foot long driveway with the close of the Via Regina driveway. Commissioner Garakani supported keeping the gate for Fire access only. Chair Jackman suggested obtaining a fire lock through the Fire District. Commissioner Roupe reminded that a fire truck just needs to get onto the property but does not need to go all the way to the garage. Commissioner Kurasch pointed out that the neighbor across the street had their home reduced in size during the approval process because of bulk and mass impacts that were considered to be too great. Said that she was concerned about the size of this house and did not agree that the setback is sufficient to buffer that bulk and mass. Mr. Mike Amini said that his setback is almost twice required while that neighbor is right on the setback. Commissioner Kurasch said that the bulk is close to the street and will have an impact on the street. Said that this is not compatible. Mr. Mike Amini pointed out that the second story is located only in the center of the house. Commissioner Kurasch pointed out that most of the roof is over 20 to 25 feet in height. Added that the entry is extremely large and ostentatious and not compatible with the location. 'ni disa reed and said that the entr matches the size of the house. Mr. Mike Arm g Y Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 9, 2002 Page 7 Commissioner Kurasch stated that the structure is long. out that the use of im ervious surfaces is at the maximum and asked if Mr. Chair Jackman pointed p Amini is willing to make some of the surfaces pervious. Mr. Mike Amini replied yes. He added that he is considering reducing the size of the patio. Chair Jackman closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1 at 7:52 p.m. Commissioner Roupe questioned whether the Commission can proceed without the Arborist report given the limitations on construction within 10 feet of an oak tree. Commissioner Barry said that it would be unwise to go ahead without the Arborist report and that she would be very uncomfortable making a decision on the driveway without knowing the potential impacts on the tree roots. Chair Jackman suggested approving the rest of the project except for the driveway. Commissioner Barry said that it needs to be combined in order to address what access Fire needs. Commissioner Hunter stated she would like more information from the Arborist. Commissioner Barry said that if the driveway is constructed differently, it may have impacts on other trees on the property. Commissioner Kurasch pointed out that Barrie Coate suggested removal of certain trees. Commissioner Roupe asked how this project can be approved subject to development of the driveway and whether this might best been done with a continuance. Director Tom Sullivan said that the Commission has three options, a full continuance, action on the project with caveats or a denial of the circular driveway. Commissioner Hunter said that the safety of guests is better assured with a long driveway so they can pull completely off of Pierce Road. Commissioner Roupe supported approval with further driveway and tree considerations. Chair Jackman said that one part of the existing drive could serve as a parking area. Commissioner Kurasch pointed out that the applicant wants to keep that area for his yard. Commissioner Barry said that off-street parking, Fire access and the protection of the tree canopy are important issues. Said that she does not know the best solutions but that several options could be considered. Stated her understanding for the applicant's desire to have a play area for his children. Chair Jackman said that the consideration of the fence area needs to come back. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 9, 2002 Page 8 Planner Ann Welsh said that this item would need to be advertised separately. Chair Jackman said that she is stuck on the issues of parking and trees. Planner Ann Welsh said that options can be discussed with the applicant. Commissioner Kurasch suggested that the applicant could make his proposal to Barrie Coate. Commissioner Roupe supported going ahead with the approval, except for the driveway. Commissioner Barry said her main issue is the fact that the house is too prominent for being as close to the road as it is. This house will be seen quite a bit. Added that she should like to see a reduction, particularly with the entry feature with its two-story roofline. Said that this is too much for where it is on the road and is not compatible with the rural road and surroundings and therefore not compatible. Commissioner Garakani said he has a different view. With eight large trees near the pool area, this blocks views going up. Down from Pierce Road, there are five large trees that block the view of the house. Said that some additional landscaping will take care of this issue. Commissioner Hunter asked for the height of the entry.. Planner Ann Welsh replied approximately 20 feet. Chair Jackman stated that she feels the entry looks balanced and would look off-balance if it were to be' smaller. Commissioner Hunter reminded that the Commission lowered another project's entry to 16 feet and despite that reduction she was amazed at how large it appears as it is under construction. Commissioner Barry supported lessening the amount of second story roof. Commissioner Kurasch stated that this is still an imposing and huge structure that she will not support. Commissioner Barry agreed that it is too much. Commissioner Zutshi said that it is quite massive but has been broken into three steps. Chair Jackman said that it is massive but that it falls within the maximum square footage and that she cannot say no. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded by Commissioner Garakani, the Planning Commission approved the Design Review for a new two-story single family house on property located at 13815 Pierce Road with the following additions to the Conditions: • Construction parking and staging shall be worked out with staff to assure no on-street parking; • The design and placement of the driveway leading to the garage shall be worked out with staff and be brought back to the Planning Commission with the advice Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 9, 2002 Page 9 of the City's Arborist regarding impacts on the tree canopy, fire access and off- street parking; • An effort shall be made to reduce the impervious coverage; • An Appropriate landscape plan and tree screening for the front of the property to screen the house from Pierce Road shall be brought back to the Planning Commission together with the driveway design; and • A reduction in the front entry height to 16 feet. by the following roll call vote: AYES: Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Jackman, Roupe and Zutshi NOES: Kurasch ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None *** Chair Jackman announced that she would have to recuse herself from Item No. 2 since she lives within the notification area. She turned the gavel over to Vice Chair Kurasch at 8:17 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM N0.2 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) (Continued from 9/25/02) Associate Planner John Livingstone presented the staff report as follows: • Advised the audience that copies of the report are available in the lobby. • Gave a rundown on the process to date. • Said that Council denied an application to build a new fire station on September 5, 2001. • Reminded that Council initiated a collaborative planning process by forming an Ad Hoc Committee consisting of representatives from Fire, the Sheriff's Office, County Communications, the Post Office, Federated Church and representatives from the Planning and Public Safety Commissions. • Reported that on July 17, 2002, Council approved a Settlement Agreement with the Fire District and that on August 7, 2002, Council approved sending the project back to the Planning Commission for review. • Advised that the Planning Commission is to review the project for general conformity with Scheme A. • Describe the plan to demolish the existing Contempo site building. • Said that Code requires one parking space for each employee or 24 parking spaces for this project. Eighteen are provided on site and six off site. The Fire District proposes to sell a portion of the Contempo site to Federated Church with an easement for use of six spaces. Said that 18 parking Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 9, 2002 Page 10 spaces are provided on the Fire District property with 10 public parking spaces, which would be controlled by the City. • Mentioned the Public Works Director's memo, which outlines three parking and circulation scenarios. • Stated that staff is recommending Scenario 1-A from that memo, which is a full circulation plan. • Advised that the Post Office has not yet approved this newest proposal so staff is recommending that all three options be ranked in the event that this one does not prevail. • Pointed out that a desk item was distributed with the Parking Plan proposed by the City's consultant. • Assured that the five parking spaces in front of the Post Office have not been affected. • Said that restriping along Saratoga Avenue will only slightly change centerline by one foot or less. • Said that the Consultant is recommending the move of the pedestrian walkway, which staff supports. • Advised that a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared and approved by the Fire District. • Recommended approval of the Design Review and Conditional Use Permit applications, the vacation of the right of way (George Whalen Way), the transfer of Heritage Plaza property and acceptance of two easements. Commissioner Roupe inquired if there is actually enough information to approve Scheme A. Associate Planner John Livingstone replied yes. He added that the Settlement Agreement further outlines the plan. Commissioner Hunter asked if the sidewalk on Saratoga would remain. Associate Planner John Livingstone replied yes. The pedestrian walkway will be moved further away from the roadway for added safety. Commissioner Hunter asked for clarification on the widening of Saratoga Avenue. Associate Planner John Livingstone replied that the roadway would be striped differently. Acting Chair Kurasch pointed out the various pieces of correspondence received as desk items. Commissioner Barry asked why better neighborhood involvement was not achieved. Associate Planner John Livingstone advised that staff noticed the neighborhood on September 15`h, which was 10 days prior to the September 25`" meeting. Commissioner Barry said that she would like to question a Traffic Engineer on the room needed for the two-way circulation scheme. Acting Chair Kurasch pointed out the newest memo from Fehr & Peers, stating that the current plan does not address concerns about left turns from Highway 9 or left turns from Saratoga onto the alley. Associate Planner John Livingstone said that the Public Works Director is recommending the painted island on Highway 9 is shortened to allow a left turn pocket. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 9, 2002 Page 11 Acting Chair Kurasch questioned the provision of construction parking. Associate Planner John Livingstone said that the applicant did add to the back of the plan set. a b construction plan. Additionally, staff has added a Condition that does not allow construction vehicles and/or employees to park off site. The applicant will have to be creative. Acting Chair Kurasch reminded of the request from the last meeting to include: a review by Caltrans of the proposal; a Survey of the property; revised plans for the net site area; documentation of Caltrans support and a San Jose Water verification of cooperation. Commissioner Roupe pointed out pages 4 and 5, items 1 to 9. Acting Chair Kurasch stressed the need to obtain verification of the agreements to be made. Commissioner Barry stated that the letter from Caltrans does not appear to be a vote of confidence for the traffic scheme. Associate Planner John Livingstone: • Said that a survey was done to try to clarify lot coverage and was stamped by a licensed land surveyor. • Stated that Public Works would work with Caltrans on the intersection, right turn lane and encroachments of driveway entrances. The fire access/apron off of Saratoga Avenue is not looked at by Caltrans. Actin Chair Kurasch uestioned the to is and reasoning for leaving the plaza and monument in place g q g during construction. Associate Planner John Livingstone said he was not sure. Acting Chair Kurasch opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 8:42 p.m. Chief Ernest Kraule, Saratoga Fire District: • Reminded that two weeks ago, they received directions from the Planning Commission. • Advised that they have met with staff and made revisions. • Agreed that they do not have much room but they have made the best use of space. They are trying to work through the process to replace this building. • Said that the bond issue was passed in April 2000 and that this has been a long drawn out affair. • Advised that his job is to replace a worn out fire station. • Pointed out that there has never been an accident or even a close call when leaving the site. Ms. Mary McGrath, Consultant to the Saratoga Fire District: • Stated that she has received the letter from the Neighborhood Association, has brought forward a new color board and has letters from the Federated Church, agreeing to provide six parking spaces, and Caltrans, with their review and comments. • Described Phase I to now include the move of the arch, the demolition of the Contempo building and closing the alley. Phase II will include modifications to Saratoga Avenue and Highway 9, landscaping the pedestrian plaza and reconfiguration of traffic. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 9, 2002 Page 12 • Advised that setback variations are required and assured that lot coverage is 30 percent maximum. • Said that the architectural style is intended to compliment the Federated Church, using a Julia Morgan style. • .Pointed out that the apron area is 64 by 60 feet and could be used by the contractor during construction as a layout area. • Added that a newsletter will be sent to the neighborhood about construction activities. • Discussed site circulation and advised that they had revised their plan to relocate the drop boxes more to the north of the alley. A two-way 24-foot wide entrance will come off Saratoga. Commissioner Zutshi asked Ms. Mary McGrath whether the Post Office has approved this newest circulation plan. Ms. Mary McGrath replied not in writing. They have the verbal agreement as long as the five spaces on Saratoga are retained. The Post Office representative at the last meeting expressed this intent. Commissioner Barry stated that the Post Office must clearly specify what they are approving. Acting Chair Kurasch asked about the plan for pass through traffic associated with off-site circulation. Ms. Mary McGrath said that the plan provides adequate parking for the Fire District. They have worked with Federated Church for the placement of six parking spaces for Fire use. These spaces are accessed via Park Place. Stated that this plan will remove traffic from Park Place. Commissioner Roupe asked when the gate on the church lot is closed. Ms. Mary McGrath stated that Arvin Engelson would address this issue. Commissioner Garakani reminded that the church site is not under consideration tonight. Commissioner Zutshi pointed out that the layout includes parking during construction on church property. Ms. Mary McGrath reiterated that no on-street parking will be allowed for construction vehicles. Instead the apron area will be used. Mr. Hal Toppel, Attorney for Saratoga Fire District: • Assured that there is plenty of room on site for vehicles, equipment and materials storage. • Said that the contract with the contractor will require that all construction vehicles and workmen park on site. This would include a contractual obligation that Park Place not be used to travel to and from the site. • Said that while they hope to have an agreement with the church for the sale of property, if it does not happen, the District would own the property. • Stated that problems have been addressed and that even once the facility has been completed, the rules remain in effect. • Said that they have met with City staff on other issues and worked them out, including responsibilities for improvements to the intersection. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 9, 2002 Page 13 • Stated that the conditions are acceptable and that they are willing to go forward and that it is appropriate to go forward. • Advised that they will need encroachment permits from Caltrans that that they don't expect problems. • Made himself available for questions. Commissioner Zutshi asked staff for the height limitations for construction enclosures. Associate Planner John Livingstone said that he did not have that information. Mr. Don Whetstone, 14768 Vickery Avenue, Saratoga: • Described the Negative Declaration prepared as being both vague and opaque. • Stated that the Village Green Homeowners' Association had a relationship with the Ad Hoc Committee. Scheme A is not the work of the Ad Hoc but rather of the Fire District. It does not represent a collaborative effort. • Expressed problems with the elimination of setback requirements as rules need to be enforced. • Said that the proposed staging plan on the apron could result in trucks backing out onto Saratoga Avenue and that this area is not large enough to serve as a staging area. • Said he is concerned about encroachment into his parking. • Stated that the temporary emergency response path is unworkable and not okay. Acting Chair Kurasch asked for Mr. Whetsone's opinion on the parking, both during construction and permanent. Mr. Don Whetstone said that it appears construction parking is non-existent. Added that if this site were developed with an office building of the same size, 62 parking spaces would be required. Mr. Arvin Engelson, 20381 Seagull Way, Saratoga: • Identified himself as a representative of Federated Church. • Said that he can address a couple of issues raised. • Said that the intended use of the Contempo site by the church is for parking. • Added that the church is actively interested in that part of the agreement. • Said that they recently remodeled and are trying to reorient pedestrian access to the rear of their building whereas previously 70 percent accessed from the front. • Stated that if they are able to acquire this property, they would be happy to accommodate six spaces for parking by Fire at shift change. • Assured that the church shares the interest in preventing the use of their parking lot as a cut through for traffic. Acting Chair Kurasch asked how close the church and Fire District are to an agreement. Mr. Arvin Engelson said that a value has to be established and that an appraisal is underway. The church is willing to pay market value and there is an internal process whereas the church will have to have a meeting to decide on the purchase. Commissioner Garakani questioned whether the sale of this lot will result in anon-conforming lot. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 9, 2002 Page 14 Mr. Arvin Engelson said that it is his understanding that the parcel would be merged with the church parcel. Commissioner Garakani asked if there is a guarantee that the lot would only be used for parking rather than being developed. Mr. Arvin Engelson said that they would enter into whatever agreement is necessary. Director Tom Sullivan pointed out that minimum lot sizes in the area are 12,000 square feet. Commissioner Roupe clarified that a lot line adjustment would include this parcel into the overall church property. Associate Planner John Livingstone added that it would be connected legally to the fire station lot for the provision of parking spaces. Mr. Arvin Engelson stated that this has been a very public process and that they are looking at ways to improve relationships with the neighbors. This is such an opportunity. Mr. Aaron Katz, Bohlman Road, P.O. Box 116, Saratoga: • Advised that he owns property a block and a half away. • Stated that he has no hidden agenda and is prepared to speak objectively. • Said that he does not believe that the Contempo property will be demolished. • Declared that taxpayers paid $3 million for this property and it will be sold to the church for next to nothing. • Said that since 8,000 square feet of the new building is being dedicated to support services, adding a second floor to the Contempo building could accommodate those support services. • Asked that careful study be done and to stop rushing. • Stated that the process needs to be slowed down and other options investigated. • Questioned the plan to demolish both buildings and install a temporary station. • Asked the Commission to read the Settlement Agreement carefully. Ms. Denise Michel, 20375 Park Place, Saratoga: • Identified herself as a Co-President of the Village Green Homeowners' Association. • Said that this residential street is very concerned with cut through traffic. • Declared that the development of this plan and Use Permit application has been a deeply flawed process. • Added that while the Fire District worked outtheir plan with the Post Office and Church, the Village Green Homeowners' Association was not called. • Stated that the District failed to adequately inform them of the process. • Reminded that the Vil]age Green Homeowners' Association had commented on the previous plans extensively and provided detailed testimony of its concerns at previous public meetings. • Added that the Fire District was instructed by Council to work with the neighbors but the District chose not to include us. • Said that the plans were not shown in advance and that the only reason she has the plan at all is that she called the City Manager last week and learned at that time of the pending Public Hearing. • Stated that most residents were not aware of this meeting until October 7`'' or just two days ago. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 9, 2002 Page 15 • Stated that six months ago, there was a commitment made by the City for them to be kept involved. Fire and City staffs have dropped the ball. ~ Declared this project too important to rush through. Commissioner Roupe asked staff about noticing. Associate Planner John Livingstone provided an affidavit for the noticing sent out on September 13, 2002, which included 20375 Park Place. Ms. Denise Michel stated that she did not receive it. Added that for six months the City staff excluded the Village Green Homeowners' Association and made it too hard. Commissioner Zutshi asked what Ms. Michel means. Ms. Denise Michel said that the City did not contact them and did not involve them in the plans. Commissioner Zutshi asked about involvement in the Ad Hoc Committee. Ms. Denise Michel advised that the work of the Ad Hoc Committee ended in April. Until that point, she had served as a representative on that Ad Hoc Committee. Commissioner Garakani asked about the letter from the Village Green Homeowners' Association. • Director Tom Sullivan advised that the message was forwarded by email to each Commissioner. Acting Chair Kurasch asked about the testimony given before Council. Ms. Denise Michel stated that the issues raised have not yet been addressed. Commissioner Roupe asked Ms. Michel what problems she has with the new proposal. Ms. Denise Michel said that 50 to 70 percent of the traffic speeds near the Saratoga-Los Gatos Road proposed entrance. Commissioner Barry: • Thanked Ms. Michel for her comments. • Pointed out that extensive efforts were made to involve everyone in the Gateway project and that she is unsure why similar efforts were not made by the Fire District to include the residents in the review of this project. • Pointed out that staff is simply responsible for mailing out Public Hearing notices. • Stated that she is not happy that the Village Green Homeowners' Association was not included in project review and that she believes the plan should be studied with these neighbors. Commissioner Garakani said that he supports neighborhood involvement early in the design process. • Asked staff when the Village Green Homeowners' Association memo was emailed to the Commissioners. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 9, 2002 Page 16 Ms. Denise Michel stated that the email was sent to the City on Monday, October 7th. Added that they had been involved in the review process for one year, until April when the Ad Hoc Committee concluded its work. Mr. Bob Egan, 14890 Montalvo Road, Saratoga: • Identified himself as the Chair of the Fire Committee for the City of Saratoga. • Said that he has met with the City Engineer, City Manager, City Attorney and Council Members. • Advised that Saratoga Avenue will not be widened but rather restriped. This will have no impact on the five Post Office parking spaces along Saratoga. • Stated that parking on the property has been resolved and that emergency response can get down the alley and/or exit onto Highway 9 in the event that the Saratoga exit could not be accessed. • Said that Denise Michel had called to set a meeting but they were unable to meet today, which he regrets. • Said that Council and the neighbors raised three issues. • One, to eliminate the cut through traffic through the neighborhood. Added that the Fire District can only control fire traffic. • Two, to prohibit the use of the Village Green neighborhood for parking. Said that they have notified Fire personnel only to use designated Fire parking spaces. • Three, to preserve the historic integrity of the neighborhood. • Stated that the contractor will be charged with keeping construction parking and traffic off of the neighborhood streets. • Added that he often is questioned by citizens as to why the new station is not yet built. • Urged approval. • Acting Chair Kurasch stated that she is having a hard time understanding exactly what is the construction phase parking and material-staging plan. Mr. Bob Egan reminded that the contract. for a contractor is not yet out. Added that no construction would begin until the slab has been poured and cured. Commissioner Barry said that one problem she sees with the construction staging plan is that the applicants are only saying what they will not allow rather than what will actually be done. Added that the neighbors want answers to that question. Mr. Bob Egan said that they could tell people not to park on the neighborhood streets. Commissioner Barry asked where they would be able to park. Chief Ernie Kraule said that if they have to transfer construction workers to the site with a plan like Our Lady of Fatima recently prepared, bringing them from West Valley College, they would make such arrangements. Commissioner Barry cautioned that such arrangements have to be made first. The proposal tonight is not enough to satisfy concerns. Added that West Valley College neighbors would have to be dealt with too. .. • Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 9, 2002 Page 17 Commissioner Hunter stated that the trust issue must include a leap of faith that Fire will take community interests into consideration. Commissioner Roupe stated that he tends to agree and can assume that they will enforce their contractual agreements. Chief Ernest Kraule assured that he will be involved with this project until it is finished. Mr. David W. Dolloff, 20685 Seagull Drive, Saraoga: • Identified himself as a member of the Ad Hoc Committee. • Said that as a point on the lack of notification, no member of the Ad Hoc Committee received notification of this evening's meeting. He found out from Don Whetstone, who lives within 500. feet and therefore received notification. • Said that a major concern is the need for written statements from all parties verifying that they will cooperate with the process and design. • Cautioned that the Post Office has not yet agreed and that nothing can be approved until they do. • Pointed out that hundreds of hours have been put into this project. • Suggested that the Commission not take a leap of faith with these people. Ms. Meg Caldwell, 20201 La Paloma Avenue, Saratoga: • Distributed a written statement from Mr. Dave M. Solomon. • Identified herself as the second Co-President of the Village Green Homeowners' Association and will try to respond as well as she can to issues raised tonight. • Stated that the circulation of vehicles has not yet been adequately addressed. • Pointed out that the Village Green Homeowners' Association is a fairly reasonable group of people with a demonstrated ability to work out issues and come to agreement. Such was the case four years ago when Pinn Brothers was developing nearby as well as with Federated Church. • Added that they are feeling like the "odd man out" in this situation since the conclusion of the work of the Ad Hoc Committee. • Stated that the construction phase will have an enormous impact on their neighborhood. • Disagreed with the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration's contention that all impacts have been fully mitigated. Rather real plans for mitigation are .needed with public input. Mr. Brian Rosevear, 20283 La Paloma Avenue, Saratoga: • Said he is a graduate of Cal Poly with a degree in Architecture. • Stated that he is a contractor and has lots of issues with the staging for this project. • Said that it is important to have a clean access point. • Pointed out that before the pad can be poured, the basement will be dug and electrical and plumbing installed. • Said that the neighborhood has not been given the opportunity to provide adequate input and issues need to be worked out before this goes forward. Commissioner Barry asked Mr. Rosevear if he has experience with such projects. Mr. Brian Rosevear replied yes. He has constructed in San Francisco, including schools and office buildings. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 9, 2002 Page 18 Commissioner Barry asked Mr. Rosevear if, in his opinion, significant problems will be raised in managing this construction site. Mr. Brian Rosevear stated that these answers are needed up front. There will be over 200 trucks coming and going from this site and people want to know where they are going to go. Commissioner Garakani asked Mr. Rosevear if he has issues with the building beyond the construction phase. Mr. Brian Rosevear replied that it is his personal opinion that this building is too big for its site. Mr. Ed Farrell, 20877 Kittridge Road, Saratoga: • Expressed concerns over parking. • Pointed out that when Council overturned the Planning Commission approval for the firehouse, two Commissioners supported overturning the approval: • Suggested that the Commission looks at the 24 parking spaces carefully and asks the applicants to count out the spaces. • Reminded that the Post Office owns some of the parking and the fact that the Sheriff's office is leaving is something that should be verified. • Suggested that this is some sort of shell game when considering the spaces for shift change parking. • Cautioned that there would be some overlap. • Questioned the reasoning for selling off 40 percent of the Contempo site and proposed that it should be kept for additional parking. • Stated again that he wants to see a final count of parking. • Said that neither the Post Office nor Caltrans has yet approved this project and that this project should be contingent on Post Office and Caltrans actions. • Thanked the Commission for its attention. Mr. Victor Monia, Granite Way, Saratoga: • Said that while it is nice to talk about the good intentions of the contractor, he has 25 years of experience working with contractors. • Challenged the Commissioners to provide their home phone numbers so that area residents can call them when on one else is around to deal with problems from this site. • Stated that in the real world, no one is around to receive complaints at 6:30 in the morning. • Called this project the "Dolly Parton Project" with too much Dolly for too little dress. • Said that there is no entitlement to build this building on this site so they must use the Use Permit process to accommodate it. • Declared that this is not a good site. • Asked the Commissioners to be leaders, to have courage, to tell them no, to do the right thing or find a site that works. • Offered as a suggested alternate site the land between the library and church with this proposed site being turned into a park. • Stated that this project is not fair. • Expressed support for a good firehouse in a place that is both proper and good. Mr. John Thomas, Traffic Engineer, Caltrans: • Advised that he was asked to speak by Commissioner Barry and the Fire District. . Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 9, 2002 Page 19 • Said that the plan for a signal at Oak does not qualify and Caltrans would not approve it as it is too S close to the signal at Saratoga. • Added that an emergency signal could be installed. • Pointed out that Highway 9 traffic is too heavy to allow left turns onto this site. Commissioner Barry expressed concerns about the travel path from the fire station to the Oddfellows site and asked Mr. Thomas if he were the engineer who prepared a study for the Ad Hoc Committee. Mr. John Thomas replied no. He added that he did give email comments on the study. Commissioner Barry asked Mr. Thomas for his opinion on the location of the fire station. Mr. John Thomas declined to give an opinion. Director Tom Sullivan advised that a proposal for a signal at Highway 9 and Oak is not a part of this application. Commissioner Kurasch asked if there is an advantage to having an emergency signal installed. Mr. John Thomas advised that the Fire Department has control of the signal now. Commissioner Kurasch expressed concerns about the 12-foot wide alley for an exit. Mr. John Thomas agreed that it is narrow. Mr. Reese Williams, 20119 Knollwood Drive, Saratoga: • Identified himself as a 34-year resident and native of Saratoga and member of the Ad Hoc Committee. • Stated that he is deeply interested in this project and that there has been a tremendous amount of community involvement. • Pointed out that many changes will occur outside the scope of this project. For example, five spaces for the Post Office off of Saratoga Avenue. • Said that strong support is expressed for a new fire station. This project has been well thought out and has a creative design. The phasing and circulation has been well put together. • Stated that this will be a civic cornerstone building for all Saratoga to be proud. • Pointed out that Council adopted the Scheme A proposal. • Advised that sleeping accommodations are not a support function but rather are an essential operational function. • Said that the process has been open and that communication is a two-way street. Mr. Ron Vega, Assistant Fire Chief, Saratoga Fire Department: • Discussed the traffic flow during and after construction. • Assured that they have a standing policy not to use the Village Green neighborhood. • Said that all their traffic flows on major roads, Big Basin, Saratoga and Highway 9. Commissioner Barry: • Pointed out that the Bond Issue was originally intended to make the station earthquake safe. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 9, 2002 Page 20 • Asked Mr. Vega whether Fire is building a station for yesterday and today or for tomorrow. • Asked what the future will be for a regional fire plan. • Questioned how this plan accommodates the ability to fight a major Hillside fire or other such major disaster. Mr. Ron Vega replied that the plan is for tomon-ow. Added that it includes increased staffing and vehicles. The whole plan is to provide the best public safety services possible. Commissioner Barry expressed doubt that the necessary equipment is in place to fight Hillside fires and other major disasters. Mr. Ron Vega pointed out that there would be a new patrol fire apparatus for those types of applications, a new fire aerial truck. The whole plan is based on future fire service delivery. Acting Chair Kurasch called for a break at 10:40 p.m. Acting Chair Kurasch resume the meeting at 10:50 p.m. Acting Chair Kurasch summarized the letter delivered this evening on behalf of Mr. Dave Solomon 20393 Park Place, Saratoga, expressing support for the construction of a new fire facility with some concerns about cut through traffic and circulation. Mr. Hal Toppel, Attorney for the Fire Department: • Summarized the three categories of concern: the impact of construction on the neighborhood, Caltrans and Post Office arrangements. • Stated that all three areas can be addressed with Conditions. • Suggested a Condition that the District, in collaboration with the Valley Green Homeowners' Association, develop a construction staging and traffic pan. • Suggested a Condition that requires the District to obtain all necessary encroachment permits from Caltrans. • Suggested a Condition requiring the District to obtain an easement from the Post Office. If it is not possible, an alternative plan would be required. • Stated that they have come up with plans that addressed all the Village Green Homeowners' Association concerns. • Added that he has heard no complaint from them on the project itself. • Stated the need to move forward. • Urged the Commission to take action tonight. Acting Chair Kurasch questioned how to deal with two separate parcels with perhaps a covenant to restrict them. Mr. Hal Toppel said that there are two types of agreements. One to restrict the use of the Contempo lot strictly for parking and another for the permanent dedication of 10 spaces for public use. Acting Chair Kurasch asked Mr. Toppel whether the Fire District is agreeable to meeting with the Village Green Homeowners' Association. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 9, 2002 Page 21 Mr. Hal Toppel replied yes. Commissioner Garakani ointed out that parking concerns have been addressed quite a lot. Wondered P why the Contempo property should be sold. Mr. Hal Toppel advised that the sale of the Contempo property to the church makes parking possible. Commissioner Garakani again asked why sell the property at all. Mr. Hal Toppel: • Reminded the Commission that the project has sufficient parking. • Added that the new station has been setback so that trucks can back into the station. • Said that the area with a zero setback faces onto a parking lot. • Said that they are both trying to solve the neighborhood problem and generate money to finance the project. Acting Chair Kurasch said that without the sale of the Contempo property the fire station would have more parking. Commissioner Garakani said that he has concerns about parking lot circulation. Mr. Hal Toppel pointed out that the more challenging parking spaces are restricted spaces with posted signs while the public parking is easily accessed. Commissioner Zutshi asked why not keep the Contempo building during construction of the new fire station. Ms. Mary McGrath advised that they solicited construction bids to renovate the Contempo building for temporary use as a fire station. The cost of $220,000 was $40,000 more than the cost of demolishing the existing Contempo building and installing leased modular buildings. In addition, the project gets a parking lot. Commissioner Garakani pointed out the 18,000 square foot size of the building. Ms. Mary McGrath reminded that 2,500 square feet is basement. Commissioner Garakani asked what has been added to require the additional 2,500 square feet. Ms. Mary McGrath replied a training room and communications storage. Commissioner Garakani asked why City property is needed to be transferred to this project. Ms. Mary McGrath replied because of the requirement for 59 feet in front of the bay. Acting Chair Kurasch advised that Design Review includes impacts and the Commission is trying to understand the size of the building. Ms. Mary McGrath advised that the size is totally operationally driven. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 9, 2002 Page 22 Acting Chair Kurasch stated that the mass of this building is so large for this corner. Ms. Mary McGrath state that it is 20 feet high in the rear and 30 feet high at one point. The project complies with Ordinance as far as height. The project has less than 30 percent coverage and offers sufficient parking. Acting Chair Kurasch said that issues of bulk and mass still exist. Commissioner Roupe asked about material colors. Ms. Mary McGrath showed the materials sample display with muted non-glossy tile, copper gutters and two-tone roof tiles. Acting Chair Kurasch said that these materials are very nice. Chief Ernie Kraule: • Said that they seek an operating fire station with adequate staff to serve a community with afour- minute response time. • Pointed out that this location offers easy access in four directions and that they are able to respond to Hillside fires. • Agreed that better communication should have occurred with the Village Green Homeowners' Association. • Stated that they desperately need a fire station on this location. Commissioner Barry asked if the Traffic Engineer from Fehr & Peers is present. Mr. Jason Pack, Traffic Engineer, Fehr & Peers: • Stated that he reviewed the latest proposed architectural layout with ingress one way from Saratoga with right turns and a left turn pocket from Saratoga. The drive from Highway 9 is full access. • Said that the 17-foot aisle width for two-way traffic is less than the 20 to 24 foot width that is preferred for two-way traffic. Commissioner Zutshi asked about access to Park Place. Mr. Jason Pack said that there is no access to Park from the Fire property but only from the Church. Acting Chair Kurasch asked about the proposed left-turn pocket on Highway 9. Mr. Jason Pack said that the proposal is to restripe the existing painted island for a left turn pocket. Director Tom Sullivan advised that work is being done on a traffic study together with the Village Green Homeowners' Association. Acting Chair Kurasch said that the changes are really positive. Asked Mr. Pack for his suggestions on staging. Mr, Jason Pack replied that his expertise is only on-site circulation. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 9, 2002 Page 23 Acting Chair Kurasch closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 11:27 p.m. Acting Chair Kurasch asked Director Sullivan for a suggested order in dealing with the temporary Use Permit, Negative Declaration and Design Review. Director Tom Sullivan advised that the Negative Declaration was done by Fire as lead agency. The Commission needs to develop two separate Resolutions. One for the Design Review and Use Permit. The second is to make the determination that this project is consistent with the General Plan. Commissioner Roupe asked if the Lot Line Adjustment is included in the first Resolution. Director Tom Sullivan replied yes. Commissioner Zutshi asked about other Settlement Agreement points such as setbacks and the demolition of the Contempt building. Associate Planner John Livingstone advised that the Settlement Agreement requires a specific number of parking spaces, height and maximum 30 percent coverage. There are 10 City-controlled spaces in the transfer of land. Commissioner Roupe said that he had asked the City Attorney if the proposal was significantly in conformance with the Settlement Agreement to act upon this and the City Attorney said yes. Acting Chair Kurasch said that she questions the review of the Negative Declaration. Commissioner Roupe stated that the Commission is simply reviewing it but has no approval authority on it. Suggested changing the wording in the Resolution to read that Fire has made the necessary findings for the Negative Declaration. Commissioner Barry asked what would happen if the Commission finds the Negative Declaration does not pass muster. Associate Planner John Livingstone replied that the Commission does not have the standing to make that statement. Director Tom Sullivan suggested that the second sentence be deleted which make mention of Fire environmental documents attached. Acting Chair Kurasch stated that Fire has nothing to do with the actions of the Commission. Commissioner Garakani: • Said that as an ordinary citizen, he thinks this building looks good. It is a nice building with a nice setback. However, as a Commissioner, he is not here to see what is nice or not nice but rather to hear from the residents regarding the impact on Saratoga. • Said that a lot of existing conditions do not work and something has to be done to make them work. • Agreed that lots of effort went into designing the building but that little effort seems to have been spent on parking and circulation design. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 9, 2002 Page 24 • Said that the City is losing land with the sale of the Contempo building that could be used for a better arrangement of parking. • Stated that he likes the building but would like a better circulation and parking plan. • Pointed out the 8,985 square feet of land that the City is turning over to this project. Commissioner Roupe pointed out that the land would be sold and not given. Commissioner Garakani asked why the City does not assume that land. Commissioner Roupe replied because the City does not have either the money or interest in the purchase of that land. Commissioner Garakani stated that he cannot look at the Settlement Agreement instead of Zoning regulations in consideration of this proposal and that the Commission should look at the best scenario for that corner. Commissioner Roupe reminded that the Commission was directed by Council to look at this application within the constraints of the settlement they made. This is a done deed. Acting Chair Kurasch countered that this does not preclude Design Review. Commissioner Zutshi said that the Agreement confines the bulk. Acting Chair Kurasch reminded that it cannot exceed 30 percent coverage. Commissioner Roupe pointed out that the setbacks required in order to turn vehicles constrains the placement of the new station. Commissioner Barry said that the language does not say zero setback. Director Tom Sullivan replied that it does not preclude it either. Commissioner Roupe stated that he thinks this is a good project that should go forward with the requirement that the necessary agreements with Caltrans, the Church and Post Office be finalized. Commissioner Garakani said that the existing parking area width is not adequate. Director Tom Sullivan said that the spaces Commissioner Garakani speaks of are within the Post Office parking lot where the Sheriff's office rents. Commissioner Roupe suggested having the Fire District come back to the Commission before the construction permit is issued to ensure that all necessary agreements have been finalized. Commissioner Hunter: • Pointed out how much quicker the library project progressed. • Added that people often ask her why the fire station project is taking so long. • Said that this will be a handsome fire station for the City of Saratoga of which she will be proud. • Said that she has never experience a problem with fire station traffic. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 9, 2002 Page 25 • Stated that it is time to move ahead and send it on. • Declared that this is for our community and saving our lives. • Reiterated that it is time to move ahead. It's a good plan, let's move along. • Thanked Mary McGrath for the fantastic way she handled this project. Commissioner Garakani: • Said that this is a nice building but that it doesn't end there. • Agreed that everyone wants a nice fire station. • Added that it is important to avoid pitfalls and to look ahead. Commissioner Roupe said that with the right Conditions of Approval, this project can move ahead. Acting Chair Kurasch: • Stated that the Caltrans representative had no opinion about the location of this fire station but did express concern regarding the 12-foot alley for fire engine use. • Added that she takes that concern seriously. • Said that people impacted need to be involved in the process. • Agreed that the library project was a smooth effort. • Said that she would like to see an emergency signal at Oak Street. Commissioner Roupe: • Restated that he believes the project can go forward with appropriate Conditions. • Cautioned that there will likely be an appeal of whatever decision is made. • Said it is time to make that decision and move on with this. • Stated that this is a good plan and building and that he would be proud of it. Suggested a motion and vote. Acting Chair Kurasch asked for a straw vote. Commissioner Zutshi expressed support for going forward with applicable conditions. Director Tom Sullivan reminded that a tie vote represents denial. Commissioner Garakani asked what happens with a denial. Commissioner Roupe replied that the applicant would appeal to Council. Suggested approval with the requirement that the applicant work with the neighbors on staging during construction, the necessary agreements with Caltrans, Post Office and Church be work out and traffic circulation be fine tuned. Commissioner Garakani asked what if things are no better when brought back. Commissioner Roupe replied, deny the project. Acting Chair Kurasch asked the Commissioners if they prefer a vote or continuance. i Toner Garakani said that he would refer the a licants come back after workin on those Comm ss P PP g issues outlined with clear directions from the Commission. C Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 9, 2002 Page 26 Commissioner Barry: • Stated that she would not agree to anything to allow Fire to circumvent honest work with neighbors. • Added that she wants an agreement brought back to the Commission before an approval is granted. • Said that it is not adequate to tie in to building permit approval. • Advised that she would not vote for the project as it is. Commissioner Garakani expressed support for a continuance rather than a denial. Commissioner Roupe stated that this would be the worse decision the Commission could make. The item has been heard twice. Expressed strong support for making a conditioned approval. Director Tom Sullivan pointed out that any decision is likely to be appealed to Council no matter what that decision. Council could remove some or all of these added conditions. Commissioner Garakani said that the building looks good but he has problems with the design of the parking area. Said that the land should be used properly to mitigate parking needs. Said he would not support this proposal as a result. Commissioner Barry said that she would like to have it come back in a public hearing with an opportunity for a better site parking and circulation design to occur. Commissioner Garakani said he would prefer a continuance or denial. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded by Commissioner Hunter, the Planning Commission recommended approval of Design Review, Use Permit and Lot Line Adjustment for the proposed new fire station at 14380 Saratoga Avenue with the following added Conditions: • Applicant to work with neighbors and City to develop a construction staging, traffic, parking and circulation plan and will bring that plan back to the Planning Commission for review and approval; • Applicant to secure approvals and endorsements from Caltrans, Post Office, San Jose Water and other interested parties whose agreements are necessary to execute this project; • Develop a traffic circulation plan for parking area of Post Office and Fire, working together in a harmonious way, and bring the plan back to the Planning Commission for review and approval; • Issues of vehicle circuits, noise, dust and a parking sign with contact name for 24-hour contact be put in place before permits issued; and • The relocation of the monument before construction begins. by the following roll call vote: AYES: Hunter, Roupe and Zutshi NOES: Barry, Garakani and Kurasch ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Jackman The project is denied. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 9, 2002 Page 27 Acting Chair Kurasch suggested crafting another motion. Mr. Hal Toppel, Attorney for the Fire District, advised that the Commission has taken its action and denied the project. Commissioner Barry expressed thanks to Mary McGrath for her design work and presentation. Acting Chair Kurasch advised that the applicant could appeal this action. *** Acting Chair Kurasch returned the gavel to Chair Jackman at 12:22 a.m. *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM N0.3 and ITEM N0.4 DR O1 035, UP O1 013, ED 01-002 (393-25-022) ST ANDREW'S 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 reconfiguration of 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) 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) Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hunter, seconded by Commissioner Barry, Agenda Items No. 3 and No. 4 will be continued to the next Planning Commission meeting on October 23, 2002, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Jackman, Kurasch, Roupe and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ~~~ DIRECTOR'S ITEMS There were no Director's Items. COMMISSION ITEMS Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 9, 2002 Page 28 Commissioner Hunter advised that she attended a meeting with Campbell, Los Gatos and Saratoga representatives regarding Heritage properties. Commended Associate Planner John Livingstone for his coordination of this meeting. COMMUNICATIONS There were no communication items. AD TOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Chair Jackman adjourned the meeting at 12:25 a.m. to the Annual Retreat on Saturday, October 12, 2002, at 9 a.m. and thereafter to the next regular meeting set for Wednesday, October 23, 2002, to begin at 7 p.m. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk • ~~(1 ~o ITEM 1 ~~ ~~ ~ Ewa ~~ ~ ~ r-~ ~ L~i ~'~ ~7 r---, r ~~ ;'~ ~C~~ ;~ L~ ~ I % ,~ ~,--t ~';~, o~ TO: Planning Commission ~~'~ ~ FROM: Christine Oosterhous AICP, Associate Planner<J~ DATE: October 23, 2002 SUBJECT: Proposed new facilities at St. Andrew's Parish and School _.,~~. ocriE. .~,~.. ~ ":S7c:,, This agenda item was scheduled for the October 9, 2002 planning commission meeting to receive public testimony and conduct a forn~al discussion of issues. Prior to being heard on October 9, at l 0:30 pm this itern was continued to the October 23, 2002 planning commission meeting. In the meantime, staff has met with the applicant to discuss the requested revisions detailed in the staff report dated October 9, 2002. The applicant has agreed to the following project revisions: • Reduce the height of the entries of the clergy and administration buildings. • ]nclude architectural elements on the administration and north classroom buildings to break up the single form buildings and to reduce mass and bulk. • Increase the setback of the parish center building an additional two feet (the parish center building will be a total of 15 feet from the side property line). The applicant and staff also discussed allowing student enrollment to increase by a small percentage without requiring planning commission approval. Staff recommends a maximum 5% (22 students) increase to be permitted in student enrollment without planning commission approval provided the special studies including traffic and noise evaluate the impacts of this increase; and the studies find a S% increase will not have a significant impact on the community. As you may recall, the General Plan and zoning ordinance are inconsistent on the permissibility of three-story structures. The General Plan prohibits three story structures (except in the village) while the zoning ordinance allows three story structures for Quasi- Public Facilities when an average slope underneath a structure is greater than 10%. When a regulation in the zoning ordinance is inconsistent with the General Plan it becomes invalid. ~•, ~aC~~ a Please contact the project planner to receive a copy of the detailed staff report dated ~~ SQ,e October 9, 2002 which includes a complete project description, copies of the applicant's Q~~o~ y special studies, environmental documents, detailed project revisions requested by staff, Qa.~~ . and project plans. ~~~ov' ~r~ 00®001 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the planning commission receive public testimony and endorse, modify, eliminate or add to staff recommendations detailed in the October 9 staff report as they see fit. A summary of these recommendations is attached for your reference. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Summary of staff recommendations from the October 9, 2002 staff report. 2. Letter in support of the project from an adjacent property owner, Amy June Jorgensen, dated October 8, 2002. • 0~0®(~iZ ATTACHMENT 1 Staff Recommendations from the Staff Report dated October 9, 2002 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 l5 feet or greater shall be doubled consistent with 15-45.030(a). 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 000003 Staff Recommendations from the Staff Report dated October 9, 2002 Avenue. If the bell tower is relocated it shall not create a nuisance to existing residences. Staff recommends the planning commission refer the noise assessment study back to the 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 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 ,lune 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 6l 5 feet of queuing from Saratoga Avenue to pick-up drop off area behind the gym. A total of approximately ],000 linear feet of additional queuing area will be provided on-site. Staff recommends the applicant provide the following right of way m~provements 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 ] ] 0 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. • ~~Q~04 • Attachment 2 October £i, 2~O2 T0: City of Saratoga Planning Commission I live at 13631 Saratoga Avenue. My peopwety is between St. Andrew's Church/ School and St. Andrew's playfield. • 7 have seen the proposed plan f.or future St. Andrew's facilities and have no objection to them. St. Andrew's has been a good and considerate neighbor in the past and I look forward to congenial years in the future. Sincerely, • ~~, o '~ ~ 363, Sara o or8cnsen Sarato ~ Avc. 8a, CA 95070 I~~ ~~~0~~ I~; u~ o~T o 9 zoos u CI'(1' OF' SARATOGA ex,nl I1,IITV l1L1rC1 llnr,r,. o o ~ 0 • THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK • • 000006 COn~' 1n u2 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~,~- J Date: October 9, 2002 APN: 393-25-21 Department Head: i• i~ OOU001 13601 Saratoga Avenue 4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant requests design review and use permit approval to construct new facilities for St. Andrew's School and Parish: -Atthe`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 phis 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 a-:y increase in student enrollment shall require planning conrnrission approval. The following is a description of the proposed facilities: Perrorrning Arts/Gymnasium Building Tl~e 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 fi. 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 4U 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 ~~~ 00000 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 Gi'al~wavs and Outdoor Eating Area Pedestrian site circulation between the various buildings will occur under covered walkways 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 OOU003 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. Special Events Weddings: average 20 per year. Funerals: brief tolling. Occasional concerts by visiting 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 recommends t1:e be1J-ringing schedule be modified so that the frequenc}~ ar:d drrratiorr of proposed ringing is reduced. Staff recommends tJ:e frequeirc}~ of ri-rgirrg be specifred 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. • 00(1©04 City Library The City library is located directly across Saratoga Avenue from the project site. For comparison, 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 in the zoning district in 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 VOU~~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 applicaut revise the floor area figures so that any interior lieiglit of I S feet or greater shall be doubled consistent with 15-45.030(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 OOUO®6 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 tl:e following be referred back to the applicant for further reduction: proposed, floor area, overall lieiglit, 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 in 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 in order for the project to support tl:e design review findings: • 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 the 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 standazds (dba) for noise 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 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 ~:o more than 6 d ba above the ambient noise level at the location where the single 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 Sazatoga 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 001308 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 2-3). • 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~Of1~~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 yow 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 1 1, 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 00€~~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 25-30 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 belo~~~ 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 ~OUO11 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). T/:is scenario will increase the length of vehicle queuing by a total of approximately 370 feet from Saratoga Avenue to the Sunday school rooms a~:d includes the additional drop-off area to the rear of the site adding an additional 61 S feet of queuing from Saratoga Avenue topick-up drop off area behind the gym. A total of approximately 1, DOO linear feet of additional queuing area will be provided on- Slte. 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 SaratogalFruitvale 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 changes 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 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. 11 OOU~12 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(a). 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 U0~~13 • 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). Thi's 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. ~. Earthquake Intensity, Modified Mercalli Intensity. 4. Standards of Construction in Special Flood Hazards (MCS 16.66.090). ~. 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`..~1'~ St. Andrew's School and Parish ATTACHMENT A Proposed Code Requirement Lot Coverage: proposed paving 123,542 sq ft (57%) proposed building footpring 50,288 sq ft (23%) existing sanctuary to remain 11,446 sq ft (5%) Total Impervious 185,511 sq ft (85%) 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.t Setbacks: south east west north front right left rear front right left rear Perforning 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. Clergy 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'` 15` 15 ~ 45' Number of Stories: Performinc Arts / Gvm two Administration ~ Classroom Wing three North Clasroom Wing ~ two Clerw Offices three Parish Center one Bell To~1~er n/a three 3 Height: 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 ft. 30 ft. a '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). 'Three stories maybe 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)). QQ~V15 ' No main structure shall exceed thirty feet (MCS 15-12.100(a)). r~ u THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK • • ~Ot1~16 - ATTACHMENT B 5.0 Educational Adequacy The educational adequacy of school buildings, in a sense, represents the purpose of the entire appraisal process. This is true because 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 learning, 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 (2s)j, [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. Somewhatsurprising inschool 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. ' Standards for the size of academic learning areas vary from state to 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 Sciwol 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 [o 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 Council of Educational Faality Planners, International Guide for School Facility Appraisal ~0~~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. Lockets may be wall recessed or located in 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. Cupboards, cabinets and drawers are often needed in classrooms to stone 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 truly have enough storage space. Teachers generally express a need for more such space. 5.7 Size of special learning anu(s) meets standards. (15) In special learning areas, it is essential to determine the typical class sine 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: 3 8 The Council of Educational Facility Planners, International Guide for School Facility Appraisal v0U018 i~ i Su ested S acefor S vial I:.earnin Areas ~ P Pe g i Area Square Footage Square Meters , Arr 45-50 4.19.65 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 35110 3.25-3.72 Crafts 45-50 4.19-4.65 Industrial Arts 1 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 i Library 30 per seated student for a minimum of 15°!0 i of student body Music Band (min. 2000 sq. fi~, 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 1 Auditorium ~ Audience Space 10-12/seated capaci[y0.93-1.12 Stage & Total Auxiliary Space 375011800 348.75-446.40 5.8 Design of special learning areas is compatible with instructional need. (10) Schools designed specifically for the program offered usually provide space that 1 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- strtrction to be provided. ~~ The Council of EdupDOna! Facility Planners, International Guide for School Facility Appraisal ~~~~~ 5.9 Library/Resource/Media Center provides appropriate and attractive space. [Elementary School (10)]; [Middle School and High School (15)] Tefdt _~ ::; <~~aaaa,. • >~'~=~.<~~~. This space may be given a variety of names. Some schools accommodate media i!:a in the same area with library materials, thus creating an instructional materials center. Whether these needs are combined or met separately, adequacy is a significant factor. Accreditation standards usually refer very specifically to this portion of Fite school with an emphasis on available seating and work space for 10- 15% 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 ~~.~. standards under 5.7. 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. 1:f appropriate enclosed (interior) space is not available, then an outdoor covered area is acceptable. Sometimes lunchrooms are used as mull-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 facilities require a gymnasium available for awell-rounded program. Bleachers are nota 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 ventilation, spectator accom- modations. Title IX requirements now stress the adequacy of girls' facilities comparable in sizeand 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 used 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 Faality Planners, International Guide for School Facility Appraisal Q0~~~0 f ~ ~_~ ~ 5.11 Science program is provided sufficient spate and equipment. [Middle School & High School] (10) At both middle school and high school lcvels science is a very important instructional area. Classroom space and laboratory space should be provided. Lab stations are needed for small groups of swdents (3-4) and in sufficient numbers to accommodate classes of 20-25 students. Teacher preparation space is essential. Often such space is located between two instructional areas so as tv 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 are 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 standards tinder 5.7. ~~ 5.13 Space for art is appropriate for special instruction, supplies, and equipment. (Elementary School (5)], [Middle School (10j], [High School (10)] ~ The space for the art program should accommodate either individual or small ~ group table space. Lighting should provide greater illumination than in mostother 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)j Technology education now encompasses much of what in the past was provided under vocational/technical programs. Computer labs are 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 Educational Facility Planners, International ~ J Guide for School Facility appraisal 1 UOU3~1 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 3.72-4.65 Foods 40-50 3.72.65 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 regular 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 Counal of Educational Facility Planners, Intemationa- Guide for School Facility Appraisal uou~~~ 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 large 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 square meters) for each 25 teachers. 5.18 Cafeteria/cafetorium isattractive with sufficient space fordelivery, storage & food preparation. (10) At the elementary 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 floor provide 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 vitiation 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 areas 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 0.5-0.5 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 Ptannets, International Cwide for School Facility Appraisal 1 ~-OU~23 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 bu[ furniture, counters, etc., should be designed to fit the age of the students. At the secondary- level this area of the school will be much lazger, will have signs to identify such functions as student 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 a part-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 area and 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 Room 40-50 3.7211.65 Storage 30-40 1.79-3.72 5.21 Clinic area is near administrative offices and is equipped to meet requirements. (5) 44 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 aze 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 • The Council of Educational Facility Planners, International Guide for School Facility Appraisal UOv~~4 5.22 Suitable reception area is available for students, teachers and visitors. (5) ~ - There is need for a lobby or foyer in the administrative area. This permits 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 specific 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}j4ce 200-250 18.60-23.25 Asst. Principal's O,fj~ice 150-200 13.95-18.60 Reception-Elementary/ Middle School 200-250 ~ 18.60-23.25 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 f 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. S 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. • oov3~7 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. Ut~U328 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. ^ 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. • ~Ot1~~9 • THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK • • oo~~~o r \ i ~~ \ `f ~ I C Y 1~ 1 r 1 / 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 ~o~ ~~[~8~~ ~~) Ull JUL 2 2 2002 ~J CI1 Y OF SAItATOGA ^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 by 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. QO~~~~, 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. 5. 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. ~~~~~~ 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 ~, • ~ ~~ Eileen M. K' g .. ~~ (~c-:~ ~~ ~Oi1~33 i THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK . • 001034 ATE Ali H IVI CIV DRAFT • INITIAL STUDY CITY OF SARATOGA 1. Project Title: Application No. DR-O1-035 (Design Review), ED-O1-002 (Environmental Determination), & UP-0l -013 (Use Permit) 2. Project Location: 13601 Sazatoga Avenue, Sazatoga, California 3. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Saratoga, Planning Department, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Sazatoga, 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 of Saratoga, CA lOq ~/1~S 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 C~ 2 Draft Initial Study 13601 Saratoga Avenue City of Saratoga, C~UV~~~ 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 Draft Initial Study 13601 Saratoga Avenue City of Saratoga, CA ~OV~~~ 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 project does not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. Refer to section 2b (Source: Farmland 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). C7 4 Draft lnitia! Study 13601 Saratoga Avenue City of Saratoga, CA OO~l~~8 DAFT r~ 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 of Saratoga, CA ~OOJ~~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. r~ L_J 6 Draft Initial Study 1360/ 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 O(~J~~1 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 azea 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 Hazazds 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 Hazazds, Key for Map 1; Mercalli Scale). • • • Draft Initial Study 13601 Saratoga Avenue City of Saratoga, CA "©~'~~~ 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~U~a1~3 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 and density on site remain ±he 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 O Draft Initial Study 13601 Saratoga Avenue City ojSaratoga, CA ... ~~~~~~ DRAFT • r1 ~J • 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? }{ 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? X 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 ojSaratoga, CA k~~~~~~ DRAFT Potentially Less than Less than No Impact Significant Significant Significant _Impact , With Impact _. u 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 maybe 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 , ~~~C 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 azea 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 Sazatoga 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 Sazatoga and surrounding azeas 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 40~~4'7 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? X No impact. Refer to section 10 a (Source: Review of the proposed project). 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 Drajt Initial Study 13601 Saratoga Avenue City ojSaratoga, ~0~~~8 DRAFT • Potentially Less than Less than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Impact 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, CA o~~3 ~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. X L • :7 16 Draft Initial Study 13601 Saratoga Avenue City of Saratoga, CA ~~jj ~V~~~O 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 stonm 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, C~A,~~~~C~ 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 prof ect's prof ected 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 18 Draft Initial Study 13601 Saratoga Avenue City of Saratoga, CAoo~~~~ - ~ 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 projec±s, 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 ojSaratoga, CA , €~®~~~3 a • THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK . ~J©^J~S~ BAAQlvlh CEQA~ GUIDELINES 15 Attachment 1 Y 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, pazking areas and staging azeas at construction sites. • Sweep daily (with water sweepers) all paved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites. • Sweep streets daily (with water sweepers) if visible soil material is carried onto adiacent public streets. • All "Basic" control measures listed above. • Hydroseed or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers to inactive construction azeas (previously graded areas 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. ~ ,~ 's' 4u.^FF t~••^M? fix... .i'Sk..~'{~ ~;v~S `:AS; ~, ., Optional Caiinttol'N~~ea`~sa~i~es:~"~ ~a'a~lt~ ~~ ~easu .; encouraged a# xconstructson sites tliaf aree~ate~~~~~~~ ~ - k r ~'~ ~' +~ sw ~ ark' ,ice , ~, ~`z~h' a'~~,n~i ,~ ' r~cepturs or which d'or ~nx ether areas ~~a ~: ~"`~a c~~ ss enc. ay s 4 ~r< t~e ~t t~" '[ ;' S~s< ~~ ~' ~re+duc~ions. ~~ ~;` ~ x : a~ .~.' 7~k''~~~ ~ ~~4"a !y t~.8 ~ 3 ~~ ,~ ~r~4 . ^v~~~ .~' r..J° .l ~d y+L,:s;^~~.,. 1' ~~il.tGh... ~M~'w~ • 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 windward 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. • 00~1~55 ~_. • THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK . • ~J0~1~S6 r~ z }..~ L Y KEY FOR MAP 1 ~ GEOTECIINICAL IIAZARD EVALUATION ANb R(.COtiMfNDATIONS FOR SARATOGA TERRAIN UNITS TERRAIN UNIT • San Andreas ' Fault Zone Foothills Bollman Sl.~line Valley F100Y' . I II III IV ;y; NATURAL SEISMIC HAZARDS ' Possibility of Surface Rupture Definite Limited Limited Limited Unlike Ground Shaking Intensity: IVI PIrCa ~ ( ~ Magnitude 6 - San Andreas. VI VI VI V VI Magnitude 8.3 = San Andreas X VIII - IX IX IX VIII ~Y1.1ehS1~ Ground Failure Probability Landslides High 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 Nigh 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 i No Yee Yes Yes N/A Geological Investigation Required N/A Yee Yes Yes H/A Soils investigation Required ' • N/A Ye• Yea Yes Ye• Source: Fugro. Inc. for M1111ams a Mocine Geotechnical Report (1974) <R) • • THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK OOV~~58 Modified Mercalli Intensity Page 1 of 2 ATTAC H M E (~T- 3 Earthquake Intensity w to measure earth uake size ma 'tude based on instrumental readin sand intensi Of the two ays q gm g ty based on qualitative effects of earthquakes; only intensity can be applied topre-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 neaz the region of maximum intensity . The earthquake maybe characterized by the lazgest 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. Modified Mercalli Scale Average peak velocity Intensity value and description (centimeters per second) I. Not felt except by a very few under especially favorable circumstances. (I Rossi-Forel scale) 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) 1-2 IV. During the day felt indoors by many, outdoors by few. At O.O15g-0.02g 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) 2-S 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 httn://www.eas.slu.edu/Earthquake Center/mercalli.html 0.03 g-0.048 1 /31 /02 Modified Mercalli Intensity Page 2 of 2 a other tall objects sometimes noticed. Pendulum clocks may stop: (V to VI Rossi-Fore] scale) - 5-8 VL Felt by,all, many.frightened;arid run outdoors. Some 0.06g-0.07g. heavy furniture moved; a few instances of failen'plaster and ~ ~~' ~ _ ° = ~ --°- - - damaged chimneys. Damage slight. (VI to VII Rossi-Fore] scale) 8-12 VII. Everybody runs outdoors., Damage negligible in O. l 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. (VIII Rossi-Fore] scale) - 20-30 VIII. Damage slight in specially designed structures; 0.25g-0:30g 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 c~.rs disturbed. (VIII + to IX Rossi-Fore] 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-Fore] scale) More than 60 X. Some well-built wooden structures destroyed; most More than 0.60g 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-Fore] 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 distorted. 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. • (D(~J~~® httn~/h~~~~v.eas.slu.edu/Earthquake Center/mercalli.html 1/3]/02 Al_..__i tiV h Ivy ~~v i ~+ 16-66.100 • • dare set forth in Article 15-90 of Chapter 15 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- minationsprescribed in Section 16-66.080(a) 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) AU new construction and substantial improvements shall be adequately anchored to prevent flotation, collapse or lateral movement of the stnrcttrre resulting from hydro- 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 that there are adequate drainage paths around structures on slopes to guide flood waters around and away from proposed structures. (c) Elevation and floodproofmg. (See Section 16- 66.040 definitions 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. 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 verification 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 construction 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 elimi- 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 (Sansoga 6.9'n DOV ~.7v~ THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK • ~ov3sz Hi iHVhr~t~-~ 7-30.010 • • milk, buttermilk or other diary products sold, designed or advertised as certified shall be conspicuously marked with the name of the commission certifying it and certify- ing the milk 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 soars shall be detet- 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 bou]ed 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, ac which time it shall contain no more than 10,000 bacuria per milliliter. (5) It must be sold to the customer within thirty boors after production and labeled to indicate the date of sale to the consumer. All persons who come in contact with the guaranteed raw mills must exercise scrupulous cleanli- ness and not be afflicted with any communicable disease or in a condition to disseminate the germs ofany commu- nicable disease liable to be conveyed by mills The absence of such germs in all such persons shall be determined by bacteriological and physical exa*n+*>arion by the County Health Department or other person or laboratory approved in writing by the Health Deparmrent, conducted at the time of employment and every six months thereafter in a manner approved by [he 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 destroy or denaturize any tainted, decayed or partially decayed or unwholesome meat, fish, shellfish, fowl, fruits, vegetables or other unwholesome food found within the City. 7-25.090 Meat produce; compliance with State law; inspeciion stamps. (a) No person, or went 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- lion for sale or distribution in the City. the flesh of any cattle, 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 Noise Element of the City's General Plan; 137 ~O(~~~~3 7-30.010 (d) To establish noise standards fer various land uses. and activities within ttie Ciry; - (e) To prohibit noise which disturbs the peace and. quiet of a neighborhood or causes dy~~~ ~ aanoyan~ to persons of normal sensitivities. (Ord. 71.92 § 1 (part), 1991) ~-30.020 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- lion, 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 amount 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:U0 P.M. to 10:00 P.M. (g) Nighttime means the nine hour period from 10:00 P.M. to 7:00 A.M. of the following day. (b) 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 instrtzatent 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 lives pr proP~ty fznm imminent danger. loss or harm. (b) Alarm systems, Any outside audible alarm system for which a permit has been issued pursuant t0 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 co noise produced by exttrior 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 45 dB A Indoor 50 -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 bouts of operation. -The ambient noise standards for uses and devclopments 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), 1991) 7-~•OSO 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. • • ~DO~l~~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 noise level at the location where the single event noise source is mea- sured. (c) The single event noise level shall be measured with a sound level meter as follows: (1) 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 amulet-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 (c)(1) or (c)(2) of this Section, the measurement shall be taken at the point where the noise source is located. (Ord. 71.92 § 1 (part), 1991) 7-30.060 Exceptions for specific 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 oo~tinction. 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 hours 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 requiring a City permit. (b) Commerdal eom~Uon. Construction, alteration or repair activities in Commercial and Professional and Adminisn~ative Office zoning districts which are authorized by a valid City pertrtit, 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. Com- mercial construction shall be prohibited on Saturday, Sunday and other holidays. The Coaununiry Development Director may grant temporary exemptions upon his/her .determination of an emergency. (c) Subdivision otnstruction. Subdivision construction activities which arc authorized by a valid Ciry 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 powerrrd 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 from 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. Noisc 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 commercial establishments loratcd immedi- ately adjacent to a residential area, which generate any noise audible to the occupants of the adjacent residences. including noise generated by the operation of delivery or service vehicles, shall not butt 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 Ciry 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) Animals. Noisc 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 cs s.ou 00~'~~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 August 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 o{any license, permit or development approval the approving. authority may require the preparation of a noise study to determine whether the proposed activity will comply with the noise standards contained in this Article. The cost of such study shall be paid, in advance, by the applicant. ff 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, and may further require the conduct of additional studies after the activity is commenced to determine the effectiveness of the mitigation measures. If the violation cattt<ai be pttvent- ed or corrected through mitigation measures, 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 ail 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 exoecd 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: (]) 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~~ s.o» 7-~•1~ Violations of Article; enforcement; Penalties. (a) The violation of any provision contained in this _A;ticle shall c~nstittrte an ittftaction and a public nuisance. (b) It shall be the duty of all policemen, al] 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 ~~Y 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 vio}ate any of the provisions of this Article is hereby authorized to be held for use as evidence in any proceeding that may be brought for such violation. (Ord. 71.92 § 1 (part), 1991) Article 7-35 REGULATION OF SMOKING IN CERTAIN PLACES 140 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. effecu 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 r+e~°ulating smoking in certain places and to strike a reason- able balance betwecn the needs of persons who smoke and the needs of nonsmokers to breathe smoke-free air, and to recognize that where these needs conflict, the need to breathe smoke-free air shall have priority. • • OO~l~+~6 ATTACHMENT 6 • COMPACT DISC RECORDING OF PROPOSED BELLS (ATTACHED TO PLANNINGCOMMISSIONER PACKETS ONLY) • C THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK . OQ~13~8 ATTACHMENT 7 _~~^~L EDWARD L. PACK ASSOCIATES, INC. 2177 NORTHAMPTON DR. Acoustica!_ Consultants TEL: 408-723-8900 SAN JOSE, CA 95124 ~ ~ _ ~- FAX: 408-723-8099 ~,, ,n . , ~,: ~ t - Lv ~_' E. f ~ ~ ____ _ - .. _ 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 ~' MEMBER: ACOUSTICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA D C~~~~~~ JUN 2 6 2002 CITY OF SARATUGA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AUDIO ENGINEERING SOCIETY ~OQ~l~s9 • 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 1V. Mitigation Measures A. Play Area Noise .........................................................:.......................... 11 B. Mechanical Equipment Noise ............................................................. .. 12 C. Gymnasium Noise ............................................................................... ..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 • ~~~~~0 -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 L' o~v~~~ -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 Nornial 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, LSO 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. Tlie 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. . ~pQ~3'73 -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. Unfortunately, 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= lOlog(10 svio + 10 s~10) where, SL is the Sound Level in decibels. ~~~~'74 -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. 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 noise 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. 4087238938 Proiect Descriiption ~ErrRtY r: r~~n -6- _ • The planned project, as shown on the Site Plan, Ref. (c), includes the addition of a gymm~asium, classrooms, kitchen., bell towez, a ze-configuration of the parking lot and the remodeling of the parish, church, playgzounds and existing classrooms. The enrollment of the school is planned to remain at approximately 430 students zanging in age from 4 - 13 years old (Junior Kindergarten tl~urough 8th gxade), as reported by St. Andrew's School, Ref. (d). C. Existing Noise Eacposures • 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 in ekcess of the standards of the City of Saratoga T,'oise Element. • The existing noise exposure at the must impacted residential property line adjacent to the existing lunch area is 57 dB DNL. Thus, the noise exposures are within the limits of the City Of Saratoga Noise Element. • The existing noise exposure at the most 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 of the City of Saratoga Noise Eler~aent standards. .A,s vehicles park 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. • • OOZ13'76 -~- • • 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 area. 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 are shown on Figure 1. The meters yield, by direct readout, a series of the sound levels versus time, which include the L~, 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 Ley'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. ' • ~~~~~~ -- ~~ ~ Zof1i~ ~tHCT R ~ • 2o,«xa /~/ ~' e+~~-+'f / _ .~.l.f v+r~+ ` / ~ 1 .s12~ oP ~J1C-i1G('JFg• 1 . ' \Ar.~~ 1.// /~ ~L~''f ~j ~'e L11.1{7 > ~X~~inl-~ ~Kof~ .~' `l Loc. 1 nc+g~L ~-• iK r-.F _ ~~srr . io, ., .~ :s; i ~~. ~ _ _ _ .Loc. 2 Loc. 3 , - ' ~ ~ ' ~.=-IcA ~~~ ;~'~"_ ,~ ~ -_ ~ ~ tom- • ~ ^`L a • ~I, ~ ') ~ - ~_ - ' '-' - - ". _._' ' r!Gr;scii.~: ~ Loc. 4 _ _ ~i~-~ _ { ~ ~~ ~ ~ • - _ ... % '~ ca ga. / I ~ i '~ ~ y _ ` / S ~ i ' r `~ i i ~ - - ~.~ _ ,- ,• ~~_ FIGURE 1 ~ ~~+ ~" ; ~ ' ~`~' ~ _ .__ Existing Site Plan showing the noise ~~ ~~ ~~> ~~ ~~ measurement locations. _ • . .___.. . ~ Source: Edward L. Pack Assoc. Mar. 20, 2001 ~ l ~ •~ ' ~, • JGf ^KCl i~ r.-~~.~~ -S- The playground L~q's at the zxzost impacted residential property laze (Location l) ranged from 47.1 to 79.2 dBA dozing the daytime hours of 8:00 a.m. to 6:00. p.m.. During the entire daytime period, the L~q's ranged from 40.3 to 79.2 dBA. The Lea's zanged 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 La's ranged from 46.0 to 66.5 dBA. During the entire daytime period the Lay's ranged from 4Z.5 to 62.5 dBA. At night the Lcy's ranged from 34.5 to 51.1 dBA. The short-terra measurements (l 0-minute Lay's), at the north residential property line 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 begirznizzg of service. • 06/25/2002 07:45 408723~7~ III. Proiect-Generated Noise Impacts A. Post Proiect Noise Esposnres • The post project noise exposure at the most impacted residential property live adjacent to the "nursery play azea" will be 49 dB DNL. Thus, the noise exposure is expected to be lower than the existing noise exposure in this area, and will be within the limits of the City of Saratoga Noise Element stazzdazds. • The post project noise exposure at the most impacted residential property line adjacent to the "l~indergazten play area" will be 68 dB DNL. Thus, the noise exposure is expected to remain the same as existing for this area and will be 8 dB izz excess of the City off' Saratoga Noise Element standards. • Q0~13'79 -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 during 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. OQ~~B~ -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. Intervening structures that block the line-of--sight will typically provide a minimum of 5 dB of sound reduction. 0~~~~~. -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 ensi:~re 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. ~~~~~~ \~~ , ~1 ... ~r `rat c l dL a~ ' ' .•. • ~ ~ ~ ~~ e l 1$ K a I .:.• .. rl~i-IY ~~~- -_ ~ ' ; .~ ~' r i 5w~a - r ~,'trlw'vtt r v~e11~ ~wY1111~~ ~/.11sM ark ~. / ~ ~ .. hii~n uhhhhhh. sasses ~~nr+~a ~ / ~7 - ~ ~ rM~c-: c~J 1'o~d11 ~h !~c~,~' , 'r. -: ^-'=..~ ~o~ _ pry ~AH~ w , ~~ !~ ~ / ..:.. .:0 -p brllbw - ('X ~lfry ~7~ ' T ~ ~ ` ~ f..K.. W erek'~i br. 114. ' , ~ n ~ .: ~ ~; u+kgta WAf'1~t~ O ~~ f ~ ~ '- , cotadrl rive. /cw+ ~ p~T t~ ~ l .ti ~ _ f ~~ ~++ ~~ o ~. 1••.; ~ ~~~ 'Ma FIGURE 2 r ' *~ ~,~,~ ® ~ t~.~ ~~~~~~~ Locations and heights of the recommended . ~ " ® .~ ~~~~ `!-i noise control barriers. The barrier heights are in ~ ~ ~ ' .a ~ _ reference to the nearest playground or parking lot sQ0 ~~ _ ~_h) elevation. - ' /~ /~ EDWARD L. PACK ASSOC., INC. ~ ~ ~• Acnn.c(k'a(C'onsuLunfc 11 ?177 Nortli:nnplon Drive 'fel: 11118) 723-R90U Sin Josc, CA 95124 ~a~: (108) 723-8(199 /~~ June 12, 2002 W ~' ~~1nC'P.Cltl iC'fl I nn~15~c~~P Scheme ~t An~rPw.S Pnri~h ~, .~rhn. -12- • To achieve anacoustically-effective barrier, 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. • ~ov~~4 -13- • C. Gvmnasium 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. +~Qv~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. • • ~0~1%J~6 • • -15- The study findings for existing conditions are 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 ~Q~1~37 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, April 8, 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 • • • OQ~~88 • 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 t~®~1~39 minolo 2. Ter gv 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: L~ - A noise level exceeded for 1% of the time. LIO - A noise level exceeded for 10% of the time, considered to bean "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 ~o~~~o B. Da -Ni ht Level DNL 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 Ley in accordance with the following mathematical formula: DNL = [(Ld+lOlog~ol S) & (L~+1 O+lOlog~o9)] - lOloglo24 Where: Ld = Ley for the daytime (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.) L„ = Ley 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 OQi~~~~. 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 S1.4 for Type I 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 ~0~1~92 • • APPENDIX C Noise Measurement Data and Calculation Tables Ot~~1~93 ~`: C~ 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 ,=r, 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 p.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 ni 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 .m. 45.5 35481.3 8:00 p.m. 47.1 51286.1 9:00 p.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 Ni httime Level= 63.3 DNL= 6T.8 DNL= 56.7 24-Hour Le = 67.7 24-Hour Le = 55.9 • ~ • • NHoRari& c PSE EARS MEMORANDUM /y ~ ~ ~I; h IVI t I~ T -~.. - .,;; ~~~~a~~~ JUN 2 6 2002 CITY OF SAR.gTOGA ~:OMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT To: Scott Sheldon, Premier Commercial From: Sohrab Rashid/Jason Pack Date: June 21, 2002 Subject: Traffic Study for Proposed St. 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-tenor 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 pazking 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 00~•~-/~ www.fehrandpeers.com FI:HR & PEE TRANSPORTATION 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 fo the north, anti 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 employees 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 orie 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 1 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 pazallel. A one-way loop road provides access to the drop-off/pick-up area and the parking 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 azea. 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 aze available on weekends and outside school hours for church parking. Additional off-site parking is available on weekends at the Sazatoga Library across Saratoga Avenue. No designated pedestrian crossing azea 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 Sazatoga 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 Saratoga Avenue. The lane immediately adjacent to the site is actually a combined bicycle/pazking 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 Do~~~~ FEHR & PEE TRANSPORTATION CONSUITA~ project's' exit only driveway and -the. complementary stop is located across the street. At stops neaz 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 Sazatoga 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 right-turns into 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 comer. between a vehicle in the drop-off lane and the adjacent parked caz. 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 pazked in the pazking 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 appeaz to have a difficult time finding an available space. a ~ Qa~1~9'8. 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" around the on-site queue at the entrance driveway. At 3:02 pm the queue began to move forward 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 area. 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. Similarly, 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 Sazatoga 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 cleared once the eastbound signal phase turned green. Sunday Observations As noted previously, two worship services are held at the church 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 Sazatoga Avenue would be higher than earlier in the morning. 5 OQ~1~~9 FEHR ~z 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 Traffic o erations at the arato a Avenue ' v v • p S g /Fruit ale A enue intersection were 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 ~Q~O+(J ~v • • 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 1 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 Operations with very low delay occurring .with favorable <_ 5.0 _. -____------ _=-progression and/orshort~clelengths.____,_-_._--.--_---------_._ __._....._ _..____... B+ Operations with low delay occurring with good progression 7 Iltoo 3.0 B- :and/or short cycle lengths. 13.1 to 15.0 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 df 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 ~®~~~~ ~v FEHR & PEE TRANSPORTATION CONSULIA~ 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. s OOV:.02 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 azound.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 driveway 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 bollazds, 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 1'L to 14 feet in length and extend the width of the traveled way. Raised crosswalks are speed humps that aze typically 22 feet in length and 9 ~ ~w~~~3 ~a FEHR ~ PEE ~ TRANSPORTATION CONSUITA include a flat 10-foot section in the center that is striped diagonally. These help to direct pedestrians from the Ivt 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 pazking 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 parallel parking azea 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 Saratoga Avenue, the site plan should be modified to provide more azeas 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 area at the reaz 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. Pazents 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 to ~ (3CDr1~_:.~4 ~J FEHR & PEFRS TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS rear lot would have to be modified to permit vehicles to turn azound 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, pazents will choose to pazk 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 of 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 Sazatoga Avenue aze recommended as part of the project. Parking The proposed pazking supply with the master plan will include a total of 202 spaces. The five parallel pazking 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 azea). 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 pazking supply, drivers will continue to pazk 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. • L 1 • • Cr~~rt~ ~' s~o.~ary~; ®® ~~P - a~ area A C: ~, a c:~ rY;.{ `r.`5 t ~, " .g. J !:`h.. ;. ._X f ~ ~\ ~ t~~.~ /.~ • 1 ~ .. _. ~k H-I B 1 T B C s ®~ A C: F ~~~ -(~3--._.... Ex V+~ 1 T` G ° I- _m 2 X W 6' v ® ~; ., ~~o ® °' • • • s' Typical ~~ Path for THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK • • ~ Pro~ised Ultimate Stripin~lan for Saratoga Avenue ~~uiy zs, zooz~ o ST.ANDREWS Y p PROJECT SITE INSTALL NEV TRAi'fIC SIGNAL LOCATE NEV COIBINEO VTA BUS ST(p ~ REMOVE BUS STOP K AND BUS STOP ~ I / I~ ~~I _ - - _ NO PARKING 1PM _ ~ _ - _ - ~ ~ I ///~~ III ~Iw I~Illlllllllllllllllll, ~~~ ~\` _- I _ .._.. ~ ExtrrM DrWeray and Cwl _~c _ _- __ _ .-.... ..._L ~~ - ~. _ _ - -- -- - - • ._ I _ ~.... •. -- - ~ ND PARKING TO CORNER -_ - ...._ _- _ ... _ _. ._ . f - __._._. v v _ _ _ _ _ ~ ... SARAl00A AYC --- - -r- ~ ,~- ... F.- . _ .. ------- - - ---- aosE atlvEVAr -' -- - -_ A° CLOSE DRIVEVAT __ _ __ I I LOCATE NEV COMBINED VTA BUS STOP ` ~\ • ~ ~ `rte- ~ ~ ~~y! t •, ,lt ~ N 1 ~ ,\ -. .~ ~. -, • ,~~.~ }~ • /~'~~~" LIBRARY ' % ' _ ~ ~ / j ~~. ,;.~ : / , ~, ~ ,~ ; ~ r ~ -~ D C ,~~,; C~ A , . ~. ~ _ ,, C: ~, `~~ E ~ ~ ~~" ~'~ ~ ~ ~ ~"~- ~ ~~ ~ I'T1 M ! ~Q~ ~ ~ Z ,,, • THIS.PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK • OQ'il~1~ 04 a~ ATTACHMENT ll ~~. C B'2s 5~ off s ° /~~OC~~ ~~~~~~~ MEMORANDUM • TO: FROM: Incorporated October 22, 1956 DATE: SUBJECT: 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE ~ SARATOGA; CALIFORNIA 95070 • (408) 868-1?00 St. Andrews School and Parish, 13601 Saratoga Avenue Public Works Department August 6, 2002 COUNCIL MEMBERS: Evan Baker Stan Booosian John Mehaffey Nick Streit Ann Waltonsmith Public Works conditions of development for property at 13601 Saratoga Avenue. 1. Developer shall extend the school's Southernmost driveway approach and curb approximately 15 feet into the Saratoga 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 parallel 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). 1- _;• ~~ THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK • • ®0~ .14 _ .. i' i,..__..._ ....... T..,~ ..._,_.. _. ~ , , _. • _-_ ~ i ,~~ 'i a~ _ ,°:~ _ ,:, ,;; -. ~'. a _ -_ ''~ _ - ATTACHMENT 11 __._ 4 ~ _._ lJ , _ . _ - _._ .. .~ i .. ,. -' ,^";`tit - -:' I ..., ~I~ -. - ... .: ,, _. - Uv I) r{r~ r -- ~ _~ _. ~~fllfa T~ ~ ~ ~ ~ H~dhi~:'~iEA7 i ~~~~ I - ~ ~~~ ~ ~- ~~ -. ~,. - ~~::. -. ~ -~ ., ~. I.. ,r~< TI~R~IAROUPID -- -- _ ~ ~ . ~I ., . • J Dr r - I _. i , -_ ~ ,, . ' ;,,,, ~ ~ NORTH ~ .I ~ " - ~ ~a ~:~ ~ Lower eve. j ~~ ~ , f ~ ~,, ~ ~ ~ I ~~ ~.. ~ ~,~ I t`' -~,,,;~~5i~~ '-; ~''. / ,~ ~ _ III _ _ ~ ,~ ~ ~ , ~ "a a \l -a I r •at -tea ~; ,- C a ` I y I ~~- 4 .-5`'y'. nl ~ ~ ~ St1H A SCH00 ~ ~ ,- ty~/, a . . ~. ~ a.4 ., ~' ~ ~,gJ a i~ •I~ as I __ _.__._._ ___ I :• :~ ; ~ CLERS'(~ ~ b ~~ ~ ~ ~,,.._ ~~_ a~utt~' ~ "~, 1~ I ~ ~N ~(ldain I av I~ ~ 6 ,, I ' ~ I ~ i I I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~ FF3o3 r' ~`~ PARISH - j ~ -- -- . ~ I I CENTER j' 1 ~ ~ -a ~ I ~ ~-I' ~ I ~ ~sPeEO~~'~', I` % ~~~ ~~~ain Cevel~ ' ' i "~ i ~~~( , f ~ '~,~ euNP~ U~ ~~ - -- = F 63 I I i I ~ ~~ I~ I~ ,,~~~ ~~ ~-_~,~ '~ I I S~, I i ' I C ~ ~ ~ ~! ~ I i ~ ~~ ) ~` ~`~ ~-r----- I c ~ <~ ~~ I 'c a'• 11 I I I i ~ ~~, '~ `~ ~~~ ~ ~ ,1 ~ I _ I r I, i ,_'1'-T ~ '-I'- ~'-- ~ `iP C '~IIi ~~ I ~ I j L ~.i ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~.~...1 ~~~~~~ ~ E~ST~N~ III I - ~~, ~ ` SANCTUARY ~ i ;_ ~ - _- _ - ~? ,.,~ ~ ~,~'~ ~'~~ I ~~ ~ I ---- -- I - +' ( I I I I ~ ~ ~ ; I I I ( I I ~ ' ~ 4~ ~ ~~~ , `,~ ~ ~ ~ I i L ~ IlI ~,;ICILf, C C ~ C'CIC CIC IC C C C C C C L C C I( I~• \y? ._~_~ ~ --- ~I I C ~ I i I ~ ~I I ~ I I( I i I I I ~ \\\~ / I I -. ! ~ I _- ^~- _- i I ~ i f I ~ i I ! I ,x-...~ -- i ~ -nazi I_ __ -. ~ = ~ -- f363~ ,, ,I - , I CC : T~CI- -- ~~ __ L-----' I --- ~12 ~ I ., ~ ~~ BEII ~ TFR .. , ,. r~ I ., . - 'i 33 I I , _~I1.. ~ I I I ~ I i II if I ~.. %~ ~,I~~RA~OG~ A'~!~. I~ . .~.~,, --- --- - I ...- a ; ~. . , v,ralaga.u` ireud of Srhoai ,; ...~ +9.1+ ~ 4i„»•- f: 519/ 559- ~ i ----'' ~ _. -_- -- (G i ' / I ~~~ ~ - 's -- ! r a a: D=o ~~ RC lTECTS ar a„rarro 5 - ~> ,. .~ . _ ~ 1 ~ :YCO 9 D.'l~1n ar 51 ' y~J _ .: 4l !a _'Y- -' '~~L;:"Tuk71~"'fu.T7ff«~Z3 ~4~ ~: 7iiAFi 3.F'-'"~3'ffi._Nf'~! 1 `N~ _. I ~-_.. ._ 1 ..~ m~?'~ :GE_uN aas c~:;o cGL.~uss. Akb aN9 da.^EAS .::ee.~y... b+ .E +% _ s aivi ~- - I~~A ~ tl f 4 a rv I._s.~~ ~ CY+@6a'7 ® i QA ~, ~ ,.. ~ ~ 1_~ ',' ~^L -~If I i ~ I ~~ I 1 ~ op ~-, li Ir z?i m~: ~A I ~ ~ ~n ._ ~~® i , _,. ~, i . ~.. O 'P,rtiO EaSC,a ?hC CSN GUrE? RaIME7 WW?E - ,.:~, ~ .~+ ' ~ .-. ~ ~'..:a - ~ _.. " r 1~ ' f CHI 7~k. .. _ , ~ _ C 4 Y Ia. ER - .;9 Pi k: ~ ;=,~ i ® ® ! r ~ CPERad c W Lv~.;91E ~+ZN N x i a r 11 ~ Rau: , . '. i 1 I ! ~ 1 ~ i I I __._.._. I a r ~ ~ e.,.e i ,, tic ~ .. a r- • `: j i.Lt cR CI! W'4v ~ ~ _ ~-'9~ ' ! ' '.Si.P~ .~.~~a ~~ . _ ~ ~` ' !~ ..~_~~~~. .x"111 - ~IJ'S~ri E~E`JaT~QI~I ' • •rf 70 1? h I'C _ ..ti .rri.' ~EVeY .rc _ .,OL~R ~2 _ I -': GcrdBlE tGW 'E" COUBL . ~ I GI.a:INC N BmG.N, _.. 4G ~ I. ~e~~i ~ PUS'E COI A ~3 . _... ...' r NCR-, CLASSRCC4I ~+iIN - 4+iEC~ E~i:' !~TO~J 4 . ~Q .~ 0 ~s ~ ;L. ~. z.. is ~'~..-~ h+IN ~;c_ ~_.~ ~ .,~, I ,_.^, uo yu e! S ee, to n, f ;nr s Cn a Ca Ee9 anAc510 h tl'[Y a s $g ..uC ah R}98JC R!tWECT aCCRE>; ST. ANDREW'S PARISH & SCHOOL PLAN, DEPT, SUBMITTAL i3ea, saRar~aa a~~:. S~RAiCGA, CA 9S07C T c RecF ft3. -'~- N! N ~_vF' -~.. +~5?. 4;5 __--. ___ NARK. ~,DaiE :CESCRIP?ICe __- DAAMN 8': ~NND fi. .._ ___.. 2 +-~~ a ~~w~~~ ii~l~~ - P~~?I~! ~` i,hj ~ ~ q,T ~ CC", +~' ~~----~ . ~~ i oP~Rln• _ - - ---{ __ E ~~ ~ROO~G 4r Plv _ ~. _ ~~~N I >- ! ~.~ aRV'I`E~ s iC02 ~C ,.. ~ 15NE~~ if,E ,, ~ ~s;~~u ~~!~, N I I ADMIN. 4'. ~-~~ ,';;:~~ ~ ~ CI~SSROOM - ~~ ~ ~ '~, ;NORTH C~~SSP,GOM i ' ~,~~. -- ; 'WING E~.EVAi!C?PiS ~/ ~ - ' 0 16 i e.,a'. ~ ~ ~ -- . I~~ 1~~ I j I~ -.. - 1. _.':~~.. 41A1 i - r_~.. ~ -.._~a '~_)~i _a i _ __ + G ~ __,~ - .CG;. ,~ I a;,~~.,~ a~;;; a ~ ;a9_ ~~1>' _._~ ^J6J ~ ~" i, ~D~r~,~. ~ CL4SS,~OO'~1 -EAS? EI ;~TIO1~, ..~,~'-~ I J sc,;e , ;:, ~ - wm~ a.~sc'a tivo csM O curER alNrEO wwlrE ...... .- '~ ~' ... - fEUEr 1 AS~ei - CDECR ~2 - -- - OPERPHEE LCw "E' ... . CUZih'G IN BRONZE f aNOCdZEO iRPA/E ~ I f - t~URU CEUENi _ 1 R.~S;<R - COICR ~l ~y _.. I Y~ ~: ~ ~I cif _ X. .: l ,. _J .... .._. . i -- - ------- - '~ ~. : -lr-- ...~. ,~ , , .~r~ ~ ,,, _ _ „~, • A ~~ ..h ._'. is '+1 .fit !.- i, ~ ,...' i.` ~. ~ 7 ~. ~~_ ~~ ~ I ;raga:- ;; _un- _{ __ ~,- ---- -}---~' cY~9 i B I gip. is-. ~ . 2 =FRFORtiI'NG A,°,TS / GY±~=p~';R;`1 _i F._~~~i;;1 ,,. - - 'a. F ,. .- 4 '. ,lf J .'. ~= h ~" Ni N ~: ~; a ~1:+_ S e ~~ ARCHITECTS; .I _,~, 14 ~ ~ ' Y3 _ ~ -6~~ ~ ~p Tl .mac ~'i4_.'~^~~ ~ .. ~~~ x ~~: (L.~.~ -~ st- 0 „~~~ AzTS ; G"p,, - ~~1, a i -l; n.. 1 ~ ~_... ~ _._ 3 Pt,'~F^~i~,1iwG ACTS j G'YM. - 'JJEST E~EvP l iCN ?s~ ..; s.rn'c!e iow _' aoa~E cUZiac s~u 34CNEE ~NOCi?P,. 7pA,1fE ~~.oc sau~r, - co_.a ~~ [a as _ ~>,, ~LriC; ~ .~E::4 9s - - -q~co =~----~~~- 1 ._~ } SlF _MA.IPI in,., .~- +~GL ~ +3°~. ~ CSDA! II ~I i I ' ll lei ~ i i ill ~-- --- 'R"wECI ~r74::~ ST. ANDREW'S ~ PARISH & SCHOOL I PLAN, DEPT, I SUBMITTAL I '691 Sa~n'~Ca 3'vf S.~R4TUGA, CF 9s~.7r~ I I ~ I ~~.-._.. .._: N _._._-.._. ~~ ~' ~... ..._. ___.._.___.-_.. I II, r__ ?~,//~~ - ~If~ ~ / ~ 1 rLM,N ~ ff J'~C~a ~`(r_E9 __ __.._ /) =.v G-~--------...... ....... 3 AN d~.. 1/ ns DRT G c 3~ ?Ei., 'dwrg I COFYT:ry'._ _._.__.,_._-_.... , CSi4 ~fiCNtTEC1S 0 ~& 11 15~'EE!?If:C ~ I s~U~_- ...~,~,~,......~ 1 F i.~ ~.._ ~:. ;~E- „-~ :oo ~aR-:~~_,s esa„as z,,e ;,sues ~ PERFORMING ,ARTS /GYM"dFSIUM I ' EL7,'.4TIGDlS i i ,......, i ~:~ I , I"~:v...: ~. ~ _ ; a, • W~~:o =~~~~ .4,,E ,:, , ~ -a~rEE~, W~~; ,per. iFr,G 9 N u SCIWG c ;! T.0 a 4 ti aacr¢ ~ `~ ~i t J RA4 - T.0 , 'LU P o ~. ~ :.,l Cry ~.{ 3!'EW 9.,VCH__ 1 '~ r ~ ~' I ~i! -_ ~ ~_.,,- - AR SH CE~iTER EASr c ~ n T;,,. ~ i ~ ~Aa~n .E'er ~ s} 1 ~ _--_-__'- ~ _,:~ iS P.A4 -I ____-~ CENTER ~- ~ O . -- - + _, R~I,'''~..il 1r1~'vE1 /'m- ~~ -~.. -.` + 9 Ww~ iL, U ~ - CG4{ ' ] '~ `~ ;PtR ~ n l~U5iE - ~ ~ ~ ~ 7 c air E E d~V. 1 ~ , .N ~ ~ ~ \./ 7I~ I 1 ~ ~ ,; hCCC ~-tiCIA atC Ai4l riica PA~~y-,~ hw,;E Asv a ,rv~ E _ 9' N C > ~!r] ~ GUZ YC N 3Rr,Hg ~ - - hNC-0.E] FPdVi ..... ~ . - ~ T.OPc;%.;pE' .. . .` . _ -._ ~. , ... _ , 1 { 3 +j^~_ ~7 1~~~'`~ ~~~tiIFR ~IV~_~i r~~"d.~'.'~'I °~~RiSN `CEtiTE,R - SOUiF~ E'_~ -;~rpJ;~~ :~.~< NOCO EBiL'~:1 4'~[ f_M C~TR ?n,Y~fQ W'&', ^ING ;u *!. PLb~ER - WC NER+3LC lrW E' ^.C0.° GUZIYC ~N 3FCNZE HCC J rau ~,EF? R a V? 1_ P .., EEO d~ -----==~ ~~~ ~_ f- . ~ ..`_ p lT '' ... _Q 1 ARCHITECTS ~._! ~.~ :., ~,~'~::; ld __-L +}92 --Ln j i I €~ ~ -? FPFcR Lc'.t~ e^1 ' +}. 3WEF ~'/r'~ _ 752 -~ 8 I~~ER'~ r~ ~____-_.-_.-_ 5 ALL - _tS ~I~__~_ Cr I}hpi SPR,4TCCP A'JE SAP,d?G!;A, ^q 95010. t~ f 'NCC; i ;I,ii i:l:R ~? J=i~?~c~.E hC^G ~,,,-..::...~R ~= IU.4E ^~ r, - 4 ~_Ea~ ~ -____~`~__~_~ _ ~~~-~~~ __~ r ROr~ !~iK P P ..r_~ +}i~ ,j '4 . _._.. '.0. R0O~ :5!' t~~' ~~~~i ~` i ®®F~ ~--` . eE,EGEV - ~,~~;~ ? N LricL -- ~'y^', ~ ~~~1 ~~ C1 !7 Ir ,~ 7 HPU~FR ~ a c v~~ J ~~ M .A __ I ~_~_-_ _.. .. uAdR, C°iE~ OESCRIPG04. HM,T __. ._-, _ SOP. ARU~T. S ~~Z SXE..:--~_ _-_- F MRR ~7 - ~ ~ _ ~ ~ ~ ~ BELL ~a ~~ ~ ~ TQWER, ~~ ~~~~ >> ~ ~ d CLERG'f OEFiC~ ~ j ~;Fa ~ J I ~ r,,~; 3 91l TQ~aJEP, SECTiQ:y 2 FELL Tp f __ _ _ _ '~ I ~LEVar v WEp ~~~ r i,,,, ~ ~ .~ ~ IO~v .. ,. , _., _ ;_ ' _ __-- ST. ANDREW'S ~ PARISH 8c SCHOOL 'I ~ PLAN. DEPT, SUBMITTAL _ ~ ~ ~ ~ i ATTACHMENT 12 • ~~ C~ • PROJECT TEAM i CIffNT , LANDSCAPE ARCHDECT St. Andress Podsh and School Desigaorks 13601 Saratoga Ave. 1061 MOkr Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 Basketry, CA 94708 Harty McKay, Head of School Rebecca Coffman, Prmripal T: 408/ 861-3785 I T: 510/ 559-1034 F: 408/ 741-1852 F: 510/ 559-1034 Rev. Errrst Cockrell, Parish L 408/ 867-3493 ~ ACWSfIC ENGPlEER F; 408/ 861-3496 ~ Edaard Pock Avsociales I 2171 Nadhhompton Dr. PROJECT NMIAGEMEM Son Jose, CA 95124 Premrer Commeraal. Ina.. Jeff Paak ST ANDREW'S PARISH & SCHOOL 1300 Oliver Rd., Suite 300 T: 408/ 723-8900 Fakfrekl, CA 94533 ~ F: 408/ 123-8099 . Scott Sheldon T: 707/ 436-7300 I TRAFFlC CONSIRTAM F: 101/ 421-9958 I Fehr d< Peers Associates 255 N. Market St, Sude J00 AACFXIECT San Jose, CA 9511D Corlett, 5kaer 8 DeYoto Architects, Inc. Sohrah Rashid 120 Montgomery St., SMe 117D T: 408/ 278-1700 Son Francisco, fA 941011 F: 408/ 216-1717 Jorge Rio, Project McllBect • T: 415/ 693-9800 F: 415/ 639-9830 1 CML ENGINEER Creagan @ D'Mgeb 1075 NorM 101h St., soda 100 Son Jose, G 96112 i Dodd VaoAUes T: 408/ 998-1234 ~ ~ ~ )l~ F: 406/ 998-0944 VL I ~ S P1~200 ~~ I E 2 C~TYOFSARAT~~R. ii PROJECT DATA/ FIRE DISTRIC T COMPLIANCE CRITERIA DRAWING INDEX ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION i Papp07~~ i; w wr~,w taeek, cn 845ee ~PpIITFQt~ e ~ ENNROMENTAL MFORNATID! ZONING RH-1, 20,000 CENERPL PLAN: OUA~-PUBLIC FACILitt ~.1 ARCHRESCIURAL SOE PLAN D0 1 DEMOLRIp! PLW ~ v t~aa2-44sa a v APN~ 393-25-022 . ~ ~'~174 Fax `j~M Q ~~1 : EKISIING UND USE: PRNATE SCHOOL PND CHURCH SURROUNDING LAND USES: CD.1 GRADII•~ & DRNNAGE PUW ~ ~ I NORTH; RE9DTNRAL SOUTH: RESIDEMML L1.1 IXISIINC CIE CONUIDONS -TREE REMOVAL PLAN 7uae 6, 2002 B b d Sil Pl R i M 5) Ealedor welVopming~lion, weiM adjeremmazsumod pmpeny lincbmvan Pdamiiag AettMrym and AdminlC9ao sauctute, wiR nadmfiJlywmplywithCBC EAST: RESIDENfW. WEST: RESIDQOML PARCEL SIZE (in square feet a acres): 5 ACRES L11 IANDSCAPF PLAN L1.3 SDE CIAWlATION, PARKING Q PAVING PLAN ar e e me ev ew eem Table 5-A Pmfialu ummioaisdircelcdmwall se69ncata vdthopmings within 16 fed NATURAL FFANRES AND VEGETATION: GENTLE SLOPE FROM SPRATOCA AVE. L1.4 SRE UCHRNG, LNDSCAPE OETNLS 70: SuuogaFtreDiudm oflhc.propertyline. TO CREEKBED, SEVERAL NATNE OW(S NDIE SEE CML DRAWING, C0.1 FOR SLOPE. CUf 8 FlLL UlfORMAlION I A2.1 LOWER LEVEL PLAN ATCN: r ie Kmrlc Copy: CSDAArobitala 6) PbeAlarm3yurm. Acmuolidued,addtesmhk,titealamryatanahe86eproridedPor ARCHIfECTURAI DLTNIS A2.2 MNN IfVEL PLAN 'i ~~ A2 3 UPPER LEVEL PLAN ATTN:losgeRicgl'<ojaJArchitea TYam: P'~rePrasW u lnc dtec»usanscuaes. Pircalarmrcpmtioglamorci.uonaha116ebybuDdiny,0oor. xuacaadgpeafdaia. Central,avto8deted,fimahummaaalmdsaauouimorgoeb PROPOSED $Ef&1CICS FROM: 15' (TO EDGE OF PPRIONG) ' . A2.4 ROOF PLAN , . By: shNlbelacatedudreamnimsuafiaaboildivgmdarcorotesvetobeduumiadapoa REAR: 50 (i0P OF CREIX &WK) ' ' A3.1 PERFORMING ARTS/GYM k ~LL TOWER ELEVATIONS W TmmlhyCillalwi,P.E,FitePsotaBonFapaar aubmixvnnofba8diogdai~plans LEFT SIDE: 20 RIGHT SIDE: 20 A32 ADMIN/CLASSROOM ING dr NORTH CIASSR00M WING ELEVA710N$ A33 CLIItGY OFFCES 6 PARISH CFNfF1t ELEVATIONS ~~ RC: RevkwafRevhed6flcPlm-deaM527lO3 7) &itDiaehazgaWaRwaya Pataiaaadwu~aaysaoddaimaysshallnotbolaaeed HEB;FRS OF PROPOSED BUR.DINGS ' ' A3.4 BItlIJpNG SECTIONS I~ St. Andrew's l'adah&School whoa opeaioa}inexlttiorweMaart pmhibitedmrequirtdmbc promard. (CBC PERFORMING ARTS/GYIJNASIUM: 28 -D 0 SWIH ELEVATION ' ' M-1 MATFRW S BOARD ~ ~8q~ Seaion 100621]. Sia eair plm should clculyddail Thu mcitways from the skudiae (an sloped grade) 39 -O ®NORTH ELEVATION . comply wish lhixrequireneu. PerdcuMr enmdonmeait uairwe}o between aWduree ADMIN./CLASSROOM WPlG: 39'-6' 0 SWIM ElFlATgN I Crariap: wheresepmefioabetazmhoiWiggsisJARaalesa (an sloped grade) 44'-D' 4 NORTH EIIVATNIN NORTH CLASSROOM WING 30' 0' ~ Att~inqueN etrd daecdm ofthepbel9istrir, wclmepafarmodagenertl review of therevised skepmn eubmi¢ed. Code rtferwaes provided eremOcCUifomia BtoldiagCodc, S) Tfaxudws Spaeea. SpeeW uue end bazaNnaz sp~cefie school lahoruories,drops dc.)shul ln: eepartmd end pmtsledpaCBC Satioa )05.2A : - (3EpGt' OFFICES; 36'-D~ 0 SOUTH EIF/ATION i (an coped grade) 40'-0' fI NORTH ELEVATION ~ LOCATION MAP 1998 edition. Din oommmts, general in mane, ore az knows: ~ Agai4 commmu povided uc vcryprzlimi~yin nowt SUCdupmthe eagle, PARISH CENTER: 24'-0' BELL TOWER , • ~aa1 .1} Tk 2001 California Duild'mgStandards Cade is rurready beigg daldbuoed withasumd etTmUve date otNovemha20Ot. We wouM mtiapam therww sbuctraes wonldmmply ptdiminuy ealcaoel}s9 site sheet, duedMay 22, 2002, submiaed. T0°I3 : 54 _0 SIZE OF SfRUC1URES EKISIOVG: PROP04.D: _ I _ a _ ~~ ~ °~ X~'n` _ `~ .,m,~ '~-~? 1Q~~"" n s.+ sa ~ l ..,,,~1 f`J ~/' a~~ .~µe' '~ }°~m~ a '~'w°° d ' with Ore2001 CBC anlesa permitplw amsulmittedhefam thudua shut 6e ia aecordatrec wi6 else CalifomiaFirc Code dtm6 eod Orc tbw Oa ite 8rc h 2 SCHOOL 31,188 SF LOWER LEVEL 34,475 Sf PORTFBLE 2.304 SF MAW LEVEL 27,165 SF SANCTUARY 11.446 SF UPPER LEVEL 11.065 SF r ' ' ~ ~ rr,-. n tloa.~ : rl ~ z '~~ Avl ~~ Y *` ~, ~j-= a,-v ' .( ~ _ 1 -- , , e y ) pmvided Owaamsubtaitdvilairepleaforsi6agofregoircdfaehy>jranw,and ired fire Row du i d f 50.938 SF NEW CONSiRUC110N 72,705 SF ~ 1 1 C . 4 . ~~~'°°°Kyyy"*3 ~ ~ h 3 IY~~ »~ -~'~ W ~ • """ ~ ~ - : . am m an o requ TOTAL OVERN.L SF B4, 51~ ~ ~~ ~ I _'-1z° ~~eq 8. .. . ~ ~ ~~~~ j~ r 3) Fimdepulmmloombotloaz(FDCs)ta all the ~rirrklarpmmGed sMuelurce shaD be dtcdataccotrilkcuioambcapxifioduponeubmiedonofthedvildrawingmCaaad MATERIALS AND COLORS PROPOSED NEUTRAL CAEY CEMENT PW'IER FJSE AT ALL BUILDINGS &dANCE OF ?~~- a~~~-~ ~,g i+' ~/p •"' 1 A,~~' pOP'~7-~"~ ~a~°`~/Jj (`~ ~~,~ ~ ,y,y„ t~ ~~a~ ~' a' ~O '( above. A1TR hydram shall be aas+mrntiy looted within 75 ket oCdris la:uion. . EKfERllki WALLS TO BE ERH(:R l1CHT BFlGE CELkM PIASTER OR, 64PPm l- F~ ~ ~{~,~,. y j~a ~ ~ f' ^ y S I j a I .~~ ~~ ~ I fues rinklasshallk ronded daklahyuenu PaCJ1CSaUon9041 4 cS 4 F FM)R20NTAL SIDING PAINTED fJROWN. DARK BRONZE ALUM. WINDOW FRAMES ,J~ ~ s S ~~ ~ ~ v ~ " " - , p p . . p ) a whhin ell build'mgs ofl;I oaapenry. PuUalu ettmtioougivearodss amted2slmy elaseraoen wing being'Sron-sprinNered". SpriatlQS ere inquired parcfameed CBC WRH CLEAR CLASS g BROWN ASPHAULT SHINGLES. , q,,FF u!g~ X 1 '"~ ~ L+~~~`' ! ;,~ ~, a ! (33 ~ °, 1 ~ w i " ~e ! a +v~ _8... .. ! r~.' ~ ~ Section PROPOSED Nf:W UA8ISCAPING SEE DRAWING L11 FOR SPECIFlC LANDSCAPE INFORMATPJN ..-', o ~ ~~~-~ ~ - ,' "e- ~ ~ CSDA ARCHirECrs CaML Sher 3 DeVUO ArcN4nh, hw. 120 Momgprery Street SWe 1170 San Fronaem, G1 91101 dpmrhdesixcom 415.~398W 415.6939aT0 CONSIAiAM AAf181ECT SHIP COM9ATANf STAMP AUIHORRY MPROVAL PROJECT A00RESS ST. ANDREW'S PARISH 8c SCHOOL PLAN. DEPT. SUBMITTAL 13601 SARATOG4 AVE. SARATOG0. CA 95070 MsRK: OAIE: ~CIdPNON OWJNti B!: CIIXb k': C561 Alt(alOECIS 2002 COVER SHEET .~Y; ~ ~ s,a,a, ~R: A0,1 • !'• 1+ C7 ,~ SITE PIAN SCAIE 1'-LY ` I ~-\ ~ C/ ~ \ \ \ ~ ~ \ \ ~~ ~I \ I 0 \ ~ , A3.4 ~----- - 10' Sewer Rpeline Easeme Per 2277 OR 339 - Latotion Taken from 103 Maps 16 SHEET NOTES K-UP/ OP-OFF ~2 __ / ~ _ _ 1- NEW PARKING COUNT ~ ------ ~~ ~ , ~ 146 STANDARD SPACES ®9'-6"x18'-0" ~ ~ ,~ i 50 COMPACT SPACES ®8'-0'x16'-D" ~ \ \ / i ~ ~ \ 7 ACCESSIBLE SPACES ~ 14'-0"x18'-0" ~ j\ \~ r~ 203 SPACES TOTAL '~ ~ \ L 1 2- SEE "L" SERIES DRAWINGS FOR LANDSCAPE INFORMATION i [-`/~ \ I ~ A3.a \ Wire Cleomnce Easement 3- SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS FOR PROPERTY LINES, GRADING, DRAINAGE, ETC. \ I Per 1709 Maps i6 \\ \ , \ \ \ ~/ ', \ ` 2 NORTH WING \ ~ \~ ~ 1 \ \ (LoW@F Level) / `~ FF351 1~ ~\~\ \ ~ /' /~\\\ \ ~ ~ ~ / I ~ I ~ ~ II ,`- l ' ~ i /~~ ~ ` y\ INTRATfON~~\ I / O p ~ ~' Level~~ ~63j ` ~ I ~ . .f\ ~ ~ /~ °~N .' C~ERGY~ ~~, ~ (Nam Level) \;: r I ~~~ '~~ ar7 ~ fF363 ~ ~ ~\ ~ ~ '^ r PARISH ~ 11~ `~® ' '. :~4 CENTER / i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Maln Level) ~ ' ..~ \ ~~ I '. ,. 11 ~~ I ~, ~y>,' EXISTING ~ I~1' ® SANCTUARY `I ® ~~~ ~ ~i ~ '11 I {r 5' PGE and PTT Easement F36 ~1 I Per 140 OR 113 BELL TOWER I~ I, ? 4 ~I I '. ~N 0 15' 60' I ~-1 30' SARATOGA AVE. ARCHITECTS CaHeO, Skaer 8 DeVoto pchitects, mc. 120 Moidgunery Slrcd, Su9e 1170 Son Frarcisw, CA 94104 ~;y~sdechifectscom 115.6939600 05.6939830 cDNSUI.Tarr IRCHIIECf SIANP CONSULTANT STAlP AUTHORITY APPROVAL PROTECT IDDRE55 ST, ANDREW'S PARISH & SCHOOL PLAN. DEPT. SUBMITTAL 13601 SARATOGA AVE. SARATOGA, CA 95070 MIRK: OAIE: OESCRIP110N: DRARTI Bv: CHK'D BY; OPYRIGHT: CSDA ARCHRECIS 2002 SHEET TIRE ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN MC9ML 6CALE I~~~~~~,~,~,~„dl. __ T2• A OB N JULY 5. SOZ t131A1 SHEET NUMBER: A ~ . ~~ C. • • ~~ N52'15'00''E 141.53' . .- ,tl'~. .. ,; ,__~ ,. ~, ~ 've~r~.~.-.r,firv A--~v 1'7` -- -!` =x' d ~ 4e-', ~" ~( 1'ov & Itnmw 1,l / ~ \~. ~,y ~i // IMP VE1~N~S ° ~' ~'~.. ,' ,' " ~~ STR CTl! ES' TO E ~~ ~ % ~ ~ ~.~~ ~, ,~~ 4~~ .'v ~-y., ~% ~ ~ 1 } ~ r' I ~, ~~ ~y'~, ~ . ~~ i -~- ~ ,r- -s-~; i ;fir _/ 1; 1 \ 1C ~/ ~/ ' ~ / / ~ ~ ~ ~"„i ~ ~`= --~ ,~ , '~ _~HERITAGE~~ I \11~'', ,~/~'i ~ ,,F~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ I.,,i ~ - ~ ~ ~' TREES I ;; / ~ ri ~ ~ ~ ~ / ~ ~ ~ .~ ~ Ift .11 ((~~ ~~~ . ~, I 1 I TO REMAIN ~ ~ ~I /1./~ ..,/~ /~ ~ I `~ I11 / /~ ~ / ,, ~ ~ ~. I -_..~ Il %~~ ,- ~ /~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I A I I Ir - f j" ~~ j / ~ / . I ..4 I i ' ~ 1 i _. I----_ - ' i ~ ~ ~ -7 _ f ti __ I `~JI, / ; ~;~\ kill ' `~~:_ r!~ rI _~ ~ ~ ~~ _ ~ ~~ ~ ~ I `~~ ;~~,, _ __---~~E%ISTING HARDSCAPE TO BE ',,,`, _ II ~'p __ ~ I ', I \ ~--- - ~ REMOVED ~ REPLACED - ~ 1\ C~ j~ I i I ~r SEE CML DRAWING C0.1 11 `'t _ 11 '~~ ~ - ` ~ ~ L ~: _ I ~ ~I\ ~ @` - L :_/ .1~ ti - E%ISTING SANCTUARY ~` iI ~` ~ ~ - TO REMAIN ~ ~.---- 1 ~~' ~ il'~~ -___---~,~_ ~1 ~ ~ " 3 ~ ~ N --~~~ ,a r, ~ ~~ t ` ~ ~~,,~ i ~1 '1 ~ ~_,x r ~_ ~L Ur F / .".,. f ." ...,~-"."., ~~~~ ~~~ .~ I ~ . 1 ._.-. L -. _...___ f _.. _. .. .. .. ......... _._.._ -._-. _.. / v~ ji Iku ?. i.Ot' /~ i NOTE: SEE LANDSCAPE DRAWING L1.1 FOR SPECIFIC TREES SLATED FOR REMOVAL OR PRESERVATION. I ~_- - 1 `1,11 _ -- '. ''i1 i I~ I ~~~~ ~ 1; ~ + '~ , I ~ 1 : . _ ---- 1 ~ ._ ~~ ; ~ ~ 1 ~~ _ ,ac ~ ~~. ~. i ~- ~%~ iITE PY/+N LVE 1'-3D' i N 15' 60' CSDA ARCHITECTS con~1, s~ a Dram x ^~ 120 tel. Sub 11A ,,,,~,, a w1a 41S~J9&'!0 cawztrwrt IAG91ECf 41YP SLYP Nmwxln ~wrpwx ~a ~m~.ss ST. ANDREW'S PARISH ~ SCHOOL PLAN. DEPT. SUBMCRAL 13601 SNtATOCA AVE. SARATOGA, CA 95070 wwx: are oar>mine ORJN71 6E dAfD Bh. " CSd IIA]IIFCf$ 200'1 DEMOLITION PLAN IQ~iiii~ii~l1~ it ~~^~ ~ IIJIDI s¢r D0,1 ^oti 0 ., ~ • d• t.~tl.)p' ~'~~__:nsw ~~" P=aia eo,e,lx'xc'I~, a_lao.ao,o=n~io'~e p'o'n. µ" I ~~.~ 119: .. 1La1 J ., ~a~.'~+w ~ .. ,r . • 0 ,,~ SARATOGp fA' CREEK er -._Rilt,... ~7C punDNG urour .r. . w III/Lm. r ~r^Ir . M LNaam . • ra. s al® PARCEL Iwo PCR Illlf ACPORI 4° PORTION OF LOi 197 ~ iyn ,w.~ I~ilawas'ra• ~ L +} °`A 107 1AP5 ifi , Lrr rY1M a ~~ . s._ 1.3??15A.Fl o.~~et AI~<, ~~ r~ _. -__~_ •y.p .y /.;j~% / i.l H' ~ ~~ ~ _ s/ i ~ 1~-5~-3:' rte, ~.;,~ n ` , a R I Q ~ ~~ ~~ r ~ , 1 4 i t * f ' ~ 5 ~ (( U Cr ~' ~ 'aJ I l _ y ` ~ ! A ~ ma` ` .wa `~ J % I-~~:~ \~i Y rti ~~ I ~l~,c Ayl I I ~ ~ ~ ~~g'r Jl II 7~ ul ~~ . '' J ~ ^ ,oa P„~:p ~~~ r ~ f. ~ ~ heY ky 1~ ~~~ :a ~~ ~~~; ~,~ .; __ .,,.~ ~ ~=~, ~:a. nr..i ~ o ~: ~ r «,. :i 1 5, ~' \ X~ m .~ / ~-, ~ i! 'f 3l 'f - , ~.,~ 1! I 4' ~ ~, ~~ ~ ~~ `~ . o -- ~ ~.wM ~ ~ '.~ a I'1-i~~ 1 1 1 1 1'I A Ixf r'd•.i `al;~ tit. • T . n5 _IS W'[ ~__ ....---nss~ ,~ h au_ ._ p .. r . ~,.. ^o e le i i / ~/ ~,, ~ / ~ SARA TOGA j ~ AVENUE ~ ~. ~ :y's';,% --°-- ~ . ,... a ` I ~b~1~ y~'~ ~~,{~~ `~ , ~;, i, ~ ~,~~ o I~ i~,,, ~ ~, ~ ,~ "~pp4 ~----~M:,~. ~ ~~~ F , IJ Y ~ I fl~~,. ~\\., ~1 ~=y~ Ali ~1, 8u"8.: ,~ ~s`~~" ~ ~' _ ~~,~ ~ ~ _ J-~" ~ -~-"` /?' Ira : ~' ~~ I I 1 \\' 1 -T I / ly li v rr Lr ~.LI r?~'""y'ar ~ . 1. N r.all r.~+~r r.ragr ay. r.rr~ al*.r. rr .a~ r grrrrr(rq ~r-nnrrr~r., rw rnrwr+~ 1//111rrY /~Or11iYrY~.~s. r~~irrr .Lr.LrYwLrrr rww r.rrrrpr~.y• rrLa ran+wll++rlLrMI1 r.`i..rr.wr+w w..wa r,i.rwrrrlw.r r r LMr /.rllr~r rLw L~Y'r~q.ay r r hnr . 71r r Yr•F Lla r Plr • anwlnr..~rlrr.sr^r,rrr^r^r.pr 11yy~~rr~~~1FF~~r.ra,rr.r,~. ^^r rr.lr..r~.r ~rrr Irlr Y •r PPIF Ilrr • Irr Y iY1~11 r . ib rrrr~ir 611 art/ rr r ^~ r r~1 r1Llr. r •nY ~ M rrr rrYr 4r YLIy LLILlr r1Y fr1~rW6 arrlwrrrn.rarrrrrrr.arrrrrr ~(~iawr a~i ro~r .l~r vir r rir~.+~ xnrwrr rwrwllrr.ypllLLrl~rl..rr r+.~rrr rffrrrr4w~lrwr a ty a aw. • shlr.lLrl a •I/re 1ms r Lr Lr, Lr w, r Y- p 11D37a M 11~11 Y /ltlr r rt r /rt1 I~^ r r rr LrIWa n1L4 / waa r~r 4 L N /r11 Y wrwL rril~nM *~L prl Ilsr r rrr rr N /.lyrrrrrrr ~+~r.rl~a~r.yr. rr>Ilr..r. . rr r L:rr.i~ rr. rWwrM wwit I..rrll/1.rlllr r.r.rr~l*rr~ uaLr1 rrrrrwi.ar.lrrynurrwln+r wlw+ M r~ir. r rrr rr~~ ~I S~NERAL MDTES ,. ~~ ^.ar grr+r °' LaRalln /YrLL/rar ~ rrlra.ry i LE(D:ND (pROPOSEDI ~..~ I~~ ® I , nrl rr re/ aal w aLea / ~ ~ 011rI11Q -~ ipl r rf ® ~ arrlrl x araa ~~ .m R Ia aY FIrO / ~~ r r t1eLm LEGEND (E%ISTINGI -__- I LrgW ~ --- o.1r - - I rraL r..l ~ r.LLa o MW B11i ,f' I BIIW IAr ;r Y ti++r 9 Ii r Lr f rY^LIY .. I Lit Lw Oar raa r /rr i Ilp >w1 a1./. - rr ar. ~, Mr+-MrLra ~.~s> i MB.i-qrd Nrr-r~r y[i IM~-a-~ o Lr411rYL1 .J ~ Myr rr qrr o ~ Iq r' Ar• Lrl. ' r1 Lr ~~ Refmimry/ Not Far Canrnlctbn nr eoo.... r ~e rr 4 Mrm nnrw m/ M ml r PF.k Ir Ra 17 atlr A11A.u /olc a~~o^ ^ o ~~~/ 6 ~r am 461+ „ J O 2 U g~ a ~ Y W U a 2W~ Z (~~~ O ~('~ o dZ~ a ~~~ z 3Q~ W ~ Q ~ ~ ~ Z Q Ln A 10 :102013 BiIE :6-11-02 OI~I 08Y d0~11 BH O~ OT fl~~ 9ff1 Cl ff 9FfR p oti~o^ • r F • ' d r'' 67 d t" ~' Tree Species List ~~ ((Based on sgrvey peformed by ZonwRing lUborlsts, to.z5.ot) 8arrk Cwces dASSOCIates, - LANDSCAPE st Holly Oak „' sN Cwrtlive Oak ;o' a Holly oak fY ' e48 GlMamia sockeye ;o' ~ +3 Holly Oak 30 ,4q Cwrt live Oak 3a' . s4 Cwst Live Oak fY •SO GwrtLive Oak ao' +s xdy oak a' +q cwrt LNe Oak ;o' PLAN N I N ~ s6 xalty Oak 20' sA Jacaranda ;o' +7 Cwrt Lwe Oat 75' sT; Cwrt Llve Oak 40' •B Cwst LIv! Oat 7Y •S4 Cwrt LIV! Oak 40' +9 Cwst LWe Oak JY •SS Cart Live Oak 75' +,o Japanese Privet sn Fruhless Mllberry ,o' i5' •5e Menhrcy xne e57 Mwcercy Pllrc ;o' zo' 1 061 MILLER A V E sss Cast Redwood ao' +56 Mogcercy xn! fY s„~cwrtRedweod 2;' ,5q Mwcercyxrc ;5' BERKELEY,CA 94708 s4 CwrtRedwood 20' s6o Mmcercyxne fY sg xdly oak }o' ' +6t Mwtercy xne 40' tM IroerlorLiveOak . ;q' ~ sdz InllanScenePine ;o' TELJFAX 510.55q.[034 ep IroerlorLlve Oak 40' ~ •6; Mancercy xne ;5' n8 SweetOUm 20' ' I~ e64 Moncercyxne ao' desigmrarks3Qearthlilk.net •tq Sweet GUm 20 +d5 Monterey Nqe ;o' •zo Sweet GUm z5' ' edd Montrrcy xne ;o' su Sweet Oqm t5' ' •h Mancercy xne x5' eu SweetOgm f5 +d8 Moncercyxw $ sa; SweetOnm zo' +6q BalleyKacla 20' PROJEGTTEI~M +2} Sweet Gagl 20' +7o Dmdar Cedar }o' nS Tweet Gan ,S' ' of Balky ACa[la 40' +ab Swe![CYm 20' ~ s72 DeodarCldir 2~ {a~ Rebeaa~olllllan, s27 Swee[Gum ,zb Momerey lme 20' 40' ~ •7; Deodar Cedar ~' C rt Li O k 40• ' ' ,x9 Blueaelasreear ;o' ~ ~ q} w ve a ,7; ImerforLiveOak ,S :e' LandSCapeArchited s;o Cws[ Lwe Oak :S' a76 Imerler Lim oak zo' +;+ Cwrt Live Oak ;5' ,7r Imerlor Live Oak ~ a;' sp Deodar Cedar s Deod C d ;o' " ,78 Imerlor Live Oak ~ ;o' 3; ar e ar s;} Deodar Cedar i5 ,~ a7q 41xarNa Syramorc ~ +w ImerlorLiwOak 4S ,s PROJECT s;S Tasmanian Blue Gum 40' +8, Imerlor Live Oak fS' s;6 Tasmanian Blue Gum W' ~ +82 Mwiercy xne t;' •;7 TasmaNan Blue Gum ;o' ,a; Mwcerty xne to' •;8 Tamadan Blue Gom s;9 Coast Llre Oat ;o' ;o' ~ sa} Mwtercy xM +BS MMtercy xw 20' 25• Saint Andrew's s4o Coast LIv! Oak ,y' sad Mwtercy line zo' sot Coert Llve Oak ,5' ~ +e7 Mmtlrcy xlm 2a• Parish & sN Cwrt 0.edwood ty i s86 Mangcrcy xac z;' `y (oast Redwood to' s89 Mangcrcy Hue 20' S h l }} Coast Redwood zo' ~ sqo Menhrcy xile }o' c oo J s}5 Coast Redwood 20' ~ sqt Mwcercy Hire ~ {o' e{d Cwrt LNe Oak fS sqs Monterey xne 7;' T36w Saratoga Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 Tree To Be Removed ( Tel: 408.867.3785 ceplweet OUm~s,B•27 Theo Sweet du ms are an PM11 fN.~itmH ornamental tree that will be l ced ith i t rep a w appppropr a e om$mental s ecles In tde ULTAN yV prag sed landsca e lan TS; CONS p p p . i q @ Eucalyptus s 35 -;8 i These trees arc considered a hazard In the presence of sdiool dllldren. It waz re~ommended~by the arborlst that they be ~ . considered for removal. 3 @Deodar Cedar t7o - 7 2 Thb.Deodar Cedars will be repaced with nmive evergreens In the proposed IaadsLape plan: DATE: 4.10. oz y.es~at (Some thinnlny of exlrting evergreen buffers rosy be recommended b arborlst far th h ahB f l REVISION: y e e o rema mng trees). EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS TREE REMOVAL PLAN SCALE: +' =;o' • L 1.1 • `W~ r r- • • LANDSCApE PLAN SCALE: t' = 3o'q' L 1.2 Landscaue Plan Notes t Lunch Deck/Amphltheater LANDSCAPE PUstlc de<tlnp I : Handicap Access to;Lunch Deck oe w/metal edrhg PLAN N I N G ~~ 3 eziiifng (MSCJorge~nonj as per 4 Hardscapeleall Play w Wi S naete arA wJ lwall l Trees jn Planters w/ setbacks as t06t MILLER AVE BIa~s2ea"pgvMborbtn•Newaappniwl BERKELEY,CA 94708 6 Pre-K, 1-K & K Play Area Fib W - er, sar et pavers, a bos . TEL/FAX sto.SS9•to34 7 retalning waSl (~ee ede~ail Lla~ ) waan ompy m auaop nee o: pe Adwis6 ~g~,~~a~link.net revkw 9 approval w/cmMtlans e Informal landscape tle steps xewe etlstbrg ues in tame lacatbn PROJ ECT TEAM: 9 8' wood fence (see detail L tq) As per Amustlol Engircersrep°tt Rebeca Coffman to Heritage Oak Tertace w/ BBq , randsetparrswJ deddnp®ro°tbail as per abarurs revkw aapprovaliw/cmAnons LandSCaP2 AfClliteCt tt NurseryPlatrArea AsperAmiatlol Ergneersrepott tz Covered Walkway ; t3 Sundial/Focal Point t4 T°b`'`~°°~' Seat Wail WJArbor~ PROJECT mrcn:a wsare cal ranter tS Church Plaza ,' Saint Andrew's t6 O~~~nal Raised Planters w/ Parish & Q~~ t7 Flower Bed I $ChOO~ t8 Flag Poles (replace existing) t9 Handicap Access to Parish t;6m Saratoga Ave. zo Labyrinth SardtOga, CA zt Memorial Gardens/.BUrial Area 45010 b perahnng spedal ax permit u Emergencyaccess ' Decanpaaed grandtq gate eiistlng Tel: 40&867.3785 z3 site Lightlng (see L+t.4) FaX: 408.741A852 z4 Landscape Trees • ap rox. S4 new nil`aatagtreesaromadced E• zy Landscape Buffer CONSULTANTS: Lax watercanwmpegr slob brd4r w( seas°nalabr I z6 Drop-off/Pick-up Area . I j ~_ 7•a5•a2 REVISION: • n LJ PAVING CALCULATI~S -EXISTING Exirting Acreage Total 5.ood AC. ® Ezisting Pervious t.o9 AC. Ezistmg Impervious ;.pt6 AC. Js7o,Sdo ft.sg. Bld~.-4q,;do ftsg. Pav ng • ¢t,no ft.sq. I .~.~ ~ ~• I ~~ i I I I i i it PAVING CALCULATIONS -PROPOSED Proposed Acreage ie'•' - --• ~- ® Proposed Pervious ^ Proposed Impervlou! Note; zF"i ng and propose includes .s5 AC. recei lot Ilne adjustment. REQUIRED OFF STREET PARgN KH D F Weekend Re4ulred ExlsUng Proposed ~hfi ~ (~ + 4Jaoo zoo zt8 Weekday Saiool Admin. (fy+ f} t4 Texpers + t YWton (t6 ems) i6 Gym - tkx Pats (96o s.7. t 4o)~zs Total 94 t87 zs8 Note; 80o Padsimvs Is maximum seNpg capadry M San~wy, Erytlpf~atnlgtwla Is 30o m;to. m the mM~gdioP~ aon~e b a ~ one Sundays. CIRCULATN)NBPARKING-EXLcTING /• E>Ilsting Student dropctf/pidcrrp ~ t;o Meal ft ~ f~ Exktlog Parklag Spaces s8) weekdays / Y'p ~zoa weetmas// r J.~ L A N D S C A P E PLAN N I N G _.---~ to6t MILLER AVE °~ BERKELEY,CA g4)o8 TEL(FAX 5to.s59•to34 de~gmvorks;peaNtllklk.net PROIECTTEAM: Rebecca Coffman, Landscape Architect 9slec_cufitiQn Saint Andrew's Parish & $Ch001 t36ot Saratoga Ave. Saratoga, CA g5o7o Tel: 408.867.85 Fax: go8.74t.t852 CONSULTANTS: f Ezistina Site PavinO -- -- --- - - - Proposed Site Paving Proposed Site Circulation PQI~ 1.os.ez REYISxN1; SITE CIRCULATION PARKING & PAVING NO SCALE L~.3 • c NOTES • Pm-engineered s[adting retaining wall rystem. • Alan Bkdt W II rystem @ 6 degree after or equ alent. • Maximum hNgM of exposed wall i.75'. • Tatal height of a tiers: q.5'. i NOTES • As rcammmdcd In acoustlwl report, Me ezis[mg'd' Ngh fenre along me NE property Ilne ®the phy yard win 6e upgraded ttoo an 8' high knee, • Fence to be tolld vrood, air tight, without gaps. Board &~b~~pathm or • Fence m extend minimum txo' from NE Amer s akrg eastern property boundary. Minimum height m be 8'. 8' -S I ._._ ~... nee ProDOSed Fence Elevat__on Style - t/x' = t'-o' NOTES -Existing Liahtlnd 8). P~n9 Lot Iy dt~yp axU5o' nP Lo zuhradlus. ~frds wj cendles. Appmx .5 foot t ®[dephairc pok iyht (z) Property Emry t - to' post Ilghtkg ®entr(y~ adjraxteogMa~ot Gm~Ms~signag~e alongp 'a UPi4~9 P Churdi sigtlage (3) Plaza . . 4 .. to' past Ilghtlrq alag wa&wry & In cartral plaza. • 3 - upllgAtt H existing treat • 4 -down lights m~herxage oak. (4) Walkways, Bulklm Entres, Smirwetls the aver d waBeways~ ~ l~~ m Wall fbnures ~ entry doors. • Sbhwdls Insufflckntly In. l5) •~emq h a~NMva~ Bght ~ flrc bee/service road. • t - motkn adwated Ilght ®portabk dassroam rar oP buiNiag. May be otlwr safety lybtug. GENERAL NOTES • All exNUa9 ~ IlgMing m be removed. • All Ilghtirg m empky cuaaff fkdures to seduce gkre by restrktklg high angle light. • Parkng deck tlaht Poe kgosrt stlmm Is This IuuMnatbn k~vel a~nt6e ale ed a nmrserous ambmaUans and will be fked acceding m specific QxWres chosen. • All filumkwtbn data & phomnretrk charts m be wbrirnted fw speclBc fhdures as per manufactured spec catlans pnor to anstructlon approvals. N0~5 - P o~s_ed Lidh a mergnt 8y S~rm w (t) Parltlny tot • Parking deck to have a continuous dlstNbution of t.o foot cerMk miniinum Ilghtlag level as requked m promote personal ssaaffeetryy and natural survNtlance. (famine Iigbtlrsg n approx..5 fc). (') Post ikhtlnyg ~ anw a exit m x improvveedd t - Ory of Saramg~astreet ~ p adjacent to Osurch Saramga Ave. m renaln. • Upllgktlng ®Churdl slgnage m be Improved. (a) Plaza • Post fighting along walkway & m cerrtral plate at minimun t.o t< level. over~ailtl V~kzanlyhting sdceme m 6e determined. 4 -doves Bgbts bt heritage oak (E). (4) Walkways, Building Entries, stahwells • Prowdedby cave Ikhtlng In the cnvUM walkways, wa9g fbnures ®mtry doors, k mtermedWte heght post AB lylstlng m waBeway; offices, cWssooms, and stalrwNh m achksve min t.o tc. (5) Safely, Night UghtNg . • Motkn acthrated lights di flrc lane f servke toad az needed Motlon activated Itght p rear pky area 8 soar gate to ourage unwamed acthdty dustny off-hours. • May 6e other safety Iightlng. I~ ~. L A N D S C A P E PLAN N I N G to62 MILLER AVE BERKELEY,CA 94708 TEL/FAX 5to.5i9•to34 deslgnwtNks;~ealWitMWl.lxt PROJECT TEAM Rebecca Coffman, Landscape Architea PROJECT Saint Andrew's Parish & $Ch001 f36ot 5aratogaAve. Saratoga; CA 95070 Tel: 408.867,3785 Fa>G 4O6.747.185a CONSULTANTS: ~~ 7.v5.o~ ON: SITE LIGHTING LANDSCAPE DETAILS NO SCALE L 1.q. Proposed Retaining Wall Section _. - style - t/Y = t'-o' "No Scale i ,. Pr. o~o,ed,~ite Lighting . - -- No~SCale • • :7 ~j~ F100R PIAN - IOWER LEVEL 6GUE 1/Id'-I'-0' HALL/PERFORMING ARTS/GYM 15,168 S.F. 'CLASSROOM WING 8,166 S.F. CLASSROOM WING ' OFFlCES 2,833 S.F. CENTER - '- OWER ' '- LEVEL TOTAL 34,475 S.F. t ~~ I I PARISH CENTER ABOVE i , ~. ___.__ ______..__... _. _..,1 _.____.____.. BELL TOWER - SEE A1.1 FOR ACTUAL LOCATION N ~ BELL TOWER ~~, ABOVE ' 0`_ iy6'~ B' 32,32' ARCHITECTS CorleU, Skoer $ DeVOIo Architects, Inc. 120 Nontgamery StreeC SNMe 1110 Son Frarcisca, G 94104 design6csdar<h'Neds.csm 415.693.9600 415.693.9670 CONSULTANT ARCHRECT STAMP CONSULTAM STAMP AUTHORNY APPROVAL PRWECi ADDRESS ST. ANDREW'S PARISH & SCHOOL PLAN. DEPT. SUBMITTAL 136D1 SARATOGA AVE. SARATOGA, CA 95D70 NARK: DA1E: DESCRIPTION: oRART1 fir: CHK'D DY: PrRCIIf: CSDA 0.ACHIIECIS 2002 SHEET TIRE LOWER LEVEL PLAN RIOINAL scAl>: I~,~~ i1 J2. A ' NO.: ~4T 5, 1002 2151.01 SHEET NUMBER: A^.1 • r f•1 oeaicu uAl I /[1CDCnownm A177C /CYLA 3 95f1 C F ARCHITECTS CorleN, Skaer 4 DeWto Nchieds, Nc. 120 Montgomery Street, Suie 1170 Sw Francisco, CA 94104 daign0esdorch9ects.corn 415693.98011 415.693.9830 CONSULiAM ARCHNECT STAMP COt95UlTANf STAMP AUTHORITY APPROVAL PRO.IECT AODRE96 ST, ANDREWrS PARISH & SCHOOL PLAN. DEPT. SUBMITTAL 13601 SARATOGA AVE. SARATOGA, CA 95070 MARw: DATE DESCRIf'fION: DRAwN fir: cHe'D er: cDPmlclrt: csDA ARCHTIECrs zaoz SHELT llltE MAIN IEVEI PLAN RICIN4L SCALE ~ur s, zaoz ND.: zrsvm SHEEP NIAIBER: A ~•~ BELL TOWER - F100R PLAN • MAIN IEVEI SEE A1. t FOR 0` ' ACTUAL LOCATION ~ ~ ~1 ~ srAlelne•-ra 8' 32' • • FLOOR PLAN • UPPER LEVEL SGIE I/Id'• I'U 0 PARISH HALL/PERFORMING ARTS/GYM _ __ C~ ADMIN/CLASSROOM WING 8,310 S.F. C~ NORTH CLASSROOM WING - -- OCLERGY OFFICES 2,755 S.F. ARCHITECTS Carlctt. Slmer & OeVoto ArchReets. Inc. 12O 4a~Ngomery Street, 9ule 1170 San Fmncisw. G 941W designOadomh8edssom 415.697.98W 415.697.9870 CONSOLTPM ARCMIECT 5lANP cDNSUtxANr srAUv AUIHORIIY APPROVPI PROJECT ADDRESS ST. ANDREW'S PARISH & SCHOOL PLAN. DEPT. SUBMiITTAL 13601 SARATOGA AVE. SARATOGA, CA 96O7D M4tl(: DATE: OESCRIPDON: DRAWN 6f: CHK'D BY: COPiRIGH1: CSDA MCHRECIS 2002 SHEET TRIE UPPER LEVEL PLAN RIgWd SCREE ~°,~~„ II• 12' 'auir 5. zoos NO" zui.oi SHEET C~ PARISH CENTER Q BELL TOWER BELL TOWER - SEE A1.1 FOR ACTUAL LOCATION 0 16" 8' 32' • ARCHITECTS C ~sme` t °ev°~° ~s~'nm ~yyrtMxts.rnn 415.~7.9fl00 N5.89J.9aT0 C~lSA.TATIf AROIOECt STA4P CONSI0.TANf SUVA AUfRORIfY APPROVAL PROIECf W0AES5 ST. ANDREW'S PARISH dt SCHOOL PLAN. DEPT. SUBMITTAL 13601 SARATOGA AVE SARATOOq CA 95070 uua: a>E: ~SCPoPIi0.4: oRUnr ~: ao~b ar: C9N MOtOECR 1004 41fEf TRIE ROOF PLAN PoCIIiLL SOVE AAY 5, 1W2 71S/A7 sR¢r ~R: A2,4 at~~ ivuvcrc - SEE A1.1 FOR ROOFPtAN acrua~ ~ocarioN o~ 1s' 1 Sa,Eind..ra ~--~-; 8' 32' ~1 ~ ~r m J ' ~. aERFORM,~G P,RTS / GY11d. -EAST ELEVATION ------ ~RL:Ii ShIhCIE . - Lti14tf ?.uTCR - C7L'n~ {2 ~ .. - wa t' oo~ cun~c ~ fir' H+a+u° uaG~7 Bur ,~,1to:axG comn / wu1Fn - cats ps ,, ~-~ c ahooGto roux .. 1' ~-- IEYICM.:D CIkCN' . Piles? • CAtOA P= ( . e j } 4~1 '2., e, ~..~...°_ ~~ ~.._~..~~_ P4^.dt' ~ is _ ".F. rti...t. . ~ ?EkrL1RM'NG A R'I'S / GYM NCRTN Eb'ATIGN E ~ . . - _ S:LL I; d-11' _ i.O.R~F ,~ +?9'1 ~r rl4AiET rING,f e• rcGO ~~ -1~a ~l iGN r LG~Tac anarc un e~aTt• 1k7p2W hvxt PaSIiR~- GL:P 43 V+V\ fvE! ~- +,gj err _ - ~ tZ51 ~ ~'Ef2fOf2ti~ING .AkIS ~ GY69. - SOUTH ELE1rATi0N ~, I - -_ ~tSP NU SIIN~ - LG& 'C a'J81L G.Ailtw h 8irN2E AV0.'1:7 RJgE - 8' WOL SIP!Ni - CA.IH t' 93 _T.D.ROOF +39J LO.PJtRAPE? _~ +~?5 _ Nb;K lFYfl n 1362 ~ _0'NCR LCVCL~ +351 1 °1_RFORti41PJG ~,RTS % GYk9. - 'VEST ELE'JA.TIGN :.FtE. ~:'f`~1'7' t li \1 ~ ~t >sn ~~ SG1LE 8 32 hG?' Sii 9tG M-1 '~^dt Wi[(6N5 COt5t5 M9 FN9Q,y I acwL s~ ~. ,- _~ JWI£ ]6. 1062 l ]1]10' 91fE1 "~'~ A3.1 ARCHITECTS C6Aa5 51CN ! [kY6te MCN7~7'. hQ. ~, I27 Ye 54ed, Sine 1177 i,, Srn f~o'cika. G~ ~Idl aes~wearN~+~ ,l,,~aea77 q:,~3.A377 rn~su!r~un I I i 7~a~rL:r Gv7e i i 1%fi5UC7M1• srru~ , i i ~a a koP~ i ST. ANDREW'S PARISH & SCHDDL PLAN. DEPT. SUBMITTAL i 15f(]i Sk4Ai1}~h A4E, I S4PATaGtti CA 45~?~ ur.?h: DxIC: I}4R~CM: LR171~~ ~+: -- ca~t ~: ~P1G,i; -._.. C~J lRCfiR~'' :CCs 54ECf 10LE PERFDRMING ARTS /GYMNASIUM ELEVATIONS • r~ • MC91 O[CIf --1\-' O(YUNO- HI61 FOMI. •~ a WIVWY ~'1.~ .1 h, Jri,' ~ 1"?~' ~~~ «acA:-r::auuv enu-' Pmrox cauvAUS, /, BFAVS AVO PIJTERS ' ("o`- COVERED WAI.K'NAY f EUI_DI.uC =NTR" / 7 ,~ ;cu 1,re•rn -' (CU'JEREO YdALIC,N,4Y TYPICAI. -HR000HUUT SITE} -NOW ~ASOA A7O CIy1 _ .. _ .Y - ASRNLT SXIVCIE ': (fluFlT PJ61FR - COIOR 12' ' ~ ~ ~~ .~. rE LP~ r. ~E i +1AD11O W 3~N2E~ MIW17m FPJLE I..-~- -~ d5 ----°-' ~ .'. (1.:IX... _. T .1mzsra _ cx: ~c ea1•H wa ~:..c.. ~:,;~.`L::;l;Gt2191..:y ~~ AUbSIN. f L'I~,SSROUN, - 4VES1 ELEV.AIIUN w.r vle+ro ' _ ~~~ _~i .-NOW ~N®~ ~ . WII:R PkVIJI diP(E ... , - AS~IIkT SHPIGLE .... - - -'- CNEM! Fu~FA - Cl%9R Q2.-~- .'.. r .'' ~ElVB.E IDN T OWBIE 3UaNC OI Bi0N2E ~ ~.: , .. Dt1a1OE9 fRR~C ... E '~ AfYFFI1.f1RfxY ~- i:':'; ...'ro. _ - _ 10 NatiN ~. _ . - CIASSia^Y WJP' ADMIN. / CLASSP,UOM~--NUI~TI'I CLCti'ATION 'E%IL'~ll CFYM " a ', ADMIN. f CLASSRUOM -EAST ELEbVATiGN ~~ 5 : ~ 1,1~1,- aAW ~ASOA Alm tsfe }., ~- ~ 45fif1;.l SNAgk. , ~ ~ y . tD1p7 PA42A CgAA ~Y . ~ ~' > ~ CPE-l&E WN OMlStE:-`~I " CIAIOIC OI B70Kff FlA51ER - DXOT. #5 . r. NORTH CLASSRU041 'PIING - WUT CLEVATION ' ~ StAf Ijl^.~I'C .. :,~ .: .Q ~. ..r, - o ~'~ bt ` (~. j.~ . W t~ .: ~.®~63.® (• - ------------------____._.. j ... ADMIN. ; CLASSROOMd -SOUTH ELE'w~'ITION j .. ~ " NORTH CI.ASSROOIYi WINO -SOUTH ELEVATION A9W (ASCA A40 G4 OJfT_i PA'Ni7 YiAlE-._~.~_, ~ :- _~- GkEM PIAS'ER `'----`ter- ,cmo3 n ..~. '1PEPl8LE Lax ~' ¢rmlc ~.~A31ffiU19TOtdt _ ~ ~AVOOtLD FYrA~ T ';IF%BIAE] I~VG? rt ~,' I4AS"EA - fbl.~+ ~' . .,. _ ,....,. .~.?:,... ~.H_,, a~ 3 - ~ NORTH CLASSROC~t4 'P11NC -- NOR"H ELEVATION 2 ; X4E i; d"°: I .._ .~ ._. 1 °2-"2:u kw i ___. _ I.o.H~H +003 _ _ 1.07.0. R~ +395 ZIPPER IFVELn +37fi ~ _ AWN I:YE! n +367.5 ~ LCVIR EEVELn +sei ~ T.O.HICH -413 +335 BnIO,E N Dv °~_ UP"rEK LEVE! n_ +37~ _ _ AWN LEYEI n +363.5-~ __ _ LOWER I.EVEI.n +351 P _ _ _ T.O. ROOF n +38- 1 ~ . ~ .. MEIN LEVcI n . ~ - ~1 Jti,1 h ,, ~;,; ~ ; ~a - ~ _ ICWER tFVELn ~ ~ i +351 T.O. ROOF n sR _ : ~' _ _ _MNN LEaE! 6 ~ . +3E3. +3_°C EAST CLASSRUOM WING -EAST EL~VA~!OI~ ~_~ Su:. I~a~aO ~~ 2 r ~!I ~; 3 ~fi L {~/ B J ~ ~5 ` 0 16 c~>Hew s>e, ~~~ ~ ~ T 3F O !'AIC: SC( SPIT N-1 FCR YATFR0.S CO.pL~ FMD fA9~E`:~ au VN i ARCHITECTS Co1Mt4 o erl~•t1m 170 Son fm~~~'`G.~MI~DI [mF~ " "' 4f16~~~ PAIfC N119FS5 ST. ANDREW'S PARISH & SCHOOL PLAN. DEPT. SUBMITTAL 13601 SpRkiCGA AuE. S1o,At00A, GI 95070 ray la,i~_ ~~rlmou: PAev 6i HATI fr: ~._-~. FfANII: _.._._._..- CS7%.7ACNTECIS ~ IQC''OIL i ADMIN. / ' CtASSR00M - NORTH CLASSROOM WING ELEVATIDNS i~n4 srAiE ~ . 1~_~~ .... ,11. ~MH 74 L^OP 91S.EI A3.2 ':~~ AOOFEG BACGE '. TON 301 dAS5i0G1 NtYS-., `. ~i i ---- . _'L . . ---'---- - i ARCHITECTS ._ ._ Par~x. ~ ~ ~ . ro , !m w4~,m say, S:l Fwkftc.99~tO1 i ____ -._._.____-.._~ ~ :pign9ta*rc!~m^ 1f AA919Ad1 ~ t15.693~98~ w000 iA94U .4U 45M Pn.4iiLTNf . ... .-. . Wap; F15CN Ax0 GSw ~ !~ ~ ~ aTIEF PxMtC wFIC ~ ~ ;LypYS ~ ,~ yrr: fw- ! T.U,HIGH RO ' .. - iktTE /.. WTIFw rw>Mm ~ - - .: ~ ~ - 'A9WLi 81NOIF . +399 ° ~ a ~ .. ...ISaa.T s~ - i ' . ~ , ~ ~ .:~ A" w70a SCAiG w ~ ,, T.U. 4~F ' '~ k V F -. ... ^;.,,,,.!.+'. .ti:,. Y ~. ~ «' .' ~ ~.., 8" 1W)p ~. _ .~ _ -..: •~ - nR ,~ ;, ~, " ?'~ :.: OP97AE iaw'E' POl ~ .~.~ ~ - -a T.0. ROCF~ .?~ :rh'+ ..:~":S. _-,---~ ,• + r'.typ 'd. ~~$~ ~ @Lf ,-. + - ? '+r. - Wc~ +' vY`ae;owt^rxmn CVIA: tll FPaVZc 1342 ~ _ -~L _ .,i Q I ; ~ ' , . raa>ss n eanoF a~ - - Ka D i'xW i ~ y T N° ' ~ +37 , ` u~nave rain O ' . ~ _ ;;PPER tFJEL,~ ' ~ I ~ t C B j`_-1EXfURc7 CA,$111 l ~ ~"? • - ~ ttnuals tZ arf ~ . PLIciFR - ~:10R LF - +375 ~ -'~ ` ~ - ~ F .WLYrtEI;I STWM t '=,'-~ e _ ~, ~ ' .. PtAS'Vt - ~tOx ~3 n rras+>¢c>^ " ~ - cLF cc ~ °t. :~w'~~';~y':, C - aa r ~ra"6' .A4VN ~ EbE `' ` 7L 'r" ' .-CNCAflE 4EPe ~~ + ~r§ x ,'w~' ~ ~v ~~F '' ~ T T ~ . . ~ .:.,±- M~,+ .a. . : ~_ + ~ ; _., < ~, ;;4 ,~~ . _ ~ -'^ ., _ :EyEt r o ..~..~:~ .+ UAtN ,L ~x ~.~N~?..~n^ . + +363 ~ ,'~ PARISH CENTER .- EAST ELEVATION ~ ~ PARISH CENTER -NORTH ELPJATICN r ` - ~ _ .: ~ ,_.. (~ +352 CLERGY CFFIC_5 - NORT ~ E? CLCJki10N ~ CLERGY OFFICES - SST E~LE'aATICN 9 :cue. yia•r^ '. $ . eu~u- u:r• ~v sr , ` -.. .ware HSf11 aro csw ..--,-----:. UTWO FA97A A19 GSw 1= '~ ~ anE9 PIEJtfE wHtE -. '~ ' - W'IER MdA~ED NF'E - ~ ' ~ - -~ " ,. 4~N1T ~qE "'~ - +359 ~ ~ "= // fSHix. _ SFEf;GL .« h4«w~~w, , ? n~+::~.- a ~~ A. ~ ~~ v ~ „~ '~ ~v°~~- } fit ~ _: - - - T- D. RUCFQ ~5 ' " > - - a ,.- 8' A ~ s~lAt .r i.U. iCOF +392 u j , ~ j '~~r: _ . ~ .. ° ~"~6 r-~+,s ., +387 c«^a&,~« ~~~ OPFRIaE lOw 'C CODE ~ :~. ~~~'`~. C.PM~E' T - ~ , ~ ~Fx' P.uIEA oA:a+ ~) _F aY ~~ r ~ a ANHORIIY A=PkaYP:. -'-_ T r r>amc a aaaaF t ; Ax000ED ~yrc /'. , :: . v ~~ ~~. a ~~ +'76 GLGOAi Iw 3FCxff ~, ~ AK00® Fr2N~ .PPER LCJEL ~ . ' - +375 ~--~- F ~,.. ,. Si a~ ._ ~ ..- P ~ ~3 ~: r3' ~ ~ti M -- = :. '~ r.- :r ~. ,w'~ ,.. +, F~{ ', a o ~ ~ - - '1 . > Viz' °.;,, . t. - ~ 4 ~.e+E .. -:. - ? yv`~: d~ r + '_ T'$Ii&1)- ~ ~ _ ? ~K+1 4. +, ~ " r.._s.~~ z =EVEt ' ~ . . . . ... 3 ~ ~ . „~_ -- --- - BJ 6 y ~=:ri '= + j 1 '"" Fg?R'SH CEN-ER - Ju'~ST EL_'JATION ~ ~ - PARISH CENTER -SOUTH ELE~lA.TION 6 ~ ~ LeJ~R ~~ 4 I o 7 Y ~ CLERGY OFF!C:S - NtEST ELEVATIOIti ^LERCY CFFICES - SOUTHIELEVAT!CN i~°~ ST. ANDREW S PARISH ~ SCH04L I !PLAN, DEPT. ~~ J ~ SUBMITTAL I I 13601 S4P~11OJi AVE. ~ ~ft0.TO;q CA 95010 - ~% i ~ - I _ - ~ '- - .. ~ I.C. ROOF 7T~ 1 _... . i41 _ ____ ___ _..~-__ _ a _ f ' - 4AW 57RJI5 ~ ~. ~. ORRl91C waC0 ~ s M xaaT: CU!' !uE5C~~01t -_ x "' ' * LEVEI f' ` ~ Cllf'D OP: + ~- : 1 JR pR1IPG ' ,~ ~ `• I toMxar: ' . ~~ r , ~ x Btx17F :591 ~Q I aaa a~+nFas 2cu ; ^ AvW¢D ~ ~ .. - - - ~ -" IhfiUihTGN I ii 'L SNEkT lalF _ f; : ~ BELL TOWER, , . _.___ ~~ ` # "'~"` ~ a CLE !~ - +~ - _ 4 R.NS~RS i RGY OFFICES, ~'' ~` '"~ ' ' ~ ~ # r , ' `~M' . ~~ ~~° ~'~ z PARISH CENTER - -- ~~®a , _„ ~~. I 2~ ELEVATIONS BELL T091'EP, SECTION BELL T01~'EP, -EAST ELEVATION 3_LL TOwVER - SOUTH ELEVATION r 1s ~"~`° - - ^S ' ' ' ~ ~ 1 $`~"C , a P ' .V SG{C'P•~'1J - I +) L S.1t: Inf \i Ch7 TH Lv. ~ ('~IESi AND CP ) f_. oUl: 'ILS.rq -n(! (-~ I iT - n I NG SARA'O~A A'~E ) a ~ I as ~ ..,~ L) ~ ' "~~ . , .. , ; ,. +at x acx 7•)t,m 4'JIE SEF 9•EEI x-: FOA W1Ud115 WLCPS A'8} FWFdIE4 SHFF ' '~'~ A3.3 T.O.ROOF rl ', • T.O~ROOF ._ +39Y 5 - - REmwRC ww. wHmE PANIED CORRUG4IED REWIRED FOR ACCESSIAIF YETAL COYER JY PATH OF 1RAYEL T.O. COVER _ ~I IXSRNG RAPE +356.5 AEDxJOD DECX ~I UNgSIUABED um POSR ~ ~ T.O.PAVING T.O. DECK +349 +34Y 3.5 EXISTING GRADE +340 COVERED OUTDOOR AREA - (SECTION NEW NORTH) • • UPPER LEVEL_ CIASSROOw CUSSROOY tlASSROWJ +37Y 6 - PARKINGMAIN LEVEL AISCOVEAYCORER IAW~ER LEVEL. ~~ Y +35Y 1 3 SECTION - ADMNISIRATION / IXASSROOM WINC - scae ,na~ra III I IN ClASSR0011 CIh4A BRm6E clASSrom~ aassR - NORTH CLASSROOM WING R T.O. ROOF - +381 I _ MAIN LEVEL +363.5 ARCHITECTS Cakfi. Skaer @ DeVota M~~T k. 120 Yartgamery ~ Sale 1170 San Frm,69ro• d 941a N5.~79R00 415.68.79570 COYiULTPM ARpI11ECf AAI~ CONSIUNJT STAYP AUTFIORIIY APPROVAL PROJECT AWRESS ST. ANDREWS PARISH do SCHOOL PLAN. DEPT. SUBMITTAL 13601 SJU2ATOGA AVE. SARATOGA, CA 95010 WYM: O1TE: DESCPoPIgY: DRAwY er: cHXb er: CWA raamECts z5D2 SNEEf IRIE BUILDING SECTIONS ApXHAL SC4IEII"III''J. 12. - CLERGY OFFlCES - -ADMINISTRATION /CLASSROOM WINO - -GYMNASIUM - I 'nar ~ 2aoz _ 2i31Ai SECTION % o~ 1~~ 1 7we,nb~rn ~ A3.4 8' 32' ~' I ~' 5 SECTION bWE I/Ib'-I'+P • ITEM 2 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION • • Application No./Location: DR-O1-044;18360 Purdue Drive Applicant/Owner: Cove Britton, Architect / Maryam and SiamakAzizi Staff Planner: Christine Oosterhous AICP, Associate Planne~~Q Date: October 23, 2002 APN: 403-28-034 Department Head: -f I i~~ ~T I O ~: Oi BOBBIE AVE. BAYLOR Ate' nrronrrc DR. r~~ - ~.i ~~ 18360 Purdue Drive 040001 MC COY File No. DR-01-099; 18360 Purdue Avenue Proposed Code Requirements Lot Maximum Allowable Coverage: 42% 60% Building 2,090 sq. ft. Paving 1,261 sq. ft. TOTAL 3,351 sq. ft. (bnpervious Sw-face) Floor Area: First Floor 2,081 sq. ft. Maximum Allowable Second Floor 841 sq. ft. TOTAL 2,922 sq. ft. 2,949 sq. ft. Setbacks: Minimum Requirement Front 28 ft. 27 ft. Rear 47 ft. 37 ft. Left Side 8 ft 8 inches 8 ft 8 inches Right Side 8 ft 8 inches 8 ft 8 inches Height• • Maximum Allowable Residence 20 ft. 26 ft. f fl~0~~~ File No. DR-O1-044,18360 Purdue Drive PROJECT DISCUSSION The applicant requests design review approval to construct first and second-story additions to an existing single-story residence. The floor area of the proposed two-story residence and attached garage is 2,922 square feet. Additions to the first story are less than 18 feet in height and total 245 square feet. The partial second-story additions total 842 square feet. The maximum height of the proposed residence is 20 feet. The lot size is approximately 8,040 square feet and the site is zoned R-1-]0,000. A contemporary style residence is proposed. Residences in the surrounding neighborhood are predominately modest one-story ranch bungalows with wood siding and shake roofs. No trees are proposed for removal. The Arborist Report dated June 5, 2002 requires tree protective fencing and a tree preservation bond. The proposed project implements the following Residential Design Policies: Policy #] :Minimize Perception of Bulk Building heights are minimized. The maximum height of the two-story residence is 20 feet. A partial second-story addition, located over the garage, is proposed. The proposed two-tone colors reduce mass and bulk of the proposed residence because the second-story addition. will be a lighter shade of green than the one-story portions of the residence. Prominent architectural features which break up massing include gabled dormers, columns, a boxed bay window, a glass rotunda located on the facade, a~~d variety of window shapes and sizes. Policy #2: Integrate Structures ~~~ith the Environment Natural materials and colors are proposed. Materials and colors include pale and dark green stucco exterior finish with while trim, oatmeal colored ledger stone accents, and grey composition shingle. Policy #3: Avoid lnterference ~~~ith Privacy and Views The applicant has provided overwhelming evidence that the immediate and surrounding neighbors support the project. Eight property owners in the area have submitted letters in support of the application. These property owners include the parcels immediately adjacent, across, and behind the project site as well as additional neighbors on Purdue Drive. These letters are attached for your reference. Policy #4: Preserve Views and Access to Views The height of the second story addition has been minimized at 20 feet. Additions to the second-story are partial and do not extend over the entire footprint of the first floor. Please refer to Policy #3 above. • 000003 File No. DR-O1-044,18360 Purd ue Drive Policy #5: Design for Energy Efficiency The proposed residence shall have new insulation, wlZich exceeds State requirements. The new windows shall be low emissive glass with low U-factor and low solar heat gain coefficient to realize significant benefits in heating and cooling. High efficiency room conditioning, heat equipment, and water heating shall be installed. Conclusion The proposed residence conforms to the policies set forth in the City's Residential Design Handbook. The residence does not interfere with viewsheds or privacy, it preserves the natural landscape, and minimizes the perception of bulk so that it is compatible with the neighborhood. The proposed project supports the findings required for design review as detailed in the staff report. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Convnission conditionally approve design review application DR-O1-044 by adopting the attached Resolution. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution for DR-O1-044. 2. Fire Department comments, dated December 10, 2001. . 3. Arborist Report, dated Tune 5, 2002. 4. Eight letters in support of the project from neighboring property owners. 5. Reduced plans, Exhibit "A", date stamped October 23, 2002. • OOU~©4 Attachment 1 APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COn1M1SSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Azizi; 18360 Purdue Drive WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Plaw~ing Commission has received an application for Design Review approval to construct first and second-story additions to an existing one-story residence; 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 ~VIiEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application, and the following Design Review findings pursuant to Section 15-45 of the Municipal Code have been determined: Policy #l :Minimize Perception of Bulk Building heights are minimized. The maximum height of the two-story residence is 20 feet. A purtiul second-story addition, located over the garage, is proposed. The proposed two-tone colors reduce mass and bulk of the proposed residence because the second-story addition will be a lighter shade of green than the one-story portions of the residence. Prominent architectural features which break up massing include gabled dormers, columns, a boxed bay window, a glass rotunda located on the facade, and variety of window shapes and sizes. Policy #2: Integrate Structures with the Environment Natural materials and colors are proposed. Materials and colors include pale and dark green stucco exterior finish with white trim, oatmeal colored ledger stone accents, and grey composition shingle. Policy #3: Avoid Interference ~~~ith Privacy and Views The applicant has provided overwhelming evidence that the immediate and surrounding neighbors support the project. Eight property owners in the area have submitted letters in support of the application. These property owners include the parcels immediately adjacent, across, and behind the project site as well as additional neighbors on Purdue Drive. These letters are attached for your reference. Policy #4: Preserve Views and Access to Views The height of the second story addition has been minimized at 20 feet. Additions to the second-story are partial and do not extend over the entire footprint of the first floor. Please . refer to Policy #3 above. 000005 • Policy #5: Design for Energy Efficiency The proposed residence shall have new insulation, which exceeds State requirements. The new windows shall be low emissive glass with low U-factor and low solar heat gain coefficient to realize significant benefits in heating and cooling. High efficiency room conditioning, heat equipment, and water heating shall be installed. NOVV, THEREFORE, the Plaw~ing Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section l .After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application of Azizi for Design Review approval and the same 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. 2. FENCING REGULATIONS - No fence or wall shall exceed six feet in height and no fence or wall located within any required fi-ont yard shall exceed three feet in height. 3. FIREPLACES: Only one wood burning fireplace shall be pernzitted 4. 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. If all stone water cannot be retained on-site due to topographic, soils or other constraints, an explanatory note shall be provided on the plan. 5. All recommendations in the City Arborist's Report dated June 5, 2002 shall apply. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall install tree protective fencing and submit to the pla~ming department security in the amount of $1762. FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 6. See attachment 2. • ooh©©s CITY ATTORNEY 6. Applicant agrees to hold City harn~less 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. 7. 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 Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. PASSED ANU ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 23rd day of October 2002 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary, Plam~ing Commission 000007 SECRETARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION This permit is hereby accepted upon the express terms and conditions hereof, and shall have no force or effect unless and wail 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 Plamling Commission. Property Owner or Authorized Agent Date • • • ~0~~~~ 'a . SP ~L,AR,~ cOG ~ ~~ ~ FIRE '` COUPTESY i SERVILE CODE/SEC. ~ SHEET FIRE DEPARTMENT SANTA CLARA COUNTY PLAN R~"'""""~~o[p 01 3013 BLDG i 14700 Winchester Blvd., Los Gatos. CA 95032-1818 (408) 378-4010 • (408) 378-9342 (fax) • Unuw.sccfd.org cc Attachment 2 FILE NUMBER D ~ 01-044 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMENTS NO. ~ REQUIREMENT Review of a proposed 1,064.74 sq. ft. addition to an existing 1,836.40 sq. ft. single family residence. Total new square footage will be 2,901.14. Review of this Developmental proposal is limited to acceptability of site access and water supply as they pertain to fire department operations, and shall not be construed as a substitute for formal plan review to determine compliance with adopted model codes. Prior to performing any work the applicant shall make application to, and receive from, the Building Department all applicable construction permits. UFC 2 Apppendix III- slvic 3 16-15.110 Required Fire Flow: The fire flow for this project is 1,000 gpm at 20 psi residual pressure. The fire flow is available from area water mains and fire hydrant(s) which are spaced at the required spacing. Garage Fire Sprinkler System Required: An approved, automatic fire sprinkler system designed per National Fire Protection Association Standard #13D and local ordinances, shall be provided for the garage. To ensure proper sprinkler operation, the garage shall have a smooth, flat, horizontal ceiling. City PLANS SPECS NEW RMDL AS OCCUPANCY CONST. TYPE ApplicantName DATE PAGE STG ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ R-3/ U V-N MATSON BRITTON ARCHITECTS 12/10/2001 1 1 DF SECJFLOOR AREA LOAD DESCRIPTION BY 1,064 sq. ft. Residential Development Chase, Melanie ~' LOCATION SFR-AZIZI 18360 Purdue Dr Organized as the Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District Serving Santa Clara County and the communities of Campbell. Cupertino, Los Ahos, Q Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Monte Serena, Morgan Hill, and Saratoga QOQ©09 • THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK • t 0000.0 BARRIE D. COATS end ASSOCIATES Horticutural Consultants 23535 Summit Road Los Gatos, CA 95033 408F353-1052 Attachment 3 TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS AT THE AZ1ZI PROPERTY l 83b0 PURDUE DRIVE SARATOGA Prepared at the Request of Kristin Borel Community Planning Dept. City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 • Site Visit by: Michael L. Bench Consulting Arborist June S, 2002 Job # OS-02-089 Plan Received: 5.20.02 Plan Due: 6.20.02 ~~~~~~~~ JUN 2 6 2002 CITY OF SARA'fOGA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMEN?' 000021 TREE SURVEY AT~TD PRESF.RVAT]ON RECOI.+WIENDATIONS AT THE AZIZI PROPERTY ] 3360 PIJRI)UE I~RI VE, SP.RA'fOGA Assignment At the request of the Community Development Department, Planning Division, City of Saratoga; this report reviews the proposal to remodel an existing residence in the 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 Britton Matson, Architects, Santa Cruz, Sheets A l -A9, dated 3-27-02, and the Survey Plan prepared by Ward Surveying, Santa Cruz, Sheet 'I, dated 4-01-01. Summary This proposal may expose 2 trees to some level of risk by construction. No trees are to be removed by implementation of this design, and no trees would be severely damaged provided all of the mitigation suggestions are complied with. Procedures are suggested to mitigate the damage that would be expected to the retained trees. A bond equal to 50% the value of the retained trees is suggested in accordance with the levels of the expected risks. . Observations There are 6 trees on this site, but only l of these trees (Tree,#1) is large enough to be governed by the city ordinance. In addition, there are 3 neighboring trees within a few feet of the east property that may be exposed to damage by proposed construction, but only l of these three trees (Tree #2) is large enough to be regulated by the city ordinance. Also, there is a large multi-stem fruitless mulberry tree (Morus ulba) located on the neighboring property toward the south. A small portion of the canopy and no doubt. a portion the root system of this fruitless mulberry extend onto this property. The root systems of this species (Morus albs) are tolerant of construction and the specimen is far enough from the property boundary that it is unlikely that construction on this property would cause it damage. The attached map shows the location of these trees and their approximate canopy dimensions. Only Tree #l was shown on the maps provided by the architect and the surveyor. I have added the other trees, whose locations are estimated. Mrs. Azizi, vvho was on site at the time of the site visit, questioned the trunk diameter measurement of Tree #2. To assure accuracy, I used a Lufkin diameter tape. Measurements were made at 2 feet above grade to meet the City of Saratoga requirement and at 4 '/s feet above grade according to the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) standard. The 2 trees are classified as follows: Tree # 1 -Modesto ash (Fraxinus velutina'Glabra') Tree # 2 -European white birch (Betulu pendula) PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST JUNE 5, 2002 00001.2 TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS AT THE AZIZI PROPERTY 2 I83h0 PLJRDIIE DRIVE, SARA7'OGA i The particulars regarding these trees (species, trunk diameter, height, spread, health, and structure) are provided in the attachments that follow this text. The health and structure of each specimen is rated on a scale of l to 5 (Excellent - Extreme]yPoor) on the data sheets that follow this text. The combination of health and structure ratings for the 2 trees are converted to descriptive ratings as follows: Fine S ecimens 1, 2 Fine specimens must be retained if possible but without major design revisions. Mitigation procedures recommended here are intended to limit damage within accepted horticultural standards in order to prevent decline. Because Tree #2 is located on neighboring property, I recommend that it must be treated as Exceptional regardless of its condition. Risks to Trees by Proposed Construction It appears that Trees #l and 2 would likely be at risk of damage by construction activity and construction procedures that are typical at most construction sites. These procedures may include the dumping or the stockpiling of materials over the root systems, may include the trenching across root zones for drainage, for new utilities, or for landscape irrigation, and Inay include frequent construction trafl"ic, including foot traffic, across the root systems resulting in soil compaction. 1f any underground utilities must be replaced or upgraded, it will be essential that the trench locations must be planned prior to construction and that the trenches are installed exactly as planned. This must not be ]eft up to contractors or to the utility providers. Recommendations l . Trees often cannot be repaired adequately after being damaged. Construction period protective fencing provides the first line of defense at construction sites. I recommend 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. In my experience, less substantial fencing is not respected at construction sites. The fence must be in pace 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. The contractor(s) and the owner must be made aware that return of the tree protection bonds are based on the correM location and dedicated maintenance of these fences. 2. If construction access through the side yard on the east side of this residence is used, I recommend that.a root buffer be required between the footing of this residence and PREPARED $Y: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST . JUNE 5, 2002 000013 TREE SURVEY ARID PRESERVATION RECOMMEI~~DATIONS AT THE AZiZi PROPERTY 3 ]8360 PL,'RDI3E DRIVE, SARATOOA the property boundary as shown on the attached map. A root buffer consists of b full inches of coarse bark chips (shredded redwood is not acceptable for this purpose due its compressibility) spread over the existing grade, which must immediately be covered by l inch plywood (full sheets), tied together, and secured to prevent slippage. I recommend that the buffer be 8 foot wide (the length of pl}wood sheets) adjacent to the foundation. This allows for an 8 foot work space on top of the chips. Protective fencing must be in contact with the root buffer on the side opposite the foundation. This buffer is sufficient for workers on foot using hand carried tools. This buffer must be installed in conjunction with the protective fencing and must remain in place until all construction is completed and given final approval. At the time of the construction of the drain adjacent to the foundation, two feet of the root buffer nearest the foundation may be removed, but the remainder of the buffer must remain until given final approval. 3. Trenches for any utilities (gas, electricity, water, phone, TV cable, etc.). must be located outside the canopy driplines of retained bees. For any tree where this cannot be achieved, I suggest that the city arborist be consulted. A 2-foot section of each trench adjacent to any tree must be left exposed for final inspection by the city arbari st. 4. 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. 5. 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. 6. if the existing front yard irrigation s}stem is disabled or turned off during construction, supplemental irrigation must be provided to retained Trees #1 and 2 during the dry months (any month receiving less than l inch of rainfall). Irrigate with l 0 gallons for each inch of trunk diameter every 2 weeks throughout the construction period. This can be achieved with a soaker hose, which must be located near the dripline for the entire canopy circumference where feasible. 7. Excavated soil must not be piled or dumped (even temporarily) under the canopies of trees. 8. Trenches for a drainage system must be located beyond the driplines of Trees # l or 2. For any tree where this cannot be achieved, the city arborist must be consulted prior to trenching. 9. Any pruning must be done by an ISA certified arborist and according to ISA, Western Chapter Standards, 1998. • PREPARED BY: M]CHAEL L_ BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST JiINE 5, 20D2 000014 TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RFCONSMENDATIONS AT 7'HE A7.IZI PROPERTY Ll ] 8360 PURDUE DR]VE, SARA7'OGA l 0. Landscape pathways and other amenities constructed under the canopies of trees must be installed completely an grade without excavation. l 1. Landscape irrigation trenches (or any other excavations), inside the driplines of trees, must be no closer to the trunk 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 think diameter to the tree's trunk, and if the spokes are at least l 0 feet apart at the perimeter. l2. 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. l3. 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. 14. 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. 15. Materials or equipment must not be stored, stockpiled, dumped inside the 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 here according to 1SA standards, Seventh Edition. No trees are to be removed. The combined value of the two trees is $3,525. I suggest a bond equal to 50% of the total value of these trees to asswe their protection. Respectfully submitt ,~,~,._,... ' c~-- Michael L. Bench, Associate ~~"~~- Barr' .Coate, Principal MLB/s Enclosures: Glossary of Terms Tree Data Accumulation Charts PREPARED BY: MJCHAEL L. IIENCN, CONSULTDVG ARAORIST JUNE 5, 2002 00015 TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS AT THE AZIZI PROPERTY 5 18360 PURDUE DR1VE, SARATOGA Tree Protection Before, During and Afler Construction • Protective Fencing Radial Trenching Beneath Tree Canopies Platform Buffer Map • • PREPARED $Y: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST JUNE S, 2002 `000©16 Job Ti~Azizi Job Address:l~Purdue Dr. Job #089 m I I ~ I I I ~ I ~ I ~ v^,~ I ;o ~ ~ ~ v, I ;W;w Q BARRIE D. COATS ~ 1 and ASSOCIATES ~ ~ ` ~ ~ ~ ` ~ ~, F ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ; ~_ ' ~ ! o , y ~ W ' W ~ d~ i i W i i ~ Z i Z I~ t~ U' i~ i O i~ ~ ~ ~~ U'~ rJ 1~ K (40013531052 o I ~ ~ ~ 1Wi. I I~~ F I Z Z Z I O z l W 1 0 ~~ ~ Y~ ~ ~ F l o a m 1~ I 1 ~' F ~ z I c~n `_~ ~ Z; w~ ~ ~~ ~{ O I U' g I g a ~ w n. 235355ua~nilRoad ~ j ~ ~ t ~ ~ ~ ~ z ~ ~2 U I ~ ~ ~ ~ a' ~ vWZi I z ~- I O ~ o ~ 0 ~ O N LL I ~ a (7 N ~ ~ 1 Le~Gala~ U 951030 ~ '~ ~ ~ ~ I W = 1 ~ ~ I U ~ O 1 ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ W I V U ~Q Z ~ ~p ~ ~ I QJQ r a~ ~ O~ ~~ Z W W~ 7 1 8 1 8 ~~ v x i J x~ x~ Q ~ 1 ~' W F' i O' tr tY i tY I 0! 1 W I Q I Q' y~ W 1 W i W i W W :ey # Plant Name 0 1~~ ~~ ~ 1 0 2~ N 2 1 cn I U ~ U 1 U I U I U~~ I U l a ? 1~ 1 ~~~ 1~ 1~ Z 1 Z I D: tY 1 Modesto Ash 17.0 ; ~ 1 17.31 40 ' 45 1 ~ 3 4 ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ 1 I I ~ I 1 ~ 1 ~ 1 1 I I I 1 Fraxinusvelutina'Glabra' at 13feet~ ~ 1 ~ 1 I 1 1 I 1 ' . in 227 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 6,125 X sp. class 70% _ $4,288 X cond. 75% _ $ 3,216 X loc. 75% _ $ 2,412 Total Value 1 2 White Birch 13.4 ~ ~ ~ 16.1 ~ 40 ~ 18 1 2 3 t I 1 1 Betula ndula 1 ~ ' . in 141 X $27lsq. in. _ $ 3,806 X sp.'class 50% _ $1,903 X cond. 90% _ $ 1,713 X loc. 65% _ $ 1,113 Total Value I 1 1 1 ~ I ~ I 3 ~ 1 1 ~ I ~ 1 ~ 1 1 1 ~ 1 1 ~ 1 ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ 1 1 = i i i ~ ~ ' ~ 1 i i ~ ' ' 1 . In 0, X $27/sq. in. _ $ ,X sp.1elass , _ $0 1X cond. _ $ X loc. _ $ Total Value ~~ REPLACEMENT' TREE V ALLIES 5-gal = $36 15-gal = $120 24"box = $420 36"box @ $1,320 48"box ~ $5,000 52"box n $7,000 71"box ~ 515,000 1 ~ BEST, 5 =WORST Page 1 of 1 Tree Survey and Preservation Recommendations at the BARRIE D. COATS Azizi property, 18360 Purdue Drive and ASSOCIATES t4DA13531052 ~ Prepared for: ; 2353lSmsAAwd tacxm,U ssow City of Saratoga, Planning Department HORTICULTURAL CONSULTANT Date: June S, 2002 CONSULTING ARBORIST ]ob # OS-02-089 Tree numbers correspond to evaluation c harts. D "~V--' All dimensions and tree locations i ~ pn+Pl-INS ~ are approximate. ,r-oo a i -~nPO N>4~ G(WNLINI~ ~. _. .~ `~ TOP Or POL L_-OIfTr EF _ ~ I ' I ' S'~Chilcan-Maytcn _ 568'12124 N-_ 6: /.V'__ ~-'_ _ _._.~--- -- ~ 1' 1 I _ y 1 ~ mp Protective pencin r 4 I ~ '~ ,I ~ I : I 1 ~ 4" Dia. ORIV£hY.l NOTE: £xISTI NCB c+` v I ~ ' I,•.n DSGhPE TO RFJ'IwIN ~Chilcan Mayten ~ F a 1 ~ Z I ~.' ~ '~' I f~t7fF': PA.IOR '(O FOUNDL N a ~ :c... / I la5P~c11aN n~ -fuF c,:. ~Debw-I< °ME RG~ O(1 Ll.'s OF I I .. ~F-I-IfFJ-I GF~'tl FI..,L "fly _-r ~(~ ////J~ I platform Buffer I -rrtiL,u~, p~ P~ ` .1.p-NINA` ..._-.1 , /%~/,'{,/ // I .~ .1 I~ GD pl_:H'~=.. ' ~_.,.._-, TNO I " ~~.. , Ex roTU+ l >,vc. v..cG '///(Xj ~6n Rr6E ~ (.' s C 1 of bPGc %/', - - ,`: ~ ~, .. ..... ~ //~.i f / / ~ - -` Dla. ~Utl lli BI(t;h ~.' ~~3/ r~,. I n ~ ~/ /:. „N 4'•11' wa+ ~ p I 3 //~ ~ .-......._ a~ 1vwo. re.NGE , N I ~ / • ' r . ~ I I + ~ ~ I' S" Dia. \Vhitc Birch 1 % 10360 PURDUE DRIVE Z g~ / e'e': Q Ex 1ST.I NO I - °I / r~ - - / rt.,lU .STQPY SINGLE SIDE YARD Z FhMILY RESIDEN GE DET Sack I I I 1 y / ~// SELONO u f~POM1 AWRION ., /))) I ~~ / // / I 1 W W // ~/ I A 1 I .~w~.~f/ O~ I .. 1' ~ I DELK I Ia ~~ I al ~1 I I I I I ,I DECK 70 liE --- ~-_~' I I OENOL15aEC -- - - I I _~ I I I /~ Iti I 1 a i.9 t ZIP I I. HW I ~ y NIF 1 w~ I II ° ~I u I o ~ ~, N I 'Y I µDrE' EXISTIN4 nAln. ' ,~ ! I LoaNDSLhPE Ta RE I 1 I i ~ ~ I I I ~ 4~~ib al 4 I ..,.,.t, __ - I I -_ 9__ - -- _-- __ ~ __ ---'- ~ g' Yl1dLIL LlTIU iY Fl.Sar'IEN7 __ 1 - -- - tiuagl,A'.1212f)''E .x1001 riLaq{ny~ ssapm~j n{nW aa~e~ . y : . ~ ' ;,Gi'~ L 1 000018 __ _._. ~` ~ - ~ 1 -~-~:------- _ . _ ~. X ~~ i ~ .~ _._... ____..------------....__-a---.v--~'{~-.._~~.~'~-e~._._...----~-- ------~-~------~_. ~, r- ~; .a tc.~.U-L~ ~ v-.~ ~ _..... _ a Gam..-.ct--~ _-._C-t~ r±--r--~~: - _-- ~~ -- _......-_...__._ C~-~.~~!rn~~----~------_..___ _ _ ~ ~ ----~- ---_ _.__.._.._..-.. -.----- r ~ -~ ~_ • _ Attachment 4 _ \I ___-..._.... _. ____-__._.__-_-.- .. r ~oooos9 i -- r i .......................... c~: ~rh~m i~ may ~~n~~rn ................ ............................ .................................... ~bjt: ~h~ ~~~i~i~n t~ ~h~ h~t~~ .... ~~ ~riv I '~cl ~n ....................................................... h~~ r+~v~ ~ pl~n~ ~~ar ~h~ . . th,~it r~~ ~m _~~~~~~n rY ~n~ ~i~m~k Azizi h~v+~ fir ~h~ir h~~s I think i~ gill m~k~ ni ~d~li~i~n to the ni - hrh ~~ gib. ~. o~cl. I h~v~ n~ )~~ inn. I~;rs ~~~rin ~In 1 ~~~ ~~r~d~~ ~riv~ ~ra~~, ~~ - . ,, ~ oooo~o .vtl'JI tlY: t;l'r11tb5 5j 4Utl 545 /1l~Uj NIAH-/-V~ l~:bbj YHlit L/Y • • i t I i Memorandum To: Siamak and Mrrvanl Arid CC: Saratoyft Ciry Go,•crnment-Building ,r 'ts F-orrr: Rob McCormick ~'~~~" Dada: I /A/p2 Re: Opinion Fensinjng to Proposed Structural Mudifieation ! am a nerd-door nei8hbor od the Azizi't, residing a 18348 Purdue Dr, Sers~to0a, CA and wars reccrntiy approached by thwm vut-err they solicited my opinion d the prr~pose~d modif'rcelion to add a st+Gxld floor and sgr~ra tootrrse to their residence. I diacua~ed with them their irrierd, reviea+uc~d ttlb blueprints Ot the proposed n-rodific~rtbn and considrrcd the. Lnpact on local ac;sihctics, property values arx11'rorn a purely self- intereatod perspective, the disruption !o my life during the corutrucripn proess. Muoh d q.K neighborhood is oomprlsed d single tsmiry, ta'rCh stylb dwoilings and th4refore the Azizi's imprn+re-rw,ttts would rriprwvrtt a derrrrture from the more usual corlatiu~on. Fian~ever, on our bbdc spec~liwa]Ij*,%K-ere are dreordy a ooupie d trouser which have rnadltlad tfiev houses to i~+vo lever structures. T1?aelnre;`.plven th® immedts4v rre+ghtrorhood, the AziZi's improvements would fd quite nicety and I bolieve y+ould.:rle~!il~s~er-t an impr+vvemerlt to the neigtlbortlood, consistent with an alrt~dy established precedent 1.-i®ve fqurid than stn-cturel inierrt to add>p the property vakres d the naighborrrood as weA. M you have eriy .questions, please eo not hesitsRe io call. My home number i# a0S~034S. r / r A1' r,1 { .~.~ t: ~ 4+t AY Yr,' •j S. ;~/•r { S v ~~ {~; _~ ~' A1A ~y~/f'f 441 [~~~{r,, { r{ K ti ,~~ `` { .., w*.. lM ...~n4yi ~fyi ~. ri~ k~Y/ CJ _h {1 4U,y i Y' • 7 OOOJ21 • To Whom It May. Concern: 18377 Purdue Drive Saratoga, CA 95070 October 27, 2001 I am writing regarding the application of my neighbors, Maryam and Siamak Azizi, for approval of their addition to then property at 18360 Purdue Drive. I would strongly w-ge tl~e approval of their addition as presented. I have seen the plans for their second story addition, and I believe that this addition will be compatible with our existing neighborhood. I have another second story addition across the street from me, and it has added to the beauty of the neighborhood. In addition, Maryam and Siamak are wonderful neighbors, always considerate, and valued homeowners by myself and others in this area. I have lived in my home on Purdue for over 40 years, andI hope that their plans will be approved as their house will beautify the neighborhood, add value to the properties in this neighborhood, and keep a wonderful family as neighbors. Thank you. Sincerely, f ~~~ /~~~. ~~ Mrs. Angie Fredrick • 0000~~ - • Sue and Dave Johnson Oct.31, 2001 18403 Purdue Dr. Saratoga, Calif. 95070 Re: Azizi home To Whom it May Concern: We have lived in our house for over 30 years and in that time we have seen many changes. Most have been for the betterment of the neighborhood and for the City of Saratoga. In walking around adjacent neighborhoods,in Saratoga, I have noticed that many houses have upgraded either by enlarging their home or by making modern improvements. This has beautified our entire neighborhoods. Across the street from us stands a beautiful two story home that once was a one story home like our own. I believe this house adds value to all homes on our street. Maryan and Siamak Azizi wish to improve and update their home by adding square footage. We have reviewed their plan and we are pleased with the design and how compatible it will fit in Sunland Park. We believe also that it to can only enhance our neighborhood and add value to our home. We would like to have our letter documented that we have no objections to the design and in fact, feel it will help increase the price of our home if some day we wish to sell. • Sincerely, .; ~ ;. Dave and Sue Johnson 18403 Purdue Dr. Saratoga, Calif. 9507Q 378-8011 000023 • • ~TR.9~'~'D DTR.S. C. CHHISTLA.\' "CHRIS" ~'~TLES 1S3G3 PL?It.DUE DRIj~E S.AR:LTOC=A, CA 93070 405.3 423S4 November 7, 2001 City of Saratoga PlannlIlg Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 RE: Azizi Falnily Remodel/Addition Dear Planning Department: Mr. and Mrs. Azizi have shared ~~~ith us their plans for a remodel and addition to their home. We have reviewed the plans and are impressed with the thought and detail that have gone into the design. We feel it ~~~ould be a ~~,~elcome improvement to the neighborhood. Very truly yours, /~ GGn,r- G%~/i.~~ GZ~. Cluis and Georgeann Niles • 00004 x' • ~ ~JJ ~J ~~ ll~'~ - d ~ d.~ ~ l g ~ ~ ~-- ~ ~ -~ ~ ~~~ ~' ~ dd~~~ ~~~ Z~ ~b f P1C~ ~( w,~ ~~~ • ~, l~ ~a1~ J ~.,yiJ i ~ lt' ~ ooo©~~ • August 28, 2002 City of Saratoga, Planning Department Re: Opinion on the proposed addition to 18360 Purdue Drive To whom ii may concern, We reside at 18372 Purdue Drive, which is nexi to the Azizi's, Saratoga. We have been asked to address any concerns we may have to the proposed modification to their existing one story home. We have reviewed the plans, which indicate addition of a second story to their residence. We believe the modifications to the Azizi's residence would improve our neighborhood aesthetically and impact our property values positively. We do not have any opposition to their proposed plans. Thank you, 'w~ ~~ ~ Bonwan and Tracy Koo 000026 • a le ~~ • ~~~ ~ o ~~ Q Al Sik Plan & Notes A2 First FlomPlaa A3 Second Floor Plan I A4 Roof Plan AS DemoL'6oaPlaa PURDU~ DRIVE A6 . SectiDna ®m , - ~ A7 Sections I~ IIII-- ~,, A8 Extinior Elevations j ~ V L ~ ~I - . R[yp~,~g. ~ A9 Exterior Elevaflons _ _ + ~ ~~ A10 Arbotist Report ~ , O C T~ ii 2 ~ ~ 2 .s}}yy: : '1~i~Pat 41. a.IQ : i SUl Survey ' ~ ~ _ _ LDP DF RDLL_6{ITTU _ f I n'TyQ ~'PR;'1T(t^. - _ _ ~.. '.~ ,. >< ~---- L ..5 BB°I212A W b7A01 ------ ~ - ) d ~--T--- ' _. >z ~ Iml k~ ~ ' x I INDEX 3 ~ ~W r I I L N~ _ ~ ~ ~ •~ I ,..,. PROtECI'ADDRESS: IA360 P d x A ~ I I I oRIV6N+lY I ur ue Drive serol9ge.CA9507o , > ~ 1 NDfB• EYV9TINg K I ~ ~ L{hID5LhPE Ta REhuaH . I A.P.N. 403.28-0]4 ® -0 ~ ~ ~ .-~.._~~ \ I I.__ _ , . I ZONEDISTR[L7: R-]-10,000 X K- ~ _: •:..-+ I k ? S10EL4N.K I PIN00. '10 pbtJNDd'p0N ~ CONSTRUCTION TYPE: Y-N . ~4 ~ 1 /• ~.. t ' ,a I GIT•(.: ( IE~~~G11CtN131"IIIF \ 3F(E F~GE. O(4'.W..S QF.. PROIECTDFSCAD'f10N: Q ~ l ---- ~---- A f-l~RP ~Id. AP~IPE f Y I This Pm)eetconddshttllemmodelendaddifionroeonealmysinglefamilydwellinginroatwo I ' / ' , . 'IfEHG~'fIFlGe,TIVN norysingle family dwelling with aiding anaehed two cargenge. ?dUII¢70Q£E ~~:.: s~ I ,% . - 1 I ' •CAllt~uuaH4 A 7 ~ ' LDT SIZE: 9,D40.W SQ. FT ,.! ~ ~! Yf ~~~ ~ 1 1 idr RdE., fi ACXh ¢~c Pt • ~EP~NED P~}T5 I . • HEN I _ FLOORAAEAS: ~xM,T M6 I bErC,ALK X~' ' ' PoRCIh 9TeR 6AR~4~E 't 6 1 ~ Exiadng First Floor, I 1,385.]0 SQ. Ft. / / , g ~~~~~"' ®~~ Exiedag Gersge: 451.10 SQ. Ff. l F 8 L I ~ VP~ I ~ ~S^ , ~ ~~ ~; _., ~...._ .__ 1gf , ./ ; .,I N - \ ' ~ ! ~ / ', ~ ! - ' ' , // TMn fi*~senvFloar r.. I.A36411 C(). Fr. First FloorAddinoo 244.495Q.Fr. NewTomlPuatPlom7,089.89SQ.FT. Second Floor Addition 841.50 SQ. Ft. I + I / ,// . 'per ~ -. ~' - Ip i; ~~ ~ ~/., Told Addition Flam Ara 1,085.99 Ft. Nea Telal Flom Atts• 79 t77~~Sp 7rf & - ~' ~~ I X60 ~URDU~ DRIVE ~ ~~ ' I' ~ i i / -Z ,, ~~ ],0405Q.Ff. Allowed minus 9l13Q. Ff. Far2fat ova l8 toot 6dght. 70l ~ Flnm Ass Ilnw n• 2 94A A SO FT Z J ( '~~ /~ ~ "TWO STORY 51N4LE •/ ~~/ FpsMILY F=ESIDE.NGE ~% i ~ I• . . EYISTIN¢ 5~9r4d~.K I /~ ,. j~~,; // ,/',/~, ~ ~ ;% ~ / . . . HameFootprmlAm, 7,089.89 SQ. Fr. Lnpemous Area 1,260.96 SQ. FT. T9W Mperviaue Area: 3 350 85 SQ RT Divided b lW 8 040 00 S F[ U , / / ADDRION !~' / . , . . . y uea , . Q. . Equile429G. W I ~ 1 W+ ~ . :'/ // ~ ./ '~~! /;~i ;/~ . ,~r~ I wi<I'oHi7.i-10.QR _ _.1'1Ph~.~.O~L.:_..:._:. _ I i I NE:W 64{•S4autxD~_. _:H~.C~..7A'1.995A4APRPFL°'( ~ a! _ _,r .,. _ _ - I p ~S ._.__ _.__...y. ..:E?!IYTIH4 I, Q'aJtA, 4 44UK14L FeET I I ~ , I DECK ' ® I l hIPJ.I PIDaf PLCOp TOT6l. 22,,D~I1.9 d •TSIbFIA)ZE' C'( -~- - ~ :~~H64'TD'tA !1 . DPLKTDDE I l i . I ~4 1 . ., ,-_... DEMOLISHED ®®~ . ..... : I ~ /~______~ I SC~fEM94TlG •PcREA~ OI>4GR~tM 5 PROJECT INFO 2 I 1 / Y I ~ m ~ •- 11_ ~ I ~ " ~ j ! ~w.k I m ,nN I - > ARGHITEGTS. MAT50N BRITTON ARGHITEGTS n 0 ®'! ac ~ r I R d Im or d ; ,o- a w ~, GOVE BRITTON LICENSE No.= G- 25616 ~ ~'~~~ ' ~ LhHDSGPIPE TD P~It. v H ~~ . wotwr u a 421 GLINTON STRE'cT ; ® t, d xAa DAeq ~ 4° a wiW 63 X25-0544 F 831-425-4"IFS I I e x ~ g a 0 OWNERS: MARIAM d SIAMAK AZIZI I 1 ~~ A lur .• r I Arxor ~ Nom ~ 18360 RURDUE DRIVE 1 ' u o r '+ox~a~s 5ARRATObA, GA 45010 - - - -- ---- --- ----- 5 PUEx.IG LITIL)TY EISGHENr I ---- AW M•IWA ~1 Q Mte A 1 - I I ---- ~ - --- H86'R12dE 67.0171--- I I ---- --- ee ° or b 4° a " ' ~IIp~/~y~p~~ ,v; ~RS 6H '~ "'" " MIA on Ay a Ln I EABR TAVE.SUITEA .SANTA CRUZ, GA 95062 4. AexMlpr ~_ (831) 425-5005 51TE PL>4N ,~ a ~ VICIhiTY MAP 4 DIRECTORY I Nfli~ON orrAwu,xn.x•, v.: ~.~~; ux, mnu mwim ' o ~IQCG I/allot. ~. I rc os 0 ~? yon A~ ~~b~ u ~ m tiao 0 a~~ ^ 0 z J ln• 0 Al /. ~, • Y~ is i~ ~. r. c e ~ ~ I I I I SiaTONI rN~>'f 1 _ I I I I I L. G,AppGE I -~w .. ~-- ~ gnTa "I"I O I ]~ ~EQ[+A?I'1 Mt I a i I i a I A9~, 21± ~NiHL 'naOM \l~~ I___ I I'I ~I I l i ,I PwM4 I o. I KlTUlrhl I I ~` ~ i E ~ ~0 +~ -- ~' y i ~ I ,T.I ~ ?. ~ , i ~ v,PCaw+~sr ili III I ~I~ ~ ~ i FAt1iLY R[»M i l l I I I-_ I I I I I I I I i~.l Inl DI:GK DDWN I 0 of ro --°---~ ~~ MflISON 0 ~~~<~ .J.~.~... ®. ni~,n>~m nun u 'O~Ch 'v,~Aa ~ a~~U yam 0 m z °~ J 0 J F- ^ A.2 t+ y • ~.. • ~ -I ` ~;• } ~, , ; ,`° ,r ~~ t~ 6 _, ~`: ~.: . I D ~I `I N! ~. n 7 7 i i 0 149-z~' (El ~_ ~q~_ZI ~ ,~ I I 1 . U ,~ i e ^ ~. t I~ B Ab i r _ '_~ 7 a¢ I; I. • ^ ~I ~~ , ~,-_ 7 ~' ~, ~` • B ~ooF P~~ N n " a i A4 ,, 0 i s I u ii INFIII EXISTIN4 WINDOW I' - - - - - -U-~ ~ ~ e e cs g. I f~ --~ -,w I - t- - I I II ~i ~L~ II L'~ ~~I r_=~ ~ 1 ~ ~_-~ • II I ~ ~-_ ~ II ~---,~ ---~ i ~ ~ ~. -----~ I. I ~ I ~------II II II J ~ IS tI I 11 II ~ I' ~I II L ~ II II II ,~ DSILL FJlISTINq i' Ii ,i WINDOW` II I' I I i lJ I II li I I 1NFIlL G%15TIN4 INGILL E%15TIN; INFILL C%157111(7 ~I sr~ucTUrrE~ -wlNDOw~ r, II wlNDOw.-~ ~/ a _____.: WALLS TO BE DEMOLI5IFED WALLS TO REMAIN I 11, y~MO~ir~or~ P~~N ~ n ' SG`tLE ~41 _ I'_pq i • ._~. .....~wHT ..._ ... ~.... .. . ° SG~t~M~tTIG SFGTION BB 2 sc~.e : ~~d . i'-o+ li 6 ~~ N i~ 72 -~ .IL ,,~ l J ~ MflISON ,..,~, _~.,,..,._~.~ ~.,..,n,.,.,. ~~uFAI~ R~NfBO Oev~IWYM~ uI111111111~I11u11111 tl ~pG I/alIOZ d u y g;o ° ~bQ~ ,~,a//~ 4 , c W ~a o ~z~~ U' Z. 1O1 ~~ ~r V ,~,n V1 II . SG4~~M~TIC SECTION ~~ ~.~ : iii ~ i'-o~ A6 r i~- • '_ ^ I _~ .Z 6~ -~16~'~. ~ f I " ~ - -- I MASTER BATN 0.05ET 1I '~ it i i H ( LrvIH n ~~ I I i .~ __: ~, Y I ~. m 5C#~M~TIG S~CTI DN DD __ n SGRIE ~4'II~~~ ` I. I Q-~`rd.~u.l I r ~ i ~ 12 6 f- -16 D 12 u Lr It ~I _ IIIT ~ 4 B gOIOM B ROOM ~ i ~n2.n i ~ ~ ~C+~~M~TIG SECTION CC ~ n N z 0 U W a r t Y d I 1 II • ~ I $ ~ ! ' fOt1P._51H NGLE: ROOF li,_ ¢ :,, If---.. ' .-... ~._.___ ..__-~ r , -----...__..... _ ~R ..~,tREA 411 p4RK TREY fOLOR (iW.~ IL IL ihl~ m COPPER GNInNEY chP ~ ir' ~ ~ 12 - ~~ IB'.o'I .. ,. w. ---- ._..---....._ . - - - ~ h r _._ ' ~ 12 - Ii - 2 I~~ + ~__ .14 .~ ..• ...__ . ~7~I1/~Yv ~ul~C ~l~ta . , .. . 4r- Iii 1"112 I ® ~ I K ' ~ ~.~:.._... w 11EThL LLAD WINDOWS --- - I ~ ,q~ ~ ~ CREAM LOLDR (TYP) ~~ ~~ I1.~ C3 ~~ ~7 Cf~NEkM cawR (Y`/PJ. Boa T ~ i ~.:~ .._ ~~ -- - ; .. , .. ~ ~ ~NTEGRl4l COU K W~ WI~ AGLEN7 D ~ ~i pAL.E 4REEH I _ o: I w ~: f ~.... • • e li V 9 T STL! -~- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ___. _....__... _.__ ..._. < ~ LLO ~ W IWTE4RAL . ~~ •'I YOIAR VALE 4REEH h- ICI r I . III I . - 1 ::.. r L11L~ I. _...._.. _ ... .. _. ~ __._, ---_._---I ~ ~P) II ~ ~ I _ 6y .845E 7fONE DETAIL ~ PAINTED WwD DfGR{{ Ii LEDyE 5TDNE IN CRtAn LDbOR NNN ~I .d4TMEAL GOlOR ~~ ~. K~TN E1~vATl UN __ n' I~ ,I '. ~ ~ ~ ~. 1 GDMP. 6141NGLE RA7P ~75P~. $_ X967 .~ YSLYY 51NL14N't5 : ,PARK LjREY (QLOR 3'LiJFs:.~r d" `--.: . .,.... .. li C -~ .- .. -~6 ~ . _. ,. . 12 - -~ ~ ~. Ii . . ._. 12 li - ~ 12 ____IIZz ...-.~. ._....__....... _....,. 121- _: .. -112 br= .. 16.._.... br- fib' ~ - ,i _._ _ r _- ,~ ~ ~ 3 car STUCCO w( .METAL LL+tD ~ 'INTE4RkL coLOF WINDOWS .' ~ ~ .I - PhLB Q!°EBN (TYPO CREAM coLDR (rrP) .. - I ~~ . -- -----._....._'. ' I~ i4 I I - i -- !5 coKf ~ucco I WITH ALLENT• ~ ~J ~ . n LLL___:::... r III-ll _-.• I i WEST ~EVATION i . _ 2 e 1 s I U D 0 A~ i ` COMP. 5HINfaLE Rp7F .~~~...~A............ ~~ p4fK yFEY LCLCR (TYP.) R 1 6 f- -- ----_._ __.. -.. ._.., r - - - I. 12 '~106R3?..1!SUILPiNG I2 ~ J -.- - - _ _ _ -CDCVGF LIYIMHEY GAN ' ~.~....~ --.- .-~.--.-.-. ___. ..' .. - -- _ -;- .. .. . .-. ^ .. _:... 4 ~• ,-...wow.... •-r-,...w~a..-.--,e:. ~y :: ~ I . I -~ . __-- -.-.__. ~: _-... _. I acoar sTUCCO w! - "" i - _.._ INreURAL caLOR - -- - x PALE f{REEN (TYP.) i -- rA,NreD wow 5, CFEAM COLOR li ~ Y F~, METAL GLADP~ I 9 LOkT 'JPUCC0 '~ ~ PIRNEDAOM (ALOK WITH ~tGGEnI' (T'YP.J -~ E49E STONE DETgIL i - ~,: LEpyESTONE IN a4TMERL' COLOR- I, ~~.. d FAST EI.E~gTI vN I _~,1 a i 7~ M~'+`i ~. ° 18'~t°S .O.H.~+~MUN N~ :._ -~.EA aHaP_.~f~.._._..-.... ~ 4~TIyAGK!a ~ ~ - :: )I 4 A.3~p..~601C1~- A -'--- ' l M.,.. ,. FCIOC'1 //~'~- ~I COPPER C41MryfiY Ckf '-f _ i 'MOAT '1TLlLCO 3 WIfH ACCCENT. ('fYP),~ i~ I ~ WCCD METAL CLkD PRO ~ ~ - -~ ~~ ~-^ I I I i ~DUTN EL1=yaT~ohl I _ __ n~ ~~: v,°-+~-~r I a ,. I A 9 e ..... ~............ ~FIAIM1INE ~ ..~.....~ .. ~' +~.8 + 81,1 i ~~ 1 Ai ~Y ~ • ,~ ,~ r n i N 5BB'72'20'N 324.41ft ~ i TO FDUNO 6TREET NONUNENT PURDUE DRIV€ _ _ _ _ _ - --'off;` ~~~ ~~ ~I I °o ', N e 91.. i rs + 91.1 +a9.z ~,p il.e -t tie.o ~A) I I 96.) O I 99.1 w ( + 9A&# s~ al vl i~ I I ~ EL-N I 96 1 I vv'.6 {~1 5L'f~B I j 1 m,F ~ _- ew.o ' ra ~ ' ~ .w... W.A .. _ ~-._ -Iz ~~-• _ _ -~.~- Y/xo-i~NE I %i YE.B 98.6 ~ I 88.7 'i i f 1i l 1 N -~ PLAAOB! - N6B'12'20'E 67 N86'I2'20'E 696. D7 Yt EET TO F U M j p ENIT __ ~_ -- t 4 98.9 OI 0 m FIgLTME +96.1 _ ~ ~ ..rt 88.5 I ~I ((~~ NITFA ME1EA ~ ~ ~~~ ' -OAF. ONLY 1~41~ OUL TN SITP G~ OFPPIi NATTNEM D. LICENSE FE t I i 1 YN ON TIR: NAP FILED IN BOON 59 OF NAPS AT PAGE 10 BANTA CLARA CALIFORNIA. FIEID NOTtl( NAS COMPLETED DN NARCX 27, 200! AXD NATTXEX NAAD OF XARD SURVEYING, SANTA CRUI, SHyDVIEEMpp IN fEET AND OECINALS TMEAEOF 1700, 4B1. TAEE " EIGHT) DR ATITHE B~A~I CU6BL ~ AT~CMEO~ IAIETI~OT tIBABEI ~~ 12' TAEE9 NETS LOCATED IN TI1E COIAiSE OF 1HI5 NOH(, 'ATION FOR THIS 9URYEY I6 AN ASSUFD 11EIOHT OF 500.0 ON THE 9HOLD A6 INOICATEO. M REYI5~9ST0 T~CCaPYCTHA~HE ORASME X~AB ~TA~TNED~E UT CERTIFTED p1IB[NAL6 ANO/M PRINT9 ARE 'XET BIBNEO'. ANY OR ~TNTS XDT 'NET SIGNED' AAE NDT RATIFIED. '~ OF TXIB MAP AID NOT CERT]FIEO. M TIRE REPORT FIX1 ANY EA6EMENTS OR OTI~R ENCUMBRANCES ERTY. SUAYEY CONTROL POINT ELECTRIC METER MANHOLE DYER-IEAD UTILITY LINE6 T191ESMOl0 UTILITY PDLE 4EPAPID 1R81EA NY DIRECTION TO TFB tlDIMAL 9TAflDARDS OF Z 4 ~~ W ~~oQ QUN ~~~ IK ~^ A QF~ NZ '~ N ~ 7- r Y~ O A~ Q O O •fl~- REVISIONS 4/16!01 A SHEET I OF I ' ITEM 3 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION i~ • Application No.: #02-197 Location: CITYWIDE Applicant/Owner: City of Saratoga Staff Planner: Thomas Sullivan, AICP Community Development Director Date: October 23, 2002 APN: N/A Department OOOQ01 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, whiche<~er is g~eater, and the minimum width of an exterior side yard of a corner lot shall be not less than n~~enty 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 be increased on a one for one ratio. If a design proposal for a house that is two story at 24-feet in height, the setbacks increase to 12-feet on both sides. The resulting structure could only be 26- feet wide. Apparently, the previous practice was to have the increased setback on the second floor only. As the Commission can read below, Section 15-45:040 simply does not support that interpretation. • 15-45.040 Setbacks. 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 we 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 both of these cases I would suggest that the ordinance be amended to require that the second story be setback be the minimum plus an additional five feet. With this amendment, I would further suggest that section 15-45.040 be deleted 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 RECOMMENDAT]ON 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 oooao2 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 e~ridence; and WHEREAS, the staff presented sufficient information required to support said application, and the following findings have been determined: • The proposed amendment ~~~ill 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 Ciry of Saratoga does hereby resolve 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 Ciry Council of the City of Saratoga: Amend Section 15-45.040 by deletion; and OOOa03 • 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 Floor Individual lndi«dual District Side Yards Side Yards R-1-10,000 10 ft. IS ft. 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. ~Sft. (a) (3) Side yards of corner lots. The minimum side yard of any corner 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-1-10,000 10 ft. ISft. 25 ft. 30 ft. R-1-12,500 10 ft. ISft. 25 ft. 30 ft. R-1-15,000 12 ft. 17ft. 25 ft. 30 fr. R-1-20,000 15 ft. 20 ft. 25 ft. 30 ft. R-1-40,000 20 ft. 25ft. 25 ft. 30 ft. • OOOa04 Amend Sections LS-12.090 (b) (2) and (3) to read (b) (2) Side yards of interior lots. The minimum side yard of any interior lot in each R-1 district shall be ten percent of the lot width, or the distance indicated 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. 1Sft. R-1-12,500 10 ft. 1Sft. R-1-15,000 12 ft. l7ft. R-1-20,000 15 ft. 20ft. 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: 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-1-12,500 10 ft. lSft. 15 ft. 20 ft. R-1-15,000 12 ft. 17ft. 15 ft. 20 ft. R-1-20,000 15 ft. 20ft. 20 ft. 25 ft. R-1-40,000 20 ft. 25ft. 25 ft. 30 ft. Amend Sections 15-65.160 (a) to read (a) Where the width of a site does not conform with the standard for the district, the minimum width of interior side yards for fast floors 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 for first floors of a corner lot shall be not less than twenty percent of the width of the site or fifteen feet, • whichever is greater. The second floor setbacks for interior and exterior lots shall be increased ~n additionalfive (S) feet. ~~~~~5 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, October 23, 2002 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary to the Planning Commission • • Q~O~~~ e `r'. L-:Y • ITEM 4 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION i~ Application No.: #02-2I0 Major Amendment to Tree Regulations Location: CI"IYWIDE Applicant/Owner: City of Saratoga Staff Planner: Thomas Sullivan, AICP Community Development Director Date: October 23, 2002 APN: N/A Department Head 000001 ~~ • Project Description For the past several months it has become increasingly clear that the City's Tree Regulations, Article 15-50 of the Saratoga Code were in need of rewrite. To many of you, it has been an issue that has been needed to be addressed for over a decade. Recently, the Planning Commission established aSub-Committee to work on updating the Tree Regulations. This Sub-Committee consisted of Lisa Kurasch, Jill Hunter, Mike Garakani and myself. Approximately ten years ago a great effort was made in this regard, the work that Commissioner Kurasch and others accomplished 10-years ago allowed the Sub-Committee to move rapidly toward having a draft ordinance before the Planning Commission for Public Hearing and recommendation to the City Council. .Article 15-SO -Tree Regulations needs to be updated and amended in order that there is sufficient clarity to allow those ~vho are affected by the regulations to understand what is expected prior to an enforcement action. Enforcement activities, when required, will be more straightforwarddne to the clarity. The revised Tree Regulations in part accomplish the following: Changes where and how tree sizes are measured to be consistent with International Society of Arborist (lSA) standards, Diameter at Breast Height (DBH) which is four and ~_ one-half feet from the ground at the high side of the tree if the ground is sloping. The revised Tree Regulations will include much expanded set of definitions. Greater detail is provided regarding minimum information to be provided on a site plan for a City Permit application. It establishes a NOTICE requirement for Tree Removal permit application. The revised regulations would provide that any pruning of a tree's crown that is greater than 20% of the crown in any single year or growth period would require a Pruning Permit. The pruning of Agricultural trees is exempt. A Pruning Permit will be required for any pruning of any tree located on a neighboring property. Excavations or hardscape surfaces are not allowed within or above the root zone of any protected tree. The revised ordinance requires the submittal of a complete free Preservation Plan. The ordinance calls for the establishment of a Tree Fund, separate and distinct from the General Fund. The ordinance increases the violation from an infi-action to a misdemeanor. A misdemeanor can always be reduced to an infraction by a Judge or dismissed by the City Attorney as part of a negotiated settlement. The revised ordinance also requires that not only do any tree trimming businesses, which remove protected trees or performs pruning on protected trees have a City Business License, but also that they have a Certified Arborist on staff in a supervisory role. 000002 w deleted from the Staff has used the bold ~talies to demonstrate hat is bung existing ordinance and what is being added to the existing ordinance. 15-05.020 Purposes of Chapter. The purposes of this Chapter shall be to promote and protect the public health, safety, peace, comfort, convenience, prosperity and general welfare, including the following more specific purposes: (a) To control the physical development of the City in such a manner as to preserve it as essentially a residential community with a rural atmosphere. (b) To achieve the arrangement of land uses depicted in the General Plan. (c) To foster a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land uses. (d) To promote the stability of existing land' uses which conform with the General Plan, and to protect them from inharmonious influences and harmful intrusions. (e) To ensure that public and private lands ultimately are used for the purposes, which are most appropriate and most beneficial from the standpoint of the City as a whole. (f) To prevent population densities in excess of those prescribed in the General Plan, and to maintain a suitable balance between structures and open. spaces on each site. (g) To ensure adequate light, air and privacy for each dwelling unit. (h) To minimize traffic congestion and to avoid the overloading of utilities by preventing the construction of buildings of excessive size in relation to the land around them. (i) To facilitate the appropriate location of community facilities and institutions. (j) To provide for adequate off-street parking and loading facilities. (k) To provide for the orderly, attractive development of commercial facilities in those areas where permitted by the General Plan. (1) To exclude new industrial development in order to preserve the essential residential character of the City. (m) To preserve natural beauty of the City. (n) To ensure that uses and structures enhance their sites and harmonize with improvements in the surrounding area. (o) To protect and enhance real property values within the City. (p) To protect and preserve heritage trees (including oaks and other significant trees) at aU times, including (but not ofrc~l property development pla~uung and implementation pro~s~s 15-45.070 Application requirements. (a) Application for design re~~iew approval shall be filed with the g Community Development Director on such form as he shall prescribe. The application shall include the following exhibits: (1) Site plan showing (i~ property lines, (v~ easements and their dimensions, (iii) underground utilities and their dimensions, (iv) structure setbacks, (v) building envelope, (vi~ topography, (vii) species, trunk diameter, canopy driplines, locations, and diameter of all trees aver-twelve measuring at least 10 inches in diameter, as measured twa~-eet at four and one-half (4 ~~ feet above natural grade (DBH), and all oaks measuring at least six inches m diameter, as measured at Tour and one-halffeet above naturalgrade (DBH), (viii areas of dense 000003 vegetation arrc~creelzs and (Ix~ riparian corridors (2) A statement of energy conserving features proposed for the project. Such features may include, but are not limited to, use of solar panels for domestic hot water or space heating, passive solar building design, insulation beyond that required under State law, insulated windows, or solar shading devices. Upon request, the applicant shall submit a solar shade study if determined necessary by the Community Development Director. (3) Elevations of the proposed structures showing exterior materials, roof materials and window treatment. (4) Cross sections for all projects located on a hillside lot, together with an aerial photograph of the site if requested by the Community Development Director. (5) Engineered grading and drainage plans, including cross sections if the structure is to be constructed on a hillside lot. (6) Floor plans that indicate total gross floor area, determined in accordance with Section 15- 06.280 of this Chapter. (7) Roof plans. (8) Landscape and irrigation plans for the site, showing the location of existing trees proposed to be retained on the site, the location and design of landscaped areas, t~ pes and quantities of landscape materials and irrigation systems, appropriate use of natives and water conserving materials and irrigation systems and aU other landscape features (9) Tree preservation plan, as required in Article 15-50.130. {~j (10) Preliminary title report showing all parties having any interest in the property and any easements, encumbrances and restrictions which benefit or burden the property. -(~a) (11) such additional exhibits or information as may be required by the ~ ' Communvty Development Director. All exhibits shall be drawn to scale, dated and signed by the person preparing the exhibit. Copies of all plans to be submitted shall consist of two sets drawn on sheets eighteen inches by twenty-eight inches in size and eleven reduced sets on sheets eleven inches by seventeen inches in size. frl-) (12) a geotechnical clearance as defined in Section 15-06.325 of this Code, if required by the City Engineer. ~ (a) the application shall be accompanied by the payment` of a processing fee, in such amount as established from time to time by resolution of the City Council. (Amended by Ord. 71-106 4 9, 1992) 15-45.080 Design Review findings. The Planning Commission shall not grant design review approval unless it is able to make the following findings: (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. (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 minim;z;ng 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. 000004 (c) Preserve oaks and heritage trees All heritage trees designated for protection pursuant to Section IS-50.020 (I) shaD be preserved All oak trees designated for protection pursuant to Section 15-50.050 shall be preserved or, given the constraints of the property, the number approved for removal shall be reduced to an absolute minimum. Removal of any smaller oak trees deemed to be in good health by the City Arborist shall be minimized using the criteria set forth m Section IS-50.050. fc-j (d) 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 natural em~ironment. {tlj (e) 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 (i) unreasonably impair the light and air of adjacent properties nor (ii) unreasonably impair the ability of adjacent properties to utilize solar energy. fe) (~ Current grading and erosion control methods. The proposed site development or grading plan incorporates current grading and erosion control standards used by the City. -(f3 (g) 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 Handbook and as required by Section 15-45.055. (Amended by Ord. 71.99 4 27,1991) 15-46.030 Application requirements. (a) Application for design review approval shall be filed with the Community Development Director on such form, as he shall prescribe. The application shall include the following exhibits: (I) Site plan showing (i) property lines, (v) easements and their dimensions, (iv) underground utilities and their dimensions, (iv) structure setbacks, (v) building envelope, (vi) topography, (vii) species, trunk diameter, canopy driplines, locations, and diameter ofall trees ~mertwtlv+e measuring at (east 10 inches in diameter, as measured twofeet at four and one-half (4 ~) feet above natural grade (DBH), and aU oaks measuring at least six inches m diameter, as measured at four and one-half feet above natural grade (DBH), (viii) areas of dense vegetation an~~ and (ix) riparian corridors (2) Architectural drawings or sketches showing all elevations of the proposed structures as they will appear upon completion. All exterior surfacing materials and their colors shall be specified, and the size, location, material, colors and illumination of all signs shall be indicated. (3) A landscape and irrigation plan for the site, showing the locations of existing trees proposed to be retained on the site, ' ,types and quantities oflandscape trees, plants and materials and irrigation systems, appropriate use of native, and water conserving plants and materials and imgation systems, and all other landscape features. (4) Cross sections for all projects located on a hillside lot. (5) Engineered grading and drainage plans, including cross sections if the structure is to be constructed on a hillside lot. (6) Floor plans showing total gross floor area, determined in accordance with Section 15-06.280 of this Chapter. • (7) Roof plans. (8) Such additional exhibits or information as may be required by the ~0~~05 Community Development Director or the Planning Commission. All exhibits shall be drawn to scale, dated and signed by the person preparing the exhibit. Copies of all plans to be submitted shall consist of two sets drawn on sheets eighteen inches by twenty-eight inches in size and ten sets on sheets eleven inches by eighteen inches in size. (b) The application shall be accompanied by the payment of a processing fee, in such amount as established from time to time by resolution of the City Council, together with a deposit toward the expense of noticing the public hearing as determined by the Community Development Director. 15-46.040 Design criteria. In reviewing applications for design review approval under this Article, the Planning Commission shall be guided by the following criteria: (a) Where more than one building or structure will be constructed, the architectural features and landscaping thereof shall be harmonious. Such features include height, elevations, roofs, material, color and appurtenances. (b) Where more than one sign will be erected or displayed on the site, the signs shall have a common or compatible design and locational positions and shall be harmonious in appearance. (c) Landscaping shaUmtegrate and accommodate existing trees and vegetation to be preservea~• it shall make use of water-conserving plants, materials and irrigation systems to the maximum extent feasible; and to the maximum extent feasible, it shall be clustered in natural appearing groups, as opposed to being placed in rows or regularly spaced. (d) Colors of wall and roofing materials shall blend with the natural landscape and be nonreflective. (e) Roofing materials shall be wood shingles, wood shakes, tile, or other materials such as composition as approved by the Planning Commission. No mechanical equipment shall be located upon a roof unless it is appropriately screened. (f) The proposed development shall be compatible in terms of height, bulk and design with other structures in the immediate area. Article 15-SO TREE REGULATIONS 15-50.010 Findings; purposes of Article: 15-50.020 Definitions. 15-50.030 Application of Article. 15-50.040 Street trees. 15-50.050 Removal of certain trees without permit. 15-50.060 Exceptions. 15-50.070 Application for permit. 15-50.80 Determination on permit. ~Q~~o~s 15-50.090 ~-Development or improvement projects 15-50.100 -qty. Appeals 15-50.110 . No liability upon City 15-50.120 .-Setback ofnew construction. 15-50.130 Tree Preservation Plan 15.50.140 AppL"cation of ISA Pruning Standards IS.SO-150 Adoption of Guidelines 15.50-]60 Tree Fund 15.50-170 Enforcement IS.SO-180 Violations; penalties and remedies IS.SO-190 Tree Companies Operating In the City 15.50-200 Possc;ssion ofan Approved Tree Removal Permit • 15-50.010 Findings; purposes of Article. The City Council finds that the Ciry is primarily a residential community; that the economics of property values is inseparably connected with the rural attractiveness of the area, much of which is attributable to the wooded hillsides and the native and ornamental trees scattered located throughout the City; that the preservation of such trees is necessary for the health, safety and welfare of the residents of the City in order to preserve scenic beauty, prevent erosion of topsoil, protect against flood hazards and the risk of landslides, counteract pollutants in the air, maintain the climatic balance and decrease wind velocities. ' _r `'-' ~ti~iC t~ CJ Id ULIJll dlIdL1U11, J11d11JLC11d11~.C, 1J1~.Jl.l~G~UV11 a~iu l~.~uv.w vi a...,...J ••,..,,...., ...... ~.-.~), To complement and strengthen zoning, subdivision and other land use standards and regulations, while at the same time recognizing the rights and privileges of private property ownership, the City Council adopts this ordinance to establish basic standards and measures for the maintenance, removal, and replacement of heritage or protected trees Thus, this ordinance is designed to provide a stable and sustainable urban forest to preserve and protect sign cant historical heritage values, and to enhance the unique aesthetic character and environment of this City. 15-50.020 Definitions. For the purposes of this Article, the following words and phrases shall have the meanings 00~~0~ respectively ascribed to them by this Section, unless the context or the provision clearly requires otherwise: (a) `Approving body, "means any one of the folloH~ng.-. City Council, Planning Commission, or the Community Development Director. (b) `:4gricultural tree, "means any fruit or nut tree planted !n an orchard for commercial Purposes (c) "Arborist Repvrt" means a report prepared by a cued arborist containing specific information on the location, condition, structure, potential impacts of develvpment, and recommended actions and mitigation measures regarding one or mute trees on an individual Iot or project site. (c) "Bond or security deposit" means a financial instrument which guarantees a future condition and includes an irrevocable letter of credit, a passbook or cash. (d) "DBH" means diameter at breast height. It is the diameter of a single stem trunk tree measured at four and one-half (4 ~) feet alx7ve theground while standing on the high side of the tree. The diameter may be calculated using the following formula: Diameter =Circumference /3.142 To measure trees with multi-stem trunks, the tree diameter equals the full diameter of the largest trunk plus SO°6 of the diameter of all ether trunks on the tree; each trunk is measured at four and one-half (4 ~) feet above the ground while standing on the high side of the tree. (e) "Damage"means any direct or indirect action undertaken which causes short term or long term injury, death, or disfigurement to a tree. This includes, but is not limited to.• cutting of rvvts or limbs, poisoning, over-watering, relocation, or transplanting a tree, or trenching, grading, compaction, excavating or covering with hardscape or impervious surface within the root zone ofa tree. (~ "Destroy" means to cause the premature decline of tree health or life as evaluated and determined by the CityArborist. (g) "Driplme"means the outermost edge of the tree's canopy. When depicted on a map or plan, the driplme shall appear as an rrr b ular shaped circle that follows the contour of the tree's branches as seen from overhead (h) "Encroachment"means any intrusion yr human activity occurring within the root <-one ofa tree, including, but not limited to structural pruning in excess of ISA Standards, grading, excavating, trenching, parking of vehicles, storage of materials or equipment (whether temporary or permanent), yr the construction of structures or other improvements within the rootzoneofa tree (i) "Heritage tree"means any tree designated pursuant to Section 15-50.050. (j) "ISA Pruning Standards" or "Pruning Standards"means the most current edition of those pruning standards estabL"shed by the Western Chapter of the International Society of Arboriculture dated 1994, as revised by the Society from time to time. (k) "Oak tree"or "Oak "means any native oak tree of the Genus Quercus, as further described in the Tree Preservation and Protection Guidelines, regardless ofsrze. This definition shall not include oak trees planted, grown and held for sale by licensed nurseries or the first removal or transplanting of such trees pursuant to and as part of the operation of a licensed nursery ooooos business. (k) "Project site"means the site of the proposed tree removal, encroachment or development activity. (I) "Protected tree, "means any tree as listed in Section 15-50.050. (m) "Pruning" means any and all work performed on or adversely affecting the roots, branches or limbs ofa protected tree. (n) "Removal" means the physical removal of a tree, damaging a tree, or encroaching on the root zone of a tree. (o) "Root zone" means the area surrounding a tree that extends from the trunk of the tree outward to no kss than fjve (S) feet beyond the dripline of the tree or further as determined by the City Arborist. When shown on a map the root zone shall appear as an irregularly shaped circle. (p) "Routine maintenance" means actions needed for the continued good health of a tree including, but not limited to, removal of deadwood, insect control spraying and watering. f d) (q) "Shrub" means a bushy, woody plant, usually with several permanent stems, and usually not over fifteen feet high at maturity. The ~'lanmmg~irectnr CityArborist shall determine whether any specific woody plant shall be considered a tree or a shrub. fc) (r) "Street tree" means any tree within the Public Street or right-of-way. f aj (s) "Tree" means a woody perennial plant characterized by ha~~ing a main stem or trunk, or a multi-stemmed trunk system with a more or less definitely formed crown, and is usually over ten feet high at maturity. This definition shall not include trees planted, grown and held for sale by licensed nurseries or the first removal or transplanting of such trees pursuant to and as part of the operation of a licensed nursery business. (t) "Tree fund" mc~ns City-held funds accounted for sYparatcly from other City funds: The express functions of the Tree fund are: (1) To receive and hold any fines, penahy assessments, civil penalties, bonds or other remedial funds or sources of funds for violations of Amclel5-SO of this code; (2) To recei ve and hold monetary valuations and payments for replacement trees pursuant to Section IS-50.160 or IS-50.180, as prc~cribed by the Communty Drwclopment Director, or as a condition of devc:lopmcnt appro~ al,~ and (3) To pay for new or replacement trees, their planting and maintenance, as determined by the Community Development Director, on public propcrtie~ streets, easements and dc~rlicatcd open seams (s) "Tree Preservation and Protective Guidelines" means any administrative procedures and rules established by the Community Development Director for implementing this Article IS- SO of the City Code. (t) "Tree Preservation Plan" mc~ns a detailed plan containing all protective measures to be implemented before, during, anal, after construction activities including provision for future maintenance, to preserve and protect all trees to be retained on any project site. 15-50.030 Application of Article. This Article shall apply to every owner of real property within the City, and to every person responsible for removing, damaging, or pruning a tree regardless of whether such person is engaged in a business for such purpose. 15-50.040 Street trees. (a) Policies and standards. The Planning Director shall implement policies and standards for 000009 street tree planting and maintenance as established from time to time by resolution of the Planning Commission or City Council. (b) Planting required condition of approval. The planting of street trees may be required as a condition of any approval granted under this Chapter. (c) Responsibility for maintenance. The City shall provide maintenance for street trees located within a commercial district and on arterial roads, unless such maintenance responsibility has been assumed by a property owner or other person under a landscape maintenance agreement with the City. In all other areas of the City, the City shall not conduct but shall control the planting, maintenance and removal of street trees and shrubs which might affect the public right- of-way; the owner or occupant of such property shall be responsible for the maintenance of street trees on the property and in the public right-of-way abutting the property. 15-50.050 Removal of certain trees without permit. Except as otherwise pro~rided in Section 15-50.060, it is unlawful for any person to destroy, remove, encroach upon or cause to be destroyed, removed, or encroached upon any protected tree upon, located on any private or public property in the City without first having obtained a permit to do so issued pursuant to this Article. A protected tree shall consist of any of the following: (~) (a) any oak tree with a trunks measurement - six (6) inches DBH or greater. f aj (b) any other tree with a--Tnairt trunk measurement of .ten (10) inches DBH or greater. (c) Any street tree, as defined in Section 15-50.020 f cj (s~, regardless of size. (d) Any heritage tree, as defined in Subsection 15-50.050 regardless of size. {~j (e~ any tree that existed at the time of an approval granted under this Chapter or Chapter 14 of this Code and required to be preserved as part of such approval. -(-e~ (~ any tree required to be planted as a condition of any approval granted under this Chapter or Chapter 14 of this Code. {fj (g) any tree required to be planted as a replacement , as provided ' Subsection 15-50.160 or 15-50.180 of this Article. 15-50.060 Exceptions. The permit requirement set forth in Section 15-50.050 shall not apply to any of the following: (a) Emergencies. If the condition of a tree presents an immediate hazard to life or property, it may be removed without a permit on order of the City Manager, ,the Public Works Director, the Community Development Director, their designated representatives, or a Peace Officer, or fire department having jurisdiction. , _ ., ,_ fcj (b) Public utilities.yPublic utilities subject to the jurisdiction of the State Public Utilities Commission may without a permit take such action as may be necessary to comply with the safety regulations of the Commission and as may be necessary to maintain a safe operation of ~~~~~~ their facilities. {-~) (c) Project approval. Where removal of a protected tree or encroachment on one or more protected trees has been authorized as part of any project approval granted under this Chapter or Chapter 14 or 16of this Code, no permit pursuant to this Article shall be required for rrrrroval Bch-tree; such acti«ry, provided, . the Community Development Director determines in writing that the substantive requirements of this Section IS-S0.080(a) have been met, including completion of an Al-borlst Report, and if necessary completion ofa Tree Preservation Plan and posting of a security deposit and/or maintenance bond Any protected tree authorized for removal or encroachment without permits and pursuant to such project approval shaUnot be removed or encroached upon, until the issuance ofa building orgrading permit for the improvements, which are subject of the project approval. 15-50.070 Application for permit. (a) Application for a tree removal or pruning permit shall be made to the Community Development Director on such form as he may prescribe. The application shall contain the number and location of each tree to be removed, the type and approximate size of the tree, the reason for removal, and such additional information as the Director may require. The application shall be signed by the owner of the property upon which the tree is Located and if the applicant is not the ou~er of said property shall include a statement that the owner S consents to the activity described on the permit application. Notice shall be given to all adjoining properties at the time of application at Least IO days before a decision on the permit applicationls made. (b) Pruning Pelmit.~ A permit is required for structural pruning In crcess ofISA Pruning Standards defined earlier) during anygivengrowth perivdvrsea`son oryear) ofanyprvtected tree. Pruning shall not exceed 203'0 of the crown. No pernvt is required for structural prur'ng, which complies with ISA Pruning Standards, or fc~r the pruning vfagricultural trees A perlnit is requil ed for the any pruning o ofa protected tree located vn a neighboring property. 15-50.080 Determination on permit. (a) Criteria. Each application for a tree removal or pruning permit shall be reviewed and determined on the basis of the following criteria: (1) The condition of the tree with respect to disease, imminent danger of falling, proximity to existing or proposed structures and interference with utility services. (2) .The necessity to remove the tree because of physical damage or threatened damage to improvements or other developed features on the property. (3) The topography of the land and the effect of the tree removal upon erosion, soil retention and the diversion or increased flow of surface waters, on slopes_exceeding20percent. (4) The number, species, size and location of existing trees in the area and the effect the removal would have upon shade, privacy impact, scenic beauty, property values '~ . ,erosion control, and thegeneral welfare ofresidents m the area. (S) The age and Thee number of healthy trees the property is able to support according to good forestry practices. 00001 (6) Whether or not there are any alternatives that would allow for retaining or not f encroaching on the protected trees (7) Whether the approval of the request would be contrary to or in conflict with thegeneral purpose and intent of tlvs Article. (8) Any other infoil-nation relevant to the public health, safety or general welfare, including, if found appropizate, information obtained at a public hearing. (b) Additional recommendations. The Community Development Director may refer the application to another department, commission or person for a report and recommendation. The Director may also require the applicant to furnish a written report from an - ISA Certified Arborist acceptable. to the Director, such report to be obtained at the expense of the applicant. In the case of construction-related requests, city Arborist review and approval may be required before any permit for removal or encroachment is issued or before approval for a project involving the removal or encroachment of one or more protected trees isgranted (c) Decision by Director. The Community DevelopmentDirectorsh.all render his decision within thirty days (30) after the filing of the application. for a permit. The Director may grant or deny the application or grant the same with conditions, including, but not limited to, (1) the condition that one or more replacement trees be planted of a species and size and at locations as designated by the Director. , (2) relocation of existing tree desired to be removed and/or (3) payment of a fee or posting of a bond or security deposit in favor of the City to the Tree Fund pursuant to Section IS-50.130. Any such - -d tree replacement or relocation shall beat the sole expense of the applicant. (d) Security deposits and maintenance bonds In the case of an application for, or a project involving encroachment on one or more protected trees, the applicant shall post a ilife -~s-h security deposit with the City in an amount equal to I00 % of the ISA valuation of the trees involved The City may also require posting ofa maintenance bond of up to five_ years designed to ensure long term maintenance of the affected or replacement trees Security deposits or maintenance bonds.required for protected trees in public or private development may, in the reasonable dr"scretion of the Community Development Director be refunded based on a determination that the project is in compliance with the City Arborist's requirements and/or the Tree Preservation Plan. In the case of violations of this Article or where replacement, restitution or other remedy required pursuant to 415-50.180 cannot be made. on the project .site, then such payments shall be made from the deposit or bond being held before any refund is made., 15-50.090 Development or improvement projects (a) Subdivision approval. When any application is made pursuant to Chapter 14 and that proposal would involve removal of or encroachment on a protected tree, the City shall take into consideration the provisions of this article m granting or denying the application. (b) Project approval. Removal of or encroachment on any protected trees pursuant to project approval granted under this Chapter or Chapters 14 orl6 of this Code shall meet the requirements of X15-50.130. (c) Momcations to approved projects In the event of any change or mod cation to an approved site development plan which results in removal of or an increase in encroachment on any protected tree, the provisions of this Article shall apply. 000012 • i5=56015-50.100 Appeals. (a) Facept otherwise pro~~ided in subsection (b) of this Section, any person objecting to a decision by the Community Development Director made pursuant to any of the provisions of this Article, may appeal such decision to the Planning Commission in accordance with the procedure set forth in Article 15-90 of this Chapter. Notwithstanding the pro~risions of Section 15-90.020, the decision of the Planning Commission shall be final and no further appeal may be taken to the City Council . (b) Where. an application for a tree removal permit has been granted and the ' Community Development Director determines that the tree in question presents a clear and immediate threat of causing injury to persons or property, the 3~laimin~Hn~ector Community Development Director may issue the tree removal permit prior to expiration of the appeal period specified in Section 15-90.050 of this Chapter. ~5=5886 15-50.110 No liability upon City. Nothing in this Article shall be deemed to impose any liability upon the City or upon any of its officers or employees, nor to relieve the owner or occupant of any private property from the duty to keep in safe condition any trees and shrubs upon his property or upon a public right-of-v~~ay over his property. ~~=~.~~8 15-50.120 Setback of new construction from existing trees. No structure ,excavation or impervious surface areas of any kind shall be constructed or installed within the root zone ofanyprotected tree, unless otherwise permitted by the City pursuant to this Article. No parking, storing of vehicles, equipment or other materials shall be permitted within the root zone of any protected tree without special design considerations being approved of by the Community Development Director and the CityArborist. 15-50.130 Arborist Report An Arborist Report shall be required for any application for discretionary development approval that would requu-e the removal of one or more trees protected by this Chapter and for other projects where the Community Development Director determines it rs necessary. IS-50.190 Tree Preservation Plan (a~ A Tree Preservation Plan shall be required for any project approved pursuant to Chapters 14,15 and 16 of the Code on any site on which an Arborist Report is prepared (b) The Tree Preservation Plan shall consist of a separate detailed plan drawn to a sufficient scale (but no larger that 20 feet to the inch, with any details to be shown at least 10 feet to the inch) to clearly indicate all protection and mitigation measures to be taken, as required m the Tree Preservation and Protection Guidelines, the Community Development Director and the Arborist Report for the project. (c) When a project has been submitted for approval pursuant to Chapters 14,15, or 16, them shall be 000013 no permits issued for grading or site improvements unto] a Tree Preservation Plan for the project has been approved by the City and the required protection measures are determined to be in place through City inspection. Protection measures required shall remain in place for the duration of the construction activity at the project site, or as otherwise required by the City and shall not be removed until authorized by the City. . (d) The Tree Preservation Plan and any permits for tree removal shall be maintained at the project site at all times during construction activities and until all work has been completed inspected and approved by the City. (e) At least three scheduled inspections shall be made by the City to ensure compliance with the Tree Preservation Plan. The inspections shall, at a minimum include the following. (1) Initial ]nspection prlvr to any construCtlOn or grading, (2) After completion of rough grading and/or trenching, and- (3) Completive of all work including planting and irrigation system installation; and any others, as required by the City. IS-50.160 Tree Fund (a) Purpose and source of funds A tree preservation fund shall be established for the City for the purpose specified in Section IS-50.020 (u). The Tree Fund shall be funded by those fines, penalties, or other remedial payments which may be assessed by courts or administratively imposed, including, but not limited to those provided for ]n Chapter 3 of this Code for violations of this Article. In addition, payment-s required for replacement trees pursuant to Section 15-50.180, as prescribed by the Community Development Dlrector,'or as a condition of development approval, or from payments made from a security deposit or bond shall beheld ]n the Tree Fund and used to purchase new and replacement trees .The Community Development Director and the City Arborist shall determine the selection, planting and location ofanysuch trees (b) Tree valuation. Lawfully removed trees to be replaced as a condition. of development approval shall be valued and their removal compensated for as follows• Trees replaced on or off site according to good forestry practices, shall provide, ]n the opinion of the Community Development Director, equivalent value in terms ofaesthetic and environmental quality, size, height, location, appearance, and other significant beneficial characteristics of the removed tree/s The City Arborist shall calculate the value of the removed tree/s in accordance with the latest edition of the ISA Tree Valuation Formula. 15-50.170 F_nforcement (a) General. The City shall vigorously enforce the provisions of this Article. Inspectors shall, in the course of their regular duties, monitor construction activities Any observed violations shall be immediately reported to the Community Development Director for follow-up action. (b) Stop work orders Whenever any activities are 111 violation of the provisions of this Article, the Guidelines, applicable tree permit/s, Tree Preservation Plans, or other conditions of project approval, a Building Inspector, Public Works Director, Community Service Officer, or Community Development Director shall issue a written notice to stop work on the project for which a violation has occurred The notice shall state the nature of the violation or danger and a zJVw with the exception of ordered remediation, no work shall be allowed to proceed until the 000014 violation has been rectified and any remaining activity has been approved by the City. ~5~i~6 15-50.180 Violations; penalties. The violation of any pro~rision contained in this Article is hereby declared to be unlawful and shall constitute a misdemeanor (unless in the discretion of the enforcing authority charged and prosecuted as an infraction pursuant to Section 3-05.010(b)) and a public nuisance, subject to the penalties or remedies as pi-estl-i$cd described in Chapter 3 of this Code and any other remedies authorized by the City Code, including, but not limited to the following: (a) Requirement that the violator retroactively obtain a permit for the unlawful tree removal IIr c-rncro-arlnn~rt performed and the conditioning of such permit on replacing each unlawfully removed or damaged tree with one or more new trees which can be accommodated on the site of the violation according to good forestry practices anc~ in the opinion of the Community Development Director, will provide equivalent value in terms of aesthetic and environmental quality, m-tcrrnsof size, height, location, appearance and other characteristics of the unlawfully removed tree. The City Arborist shall calculate the value of the removed tree/sin accordance with the latest edition of the ISA Tree Valuation Formula (b) Where replacement trees wil}-rrot cannot be accommodated on site according to good forestry practices, or cannot provide equivalent aesthetic or environmental quality becaase of the removed tree/s on site, the ~~irrrtor City Arborist shall calculate the value of the removed tree/s, in accordance with Sect'on IS-S0.120(a). Upon the determination of. such value, the miming--Hiz'ertoi' Community Development Director may condition such retroactive permit on requiring either the planting of replacement trees. as ,off site, or a cash payment to the City Tree Fund or any combination thereof, in accordance with the foIlowing: (1~ To the extent that the planting of replacement trees is required, the retail cost of such trees, as shown by documentary evidence satisfactory to the ~Yann " Community Development Director, shall be offset against the value of the removed tree, but no credit shall begiven for transportation, installation, maintenance and other costs incidental to the planting and care of the replacement trees; and (2) To the extent that a cash payment is required for any portion or all of the value of the removed tree, such payment shall be doubled to reflect the estimated installation costs that would be incurred if replacement trees are planted. - , (c) Any person who is required to plant replacement trees pursuant to subsections (a) or (b) of this Section shall permanently maintain such trees in a good and healthy condition, as-d~-minecl . for a minimum off ve (S) years to ensure permanent establishment of any such tree/s, as determined by the City Arborist. Such person shaUpost a maintenance bond In a form prescribed by the Community Development Director and execute a maintenance agreement with the City, which shall be recorded in the ~oooo1s office of the County Recorder. (d) Pa}anent (to the ea~ent authorized by law and determined appropriate by the Community Development Director) of any crvninal, civil, administrative or other penalty or restitution order into the Tree Fund (e) The violation of any provision contained in this Article during the conduct by any person of a tree removal, structural pruning, landscaping, construction or other business in the City shall constitute grounds for revocation of any business license issued to such person. (Amended by Ord. 71.86 4 3,1990; Ord. 71-]06 4 ]0,1992) 1S-SU.190 Tree Companies Operating In the City Any business, which performs structural prunng or rs ee removal on protected trees in the City, must be In possession of a Saratoga buslnc~s license must have an ISA cued Arborist on staff; which an Arborist is In a supervisory position for the ac~comph"shment ofsuch work and must be m possession ofan appro-~d Tree Rcmo~~l or,Fncruachment Permit when performing such Kirk. 15.50-200 Possession ofan Approved Tree Removal Permit Any person engaging in any conduct requiring a Tree Removal Permit shaUhave in his or her possession a copy of the approved Tree Removal Permit pertaining to said activity. Llpon request of a peace officer, City of Saratoga Cvde Enforcement Officer or other City Official the person engaging in the referenced conduct shall prvduce for inspection the approved Tree Removal Permit. If the person cannot produce an approved Tree Removal permit all tree removal activity shall be suspended until a permit can be produced or obtained from the Community Development Department. This section shall be m addition to and not limit any other remedies a vailable to the City under law. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the Resolution recommending the City Council adopt the proposed amendments to Article L5-S0, TREE REGULATIONS. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution • ooooss Attachment 1 • APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION No. CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has determined that major re~~isions to the City of Saratoga Tree Regulations are needed; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing at which time all interested pames were given a fu- opportunity to be heard and to present e~~idence; and WHEREAS, the materials submitted has met the burden of proof required to support said amendments, and the fol]owing findings have been determined: ^ The proposed amendments are consistent with the objectives of the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance >n that the re~~ised regulations further the protection of Oaks and other trees of significance, and That the proposed amendments to the Tree Regulations will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, nor be materially injurious to the properties or improvements in the vicinity because they further the protections of Oak and other trees of significance. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: That the City Council adopt the following Amendments to portions of Articles 15-05,15- 40,15-45, L5-50, LS-70, of the Saratoga Code, as follows: 15-05.020 Purposes of Chapter. The purposes of this Chapter shall be to promote and protect the public health, safety, peace, comfort, convenience, prosperity and general welfare, including the following more specific purposes: (a) To control the physical development of the City in such a manner as to preserve it as essentially a residential community with a rural atmosphere. (b) To achieve the arrangement of land uses depicted in the General Plan. (c) To foster a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land uses. 00001'7 (d) To promote the stability of existing land uses which conform with the General Plan, and to protect them from inharmonious influences and harmful intrusions. (e) To ensure that public and private lands ultimately are used for the purposes, which are most appropriate and most beneficial from the standpoint of the City as a whole. (f) To prevent population densities in excess of those prescribed in the General Plan, and to maintain a suitable balance between structures and open spaces on each site. (g) To ensure adequate light, air and privacy for each dwelling unit. (h) To minim~e traffic congestion and to avoid the overloading of utilities by preventing the construction of buildings of excessive size in relation to the land around them. (i) To facilitate the appropriate location of community facilities and institutions. (j) To provide for adequate off-street parking and loading facilities. (k) To provide for the orderly, attractive development of commercial facilities in those areas where permitted by the General Plan. (1) To exclude new industrial development in order to preserve the essential residential character of the City. (m) To preserve natural beauty of the City. (n) To ensure that uses and structures enhance their sites and harmonize with improvements in the surrounding area. (o) To protect and enhance real property values within the City. (p) To protect and preserve heritage trees (including oaks and other significant trees) at all times, including (but not of real property development plaruiing and implementation processes. 15-45.070 Application requirements. (a) Application for design review approval shall be filed with the Community Development Director on such form as he shall prescribe. The application shall include the following exhibits: (1) Site plan showing (i) property lines, (ii) easements and their dimensions, (iu) underground utilities and their dimensions, (iv) structure setbacks, (v) building envelope, (vi) topography, (vii) species, trunk diameter, canopy driplines, locations, anal diameter of all trees measuring at least 10 inches in diameter, as measured at four and one-half (4 ~i) feet above natural grade (DBH), and all oaks measuring at ]east six inches in diameter, as measured at four and one-half feet above natural grade (DBH), (viii) areas of dense vegetation and (ix) riparian corridors. (2) A statement of energy conserving features proposed for the project. Such features may include, but are not limited to, use of solar panels for domestic hot water or space heating, passive solar building design, insulation beyond that required under State law, insulated windows, or solar shading devices. Upon request, the applicant shall submit a solar shade study if determined necessary by the Community Development Director. (3) Elevations of the proposed structures showing exterior materials, roof materials and window treatment. (4) Cross sections for all projects located on a hillside lot, together with an aerial photograph of the site if requested by the Community Development Director. ~ be (S) Engineered grading and drainage plans, including cross sections if the structure is to constructed on a hillside lot. (6) Floor plans that indicate total gross floor area, determined in accordance with Section 15- 06.280 of this Chapter. (7) Roof plans. (8) Landscape and irrigation plans for the site, showing the location of existing trees proposed to 000018 be retained on the site, the location and design of landscaped areas, types and quantities of landscape materials and irrigation systems, appropriate use of natives and water conserving materials and irrigation systems and all other landscape features. (9) Tree preservation plan, as required in Article L5-50.130. (10) Preliminary title report showing all parties having any interest in the property and any easements, encumbrances and restrictions, which benefit or burden the property. (11) such additional exhibits or information as may be required by the Community Development Director. All exhibits shall be drawn to scale, dated and signed by the person preparing the exhibit. Copies of all plans to be submitted shall consist of two sets drawn on sheets eighteen inches by twenty-eight inches in size and eleven reduced sets on sheets eleven inches by seventeen inches in size. (12) a geotechnical clearance as defined in Section 15-06.325 of this Code, if required by the City Engineer. (a) the application shall be accompanied by the payment of a processing fee, in such amount as established from time to time by resolution of the City Council. (Amended by Ord. 71-106 4 9, 1992) 15-45.080 Design Review findings. The Planning Commission shall not grant design review approval unless it is able to make .the following findings: (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. (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. (c) Preserve oaks and heritage trees. All heritage trees designated for protection pursuant to Section 15-50.020 (]) shall be preserved. All oak trees designated for protection pursuant to Section 15-50.050 shall be preserved, or, given the constraints of the property, the number approved for removal shall be reduced to an absolute minimum. Removal of any smaller oak trees deemed to be in good health by the City Arborist shall be minimized using the criteria set forth in Section 15-50.050. (d) Minimize perception of excessive bulk. The proposed main or accessory structure in relation to structures on adjacent lots, and to the surrounding region, will min;mize the perception of excessive bulk and will be integrated into the natural environment. (e) 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 (i) unreasonably impair the light and air of adjacent properties nor (ii) unreasonably impair the ability of adjacent properties to utilize solar energy. (f) Current grading and erosion control methods. The proposed site development or grading plan incorporates current grading and erosion control standards used by the City. ~~00019 (g) 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 Handbook and as required by Section 15-45.055. (Amended by Ord. 71.99 4 27,1991) 15-46.030 Application requirements. (a) Application for design review approval shall be filed with the Community Development Director on such form, as he shall prescribe. The application shall include the following exhibits: (1) Site plan showing (i) property lines, (ii) easements and their dimensions, (iii) underground utilities and their dimensions, (iv) structure setbacks, (v) building envelope, (vi) topography, (vii) species, trunk diameter, canopy driplines, locations, and diameter of all trees measuring at least 10 inches in diameter, as measured at four and one-half (4 ~i) feet above natural grade (DBH), and all oaks measuring at least six inches in diameter, as measured at four and one-half feet above natural grade (DBH), (viii) areas of dense vegetation and (ix) riparian corridors. (2) Architectural drawings or sketches showing all elevations of the proposed. structures as they will appear upon completion. All exterior surfacing materials and their colors shall be specified, and the size, location, material, colors and illumination of all signs shall be indicated. (3) A landscape and irrigation plan for the site, showing the locations of existing trees proposed to be retained on the site, types and quantities of landscape trees, plants and materials and irrigation systems, appropriate use of native, and water conserving plants and materials and irrigation systems, and all other landscape features. (4) Cross sections for aIl projects located on a hillside lot. (5) Engineered grading and drainage plans, including cross sections if the structure is to be constructed on a hillside lot. (6) Floor plans showing total gross floor area, determined in accordance with Section 15-06.280 of this Chapter. (7) Roof plans. (8) Such additional exhibits or information as may be required by the Community Development Director or the Planning Commission. All exhibits shall be drawn to scale, dated and signed by the person preparing the exhibit. Copies of all plans to be submitted shall consist of two sets drawn on sheets eighteen inches by twenty-eight inches in size and ten sets on sheets eleven inches by eighteen inches in size. (b) The application shall be accompanied by the payment of ~a processing fee, in such amount as established from time to time by resolution of the City Council, together with a deposit toward the expense of noticing the public hearing as determined by the Community Development Director. 15-46.040 Design criteria. In reviewing applications for design review approval under this Article, the Planning Commission shall be guided by the following criteria: (a) Where more than one building or structure will be constructed, the architectural features and landscaping thereof shall be harmonious. Such features include height, elevations, roofs, material, color and appurtenances. (b) Where more than one. sign will be erected or displayed on the site, the signs shall have a common or compatible design and locational positions and shall be harmonious in appearance. oooozo (c) Landscaping shall integrate and accommodate existing trees and vegetation to be preserved; it shall make use of water-conserving plants, materials and imgation systems to the maximum extent feasible; and, to the maximum extent feasible, it shall be clustered in natural appearing groups, as opposed to being placed in rows or regularly spaced. (d) Colors of wall and roofing materials shall blend with the natural landscape and be nonreflective. (e) Roofing materials shall be wood shingles, wood shakes, tile, or other materials such as composition as approved by the Planning Commission. No mechanical equipment shall be located upon a roof unless it is appropriately screened. (f) The proposed development shall be compatible in terms of height, bullz and design with other structures in the immediate area. Article 15-50 TREE REGULATIONS 15-50.010 Findings; purposes of Article. 15-50.020 Definitions. 15-50.030 15-50.040 i 15-50.050 15-50.060 15-50.070 15-50.81 Application of Article. Street trees. Removal of certain trees without permit. Exceptions. Application for permit. Determination on permit. 15-50.090 Deve)opment or improvement projects 15-50.100 Appeals 15-50.110 No liability upon City 15-50.121 Setback of new construction. 15-50.130 Tree Preservation Plan 15.50.140 Application of ISA Pruning Standards 15.50-151 Adoption of Guidelines 15.50-161 Tree Fund 15.50-171 Enforcement IS.SO-181 Violations; penalties and remedies 00001 15.50-190 Tree Companies Operating in the City 1S.S0-200 Possession of an Approved Tree Removal Permit 15-50.010 Findings; purposes of Article. The City Council finds that the City is primarily a residential community; that the economics of property values is inseparably connected with the rural attractiveness of the area, much of which is attributable to the wooded hillsides and the native and ornamental trees located throughout the City; that the preservation of such trees is necessary for the health, safety and welfare of the residents of the Ciry in order to preserve scenic beauty, prevent erosion of topsoil, protect against flood hazards and the risk of landslides, counteract pollutants in the air, maintain the climatic balance and decrease-wind velocities. To complement and strengthen zoning; subdivision and other ]and use standards and regulations, while at the same time recognizing the rights and privileges of private property ownership, the City Council adopts this ordinance to establish basic standards and, measures for the maintenance; removal, and replacement of heritage or protected trees. Thus, this ordinance is designed to provide a stable and sustainable urban forest to preserve and protect significant historical heritage values, and to enhance the unique aesthetic character and environment of this City. • 15-50.020 Definitions. For the purposes of this Article, the follov~Ting words and phrases shall have the meanings respectively ascribed to them by this Section, unless the context or the provision clearly requires otherwise: (a)"Approving body," means any one of the following: City Council, Planning Commission, or the Community Development Director. (b) "Agricultural tree," means any fruit or nut tree planted in an orchard for commercial purposes. (c) "Arborist Report" means a report prepared by a certified arborist containing specific information on the location, condition, structure, potential impacts of development, and recommended actions and mitigation measures regarding one or more trees on an individual lot or project site. (c) "Bond or security deposit" means a financial instrument which guarantees a future condition and includes an irrevocable letter of credit, a passbook or cash. (d)"DBH" means diameter at breast height. It is the diameter of a single stem trunk tree measured at four and one-half (4 ~/z) feet above the ground while standing on the high side of the tree. The diameter maybe calculated using the following formula: Diameter =Circumference / 3.142 To measure trees with multi-stem trunks, the tree diameter equals the full diameter of the largest trunk plus SO% of the diameter of all other trunks on the tree; each trunk is measured at four and 000022 one-half (4 ~/z) feet above the ground while standing on the high side of the tree. (e)"Damage" means any direct or indirect action undertaken which causes short term or long term injury, death, or disfigurement to a tree. This includes, but is not limited to: cutting of roots or limbs, poisoning, over-watering, relocation, or transplanting a tree, or trenching, grading, compaction, excavating or covering with hardscape or impervious surface within the root zone of a tree. (f)"Destroy" means to cause the premature decline of tree health or life as evaluated and determined by the City Arborist. (g)"Dripline" .means the outermost edge of the tree's canopy. When depicted on a map or plan, the dripline shall appear as an irregular shaped circle that follows the contour of the tree's branches as seen from overhead. (h)"Encroachment" means any intrusion or human activity occurring within the root zone of a tree, including, but not limited to stivctw-a] pruning in excess of lSA Standards, grading, excavating, trenching, parking of vehicles, storage of materials or equipment (whether temporary or permanent), or the construction of structures or other improvements within the root zone of a tree (i)"Heritage tree" means any tree designated pursuant to Section 15-50.050. (j) "ISA Pruning Standards" or "Pruning Standards" means the. most current edition of those pruning standards established by the Western Chapter of the International Society of Arboriculture dated 1994, as revised by the Society from time to time. (k) "Oak tree" or "Oak" means any native oak tree of the Genus Quercus, as further described in the Tree Preservation and Protection Guidelines, regardless of size. This definition shall not include oak trees planted, grown and held for sale by licensed nurseries or the first removal or transplanting of such trees pursuant to and as part of the operation of a licensed nursery business. (k) "Project site" means the site of the proposed tree removal, encroachment or development activity. (1) "Protected tree," means any tree as listed in Section I5-50.050. . (m) "Pruning" means any and all work performed on or adversely affecting the roots, branches or limbs of a protected tree. (n) "Removal" means the physical removal of a tree, damaging a tree, or encroaching on the root zone of a tree. (o) "Root zone" means the area surrounding a tree that extends from the ,trunk of the tree outward to no less than five (5) feet beyond the dripline of the tree or further as determined by the City Arborist. When sho~~vn on a map the root zone shall appear as an irregularly shaped circle. (p) "Routine maintenance" means actions needed for the continued good health of a tree including, but not limited to, removal of deadwood, insect control spraying and watering. (q) "Shrub".means a bushy, woody plant, usually with several permanent stems, and usually not over fifteen feet high at maturity. The City Arborist shall determine whether any specific woody plant shall be considered a tree or a shrub. (r) "Street tree" means any tree within the Public Street or right-of-~vay. (s) "Tree" means a woody perennial plant characterized by having a main stem or trunk, or a multi-stemmed trunk system with a more or less definitely formed crown, and is usually over ten feet high at maturity. This definition shall not include trees planted, grown and held for sale by 000023 licensed nurseries or the fast removal or transplanting of such trees pursuant to and as part of . the operation of a licensed nursery business. (t) "Tree fund" means Ciry-held funds accounted for separately from other City funds. The eaTpress functions of the Tree fund are: (1) To receive and hold any fines, penalty assessments, civil penalties, bonds or other remedial funds or sources of funds for violations of .4rticlel5-50 of this code; (2) To receive and hold monetary valuations and payments for replacement trees pursuant to Section 15- 50.160 or 15-50.180, as prescribed by the Community Development Director, or as a condition of development approval; and (3) To pay for new or replacement trees, their planting and maintenance, as determined by the Community Development Director, on public properties, streets, easements and dedicated open spaces. (s) "Tree Preservation and Protective Guidelines" means any administrative procedures and rules established by the Community Development Director for implementing this Article 15-50 of the City Code. (t) "Tree Preservation Plan" means a detailed plan containing all protective measures to be implemented before, during, and, after construction activities including provision for future maintenance, to preserve and protect all trees to be retained on any project site. 15-50.030 Application of Article. This Article shall apply to every owrier of real property within the City, and to every person responsible for removing, damaging, or pruning a tree regardless of whether such person is engaged in a business for such purpose. - tees. 15 50.040 Street r (a) Policies and standards. The Planning Director shall implement policies and standards for street tree planting and maintenance as established from time to time by resolution of the Planning Commission or City Council. (b) Planting required condition of approval. The planting of street trees may be required as a condition of any approval granted under this Chapter. (c) Responsibility for maintenance. The City shall pro~~ide maintenance for street trees located within a commercial district and on arterial roads, unless such maintenance responsibility has been assumed by a property owner or other person under a landscape maintenance agreement with the City. In all other areas of the City, the City shall not conduct but shall control the planting, maintenance and removal of street trees and shrubs which might affect the public right- of-way; the owner or occupant of such property shaIl be responsible for the maintenance of street trees on the property and in the public right-of-way abutting the property. 15-50.050 Removal of certain trees without permit. Except as otherwise pro~~ided in Section 15-50.060, it is unlawful for any person to destroy, remove, encroach upon or cause to be destroyed, removed, or encroached upon any protected tree, located on any private or public property in the City without first having obtained a permit to do so issued pursuant to this Article. A protected tree shall consist of any of the following: (a) any oak tree with a trunks six (6) inches DBH or greater. (b) any other tree with trunk measurement of ten (10) inches DBH or greater. 000024 (c) Any street tree, as defined in Section 15-50.020 (s), regardless of size. (d) Any heritage tree, as defined in Subsection 1S-50.050 regardless of size. (e) any tree that existed at the time of an approval granted under this Chapter or Chapter 14 of this Code and required to be preserved as part of such approval. (f) any tree required to be planted as a condition of any approval granted under this Chapter or Chapter 14 of this Code. (g) any tree required to be planted as a replacement as Subsection 15-50.160 or 15-50.180 of this Article. 15-50.060 Exceptions. The permit requirement set forth in Section 15-50.050 shall not apply to any of the following: (a) Emergencies. if the condition of a tree presents an immediate hazard to life or property, it may be removed without a permit on order of the City manager, the Public Works Director, the Community Development Director, their designated representatives, or a Peace Officer, or fire department having jurisdiction. (b) Public utilities. Public utilities subject to the jurisdiction of the State Public utilities Commission may without a permit take such action as may be necessary to comply with the safety regulations of the Commission and as may be necessary to maintain a safe operation of their facilities. (c) Project approval. Where removal of a protected tree or encroachment on one or more protected trees has been authorized as part of any project approval g~:anted under this Chapter or Chapter 14 or l6 of this Code, no permit pursuant to this Article shall be required for; sUCh activity, provided, the Community Development Director determines in writing that the substantive requirements of this Section 15-50.080(x) have been met, including completion of an Arborist Report, and, if necessary completion of a Tree Preservation Plan and posting of a security deposit and/or maintenance bond. Any protected tree authorized for removal or encroachment without permits and pursuant to such project approval shall not be removed, or encroached upon, until the issuance of a building or grading permit for the improvements, which are subject of the project approval. 15-50.070 Application for permit. (a) Application for a tree removal or pruning permit shall be made to the Community Development Director on such form as he may prescribe. The application shall contain the number and location of each. tree to be removed, the type and approximate size of the tree, the reason for removal, and such additional information as the Director may require. The application shall be signed by the owner of the property upon which the tree is located and if the applicant is not the owner of said property shall include a statement that the owner consents to the activity described on the permit application. Notice shall be given to all adjoining properties at the time of application at least l0 days before a decision on the permit application is made. (b) Pruning Permit: A permit is required for structural pruning in excess of ISA Pruning Standards [defined earlier] during any given growth period or-season or year) of any protected tree. Pruning shall not exceed 20% of the crown. No permit is required for structural, pruning which complies with ISA Pruning Standards, or for the pruning of agricultural trees A permit is required for the any pruning to-any-degree of a protected tree located on a neighboring properly. 000025 15-50.080 Determination on permit. (a) Criteria. Each application for a tree removal or pruning permit shall be reviewed and determined on the basis of the following criteria: (1) The condition of the tree with respect to disease, imminent danger of falling, proximity to existing or proposed structures and interference with utility services. (2) The necessity to remove the tree because of physical damage or threatened damage to improvements or other developed features on the property. (3) The topography of the land and the effect of the tree removal upon erosion, soil retention and the diversion or increased flow of surface waters, on slopes exceeding 20 percent. (4) The number, species, size and location of existing trees in the area and the effect the removal would have upon shade, privacy impact, scenic beauty, property values, erosion control, and the general welfare of residents in the area. (5) The age and the number of healthy trees the property is able to support according to good forestry practices. (6) Whether or not there, are any alternatives that would allow for retaining or not encroaching on the protected trees. (7) Whether the approval of the request would be contrary to or in conflict with the general purpose and intent of this Article. (8) Any other information relevant to the public health, safety or general welfare, including, if found appropriate, information obtained at a public hearing. (b) Additional recommendations. The Community Development Director may refer the . application to another department, commission or person for a report and recommendation. The Director may also require the applicant to furnish a written report from an ISA Certified Arborist acceptable to the Director, such report to be obtained at the expense of the applicant. In the case of construction-related requests, City Arborist review and approval may be required before any permit for removal or encroachment is issued or before approval for a project involving the removal or encroachment of one or more protected trees is granted. . (c) Decision by Director. The Community Development Director shall render his decision within thirty days (30) after the filing of the application for a permit. The Director may grant or deny the application or grant the same with conditions, including, but not limited to, (1) the condition that one or more replacement trees be planted of a species and size and at locations as designated by the Director. (2) relocation of existing tree desired to be removed, and/or (3) payment of a fee or posting of a bond or security deposit in favor of the City to the Tree Fund pursuant to Section 15-50.130. Any such tree replacement or relocation shall be at the sole expense of the applicant. (d) Security deposits and maintenance bonds. In the case of an application for, or a project involving encroachment on one or more protected trees, the applicant shall post security deposit with the City in an amount equal to 100 % of the ISA valuation of the trees involved. The City may also require posting of a maintenance bond of up to five years designed to ensure long term maintenance of the affected or replacement trees. Security deposits or maintenance bonds required for protected trees in public or private development may, in the reasonable discretion of the Community Development Director be refunded based on a determination that the project is in compliance with the City Arborist's requirements and/or the Tree Preservation Plan. In the case of violations of this Article or where replacement, restitution or other remedy required pursuant to ~ 15-50.180 cannot be made on the project site, then such payments shall be made from the deposit or bond being held before any refund is made. X00026 15-50.090 Development or improvement projects. (a) Subdi«sion approval. When any application is made pursuant to Chapter 14 and that proposal would involve remwa] of or encroachment on a protected tree, the City shall take into consideration the pro~~isions of this article in granting or denying the application. (b) Project approval. Removal of or encroachment on any protected trees pursuant to project approval granted under this Chapter or Chapters 14 or16 of this Code shall meet the requirements of g15-50.130. (c) Modifications to approved projects. In the event of any change or modification to an approved site development plan which results in removal of or an increase in encroachment on any protected tree, the provisions of this Article shall apply. 15-50.100 Appeals. (a) Except otherwise provided in subsection (b) of this Section, any person objecting to a decision by the Community Development Director made pw-suant to any of the provisions of this Article, may appeal such decision to the Plarv~ing Commission in accordance with the procedure set forth in Article 15-90 of this Chapter. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 15-90.020, the decision of the Planning Commission shall be final and no further appeal may be taken to the City Council. (b) Where an application for a tree removal permit has been granted and the Community Development Director determines that the tree in question presents a clear and immediate threat of causing injury to persons or property, the Community Development Director may issue the tree removal permit prior to expiration of the appeal period specified in Section 1S-90.050 of this Chapter. 15-50.110 No liability upon City. Nothing in this Article shall be deemed to impose any liability upon the City or upon any of its officers or employees, nor to relieve the owner or occupant of any private property from the duty to keep in safe condition any trees and shrubs upon his property or upon a public right-of-way over his property. 15-50.120 Setback of new construction from existing trees. No structure, excavation or impervious surface areas of any kind shall be constructed or installed within the root zone of any protected tree, unless otherwise permitted by the City pursuant to this Article. No parking, storing of vehicles, equipment or other materials shall be permitted within the root zone of any protected tree without special design considerations being approved of by the Community Development Director and the City Arborist. 15-50.130 Arborist Report An Arborist Report shall be required for any application for discretionary development approval that would require the removal of one or more trees protected by this Chapter and for other projects where the Community Development Director determines it is necessary. 15-50.140 Tree Preservation Plan 00002 ' t a oved ursuant to Cha tors 14 (a) A Tree Preservation Plan shall be required for any pioJec ppr p p , 15 and 16 of the Code on any site on which an Arborist Report is prepared. (b) The Tree Preservation Plan shall consist of a separate detailed plan drawn to a sufficient scale (but no larger that 20 feet to the inch, with any details to be shown at least 10 feet to the inch) to clearly indicate all protection and mitigation measures to be taken, as required in the Tree Preservation and Protection Guidelines, the Community Development Director and the Arborist Report for the project. (c) When a project has been submitted for approval pursuant to Chapters 14, L5, or 16, there shall be no permits issued for grading or site improvements until a Tree Preservation Plan for the project has been approved by the City and the required protection measures are determined to be in place through City inspection. Protection measures required shall remain in place for the duration of the construction activity at the project site, or as otherwise required by the City and shall not be removed until authorized by the City. (d) The Tree Preservation Plan and any permits for tree removal shall be maintained at the project site at all times during construction activities and until all work has been completed, inspected and approved by the City. (e) At ]east three scheduled inspections shall be made by the City to ensure compliance with the Tree Preservation Plan. The inspections shall, at a minimum include the following: (1) Initial inspection prior to any construction or grading, (2) After completion of rough grading and/or trenching, and (3) Completion of all work including planting and irrigation system installation; and any others, as required by the City. 15-50.160 Tree Fund (a) Purpose and source of funds. A tree preservation fund shall be established for the City for the purposes specified in Section 15-50.020 (u). The Tree Fund shall be funded by those fines, penalties, or other remedial payments which may be assessed by courts or administratively imposed„ including, but not limited to those provided for in Chapter 3 of this Code for violations of this Article. In addition, payments required for replacement trees pursuant to Section 15- 50.180, as prescribed by the Community Development Director, or as a condition of development approval, or from payments made from a security deposit or bond, shall be held in the Tree Fund and used to purchase new and replacement trees. The Community Development Director and the City Arborist shall determine the selection, planting and location of any such trees. (b) Tree valuation. Lawfully removed trees to be replaced as a condition of development approval shall be valued and their removal compensated for as follows: Trees replaced on or off site according to good forestry practices, shall pro~~ide, in the opinion of the Community Development Director, equivalent value in terms of aesthetic and environmental quality, size, height, location, appearance, and other significant beneficial characteristics of the removed tree/s. The City Arborist shall calculate the value of the removed tree/s in accordance with the latest edition of the ISA Tree Valuation Formula. 15-50.170 Enforcement (a) General. The City shall vigorously enforce the provisions of this Article. Inspectors shall, in 000028 the course of their regular duties, monitor construction activities. Any observed violations shall be immediately reported to the Community Development Director for follow-up action. (b) Stop work orders. Whenever any activities are in violation of the provisions of this .Article, the Guidelines, applicable tree permit/s, Tree Preservation. Plans, or other conditions of project approval, a Building Inspector, Public Works Director, Community Sen~ice Officer, or Community Development Director shall issue a written notice to stop work on the project for which a violation has occurred. The notice shall state the nature of the violation or danger and now-with the exception of ordered remediation, no work shall be aIlowed to proceed until the violation has been rectified and any remaining activity has been approved by the Ciry. 15-50.180 Violations; penalties. The violation of any pro~~ision contained in this Article is hereby declared to be unlawful and shall constitute. a misdemeanor (unless in the discretion of the enforcing authority charged and prosecuted as an infraction pursuant to Section 3-05.010(b)) and a public nuisance, subject to the penalties or remedies as described in Chapter 3 of this Code and any other remedies authorized by the City Code, including, but not limited to the following: (a) Requirement that the violator retroactively obtain a permit for the unlawful tree removal performed and the conditioning of such permit on replacing each unlawfully removed or damaged tree with one or more new trees which can be accommodated on the site of the violation according to good forestry practices and, in the opinion of the Community Development Director, will provide equivalent value in terms of aesthetic and environmental quality, size, height, location, appearance and other characteristics of the unlawfully removed tree. The Ciry Arborist shall calculate the value of the removed tree/s in accordance with the latest edition of the ISA Tree Valuation Formula. (b) Where replacement trees cannot be accommodated on site according to good forestry practices, or cannot provide equivalent aesthetic or environmental quality of the removed tree/s on site, the City Arborist shall calculate the value of the removed tree/s, in accordance Section 15- 50.120(a). Upon the determination of such value, the Community Development Director may condition such retroactive permit on requiring either the planting of replacement trees off site, or a cash payment to the City Tree Fund, or any combination thereof, in accordance with the following: (1) To the extent that the planting of replacement trees is required, the retail cost of such trees, as shown by documentary evidence satisfactory to the Community Development Director, shall be offset against the value of the removed tree, but no credit shall be given for transportation, installation, maintenance and other costs incidental to the planting and care of the replacement trees; and (2) To the extent that a cash payment is required for any portion or all of the value of the removed ,tree, such payment shall be doubled to reflect the estimated installation costs that would be incurred if replacement trees were planted. (c) Any person who is required to plant replacement trees pursuant to subsections (a) or (b) of this Section shall permanently maintain such trees in a good and healthy condition for a minimum of five (5) years to ensure permanent establishment of any such tree/s, as determined by the City Arborist. Such person shall post a maintenance bond in a form prescribed by the Community Development Director and execute a maintenance agreement with the City, which shall be recorded in the office of the County Recorder. 000029 (d) Payment (to the extent authorized by law and determined appropriate by the Community Development Director) of any criminal, civil, administrative or other penalty or restitution order into the Tree Fund. (e) The violation of any provision contained in this Article during the conduct by any person of a tree removal, sti-uctura] pruning, landscaping, construction or other business in the City shall constitute grounds for revocation of any business license issued to such person. (Amended by Ord. 71.86 4 3,1990; Ord. 71-106 410,1992) 15-50.190 Tree Companies Operating in the City Any business, which performs structural pruning or tree removal on protected pees in the City, must . be in possession of a Saratoga business license, must have an ISA cen~fied Arborist on staff, which an Arborist is in a supervisory position for the accomplishment of such work and must be in possession of an approved Tree Removal or Encroachment Permit when performing such work. 15.50-200 Possession of an Approved Tree Removal Permit Any person engaging in any conduct requiring a Tree Removal Permit shall have in his or her possession a copy of the approved Tree Removal Permit pertaining to said activity. Upon request of a peace officer, City of Saratoga Code Enforcement Officer or other City Official the person engaging in the referenced conduct shall produce for inspection the approved Tree Removal Permit. If the person cannot produce an approved Tree Removal permit all tree removal acti~~ity shall be suspended until a permit can be produced or obtained from the Community Development Department. This section shall. be in addition to and not limit any other remedies available to the City under law. • 00000 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, October 23, 2002 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary to the Planning Commission • u 000031 • THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK • • 000032 STEM 5 City of Saratoga Community Development Department MEMO TO: Planning Commission FROM: Thomas Sullivan, AICP DATE: October 23, 2002 RE: Continuance Attached please find the Staff Report on the Zoning Ordinance Amendment related to second dwelling units. I ain asking that this item be continued to the Planning Commission Meeting scheduled for December 11, 2002. The Agenda for the next meeting on November 13, 2002 is already full. • • 000001 • THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK • oooooz ITEM 5 • • REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No.: Location: Applicant/Owner: Staff Planner: Date: PROJECT DESCRIPTION 02-172 -Second Dwelling Unit Ordinance Amendment Citywide City of Saratoga Thomas Sullivan, AICP Community Development Director October 23, 2002 Department Head: The City of Saratoga recently adopted a new Housing Element of the General Plan. One of the "Programs" contained in the new element is Second Dwelling Units. The program calls for the City to adopt a revised set of regulations governing the development of second dwellings units on lots zoned for single-family dwellings. Below please find the proposed ordinance amendments, which will implement the Housing Program. The information contains the existing language and proposed new language. Old language to be removed is shown v,~ith "stnl:cout" and new language is shown in Bold Italics. If no changes are proposed to existing language the font is shown without any special treatment. 15-56.010 Purpose. The purpose of this Chapter is to authorize the establishment of secondary living units in single-family districts to comply with state law and to help achieve the goals and policies of the Housing Element of the Saratoga General Plan. Controlled construction of secondary living units will promote a stable heterogeneous community with a balanced social and economic mix. • L 000003 15-56.020 Use permit required. (a) A second unit may be created or occupied only if a use permit has been granted for such second unit pursuant to the provisions of Article 15-55 and this Article. (b) To grant the required use permit certain findings must be made by the Planning Commission: 1. Environmental constraints ofthe property 2. Urban service capacity 3. Public safety standards 4. Traffic conditions S. Fire hazards 6. Privacyirnpacts 7. Compatibility with neighboring uses and structures 15-56.025 One second unit per site. Only one-second unit shall be permitted on any one site. 15-56.030 Development standards. Except as otherv~~ise provided in Section 15-56.110, each second unit shall comply with all of the following development standards before a use permit maybe granted: (a) Lot size. if the second unit is attached to the main dwelling, the net site area of the lot upon which the second unit is located shall not be less than the minimum standard prescribed for the district applicable to such lot, - , „ - - , (b) Slope. No second unit may be located upon a hillside lot. (c) Unit size. The second unit shall be at least four hundred square feet and shall not exceed eight hundred square feet of living space, not including the garage. (d) Building codes. The second unit shall comply with applicable building, health and fire codes. (e) Zoning regulations. The second unit shall comply with applicable zoning regulations (including, but not limited to, required setbacks, coverage, height limits and design review). - - - ~ ' (f) Parking. A minimum of one off-street covered parking space within a garage shall be provided for the second unit in addition to the off-street covered parking spaces required for the main dwelling. The Planning Commission may waive thegarage requirement if the second dwelling unit is deed restricted so that they may only be rented to below market rate households. (g) Sewer. The second unit shall be served by sanitary sewer. . (h) Access. The second unit shall be served by the same driveway access to the street as the existing main dwelling. (i) Common entrance. If the: second unit is attached to the' main dwelling, both the 0~~~~4 second unit and the main dwelling must be served by either a common entrance or a separate entrance to the second unit must be located on the side or at the rear of the main dwelling. (j) Limitations on number of bedrooms. A secondary living unit may not have more than one bedroom. (k) Owner-occupied. The property owner shall occupy either the principal or the secondary residential unit. If neither unit is owner-occupied, then the vse reverts back to asingle-family occupancy. The owner shall record a deed restriction setting forth this occupancy requirement. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit one or both of the units from remaining vacant. (1) ~) Other conditions. The second unit shall comply with such other conditions or standards, which in the judgment of the Planning Commission are necessary or appropriate to mitigate possible adverse impacts on the neighborhood. . - - , _ ~ ,- - _ , - - -- , • L ~~ , t ' ~ t b 15-56.050 Inspections. (a) Where the application is for legalization of an existing second unit or approval of a proposed unit to be attached to the main dwelling, prior to the public hearing on the use permit, an inspection of the property shall be conducted to determine that the existing second unit, and any main dwelling to which a second unit will be attached by a common wall, will comply with all applicable building, health, fire and zoning codes. If a use permit is granted, a further inspection to determine such compliance shall be conducted after any construction or alteration work is completed. Such inspections shall be performed by the City or by an independent contractor retained by the City for such purpose, and the applicant thereof shall pay the cost. ~~~~~5 (b) Each existing second unit and a main dwelling, to which a second unit will be attached by a common wall, shall be reviewed by the Fire Marshall or his designated representative prior to the public hearing for the use permit. Any recommendations by the Fire Marshall shall be a condition for the granting of a use permit. Such recommendations may include the connection of the second unit to an existing or proposed early warning fire alarm system installed in the main dwelling. (c) The inspections to be conducted pursuant to this Section shall not constitute an assumption by the City, or by anyone acting in its behalf, of any liability with respect to the physical condition of the property, nor shall the issuance of a second unit use permit constitute a representation or ~varranry by the Ciry to the-owner of the property or any other person that such property fully complies with all applicable building, health and fire codes. v1 uic arrucauvii aliu ~,,.. ~ , ...«,,..~ ~...........__.-, ---- - ----- .. - - - , ~o~~OV ~J ~__~ _._ __._.-, _--- ---- r ------- - b - e _ ~ b ~ ~~1Ti"~: e b _ _ ~ - - _ _ b - - - - e 1 ~o 0 0 0 0~ ~_~ 15-56.110 Legalization of existing second units. (a) Purpose of Section. It is in the public interest that all residents of the City live in safe, sanitary housing conditions. Second units currently exist which were created prior to the adoption of this Article. In order to encourage the legitimating of such units under the law, the owners of property on which second units are located should be encouraged to legalize such units provided the units are determined to be both safe and sanitary for continued human occupancy. Conversely, if existing second units are not safe and sanitary for continued human occupancy, the City has the responsibility to either insure they are made both safe and sanitary or their use for human occupancy is discontinued. The purpose of this Section is to establish special procedures and standards for legalization of existing second units that are or can be made fit for human occupancy. (b) Scope of Section. This Section shall apply only to second units established prior to _, 2002 $~`~ within a structure for which a building permit was issued, or otherv,~ise v,~as lawfully constructed, and. which complied with any applicable zoning or development standards in force at the time of construction. Any second unit established from and after _, 2002 ~, shall be 'deemed a nevv unit subject to the remaining provisions of this Article. (c) Contents of Application. Application for a use permit to legalize an existing second unit shall be filed with the Community Development, Director on such form as shall be prescribed. In lieu of the items described in Section 15-55.040 of this Chapter, the application~shall be accompanied by the following: (1) A ~~iciniry map showing the location of the site. (2) An accurate scale drawing showing the location of all structures, trees, landscaping and off-street parking spaces on the site. (3) Inspection reports by an independent contractor and the Fire Marshall, as required under Section 15-56.050 of this Article. . (4) A preliminary title reports covering the site, or other e~~idence showing the applicant to be the owner of the property. (5) The name and age of the occupants of the second unit, if any, together with a copy of any ~~vritten lease or rental agreement between the owner and such occupants shall be provided. (6) A list of the names and addresses of all persons owning property immediately adjacent to the site, as shown by the latest available assessment roll of the County or as otherwise known to the applicant. (7) If the site is a hillside lot, either or both of the following documents shall be furnished if requested by the Community Development Director: (i) A topographic map of the site showing contours at intervals of not are than five feet; and/or (ii) A geologic report on the site prepared by a certified engineering geologist or a registered civil engineer qualified in soil mechanics. (8) If the second unit is served by a septic system, a description thereof together with a drawing showing the location of the septic tank and leach field on the site. (d) Processing Fee. A processing fee shall be paid to the City at the time of filing the application for use permit. If the application is voluntarily filed by the property owner 00008 prior to December 31,1988, the fee shall be fifty percent of the amount then charged as the normal second unit use permit application fee. If the application is filed in response to a written notice from the City.to do so, or is filed at any time after _, 2002~arruaiy~ X89, the fee shall be the amount then charged as the normal second unit use permit application fee. (e) Procedure. Upon the filing of an application for a use permit to legalize an existing second unit, the following procedure shall be followed: (1) The Coininunity Development Director shall send a written notice of the application to each of the adjacent property owners shown on the list furnished by the applicant. The notice shall advise such property ov~~ners that a written protest or request for an administrative hearing, or both, may be filed with the Community Development Director within ten days from the date of the notice. (2) If adjacent property ov`~ners file any written protests within the time prescribed in the notice but no request for hearing is made, the Community Development Director shall consider such protests in determining whether to approve, conditionally approve or deny the application and shall render his decision thereon without conducting an administrative hearing. (3) If a request for an administrative hearing is received within the time prescribed in the notice, the Community Development Director shall fix a time and place for the conduct of such hearing and shall give written notice thereof to the applicant and the person or persons requesting the hearing. Upon the conclusion of the hearing, the Director shall either approve, conditionally approve or deny the application and shall furnish a copy of his decision to the applicant and the person or persons who requested the hearing. The decision by the Community Development Director may be appealed in accordance with the procedure set forth in Article 15-90 of this Chapter. (f) Standards. Existing second units shall comply with the following standards: (1) Where the second unit is located upon a hillside lot, the applicant shall demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director that the second unit is not subject to actual or potential damage from landslide, earth movement or other geologic hazard. (2) In lieu of compliance with the Uniform Building Code, the second unit shall comply with the Uniform Housing Code as adopted by the City and shall otherwise comply with applicable health and fire codes. (3) Provided that not less than three off-street parking spaces are available on the site, the requirement of a covered parking space for the second unit may be waived if there is no feasible location on the site for either a garage or carport. In such event, the parking space for the second unit shall be screened from view from the street, if possible; otherwise, the driveway on the site nay be utilized as a parking space for the second unit. (4) Where the second unit is served by a septic tank, the septic system shall be inspected and approved by the County Health Department. In addition, the applicant shall execute and record a deferred improvement agreement wherein the applicant and his successors will be obligated to connect the second unit, and the main dwelling if also served by a septic system, to a sanitary sewer whenever the same becomes available and to pay his proportionate share of the installation cost. (5) The requirement of occupancy of either the second unit or the main dwelling by a person sixty years of age or older or by a person who is physically handicapped shall not p00009 apply to any tenant in lawful possession of the premises as of August 18, 1984, and such tenancy may be continued until the expiration or termination of the lease. (6) The second unit shall comply with such other standards, which in the judgment of the Community Development Director are necessary or appropriate to mitigate adverse impacts on adjacent properties. rant the application for a use (g) Findings. The Community Development Director may b permit to legalize an existing second unit as applied for or in modified form if, on the basis of the application and the evidence submitted, the Community Development Director makes all of the following findings: (1) The second unit complies with the provisions of the Uniform Housing Code and applicable provisions of the health and fire codes. (2) The second unit is compatible with the exterior appearance and nature of the existing main dwelling on the site. (3) The second unit does not unreasonably interfere with the privacy otherwise available to the residents of adjacent properties. 2002 (h) Disqualified existing units. Any second unit established prior to _, b which does not qualify for legalization under this Section by reason of not having been lawfully constructed, shall be deemed a new unit subject to the remaining provisions of this Article, except as follows: (1) The Planning Commission shall have authority to modify the standards set forth in subsections (b), (c), {~} (~, (g), (h) and (i) of Section 15-56.030, provided the Commission is able to make a~l-of the other findings required under Section 15-56.060 for the existing • second umt. _ (2) The existing second unit shall comply with the standards set forth in subsection (f) of this Section. (3) The existing second unit shall comply with current zoning regulations, unless a variance is granted pursuant to Article 15-70 of this Chapter. (i) Bur.den of proof. Wherever in this Section the legalization of an existing second unit or the occupancy thereof depends upon the establishment of any event occurring on or before a specified date, the burden of proof shall be upon the applicant. ~~ STAFF RECOMMENDATION Adopt the attached Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt the Zoning Ordinance Amendment implementing Housing Element Program 1.1. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution • ~QD'~Y~ Attachment 1 APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION No. CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has considered a proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment v~~hich implements Housing Element Program 1.1; and Wx~=REAS, the Plaiu~ing Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present e~~idence; and WHEREAS, the City has demonstrated that the proposed ordinance amendment is consistent v,~ith Housing Proglain 1.1 of the Housing Element of the General Plan, and the following findings have been determined: ^ The proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment implements the standards set forth in the Housing Element in that it has removed age-related occupancy restrictions, in that it eliminates the 1.6-acre minimum site requirement for detached second units, in that it elininates the annual limit of 20 new second units, and in that the new ordinance allows open parking spaces for very low and low income occupants. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of the proposed language of the proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that they adopt the proposed amendments to the City of Saratoga Second .Dwelling Unit Ordinance, as presented in the following text: 15-56.010 Purpose. The purpose of this Chapter is to authorize the establishment of secondary living units in single-family districts to comply with state law and to help achieve the goals and policies of the Housing Element of the Saratoga General Plan. Controlled construction of secondary living units will promote a stable heterogeneous community with a balanced social and economic mix. 000011 15-56.025 One second unit per site. Only one-second unit shall be permitted on any one site. 15-56.030 Development standards. Except as otherwise provided in Section 15-56.110, each second unit shall comply with all of the follov~~ing development standards Uefore a use permit maybe granted: (a) Lot size. If the second unit is attached to the main dwelling, the net site area of the lot upon ~~hich the second unit is located shall not be less than the minimum standard prescribed for the district applicable to such lot. (b) Slope. No second unit maybe located upon a hillside lot. (c) Unit size. The second unit shall be at least four hundred square feet and shall not exceed eight hundred square feet of living space, not including the garage. (d) Building codes. The second unit shall comply with applicable building, health and fire codes. (e) Zoning regulations. The second unit shall comply with applicable zoning regulations (including, but not limited to, required setbacks, coverage, height limits and design review). (f) Parking. A minimum of one off-street covered parking space within a garage shall be provided for the second unit in addition to the off-street covered parking spaces required for the main dwelling. The Planning Co~n~nission may waive the garage requirement if the second dwelling unit is deed restricted so that they inay only be rented to below market rate households (g) Sewer. The second unit shall be served by sanitary sewer. (h) Access. The second unit shall be served by the same driveway access to the street as the existing main dwelling. (i) Common entrance. If the second unit is attached to the main dwelling, both the second unit and the main dwelling must b_ e served by either a common entrance or a separate entrance to the second unit must be located on the side or at the rear of the main dwelling. (j) Limitations on number of bedrooms. A secondary living unit may not have more than one bedroom. (k) Owner-occupied. The property owner shall occupy either the principal or the secondary residential unit. If neither unit is owner-occupied, then the use reverts back to asingle-family occupancy. The owner shall record a deed restriction setting forth this occupancy requirement. I~TOthing in this section shall be construed to prohibit one or both of the units from remaining vacant. (l) Other conditions. The second unit shall comply with such other conditions or standards, which in the judgment of the Planning Commission are necessary or appropriate to mitigate possible adverse impacts on the neighborhood. 15-56.050 Inspections. (a) Where the application is for legalization of an existing second unit or approval of a proposed unit to be attached to the main dwelling, prior to the public hearing on the use permit, an inspection of the property shall be conducted to determine that the existing second unit, and any main dwelling to which a second unit will be attached by a common wall, will comply with all applicable building, health, fire and zoning codes. If a use permit is granted, a further inspection to determine such compliance shall be conducted after any '000012 construction or alteration work is completed. Such inspections shall be performed by the City or by an independent contractor retained by the City for such purpose, and the applicant thereof shall pay the cost. (b) Each existing second unit and a main dwelling, to which a second unit will be attached by a common wall, shall be reviewed by the Fire Marshall or his designated representative prior to the public hearing for the use permit. Any recommendations by the Fire Marshall shall be a condition for the granting of a use permit. Such recommendations may include the connection of the second unit to an existing or proposed early warning fire alarm system installed in the main dwelling. (c) The inspections to be conducted pursuant to this Section shall not constitute an assumption by the City, or by anyone acting in its behalf, of any liability with respect to the physical condition of the property, nor shall the issuance of a second unit use permit constitute a representation or ~~arranty by the City to the owner of the property or any other person that such property fully complies with all applicable building, health and fire codes. 15-56.110 Legalization of existing second units. (a) Purpose of Section. It is in the public interest that all residents of the City live in safe, sanitary housing conditions. Second units currently exist which were created prior to the adoption of this Article. In order to encourage the legitimating of such units under the law, the owners of property on which second units are located should be encouraged to legalize such units provided the units are determined to be both safe and sanitary for continued human occupancy. Conversely, if existing second units are not safe and sanitary for continued human occupancy, the City has the responsibility to either insure they are made both safe and sanitary or their use for Human occupancy is discontinued. The purpose of this Section is to establish special procedures and standards for legalization of existing second units that are or can be made fit for human occupancy. (b) Scope of Section. This Section shall apply only to second units established prior to _, 2002 within a structure for which a building permit was issued, or otherwise was lawfully constructed, and v~~hich complied with any .applicable zoning or development standards in force at the time of construction. Any second unit established from and after _, 2002, shall be deemed a new unit subject to the remaining provisions of this Article. (c) Contents of Application. Application for a use permit to legalize an existing second unit shall be filed with the Community Development Director on such form as shall be prescribed. In lieu of the items described in Section 15-55.040 of this Chapter, the application shall be accompanied by the following: (1) A vicinity map showing the location of the site. (2) An accurate scale drawing showing the location of all structures, trees, landscaping and off-street parking spaces on the site. (3) Inspection reports by an independent contractor and the Fire Marshall, as required under Section 15-56.050 of this Article. (4) A preliminary title report covering the site, or other evidence showing the applicant to be the owner of the property. (5) The name and age of the occupants of the second unit, if any, together with a copy of any written lease or rental agreement between the owner and such occupants shall be 000013 provided. (6) A list of the naives and addresses of all persons owning property immediately adjacent to the site, as shown by the latest available assessment roll of the County or as otherwise known to the applicant. (7) If the site is a hillside lot, either or both of the following documents shall be furnished if requested by the Community Development Director: (i) A topographic map of the site showing contours at intervals of not are than five feet; and/or (ii) A geologic report on the site prepared by a certified engineering geologist or a registered civil engineer qualified in soil mechanics. (8) If the second unit is served by a septic system, a description thereof together with a drawing showing the location of the septic tank and leach field on the site. (d) Processing Fee. A processing fee shall be paid to the City at the time of filing the application for use permit. If the application is voluntarily filed by the property owner prior to December 31,1988, the fee shall be fifty percent of the amount then charged as the normal second unit use permit application fee. If the application is filed in response to a written notice from the City to do so, or is filed at any time after _, 2002, the fee shall be the amount then charged as the normal second unit use permit application fee. (e) Procedure. Upon the filing of an application for a use permit to legalize an existing second unit, the following procedure shall be followed: (1) The Community Development Director shall send a written notice of the application to each of the ten closest property ov`~ners. The notice shall advise such property owners that a written protests or request for an administrative hearing, or both, may be filed with the Community Development Director within ten days from the date of the notice. (2) If adjacent property owners file any written protests within the time prescribed in the notice but no request for hearing is made, the Community Development Director shall consider such protests in determining whether to approve, conditionally approve or deny the application and shall render .his decision thereon without conducting an administrative hearing. . (3) If a request for an administrative hearing is received within the time prescribed in the notice, the Community Development Director shall fix a time and place for the conduct of such hearing and shall give written notice thereof to the applicant and the person or persons requesting the hearing. Upon the conclusion of the hearing, the Director shall approve, conditionally approve. or deny the application and shall furnish a copy of his decision to the applicant and the person or persons who requested the hearing. The decision by the Community Development Director may be appealed to the City Council in accordance with the procedure set forth in Article 15-90 of this Chapter. (f) Standards. Existing second units shall comply with the following standards: (1) Where the second unit is located upon a hillside lot, the applicant shall demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the Co~ninuniry Development Director that the second unit is not subject to actual or potential damage from landslide, earth movement or other geologic hazard. (2) In lieu of compliance with the Uniform Building Code, the second unit shall comply with the Uniform Housing Code as adopted by the City and shall otherwise comply with applicable health and fire codes. (3) Pro«ded that not less than three off-street parking spaces are available on the site, the requirement of a covered parking space for the second unit may be waived if there is no 000014. q feasible location on the site for either a garage or carport. In such event, the par]zing space for the second unit shall be screened from view from the street, if possible; otherwise, the driveway on the site inay be utilized as a parking space for the second unit. (4) Where the second unit is served by a septic tank, the septic system shall be inspected and approved by the County Health Department. In addition, the applicant shall execute and record a deferred improvement agreement wherein the applicant and his successors will be obligated to connect the second unit, and the main dwelling if also served by a septic system, to a sanitary sewer whenever the same becomes available and to pay his proportionate share of the installation cost. (5) The requirement of occupancy of either the second unit or the main dwelling by a person sixty years of age or older or by a person who is physically handicapped shall not apply to any tenant in lawful possession of the premises as of August 18, 1984, and such tenancy maybe continued until the expiration or termination of the lease. (6) The second unit shall comply with such other standards, which in the judgment of the Community Development Director, are necessary or appropriate to mitigate adverse impacts on adjacent properties. cg) Findings. The Community Development Director may grant the application for a use permit to legalize an existing second unit as applied for or in modified form if, on the basis of the application and the evidence submitted, the Community Development Director makes all of the following findings: (1) The second unit complies with the provisions of the Uniform Housing Code and applicable provisions of the health and fire codes. (2) The second unit is compatible with the exterior appearance and nature of the existing main dwelling on the site. (3) The second unit does not unreasonably interfere with the privacy otherwise available to the residents of adjacent properties. (h) Disqualified existing units. Any second unit established prior to _, 2002 which does not qualify for legalization under this Section by reason of not having been lawfully constructed, shall be deemed a new unit subject to the remaining provisions of this Article, except as follows: (1) The Planning Commission shall have authority to modify the standards set forth in subsections (b), (c), (f), (g), (h) and (i) of Section 15-56.030, provided the Commission is able to make the other findings required under Section 15-56.060 for the existing second unit. (2) The existing second unit shall comply with the standards set forth in subsection (f) of this Section. (3) The existing second unit shall comply with current zoning regulations, unless a variance is granted pursuant to Article 15-70 of this Chapter. (i) Burden of proof. Wherever in this Section the legalization of an existing second unit or the occupancy thereof depends upon the establishment of any event occurring on or before a specified date, the burden of proof shall be upon the applicant. 000015 1 ~ ~ ~ PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Co~n~nission, State of California, 2002 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secietaiy to the Planning Commission • 000016 MINUTES y SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 4, 2002 The Cit Counci] of the City of Saratoga met in Closed Session, Administrative Y Conference Room 13777 Fruitvale Avenue at 4:30 p.m. Conference With Legal Counsel -Existing Litigation (4 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: Tsung-Chin Wu, Yuh-Ning Chen v. Parker Ranch Homeowners Association (Santa Clara County Superior Court No. CV-707015) Name of case: Saratoga Fire Protection District v. City of Saratoga (Santa Clara County Superior Court No. CV-803540) Name of case: City of Saratoga v. Hinz (Santa Clara County Superior Court Doc. No. CV-784560) Conference With Legal Counsel -Threatened Litigation: Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Government Code section 54956.9(b): Public Employee Performance Evaluation (Gov't Code 54957) Title: City Manager MAYOR'S REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION - 7:00 p.m. Mayor Streit called the Regular City Council meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and requested Mr. Norman Kline 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 Cary Bloomquist, Administrative Analyst REPORT OF CITY CLERK ON POSTING OF AGENDA FOR SEPTEMBER 4 2002 Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk, reported that pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2, the agenda for the meeting of September 4, 2002 was properly posted on August 27, 2002. COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS & PUBLIC ORAL COMMUNICATIONS The following person requested to speak at tonight's meeting: Ellis Chang, 19795 Farwell Avenue, explained to the Council that the curb in front of his house was recently painted red. Mr. Chang noted that he was never~informed that the City Council approved the no parking resolution in front of his house. Mr. Chan requested that the City Council reverse their decision. COMMUNICATIONS FROM BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None COUNCIL DIRECTION TO STAFF Referring to Mr. Chang's comments, Vice Mayor Baker requested that this item be brought back to the Council at the next City Council meeting. Consensus of the City Council to support Vice Mayor Baker's request to discuss the red curb along Farwell Avenue at the next City Council meeting. ANNOUNCEMENTS Mayor Streit announced that on September 14, 2002 Boy Scout Troop 566 of Saratoga will honor the advancement to Eagle Scout of Kinman Cheung, Kinhung Cheung, Brandon Katz, Darren Kwong, David Lamb, and Bradley Seago. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS None CEREMONIAL ITEMS lA. COMMENDATION - SARATOGA HIGH SCHOOL ROBOTICS TEAM STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Present commendation. Mayor Streit welcomed members of the Saratoga Robotics team members. City Council Minutes 2 September 4, 2002 Chris Yang introduced his fellow team members, Irene Fan, Jayant Krishnamurthy, and Thomas Lin. Each member of the Saratoga Robotics Team explained a portion of team's accomplishments and described the submersible robot that took 11th place at the AUVSI Naval Competition. Mayor Streit read the commendation and presented it to the Saratoga Robotics Team. 1B. PROCLAMATION -SEPTEMBER 11, 2002 "DAYS OF REMEMBRANCE" STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Read proclamation. Mayor Streit read the proclamation. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS 2A. PRESENTATION -DAWN CAMERON COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE EXPRESSWAY PLANNING STUDY STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Informational only. Dawn Cameron, County of Santa Clara/Roads and Airports Department, explained that the Comprehensive County Expressway Planning Study was established to develop and document consensus on potential expressway improvements of all types including capacity enhancements, grade separations, pedestrian and bicycle facilities, sound walls, and landscaping. In addition, the Study will develop funding requirements, financing scenarios, and recommendations regarding issues such as maintenance support and traffic enforcement. Councilmember Waltonsmith is the City's representative to the PAB. Ms. Cameron explained that the first comprehensive study was done 30 years ago. In this study it showed the concept expanding Lawrence Expressway to connect to Highway 85 via Saratoga Avenue. Ms. Cameron also stated that the PAB is trying to "clean up" old master plan projects that have never materialized. In regards to the concept of expanding Highway 85 to Lawrence Expressway, Councilmember Bogosian asked where this concept came from. Ms. Cameron noted it was in an old plan from approximately 30 years ago. Ms. Cameron noted that if the City has no desire to ever extend Lawrence Expressway, the Council would just have to officially request that this concept be taken off the books. Consensus of the City Council to agendize this issue for September 18, 2002. City Council Minutes 3 September 4, 2002 PUBLIC HEARINGS 4. PROPOSED RESOLUTION INITIATING THE ORDINANCE TO DESIGNATE AUSTIN WAY A HERITAGE LANE STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Open public hearing; close public hearing; adopt resolution; place on next agenda as a public hearing. TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 02-067 RESOLUTION FO THE CITY COUNCIL INITIATING FINAL DESIGNATION OF AUSTIN WAY A HERITAGE LANE John Livingstone. Associate Planner, presented staff report. Planner Livingstone explained that the Heritage Preservation Commission recommended to the Planning Commission that Austin Way be designated a Heritage Lane. One July 24, 2002 the Planning Commission adopted a resolution recommending that the City Council adopt an ordinance designating Austin Lane a Heritage Lane. The intent of the ordinance is to preserve the existing brick roadway and hopefully restore the portions that have been patched with asphalt. Staff hopes that a Heritage Lane designation will increase the possibility of obtaining a grant to assist in the preservation and maintenance of the existing brick roadway. Planner Livingstone presented a brief history on Austin Way noting it use to be part of the main road between Saratoga and Los Gatos. Planner Livingstone stated that that the brick road was built in 1904. Planner Livingstone explained that in' order to designate a roadway a Heritage lane, the road must meet a minimum of two findings stated in the City's code. Planner Livingstone stated that some of the feed back from the neighbors that objected to the Heritage Lane designation was the additional review of modifications to their homes by the Heritage Preservation Commission. The current code for a Heritage Lane allows the HPC to review and comment upon all planning entitlement applications and applications for building, demolition, grading or tree removal permits involving work to be performed upon or within a designated Heritage Lane. Planner Livingstone noted that the Heritage Preservation Code also allows the Planning Commission to include such regulations or controls over the designated property, as the Planning Commission deems reasonable necessary for the conservation and preservation of the roadway. Planner Livin stone ex lained that the right-of--way is 40 feet. The brick road g P itself is 18 to 20 feet wide but the City.owns 40 feet. There could be up to 10 feet of City-owned shoulder on each side of the brick roadway. The proposed Heritage City Council Minutes 4 September 4, 2002 Lane designation would add another 10 feet on the private property for review by the Heritage Preservation Commission when any major construction is proposed such as walls and fences. Mayor Streit opened the public hearing at 7:35 p.m. Tom Keeble, 19041 Austin Way, noted that he originally proposed to the Heritage Preservation Commission to designate the road. Mr. Keeble noted that he is opposed to the possibility of the City regulating an additional 10 feet of property. Mr. Keeble noted that other than that he supports the designation. Norman Koepernik, Chair/ HPC, noted that he supports the designation of Austin Way. Mr. Koepernik noted that this designation would maintain the beauty and the uniqueness of this road. Mr. Koepernik stated that the HPC would continue applying for grants from the state for beautification projects for the road. Vice Mayor Baker asked Commissioner Koepernik why the Planning Commission agreed to add an extra 10 feet of property on either side of the road. Chair Koepernik explained that the extra 10 feet would allow the City to regulate a broader area around the road and have more say in the type of landscaping and fences. Dean Glajchen, 19100 Austin Way, noted that he attended the Planning Commission hearings and stated that he supports the designation to preserve and repair the roadway, but he opposes the additional 10 feet on either side of the roadway. Flavio Decastillmos, 18705 Landcaster Road, noted that he opposes the designation especially the additional 10 feet of proposed regulation. Mike Garakani, 19061 Austin Way, noted that he is not against the designation of a Heritage Lane, in fact he noted that the road should be fixed, but opposes the designation with all the restrictions that comes with the designation. Mr. Garakani asked the cost to repair this road and what justification does the City have requiring the additional 10 feet of property. Mayor Streit closed the public hearing at 7:50 p.m. Refemng to Mr. Garkani's questions, Mayor Streit asked staff the costs to repair the road. Planner Livingstone responded that it about $20 a square foot. All of the Councilmembers agreed that the additional designation of 10 feet on either side of the roadway should be excluded from the ordinance. BAKER/BOGOSIAN MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION INITIATING FINAL DESIGNATION OF AUSTIN WAY A HERITAGE LANE EXCLUDING THE ADDITIONAL 10 FEET OF PROPERTY ON EITHER SIDE OF THE ROADWAY. MOTION PASSED 5-0. City Council Minutes 5 September 4, 2002 5 CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION DEBRIS RECYCLING ORDINANCE STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Open public hearing; close public hearing; place on next agenda for adoption. Cary Bloomquist, Administrative Analyst, presented staff report. Analyst Bloomquist that at their regular meeting on August 7, 2002, Council was introduced to the proposed Construction and Demolition Debris Ordinance and subsequently directed staff to hold a public hearing at their next meeting. Analyst Bloomquist noted that the Construction and Demolition Debris Ordinance will apply to all major construction, remodeling or demolition projects over 2500 square feet, diverting material that would otherwise go into landfill. This has the potential to increase the city's diversion rate above the present 56% level. Analyst Bloomquist stated that staff is recommending that the City Council direct staff to bring back the ordinance at their next regular meting for approval and adoption. Mayor Streit opened the public hearing at 8:20 p.m. losed the ublic hearin at 8:21 p.m. Mayor Streit c p g Councilmember Bogosian noted that he supports this ordinance and requested staff provide Council with companies that take the different recyclables. Pointing out the fact the he is the City's representative on the Solid Waste JPA, Vice Mayor Baker stated that the Guadalupe Landfill has a Construction and Demolition recycle center. Vice Mayor Streit stated that if cities do not adopt similar ordinances they are irresponsible. Mayor Streit stated that some cities have adopted similar ordinances except the City of Saratoga has went a step further adding that the 2,500 square foot requirement. BAKER/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO SEPTEMBER 18, 2002. MOTION PASSED 5-0. • City Council Minutes ( September 4, 2002 OLD BUSINESS 6. BLANEY PLAZA IMPROVEMENTS -REVIEW OF CONCEPTUAL DESIGN STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Review Design Plans and direct staff on preferred location of Memorial Arch. John Cherbone, Public Works Director, presented staff report. Director Cherbone explained that at the August 7, 2002 City Council meeting the Council approved a professional services agreement with Greg Ing and Associates for preparation of conceptual design plans for Blaney Plaza. The work performed by Greg Ing and Associates accomplished two main tasks: 1) determine the best placement of the Memorial Arch in Blaney Plaza; and 2) the preparation of a master plan and cost estimate for the future redevelopment of Blaney Plaza. Director Cherbone noted that the Heritage Commission, the Arts Commission, and the Saratoga Historical Foundation have been notified of the project and they have indicated interest on participating in the development of a master plan for the plaza. Director Cherbone noted that Greg Ing and Associates have proposed two different conceptual designs. Councilmember Bogosian asked what the City has done to determine the condition and safety of the two large trees in the Plaza. Director Cherbone noted that in the last two months the City's Arborist, Barrie Coates, looked at the health of the trees and what type of pruning needed to be done and per his recommendations they were trimmed. According to Mr. Coates the trees do not pose any immediate danger, but there is never a guarantee with trees. Vice Mayor Baker asked where was the Arch was originally. Councilmember Waltonsmith responded that originally the Arch was located in the middle of the intersection, centered towards the hills. Steve Kikuchi, Landscape Architect, 1585 The Alameda, Suite 201, San Jose, noted that he is pleased he has been able to continue his working relationship with the City. Mr. Kikuchi noted that this projected posed a few constraints such as the trees and placing the Arch in the Plaza. Two designs have been developed. Scheme A has more of a freeform natural setting. Option A is compatible with the Gateway Master Plan. Mr. Kikuchi stated that both designs propose a retaining wall with storyboards on it, which could be the history of Saratoga or art. Option B shows the Arch underneath the canopies of the stone pine trees. in Option A the Arch is located as the gateway to the entrance of the park. S Councilmember Waltonsmith noted that the plaza should be kept simple. Councilmember Bogosain noted that he agrees with Councilmember Waltonsmith. City Council Minutes '7 September 4, 2002 Vice Mayor Baker noted that his concern is the costs. Vice Mayor Baker stated that the City has to move the Arch, but perhaps a design could be drawn that could support potential artistic improvements in the future. Wyllis Peck, 14275 Saratoga Avenue, noted that he is a member of the Heritage Preservation Commission and the unofficial City Historian. Mr. Peck noted that in 1965 the City almost lost the Arch when the highway was straitened. Mr. Peck noted that when he heard about the possible loss he approached the Council and requested the City relocate the Arch. Mr. Peck stated that he feels the Arch is a valuable historical symbol of Saratoga. Mr. Peck stated that originally around the base was a fishpond. Mr. Peck noted that the Arch should be placed in the most conspicuous place in the Plaza. Mr. Peck noted that another important detail about the Arch is that a prominent California Landscape Architect, Bruce Porter, designed it. Mayor Streit stated that he supports Option A, but move the Arch to the center. Councihnember Mehaffey stated that his main concern in putting the Arch in the front of the Plaza is possible cars hitting it. Councilmember Bogosian and Councilmember Waltonsmith both stated that they do not support any type of water feature in the Plaza. Director Cherbone suggested that the Council direct staff to form an AdHoc Committee to study the design. and make recommendations to Council at a future date. Consensus of the City Council to direct staff to form an AdHoc committee composed of two members from each of the following groups: ,Heritage Preservation Commission, Arts Commission, Historical Foundation, and Council. . NEW BUSINESS 7. PRESCHOOL MURAL STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept report and direct staff accordingly. Kim Saxton-Heinrichs, Senior Recreation Supervisor, presented staff report. Supervisor Saxton-Heinrichs explained that on August 12, 2002 the Arts Commission was asked to approve a mural for the outside, northwest-facing wall of the preschool potable. It is to be painted by Kristie Liddie, a sophomore at Saratoga High School. She is doing this project to complete her Silver Award for Girl Scouts. Kristie will solicit local businesses to donate all material and supplies. She needs to have the mural completed by September 30, 2002. It will be painted on two removable boards and placed by city staff. Preschool Director Marianne Swan gave Kristie a book by a Dutch artist for inspiration and ideas. Supervisor Saxton-Heinrichs explained that upon checking with City Attorney Taylor regarding copyright infringement, he recommended that Kristie get permission from the publisher. Supervisor Saxton-Heinrichs noted that the only City Council Minutes g September 4, 2002 ~i • _ concern was copyright infringements. Staff investigated and found out that the art in the book is almost 100 years old so there are no more worries about copyright infringements. Marianne Swan Preschool Director, P.O. Box 201, noted that the City put up three portables to house programs, one being the preschool. When funds were not available to beautify the preschool, community members help fulfill her dreams. In regards to copyright infringements she called the publisher in Holland and the only right they have to the illustrations is to publish them. Vice Mayor Baker asked where the panels would be placed. Director Swan responded that the panels would be placed behind the senior portable. Julia Anderson, PO Box 3458, noted that she is a member of Troop 62, and is working on her Silver Project, which is similar to an Eagle Scout award. Ms. Anderson noted that she would be working with an Eagle Scout. Ms. Anderson notes that she is doing this project because it helps with leadership and teachers good skills. Ms. Anderson also noted that it would help beautify the preschool. Tina Liddie, 20275 Franklin Avenue, explained that the project needs to be completed by September 30, 2002 in order to receive the Silver Award then she will move on to be a Senior Girl Scout and will start to work on her Gold Award. Ma or Streit noted that he would appreciate being notified when the girls receive y their Silver Award so the City can publicly recognize them. Consensus of the City Council to direct staff to move forward with this project. Mayor Streit declared at I S-minute break at 9:00 p.m. Mayor Streit reconvened the meeting at 9:15 p.m. OLD BUSINESS NORTH CAMPUS FELLOWSHIP HALL IMPROVEMENTS STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept report and direct staff accordingly. Joan Pisani, Recreation Director, presented staff report. Director Pisani explained that on August 2, 2002 Council directed staff to bring back cost estimates to make the Fellowship Hall ADA and Building Code compliant. Director Pisani explained that Brad Lind the City's Building Official completed an inspection of that building and provided her a list of repairs and improvements needed before we could occupy the building. Director Pisani noted that she was able to get a local contractor to visit the site and provide staff with an estimate to retrofit the restroom and make the necessary roof repairs. Director City Council Minutes 9 September 4, 2002 Pisani explained that it would take about $55,000 which would not include tables, chairs, an HVAC system, nor a refrigerator. Councilmember Bogosian asked how much would an HVAC system cost. Director Pisani replied that according to the report by Noll & Tam a HVAC system would cost approximately $45,000. As far as the other amenities, Director Pisani noted that she feels $10,000 would cover costs. Mayor Streit stated that there seems to be a lot of community groups that would like to use this hall. Director Pisani noted that several groups have inquired about its use. In regards to the restrooms, Director Pisani noted that a local architect has agreed to do the drawings and the specs at cost and then she could proceed with taking it out to bid. Councilmember Bogosian suggested that the City should try and find a community group that would paint the buildings. Director Pisani noted that she would look into that possibility. Councilmember Mehaffey suggested that staff look into purchasing tables and chairs from companies that have went out of business. Director Pisani noted that on Se tember 5 and September 10, 2002 the City would P be holding an open house at the campus. Consensus of the City Council to proceed with the design and bid process. CONSENT CALENDAR 3A. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES -REGULAR MEETING JULY 17, 2002 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve minutes. Vice Mayor Baker requested that item 3A be pulled from the Consent Calendar. Vice Mayor Baker requested that on page 17, 4tn paragraph, the comment should read as follows "Vice Mayor Baker noted that the City paid Vice Mayor Baker requested that on page 18, 8th paragraph, the word "eye soar" be replaced with the word "e ey sore". BAKER/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO APPROVE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF JULY 17, 2002. MOTION PASSEDS-0. City Council Minutes 10 September 4, 2002 3B. REVIEW OF CHECK REGISTER STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve check register. WALTONSMITH/MEHAFFEY MOVED TO APPROVE CHECK REGISTER. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 3C. REVIEW PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MINUTES - AUGUST 28, 2002 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Note and file. WALTONSMITH/MEHAFFEY MOVED TO APPROVE PLANNING ACTION MINUTES. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 3D. RESOLUTION AMENDING THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution. TITLE OF RESOLUTION 02-066 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA AMENDING RESOLUTION 01-011 BY ADDING TO THE LIST OF DESIGNATED EMPLOYEES IN THE CITY'S CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE Councilmember Mehaffey requested that item 3D be pulled from the Consent Calendar. Councilmember Mehaffey pointed out an error on page 4 of the resolution. City Attorney Taylor stated that it was a typo. MEHAFFEY/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION AMENDING THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE AS AMENDED. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 3E. FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF SUBDIVISION PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN TRACTS 8876, 8896, & 9101 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Grant final acceptance of the subdivision public improvements and adopt resolutions. TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 36-B-255 RESOLUTION ACCEPTING OFFERS OF DEDICATION TRACT 8876 City Council Minutes 11 September 4, 2002 TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 36-B-256 RESOLUTION ACCEPTING OFFERS OF DEDICATION TRACT NO 8896 TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 36-B-257 RESOLUTION ACCEPTING OFFERS OF DEDICATION TRACT 9101 Councilmember Mehaffey requested that item 3E be pulled from the Consent Calendar. Councilmember Mehaffey asked what are the benefits to the City excepting maintenance responsibility of the roads. Director Cherbone explained that usually during the tentative map face the developer would determine whether or not the roads in his subdivisions would be public roads. Most roads in subdivisions are cul-de-sacs so the acceptance would only benefit those property owners. MEHAFFEYBAKER MOVED TO GRANT FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE SUBDIVISION PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS AND ADOPT RESOLUTIONS. MOTION PASSED 5-0. NEW BUSINESS • 10. SARATOGA LIBRARY PROJECT PHASE II -SPECIALIZED INSPECTION SERVICES CONTRACT STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Amend the existing contract with Consolidated Engineering Laboratories for additional. services. Lorie Tinfow, Assistant City Manager, presented staff report. Assistant City Manager Tinfow explained that Phase II of the Library Expansion Project requires specialized inspections and testing supplemental to City inspectors' expertise. Assistant City Manager Tinfow explained that staff is recommending the Council move to amend the existing contract with Consolidated Engineering Laboratories ties for additional supplemental inspection services needed for Saratoga Library Expansion Project Phase II to reflect an increase of $17,500. The City's existing contract with Consolidated Engineering Laboratories $25,000 to cover inspection and testing services for Phase II. That was an estimate at the time the contract was awarded. Gilbane suggested that the City increase the amount Vice Mayor Baker asked if their contract was a fixed price contract. Assistant City Manager Tinfow explained that they bill the City for time and material basis, but the contract was set at not to exceed $25,000. City Council Minutes 12 September 4, 2002 _ Vice Mayor Baker expressed his concern about the constant budget adjustments for the various contractors' contracts. @ BOGOSIAN/ WALTONSMITH MOVED TO AMEND THE CONTRACT WITH CONSOLIDATED ENGINEERING LABORATORIES. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 11. BENCHES AND TRASH RECEPTACLES FOR SARATOGA LIBRARY PROJECT STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept report and direct staff accordingly. Lorie Tinfow, Assistant City Manager, presented staff report. Assistant City Manager Tinfow explained that six benches and two trash receptacles are included in the contract with Thompson Pacific for the Saratoga Library Project. Additional benches were included in the furniture, fixtures, and equipment budget that are separate from the bond funds. As the Library Expansion Committee Interior Subcommittee reviewed the style selections for and numbers of each bench specified, they determined that some of the benches were fixed and therefore eligible to be paid for with bond money. In addition, they discovered alternate bench design that was preferred. Assistant City Manager Tinfow explained that the Subcommittee members brought their proposal of 12 benches in the new style plus 2 matching trash receptacles to the full Library Expansion Committee at the July 17 meeting for review and consideration. The preliminary estimated cost of the proposed furniture plan was $18,000. The Library Expansion Committee voted unanimously to recommend to Council the new style of benches and an additional six benches. Assistant City Manager Tinfow explained several options the Council can could consider: • 6 benches 2 trash cans stay as they are • 6 additional original benches @ $4,385 plus shipping • Allow new style be substituted for six benches @ $6420 plush shipping • Substitution of 12 new style benches and two trash cans @ $19, 777 • Defer the decision when we have more information on the budget Marcia Manzo, Chair/Library Expansion Committee, noted that the bench style that the Expansion Committee chose were sturdy and would fit in with the style of the library. Meanwhile, Chair Manzo stated that the Landscape Architect had chosen a different bench in which the Committee did not like. The bench the Architect chose are plain and in her opinion will not last long. Chair Manzo stated she would like to persuade the Council to buy the best benches now and not regret it later when the cheaper made benches are falling apart. Chair Manzo stated that the Architect stated hat the benches could be installed later but it probably would cost more. City Council Minutes 13 September 4, 2002 Vice Mayor Baker stated that he dose not think the new style bench would outlive the older style. 1 how the Council could 'ustif a 230% increase in Mayor Strut asked Chair Mai zo J Y the price difference between the two styles of benches. Chair Manzo suggested that the Council delay the decision until more is known about the budget. Councilmember Bogosian suggested that the Council delay the decision on purchasing benches until the Council knows if funds are available. 12 Councilmember Mehaffey noted that he likes the new style of benches because they are made out of wood, which is much more comfortable than the metal ones. Although, Councilmember Mehaffey concurred with his colleagues that the decisions should be deferred. Councilmember Waltonsmith noted that she wants to purchase the sturdiest bench, but also feels the decision should wait. Mayor Streit noted that spending money of functional amenities is more important than spending money on aesthetics amenities. Vice Mayor Baker noted that he is against the new style benches because they are not sturdy. Vice Mayor Baker stated that a four legged bench is much more sturdy than a bench sitting on a pedestal. . Consensus of the City Council directed staff to bring this item back to the Council with more information about the stability and reliability of the new style benches. PROGRAM SUPPLEMENT AGREEMENT -QUITO ROAD BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT CIP NO 9111 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Authorize City Manager to execute agreement. TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 02-065 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVING PROGRAM SUPPLEMENT AGREEMENT NO. 001-M TO ADMINISTERING AGENCY -STATE AGREEMENT FOR FEDERAL-AID PROJECTS NO. 04-5332 Director Cherbone explained that the Quito Road bridge Replacement Project consists of the replacement of tow bridges. This project is aFederal-Aid funded through the Highway Bridge Rehabilitation and Replacement Program (HBRR) The HBRR Program will fund 80% for the cost of the project. The remaining 20% will be shared equally between the City of Saratoga; The Town of Los Gatos, and Santa Clara Valley Water District. City Council Minutes 14 September 4, 2002 Director Cherbone noted that staff is recommending that Council authorize the City Manger to execute the agreement for Federal-Aid Project 04-5332. MEHAFFEY/BOGOSIAN MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PROGRAM SUPPLEMENT AGREEMENT FOR QUITO ROAD BRIDGE. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 9. CONSIDER REQUESTS TO JOIN FRIEND OF THE COURT BRIEFS IN (1) TOPSAIL COURT HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION V. SOQUEL CREEK WATER DISTRICT, (2) EASTBURN V. REGIONAL FIRE PROTECTION AUTHORITY, (3) BORDER BUSINESS PARK V. CITY OF SAN DIEGO, (4) CHEVRON U.S.A. V. CAYETANO, (5) KAHN V. EAST SIDE UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT, (6) RICHMOND V. SHASTA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT AND (7) SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY V. CITY OF SANTA ANA STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Authorize the City of Saratoga to join the friend of the court briefs being prepared in the above-named cases. Richard Taylor, City Attorney, presented staff report. City Attorney Taylor explained that he has broadened the scope of what briefs to bring to the City Council because the League of California Cities has been encouraging cities to enter briefs whenever the issue seems of any relevance to a city. The more cities that sign on to a brief before the court the Baser it is for a court to understand that the issue is of broad importance to local governments. City Attorney Taylor explained each amicus request as follows: Topsail Court Homeowners Association V. Soquel Creek Water District This case arose after Soquel Creek Water District purchased a lot in afour-parcel, single-family residential subdivision where it sought to construct a well along with a treatment plant that would remove contaminants from the extracted ground water. Based on Government Code section 53091 which exempts water production, generation, storage, and transmission facilities from local zoning, the County of Santa Cruz refused to apply its building and zoning ordinances to the proposed water treatment project. The homeowners association filed suit challenging the zoning exemption, arguing that treatment facilities were not among the types of facilities exempted from local zoning. Noting that the Legislature failed to specify "treatment" facilities in section 53091, the Appellate Court agreed. It applied standard rules of statutory construction and strictly construed the exceptions that did appear in the statute. Because only a liberal interpretation of the language would have permitted the court to conclude that the section 53091 exemptions included water treatment facilities, the court refused to accept the water district's position. City Council Minutes 15 September 4, 2002 The Water District has requested that the California Supreme Court construe section 53091 broadly and reverse the case. In that event there would be no mechanism to prevent water districts from placing large centralized facilities wherever they choose. The amicus brief will argue (1) that the statutory construction urged by the Water District would require an expansion of the language beyond what the Legislature logically intended; (2) that the construction of section 53091 urged by the Water District would lead to absurd results and run contrary to established principles of statutory construction; (3) that the Legislature has not indicated that water treatment facilities must be placed in the most cost- efficient location at the expense of the local government's authority to formulate and implement its own land use policies; (4) that the Water District's economic efficiency argument is illusory; and (5) that the legislative history demonstrates the Legislature's intent to enhance, not weaken, local zoning control through section 53091. Eastburn v Regional Fire Protection Authority This case, pending before the California Supreme Court, will consider whether a public agency should be held liable for the alleged negligent operation of the 9-1-1 system. The court of appeal held that the plaintiffs could not sue a public agency for providing inadequate service and that Health & Safety Code section 1799.107 (which immunizes emergency personnel for liability unless they are grossly negligent or act in bad faith) applies to 9-1-1 operators. On both points it expressly disagreed with a case from another California appellate court, Ma v. City and County of San Francisco (2002) 95 Ca1.App.4th 488 [115 Ca1.Rptr.2d 544]. The California Supreme granted review in Eastburn, to decide the split in authority between Eastburn and Ma. The Court will consider these core issues: Government Code section 815(a) says that public entities cannot be held liable except by statute. No statute holds public entities directly liable for providing 9-1-1 emergency dispatch services negligently. The plaintiffs argue, however, that a public entity enters in a "special relationship" with each of its constituents requiring it to provide prompt emergency services in response to 9-1-1 calls -and exposing it to liability if is fails to do so. The amicus brief will argue that the law should not be expanded in this way. • The amicus brief will further argue that Health & Safety Code section 1799.107 protects 9-1-1 operators and dispatches from liability (and their public entity employers from vicarious liability) for ordinary negligence. This case will affect the liability of all public entities that provide or participate in 9-1-1 dispatch services. Under state law, all public entities must provide or participate in 9-1-1 systems. An appellate decision for the plaintiffs would therefore expose all cities to suit by any citizen who believes the response to a 9-1- l call was not fast enough. City Council Minutes 16 September 4, 2002 - Border Business Park v. City of San Diego A jury awarded the plaintiff in this case more than $90 million in damages because the City engaged in planning for an airport near the plaintiff's property and adjusted the City's circulation system in a way that increased the amount of traffic adjacent to that property. The amicus brief will argue that cities should not be liable for (1) damage to property value that occurs due to local government planning efforts when those efforts do not result in formal action (i.e., a resolution actually approving a project, changing land use or initiating condemnation) and (2) damage for property value that occurs die to changes in the circulation system. The issue is discussed in more detail in the attached letter from the San Diego City Attorney. Chevron U.S.A. v. Cayetano This case is an appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals concerning the proper standard of review to be used by the courts when determining whether a government regulation constitutes a taking of property. The U.S. Constitution requires that government regulations must substantially advance a legitimate public interest. Traditionally, the courts have required that an individual challenging a regulation demonstrate that there is no rational basis for the regulation in question. In this case the courts in effect required that the State of Hawaii demonstrate to a jury that the challenged regulation would in fact have the desired effect. The amicus brief will argue that this (1) improperly transfers policy decisions from elected legislators to the courts and (2) violates principles of federalism which hold that land use decisions should be made at the local level rather than by federal agencies or courts. The issues are discussed in more detail in the attached letter from the San Francisco City Attorney who will be preparing the amicus brief. Kahn v East Side Union High School District This case considers the circumstances under which a public entity is liable for injuries to a swimmer resulting from diving into a swimming pool. Prior to a competition, a swimmer was practicing diving into the pool in preparation for a relay race, and broke her neck. The swimmer contended that she never received training from her coach on how to dive into a three and a half foot pool. The swimmer sued the school district, coach and others for negligence and maintaining a dangerous condition on the property. The trial court and the court of appeal concluded that the school and the coach had no duty to eliminate risks inherent in the sport of competitive swimming. The public entity did not increase the swimmer's risk, and accordingly it is not liable because the swimmer voluntarily assumed any risk of injury by participating in the activity. The case has been appealed to the California Supreme Court, which will decide whether the court of appeal correctly determined that the swimmer should not be able to recover for her injuries. City Council Minutes 17 September 4, 2002 Richmond v Shasta Community Services District The California Supreme Court will be considering several issues relating to Proposition 218 in this case. The case arises from a challenge to the Shasta Community Service District's adoption of a water connection fee for capital improvements needed to expand the District's facilities to accommodate new users. The court invalidated several portions of the fee. The central issues on appeal are as follows: The court of appeals' discussion of Proposition 218's development fee exemption appears to hold that a particular fee must have existed prior to the November 1996 adoption of Proposition 218 to fall within that exception. The language of Proposition 218, however, suggests that only the legal authority for a development fee must have predated the measure for the fee to be exempt. In addition, the ambiguity.of the court's discussion will create confusion regarding the applicability of Proposition 218 to other fees. The case invalidated an existing fee imposed to provide fire protection to newly developed property. The court did so based on certain requirements imposed by Proposition 218 but did not first determine whether the fee was subject to Proposition 218 in the first instance. A recent Supreme Court decision indicates that fees of the type invalidated by the court of appeal are not subject to Proposition 218. The amicus brief will (1) emphasize that a wide spectrum of California local governments (including cities, counties, water districts, community services districts, and fire districts) impose connection charges to defray the cost of expanding capital infrastructure to serve new development; (2) review the law relating to the imposition of development fees and the basis for the development fee exemption in Proposition 218; and (3) remind the Court that Proposition 218 only applies to a specific subset of fees, charges and assessments: fees that are "property-related" and assessments on real property based upon special benefit. This third section of the brief will set forth assessments imposed by local governments. Southern California Gas Company v. City of Santa Ana The City of Santa Ana adopted an ordinance requiring that a trench cut fee be paid before anyone could cut trenches into city streets. Southern California Gas Company claimed that it was exempt from the fee due to its 1937 franchise agreement with the city. The trial court ruled against the city, concluding that the trench cut fee constituted an unconstitutional impairment of contract with respect to the gas company's franchise agreement. The case could allow all franchised utilities to assert that any additional costs imposed upon them by cities, even through a city's valid police power regulation, violate the contracts clause and are impermissible. BAKER /MEHAFFEY MOVED TO JOIN AMICUS BRIEF IN TOPSAIL COURT HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION V. SOOUEL CREEK WATER DISTRICT. MOTION PASSED 5-0. City Council Minutes 18 September 4, 2002 BAKER /MEHAFFEY MOVED TO JOIN AMICUS BRIEF IN EASTBURN V. REGIONAL FIRE PROTECTION AUTHORITY. MOTION PASSED 5-0. BAKER /WALTONSMITH MOVED TO JOIN AMICUS BRIEF IN BORDER BUSINESS PARK V. CITY OF SAN DIEGO. MOTION PASSED 4-1 WITH BOGOSIAN OPPOSING. BAKER /WALTONSMITH MOVED TO JOIN AMICUS BRIEF IN CHEVRON U.S.A. V. CAYETANO. MOTION PASSED 5-0. BAKER/BOGOSIAN MOVED TO JOIN AMICUS BRIEF IN KAHN V.-EAST SIDE UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT. MOTION PASSED 5-0. BAKER/MEHAFFEY MOVED TO JOIN AMICUS BRIEF IN RICHMOND V. SHASTA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT. MOTION PASSED 5-0. BAKER/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO JOIN AMICUS BRIEF IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY V. CITY OF SANTA ANA. MOTION PASSED 5-0. Vice Mayor Baker thanked City Attorney Taylor for broadening the scope of amicus briefs to bring Council because the general trend he sees so clearly in this session of the legislature is more and more taking of municipal powers, control and authority over their own jurisdictions and unless the cities continue to stand together it will become all regional and state authority with no authority within your own municipality at all. AGENCY ASSIGNMENT REPORTS Councilmember Mehaffey reported the following information: KSAR -finished details on Angel Program, which is a program to get donations from community businesses to sponsor programs. Also, the Board discussed the AT&T settlement in order to possibly reallocate the funds. Councilmember Bogosian reported the following information: SVACA -reviewing the CIP and going over the cost imposed to each City for their share of the shelter. Library JPA -September 12, 2002 a special meeting is scheduled to discuss recommendations for the process for hiring of the new County Librarian. Vice Mayor Baker reported the following information: Emergency Planning Council -meets on October 4, 2002 fortunate he will be out of town and asked if Councilmember Waltonsmith could attend. West Valley Sanitation District - on September 25, 2002 the District will be holding a hearing on Proposition 218 to protest the proposed rate increase. The hearing will be held at the Campbell City Hall. Also, at the California Association of Sanitation Agencies the District was awarded the only award in the state for their imaginative innovation among all sanitation agencies in California for their employee motivation and profit sharing incentive program City Council Minutes 19 September 4, 2002 Mayor Streit reported the following information: Chamber of Commerce - he and Councilmember Bogosian have been continuing the ongoing meeting with the Chamber regarding their agreement with the City. Hakone Foundation -completed redesigned the board members. CITY COUNCIL ITEMS Councilmember Mehaffey noted that his neighborhood has some concerns regarding the interpretations of side yard setbacks and requested that this item be referred to the Planning Commission. Consensus of the Council to refer side yard setback to the Planning Commission. Councilmember Waltonsmith asked if any Councilmembers were going to attend the SCC Sheriff's Department "Best of the West" event on Friday, September 27, 2002. Councilmember Bogosian stated he was going on Friday. Mayor Streit replied that he and the City Manager were attending the event. Referring to a letter Council received from Mr. and Mrs. Bianco, Vice Mayor Baker asked staff to find out if it was a bicyclist or a motorcycle rider. Vice mayor Baker stated that the City should direct the Sheriff to up the enforcement on Big Basin Way. City Manager Anderson stated that he has already requested the report from the Sheriff's Office. Referring to the writer of a letter to the editor in the Saratoga News accusing the Council of illegal activities regarding the church property. Unfortunately, Vice Mayor Baker explained that the view was then reflected in the editorial. Vice Mayor Baker stated he would like to know where his colleagues stand and what their position should be to respond to the editorial. Councilmember Mehaffey suggested the Mayor and the Vice Mayor draft the letter. City Attorney Taylor explained that the rest of the Council could not sign a letter written by the Mayor and Vice Mayor only if it came back to the Council in open session. Councilmember Bogosian stated that he would support a letter written by any member of the Council. Mayor Streit stated that he and Vice Mayor Baker would go forward with a letter to the Saratoga news. OTHER None City Council Minutes 20 September 4, 2002 CITY MANAGER'S REPORT None ADJOURNMENT There being no further business Mayor Streit adjourned the meeting at 10:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Cathleen Boyer, CMC City Clerk • • City Council Minutes 21 September 4, 2002 MINUTES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL OCTOBER 2, 2002 The City Council of the City of Saratoga met in Closed Session, Administrative Conference Room 13777 Fruitvale Avenue at 5:30 p.m. Conference With Legal Counsel -Existing Litigation (2 cases) (Govermnent 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: Saratoga Fire Protection District v. City of Saratoga (Santa Clara County Superior Court No. CV-803540) Conference with Legal Counsel - )l~itiation of litigation (Gov't Code Section 54956.9(c): (1 potential case) Conference with Legal Counsel -Threatened litigation (Gov't Code 54956.9(b): (2 potential cases) ' RT ON CLOSED SESSION - 7:00 .m. MAYOR S REPO p 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 Dave Anderson, City Manager, to lead the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Councilmembers Stan Bogosian, John Mehaffey, Ann Waltonsmith, Mayor Nick Streit ABSENT: Vice Mayor Evan Baker 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 Tom Sullivan, Community Development Director REPORT OF CITY CLERK ON POSTING OF AGENDA FOR OCTOBER 2, 2002 Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk, reported that pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2, the agenda for the meeting of October 2, 2002 was properly posted on September 27, 2002. COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS & PUBLIC ORAL COMMUNICATIONS The following person requested to speak at tonight's meeting: Bert Martel, 14420 Fruitvale Avenue, explained that he lived next door to West Valley College. Referring to the West Valley Sanitation Project along Allendale Avenue, Mr. Martel stated that truck loads of some type of brown substance was being dump on West Valley property next to his fruit orchard. Mr. Martel stated that he feels the substance could contain ecoli and is damaging his orchard. Mr. Martel requested that the City Council visit the site. Mr. Martel added that the Ciyt, West Valley College, nor West Valley Sanitation District never informed him that the dumping would occur. Cathy Zang, 1286 Hazelnut Court, San Jose, requested that the City Council issue a supporting the month of October "California Falun Dafa month" Holly Davies, 14478 Oak Place, referred to a fax that Mitch Cutler sent to the City and to her. Ms. Davies defended her actions Mr. Cutler stated in his fax. Ms. Davies stated that when New Life Tree Service was cutting her tree, on her property, she yelled at them to leave. Bill Breck, 20375 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road, noted that this was his 10`'' time before the Council. Mr. Breck stated that he agreed with the comments made by Ms. Davies. Mr. Breck stated that he is again requesting the City impose penalties on all of the tree violations committed by Mr. Cutler. Mr. Breck stated that the City needs better communications. Out of the twenty protected trees around Mr. Cutler's project 13 trees have been damaged. Mr. Breck asked why new permits have been issued to Mr. Cutler. John Mallory, 12258 Kirkdale Drive, requested that the City sponsor and fund some type of patriot event in the City of Saratoga. COMMUNICATIONS FROM BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None 2 October 2, 2002 COUNCIL DIRECTION TO STAFF Mayor Streit requested that Jolm Cherbone, Public Works Director, give a brief report regarding the issues Mr. Martel reported. Director Cherbone stated that City staff was unaware of the issue. As soon as Mr. Martell made staff aware staff visited the site and stopped the activity and asked them to cease all future activity. Director Cherbone noted that the District has agreed to remove all debris and sludge and has agreed to do testing of the soil to make sure there is no contamination. Director Cherbone noted that the District is fully cooperating at this time. Mayor Streit requested that Tom Sullivan, Community Development Director, give a brief report in regards to the issues Ms. Davies and Mr. Breck brought up. Director Sullivan explained at Mr. Cutler project currently has two stop work orders on it and two other permits that are still active. In regards to the first stop work order for the 190-foot wall that was built by Ms. Davies property because of the height and footings the City issued a notice of intend to record the violation which puts a clout on the title. Mr. Culler had the right to appeal it and he has and will be heard on Nov 14, 2002 by the City's Hearing Officer In regards to the stop work order for the 300-foot wall within ten feet of any protected oak trees. The Planning Commission recently adopted a resolution that addresses that with several provisions. The Planning Commission directed the City's Arborist, Barry Coates to do an inspection of the trees. Mr. Coates was there a week ago Monday and his draft report is near completion. Mr. Coates will bring back a remediation plan to Planning Commission to discuss implementation. Mr. Coates Barry is also addressing how and where the soil that was placed there as fill is going to be removed. Director Sullivan explained that if Mr. Cutler ignores further direction from the Planning Commission notice l~im of intent to record the violation and move forward from them. probably through the appeal process and if we are successful with the appeal the violation would be recorded. Director Sullivan explained that in regards to the tree citation that was issued by Code Enforcement - it was settled by virtue of a replacement and maintenance agreement that has been recorded. Mr. Cutler has agreed to replant six trees of a certain size and would be inspected by the Mr. Coates. Councilmember Bogosian asked City Attorney Taylor if there are civil legal remedies that the neighbors could pursue regarding alleged trespassing on their property that would be available to them outside anything the city can do. City Attorney Taylor responded yes. ANNOUNCEMENTS None 3 October 2, 2002 CEREMONIAL ITEMS lA. PROCLAMATION DECLARING THE WEEK OF October 13-19, 2002 "TEEN READ WEEK" STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Read proclamation. Mayor Streit read the proclamation and presented it to Jodie Wiepking, Children's Librarian. Ms. Wiepking thanked the City for the proclamation and introduced several teen volunteers who each shared their favorite book. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. MINOR AMENDMENT TO TREE REGULATION STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Open public hearing; close public hearing; waive the first reading; place on next agenda for adoption. Tom Sullivan, Community Development Director, presented staff report. Director Sullivan explained that City Staff and the Captain Bacon of the Santa Clara County Sheriff s Department have discussed simple methods that would ease their enforcement of City Tree Removal regulations. The proposed ordinance amendment is the result of that discussion. Director Sullivan explained that the proposed ordinance would require anyone. removing an ordinance-protected tree to be able to produce a copy of the approved permit. If the person removing the tree(s) cannot produce a copy of the permit, the Sheriff Deputy or Code Enforcement Officer will then be able to shut the job down. Director Sullivan noted that in the past Sheriff Deputies have been reluctant to do so as they did not feel they had a Municipal Code section to back them up. This amendment will provide them with sufficient ordinance authority. A discussion amongst the City Council took place regarding the future rewrite of the Tree Ordinance. Director Sullivan explained the process and the dates it would be before the Planning Commission. Mayor Streit opened the public hearing at 7:50 p.m. Bill Breck, 20375 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road, stated that he generally supports the proposed ordinance, but stated he felt the ordinance needed more practical guidelines. 4 October 2, 2002 Mayor Streit closed the public hearing at 7:54 p.m. WALTONSMITH/BOGOSIAN MOVED TO WAIVE THE FIRST READING AND PLACE ON NEXT AGENDA FOR ADOPTION. MOTION PASSED 4-0-0-1 WITH BAKER ABSENT. 4. MINOR AMENDMENT TO SECTION 15-19.020 REGARDING SOUND WALL REQUIREMENTS STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Open public hearing; close public hearing; waive the first reading; place on next agenda for adoption. Tom Sullivan, Community Development Director, presented staff report. Director Sullivan explained that the City Council had previously referred this item to the Planning Commission for their study and recommendations after the hearing involving Dr. Oliver. Director Sullivan explained that currently Section 15-19.020 (f)(4) of the Zoning Ordinance allows sound walls to be required by the Planning Director or the Planning Commission upon a deterniination that such a fence or wall is needed t mitigate noise or other adverse impacts of commercial activities. This zoning code section does not address the approval or materials and design for aesthetic reasons. The proposed ordinance amendment would allow for the Director or Planning Commission to consider the design and material in the approval process. MEHAFFEY/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO WAIVE THE FIRST READING AND PLACE ON NEXT AGENDA FOR ADOPTION. MOTION PASSED 4-0-0-1 WITH BAKER ABSENT. OLD BUSINESS 5. APPROVAL OF MEMORIAL ARCH LOCATION STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve recommended location of Memorial Arch. John Cherbone, Public Works Director, presented staff report. Director Cherbone explained that at the September 4, 2002 City Council meeting Council approved the formation of a task force represented by members of the Heritage Commission, the Arts Commission, and the Saratoga Historical Foundation to help determine the best placement of the Memorial Arch in Blaney Plaza in connecting with the Saratoga Fire District Project and to review the development of a master plan for the future redevelopment for Blaney Plaza. Tom Lowdermilk, Heritage Preservation Commission, referring to a picture he passed out to the council Mr. Lowdermilk stated that he believes the are from 5 October 2, 2002 1919-1946, the Arch is facing out towards the Gateway Project. Mr. Lowdermilk requested that the Arch be placed in the plaza much like it was in 1919. Mr. Lowdermilk also requested that the Council approve moving a 1946 flagpole and a bronze plaque. Director Cherbone noted that his staff could move the plaque and the flagpole with minimum costs. Councilmember Bogosian requested that when the Arch is moved city staff videotape it for historic purposes. BOGOSAIN/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO ACCEPT RECOMMENDED PLACEMENT OF THE MEMORIAL ARCH IN BLANEY PLAZA INCLUDING MOVING THE FLAGPOLE AND THE PLAQUE. MOTION PASSED 4-0-0-1 WITH BAKER ABSENT. NEW BUSINESS 6. SAFETY NET EXTENSION AT CONGRESS SPRINGS PARK STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution. TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 02-075 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL AMENDING THE 2002-2003 BUDGET FOR AN APPROPRIATION OF $60,000 FOR THE SAFETY NET EXTENSION AT CONGRESS SPRINGS PARK John Cherbone, Public Works Director, presented staff report. Director Cherbone explained when Congress Springs was redesigned n 2001, the. tennis courts were removed and replaced by two Farm League baseball diamonds. Although the fields are directed away from the soundwall, it is still foreseeable that a foul ball could make its way over the wall an into the freeway traffic. This potential situation will be mitigated by continuing the existing safety netting along the soundwall to the end of the park. BOGOSAIN/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION TO EXTEND SAFETY NET AT CONGRESS SPRINGS PARK MAKING THE APPROPRIATIONS OUT OF THE GENERAL FUND UNALLOCATED RESERVE. MOTION PASSED 4-0-0-1 WITH BAKER ABSENT. CONSENT CALENDAR 2A. APPROVE COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES REGULAR MEETING -AUGUST 7, 2002 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve minutes. 6 October 2, 2002 Councilmember Mehaffey requested that Item 2A be pulled from the Consent Calendar. Councilmember Mehaffey page 11, 4th paragraph replace the word "which" to "and that". MEHAFFEY/ WALTONSMITH MOVED TO APPROVE COUNCIL MINUTES Of AUGUST 7, 2002 AS AMENDED. MOTION PASSED 4-0-0-1 WITH BAKER ABSENT. 2B. REVIEW OF CHECK REGISTER STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve check register. WALTONSMITH/BOGOSIAN MOVED TO APPROVE THE CHECK REGISTER. MOTION PASSED 4-0-0-1 WITH BAKER ABSENT. 2C. REVIEW PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 25, 2002 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Note and file. WALTONSMITH/BOGOSIAN MOVED TO NOTE AND FILE THE PLANNING ACTION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 25, 2002. MOTION PASSED 4-0-0-1 WITH BAKER ABSENT. 2D. CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION DEBRIS ORDINANCE STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt ordinance. TITLE OF ORDINANCE: 210 ORDINANCE AMENDING THE SARATOGA CITY CODE CONCERNING CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION DEBRIS RECYCLING WALTONSMITH/BOGOSIAN MOVED TO ADOPT CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION ORDINANCE. MOTION PASSED 4-0-0-1 WITH BAKER ABSENT. AGENCY ASSIGNMENT REPORTS Councilmember Mehaffey had no reportable information. Councilmember Waltonsmith reported the following information: Sister City Committee -requested that the City arrange a meeting between the Sister Citv Committee and Hakone Foundation. ~ October 2, 2002 Historical Foundation - had a party this past weekend to celebrate the ground breaking of their new addition. Councilmember Bogosian reported that following information: Library JPA -met last month and developed the criteria for the selection process for the new County Librarian. SAVACA -met last night and the Board has agreed to grant the City of Sunnyvale a 30- day extension in order for them to get all of their concerns and questions answered. Mayor Streit had no reportable information. CITY COUNCIL ITEMS Councilmember Bogosian requested that the Mayor prepare a proclamation for Falong Gong month. Councilmember Waltonsmith noted that she supported Councilmember Bogosian request. Councilmember Bogosian noted that the Village Green Neighborhood Association meetings regarding traffic mitigation have been going well. Councilmember Waltonsmith requested that the City help the Sister City Committee arrange a meeting with Hakone Foundation. OTHER City Manager Anderson stated that he and Councilmember Waltonsmith would be out of town at the League of California Cities Annual Conference in Long Beach California. They would be returning late Friday night. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT None ADJOURNMENT There be no further business Mayor Streit adjourned the meeting at 8:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Cathleen Boyer, CMC City Clerk • 8 October 2, 2002