Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-12-2003 Planning Commission PacketCITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 - 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: Commissioner Barry &r Roupe Staff: Planner Oosterhous, Director Sullivan &z Minutes Clerk Shinn PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE MINUTES: Draft Minutes from Regular Planning Commission Meeting of February 26, 2003. (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 staff accordingly regarding Oral Communications under Planning Commission direction to Staff. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on March 6, 2003. 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. APPLICATION #02-272 (APN 397-23-007)- BIERACH, 20355 Orchard Rd; -Request for Design Review Approval to construct first and second story additions to an existing one-story residence. The total floor area of the proposed two-story residence is 2,283 square feet. The maximum height of the proposed residence is 21 ft. 6 inches feet. The lot size is approximately 7,300 square feet and the site is zoned R-1-10,000. (CHRISTINE OOSTERHOUS) (APPROVED 5-0) 2. 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 Parish and School. 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. (CHRISTINE OOSTERHOUS) (ED-O1-002 APPROVED 5-0; UP-O1-013 Est DR-O1-035 APPROVED 4-1, KURASCH OPPOSED) APPLICATION #02-259 (397-27-010) -SHIN; 14165 Victor Place; -Request for Design Review approval to construct first and second story additions to an existing one-story single-family residence. The total floor area of the proposed two-story residence and attached garage is 3,023 square feet. The floor area of the first floor is 1,974 square feet and the second floor is 838 square feet. The maximum height of the proposed residence is 24 feet. The lot size is approximately 10,197 square feet and the site is zoned R-1-10,000. (CHRISTINE OOSTERHOUS) (APPROVED 3-2, KURASCH ~ ZUTSHI OPPOSED) DIRECTORS ITEM - None COMMISSION ITEMS Commissioner's sub-committee reports COMMUNICATIONS WRITTEN - City Council Minutes from Regular Meetings on February 19, 2003 and City Council Retreat on February 1, 2003 ADJOURNMENT AT 11:50 PM TO THE NEXT MEETING Wednesday, March 26, 2003, 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, March 11, 2003 - 3:00 P.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, MARCH 12; 2003 • ROLL CALL REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA AGENDA 1. Application #DR-O1-035 - ST. ANDREWS PARISH &t SCHOOL Item 2 UP-O1-013, ED-O1-002 13601 Saratoga Avenue 2. Application #02-259 - SHIN Item 3 14165 Victor Place 4. Application #02-272 - BIERACH Item 1 20355 Orchard Road LAND USE COMMITTEE The Land Use Committee is comprised of interested Planning Commission members. The committee conducts site visits to properties which are new items on the Planning Commission agenda. The site visits are held Tuesday preceding the Wednesday hearing between 3:00 p.m. and 5:00 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 (5 to 10 minutes) because of time constraints. Any presentations and testimony you may wish to give should be saved for the public hearing. • CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA DATE: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 - 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 February 26, 2003. 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 staff accordingly regarding Oral Communications under Planning Commission direction to Sta f f. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on March 6, 2003. 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. APPLICATION #02-272 (APN 397-23-007)- BIERACH, 20355 Orchard Rd; -Request for Design Review Approval to construct first and second story additions to an existing one-story residence. The total floor area of the proposed two-story residence is 2,283 square feet. The maximum height of the proposed residence is 21 ft. 6 inches feet. The lot size is approximately 7,300 square feet and the site is zoned R-1-10,000. (CHRISTINE OOSTERHOUS) • 2. 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 Parish and School. 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. (CHRISTINE OOSTERHOUS) 3. APPLICATION #02-259 (397-27-010) -SHIN; 14165 Victor Place; -Request for Design Review approval to construct first and second story additions to an existing one-story single-family residence. The total floor area of the proposed two-story residence and attached garage is 3,023 square feet. The floor area of the first floor is 1,974 square feet and the second floor is 838 square feet. The maximum height of the proposed residence is 24 feet. The lot size is approximately 10,197 square feet and the site is zoned R-1-10,000. (CHRISTINE OOSTERHOUS) DIRECTORS ITEM COMMISSION ITEMS Commissioner's sub-committee reports COMMUNICATIONS WRITTEN - City Council Minutes from Regular Meetings on February 19, 2003 and City Council Retreat on February 1, 2003 ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING - Wednesday, March 26, 2003, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers/Civic Theater 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA If you would like to receive the Agenda's via e-mail, please send your a-mail address to planning@sarato ag ca.us • MINUTES T GA PLANNING COMMISSION SARA O DATE: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Chair Jackman called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Garakani, Hunter, Jackman, Kurasch, Roupe and Zutshi Absent: Commissioner Barry Staff: Director Tom Sullivan, Associate Planner John Livingstone, Planner Lata Vasudevan and Planner Christy Oosterhous PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF MINUTES -Regular Meeting of February 12, 2003. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hunter, seconded by Commissioner Roupe, the . regular Planning Commission minutes of February 12, 2003, were approved as submitted. AYES: Garakani, Hunter, Jackman, Roupe and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: Barry. ABSTAIN: Kurasch ORAL COMMUNICATION There were no oral communications. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Director Tom Sullivan announced that, pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on February 20, 2003. .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). Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 26, 2003 Page 2 CONSENT CALENDAR -ITEM NO.1 ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION IN REGARDS TO APPLICATION #02-269 (397-22-051) - CUTLER. 14480 OAK PLACE: Request for Variances to allow an existing 190-foot section of wall to be in excess of the City Code maximum 6-feet in the side yard setback and' to remain 7-feet 6-inches, fora 56-foot section of fence in the front yard setback to exceed the City Code maximum of 3-feet to be allowed to be constructed 6-feet tall and a 25-foot section of fence in the front yard setback to exceed the City Code maximum of 3-feet to be allowed to be constructed 6-feet tall. (SULLIVAN) Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded by Commissioner Garakani, the Planning Commission adopted the Resolution prepared for Application #02-269 denying two of three fencing height Variances requested for property located at 14480 Oak Place, by the following roll call vote: - AYES: Garakani, Hunter, Jackman, Kurasch, Roupe and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: Barry ABSTAIN: .None *** • Chair Jackman advised that she would recuse herself from both Item 2 and Item 3 as she resides within the notification area for both items. Chair Jackman left the dais to sit in the audierice, turning the gavel over to Commissioner Kurasch to serve as Chair for the hearing of those two items. PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM N0.2 APPLICATION #02-192 (503-24-064) -LEE, 14493 Big Basin Way (Saratoga Cleaners): Request for Design Review Approval to construct an addition of an 875 square foot commercial tenant space at the first floor level, a 620 square foot 3-car garage and a 1,512 square foot apartment at the second floor level of an existing 2-story structure located in the CH-1 zone. Two .hundred and eight (208) square feet of the existing commercial space (Saratoga Cleaners) will be eliminated to accommodate the attached 3-car garage. However, the applicant also proposes to add 52 square -feet to the Cleaners by extending the rear laundry/utility area. The existing 3,380 square foot structure consists entirely of commercial space at the first floor, a carport and two, apartment units at the second floor. The 4,277 square foot site is located in Parking District No. 3. (VASUDEVAN) (CONTINUED FROM JANUARY 8, 2003) Planner Lata Vasudevan provided the staff report as follows: • Advised that the Commission originally reviewed this proposal at its January 22, 2003, meeting at which time the Commission requested design revisions per the Village Design Guidelines. • Reminded that the Commission conducted a Study Session on February 12, 2003, and the new design provided by the applicant was overall favorably received. • Described the proposal as including a 879 square foot commercial tenant space, a 620 square foot three-car garage and a 1,377 square foot apartment on the second floor of an existing two-story building. • Said that the building will include a beige facade with canvass awnings. The building addition has been set back 7.5 feet from the existing facade to allow a low landscape planter to be installed. S Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 26, 2003 Page 3 • Suggested that the Commission may want to discuss a condition of approval regarding the placement of the awnings, requiring that any applicable encroachment permits be obtained for any overhang over the public right-of-way. • Stated that a landscape plan has been submitted. The six-foot high wrought iron gate has been set further back from the property line with a small planter to be located in front of the cleaners. • Recommended approval with conditions. Commissioner Roupe pointed out the condition requiring maintenance of landscaping and queried whether a similar requirement is warranted for the maintenance of the awnings. Director Tom Sullivan replied sure. Planner Lata Vasudevan said that this requirement could be added to the conditions of approval. Commissioner Zutshi asked if the three extra parking spaces are part of the conditions. Planner Lata Vasudevan replied yes. Two conditions address that requirement. Commissioner Kurasch asked if the condition for any necessary encroachment permits is already included or has to be added. Planner Lata Vasudevan replied that the Commission needs to add such a condition. Commissioner Hunter asked for clarification on the maintenance of awnings and pointed out that there are lots of sad looking awnings. Commissioner Roupe said that the maintenance standard is up to City compliance. Director Tom Sullivan elaborated that if they are torn, they should be repaired or replaced.. Pointed out that nowadays these awnings do not fade as quickly and that typically business owners want their businesses to look sharp. Maintenance concerns would generally be any rips or tears on the awnings. Acting Chair Kurasch opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 7:12 p.m. Mr. Warren Heid, Project Architect, 14630 Big Basin Way, Saratoga: • Said that he is happy to be here and thanked the Commission for its time and effort. • Advised that San Jose City Awning Company will supply the awnings. The color of these awnings is colorfast and guaranteed for 10 years. • Assured that if the awnings have to be replaced, they will be replaced. • Stated that the wall, trim and cornice colors will be in harmony with the color of the limestone, practically what is on the building right now. • Said that they would secure any required encroachment permits. • Made himself available for questions. . Commissioner Hunter: • Said that she has heard that this may be Mr. Heid's last building in town. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 26, 2003 Page 4 • Expressed appreciation to Mr. Heid for all that he has done for the town over the years and how he has worked with the Planning Commission on this and many other projects. • Stated that Mr: Heid will be missed. Mr. Warren Heid replied that he is trying to shut down after, 45 ,years and thanked Commissioner Hunter for her kind comments. Acting Chair Kurasch closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 7:18 p.m. Commissioner Roupe pointed out that the applicant has responded quite nicely to the comments made at the Study Session and that this revised proposal is an improvement over the first submittal. Stated that he now has no reservations and feels that this would be a great addition to the downtown area. Commissioner Zutshi said that Mr. Heid did a wonderful job moving the building and gate back to allow some landscaping. Commissioner Garakani said that this is a good project. Commissioner Hunter said it looks great and will be a real asset to the Village. Acting Chair Kurasch agreed and said that the revisions offer a significant improvement. Stated that this will be good for the downtown. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded by Commissioner Zutshi, the Planning Commission granted .Design Review Approval (Application #02-192) to allow the construction of an addition to an existing commercial building on property located at 14493 Big Basin Way, with the following additional conditions of approval: • That the applicant obtain any necessary encroachment permits for awnings and/or overhangs; and • That the awnings be maintained in an appropriate manner, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Garakani, Hunter, Kurasch, Roupe and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: Barry ABSTAIN: Jackman Commissioner Hunter stated that Mr. Lee- has been delightful to work with and is an asset to the community. *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM N0.3 • Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 26, 2003 Page 5 _ APPLICATION #02-279 (517-09-069) - SARATOGA WINE MERCHANGES, "UNCORKED," 14500 Big Basin Way: Request for Conditional Use Permit approval to allow the sale of alcoholic beverages in a proposed new retail wine store. The store will be located in an existing 1,450 square foot vacant tenant space. The site is located in a Commercial Zoning District. (LIVINGSTONE) Associate Planner John Livingstone presented the staff report as follows: • Informed that the applicants are seeking a Conditional Use Permit to allow the sale of alcoholic beverages within a new retail wine store in an existing 1,400 square foot tenant space located in a Commercial Zoning District. • Described the new store as an upscale wine and gourmet gift shop. The wines are unique and high quality as well as wine-related products. There will be sale of wine 'and wine tasting. Approximately 90 percent of the revenue will be from wine sales. • Said that the business would be managed by its three partners offering a high level of expertise on the subject of wine. • Said that such a business requires a Conditional Use Permit. The Use Permit process allows the Planning Commission the opportunity to impose conditions on a project to ensure that it is compatible with adjacent land uses. • Advised that staff finds this proposed business to be an appropriate use for this tenant space and consistent with the General Plan. • Stated that the required findings can be made in that the business is appropriately located; promotes a stable and attractive environment; will not be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of the community; and will comply with all applicable provisions of the Municipal Code. • Recommended approval. • Advised that typically a project approval is not final for 15 days but, under Section .15.55.080 of the Municipal Code, a Conditional Use Permit becomes effective 10 days following approval. • Said, that the applicants are available this evening. Commissioner Roupe asked if the hours of operation are confirmed and if it is appropriate to make hours of operation a condition of approval. Associate Planner John Livingstone said that the Commission can certainly make specific hours of operation a condition of approval. Acting Chair Kurasch asked if it is fair to do so. Commissioner Roupe said he wanted to be sure that it is possible to do so. Acting- Chair Kurasch asked Associate Planner John Livingstone what his recommendation is for operational hours. Associate Planner John Livingstone said that the City would like to see hours beyond 5 p.m. and that 10 p.m. would be the far side of the envelope. Added that the applicant has said that 10 p.m. is the latest that they want to stay open. Acting Chair Kurasch opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3 at 7:30 p.m. Mr. Patrick Roper, Applicant: . Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 26, 2003 Page 6 • Introduced partner, Sherry Hansen. • Said that they are targeting the $15 to $25 bottle of wine. • Said that he has three years of experience in retail wine sales in Willow Glen. • Stated that the Saratoga community is a good fit and that they like the energy here. • Advised that they have spoken with restaurants and business owners in the Village. • .Added that they plan to be a destination business. Ms. Sherry Hansen, Applicant:. • Said that they have spoken with local business owners to see if they support their coming into town. • Advised that help has been offered in marketing and friendship. • Declared that they believe that they have come to a place where they can stay.. • Provided a break down in the uses of their space with 7 percent for tasting, 50 percent for retail and the remainder to include storage, a restroom and office. • Stressed that their business primarily is retail. Commissioner Zutshi questioned the amount of wine given during tasting. Mr. Patrick Roper said that they have a Type 42 ABC license, which permits afour-ounce pour. Commissioner Garakani asked how many pours one person could take. Mr. Patrick Roper: • Said that they monitor pretty closely with no more than four tastes or pours. • Assured that this is not a bar and that tasting is just for education on what the different wines taste like. Acting Chair Kurasch asked how the tasting is policed. Ms. Sherry Hansen replied that ABC has protocols. Commissioner Garakani asked if there is any possibility that a customer could become intoxicated through the tasting process. Mr. Patrick Roper said he has not seen that occur in his three years in the retail wine business. Commissioner Garakani pointed out that the tenant improvements are already underway and questioned whether the applicants are under the impression that they already have Use Permit approval. Mr. Patrick Roper replied no. Added that they took a calculated risk in beginning. construction two months ago. Advised that if they did not commit themselves to obtain their required licensing, they would fall behind in the process. Ms. Sherry Hansen added that they are simply being optimistic. Commissioner Roupe asked if the applicants object to a restriction in hours to 10 p.m. Ms. Sherry Hansen replied. no problem. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 26, 2003 Page 7 Acting Chair Kurasch asked if any exterior modifications were proposed. Mr. Patrick Roper replied no. Commissioner Roupe asked about signage. Mr. Patrick Roper said that they will install signage that falls within the limits of the City guidelines. Ms. Sherry Hansen pointed out that signage is included within the conditions Acting Chair Kurasch closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3 at 7:35 p.m. Commissioner Hunter: • Informed that she has been attending the Business Development Meetings and has learned a lot about what is needed in Downtown Saratoga. • Said that this business would be a nice addition to the Downtown. • Stated that there may be some overlap but still this is nice.- • Said that she is very pleased with this project and has no problem with the hours to 10 p.m. • Pointed out that it is important to have businesses stay open later. Commissioner Roupe: • Agreed that this is a good project and consistent subject to limitations on operational hours. • Said that there is an objective to have retail on Big Basin Way. • Stated that this business will be a good addition and that he can support its approval. Commissioner Garakani: • Expressed that he has mixed feelings. • Declared that alcohol is a drug, albeit a legal one. • Said that he has no objection with the sale of alcohol but does object to on-site tasting, which makes this business more like a bar. • Pointed out that alcohol is a hazard to public health. • Said that the use of alcohol is best done at home.. • Reiterated that he could not support the on-site tasting. Acting Chair Kurasch asked staff how the public's welfare is defined. Associate Planner John Livingstone said that this use is within the legal requirements of State law. Acting Chair Kurasch asked what restricts the number of tastes per customer. Director Tom Sullivan said that the ABC license varies for on sale and off sale. There are a host of different licenses with different regulations, including limiting the number of tastes in a business such as this one. Associate Planner John Livingstone added that laws prohibit the owners for allowing intoxication to occur. If a customer arrives intoxicated, the owner can deny any tasting. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 26, 2003 Page 8 Acting Chair Kurasch reiterated that the business owner could elect to serve or not serve.. Commissioner Roupe reminded that there are "host" laws and that these business owners have a legal and financial liability not to allow intoxication. Commissioner Zutshi agreed that it would not be good marketing for people to be seen leaving this business drunk. Commissioner Garakani: • Described his daily job as requiring much in preventive action. • Said that he likes. the City to be clean. • Stated that he had asked the applicant how many different wines they would sell and was told there would be about 200 different ones. Commissioner Zutshi pointed out that anyone looking to get drunk could simply do so at a nearby restaurant. Acting Chair Kurasch questioned the need for later hours for wine tasting. Commissioner Hunter pointed out that the tasting is required in order to sell the wine. People need to be able to taste the wine they are going to buy. Commissioner Garakani said that many other places sell alcohol without tasting. Commissioner Hunter declared that this business would be a wonderful asset to the community. Commissioner Zutshi agreed that tasting is a form of marketing, much like in the food court. Commissioner Garakani stressed that the idea of even one person getting into an accident following tasting is of concern to-him. Associate Planner John Livingstone advised that not all wine tasters swallow the wine they are tasting but rather more often will spit it out, eat a cracker and taste something else. Commissioner Garakani stressed that any possibility of intoxication is of concern to him. Commissioner Hunter stated that wine consumption is part of many cultures. Acting Chair Kurasch: • Said that considering the impacts of the wine tasting on the community is a fair question. • Added that three three-ounce pours would equal nine ounces. It has been stated that eight ounces of alcohol is enough to generate intoxication. • Said that she is interested in pursing limitations on the hours for wine tasting. Commissioner Hunter said that it is essential to allow tasting. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 26,.2003 Page 9 Commissioner Roupe agreed that the tasting is part of the marketing of the wines and that limitations on the hours are not necessary beyond the 10 p.m. proposed in the conditions of approval. Commissioner Hunter added that there may be occasions when tasting should be allowed later, perhaps 11 p.m., on a Saturday night or before holidays. Commissioner Roupe said that the applicants could come back for extensions in time in the future. Commissioner Garakani stressed that he cannot support the tasting aspect of this business at all. Acting Chair Kurasch asked Commissioner Garakani about his position on limiting hours. Commissioner Garakani said he planned to abstain on the vote for this application but agreed with the concept to limit tasting to before 6 p.m., if at all. Added that he loves olives and would consider patronizing this store for the purchase of olives. Motion: Commissioner Hunter made the motion recommending that the Planning Commission approve a Conditional Use Permit to allow the sale of alcoholic beverages in a proposed new wine store (Uncorked) on property located at 14500 Big Basin Way, without any changes to the conditions. Motion died for lack of a second. . Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded by Commissioner Zutshi, the Planning Commission approved a Conditional Use Permit to allow the sale. of alcoholic beverages in a proposed new wine store (Uncorked) on property located at 14500 Big Basin Way, with the hours of operation to be no later than 10 p.m., by the following roll call vote: AYES: Hunter, Kurasch, Roupe and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: Barry ABSTAIN: Garakani and Jackman Acting Chair Kurasch reminded that there is a 10-day appeal period for this item. Chair Jackman returned to the dais at 7:55 p.m. and assumed the gavel. *~* PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM N0.4 APPLICATION #02-096 (APN 510-06-006) - LEU/SPITTS, 1933 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road: Request for Design Review Approval to construct first and second story additions and a basement to an existing two-story residence. The total floor area of the proposed two-story residence and attached three-car garage is 6,843 square feet. The maximum height of the proposed residence is 26 feet. The lot size is approximately 143,748 square feet and the site is zoned R-1-40,000. (OOSTERHOUS) Planner Christy Oosterhous presented the staff report as follows: Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 26, 2003 Page 10 • Advised that the applicant is seeking Design Review Approval for a first and second story addition to an existing two-story residence with a total floor area of approximately 6,800 square feet. The . first floor will consist of 4,200 square feet and the second floor 2,600 square feet. The home has an existing 534 square foot basement. The maximum height would be 26 feet. The property consists of approximately 150,000 square feet. ' • .Described the home as a Spanish Mission style with stucco and a the roof. • Said that the. Arborist has recommended the removal of Tree #13, which is a Monterey Pine. This tree would be replaced with four 36-inch box trees. • Advised that there are comments in the report from a neighbor regarding tree removal. • Recommended approval. Commissioner Garakani asked how much space there is from the garage door to the end of the. driveway. Commissioner Roupe said that the residents would have to back out onto the circular drive as there is no hammerhead on which to turn around. Commissioner Kurasch pointed out the potential for root damage due to disking weeds and the recommendation for the placement of four inches of mulch chips to prevent the need. for disking. However, since the damage was not a part of construction but rather site maintenance, this has not be inserted into the conditions of approval. Asked staff if it is appropriate to add this suggestion into the conditions. Planner Christy Oosterhous said that she believed the applicant would be willing to comply with that requirement. Chair Jackman opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4 at 8:02 p.m. Mr. Louie I:eu, Project Architect:. . • Said that this second story addition is on an existing two-story home and that the existing footprint is retained. • Added that mature landscaping on the site mitigates potential privacy impacts. • Stated his agreement with the conditions of approval. • Assured that they will follow the Arborist's recommendation to remove Tree #13 and will replace it with four trees. • Added that they do not want the neighbor to dictate what the replacement trees would be but would be willing to consult with them. • Said that the property owner is present and that this is a fairly easy house addition to approve. Commissioner Hunter asked if the applicant is considering redwood trees. Mr. Louie Leu replied yes. He added that the backup space is 27 feet while typically a backup space is 24 feet. Commissioner Zutshi asked about the curved retaining wall depicted on Plan Sheet A-1.2. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 26, 2003 Page 11 Mr. Louie Leu said that it was designed curved in an attempt to save the tree. However, since the tree • must be removed, they will likely change the shape of the retaining wall. Commissioner Kurasch: • Stated that she would like to propose two additional conditions of approval. • Pointed out that Tree #18 (Italian Stone Pine) is ranked as a specimen tree per the Arborist and is in exceptional condition. • Added that it is essential that that tree be protected and that construction staging not occur near that tree. • Suggested that a condition be imposed requiring apre-construction meeting on site between the contractor, owner, project planner and the Arborist to make the decision on placement of protective fencing to protect this tree. • Additionally, suggested that a landscape plan for the area around the house should be approved and reviewed by the Arborist before grading occurs. Mr. Louie Leu: • Pointed out that Tree #18 is located on the other side of the property but that he has no problem with a condition to ensure the health of that tree during construction. • Added that the site is large and that there is plenty of room for construction staging. • Said that as for the proposed landscape plan, they have no plans to do any landscaping. The site has been in a natural state for quite a while and that the existing landscaping conditions. will remain. Commissioner Kurasch asked if there is a condition requiring additional landscaping. Director Tom. Sullivan replied that for the record the applicant can document what is there now, a natural non-intrusive landscape in front. Commissioner Kurasch said that there is potential conflict if trenching is done anywhere near the trees. Director Tom Sullivan said that there can be a condition that no trenching occur. Commissioner Kurasch stated that landscaping is important. Commissioner Hunter said that the retention of natural landscaping is nice. Mr. Louie Leu said that there would be some irrigation for the new trees in front. Commissioner Kurasch asked Mr. Leu if he has any objection to putting the irrigation plans down on the construction plans. Mr. Louie Leu said that they did not want to have to hire a landscape architect simply to show the addition of four trees. • Director Tom Sullivan stated that he is confident that this architect can handle this plan. Suggested surface installed drip irrigation to help the trees establish themselves on site. Chair Jackman closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4 at 8:13 p.m. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 26, 2003 Page 12 Chair Jackman said that this is a good and complete plan and the site has established landscaping. • Asked how disking is handled. Chair Jackman reopened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4 to allow the property owner the opportunity to respond. Mr. Steve .Spitts, Property Owner, said that he did not notice the comments regarding root damage to existing trees: Chair Jackman pointed out that it was simply a general comment on the potential of damage as a result of disking as opposed to actual damage being found. Mr. Steve Spitts said that disking is a secondary occupation for him. Chair Jackman reiterated that the Arborist has stated that disking damages roots and that mulching is better than disking. However, this is not an issue for the plans for this house. Mr. Steve Spitts said that he was a gardener for the first four years he lived on the site and heavily mulched the property. The soil is very healthy and well mulched. Commissioner Kurasch said that it is not unusual to condition tree preservation measures as part of a project review. The Commission is interested in Ordinance protected trees. Suggested that Mr. Spitts read the Arborist report as it is illuminating. Mr. Steve Spitts pointed out that disking is a requirement of the Fire Department. Commissioner Roupe said that the issue of disking beneath the oak is a broader issue than this one specific project, perhaps under the discussion of the Tree Ordinance. Director Tom Sullivan said that it would be better if a public educational program is prepared that offers alternatives for both large and small properties. Chair Jackman said that this is a fine and exceptional specimen and should not be disked around. Mr. Steve Spitts said that the disking around those trees is done by hand each year and reminded that the Stone Pine is not on his property. Chair Jackman said that the trees most of concern are those around the driveway. Chair Jackman reclosed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4 at 8:22 p.m. Commissioner Kurasch: • Expressed her strong preference to require. apre-construction meeting to discuss required construction fencing before construction begins. • Said that the landscape note or plan by the architect should be added to the construction drawings. • Agreed that this project has been very well done and that the house is very nice and the property lovely. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 26, 2003 Page 13 Commissioner Roupe agreed that this is a beautiful property. Director Tom Sullivan pointed out page 8, condition 21, that mandates that all recommendations in the City Arborist's report shall be incorporated into the plan. Said that checking this before the start of construction is the norm. Commissioner Garakani said that the house is very good and found it interesting that the health of this. tree generated a more lengthy discussion than the potential health of human beings as a result of the previous agenda item. Commissioner Roupe concurred with the applicant that Tree#13 should be removed per the Arborist's recommendation. Accepted both the Arborist's recommendation and the desire of the applicant to. remove that tree. ' Chair Jackman pointed out that there are no privacy issues as a result of this proposal. Commissioner Hunter said that this is a nice project. Go for it. Enjoy. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Kurasch, seconded by Commissioner Roupe, the Planning Commission granted a Design Review Approval (Application #02-096) to allow the construction of a first and second story additions and a basement to an existing two-story residence on property located at 19330 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road. • with the added conditions to require that a landscape plan note be added by the. architect to the plans depicting the location of existing vegetation and any proposed irrigation, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Garakani, Hunter; Jackman, Kurasch, Roupe and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: Barry ABSTAIN: None *** PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. S APPLICATION #02-272 (APN 397-23-007) - BIERACH, 20355 Orchard Road: Request for Design Review Approval to construct first and second story additions to an existing one-story residence. The total floor area of the proposed two-story residence is 2,283 square feet. The maximum height of the proposed two-story residence is 2,283 square feet. The maximum height of the proposed residence is 21 feet, 6 inches. The lot size is approximately 7,3000 square feet and the site is zoned R- 1-10,000. (OOSTERHOUS) Planner Christy Oosterhous presented the staff report as follows: • Informed that the applicant is seeking Design Review Approval for a first and second story addition to an existing single-family residence. • Said that the added space is proposed for the rear of the property for a total floor area of 2,700 square feet. The first floor would total 2,100 square feet and the second floor 600 square feet. The maximum height would be 21 feet. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 26, 2003 Page 14 • Described the lot as 7,300 square feet in an R-1-10,000 zoning district. There are several parcels in the area that are non-conforming in width and depth. Additionally, there is a mixture of one and two-story homes and architectural styles vary. • Said that horizontal and vertical wood siding would be used, board and batten and stucco. There is a brick fireplace. The covered front porch is to remain. Materials for the addition will reflect the existing materials. • Stated that the proposal conforms to Design Review requirements and recommended approval. Commissioner Hunter said that she saw the story poles today and realized that the structure is visible from a heritage lane and would be the only two-story visible from this heritage lane. Pointed out that there was no mention made of the fact of the heritage lane within the staff report. Planner Christy Oosterhous said that technically the heritage lane ends at the 1400 block. Additionally, staff did not find the design offensive to a heritage lane. Director Tom Sullivan elaborated that staff pulled the 1991 staff report that went to Council when the heritage lane was designated and that the specific address in the 1400 block marked the start of the heritage lane. Chair Jackman said she looked again today and noticed that across the street there is an apartment building with garage below, resulting in a two-story. structure. Commissioner Hunter reiterated concern over the fact that the issue of the heritage lane was never even mentioned in the staff report. Commissioner Kurasch asked whether the heritage lane would trigger Heritage Commission review. Commissioner Hunter said that the heritage lane designation means the road will always remain atwo- lane road. Commissioner Roupe said that it has been determined that the heritage lane ends at the 1400 block and therefore this property is not included. Commissioner Kurasch said that every elevation has different window treatments. Additionally, shutters are used on one side but not the other. Stressed the need for some consistency and continuity. Asked staff if they have any issue with that fact. Planner Christy Oosterhous said that she has no issue. Commissioner Kurasch said she noticed these inconsistencies quite a bit. Asked for a color board. Planner Christy Oosterhous said that as this is simply an addition, it will match the existing materials. The addition will be stucco. Chair Jackman opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 5 at 8:37 p.m. Mr. Kirk Bierach, Owner/Applicant, 20355 Orchard Road, Saratoga: • Said that he has resided on the property for nine years and has three boys in Saratoga schools. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 26, 2003 Page 15 __ ~ Stated that his goal is to preserve the existing structure while enhancing the property to gain needed living space. • Said that the main structure has casement wooden sash windows. • Said that the addition will add to the Craftsman style of the neighborhood, including use of shutters. • Said that two windows on the left side are single hung and that there was no space available on which to mount shutters. • Said he is open to not installing shutters at all or to add shutters in back and have the style match all around the house. • Stated that he is not looking to change the main existing house. • Pointed out that there are two-story homes in the area. • Added that theirs is a .reverse non-conforming lot and stated that they worked with the Design Guidelines regarding height, size and setbacks. They also worked with the neighbors. • Stated he was available for any questions. Chair Jackman said that the windows used should be uniform and that there are too many shutters on the left side. Mr. Kirk Bierach agreed that some could be removed and-that he was open to that possibility. Commissioner Hunter said that shutters make it more pleasing. Mr. Kirk Bierach said that this is a difficult site to work with and that they have tried to preserve what is there and enhance features. Said that he wants this home to be found attractive and not a nuisance. Commissioner Hunter asked if there is any way to reduce the second story. Mr. Kirk Bierach said that they have already reduced the home from their original concept. The home has been shrunk down as far as it can be and still provide enough bedrooms for everyone in the family. Commissioner Kurasch: • Expressed concern for maxed out properties and said that the solution is sometimes a reduction in size or configuration. • Said that the project is at maximum allowable and that she has particular concern with the right side. • Suggested the reduction of the second story. • Stated the concern is the size and where the property is located. Mr. Kirk Bierach said that the maximum allowed is 2,880 with height restrictions imposed and said that he has tried to work within guidelines. This is a modest home relative to others in Saratoga. Commissioner Hunter suggested a reduction in height by one or two feet. Chair Jackman pointed out that the total height is only 21 feet, 6 inches, which is somewhat minimal for a two-story. Commissioner Roupe expressed concern that if too low, the home would end up with a flat roof. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 26, 2003 Page 16 Commissioner Hunter said she is concerned, about what is viewed of the second story from Saratoga Avenue. Said that she is unable to support this project due to that fact. Chair Jackman said that the Commission cannot deny asecond-story since one is already on the other side of the street. Mr. Kirk Bierach said he grew up in Saratoga and plans to stay here a long time. They have a big family and they want to make the best of what they have. Assured that their addition would enhance Saratoga. Ms. Karen Bierach said that their family of five,' including three boys, are living in just two bedrooms right now. They need more space and want a bedroom for each boy. Chair Jackman asked if a basement had been considered. Mr. Kirk Bierach said that the water level on their property prevents that from being an option. Planner Christy Oosterhous suggested that screening trees could be used to screen the second story from view from Saratoga Avenue. Chair Jackman closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 5 at 8:52 p.m. Commissioner Roupe agreed that this may be a large structure for the site but said that this property is not on a heritage lane as defined in the Ordinance. Director Tom Sullivan said that the boundary map for the heritage lane clearly shows that this is not part of it. Commissioner Roupe: • Said that the proposal is an improvement over what is there now and that more imposing structures are across the street, which are not as architecturally pleasing. • Said he would support with conditions and that issues such as shutters versus no shutters need to be worked out. • Stated that this is a small two-story structure on a small non-conforming lot that does the best to meet the applicant's needs as well as the guidelines of the City. • Declared that this is a good project. Commissioner Zutshi agreed with Commissioner Roupe and said that this is a rather modest addition to the property. Suggested use of uniform windows and shutters in the front. Said that 600 feet on the top is not a big addition. . Chair Jackman said that there are not a lot of options to maintain a large. family and how the get that family comfortable on this lot. Commissioner Kurasch: • Said that this is a small exposed lot and that there would be a large two-story wall on the right side rear that lends itself to a plainer look. • Said that some continuity needs to be pulled together so that all sides flow together. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 26, 2003 Page 17 5- • Suggested that this project be brought back. • Reiterated that she does not support maximum sized homes, especially on small lots. • Said that she agrees with Commissioner Hunter that this is imposing where it is and that the problems can be solved with articulation and shrinkage. • Said that while she likes where it is starting and the way it is going, the design is not quite there yet. Chair Jackman said that most of the second story is at the back and centered. Planner Christy Oosterhous said that it is set back from the Saratoga Avenue side. Commissioner Roupe: • Said that the people. to the right are uphill and are separated by a large unbuildable space and landscaping. • Agreed that the backside neighbor would look at a big blank wall. . • Reminded that the applicant took out windows from that wall that would have looked out over the neighboring property. • Said that the back end is what would be most obtrusive. Chair Jackman asked what the articulation is on the left side. Planner Christy Oosterhous replied seven feet. Director Tom Sullivan suggested that a false wiridow, trimmed out with fenestration but no window, could be added so that this does not appear to be a blank wall. Commissioner Roupe suggested a real window be installed but with obscured glass to assure privacy. Commissioner Kurasch said that the issue is the small lot with a large home and that the conditions of this specific. property must be looked at. Agreed with the concerns expressed by Commissioner Hunter regarding the visibility of the second story from Saratoga Avenue. Commissioner Garakani: • Stated that this is a sensitive site. • Suggested that the Commission go back and visit the site again and come up with good suggestions for the applicant, who needs space for his three kids. • Said that a plan can be developed that will satisfy the applicant and the citizens of Saratoga: Commissioner Roupe asked if a Study Session is being proposed. Commissioner Garakani said that he would be willing to participate in a Study Session. Commissioner Kurasch suggested that the applicant come back with a redesign. Commissioner Roupe said that more guidance is needed. Chair Jackman said she thought that sufficient guidance could be provided this evening. G Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 26, 2003 Page 18 Commissioner Kurasch said that no consensus is being heard. Commissioner Hunter said that she appreciates the suggestion to revisit the site and would like to do so. Said that right now she has a problem with the proposal. Chair Jackman said that the second story may have to be decreased. Commissioner Garakani said that the. site should be revisited and that this project deserves more time and that he does not want to see a rush to approve. Commissioner Kurasch questioned whom on the Commission believes the project can go forward to a vote this evening. Commissioner Hunter suggested a straw vote to see the preferences of the Commission between an approval tonight with changes in architectural treatments versus revisiting the site and conducting a Study Session to help reduce the proposal. Commissioners Kurasch, Hunter and Garakani expressed support for a continuance. Commissioners Roupe and Zutshi were in favor of going forward as proposed with changes in . architectural treatments. Director Tom Sullivan cautioned that March 12 is the preferred meeting date. After that all agendas are full until the Apri123`d meeting. Commissioner Garakani said that he wants to see the Commission work with the applicant and not simply continue to the next meeting with redesign. Commissioner Roupe pointed out that .due to scheduling limitations, the Commission is not in a position to do so. Chair Jackman said that typically the Commission has Study Sessions for more complex projects than this. Commissioner Garakani said that since there are sensitive issues with this lot, the applicant deserves the opportunity to work out issues. on this design with the Commission. Director Tom Sullivan said that they would need a special agreement from the applicant for that kind of continuance since. the Permit Streamlining Act requires action within 60 days of an application being deemed complete. Chair Jackman suggested the Commission settle down and deal with issues tonight. Director Tom Sullivan recommended that the Commission continue to the March 12~' meeting with revisions. Staff will work with the applicant to try to satisfy the concerns raised by the Commission but will not likely deal with all of them. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 26, 2003 Page 19 Commissioner Kurasch said that she has a different take on the role of the Commission. She sees development as a voluntary action and that the applicant's need for space is not her first concern but rather how the physical aspect of the addition impacts the community. Commissioner Hunter pointed out that the seventh Commissioner is missing for the vote. Commissioner Roupe advised that he would not be available for the March 12th meeting and suggested the Commission go ahead and deliberate tonight. Commissioner Hunter insisted that she needs the opportunity to go back and visit the site as she still is concerned that this would be the only two-story visible from the heritage lane. Commissioner Kurasch agreed that more manipulation of the project is required. Commissioner Roupe suggested the obscured glass window and some inset of the second story. Commissioner Kurasch said that some compromise may be in order and that she has concerns over the proposed size of this home. Articulation would be a big step. Commissioner Roupe suggested moving more over the garage with more articulation on the right side. Pull in the second story and put a window there so it is not so monolithic. Director Tom Sullivan said that staff and the applicant now have a good idea on the issues of concern to . the Commission and that the project should be continued at this point. Motion:. Upon motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded by Commissioner Hunter, the Planning Commission continued consideration of Application #02-272 for additions to a residence on property located at 20355 Orchard Road to the next Planning Commission meeting on March 12, 2003, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Garakani, Hunter, Jackman, Kurasch, Roupe and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: Barry ABSTAIN: None *** DIRECTOR'S ITEMS Director Tom Sullivan said that future staff reports will include the date that a project was deemed complete so the Commission will recognize the deadline for action as required under the Permit Streamlining Act. COMMISSION ITEMS ,. Business Devel~ment Meeting r Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 26, 2003 Page 20 Commissioner Hunter advised that she had attended a Business Development meeting at which 15 people brainstormed about what they would like to see in Saratoga to increase business. Said that many in attendance, even those who live outside of the ,area but have businesses in Saratoga, love and appreciate the natural beauty of Saratoga. The group will be writing to Council regarding issues such as signs and lighting. Library Tour Commissioner Zutshi announced the next Library Tour for March 5, 2003, at 11:45 a.m. COMMUNICATIONS There were no Communications Items. AD,TOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Chair Jackman adjourned the meeting at 9:30 p.m. to the next regular meeting set for Wednesday, March 12, 2003, to begin at 7 p.m. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk • o~ . ~ . ITEM 1 ~ ~~~o s ° n Q e ~`~~ o~ ~ ~~C~~ C~ n _c~ 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA; CALIFORNIA 95070 ~ (408) 8G8-1200 Incorporated October 22, 1956 T0: Planning Commission FROM: Christine Oosterhous, AICij~% Associate Planner lv~ COI?NCIL b1EMBERS: Stan Bogosian Kathleen King Norman Kline Nick Streit Ann Waltonsmith SUBJECT: Revisions to Design Review Application No. 02-272; 20355 Orchard Road DATE:. March 12, 2003 At the February 26, 2003 meeting, the Planning Commission referred Design Review Application No. 02-272 back to the applicant for restudy. The applicant has submitted revised elevations for your consideration: The changes have been indicated on the attached revised plans with a cloud. In summary, revisions include the following: • First story roofline is visible. on the rear and both side elevations. • Knee braces have been incorporated into the gable ends. • Shutters have been added to windows on several elevations. • Wood siding has been added in the gable ends. • Three new windows have been added to the rear elevation (one to be obscurej. • All new windows are to be vinyl.clad with snap on grids. Please note: draft minutes from the February 26, 2003 meeting are included in your planning commission packets, pages 13=19 pertain to this project. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft Resolution of Approval 2. Ordinance No. HP-19 3. Map of Heritage Lane Boundaries 4. Spec .sheet on proposed garage doors 5. Revised elevations with clouds indicating changes. ~~®C~01 .I • • ~`O~V~~ APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Kirk Bierach, property owner; 20355 Orchard Road WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received ari application for design review for the construction of 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 WHEREAS, the project is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to section 15302 of the Guidelines for the Implementation of CEQA. This Class 2 exemption applies to the construction and location of limited numbers of new small facilities or structures. WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application for design review approval, and the following findings have been determined: The proposed project implements the following Residential Design Policies: • The mass and bulk of the 614 square foot second-story addition is mitigated by its size and placement at the rear of the site. • The second story building line is recessed -from the first -story at the front and left side elevations. • Building heights are minimized. The maximum height of the two-story residence is 21 feet 6 inches. • Gable ends, rooflines, shutters, and windows reduce the mass and bulk of the proposed additions. • Natural materials and colors are proposed including abrown/grey stucco finish. The proposed materials and colors will blend with the natural environment. • No trees are proposed for removal or adversely affected by the proposed project. Existing vegetation is preserved and integrated into the proposed project. • The applicant has provided evidence that the immediate and surrounding neighbors support the project. Nine property owners in the area have signed a petition in support of the project. These property owners include the parcels immediately adjacent, and behind the project site as well as additional neighbors on Orchard Road. ~~Oi~03 Application 1Vo. 02-272; 20355 Orchard Road NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the :City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans grid other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, application #02-272 for design review approval is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1. The development shall be located and constructed as shown on Exhibit "A" incorporated by reference. 2. .Four sets of complete construction plans incorporating this Resolution and the City Arborist Report as a separate plan page shall be submitted to the Building Division prior to submittal for building permits. 3. The site survey shall be stamped and signed by a Registered Civil Engineer or Licensed Land; Surveyor. 4. The site plan shall contain a note with the following language: "Prior to foundation inspection by the City, the LLS of record shall provide a written certification that all building setbacks are per the approved plans." 5. Submit grading and drainage plans to the public works department for review. 6. 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 storm water cannot be retained on-site due to topographic, soils or other constraints, an explanatory note shall be provided on the plan.- CITY ARBORIST 7. All recommendations in the City Arborist's Report shall be followed and incorporated into the plans. . FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 8. All development review conditions from the Saratoga Fire Department shall be followed and incorporated into the plans. CITY ATTORNEY 9. Applicant agrees to hold City harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the City of held to be liability of City in connection with City's defense of its actions in any proceeding brought in any State Federal Court, challenging the City's action with respect to the applicant's project. ~~0(~04 _ Application No. 02-272; .20355 Orchard Road 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 days from the date of adoption PASSES AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission. State of California,. the 12th day of March 2003 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: C~ Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission This permit is hereby accepted upon the express terms and conditions hereof, and shall have no force or effect unless and until agreed to, in writing, by the Applicant, and Property Owner or Authorized Agent. The undersigned hereby ,acknowledges the approved terms and conditions and agrees to fully conform to and comply with said terms and conditions within the recommended time frames approved by the City Planning Commission. r1Vl.,Glly V W11\+1 Vl llutiivaa[JVU a ibvaa~ Date ~~®l.~~J Attachment 2 • ~~©~'os ORDINANCE NO. $P-19 . AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF 5~.8.iST©.GA DESIGNATIN~i THE PORTION~OF SARATOGA AVENUE FROM FRUITVALE AVENUE TO 14301 SARATOGA AVENUE AS A HERITAGE LAMS The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby ordains as follows: WHEREAS, the owners of over sixty percent of all the recorded lots abutting the subject portion of Saratoga Avenue, submitted an application requesting. designation of the subject portion of Saratoga Avenue as a heritage lane; and WHEREAS, the City Council determined that the subject portion of Saratoga Avenue qualifies for designation as a heritage lane in accordance with criteria (a), (e), (f) and '(g) of Section 13-15.010. of the City Code; and WHEREAS, the City Council recognizes the portion of Saratoga, . Avenue from Fruitvale Avenue to the Village as an irreplaceable' heritage resource which links the City to its. economical, and historical past and enhances the City's visual and rural character; and WHEREAS, the City determines, as stated in its .Heritage Preservation Ordinance, to safeguard .and protect its heritage resources. NOW, THEREFORE,. BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby orda-ins as follows: Section 1: After careful review and consideration of the report of the Heritage Preservation Commission and the Planning Commission reports, the application and supportive materials, the City Council has determined that the' subject portion of Saratoga Avenue meets the required criteria for designation; and hereby the City Council designates the subject portion. of Saratoga Avenue as a heritage lane. Section 2: The City will ensure the protection of the historic and rural character of the lane through. future land use , decisions and development controls. Section 3s This designation shall become operative and take effect thirty (30) days from its date of passage. • ~~Q~o~ ~~~ ~j This ordinance was regularly introduced and after the waiting.. time required by law was thereafter passed and adopted this 7th day. of August, 1991 by the following vote: ' AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK • ~00~09 City of Saratoga Heritage Lane Boundaries Pursuant to Ordinance No. HP-19 a 14301 Saratoga Avenue Ji 0 Fruitvale Avenue i Attachment 4 i~ ., ~, __.._ .._ ' 223 ~: ~1`Yiriii~ i~ • ~ ~~ ~ iw'r~ ~ ii ~`i _., . _. s .. _.. ,. The Avalon The Model T is an upward acting sectional. garage door that fools the senses. Most upon seeing thesc doors think that they swing outward like doors from the late ] S00'. s. This is exactly the desire of our design team. We welcome those interested to choose from this selection or to create their own. -These doors come with heavy duty hardware and we always recommend using a 1/2.horsepower operator. Please contact us for more information. n Door Construction lass Wood '1Yim ner Framing 'eatherlock ickpanel 1/4" The Madera Rosa The Sobey d' r~~r~~~~ n 4~ • • _t, _~ ,_.._.. ._ ._ ... dz_ ~'. 4 4aYe; AMP I i i ~ ~~ ', ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 s __ _ ~ - ~ . ~ ~~~ -~ •:., i - i ~~.,~ ,' ~ ~ ' ~ k 7 R m ~: ~, . _ ~ . i , 1 f r>.rc~u-~~~1 ~ _ ~ _ __ tPRar I~ ~,a- ._ . ~ Rpssfincia) f~Al~ ..31~f ~~, ' 1 ' ri RIGHT -SIDE ~ ~ U _. (may] e , _ tiCALI. 1!a ~ I'~ 0 a ~ W a W N I ~ . I Y o ~ H ICI M ~ z Z Q a ~~ W ~, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~oPo~a ~ -- ~ A A ~ ~ (~~g ~2bb 41~~ ._AoDmO N' _._._ _ --- ~ ~ d 5~~ caw G ~ pt „-... , ?rn° .,-~ ~ IXg61DINC~ P r~ ~ ~ ~ "~ ~ 0 E~ zC~o~,~, y _~ - ._ -- e I t r7 H U1 ~ p~p k1 ~ .... . ~ PROFO6EC AL~fTlok 5ARr1ToG~ LEFT -SIDE SCALE-llJ=1'-P' D ~~~~~~ FEB 2 8 2003 ~~ C[TY OF SARATOGA ` ''OMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ~° ~ w a ° ~ ° ~ ~ . f Tut 1~1 0 , N a ~RMRR ql CIGRMIIII 100011 ' .. .. ,,~ i r- C i / ~~ i ~ ~ }-- - /, N\ ., ,. I SIB' t d.r. Ply rye, SI ~ ~ „- f ,ICd. Q n "aa. 1 ~ ;~,~ ~~~~;o;;,~ I ~~ t , .. I T ~l,. I ~ r; % - ,~~ ~,~~ Typical Stair Construction 112 =t'-D" - '.' NQTE ___._.. _____ -.---__ IDOODEN HdNDR41L Qh1.1LL HD'/'o C ~ - ~~ '~~~ ~~ 5.'100TF{ O'JRP000 WITH NO ON~R? - ~ ~ ~CORNERE PER OBG II}OO A1B ,.. _..___ _. I --~~ ~- ~ ~~ ~ - IJIR MIN I•I,:° MIN. _ ____ M~z t. 17 '" ti: ~' C7 XOr ~ A11~ ~\\ 11 I " ~ n~~p. LbODEN HJNDR4IL _.._~ .I ~, t ~O I + '' y" ~ypcwM BJ --.. I .+AhGRAiL w METAL BQAGKE*S _ I -~° MM .' nea D14"E'TER l ~ ~6iM. +CLS7EU rvxalPr SMODTM `~"?! eUR~3CE hG 2N•RF .^,GRNERS PER ~,/~ DBDI x.14 ! .. -_.. _._.\ W'. E'"IN 'DSE!! At 9 G I: PER RE4`50 ~" ~ ~ ; BPHERE Dw'W~' i Fd : / ~ i ~- THROl: PER GEL SD9l -- I ~, ~ y~ I K ~ _. C} I ~ f f :x. rNadeT eLCCe ° u I NaICeD To sJe~La. ' "' I ~ NcTCH D ro ~ ' eTRIN~eR -. -~ --- -~ ~~' I E J f3' I,I M4z ~` LR. eP.1DE un croon f T i L. lY{ _ aaot'' 4e ~ JR eA~/~~cge+ +-, ~^c 1 ~~ ~'_{ 'I.~ I~~ S I j 1w t~ ;. (~ i 1 r ~ L - ~ III. ` ~ ' ~ 1 y ~ ~1~~ j` ~ ' I ~ ~, r ~~.- III .~ - ~. ' ~' ~~p I r. I ' ~; v 11 S et p..- ' ' C ~ ~ , ~~ I ' ~ _ ~ ~:~ y~.w ~, ~ 1' I , ~~ 4 ~ _ k LI REAR ~ , __ _ ~ . SG~LE- 1:'1= I'~ 0' ~~~ ~ F C _. . _ ..~. I- ~ is ~t,~. II. CW'~'~~ ~' ~~ _` - ~ _~ ..y.. ~~ ~ I ~ .» ,_ 1 ~ "-_ f '{ ~, s ~ ~ I ,.... LJ. yTiTH" ORE ~,.' / PRH•FGORIDAlEO ~ ' t IR TRfi~DE R.SER£ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ :. ~. ` ~ ~ ~' ~~ •I ~ ~ ~~' ~ ~ ~s.tx:7 Din 0LIa I ~ - ' ~ -./~ j 9TRIN6BR8 v , _ ~ ~_ .- ~ I J . '. p;e^ TYPE~z GYP :: :: -~- ' ~ - j ,i. " ~ I ,.. .. .. ., f 9 . . aLL pRes6 ~. . WDHRNHYTH .., ~..~ z~ CRIPPLH WGLL vi 61iIR - - - .. FRONT; SIeLLE 1M=1'-0" ,- . . I ~YPIGAL STAIR 4ANDRAIL DETAIL a I , i W U z w A x v i A ITEM 2 ~~ REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No./Location: ED 01-002, DR-O1-035, &~ UP-O1-013; 13601 Saratoga Avenue Applicant/Owner: St. Andrew's Parish &t School Staff Planner: Christine Oosterhous AICP, Associate Planne~ Date: March 12, 2003 APN: 397-25-022 Department Hea • 13601 Saratoga Avenue St. Andrew's Parish and School i~ ~ooao~ File No. ED-O1-002, DR-O1-035, & UP-O1-013; 13601 Saratoga Avenue, St. Andrew's Parish and School EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CASE HISTORY Application filed: Application complete: Planning commission hearing: . Planning commission hearing: Planning commission hearing: 06/12/02 09/01/02 10/09/02 (continued) 10/23/02 03/12/03 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant requests design review and use permit approval to construct new facilities for St. Andrew's Parish and School. The proposed project includes the demolition of existing buildings and the construction of the following facilities: a performing arts/gymnasium, Sunday school rooms, administration offices, classrooms, clergy offices, a 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 approximately 72,705 square feet and will include six new structures. A detailed table describing the number of stories and floor area of each proposed building is attached (attachment A). The existing sanctuary (11,446 square feet) is to remain. St. Andrew's provides schooling for children at levels pre-kindergarten through the 8th grade. Existing enrollment is approximately 439 students (Source: Traffic Study, pg 2). The maximum number of employees is 68 (52 for school and 16 for parish). The project site is five-acres or 217,800 square feet. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the planning commission adopt the mitigated negative declaration and mitigation monitoring program. Staffrecommends the planning commission conditionally approve the proposed project by adopting the attached resolution which incorporates the following project modifications: 1) All classroom ceiling heights shall be reduced to 8 ft in height. 2) The 54 ft. bell tower shall be reduced in height. The frequency and duration of bell ringing shall be reduced. Revisions to the bell tower height and ringing schedule shall be reviewed and approved by the planning commission at a later date. 3) Clerestory windows (narrow windows installed above eye-level) shall be installed in the second story of the north classroom building. As proposed, clerestory windows shall be installed in the parish center (sheet A3.3, figure 10, 11). 4) The administration classroom and clergy buildings shall not exceed 30 feet in height at any point as viewed from Saratoga Avenue (front of buildings). 5) All lighting shall be down cast "cut-off' type which will not cast glare on adjoining properties. 6) No lighting including security lighting shall be permitted to shine into any residential properties. • • ~0000~ File No. ED-O1-002, DR-O1-035, & UP-O1-013; 13601 Saratoga Avenue, ' St. Andrew's Parish and School 7) The existing blue tables and benches located outdoors along the shared property lines of residences on Tweed Court shall be removed to reduce the impacts of outdoor parish and school activity on the residential uses. 8) Interior building lights shall not be illuminated in the evenings when not in use. 9) An 8 foot wood acoustical barrier shall be constructed along the entire property line between 19541 Tweed Court and the project site. 10) Landscape screening shall be installed between the proposed buildings and the shared property lines to buffer to the adjoining residential properties on Tweed. A revised landscape screening plan shall be submitted to staff prior to building permit issuance. The landscape plan shall be circulated and reviewed by the neighboring property owners on Tweed Ct. The location of the landscape screening shall be the result of an onsite meeting with neighboring property owners scheduled for March 7, 2003. The screening plan shall indicate minimum size screening to be no smaller than 36" box to achieve a minimum height of 20' planted to create a continuous evergreen screen within 5 years.. The screening trees shall be imgated. The landscape screening shall be installed prior to final inspection. 11) Planning Commission approval shall be required to increase student enrollment beyond one-percent of the existing enrollment of 439 students. 12) No increase in enrollment beyond one-percent of 439 students shall be approved by the planning commission without a facilities and enrollment masterplan for the site ;which shall be submitted to the planning commission for review and approval. The master plan shall include enrollment projections and future build-out on site. 13) Enrollment figures shall be submitted to the planning department each fall. 14) Outdoor concerts, amplified voices, or music shall not be permitted in any outdoor location. 15) The housing for existing hvac located by the existing sanctuary shall be further insulated to provide a more effective noise buffer from adjoining residential properties. 16) Noise from proposed hvac equipment shall be buffered as to not infi-inge upon the quality of life of the surrounding residential properties. 17) To deter bicycle theft and thus encourage bicycling to and from the site staff recommends secure bicycle parking be provided. Bicycle racks. such that only one wheel and not the entire frame can be locked to the rack shall not be utilized because they are not secure. Staff recommends P1.2 Class II types be utilized (attachment M, figure P-1, Bicycle Technical Guidelines, A Guide for Local Agencies in Santa Clara County). 18) The pathway required by the public works department across the adjacent property shall be located away from the edge of street. 19) The mitigation monitoring program agreement form shall be signed by the applicant with the resolution of approval to ensure that the mitigation monitoring program is enforced. ATTACHMENTS: A. Project data table. B. Draft resolution for use permit and design review applications: C. Minutes from planning commission meeting held October 23, 2002. D. Resolution 2285, amending the text of the GP to permit three stories, dated November 1985. ~~ooc~o~ File No. ED-O1-002, DR-O1-035, & UP-O1-013; 13601 Saratoga Avenue, St. Andrew's Parish and School E. General Plan text 3-5 overall height limit -does not reflect amendment. F. Municipal Code Section 15-12.100(c) Height of Structures. G. Letter in opposition of the project dated February 26, 2003 from Marc and Eileen King. H. Letter in opposition of the project dated October 29, 2002 from Harry and Diana Luoh. I. Email in opposition to the bell tower dated December 9, 2002 from Marion and Irv Wentzien. J. Email comments from Jim and Julie Stallman. K. Description of parish center height identifying areas 13' and 20' in height. L. Arborist Reports dated October 24, 2001, March 27, 2002, and Oct 22, 2002. M. Secure bicycle rack details and requirements. N. Mitigated Negative Declaration . 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. Noise Assessment Study by Edward Pack, Associates dated October 21, 2002. 7. Traffic Study by Fehr & Peers, dated June 21, 2002. 8. Public Works Conditions. 9. Mitigation 1Vlonitoring Program. O. Comments from the Santa Clara Valley Water District, dated February 25, 2003. P. Affidavit of mailing notices, public notice and mailing labels.. • ~~a0~n~ File No. ED-O1-002, DR-O1-035, & UP-O1-013; 13601 Saratoga Avenue, St. Andrew's Parish and School r ZONING STAFF ANALYSIS GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION MEASURE G. PARCEL SIZE SLOPE: R-1 20,000 Quasi-Public Facilities (QPF) Not Applicable 5 acres or 217,800 square feet Average site slope Slope at building site GRADING REQUIRED: approximately 6,400 cubic yards cut 1,800 cubic yards fill ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: A mitigated negative declaration and mitigation monitoring program have been prepared for adoption by the planning commission (attachment N). MATERIALS AND COLORS PROPOSED: Materials include a mixture of 8-inch lapped horizontal siding and cement plaster. S Proposed colors include: brown siding and a brown and light-beige cement plaster. Roof materials include brown asphalt shingles (sheet M-1). PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant requests design review and use permit approval to construct new facilities for. St. Andrew's Parish and School. The proposed project includes the demolition of existing buildings and the construction of the following facilities: a performing arts/gymnasium, Sunday school rooms, administration offices, classrooms, clergy offices, a 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 approximately 72,705 square feet and will include six new structures. A detailed table describing the number of stories and floor area of each proposed building is attached (attachment A). The existing sanctuary (11,446 square feet) is to remain. St. Andrew's provides schooling for children at levels pre- kindergarten through the 8th grade. Existing enrollment is 439 students. The maximum number of employees is 68 (52 for school and 16 for parish). 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. • ~.~Q~~~~ File No. ED-O1-002, DR-O1-035, & UP-O1-013; 13601 Saratoga Avenue, St. Andrew's Parish and School The following is a detailed description of the proposed facilities: Performing Arts/Gymnasium Building The performing arts/gymnasium building consists of 15,168 square feet for sports activities such as basketball and volleyball, locker rooms, storage, theater, and food service facilities. Located above the locker rooms and storage areas is a 3,250 square foot area that houses. some of the Sunday school classrooms. The proposed maximum height of the performing arts/gymnasium building is 39 ft. Ceiling heights in this building are greater than 15 feet. Administration/Classroom Wing _ Classrooms and administration offices are located in a three-story 24,928 square foot building, which has a maximum height of 44 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. development and is located near the center of the site. The adrninistration/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 15 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 40 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 12 feet. The maximum height of the Parish Center building is 20 feet. The applicant has provided occupancy figures for the Parish Center. Per the California Building Code, the maximum occupant load for the Parish Hall is 270, however, that figure maybe further reduced once tables and chairs are located in the space. The maximum occupant load for the Nursery is 32. 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 ~~~'©~Of File No. ED-O1-002, DR-O1-035, & UP-O1-013; 13601 Saratoga Avenue, St. Andrew's Parish and School 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 5 and 6 of this report. Covered Walkways 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 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. Evensong occasionally at 5 p.m. on Sundays. ~ecial 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. File No. ED-O1-002, DR-O1-035, & UP-O1-013;.13601 Saratoga Avenue, St. Andrew's Parish and School Practice schedule to be determined. During practice louvered sound baffles are proposed to remain closed. 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 Sirigle-family dwellings are adjacent to the project site. The single-family dwellings adjacent to the project site are both one and two-story residences. The single-family dwelling to the left 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. Signage There are no proposed changes to the existing signage; however, landscape lighting or "up lighting" is proposed for existing Signage. Use Permit (iJP 01-013) Pursuant to municipal code section 15-55.030, variation from standards: a conditional use may be 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 single-family dwellings. 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. • • • File No. ED-01-002, DR-O1-035, & UP-O1-013; 13601 Saratoga Avenue, St. Andrew's Parish and School 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 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 203 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. Allowable floor area is subject to a further reduction of 1.5 percent for each foot over 18 feet in height. The total proposed floor area of the project (including the existing sanctuary) is 84,151 square feet. Please see the attached project data sheet for proposed floor area figures for each building (attachment A). 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 20 to 44 feet. The proposed bell tower is 54 feet in height.. The attached project data sheet details the maximum height of each proposed building (attachment A). 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. File No. ED-O1-002, DR-O1-035, & UP-O1-013; 13601 Saratoga Avenue, St. Andrew's Parish and School 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). Arborist Several arborist reports were completed for the proposed project including reports dated October 22, 2001, March 27, 2002, and October 22, 2002. All recommendations and requirements of the city arborist reports shall be followed. Permitted tree removals include the following tree numbers 18-27, 30, 32-41. A total of twenty-one trees are proposed for removal including 10 sweet gums, 4 coast live oaks, 3 cedars and 4 blue gums. The value of these removed trees equal $28,827. Native replacements which equal that amount are required. A landscape plan indicating the location, size and species of proposed replacement trees shall be submitted to planning for approval prior to building department submittal. The following chart indicates the value of each replacement. The sum of the replacements shall equal the assessment value of the trees proposed for removal ($28,827). The applicant proposes approximately 54 new landscaping trees (sheet L1.2). Value of replacements trees 5 gallon= $36 15 gallon= $120 24" box= $420 36" box= $1,320 48" box= $5,000 52" box= $7,000 72" box= $15,000 Traffic Study A traffic study dated June 21, 2002 was prepared by Fehr & Peers, Transportation Consultants. The traffic study analyzed vehicle queuing, parking, and impacts to intersections (attachment N7). 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 recommends several possible vehicle queuing strategies which increase the vehicle queuing area and introduces ari additional vehicle queuing area at the rear of the site. Exhibit D (an addendum to the Traffic Report dated June 21, 2002) provides the most on- site queuing over any of the other proposed queuing techniques proposed. Exhibit D 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 additiona1615 feet of queuing from Saratoga Avenue to pick-up • • -~~i~~~~ File No. ED-O1-002, DR-O1-035, & UP-O1-013; 13601 Saratoga Avenue, St. Andrew's Parish and School drop off area behind the gym. A total of approximately 1,000 linear feet of additional queuing area will be provided on-site. Parking The proposed parking supply with the master plan will include a total of 203 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 203 parking spaces (50 spaces are compact spaces). The proposed size of both the standard and compact parking spaces meet the zoning requirements. Impacts to Intersections According to the traffic study, the intersection at Saratoga/Fruitvale Avenue operates at a Level D during both the AM and PM peak hours. The City of Saratoga has defined Level D as the minimum acceptable operating level. The traffic study does not recommend any . changes to this intersection because the operating level is acceptable and enrollment is not increasing at this time. Noise A noise assessment study, dated October 21, 2002, has been prepared for the applicant by Edward Pack Associates, Inc. The project as mitigated meets the noise standards for residential uses at the property lines. The study is attached for your reference (attachment N6). PREVIOUS PLANNING COMMISSION NEARING At the October 23rd, 2002 meeting, the planning commission took public testimony and conducted a formal discussion of issues. As recommended by staff, the planning commission did not take action to approve or deny the project at that time... Over the past several months the following has occurred: (I) The applicant has incorporated minor revisions into the project, (II) the applicant has compiled additional materials, (III) the inconsistency between the zoning ordinance and general plan regarding permissibility of three story structures was resolved, (1V) the environmental documents have been circulated for review and comments; and (V) staff has reviewed the revised project and proposed additional modifications. ~?0~~~.i File No. ED-O1-002, DR-O1-035, & UP-O1-013; 13601 Saratoga Avenue, St. Andrew's Parish and School (I) Project Revisions The applicant has incorporated the following project revisions into the proposed project since it was last reviewed by the Planning Commission on October 23, 2002: (a) The height of the entry to the clergy building was reduced by 2 feet 6 inches to a total maximum height of 33.5 feet (sheet A3.3). (b) The height of the entry to the administration buildings was reduced by 3 feet to a total maximum height of 36.5 feet (sheet A3.2). (c) The Parish Center setback was increased to 15 feet. (d) The bell tower has been relocated to a total distance of 75 feet from Saratoga Avenue (site plan, sheet Al.l). Note the plan sheets by "Designworks" do not reflect this revision. (e) The boundary of an 8 foot high acoustic wood noise barrier has been extended to include the entire length of the shared property lines of 15941 Tweed Ct. (f) The overall Parish Center building height was reduced by 4 feet to a total maximum height of 20 feet. (g) The building elevations include more architectural interest, detail, and shadowing (sheets A3.1-3). (II) Additional Materials Provided by the Applicant Two photomontages have been provided by the applicant (sheet A3.5, figures 2 & 3). These two photomontages depict views of the proposed project as seen from the one- story residential properties located at 19540 and 19541 Tweed Court. • Figure 2, (sheet A3.5) depicts the view of the 30 foot tall -north classroom building as viewed from 19541 Tweed Ct. • Figure 3, (sheet A3.5) depicts the view of the 20 foot tall parish building as viewed from 19540 Tweed Ct. (III) General Plan permits three story structures at the project site As you may recall, staff had previously concluded that the Saratoga General Plan prohibited three story structures at the project site. A City records search, requested by the applicant, revealed that an amendment to the General Plan, Resolution No. 2285, which was adopted by the City Council on November 7, 1985, permits three story structures on sites designated as QPF provided the slope underneath the three-story area is 10% of more and a stepped pad is used. Resolution No. 2285 states: "No structure shall be over two stories in height except for structures located within the Village boundary as defined in the Village Area Plan and on sites designated Quasi Public Facilities (QPF) in the General Plan. In the Village, structure height will be limited based on compatibility with existing structures and the natural environment. On sites designated Quasi Public Facility (QPF), a. three-story structure ~~~ill be allowed provided the slope underneath the three-story area is 10% or more and a stepped pad is used." File No. ED-O1-002, DR-O1-035, & UP-O1-013; 13601 Saratoga Avenue, St. Andrew's Parish and School this Resolution was not transferred into the text of the General Plan in The language from its entirety. Based on Resolution No 2285 it can be concluded that three stories are permissible at the project site which is consistent with the zoning regulations. Resolution No. 2285, the incomplete wording of the existing General Plan on "Overall Height Limit" . and Zoning Ordinance Section 15-12.100 are attached for your reference (attachments D,E, and F respectively). (I~ Environmental Documents Staff has prepared a mitigated negative declaration for the proposed project (attachment N). The planning commission must adopt the mitigated negative declaration before approving the project. The planning commission shall consider the proposed mitigated negative declaration together with any comments received during the public review process. The planning commission shall adopt the proposed mitigated negative declaration if it finds on the basis of the whole record before it (including the initial study and any comments received) that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment and that the mitigated negative declaration reflects-the planning commissions judgement and analysis. When adopting a mitigated negative declaration, the planning commission shall also adopt a program for reporting on or monitoring the changes which it has either required in the project or made a condition of approval to mitigate or avoid significant environmental impacts. -Staff has prepared a mitigation monitoring program for the proposed project (attachment N9). (~ Staff Recommendations Staff recommends the planning commission adopt the mitigated negative declaration and mitigation monitoring program. Staff recommends the planning commission conditionally approve the proposed project by adopting the attached resolution which incorporates the following project modifications: 1) All classroom ceiling heights shall be reduced to 8 ft in height. 2) The 54 ft. bell tower shall be reduced in height. The frequency and duration of bell ringing shall be reduced. Revisions to the bell tower height and ringing schedule shall be reviewed and approved by the planning commission at a later date. 3) Clerestory windows (narrow windows installed above eye-level) shall be installed in the second story of the north classroom building. As proposed, clerestory windows shall be installed in the parish center (sheet A3.3, figure 10, 11). 4) The administration/classroom and clergy buildings shall not exceed 30 feet in height at any point as viewed from Saratoga Avenue (front of buildings). 5) All lighting shall be down cast "cut-off' type which will not cast glare on adjoining properties. 6) No lighting including security lighting shall be permitted to shine into any residential properties. i ~:~~~ ~ ~~ File No. ED-O1-002, DR-O1-035, & UP-O1-013; 13601 Saratoga Avenue, St. Andrew's Parish and School 7) The existing blue tables and benches located outdoors along the shared property lines of residences on Tweed Court shall be removed to reduce the impacts of outdoor parish and school, activity on the residential uses. 8) Interior building lights shall not be illuminated in the evenings when not in use. 9) An 8 foot wood acoustical barrier shall be constructed along the entire property line between 19541 Tweed Court and the project site. 10) Landscape screening shall be installed between the proposed buildings and the shared property lines to buffer to the adjoining residential properties on Tweed. A revised landscape screening plan shall be submitted to staff prior to building permit issuance. The landscape plan shall be circulated and reviewed by the neighboring property owners on Tweed Ct. The location of the landscape screening shall be the result of an onsite meeting with neighboring property owners scheduled for March 7, 2003. The screening plan shall indicate minimum size screening to be no smaller than 36" box to achieve a minimum height of 20' planted to create a continuous evergreen screen within 5 years. The screening trees shall be irrigated. The landscape screening shall be installed prior to final inspection. 11) Planning Commission approval shall be required to increase student enrollment beyond one-percent of the existing enrollment of 439 students. 12) No increase in enrollment beyond one-percent of 439 students shall be approved by the planning commission without a facilities and enrollment masterplan for the site which shall be submitted to the planning commission for review and approval. The master plan shall include enrollment projections and future build-out on site. 13) Enrollment figures shall be submitted to the planning department each fall.. 14) Outdoor concerts, amplified voices, or music shall not be permitted in any outdoor location. 15) The housing for existing hvac located by the existing sanctuary shall be further insulated to provide a more effective noise buffer from adjoining residential properties. 16) Noise from proposed hvac equipment shall be buffered as to not infringe upon the quality of life of the surrounding residential properties. 17) To deter bicycle theft and thus encourage bicycling to and from the site staff recommends secure bicycle parking be provided. Bicycle racks such that only one wheel and not the entire frame can be locked to the rack shall not be utilized because they are not secure. Staff recommends P1.2 Class II types be utilized (attachment M, figure P-1, Bicycle Technical Guidelines, A Guide for Local Agencies in Santa Clara County). 18) The pathway required by the public works department across the adjacent property shall be located away from the edge of street. 19) The mitigation monitoring program agreement form shall be signed by the applicant with the resolution of approval to ensure that the mitigation monitoring program is enforced. • File No. ED-O1-002, DR-O1-035, & UP-O1-013; 13601 Saratoga Avenue, St. Andrew's Parish and School FINDINGS Use Permit Findings (a) That the proposed location of the conditional use is in accord with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. • The land use at the site remains unchanged. • The project is both consistent with the purposes of the R-1 zone district and the zoning ordinance in that the project, as conditioned, ensures adequate light, air, and privacy for surrounding single-family dwellings. (b) That the proposed location of the conditional-use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. • The project has been mitigated to reduce noise, mass, bulk, and height and to protect views and privacy of surroundings single-family residences. • -The project protects single-family dwellings from any project generated congestion by limiting the student enrollment and increasing the vehicle queuing area for student drop off and pick up. (c) That the proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of this Chapter. • The City gave special consideration to the project's. effects on surrounding properties and as a result has imposed reasonable conditions of approval. • Three story elements of the project are permitted by the zoning ordinance and general plan. Design Review Findings (a) Avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. • Photomontages (sheetA3.5, figures 2,3) illustrate the perimeter buildings will not adversely affect views. • Clerestory windows (narrow windows installed above eye-level) in the parish center (sheet A3.3, figures 10,11) and north classroom building (as conditioned) will protect the privacy. of adjacent property owners. • .The taller, three story buildings are not located at the perimeter of the site. The placement of the buildings on site reflects the number of stories and height of the buildings. • Landscape buffering installed on the project site between the residences on Tweed and the parish center and north classroom buildings will further increase compatibility between the parish and school and the residences. (b) Preserve natural landscape. • The applicant shall obtain a grading and drainage permit from the public works department which will ensure that grading, drainage, erosion and run-off are . monitored for compliance with City standards. File No. ED-O1-002, DR-O1-035, & UP-O1-013; 13601 Saratoga Avenue, St. Andrew's Parish and School • The applicant proposes approximately 54 new landscaping trees (sheet L1.2) in addition to required native replacement trees equal to a value of $28,827. • All lighting, with the exception of proposed up-lighting for existing signage, shall be down cast "cut-off' type which will not cast glare on adjoining properties. • No lighting including security lighting shall be permitted along the shared property lines between the project site and adjacent residences. A proposed security light located near the parish center shall be relocated away from the residential property (sheet L1.4, site lighting, landscape details). • Interior building lights shall not be illuminated in the evenings when not in use. (c) Minimize perception of excessive bulk. • Classroom ceiling heights will be minimized at 8 ft maximum height. • Architectural shadowing and details have been enhanced from the previous submittal to minimize the perception of excessive bulk. (d) Compatible bulk and height. • The facades of the buildings will not exceed 30 ft in height as viewed from Saratoga Avenue. (e) Current grading and erosion control methods • Applicant/developer shall file a Notice of Intent (NOI) with the Regional Water Quality Control Board to obtain coverage under the Construction Activities Storm Water General Permit. Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be developed iri accordance with Section A of the General Permit. Satisfactory evidence of the filing of NOI and a copy of SWPPP shall be submitted to the Public Works Department prior to issuance of a Grading Permit. • Applicant/developer shall include in the site design stormwater treatment measures in order to reduce pollutant discharges to storm drain system. These measures might include, but not necessarily be limited to: vegetative swales or strips, porous pavement, inlet filters, infiltration trenches, underground filtering/retention devices. Tn addition, applicant shall ensure for the proper maintenance of these treatment measures and submit a copy of maintenance agreement.. (f) Design policies and techniques (policies #1,3,4 related to mass, and bulk, view, privacy, are detailed above (a-e) the following findings support policies relating to the environment (policy #2) and energy efficiency (policy #5): • The building "envelope" assemblies, (roof, wall and glazing)- are insulated to reduce heat gain cooling losses in the summer and heat loss during the winter. The Performing Arts/Gymnasium building will have high operable windows to allow warm air to escape without the need of fan units. In all buildings the glazing oriented towards the south and' west will be low "e" type glass to eliminate solar heat gain during the warmer months. Heating and cooling equipment will be high efficiency units. Where applicable, such as the Administration/Classroom wing; VAV reheat zoning will reduce the overall building load by targeting only spaces that require temperature adjustments. ~~Q~~s File No. ED-O1-002, DR-O1-035, & UP-O1-013; 13601 Saratoga Avenue, St. Andrew's Parish and School High/low operable windows to provide the option for natural ventilation and eliminate the need for mechariically induced airflow within spaces. Roof overhangs to reduce potential for solar heat gain. Daylighting wherever possible to reduce need for artificial lighting. This will come in the form of lightwells, skylights and northern glazing. Combine T-8-lamps with an indirect lighting configuration for more efficiency.- Fixtures shall provide a "whiter" light to reduce lamp count. New planting types are low water consumption species. • Natural materials and colors will be used including 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 (sheet M-1). • Landscape buffing will be utilized between the site and the residences and approximately 30 new trees will be planted in the parking lot to blend the structures with the environment. • • ~~0~~"~ • Attachment A ~~ ~~®Q~.B 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 fo remain 11,446 sq ft (5%) Total Imliervious 185,511 sq ft (85%) 60% maximum; . Floor Area: Square Footage by Lev el Lower Main Upper Total Perfonming 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 front right west left north rear front right left. rear Performing Arts /Gym 235 ft. 130 ft. 25 ft. 88 ft. Administration /Classroom Wing 225 ft. 118 ft. 154 ft. 130 ft. North Clasroom Wing 305 ft. 28 ft. 163 ft. 51 ft. Clergy Offices 202 ft. 78 ft. 271 ft. 225 ft. Parish Center . 160 ft. 15 ft.' . 349 ft. 258 ft. ? 15 s 15 s 45 2 Bell Tower 42 ft. 160 ft. 378 ft. 428 ft. 30 • Number of Stories: Performing Arts /Gym Administration /Classroom Wing North Clasroom Wing Clergy Offices Parish Center Bell Tower two three two three one n/a three s ~ Allowable floor area should be further reduced by 1.5% for each foot over 18 ft. (MCS 15-45.030(f)). z Setbacks should be further increased by 1 foot for each foot over 18 ft. (MCS 15-45.040). 3 Three stories maybe permitted for QPF where the average site slope underneath the structure is l0% or .greater and a stepped building pad is used (MCS 15-12.100(c)). ~~'~~~~ it PROJECT DATA Maximum Height4 Proposed ATTACHMENT A CONTINUED Code Requirement Performing Arts /Gym 39 ft. Administration /Classroom Wing 36.5 ft. North Classroom Wing 30 ft. Clergy Offices 33.5 ft. Parish Center 20 ft. Bell Tower 54 ft. 30 ft.s Maximum Height from Street Elevation6 Performing Arts /Gym. 26.5 ft. Administration /Classroom Wing 36.5 ft. North Classroom Wing 17.5 ft. Clergy Offices 33.5 ft. Parish Center 20 ft. Bell Tower 54 ft. 30 ft.' Maximum a Measured from the highest elevation point to grade. 5 No main structure shall exceed thirty feet (MCS 15-12.100(a)) 6 Measured from highest point to street elevation at Saratoga Avenue. ' Staff recommendation: no higher than 30 ft as viewed from Saratoga Avenue. • • ~~~~~0 • Attachment B • ~~~JU~1 RESOLUTION NO. CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA St. Andrew's Parish and Church, 13601 Saratoga Avenue WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for design review and conditional use permit for the construction of new facilities for St. Andrew's Parish and School; and . WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, the planning commission has adopted a mitigated negative declaration and mitigation monitoring program for the project; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application for design review approval and conditional use permit approval, and the. following findings have been determined: Design Review Findings. (a) Avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. • .Photomontages (sheetA3.5, figures 2,3) illustrate the perimeter buildings will not . adversely affect views. • Clerestory windows (narrow windows installed above eye-level) in the parish center (sheet A3.3, figures 10,11) and north classroom building (as conditioned) will protect the privacy of adjacent property owners. • The taller, three story buildings are not located at the perimeter of the site. The placement of the buildings on site reflects the number of stories and height of the buildings. • Landscape buffering installed on the project site between the residences on Tweed and the parish center and north classroom buildings will further increase compatibility between the parish and school and the residences. (b) Preserve natural landscape. • The applicant shall obtain a grading and drainage permit from the public works department which will ensure that grading, drainage, erosion and run-off are monitored for compliance with City standards. • The applicant proposes approximately 54 new landscaping trees (sheet L1.2) in addition to required native replacement trees equal to a value of $28,827. • All lighting, with the exception of proposed up-lighting for existing signage, shall be down cast "cut-off' type which will not cast glare on adjoining properties. • No lighting including security lighting shall be permitted along the shared property lines between the project site and adjacent residences. A proposed ~~OO~z security light located near the parish center shall be relocated away from the residential property (sheet L1.4, site lighting, landscape details). • Interior building lights shall not be illuminated in the evenings when not in use. (c) Minimize perception of excessive bulk. • Classroom ceiling heights will be minimized at 8 ft maximum height. • Architectural shadowing and details have been enhanced from the previous submittal to minimize the perception of excessive bulk. (d) Compatible bulk and height. • The facades of the buildings will not exceed 30 ft in height as viewed from Saratoga Avenue. (e) Current grading and erosion control methods • Applicant/developer shall file a Notice of Intent (NOI) with the Regional Water Quality Control Board to obtain coverage under the Construction Activities Storm Water General Permit. Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be developed in accordance with Section A of the General Permit. Satisfactory evidence of the filing of NOI and a copy of SWPPP shall be submitted.to the Public Works Department prior to issuance of a Grading Permit. • Applicant/developer shall include in the site design stormwater treatment measures in order to reduce pollutant discharges to storm drain system. These measures might include, but not necessarily be limited to: vegetative swales or strips, porous pavement, inlet filters, infiltration trenches, underground filtering/retention devices. In addition, applicant shall ensure for the proper maintenance of these treatment measures and submit a copy of maintenance agreement. (f) Design policies and techniques (policies #1,3,4 related to mass, and bulk, view, privacy, are detailed above (a-e) the following findings support policies relating to the environment (policy #2) and energy efficiency (policy #5): • The building "envelope" assemblies, (roof, wall and glazing) are insulated to reduce heat gain/cooling losses in the summer and heat loss during the winter. The Performing Arts/Gymnasium building will have high operable windows to allow warm air to escape without the need of fan units. In all buildings the glazing oriented towards the south and west will be low "e" type glass to eliminate solar heat gain during the warmer months. Heating and cooling equipment will be high efficiency units. Where applicable, such as the Administration/Classroomtying, VAV reheat zoning will reduce the overall building load by targeting only spaces that require temperature adjustments. High/low operable windows to provide the option for natural ventilation and eliminate the need for mechanically induced airflow within spaces. Roof overhangs to reduce potential for solar heat gain. Daylighting wherever possible to reduce need for artificial lighting. This will come in the form of lightwells, skylights and northern glazing. Combine T-8 lamps with an indirect lighting ~U®U~3 configuration for more efficiency. Fixtures shall provide a "whiter" light to reduce lamp count. New planting types are low water consumption species.. • 1\Tatural materials and colors will be used including 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 (sheet M-1). • Landscape buffing will be utilized between the site and the residences and approximately 30 new trees will be planted in the parking lot to blend the structures with the environment. Conditional Use Permit Findings (a) That the proposed location of the conditional use is in accord with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. • The land use at .the site remains unchanged. • The project is both consistent with the purposes of the R-1 zone district and the zoning ordinance in that the project, as conditioned, ensures adequate light, air, and privacy for surrounding single-family dwellings. (b) That the proposed location of the conditional use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. • The project has been mitigated to reduce noise, mass, bulk, and height and to protect views and privacy of surroundings single-family residences. • The project protects single-family dwellings from any project generated congestion by limiting the student enrollment and increasing the vehicle queuing area for student drop off and pick up. (c) That the proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of this Chapter. • The City gave special consideration to the project's effects on surrounding properties and as a result has imposed reasonable conditions of approval. • Three story elements of the project are permitted by the zoning ordinance and general plan. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1: After careful consideration of the environmental documents, site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, application for design review approval and conditional use permit approval is hereby granted subject to the following conditions:. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1) All classroom ceiling heights shall be reduced to 8 ft in height. ~~~~~~ 2) The 54 ft. bell tower shall be reduced in height. The frequency and duration of bell ringing shall be reduced. Revisions to the bell tower height and ringing schedule shall be reviewed and approved by the planning commission at a later date. 3) Clerestory windows (narrow windows installed above, eye-level) shall be installed in the second story of the north classroom building. As proposed, clerestory windows shall be installed in the parish center (sheet A3.3, figure 10, 11). 4) The administration classroom and clergy buildings shall not exceed 30 feet in height at any point as viewed from Saratoga Avenue (front of buildings). 5) All lighting shall be down cast "cut-off' type which will not cast glare on adjoining properties. 6) No lighting including security lighting shall be permitted to shine into any residential properties. 7) The existing blue tables and benches located outdoors along the shared property lines of residences on Tweed Court shall be removed to reduce the impacts of outdoor parish and school activity on the residential uses. 8) Interior building lights shall not be illuminated in the evenings when not in use. 9 An 8 foot wood acoustical barrier shall be constructed along the entire property line between 19541 Tweed Court and the project site. 10) Landscape screening shall be installed between the proposed buildings and the shared- property lines to buffer to the adjoining residential properties on Tweed. A revised landscape screening plan shall be submitted to staff prior to building permit issuance. The landscape plan shall be circulated and reviewed by the neighboring property owners on Tweed Ct. The location of the landscape screening shall be the result of an onsite meeting with neighboring property owners scheduled for March 7, 2003. The screening plan shall indicate minimum size screening to be no smaller than 36" box to achieve a minimum height of 20' planted to create a continuous evergreen screen within 5 years. The screening trees shall be imgated. The landscape screening shall be installed prior to final inspection. 11) Planning Commission approval shall be required to increase student enrollment beyond one-percent of the existing enrollment of 439 students. 12) No increase in enrollment beyond one-percent of 439 students shall be approved by the planning commission without a facilities and enrollment masterplan for the site which shall be submitted to the planning commission for review and approval. The master plan shall include enrollment projections and future build-out on site. 13 Enrollment fi es shall be submitted to the planning department each fall. ~' ~~~~~5 14) Outdoor concerts, amplified voices, or music shall not be permitted in any outdoor location. 15) The housing for existing hvac located by the existing sanctuary shall be fiu-ther insulated to provide a more effective noise buffer from adjoining residential properties. 16) Noise from proposed hvac equipment shall be buffered as to not infringe upon the quality of life of the surrounding residential properties. 17) To deter bicycle theft and ,thus encourage bicycling to and from the site staff recommends secure bicycle parking be provided. Bicycle racks such that only one wheel and not the entire frame can be locked to the rack shall not be utilized because they are not secure. Staff recommends P1.2 Class II types be utilized (attachment M, figure P-1, Bicycle Technical Guidelines, A Guide for Local Agencies in Santa Clara County). 18) The pathway required by the public works department across the adjacent property shall be located away from the edge of street. 19) The mitigation monitoring program agreement form shall be signed by the applicant with the resolution of approval to ensure that the mitigation monitoring program is enforced. 20) The development shall be located and constructed as shown on Exhibit "A" incorporated by reference and including conditions of approval. 21) The noise barrier boundary is to be revised on sheet A1.1 to only incorporated the property at 19541 Tweed Ct. At the request of the property owner at 19540 Tweed Ct the noise bamer shall not be extended to include their property. 22) Four sets of complete construction plans incorporating this Resolution and the City Arborist Report as a separate plan page shall be submitted to the Building Division prior to submittal for building permits. 23) The site survey shall be stamped and signed by a Registered Civil Engineer or Licensed Land Surveyor. 24) The site plan shall contain. a note with the following language: "Prior to foundation inspection by the City, the LLS of record shall provide a written certification that all building setbacks are per the approved plans." 25) Landscaping shall be installed prior to granting final occupancy inspection. 26) The planning commission shall retain continuing jurisdiction over the Conditional Use Permit and may at any time, modify, delete or impose any new conditions of the permit to preserve public health, safety, and welfare. ~~0~26 27) Any intensification of this use shall require an amended Conditional Use Pernut. SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 28) To prevent pollution from construction activity, including sediments, from reaching Saratoga Creek, the Santa Clara Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program's recommended Best Management Practices for construction activities as contained in a "Blueprint for a Clean Bay" and the "California Storm Water Best Management Practice Handbook for Construction" shall be followed. 29) Postconstructiontyater quality mitigation needs to be implemented. The design of the project area should incorporate water quality mitigation measures such as those found in the "Start at the Source-Design Guidance Manual for Stormwater Quality Protection," prepared for the Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association. 30) If applicable, a district permit shall be obtained prior to building permit issuance. PUBLIC WORKS 31) 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.- 32) Developer shall construct a continuous asphalt berm (Caltraris 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.. The pathway required by the public works department across the adjacent property shall be located away from the edge of street 33) Developer shall submit a set of plans to the Saratoga Public Works Department for review and acceptance of design for above Items 28 and 29. 34) Developer shall obtain an encroachment permit from the Saratoga Public Works Department for the above stated work (Items 28 and 29). 35) Applicant/developer shall file a Notice of Intent (NO1) with the Regional Water Quality Control Board to obtain coverage under the Construction Activities Storm Water General Permit. Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be developed in accordance with Section A of the General Permit. Satisfactory evidence of the filing of NOI and a copy of SWPPP shall be submitted to the Public Works Department prior to issuance of a Grading Permit. • ~~®U27 36) Applicant/developer shall include in the site design stormwater treatment measures in order to reduce pollutant discharges to storm drain system. These measures might include, but not necessarily be limited to: vegetative swales or strips, porous pavement, inlet filters, infiltration trenches, underground filtering/retention devices. In addition, applicant shall ensure for the proper maintenance of these treatment measures and submit a copy of maintenance agreement. 37) Submit grading and drainage plans to the public works department for review. CITY ARBORIST 38) All recommendations in the City Arborist's Report shall be followed and incorporated into the plans. FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 39) All development.review conditions from the Saratoga Fire Department shall be followed and incorporated into the plans. CITY ATTORNEY 40) Applicant agrees to hold City harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the City of held to be liability of City in connection with City's defense of its actions in any proceeding brought in any State Federal Court, challenging the City's action with respect to the applicant's project. 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 days from the date of adoption PASSES AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission. State of California, the 12th day of March 2003 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: • ~'~`0 U ~8 • Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission L_J • This permit is hereby accepted upon the express terms and conditions hereof, and shall have no force or effect unless and until agreed to, in writing, by the Applicant, and Property Owner or Authorized Agent. The undersigned hereby acknowledges the approved terms and conditions and agrees to fully conform to and comply with said terms and conditions within the recommended time frames approved by the City Planning Commission. Property Owner or Authorized Agent Date F ~~~C~~9 • Attachment C • • Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 23,,2002 Page 2 S CONSENT CALENDAR There were no Consent Calendar Items. •** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM NO.1 DR Ol 035, UP-O1-013, ED-O1-002 (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 Parish and School. 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) (CONTINUED FROM 10/9/02) Planner Christy Oosterhous presented the staff report as follows: • .Stated that the applicant is seeking Design Review and Use Permit Approval for a new facility for S St. Andrew's Parish and School. • Advised that this evening's meeting will consist of public testimony and Commission discussion but that no action will be taken. • Said that staff has recommendations for project revisions, which will be presented following the applicant's thorough project description. Chair Jackman opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1 at 7:15 p.m. Mr. Scott Sheldon, Premier Commercial, Project Manager for St. Andrew's Parish and School: • Informed the Commission that St. Andrew's Parish and School has been at this location since the early 1960s, exhibiting good corporate and religious ties for and with the City. • Advised that their team present this evening consists of Reverend Cockrell, Mr. McKay, the project architect, the project landscape designer and their traffic consultant. • Said that this has been an evolving process over the last three years with lots of thought and care going into the proposal. • Stated that he would explain how this project would mesh with the community and its neighbors. • Assured that they have planned a first class project that meets the needs of the Parish and School as well as the City of Saratoga. Reverend Ernest Cockrell: • Said that St. Andrew's has been in operation since 1957 and built its current facility in 1962. • Stated that this 1962 era facility is no longer sufficient to serve the Parish and School. • Informed- that there are more programs today. Therefore more meeting spaces are required. t~~0031 Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 23, 2002 Page 3 • Said that this place never stops and that the Parish and School share facilities as much as possible with every available room tightly scheduled. • Declared that they need more room, updated technical support and improved security. • Said that their-space needs are drastic and not window dressing. • Assured that their project would fit within Saratoga graciously. Mr. Harry McKay, Head of St. Andrew's School:- • Agreed that they are desperately in need of space, which is a daily problem. • Said that their library does not meet current standards and that their gymnasium is insufficient. • Reminded that the school was built 40 years ago and ,that .teaching and learning is not the same today, as it was 40 years ago. • Reiterated that they simply need more space. • Assured that they will not increase enrollment. • Stated that they want to conduct a 21St Century program within a 21St Century facility. Mr. Jorge Rico, Project Architect: • Presented a PowerPoint Presentation with the site plan and elevations. • Stated that the current 40-year-old school does not meet new needs and that the entire school would be demolished with the exception of the Sanctuary, which will remain. Additionally, they will replace the gymnasium, construct atwo-story administrative/classroom building, another two-story classroom wing and atwo-story clergy/office building. . • Said that the existing 203 parking spaces would be maintained. • Described site constraints including a sewer easement over which they cannot locate buildings and the fifty-foot line at the creek embankment. There are also heritage Oak trees, which must remain. • Informed that the new site layout will permit improved vehicle queuing with two pick up and drop . off areas, which will eliminate the current situation where queuing oftentimes ends up out on Saratoga Avenue. • Stated that the proposed gymnasium will include two volleyball courts, one basketball court and a theater. • Said that the classroom administration building would house third and fourth graders, with the kindergartners .through second graders on the first floor. There is a State requirement to have K-3 located on a first floor level for emergency exiting reasons. The fourth through six grades would be housed within a second story classroom wing. • Said that on the main campus level, five Sunday school classrooms are planned and both Parish and School administration buildings: There will be a gathering space for weddings, etc., a nursery, and on the upper level classrooms for seventh and eighth grade English, History, etc., and offices. • Said that the roof plan includes the use of mansard roofs to try to lower the height of buildings. • Described the cluster of buildings as equaling a campus. • Said that the gym would consist of light colored cement plaster over a darker cement plaster base. • .Stated that they have agreed to lower the entry element of the Administration Building by three feet. • Said that a trellis component will tie buildings together as a unifying element. • Stated that the Parish Building with clergy offices would be lowered by 2.5 feet to reduce building height. • Described the Bell Tower. • Said that the project site is flat in the front with a bottom portion that drops 12 feet lower. This change in grade will give the effect of lowering the appearance of these buildings. -~~ac~~z Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 23, 2002 Page 4 • Assured-that they have made an effort to reduce heights using the property's topography. . Mr. Scott Sheldon: • Stated that they held a series of neighborhood meetings as well as workshops with the Commission. Said that they have dealt with issues is a real straightforward way and worked with .staff on a number of issues. • Advised that a revised acoustical report was provided to staff. • Addressed traffic issues, and assured that they don't want to impact either Saratoga or Fruitvale at all. • Made himself available for questions as well as any of the project consultants. Commissioner Garakani asked if any projections have been done in response to the letter from a neighbor concerning the visual impacts from this project in blocking their hillside view. Mr. Jorge Rico said that they have done a projection and that they do not believe the project will block views. Added that they have placed the tallest building in the middle of the. site to diminish impacts on surrounding residences. Commissioner Garakani asked Mr. Rico if he has any calculations to share. Mr. Jorge Rico replied no. Commissioner Garakani suggested to Mr. Rico that these calculations be prepared. Commissioner Zutshi suggested photo simulations to show how these buildings might impact the surrounding residences. Director Tom Sullivan suggested a photomontage that accurately reflects what a building would look like on site. Commissioner Zutshi pointed out that there is a distinction between a public library and a school, with different requirements. Director Tom Sullivan said that the City has the right to excuse some particular properties from certain requirements. Commissioner Zutshi said that a private school could not compare itself to a public library. Ms. Christy Oosterhous presented the staff recommendations as follows: • Suggested that no increase in enrollment be permitted without Planning Commission approval. • Added that there is no proposed increase enrollment. • Recommended the reduction or elimination of the bell-ringing schedule. . • Suggested that the applicant recalculate the FAR since spaces above 15 feet in height have not been double counted. • Said that to deal with massing issues, the applicant should reduce the three-story element to a two- story. element and that the Parish and School classrooms be combined as possible. • Reported that the applicant has ageed to reduce the mass and height of the entry. ~a~(~~3 Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 23, 2002 Page 5 • Suggested more detail elements on some buildings, that the roofline follows the hillside contours and that the proposed Color #2 have more earthtoneality. , • Stated that staff finds the proposed bell tower to be too massive and imposing and recommended .either outright elimination or relocation further away from Saratoga Avenue. • Advised that the revised Noise Study requested of the applicant was recently provided to staff. • Recommended Exhibit D for site circulation be implemented. This plan would provide 1,000 feet of queuing area. • Advised that the Arborist supplied comments and found most of the features of the plan present no major conflict. Commissioner Kurasch asked about the recommendation to reduce the entrances of two buildings and asked if it includes the defined area over the doorway. Planner Christy Oosterhous replied yes. The buildings in question are the Clergy and Administration buildings. Commissioner Kurasch supported the reduction of three-story elements to two-story, pointing out the 30-foot height limitation and stating that when there is a conflict between Zoning and General Plan, the General Plan supercedes Zoning. Planner Christy Oosterhous clarified that the number of stories is limited but not the height. Director Tom Sullivan said that the General Plan indicates public/quasi public uses that can be increased through issuance of a Use Permit. Commissioner Hunter asked if the proposal from the school includes any increase in student population. Planner Christy Oosterhous replied that any increase would be minor, with a fluctuation of less than five percent. Commissioner Hunter pointed out that with the expansion from 17 current classrooms to 18 proposed classrooms, the assumption can be made that student population could be expected to grow by about 25. Chair Jackman said that she sees the potential for an additiona122 students, which is a concern. Commissioner Kurasch pointed out that a letter from the school proposes a student cap at 500, with any .increase requiring Planning Commission approval. Questioned the provision for parking if there should be an increase to 500 students. Planner Christy Oosterhous said that the applicant can be asked to evaluate that question. Pointed out that the parking on site is necessary more for Sunday than during weekday school uses. Mr. Scott Sheldon: • Stated that the traffic report took into account 470 students. • Assured that they would have no problem developing a photomontage and reminded that they had placed story poles on site to depict proposed building heights. • Pointed out that Code permits three-story buildings for quasi-public buildings. ~~0~~4 Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 23, 2002 Page 6 - • In response to staff's recommendation to reduce heights in the Administration/Clergy buildings, they had prepared an extensive needs analysis. Additionally, the State has accreditation issues regarding amount of square footage per pupil, etc. • Said that their space needs have driven their proposed square footage.. • Said that they have tried to utilize the site's natural slope. • Explained that the additional student population is a means to give some flexibility. • Pointed out that student population is down from last year but that next year it could go up. • Asked for that right within constraints. • Said that there are no parking impacts with a student increase to 500 since none of their students yet drive this being a K-8 grade school. Most students are dropped off. • Added that they are proposing to enhance the landscape along Saratoga Avenue. Chair Jackman asked Mr. Rico for the minimum legal height of a classroom. Mr. Jorge, Rico said that a classroom ceiling cannot be lower than 8 feet but that most are 9 to 10 feet high now days. Commissioner Zutshi expressed support for the new gymnasium, library and classrooms but not the proposed bell tower. Chair Jackman suggested treating the bell tower separately. Director Tom Sullivan cautioned that the bell tower is part of this overall application. Reverend Ernest Cockrell said that the bell tower is not a need but rather a tradition that they believe. would add to the beauty and be a gift to the community in Saratoga. It is more to the "glory of God." Commissioner Zutshi said that there are many churches in Saratoga but only two with a bell tower. Reverend Ernest Cockrell said that there are only 31 bell towers in the County. Commissioner Zutshi pointed out that this bell tower is proposed to be situated in front of their beautiful church building. Reverend Ernest Cockrell said that they don't mind and pointed out that -the bell tower will be somewhat shielded by trees. Commissioner Zutshi suggested a simulation of the bell ringing to demonstrate to the neighbors how it would sound. Reverend Ernest Cockrell said that they could shield the sound -away from neighbors and would close off the sound when practicing their bell ringing. Commissioner Zutshi insisted on the need for a simulation. Reverend Ernest Cockrell said that they have a sample CD. I~QQC)~S Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 23, 2002 Page 7 Mr. Scott Sheldon advised that the sound impact from the bell tower is addressed in the acoustical report. S Commissioner Zutshi again asked about a trial run. Mr. Scott Sheldon said it would be impossible to provide it short of building the bell tower. Reverend Ernest Cockrell: • Assured that the bells- are a gentle sound. • Said that they cannot disturb regular, school classrooms for Sunday school use. • Pointed out that the Sunday school rooms will also serve as meeting rooms. • Reminded that they have 64 parish organizations requiring meeting space. • Declared that they are not just a school but also a parish. Commissioner Garakani asked about trees to block the bell tower from view. Ms. Rebecca Coffman, Landscape Architect for Project: • Pointed out that there are several Live Oak trees and Redwood trees that would block the bell tower.: They are about 35 feet tall. • Said that another Redwood tree could be added, a large 25 to 30-foot specimen to provide additional screening. Commissioner Kurasch questioned the 18-foot high parish hall located at the property line. Mr. Scott Sheldon said that the parish hall is 15 feet off the easterly property line and is about 24-feet high at the highest point. Said that this height could be dropped down. Commissioner Kurasch: • Expressed concerns about the intensity of use of this property. • Said that she is trying to understand the needs. • Pointed out that the additional 34,000 square feet represents an approximately 68 percent increase over what is there now, which has an effect on the area and community. • Said that she understands the importance to the applicant but needs to understand how.it will work on this property. • Reminded that the General Plan supercedes the Zoning and sets atwo-story limit. Mr. Scott Sheldon said that they have tried to blend in the needs of the School and neighborhood by using existing typography, using the natural slope and adding landscaping to make the School work. Commissioner Kurasch: • -Asked about the projections for space needs. There are 15,000 square feet of classroom space now and 18,000 square feet would be what the proposed enrollment requires. • Said she was wondering how to make it all work. • Stated that she does not see the building stepping down from the slope. Mr. Scott Sheldon said that they gave staff the list that .outlines State school standards and that they have tried to be judicious and brought their proposal down to minimum standards. • • ~QQ~~6 Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 23, 2002 Page 8 Director Tom Sullivan suggested continuing this line of discussion following the Public Hearing. Mr. Harry Luoh, 19540 Tweed Court, Saratoga: • Said that his home shares one common fence with the Parish and School. • Said that he can understand the needs of the Parish and School. • Stated that part of the design is inadequate for the area. • Said that he currently has a strong objection until this project is modified. • Said that the proposed Parish center would be located adjacent to his property. • Demonstrated photos that depict his view of the School from his home and the view of his home from the School. • Declared that this existing building results in a big invasion of his family's privacy. • Stated that the proposed 24-foot height would block his views, views that he has enjoyed for a long time and that he does not want to lose. • Informed that he submitted a letter, • Listed his objections and/or suggestions to include: • Reduce the building heights to two story. • Modify the setback of the Parish hall, proposed at 15 feet fora 24-foot high structure. • Modify the Parish hall's four big windows, which would overlook his property line and allow people from the Parish hall to see into his living room. • Reduce or eliminate the bell tower. • Modify the plan to a maximum of two stories. • Break up the massing. • Increase the setback to 20 feet from his property line. • Lower the height of the Parish center to 15 feet. • Either remove or raise the height of the proposed four windows so that his property cannot be looked upon. • Advised that he has resided in Saratoga for eight years, enjoys his property and wants to be able to continue to enjoy his property. • Declared that he does not want to see a big building instead of blue sky. Commissioner Kurasch asked Mr. Luoh if his home is a single or two-story structure. Mr. Harry Luoh replied that his home is a single-story as are most homes in the area. 1VIs. Susan Kranich, 19541 Tweed Court, Saratoga: • Stated that she lives next door to Harry Luoh and has lived there since 1968, where her parents raised their five daughters. • Said that this project would impact her family greatly. • Stated that she can understand the need for improvements to the school but has a problem with the proposed heights, particularly for the Administration and northern classroom building, which are closest to her home and yard. • Said that she is concerned about the loss of view from her family home. • Expressed concern about environmental impacts from car exhaust, as vehicles would queue toward the creek area. • .Asked if a study of potential impacts has been prepared. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 23,.2002 Page 9 • Suggested that the bell ringing schedule might be problematic for her family and was concerned that the potential move of the bell tower away from Saratoga might cause it to be located closer, to her home. • Declared that they have had very little problem with St. Andrew's Parish and School over the years. They have been good neighbors and it has been nice to hear the sound of children. • Stated that this proposal seems like a huge addition to what is currently apark-like setting. Commissioner Kurasch asked Ms. Kranich how many stories her home has. Ms. Susan Kranich replied one. Mr. Donald A. Carr, 19803 Merribruck Court, Saratoga: • Said that he lives two blocks from. the Church, has been a resident of Saratoga since 1980, a member of the Church since 1989 and involved with the School since 1985. His daughter graduated from St. Andrew's and went on to graduate from Mitty and USC. • Added that as he is involved with the Church and since his daughter got off to a good start at St. Andrew's, he is a proponent of this project. • Stated that he would like to see the project go forward. • Said that they cannot do things now because there is not enough room to accommodate the 64 different programs operated at the Parish and School. Mr. Jim Stallman, 19750 Braemar Drive, Saratoga: • Stated that St. Andrew's is a good neighbor and that he is excited about the bell tower. • Said he notices a front path depicted and stated it is good to see this path. • Asked if there would be a sidewalk along Saratoga Avenue: • Pointed out that there is room to move the curb and add a sidewalk. • Suggested that parking not be prohibited along Saratoga avenue since it could calm traffic to allow such parking. Director Tom Sullivan advised that he believes there will be sidewalk but not all the way. Mr. Jim Stallman said that a sidewalk is needed from Mrs. Jorganson's onward. Ms. Rebecca Coffinan, Project Landscape Architect, reported that there will be sidewalk all along the frontage of Saratoga. Ms: Diana Luoh, 19540 Tweed Court, Saratoga: • Said that her property is adjacent to St. Andrew's. • Pointed out that the school replaced a trailer about two years ago. Instead of being angled like the original trailer, the new trailer was installed parallel to her property. They were promised screening trees but they are not there. • Said that Saratoga traditionally does not have two-story classrooms but rather have a more park-like campus. • Said that while she can see the need for additional space, a 70 percent increase is too aggressive. . • Said that the big picture needs to be considered including traffic and noise concerns. • Asked that activities near their shared fence should be limited to avoid noise impacts. ~~©~1~8 Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 23, 2002 Page 10 • Pointed out that there is a park on the other side where no residence would be impacted by noise coming from this proposed building. • Said that people don't always stay within the building and that conversations from the site infringe on their use of their home and yard. • Stated her opposition to any three-story building and expressed a preference for single-story. buildings. • Suggested the outright removal of the bell tower and said that she would not enjoy hearing the bells ringing every Sunday even though she does love music. Commissioner Hunter pointed out that several schools have been renovated with multi-story buildings, including Saratoga School with three stories and Redwood School, which has. atwo-story science building. Asked Ms. Luoh if she was aware of the school when she purchased her home. Mrs. Diana Luoh: • Replied yes. • Reminded the Commission that the trailer originally located closest to her home did not impact her family until it was replaced and repositioned on the site. • Pointed out that the school day is typically done by 3 p.m. However, the proposed Parish Center will have extended hours, seven days a week. • Concluded by saying that operations at St. Andrew's have changed since she purchased her home and now has a greater impact. Commissioner Zutshi had questions for the traffic consultant. Mr. Sohrad Rashid, Project Traffic Engineer and City Consulting Traffic Engineer: • Stated that currently cars dropping off students at St. Andrew's School often end up queued on Saratoga. • Added that with the proposed second drop off point, this would remove cars from queuing off the street by increasing on-site queuing space by 70 to 80 percent. Commissioner Zutshi asked if parking has been considered too. Mr. Sohrad Rashid replied that with up to 1,000 feet of queuing space, allowing 20 to 25 feet per car, would allow approximately 50 vehicles to queue on site. Commissioner Kurasch asked about impacts with increased enrollment. Mr. Sohrad Rashid replied that an additiona124 cars would not be an issue. Commissioner Kurasch asked Mr. Rashid to explain a Level D intersection and potential impacts with up to 470 to 500 students at St. Andrew's. Mr. Sohrad Rashid replied that with no change from the current 439 students, there- would be no queuing onto Saratoga Avenue. Additionally, up to 470 could be accommodated on site. Commissioner Zutshi asked if any provisions are being made to accommodate left turns from the site onto Saratoga Avenue. l~~©U~9 Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 23, 2002 Page 11 Mr. Sohrad Rashid replied that no change is proposed. ' occur if eo le are waitin to Commissioner Garakani asked what impacts to the site s queuing might p p g leave the property via left turns onto Saratoga Avenue. Mr. Sohrad Rashid stated that cars waiting for left turn exiting would not impact queuing on site. Commissioner Kurasch asked about meeting with neighbors. Mr. Scott Sheldon: • .Advised that they had relayed copies of the sign up sheets to staff. There were three meetings and two workshops. With the exception of Mr. Luoh, on one else who attended one of the meetings is present this evening. • Said that he wants to address needs for everyone. • Pointed out that St. Andrew's has been a good neighbor as has been testified by neighbors. • Stated that the intent and letter of Zoning regulations has been meta • Said that they have addressed security issues for their students. • Said that to satisfy the concerns of the neighbor to the east, the four windows that go in would be changed' to a clear story window, located up high. Additionally, they will reduce the height of the roof so as not to impact neighbor views. • Informed that they moved the lunch area near Mrs. Jorganson's property with her support. • Stated that this is a good solution for all parties. a'r ackman closed the Public Hearin for A ends Item No. 1 at 8:40 p.m. i Ch i J g g Commissioner Kurasch: • Stated her support of staffs analysis and recommendations. . • Said that the project needs to come more into balance with the rest of the area with less intensive uses and lower building heights. • Said that she could not support so many variations from standards. Chair Jackman: • Said that the intensity bothers her.. • Stated that she is not sure how to reduce some of these buildings but that they must fit better onto the site. Commissioner Hunter: • Said that she has a great deal of compassion for St. Andrew's. • Pointed out that most public schools have remodeled and include high buildings. • Declared that kids are the most important thing in the world. • Said that she sees St. Andrew's making a great effort. • Agreed that one cannot teach today in a school built in 1962. • Said that we have to prepare kids for the future. • Agreed that something must be done about the building located closer to residences. • Said that this will be wonderful for the community and for St. Andrew's and should be allowed to J go ahead. ~~0~~0 Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 23, 2002 Page 12 Commissioner Kurasch questioned comparing this to public schools. drew's has a wonderful re utation and the security improvements for its Chair Jackman said that St. An p students is important. Commissioner Zutshi: • Said that she looked at the school today and found that it looks subdued and like a nice village school. • Expressed a problem with the proposed three-story buildings and bell tower. • Said that she is trying to visualize this big project on this site. • Stated a need to reduce bulk. • Agreed that she too understands the need for proper classrooms for children. Commissioner Garakani: • Stated that he takes issue with the bell tower. • Said he could not understand why neighbors have not been taken more into consideration. • Said he basically would go with the staff recommendations. Director Tom Sullivan advised the Commission that it has achieved what was desired this evening. Chair Jackman called for a break at 8:50 p.m. Chair Jackman reconvened the meeting at 9:01 p.m. ~** PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM N0.2 APPLICATION #01-044 (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) Planner Christy Oosterhous presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that Sheet A-8 indicates a height of 21 feet but is actually 20 feet. • Stated that the applicant is seeking Design Review Approval for a first and second story addition to an existing single-family for a residence totaling 2,923 square feet. The first floor would be increased by 245 square feet and the second floor by 842 square feet. The maximum height would be 20 feet. • Described the lot as being 8,040 square feet within an R-1-10,000 Zoning District. • Said that staff finds that design policies have been met, that use of earthtones reduce the appearance of mass and bulk. • Informed that the applicant has provided evidence that their neighbors do not object with eight letters of support. • Recommended approval. t~~©(~41 • Attachment D • ~~~(~~2 RESOLUTION N0. 2285 RESOLUTION OF TSE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA AMEND3NG THE TEKT OF THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF TIiB GENERAL PLAN REGARDING STRUCTURE HEIGHT WkIEREAS, Zhe Odd Fellows .Dome of California has initiated an amendment to the text of the Laad Use Element of the General Plan to allow a-three . story structure on sites with a General Plan designation~of Quasi Public Facilities on a slope of lOx or more using a stepped pad; and WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commissin at a regulax meeting is accord with Government Code Section b5351, held a public hearing on September 11, 1985, and reviewed the proposed amendment to the text of the Land IIae Element concerning Overall Aeight Limit; and WHEREAS, after the tlosing of said public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted a resolution recommending that the City Council amend the text of the Land Use Element of the General Plaa.regarding structure height; and . WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Saratoga, at a regular meeting of November 7, 1985, held a public hearing in accordance with` Government Code Section b5355, and reviewed the proposed amendment to the said Land Use Element; and Having heard the evidence presented, both written and oral, the City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby MAKES~THB FOLLOWING FINDINGS is connection with the proposed amendment to the text of-the Land Use Element of the General Plan: 1. The proposed General Plan amendment will maintain the residential character of the neighborhood by property separation and will have no adverse privacy or visual impacts on the suxrounding area. 2. The proposed amendment will not adversely affect economic . viability of the City: 3. The proposed General Plan amendment will not adversely affect the public safety,. health and Welfare or be materially injurious to adjacent properties .or improvements. NOR, THEREFORE, based upon the findings set forth hereinabove, the City Council of the City of Saratoga resolves as follows: Tt-at the text of the Land Use Element regarding Overall Aeight Limit shall be ascended to read as followsi "No structure- shall be over two stories in height except for structures located within the Village boundary as defined 1n the Village Area Plan and on Bites. designated Quasi Public Facilities (QPF) is the General Plan. In the Village, structure height will be Q v ~~ limited based on compatibility with existing structures and, the natural environment. On sites designated QPF, a three-story structure will be 1 ~~0C~43 :...~ o e underneath the three-story area isi 10~ or a1loi.ed provided the s1 p more and a stepped pad ie used.~~ TLie above and foregoing resolution was .passed and adopted at a regular i meeting of the City .Council of the City of Saxatoga held on the 7th day of November, 1985, by the following votes AYES: Councilors Callon, Fanelli, I~lava, Nbyles and Mayor Clevenger NOES: None ABSENT: None MAY O$ ~ ~/ . ATTEST: ~- CITY C1,ERK I~ •. 2 ~~Q~~i~ • Attachment E • L~~C~~S ~. intensity is governed by .the Zoning Ordinance through the use permit process. Allowable building intensity varies. ' C. Quasi-Public Facilities - This subcategory contains religious uses (churches, synagogues, religious schools, and the novitiate), convalescent homes, the cemetery, the electrical substation,, arid. •the Odd Fellows Home. These are institutional•uses that provide a pu~lic'service but are not controlled by 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. Industrial There is only one category of industrial use - light industry. Wineries and related accessory uses are permitted under this designa- tion. One industrial lot per 10 acres net is permitted with a maximum building coverage of 30$. Excavation of natural materials could be permitted under this designation if potential adverse impacts on the air and water quality, safety,, and overall.quality of adjacent envies ronments are mitigated.. 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. In-the Village, structure height will be limited based on compatibility with existing structures and the natural environment. • 1~Q0~~s ,_~ • Attachment F • ~~~(~47 15-12.090 71.99 § 9, 1991; Ord, 71-]06 § 2, 1992; Amended during 5/95 supplement: Amended by Ord. 205 § 2, 2002) 15-12.100 Height of structures. (a) Nosingle-family dwelling shall exceed twenty-six feet in height and no other type of main structwe shall exceed thirty feet in height. ' (b) 1) (2) (c) No structure shall exceed two stories, except that pursuant to a use permit issued under Article 15-55 of this • Chapter, athree-story structure may be allowed for an institutional facility located upon a site designated for quasi-public facilities (QPF) in the General Plan, where ., ' the average slope underneath the structure is ten percent or greater and a stepped building pad is used. (Amended by Ord. 71.87 § 1, 1991) 15-12.110 Accessory uses and structures.. •ccessory uses and structures shall comply with specs ~ s as set forth in Section 15-80. "' this Chapter. 15-12.120 ~ Fences, Halls and hedges. Fences, walls and hedges shall comply with the regula- tions set forth in Article 15-29 of this Chapter. 15-12.130 Signs. No sign of any character shall be erected or displayed in any R-1 district, except as permitted under the regula- tions set forth in Article 15-30 of this Chapter. 15-12.140 Off-street parking and loading facilities. Off=street parking and loading facilities shall be pro- vided for each use on the site, in accordance with the regu- lations set forth in Article 15-35 of this Chapter. l5-]2.150 Design review. The construction or expansion of any main or accessory structure in an R-1 district shall comply with the applica- ble design review regulations set forth in Article IS-45 or Article 15-46 of this Chapter. (Saza~oga 6-02) 15-12.].60 Storage of personal property and ` :.,;:. materials. `~~`~ ::7F~ , (a) No portion of any site on which no dwelling ex- .. fists, or on which a fully constructed dwelling exists but is not occupied and used for human habitation, shall be used for the unenclosed storage of any persona] property. (b) With respect to any site on which a dwelling ex- ists which is occupied and used for human habitation, no portion of any required front yard, and no portion of any required exterior side or rear yard of comer lots, and rear yards of double frontage lots, except as hereinafter pro- vided, shall for any period of time in excess of five con- secutive days be used for the unenclosed storage of any of e following: ~ Motor vehicles, except automobiles in fully opera- tions ondition and currently registered and licensed for operat non public highways and in normal daily use by the occ ants of the site. (2) railers of any kind or make. Camper units de- tached om the truck or other motor vehicle for which they ar designed or customarily used shall be considered trailer for the purpose of this Sectioa. ( Boats. 4) Parts of any of the items of property described in ), (2) or (3) of this subsection. (5) Building or construction materials, except those materials reasonably required for work under construction on the premises pursuant to a valid and effective building permit issued in accord with Chapter i 6 of this Code.' (6) Trash, garbage or refuse, except as provided by Article 7-OS in Chapter 7 of this Code. Any of the foregoing items of property which have been stored on a site or yard described herein for less than five consecutive days and then removed, shall not again be stored on such site or yard unless incompliance with sub- section (c) of this Section or pursuant to a temporary use permit issued pursuant to subsection (d) of this Section. (c) The items ofproperty described in subsection (b) of this Section maybe stored in exterior side and rear yards of corner lots and rear yards of double frontage lots for periods in excess of five consecutive days where a fence has been legally constructed of sufficient height and of a type which screens the stored property from public view and reasonably prevents such property from becom- ing an attractive nuisance. (d) The Planning Director shall have power, in cases of practical difficulty or hardship, to grant temporary use permits for storage of the items of property described in subsection (b) of this Section in front, side or rear yards of sites for limited periods of time in excess of five 296 ~:. ~l ~y"•~ti.llJ~~8 • Attachment G • is ~©~~9 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: 02/26/03 Re: Objection to Proposal for Expansion at Saint Andrews ~ ~~~a~~ ~ FE6 2 8 2003 C1TY OF SARATOGA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Ladies and Gentlemen: . We strongly object to the proposed expansion action of Saint Andrews Church/School. This 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 remains completely unprecedented and unacceptable. First, expansion of this facility and business 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 its business, then it should do so by moving to another site in a more suitable community for the noise and congestion of business. Second, the neighborhood near the existing church and school is already dangerous and congested from traffic. The area on Braemar Drive alone is in genuine danger of becoming a thoroughfare as a bypass to the increasing congestion between the new, larger library, community offices, and the Saint Andrews business establishment. Children at play in the neighborhood are already at risk. Increasing that risk by expanding enrollment, expanding facilities in a confined space, and expanding other local congestion is irresponsible. Third; 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. Fourth, there has already been a large negative environmental-affect by the school on the nearby Saratoga Creek area and the otherwise friendly aesthetics of the community, • • • L~~~~~ including the terrible affect of congestion upon motor traffic that gates the entire community of Saratoga. Again, we strongly object to the Planning Commission's unprecedented and irresponsible action of excluding the general community from scrutiny and approval of a Planning Commission action that has significant impact upon entrance and exit from the entire community. We also object to the short notice provided to the community regarding this significant issue. We strongly object to any proposal to worsen the situation at the intersection of Fruitvale and Saratoga Avenues, and we especially object to the absence of an unbiased traffic analysis regarding this public situation. The citizens of Saratoga will expect Saint Andrews, the Planning Commission members, and the City of Saratoga, to be responsible for material and punitive damages that result from this impending action. We implore that you deal with this expansion request in a responsible manner, and that you deal with it in uniform accordance with prior Planning Commission actions, so that the presence of congestion, expansion, structure mass, structure height, and transient population are minimized within the City of Saratoga. Thank you. Sincerely, Marc E. King Eileen M. Ki ' .fly ~~ '~~~ • ~.~ ~~®C~Sl • ~I t~~0(~52 Harry and Diana Luoh ` 19540 Tweed Court Saratoga, CA 95070 ' (408) 741-0155 October 29, 2002. Mr. Tom Sullivan Community Development Director 22 ~p 2 City of Saratoga ~ ~ ~ l5 ~ 1~ l5 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 OCT 3 ~ 2002 CITY OF SARATOGA ,IMMUNITY DEVEL.(lpn"F*" Mr. Tom Sullivan, First we would like to thank you for listening to our objection to Saint Andrew Parish/School expansion project on October 23rd, 2002. Few days before the hearing we expressed our concern to a member of the Planning Commission, we were told that it was too late to raise any concern. Unfortunately some member tried to mislead us or discourage us to express our concern. We appreciate your unbiased response to our concern. We urge you to reject the plan as presented to you. As we said in the hearing, we are strongly against this project because it is architecturally incompatible with the neighborhood and it invades the privacy of its neighbors. My concern is not only for the big impact to our privacy, but also. to the quality living environment in the City of Saratoga. Very soon we are going to have a BIG new library in the neighborhood. It has already changed the view of our city for the worse. Are we going to build more huge two- or three-story buildings just across street from it? We believe in importance of education and we support school activities. But we should not let an aggressive expansion of a private school permanently change the living environment of our beautiful city? Most residents in the neighborhood do not know about this project, not to mention reviewing it. The applicant claims that there will be no expansion to the school. They choose not to mention that the overall space will be increased by more than 50% and the height will be 40 feet, taller than new library. Every neighbor to whom we have shown the drawing of this plan has great concern, especially about bell tower and the height of the buildings. Worse yet; many residents who will be greatly impacted by this expansion are still in the dark. Two and half years ago St. Andrew put up three big box-shaped portable classrooms unexpectedly next to our backyard fence. Please refer to attachment to letter that I sent you on October 22 for detail. We had to appeal the case to acting City Manager, Mr. William Norton to see some action to remedy the situation. St. Andrew agreed to plant on their side of the fence some pittosporum undulatum measured approximately 7'-8' at the time of placement. Two and half years later these plants are still around 4' tall. St. Andrew was not sensitive to its neighbor when they installed the portable classrooms and has not kept its promise to improve the situation. Two and half years ago they apologized for the tall, intrusive portable classrooms. And now they ~~~(~~3 are trying to replace them with 24 feet tall Parish Center at the same location, right next to our fence. If the bell tower were approved, the neighborhood will have to put up with noise at intrusive or annoying level twice every Sunday plus every special events and holidays. If the Parish Center were approved, we'll have few hundred people social and talk inside and outside, the Parish Center every Sunday plus every special events and holidays. The noise will be unbearable. If you were I, living right next to the church, would you accept that? After careful study of St. Andrew expansion plan and report by the Planning Department, here is our recommendation: 1. send public hearing notice to residents within one mile radius of St. Andrew site and conduct more hearing to gather more resident's concern. 2. reduce all structures to a maximum of two stories, preferably one story as they are now. 3. break up massive structures such as Administration Wing. 4. move Parish Center away from neighboring residential property and reduce height to acceptable level. 5. ,eliminate bell tower. We, as ordinary Saratoga residents, do not have architect and all sorts of consultants on our side. All we have is you, our fellow Planning Commissioner. We hope that we can count on you to protect our right and preserve our quality living environment. I urge you to listen to your conscience and exercise your responsibility to vote against the current expansion plan. Thank you for your time and effort. Please let us know if you have any questions. Sincerely Yours, Harry Luoh ~~~~~ Diana Luoh ~'~~~ • ~~~(~~4 Attachment I t~4~(~~S Page 1 of 1 Christy Oosterhous From: Division -Planning Sent: Monday, December 09, 2002 8:10 AM To: Christy Oosterhous Subject: FW: Church bells -----Original Message----- From: Ppeaa@aol.com [mailto:Ppeaa@aol.com] Sent: Friday, December 06, 2002 1:19 PM To: planning@saratoga.ca.us Subject: Church bells As a home owners on Merribrook Court for forty years, we want to strenuously object to the proposed ENORMOUS bell tower that Saint Andrews wants to build. The phrase quoted by the Saratoga News that I guess was attributed to Mr. McKay was that the.bell tower would be glory to God and a gift to the community. • A gift to the community would be peace and quiet. We already have to put up with HUGE volumes of traffic on Crestbrook and Scotland, noise from the field with all the students. To say that we need to hear bells from an episcopal church to the glory of God in this multi-ethnic neighborhood is the final insult. I was a member of Saint Andrews when my children were small and some of them even went to Saint Andrews for a few years. I left this particular church when they put in VERY expensive doors at a time when they had perfectly good doors and there were hungry people and many people looking for employment. Here we go again. It seems to be that if they have the money to construct such a huge waste they should be helping members of the community in which they live. Please consider all of us who live on Braemar, Scotland, Crestbrook, and Merribrook...plus dozens of other streets. I'll bet if you poll us the majority are AGAINST any more problems caused by Saint Andrews. We do NOT want to hear bells ringing. Does Jill Hunter have children going to Saint Andrews? I've heard that she does. If she thinks that "they have to ,~ expand to update--this would be vvonderful for the community Really? Nonsense and I won t be voting for her. What was nice for the community was that for many, many years kids could drop in at the field and play basketball. With the new iron fence that is padlocked no one can do that. Saint Andrews has done NOTHING to insure that they are good neighbors. They cause endless amounts of traffic, noise and confusion. PLEASE consider this before you hear more positive comments about the bell tower and please consider WHY the person in favor is in favor. We and many other neighbors are opposed. Marion and Irv Wentzien 19801 Merribrook Court Saratoga, CA 95070 . • ~ao~ys 12/9/2002 • Attachment J C7 ~~©~S~ Christy Oosterhous From: j.stallman@attbi.com Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2003 12:13 PM To: Christy Oosterhous Cc: hmckay@st-andrews.org; juliestallman@attbi.com Subject: St. Andrews Remodel comments (from a neighbor) Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Myself - Jim, and my wife, Julie had a look at the planning drawings for the St. Andrews site remodel today. Regarding the EIR that is found on the City's website, we do not have any comments to submit. We do note that the requirement fora walkway from Crestbrook to the west end of the parking lot says walkway and not sidewalk. I would expect that the walkway would be in keeping .with the character of the other pathways along this historic stretch of Saratoga Avenue and **not** be a curb gutter portland cement concrete city style sidewalk. Regarding the site plan, we would ask for the following: 1. Please see that a walkway is provided along the project site Saratoga Avenue frontage and that if there is any fencing adjacent to the walkway that it comply with city setback requirements-which I believe is 25' for a property frontage. 2. Please see that secure bicycle parking is provided for both the school and church users per County guidelines. 3. I understand that the City of Saratoga potential plans for reconfiguring Saratoga Avenue along the site frontage is a separate activity and not part of this applicant's project. We look forward to helping our neighbor, St. Andrews Church and School, enhance its benefit to our neighborhood and community. s/ Jim Stallman 408/867-9797 19740 Braemar Drive • 1 ~~©v~8 Christy Oosterhous om: j.stallman@attbi.com nt: Tuesday, March 04, 2003 9:36 AM To: ~ Christy Oosterhous Cc: juliestallman@attbi.com; SANDPHYL@aol.com Subject: Re: FW: St. Andrew's street frontage pathway . Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Thank you for checking on the St. Andrews proposal that showed a fence along the curb and no pedestrian pathway.- 1. Please request that the path is shown on the plans that go before the Planning Commission. 2. It is necessary for the pathway to connect to the Fruitvale intersection. 3. Please consider stipulating that the pathway be painted or otherwise highlighted where it crosses busy driveways. Perhaps bots dots would work. For fancier treatment, paving stone bordering or other type of texturing would work while at the same time leaving the pathway smooth. 4. The frontage of the property as it is now may be extended into the street in order to provide for a pathway since the street is wider than needed. I would expect that the trees won't be removed to put in a pathway. 5. One recommendation would be to bring the curb out 8 feet into the street ~nd have a 5 foot wide path separated from the street by 3 feet. Dirt or lantings would buffer the street from the pathway. The pathway could be black asphalt and not white cement in order to match the character of Saratoga Avenue ,west of Fruitvale. It may even be possible to meander the path in and out between the trees to wed it more to the property. What John Cherbone did along the Sacred Heart Church & School frontage is an example of what I am describing. Note that black curbs were used there. 6. Note that putting a pathway right next to the curb is a hazard due to street fixtures like sign poles, utility poles, and fire hydrants becoming obstacles. 7. The bus stop can be incorporated into the extended property frontage as a turnout. Since the west end driveway is being pushed out into the street, there shouldn't be any problem with doing a pathway as I have described. 8. Remember that there is a Bike Lane on Saratoga Avenue. 9. If it was desired to retain parking along the street frontage, that parking could be accommodated by pocketing which still leaves the pathway away from the street itself. 10. we have a chance here to really improve the functionality and attractiveness of this Heritage Lane Gateway location. It is important to incorporate best practices when opportunities come along. Thank you. s/ Jim Stallman 408/867-9797 •> Please see below to follow up on your fencing and sidewalk questions. > Regards, > Christine Oosterhous, AICP > Associate Planner 1 t~~~~~9 > 408-868-1286 > -----Original .Message----- > > Wrom: RCLBDXRQBGJ > Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 10:50 AM > To: 'coosterhous@saratoga.ca.us' > Cc: 'ssheldon@premiercommercial.net' > Subject: RE: St. Andrew's > Christy, > 1. We are including a sidewalk in front of the school, it's needed to > get to the bus stop. > 2. You are correct, the front fencing has been eliminated. > Jorge • • 2 ~0®(;60. Attachment K ~~©(;~1 w'~~ W ~~ _. ~`" 7 '3 3 .--_-~/ O ~3 3 i o t' o F P~~t,~~. ~ +3~(~~ (t3' ~EIy,H~ ~~ it X3.3 3:~ `To P o ~ 1++41-,1~~W AY ~'~~ -13751 ~tz` ir}tGr!-k~ ~,~.. o ~'~a ~ -6~T~ ti ~~ 1'376` ~~3` ~-l~ ct~4~ _~dp o~ Rin~~ w N O G7 W W ~~ ~ ~ 383` ~u~~ ~14~~ z NaT~•. P~•FZ~si-4 ~fitT~.iZ ~Il~t. ~L . ~ -t 363 ~ '' ~t~~w,5 N N~s~T P~Zt~ c.~t~tT~. N •t~N 3 ~ 2aa3 i • i• i~ Attachment L ~~0(~3 Tuesday, October 22, 2002 1:24 PM To: BARRIE D. COATS and ASSOCIATES Horticutural Consultants 23535 Summit Road Los Gatos, CA 95033 4081353-1052 October 22, 2002 Christy Oosterhous, Assistant Planner City of Saratoga,. Community Planning Division 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Subject: St. Andrews School Comments: I have reviewed the revised plans for this site, including the Grading and Drainage Plan prepared by the engineering firm of Creegan and D'Angelo, San Jose, Sheet C1, dated 6-1 I-02. Most of the features presented by the proposed plans, including the locations of the buildings appear to present rio major conflict with the trees that are recommended to be preserved. A portion of the canopy of Tree #55 appears to be in conflict ~~lith the proposed GYM, but it appears that it is possible to resolve this by proper pruning. Tree #SS is a 35-inch diameter coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) in exceptional condition and has a canopy spread of approximately 75 feet. A storm drain is proposed on the north side of Trees #28 and 29. This drain is proposed- within . approxunately 10 feet of trunk of Tree #28, a 37-inch diameter Monterey Pine (Pi~zus radiata) in exceptional condition, and within approxunately 15 feet of the trunk of Tree #29, a 30-inch diameter Blue Atlas Cedar (Cedrus atla~ztica `Glauca'), also in exceptional condition. This storm drain intersects with another leg of this drain system and would cut across the root system of Tree #29 on the west side approxunately 10 feet from the trunk. This storm drain system is also proposed approximately 10 feet from the trunk of Tree #S5. These three trees would not be expected to survive the root loss from the trenching, if constructed as proposed. This concern was expressed in the report by this office dated March . 27, 2002, next to last paragraph, page 4, and this is recommended for mitigation in Recommendation # 9 of the same report. In my opinion, it is unlikely that roots from this tree extend past the existing concrete.- ~~~all. For this reason, I reconunend that the trenching cut to construct the proposed new storm drain be located on the west side of this existing concrete ~~all, recognizing that this existing concrete wall is platmed to be removed. Rebecca Coffman, Landscape Architect, ~~7ote a detailed summary of a meeting between her and myself on 2-15-02. The reconunended mitigation procedures stated in this document are still valid and are still recommended. • • The new plans also propose to change the configuration of the raised planter beds, in which Trees #28 and 29 exist, to much smaller planter beds, which I presume would be raised as the existing planter beds. I St. Andrews School 1 ®l.i'L~ From: Stacey Lane, 831-438-2751!408-353-1 Page:1 of 2 238 Tuesday, October 22, 2002 1:24 PM To: • • Respectfully submitted, could not find details of the proposed changes in the planter bed configuration, but it would appeaz that the existing raised planter beds would be dramatically decreased in size. A proposed parking area adjacent to the GYM would be constructed in place of much of the existing planter bed. This is a new item introduced on the new proposed plans. In this event, the root systems off these trees would also be reduced (by what would appeaz to be) a severe root loss. It does not appeaz that Trees #28 or 29 would survive. It also appears that the major portion of the root systems on which these trees rely are likely contained in these existing raised planter beds. Although it is possible that significant roots may extend into the paving outside the raised planter beds. Exploratory excavation following demolition of the adjacent paving may provide better information about the root structures of these trees. Recommendations 1. I recommend that the storm drains near Trees.#28, 29 and 55 be redesigned as stated in Recommendation # 9 of the March 27, 2002 report, "The proposed storm drain must be relocated to the west side of the existing concrete wall" on the west side of Tree #29. 2. I recommend that the store drain be relocated a minimum of 20 feet from the trunk of Tree #SS, as recommended in the March 29, 2002 report (Recommendation # 10). However, it is not possible to judge the extent of the root system of Tree #55 under the existing driveway on the east side of the trunk, where the storm drain is proposed. It may be possible to construct the storm drain closer to the tree than 20 feet, but this would require exploratory excavation to locate the presence (or absence) of roots under this existing driveway. lii the absence of any additional information that may be obtained by exploratory excavations, ~~hich would have to be done under the supervision of the city azborist, the recommended 20 foot clearance for trenching would be adequate to protect a sufficient quantity of the root system of Tree #55 that its survival in its present condition could be expected. 3. I recommend that the paved areas around the raised planter beds, in which Trees #28 and 29 are located be excavated by an air spade under the supervision of the city azborist to explore the possibility of significant roots from these trees outside the existing raised planter beds. If necessary, I further recommend that this exploration in the planter beds themselves by the same method be done to study the feasibility of constructing parking at the proposed location adjacent to the GYM. In the absence of these actions, I recommend that the design of the proposed parking area be contingent on the existence of containing Trees #28 and 29 be designed to retain all of the soil area of the raised planter beds to the driplines. 4. The mitigation procedures stated in the report by this office dated March 27, 2002 are still valid and are still recommended for this proposed construction. From: Stacey Lene, 831-438-2751/408-353-1 Page: 2 of 2 238 Michael L. Bench, Associate • MLB/sl... Encl.: Map (Relocate Storm Drain) St. Andrews School Barrie D. Coate, Principal 2 ~~~~~5 ' BARRI E D. GATE end ASSOCIATES ~ Horticutural Consultants 23535 Summit Road . Los Gatos, CA 95033 408{353-1052 ADDENDUM TO OUR TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECO1~~IlvIENDATIONS AT THE ST. ANDREWS- SCHOOL PROPERTY 13601 SARATOGA AVE. SARATOGA Prepared at the Request of: Community Development Departrnent City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 ..Prepared by: Michael L. Bench Consulting Arborist March 27, 2002 Job #09-00-247-02 0 APR 15 2002 CITY OF SARATOGA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT _ , ~04G~f ADDENDUM TO OUR TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECOMIvv1ENDATIONS AT THE ST. ANDREWS SCHOOL PROPERTY 13601 SARATOGA AVE., SARATOGA Assignment. At the request of the Community Development Department, Planning Division, City of Saratoga, this report reviews the proposal to demolish and to rebuild portions of St. Andrews School, located at 13601 Saratoga Avenue, Saratoga, in the context of potential damage to or the removal of existing trees. In addition, this report makes recommendations intended to mitigate the damage to trees that would be at risk of survival by proposed construction Comments and suggestions contained in this report presume that the locations of trees in relation to proposed construction are accurately presented. on the plans provided. Observations There are 81 trees on this site, and 11 trees on the adjacent properties toward the north, that maybe at risk of damage by proposed construction. The attached map shows the location of these trees and their approximate canopy dimensions. Each tree on this property has been tagged with a metallic label indicating its assigned number. No labels are put on trees on the adjacent properties. The 92 trees are classified as follows: Trees # 1,2,3,5,6,7,15,16,17,75,76,77,78,80,81-Holly oak (Quercus ilex) Trees # 4,8,9,30,31,46,47,49,50,51,53,54,55 -coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) Tree # 10 -Japanese privet (Ligustrum japonicum) Tree # 11-fruitless mulberry (Morus alba) Trees # 12,13,14,42,43,44,45 -coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) Trees # 18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27 =sweet gum (Liquidamber styracijlua) Trees # 28,56-61,63-68,82-92 -Monterey pine (Pinus radiata) Tree # 29 -Blue Atlas cedar (Cedrus atlantica'Glauca') Trees # 32, 33, 34, 70, 71, 72, 73 - Deodar cedar (Cedrus deodara) Trees # 35,36,37,38,39,40,41 -Tasmanian blue gum (Eucalyptus globulus) Tree # 48 =California buckeye (Aesculus californica) Tree # 52 -Jacaranda (Jacaranda mimosifolia) Tree # 62 -Italian stone pine (Pinus pinea) Tree # 69 -Bailey's acacia (Acacia baileyana) Tree # 74 - Hollyleaf cherry (Prunus ilicifolia) Tree # 79 -California sycamore (Platanus racemosa) During a meeting on site with Rebecca Coffman, landscape architect, I learned that tree #79 is not located on this property. There are several other trees on site, some of which are located between the church and the administration offices of the school, that are not large enough to be controlled by the city ordinance. These trees near the administration offices include several American sweet gum (Liquidamber styrac~ua), Southern magnolia (Magnolia grand~ora), and Chinese Pistache (Pistacia chinensis). • PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST MARCH 27, 2002 ~~0~~/ ADDENDUM TO OUR TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECOI~IIvIII~TDATIONS AT 2 _ THE ST. ANDREWS SCHOOL PROPERTY 13601 SARATOGA AVE., SARATOGA The health and structure of each specimen is rated on a scale of 1 to 5 (Excellent - Extremely Poor) on the data sheets that follow this text. The combination of health and structure ratings for the 92 trees are converted to individual descriptive ratings as follows: Exceptional Specimens Fine. Specimens Fair .Specimens Marginal Poor Specimens Specimens 7,8,9,12,15, 1,2,3,4,5,6, 11,13,14,35, 61,62,82,84, 79,83 17,28,29,31, 10,16,18-27, 36-39,56,57, 85,86,87,88, 42,44,45,46, 29,30,32,33, 58,63,64,66, 89,90,91,92 55,71 34,40,41,43, 72,75,76,77, 47-54,59,60, 78,80,81 64,65,67,68, 69,70,73, 74 Exceptional, specimens must be retained at any cost and whatever procedures are needed to retain them in their current condition must be used. 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. Fair specimens are worth retaining but again without major design revisions. Mitigation must prevent further decline. Marginal specimens are typically worth retaining but could be removed if necessary to facilitate construction. Mitigations recommended here are intended to prevent significant decline. Poor specimens cannot significantly improve regardless of care. For any which are considered hazardous, removal is recommended. For those retained, mitigation may not be typically requested Trees #82-92 are located on the adjacent properties toward the north. I recommend that these must be treated as Exceptional regardless of condition. Tree #79 is included because is has a very large cavity at the root collaz. The interior structural wood has been lost to decay. I consider this tree to be hazardous and recommend its removal or severe reduction in height. This tree is located on neighboring property. I suggest that the neighbor be advised of the hazard. Trees #7, 8, 9, and 55 are matwe very large coast live oaks, (Quercus agrifolia). All three of these have a height of approximately 40-45 feet, and each has a spread of approximately 75 feet. The health and structure of each is excellent overall with minor flaws. These are among the largest healthy coast live oaks in this area. • PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST MARCH 27, 2002 ~~~l.i~~ ADDENDUM TO OUR TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECOMMENDATTONS AT 3 THE ST. ANDREWS SCHOOL PROPERTY 13601 SARATOGA AVE., SARATOGA ti Two other exceptional very large specimens on this site are trees #28, a 37-inch diameter Monterey pine, and #29, a 30-inch diameter blue Atlas cedar. Although this blue Atlas cedar has a smaller diameter, is grows much more slowly than the Monterey pine species (and most of the other species on site) and is probably much older. Both trees #28 and 29 are each located in separate raised planter beds. A large percentage of the root system of each of these specimens is located in the raised bed but tree #29 is located adjacent to the west edge of its planter bed and likely has major roots outside the planter bed on the west side as well. Risks to Trees by Proposed Construction Trees # 18, 19, and 20 are in conflict with the proposed Memorial Garden and-the proposed adjacent ringer's tower. I recommend replacement. Trees #21-27 are to be removed by this construction plan. I recommend replacement. Trees #30-41 are in conflict with the construction to: a. demolish an existing retaining wall b. restructure the slope (this is not shown on the plans provided) c. Construct a new retaining wall and concrete series of steps to an amphitheater With the exception of tree #31, I recommend replacement. Tree #31, a coast live oak, is the only exceptional specimen in this group. It appears that it could be retained: (1) if the proposed path were to be constructed completely on top of the existing grade, and (2) If the path were redesigned to be located a minimum of 3 feet from the trunk of tree #31. It appears that Trees #46-49 are in conflict with the expansion of the west side play yard. The west side edge of the existing play yard is located a few feet from the west property boundary. Trees #46-49 appear to exist within 1-2 feet of the property boundary. It appears that the plan proposes to expand the play yard to the property boundary. In this event, trees #46-49 would suffer significant, if not severe root loss. In my opinion, this would be a significant loss for such a minimal gain in the size of the playground. Tree #7 has two limbs on the east side of its canopy that are in conflict with a proposed new building. I estimate that the loss of these two limbs would be approximately 15% of the total canopy. Tree #7 should be able to tolerate this loss. On the south side of tree #7, a large area of the root zone that has been covered by gravel. If the gravel must be removed, it must be done by hand Trees #7, 8, and 9 have the potential to suffer significant root loss by the removal of the existing steps, by the construction of the proposed retaining wall on the slope west of tree #9, and by the grading that may be done on both the east and west sides of this retaining PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST MARCH 27, 2002 ~~a~~9 ADDENDUM TO OUR TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECOMMENNDATIONS AT 4 TI-TE ST. ANDREWS SCHOOL PROPERTY 13601 SARATOGA AVE., SARATOGA wall. Having discussed these risks with Rebecca Coffman, landscape architect, the potential root loss to these trees can be mitigated adequately by performing exploratory excavations into the slope on the west side of tree #9 to evaluate the potential for root loss. This. would determine the extent to which the slope could be cut, the feasible location of a retaining wall, and the feasibility of the expansion of the proposed adjacent play yard for the kindergarten program. A cut into the existing soil to construct a path on the north side of the kindergarten play area would be highly detrimental to the root systems of trees # 8, 89- 91. This potential root loss can be mitigated adequately by constructing this path on top of the existing grade. Tree #8 may suffer significant root loss if the soil is excavated to install the fiber material for the kindergarten play yard. However, there would be little risk to tree #8 if the fiber material were installed completely on top of the existing soil grade. The brick paving located on the east side of tree #9 is to be replaced. There are no doubt significant quantities of absorbing roots in this azea. These tiny roots, located within the top 12-14 inches of the soil, must not be crushed by heavy machines or by the continuous foot traffic of construction workers. It will be essential to remove and replace small sections of the paving at a time. The soil containing significant quantities of absorbing roots directly beneath the bricks must be preserved by preventing the use of heavy equipment (i.e., a tractor or similaz equipment), by preventing the compaction of the soil (this is in conflict with typical paver construction), and by keeping the soil (once M exposed) from drying out. The proposed storm drain would be a serious risk to tree #29, the 30-inch diameter blue atlas cedar. However, it appears that this risk may be greatly reduced to an acceptable level, if this storm drain were to be relocated approximately 10 feet toward the west The removal of the existing paving and the removal of the existing wooden retaining walls adjacent to trees #28 and 29 may result in serious root loss if these materials were removed by equipment that removed soil with the wall. The soil must not be allowed to dry out once the retaining walls are removed Potential losses to the root systems of these trees can be mitigated adequately if the procedures aze followed that are described in the Recommendations section of this report. The storm drain that poses a risk to tree #28 would also. cut across the root zone of tree #55 within approximately l0 feet of the trunk. This would severely damage the root system of tree #55, which cannot be replaced. Either the stone drain must be a minimum of 25 feet from the trunk of tree #55, or the drain must be tunneled 3-4 feet under the root zone of this tree, if this tree is expected to survive in good condition. If a soil cut is required to construct the paved roadway located on the north side of tree #55, the root system of this tree may be seriously damaged. PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST MARCH 27, 2002 ~~Q~J~® ADDENDUM TO OUR TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECOMIvv1EENDATIONS AT THE ST. ANDREWS SCHOOL PROPERTY 13601 SARATOGA AVE., SARATOGA The trees on the south side of the property are located adjacent to the existing parking lot. If these trees are expected to survive construction, the demolition of this parking lot must be done without disturbing the soil beneath the existing paving. These are trees #56-73, the majority of these are Monterey pine trees, but a few (trees #70-74) are Deodar cedars. These Monterey pines are in only fair condition, and in my opinion are not worth retaining. However, the Deodar cedars (#70-74) are in excellent condition and are well worth retaining. The Monterey pines no longer provide the screening between this property and the property toward the south It would make sense to replace the Monterey pines with small trees or large shrubs to reestablish a screen between these two properties. However, the Deodar cedars (#70-74), in my opinion, must be retained. This means that the soil beneath the existing paving within I S feet of the trunks of the Deodar cedar trees must not be disturbed during demolition or construction since this species is so sensitive to root damage. Recommendations The following procedures are intended to mitigate the damage that would ordinarily be done by construction in order for retained trees to survive without decline. 1. I recommend that test holes be dug, under the on site supervision of the city arborist, for the purpose of locating roots of tree #9 in order to determine a feasible location of the piers for the proposed retaining wall. 2. I recommend that trees #9, 28, 29 and 70-74 receive supplemental irrigation during the dry months (any month receiving less than i inch of rainfall). Irrigate with 10 gallons for each inch of trunk diameter every 2 weeks throughout the construction period. This can be achieved by the use of a simple soaker hose, which must be located near the dripline of the entire canopy circumference of each tree. 3. The pavers on the east side of tree #9 must be removed and replaced in small sections under the supervision of the city arborist. Immediately upon the removal of the pavers in a specified area, the exposed soil must be covered by sand, or by coarse wood chips. Immediately upon the installation of this cover the area must be thoroughly wet down. The objective is to prevent the absorbing roots typically located just under the surface of the soil from drying out. 4. Coarse fill sand may be used to "level" the surface of the soil prior to the installation of new pavers. Base rock or any material with granite fines may not be used under the new pavers. 5. The fiber material planned to be installed inside the dripline of tree #8 in the kindergarten play area must be installed on top of the existing soil grade without excavation. 6. The proposed pathway around the kindergarten play yard (on the north side and under the canopies of trees #8, 89-92 must be constructed completely on top of the existing grade. PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST MARCH 27, 2002 ~~aC~'~1 ADDENDUM TO OUR TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECOMIvv1ENDATIONS AT THE ST. ANDREWS SCHOOL PROPERTY 13601 SARATOGA AVE., SARATOGA 7. The two branches facing east described in the text of tree #7 must be pruned by an • ISA certified arbonst. The pruning of this tree and the pruning of any tree on site must be done by an arbonst certified by the ISA and the work must meet ISA, Western Chapter Standards. 8. If the gravel on the east side of tree #8 and on the south side of tree #7 must be removed, it must be removed by hand. In this event, the gravel must be replaced with 3 inches of coarse wood chips., The installation of any other surface materials in this area must be approved by the city arbonst. 9. The proposed storm drain must be relocated to the west of the existing concrete wall, which is located on the west side of tree #29. 10. The proposed storm drain must be relocated a minimum of 25 feet from the trunk of tree #SS. 11. The proposed path inside the dnpline of tree #31 must be a minimum of 3 feet from the trunk, and that portion of the path within 12 feet of the trunk of tree #31 must be constructed completely on top of the existing soil grade. 12. I recommend that the existing size of the play yard adjacent to trees #46-49 be maintained without expanding to the property boundary, which would result in the destruction of these trees. 13. Removal of the existing paving and the existing retaining walls within 20 feet of the trunks of trees #28 and 29 must be done by hand The root zones of these trees within the areas of the existing raised planter beds must be covered with 3 inches of coarse wood chips. These trees must be given supplemental irrigation (Recommendation # 2). 14. I recommend that the paving within 15 feet of the trunks of trees #70-74 be removed by hand 1 S. I suggest that construction period fencing be provided and located as noted on the attached map. Fencing must be chainlink, a minimum height of 5 feet, mounted on steel posts driven 2 feet (minimum) into the ground. The fence must be in place prior to the amval 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. 16. There must be no grading, trenching, or surface scraping beneath the canopy 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 arbonst must be consulted PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST MARCH 27, 2002 ~~~(~~2 ADDENDUM TO OUR TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATTON RECOMMENDATIONS AT 7 THE ST. ANDREWS SCHOOL PROPERTY 13601 SARATOGA AVE., SARATOGA i 7. Trenches for any utilities (gas, electricity, water, phone, TV cable, etc.) must be located outside the driplines of retained trees. For any tree where this cannot be achieved, I suggest that the city arborist be consulted. 18. Excavated soil must not be piled or dumped (even temporarily) under the canopies of trees. 19. Landscape pathways and other amenities constructed under, the canopies of trees must be done completely on grade without ,excavation. 20. Landscape irrigation trenches (or any other excavations), inside the canopy driplines of trees, must be no closer than 15 times the trunk diameter, if the trenching direction is across the root zone. However, radial trenches (i.e., like the spokes of a wheel) may be done closer if the trenches reach no closer than S times the trunk diameter to the tree's trunk, and if the spokes are at least 10 feet apart at the perimeter. 21. Sprinkler irrigation must be designed .not to strike the trunks of trees. Further, spray irrigation must not be designed to strike inside the canopy driplines of oak trees. 22. I suggest that the species of plants used in the root zones of oak trees be compatible with the environmental and cultural requirements of the oak species indigenous to this area. A publication about plants compatible with California native oaks can be obtained from the California Oak Foundation, 1212 Broadway, Suite 810, Oakland 94612. 23. 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. 24. Drain dissipators or downspouts must be relocated, if trees are in the path of discharge. The discharge must be directed a minimum of 15 feet to the side of the trunk of any tree. 25. Materials or equipment must not be stored, stockpiled, dumped inside the canopy driplines of trees, or buried on site. Any excess materials (including mortar, concrete, paint products, etc.) must be removed from site. Value Assessment The values of the trees are addressed according to ISA standards, Seventh Edition I recommend that a bond equal to the value of 40% of the value of trees #7, 8, 9, 28, 29,. and 55 combined with a bond equal to 20% of the value of all of the other trees be required in order to assure their protection. • They are valued at $260,325. Bonds would total $72,663. PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST MARCH 27, 2002 C~~~'~3 ADDENDUM TO OUR TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS AT TIC ST. ANDREWS SCHOOL PROPERTY 13601 SARATOGA AVE., SARATOGA g I recommend that any trees lost be replaced on the basis of their value. Respectfully su tt ~~°' Michael L. Bench,.Associate Ba a D. Coate, rlnciPai -' Enclosures: Glossary Tree Protective Fencing Specifications Tree Protection Before, During and After Construction Radial Trenching Map MLB/s • ~ PREPARED BY: NIlCHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST MARCH 27, 2002 ~~©C;'~4 BARRIE D. COATS AND ASSOCIATES Horticultural Consultants (408) 353-1052 Fax (408) 353-1238 23535 Summit Rd. Los Gatos, CA 95033 GLOSSARY Co-dominant (stems, branches) equal in size and relative importance, usually associated with either the trunks or stems, or scaffold limbs (branches) in the crown. Crown -The portion ofa tree above the trunk including the branches and foliage Cultivar - A named plant selection from which identical or neazly identical plants can be produced, usually by vegetative propagation or cloning. Recurrent - A term used to describe a mature tree crown composed of branches lacking a central leader resulting in around-headed tree. Excnrrent - A term used to describe a tree crown in which a strong central leader is present t0 the top of a tree with lateral branches that progressively decrease in length upward from the base. Girdling root - A root that partially or entirety encircles the trunk and/or large buttress roots, which could restrict growth and downwazd movement of photosynthates. Induded bark -Bark which is entrapped in narrow-angled attachments of two or more stems, branches, or a stem and branch(es). Such attachments are weakly attached and subject to splitting out. Kinked root - A taproot or a major root(s) which is sharply bent and can cause plant instability and reduction of movement of water, nutrients, and photosynthates. Root rn0ar -The Hazed, lower portion of the base of a tree where the roots and stem merge. Also referred to as the "root crown". Leader -The main stem or trunk that forms the apex of the tree. Stem - The axis (trunk of a central leader tree) of a plant on which branches aze attached. Temporary branches - A small branch on the trunk of between scaffold branches retained to shade, nourish, and protect the trunk of small young trees. These branches are kept small and gradually removed as the trunk develops. Definition of Woody Parts Trunk -The main stem of a tree between the ground and the lowest scaffold branch. Scaffold branches -1n decurrent trees, the branches that form the main structure of the crown. Limb- A major structural part. Branch - A smaller part, attached to a limb or scaffold branch Branchlet- A small part, attached to a branch. Twig-Avery small part attached to a branchlet. Leaf- The main photosynthetic organ of most plants. 4 f ~ ~ ~ ~~~~ ..~ yv ~ ~~ and ASSOCIATES St. Andrews School Property, 13601 Saratoga Ave. - woe)3s~~os2 23535 Sunni) Road . Prepared for: lm Ga1n,G 95QI0 City of Saratoga, Community Development Department HORTICULTURAL CONSUL?ANT Date: March 27 2002 ~, CONSULTING ARBORIST Scale: Ma Reduced Job #109-00-247-01 • BARRIE D. COATS AND ASSOCIATES Horticultural Consultants (~F08) 353-1052 Fax (x+08) 353-1238 .- ummit Rd. Los Gatos, CA 95033 23535 S TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS AT THE ST. ANDREWS SCHOOL PROPERTY 13601 SARATOGA AVE. SARATOGA Prepared at the Request of: Community Development Department City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. . Saratoga, CA 95070 Prepared by: Michael L. Bench . Consulting Arborist October 24, 2001 Job #09-00-247-01 Plan Received: 9/22/01 Plan Due: 10/22/01. Report Faxed & Mailed: October 25, 2001 D C~C~~~d~ OC1' 3 1 2001 . CITY OF S,4RAT{)C;A COMMIINITY ~E~F{~i ~4" ~"['v7 '~7 7REE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECOMt~~NDATIONS AT THE ST. ANDREWS SCHOOL PROPERTY 13601 SARATOGA AVE. SARATOGA Assignment At the request of the Community Development Department, Planning Division, City of Saratoga this report reviews the proposal to demolish and to rebuild portions of St. Andrews School located at 13601 Saratoga Avenue, in the context of potential damage to or the removal of existing trees. This report further provides information about the health and structure of the trees on site, and makes recommendations by which damage to them can be restricted to prevent significant decline. Comments and suggestions contained in this report presume that the locations of trees in relation to proposed construction are accurately presented on the plans provided. Observations There are eighty-one trees on this site and eleven trees on the adjacent properties toward the north that are at risk of damage by proposed construction: The attached map shows the locations of these trees and their approximate canopy dimensions. Each tree on this property has been tagged with a metallic label indicating its assigned number. No labels are put on trees on the adjacent properties.. The ninety-two trees are classified as follows: Trees #1, 2, 3, 5-7, 15-17, 75-78, 80, 81 Holly Oak (Quercus ilex) Trees #4, 8, 9, 30, 31, 46, 47, 49,.50, 51, 53-55 Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia) Tree # 10 Japanese Privet (L igustrum japonicuzn) Tree # 11 Fruitless Mulberry (Morns alba) Trees #12-14, 42-45 Coast Redwood (Sequoia senzpervirens) Trees.#18-27 Sweet Gum (Liquidamber styrac~ua) Trees #28, 56-61, 63-68, 82-92 Monterey Pine (Pinus radiata) Tree # 29 Blue Atlas Cedar (Cedrus atlantica'Glauca) Trees #32-34, 70-73 Deodar Cedar (Cedrus deodara) Trees #35-41 Tasmanian Blue Gum (Eucalyptus globulus) Tree #48 California Buckeye (Aesculus californica) Tree #52 Jacaranda (Jacaranda nziznvsifolia) Tree # 62 Italian Stone Pine (Pinus pinea) Tree #69 Bailey Acacia (Acacia baileyana) Tree #74 Sargent-Cherry (Prunus sargentii) Tree #79 California Sycamore (Platanus racemosa) The health and structure of each specimen is rated on a scale of 1 to 5 (Excellent Poor) on the data sheets that follow this text. Please note that each trees structure is distinguished from health. The structure rating is a visual evaluation of each tree's ability to remain standing and to maintain its branching without breaking or splitting apart. Damage of this nature can occur despite exceptional health. Also, structure is not an aesthetic focus. A tree that has an excellent structure Inay not necessarily be aesthetically pleasing. OCTOBER 22, 2001 PI2BPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTING ARIIORIST TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECONA~NDATIONS AT THE ST. ANDREWS SCHOOL PROPERTY 2 13601 SARATOGA AVE. SARATOGA Because the various combinations of health and structure sometimes require interpretation, the combination of health and structure ratings for the trees are converted to individual descriptive ratings as follows: Exceptional Fine Fair Marginal Poor S ecimens S ecimens S ecimens S ecimens S ecimens 7-9, 12, 15, 17, 1-6, 10, 1 b, 18, 1 l , 13, 14, 35- 61, 62, 82, 84- 79, 83 19, 25, 28, 29, 20-24, 26, 27, 39, 56-58, 63, 92 31, 42, 44-46, 29, 30, 32-34, 64, 66, 72, 75- 55, 71 40, 41, 43, 47- 78, 80, 81 54, 59, 60, 64, 65, 67-70, 73, 74 Exceptional specimens must be retained at any cost and. whatever procedures are needed to retain them in their current condition must be used. 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. Fair specimens are worth retaining but again without major design revisions. Mitigation must prevent further decline. Marginal specimens are typically worth retaining but could be removed if necessary to facilitate construction. Mitigations recommended here are intended to prevent significant decline. Poor specimens cannot significantly improve regardless of care. For any which are considered hazardous, removal is recommended. For those retained, mitigation may not be typically requested. Trees #82-92 are located on the adjacent properties toward the north. I recommend that these must be treated as Exceptional regardless of condition. Tree #79 is included because it has a very large cavity at the root collar. The interior structural wood is minimal. I consider this tree to be hazardous and recommend it for removal. Trees #7, 8, 9, and 55 are matwe very large coast live oaks. All three of these have a height of approximately 40-45 feet, and each has a spread of approximately 75 feet. The health and structure of each is excellent overall with minor flaws, as does virtually every tree. These are among the largest healthy coast live oaks in this area. Quercus agrifolia are indigenous to this area. PREPARED BY: MICI-IAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST OCTOBER 22, 2001 l-Qa~~9 TREI: SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS AT THE ST. ANDREWS SCHOOL PROPERTY . 3 ] 3601 SARATOGA AVE. SARATOGA Two other Exceptional very large specimens on this site are trees #28, a 37-inch diameter Monterey pine, and #29, a 30-inch diameter blue Atlas cedar. Although this blue Atlas cedar has a smaller diameter, is grows much slower than the Monterey pine species (and most of the other species on site) and is probably much older. Both trees #28 and 29 are each located in separate raised planter beds. A large percentage of the root system of each . of these specimens is located in the raised bed, in which they exist. This maybe completely the case of tree #28, because it is located centrally in its planter bed. However, tree #29 is located adjacent to the west edge of its planter bed and likely has major roots outside the planter bed on the west side. Impacts ,of Proposed Construction Trees # 18-20 are in conflict with the proposed Memorial Garden and the proposed adjacent Ringer's Tower. Trees #21-27 are proposed to be removed, apparently for aesthetic reasons. Trees #30-41 are in conflict with the construction to: a. demolish an existing retaining wall b. restructure the slope (this is not shown on the plans provided) c. construct a new retaining wall. acid a series of concrete steps to an amphitheater Tree #31, a coast live oak is the only Exceptional specimen in this group. Trees #46-49~are in conflict with the expansion of the west side play yard. The existing play yard exists a few feet from the property boundary. Trees #46-49 appear to exist adjacent to the property boundary on this site. The plan proposes to expand the play yard to the property boundary. Trees #46, 47, and 49 are coast live oaks. Tree #48 is a California buckeye. Both of these species (Quercus agrifolia and Aesculus californica) are indigenous to this area. . It appears that trees #7, 8, 9 would suffer significant root loss by the removal of the existing steps, the grading that would be required to construct the upper and lower levels. There exists an elevation difference of over 10 feet between the upper and lower levels. The plans, including the Conceptual Grading Plan prepared by Creegan and DeAngelo, San Jose, sheet C1, do not address the changes in elevation that would occur. These plans suggest that retaining walls would be constructed, and that there would be a ramp north to south bet`veen trees #7 and 8 to the lower level. Given the size, the maturity, and the outstanding condition of trees #7, 8, 9 and the fact that these are of indigenous species, it is essential that detailed plans are provided to show how this area would be constructed, what grading would be required, and even the materials used. As an example, if it is intended to use the material'Fibar' in the kindergarten play yard (a popular material in play yards for children) a large percentage of the root system of tree #8 and tree #9 (to a .lesser degree) would be adversely affected. This is only an example. Although it would no doubt be useful to discuss these concerns with the designers, the features and details inside the driplines of trees must still be shown on the plans provided. In my experience, PREPARED BY: M]C}-]AEI. L. BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST OCTOBER 22, 2001 ~O~~U~~ TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS AT TIC ST. ANDREWS SCHOOL PROPERTY [} 13601 SARATOGA AVE. SARATOGA the content of discussions either becomes distorted or simply gets lost by the time construction begins and the woiker on the tractor is grading this area. This is why it is critical that the plans provide very explicit details of features beneath the canopies of all trees but especially trees #7, 8, 9,;28, 29 and 55 which are irreplaceable. The plans provided are adequate for all areas except for the areas beneath the canopies of all trees but especially trees #7, 8, 9, 28, 29, and 55. A stone drain is proposed within a few feet of the trunk of tree #28 on the west side. This drain would also cut across the root zone of tree #55 within approximately 10 feet of this tree. This would severely damage tree #55 which cannot be replaced. In addition to the specific risks noted, the retained trees may be subjected to one or more of the following damaging events that are common to construction sites: 1. The stockpiling of materials or the storage of equipment under the canopies. 2. The dumping of construction materials, especially waste materials, such as painting- - products, mortar, concrete, etc.) under the canopies. 3. The construction traffic, including foot traffic across the root systems, and the parking of vehicles or construction equipment under the canopies. 4. Demolition of the existing buildings, driveway, and pathways adjacent to trees S resulting in bark injuries, broken branches, or root loss. 5. The excavations for foundation or for other construction adjacent to trees. 6. The trenching across root zones for new utilities or for landscape irrigation. 7. The grading of the surface soil resulting in the removal of quantities of absorbing root tips. 8. Broken branches or bark injuries as a result of construction equipment passing too close. 9. Landscaping, including incompatible plant species, trenching across tree root zones for imgation, excessive soil disturbance of tree root zones, grading to create contours, etc. Virtually any landscape feature inside a tree's .root .zone results in a percentage of root damage. If the percentage is significant the affected trees will decline or die. Recommendations I recommend that plans be provided to show all features and details including any earthwork inside the driplines of trees #7, 8, 9, 28, 29, and 55. Value Assessment The value of the trees are addressed according to ISA Standards, Seventh Edition, 1992 PREPARED BY: MICI3AEL L. BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST OCTOAER 22, 2001 ~~4C~L~1 TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS AT THE ST. ANDREWS SCHOOL PROPERTY 5 13601 SARATOGA AVE. SARATOGA I recommend that a bond equal to the value of 40% of the value of trees #7, 8, 9, 28, 29, and #55 (total $102,992 =bond of $41,197) combined with a bond equal to 20% of the value of all ofthe other trees (total $157,333 =bond of $31,467) be required in order to assure their protection. I recommend that any trees lost be replaced on the basis of their value. Respectfully submitt e.~-- Mic ael L. enc s Iate ~, Barri : Coa~e'Prin palC~ MLB/sl Enclosures: Glossary of Terms Tree Data Accumulation Charts Definitions of Terms of Tree Data Accumulation Charts Tree Protection Before, During and After Construction Map • • • PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST OCTOBER 22, 2001 l~~©C3~2 W ob Tit1~St. Andrews School J Job Address:l3~aratoga Ave. Job #09-0 -01 1 O1 Condition PruninglCablinq Needs Pest/Disease Problems Recommend. Measurements • "' v> COATS BARRIE D o ,~ u~ W w N ~ V Q J n . a~ ~ z r ~ rn W ~ and ASSOCIATES ~ ~ ~ ~ ~, ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ o N ~ W ~ W . 0 ~ "' Z _ O z ? o z ~ w o ° = ~ ~ ~ ~ -' ~ 0 (40813531052 A ~ N `~ - ~ ¢ N O w ~ ~ O r J ~ D ' a.. 135355unaitRoad i`r ti ~ ~ z F- ~ J Z fn ~ ~ ~ w z ~ ~ O - U o O O 3 _ W uw f LaCtia U 95090 r ~ ~ ~ } W D v F7- O F- O c i Z Z Z Z j W c7 Z N V U ~ Y F F- O . ~ ~ . N w i ¢ = ~ v o 3 1 ~ 3 ~ O ~ z W I w p z~ O O w w W ~ ~ ¢ ~ om mo o I~ I~ ~ z ; z ~~ w ~ ~ m m ~ w l a I w ~ I ~ = v I v U ~ U K~ U n . ? j I - - - Key # Plant Name o 2: . o o o = N = ' 1 Holly Oak 10.0 12 ~ ! 25 I 15 f 1 2 ` 3 i ! Quen;us ilex X s Gass 90% _ 908 $1 X cond. 90% _ _ $ 1 717 X loc. 70°k _ O s . in 78.5 X $27Isq. in. _ $ 2,120 p . , ue Tolal Val 2 Holl Oak 7.0 x 6\5 2.0 12 30 15 1 ~ 2 3 I ! I In 64 s X $27lsq. In. _ $ 1,728 X sp. Gass 90°~ _ $1,555 X cond. 90°k = $ 1,400 X loc. 70% _ $ 980 . Total Value 3 Holl Oak 10.0 x 8.0 11\7 30 ' 30 1 2 3 ~ at4' In 93 s I X $27/sq. in. = $ 2,511 X sp . Gass 90% _ $2,260 X cond. 90% _ $ 2,034__ X loc. 75°h = $ 1,525 . Total Value 4 Coast Live Oak 9.0 10 25 15 1 2 3 Queicus a rllolia in 63.6 s X $27/sq. in. _ $ 1,717 X sp . Gass 100°r6 = $1,717 X cond. 90°~ _ $ 1,545 X loc. 65°~ _ $ 1,004 . Total Value 5 Holl Oak 9.0 x 8.0 5.0 10 30 25 1 3 4 x 9\6 s . in 99 X $27lsq. in. _ $ 2,673 X s p. Gass 90°r6 = $2,406 X cond. 75% _ $ 1,804 X loc. 70°~ _ $ 1,263 Total Value 8 Coast Live Oak 11.0 12 30 20 1 2 3 s . In 95 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 2,565 X s p. Gass 100°~ _ $2,565 X cond. 90°~ _ $ 2,308 X loc. 65°r6 = $ 1,500 Total Value 7 Coast Live Oak 26.0 x 19.0 37 40 75 1 2 3 I 3 s . in 673 X $27Isq. in. _ $ 18,171 X sp. Gass 100°k = $18,171 X cond. 90°~ _ $ 16,354 X loc. 80% _ $ 13,083 Total Value REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES 5-gal ~ $36 15-gal ~ $120 24"box ~ $420 36"box ~ $1,320 1 ~ BEST, 5 ~ WORST 48"box ~ $5,000 52"box ~ $7,000 72"tIOX ~ $15,000 Page 1 of 14 ~.~,', .. (~ Job Title: St. Andrews School Job Address: 13601 Saratoga Ave. Job #09-00-247-01 10/?.Z,/01 Condition PruningiCablinq Needa PesUDisease Problems Recommend. Measurements COATS BARRIE D .. ~ N W N W W a . Z -- ~ ~, W w Q N ~ ~ and ASSOCIATES ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ `-' ~ ~ N ~ o W W (4081353.1052 o uW. ~ -Q=Q z Z z ~ Z o z ~ o o_ Z = Y ~ ~ w ~ o ~ ~ N `-' K H W Z N N Z W Q' ~ ?~ O V J J ~"' a, Z 0. 235355gnailRoad iv ~ ~ u' ~ z q J H ~ ~ W z ~ y ~ O Wo 0 0 3 ~ ~ ~ Ib G~layU 95080 ~ Y ~ W ... O O Q O c i Z Z Z Z > N Z F- V >i Y U U to m ~ O W S J O ~ ~i ~ ~ ~i O W Z W W I O ? ~ ~ O W ~ _ ~ W C7 ~ O , Z Q ¢ N O ~ O O i ~ ~ O ~ ~ m U ~ ~ a ~ z~ W F ~ p~ F O O j a: ~ a: W z W W { z i K W ~ o ~ m m a ai w{ v _ i{ N ~ o = c i .~ .~ c c { U I Key # Plant Name ~ ~ ~ { ~ ~ 8 Coast Live Oak 37.0 x 17.0 39\18 45 75 1 3 4 i x i _ 7/ 103 $ 32 X sp. Gass 100°~ _ $32,103 X cond. 75°r6 = $ 24,077 X loc. BO% _ $ 19,262 s , in 1188 n. sq. X $2 , Total Value 9 Coast Live Oak 47.0 49 45 75 I 1 2 3 ' I { at3' in 1734 s X $27/sq. in. _ $ 46,820 X sp. Gass 100°~ _ $46,820 X cond 90°k = $ 42,138 X loc. 80 % _ $ 33,710 . Total Value 10 Ja anese Privet 8.0 x 8.0 5.0 ! 9\9 ! 40 Z 10 1 3 4 Ll estrum a onlca ~ 6 i _ / 295 $ 2 Gass X sp 30°~ _ $689 X cond. 75°~ _ . $ 516 X loc. 60°~ - $ 310 s . in 85 n. sq. X $27 , . Total Value 11 Fruitless' Mulber 12.0 13 15 15 1 4 5 Mores albs 'Fruitless' 1 in _ X $27Is 052 $ 3 X sp. Gass 50°~ = $1,526 X cond. 60% _ $ 916 X loc. 40°~ _ - $ 366 s . in 1 3 . q. , Total Value 12 Coast Redwood 19.0 22 50 20 1 1 2 Se uoia sem ervirens in 283 in _ X $27Isq $ 7,651 X sp. Gass 90°~ _ $6,886 X cond. 100°,6 = $ 6,886_ X loe. 70°r6 _ - $ 4,820 s . . . Total Value 13 Coast Redwood 17.0 x 15.0 10.0 8 80 25 2 3 5 3 2 16\11 in 356 s X $27/sq. in. _ $ .9,612 X sp. Gass 90°~ _ $8,651 X cond. 60% _ $ 5 190 X loc. 70°k = $ 3,633 . Total Value 2 14 Coast Redwood 21.0 x 20.0 12.0 22 I 65 25 2 3 5 ' 22\14 in 560 s X $27Isq. in. _ $ 15,120 X sp. Gass 90°~ _ $13,608 X cond. 60°~ _ $ 8 165 X loc. 70% _ $ 5,715 . Total Value REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES 5-gal = $36 15-gal' $120 24"box 36"box ~ $1,320 48"box 00 52"box ~ $7,000 72"box ~ $15,000 1 ~ BEST, 5 ~ WORST ~of14 ob Address:1360~atoga Ave. Job #09-00- 1 Title?5 ews School J 10 01 Job t. Andr /~~ 40~ Q Q I V BARRIE D. COATS w ~ N and ASSOCIATES ~ w Z ~ ~ ~, ~ ~ W o ~ o ~ ~ o ~ I N ~ o Z (408) 3531052 o LL ~ ~ z Z z o ? o ° ° ,;, z o ~ ~ a ~ "' w a 73535SunmilRoad N w ~ v' it Z ~ v i=- ~ ~ w z n. `~ ° O p O O 3 ~ ~ a la0ttac,G 95180 ~ } w o ~ ~ a z z z z j m z ~ v ~. Y c~ U m m ~ > ® m w i a ~ ° o ~ 3 3 3~~ o ~ z w w o z I.a o w° ° w rr a o: I _ ~ ° w J ~ = o ¢ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ w {¢ I ~ z I ~ + w ~ ~ I ~ I ~ Z z I ~ ~ m l~ l m' m l w °' w u~i { v = v U U U I~ V l a F- ° F- l ' <ey# Plant Name o { ~ o o ~ = m = 1S Holl Oak 20.0 21 20 40 1 1{ 2 I I I I i X cond. 100°k = $ 7,630 X loc. 80°~ _ $ 6,104 s . in 314 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 8,478 X sp Gass 90°k = $7,630 Total Value 3 I 18 Hdl Oak 16.0 I 17 20 35 2 1 3 s . in 201 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 5,426 X sp. Gass 90°k = $4,883 X cond. 90% _ $ 4,395 X loc. 80°k Total Value 17 Holl Oak 20.0 ! 21 25 i 40 1 1 2 I ~ , I { X cond. 100°h = $ 7,630 X loc. 80°k = $ 6,104 s . in 314 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 8,478 X sp. Gass 90°~ _ $7,630 - 14.0 12 35 20 1 2 3 2 18 Sweet Gum Li uidambersf racitlua = s . in 154 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 4,154 X sp. class 50°~ _ $2,077 X cond. 90°rb = $ 1,869 X loc. 70°k Total ValOue 19 Sweet Gum 11.0 x 44t 3.0 15 35 20 1 1 2 I s . in 111 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 2,997 X sp. class 50°~ _ $1,499 X cond. 100°~ _ $ 1,499 X loc. 70% _ $ 1,049 Total Value 20 Sweet Gum 10.0 x 10.0 815 { 18 40 25 1 3 4 s . in 154 X $27isq. in. _ $ 4,158 X sp. Gass 50% _ $2,079 X cond. 75% _ $ 1,559 _ X loc. 70°~ _ $ 1,091 Total Value 21 Sweet Gum 17.0 19 40 15 1 2 3 s , In 227 ~ X $27/sq. in. _ $ -6,125 X sp. Gass 50°~ _ $3,063 X cond. 90% _ $ 2,756 X loc. 70°~ _ $ 1,929 Total Value ~~ REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES , 5-gal = $36 15-gal ®$120 24"box a $420 36"box ~ $1,320 48"box ~ $5,000 52"box ~ $7,000 72"box s $15,000 1 ~ BEST, 5 ~ WORST Page 3 of 14 ,+~~q ~.+ ~' Job Title: St. Andrews School Job Address: 13601 Saratoga Ave. Job #09-00-247-01 10/2/01 Condition PruninalCablina Needs Pest/Disease Problems Recommend. Measurements H N COATS BARRIE D ~ ~ N W W N " ~' . - d ~ z ~ F ~ ~ ~ W ~ a o N > ~ ~ and ASSOCIATES ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ fn ~ w W ' W _ ~ ~ ~ z o z ~ w o ° ~ > ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o (408135310.52 o u . _ z - 735355"mailRead ~., N ~ '? ~ z g ~ F ~ ~ z ~ o 3 ~ ~ a Lafala,U 99080 ~ y W o = o ~ F a o z z z z W . > m U z m t- v 3 ° Y ~ v F F" m p ~ f p O > ~ = ° 0_' ~ ~ ~ ~ O J Z U W O Z O J W x x ~ W U a: J a 7 K I Z N O ~ O O ~ o' O I~ ~ m w a l 7 p ~ z w ~ a ~ o l 7 ~~ O ~ j o: w z ~ w l w z~ w ~ m ° I m m a o w a x~ cn w~ = I ~ O m v~ a x U I I v U ' U ~ U; a , Key # Plant Name o~ ~ o o 22 Sweet Gum 18.0 19 I 35 15 I 1 3 4 I at3' I i _ 867 $ 6 X sp. Gass 50°k = $3,434 X cond. 75°~ _ $ 2,575 X loc. 70°k _ - $ 1,803 s . in 254 n. X $27/sq. , Totai Value 23 Sweet Gum 12.0 x -12.0 8.0 18 I 40 20 1 2 3 195 i in. _. X $27lsq $ 5,265 X sp. class 50°h = $2,633 X cond. 90°~ _ $ 2,369 X loc. 70% _ $ 1,658 n s . . Total Value 24 Sweet Gum 14.0 ! 15 40 20 1 2 ~ 3 in 154 in. _ X $27lsq $ 4,154 X sp. Gass 50°~ _ $2,077 X cond. 90% _ $ 1,869 ~ X loc. 70% _ $ 1,309 s . . Total Value 25 Sweet Gum 11.0 12 30 15 1 1 2 95 i in _ X $27/sq 565 $ 2 X sp. Gass 50°h = $1,282 X cond. 100°k = $ 1,282._ X loc. 70°~ _ $ 898 s . n . . , Total Value 28 Sweet Gum 12.0 13 35 20 1 2 3 in 113 s X $27/sq. in. _ $ 3,052 X sp. class 50°~ _ $1,526 X cond. 90°~ _ $ 1,373 X loc. 70°~ _ $ 961 . Total Value 27 Sweet Gum 12.0 13 35 20 1 2 3 I in 113 s X $27/sq. in. _ $ 3,052 X sp. Gass 50°k _ $1,526 X cond. 90°~ _ $ 1,373 X loc. 70% _ $ 961 . Total Value 28 Montere Pine 37.0 39 80 40 1. 2 3 x Plnus radiate in 1075 a X $27/sq. in. _ $ 29,016 X sp. class 30°~ _ $8,705 X cond. 90% _ $ 7,834 X loc. 75°~ _ $ 5,876 , Total Value REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES 5-gal = $36 15-gale $120 24"box 0 36"box ~ $1,320 48"box 00 52"box ~ $7,000 72"box ~ ,000 1. BEST, 5 ~ WORST ~of14 ~• ~J Job Ti~St. Andrews School Job Address:l3~aratoga Ave. Job #09-0 01 01 d iti Pru ning/Cablin g Nee ds PesUD iseas e Prob lems R ecom mend . Meas urem ents Con on v~ N COATS BARRIE D ~ ,~ v~ W W N a . and ASSOCIATES m ~ W o ~ . W Z Z ~, ~ ~ o ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ J o 140813531052 .°o ~ N v ~ z zQ z OF a-i o W ~ ~ z o ¢ < Q F ~ z n 43S355une~ilRoad iv F ~ 'A ~ Z Q ' J = W Q W Z D. .. O O W O O > w ~ Q LaCda,U 95000 ~. v N r ~ w t7 = ~ r O F- 2 o U z H z Q: z K z w ~ w c~ z m I- rr v ~ ~ Y c~ ~ c~ ~ 7 o 0 0 ~ w = w ~ ~ o ~ 3 ~i 3 3 0 ~ z W w a ~ O o w w c~ ~ J 2 2 ~ ~ O: Q w ~ ~ F- I O Q Q NQ ~ ~ K , K ~ 0' W j Q I 0_ V1 , ? j i ~ I F- W o D! ' F- O ~ I O ~ W ' z l W I z a, a, o~ 0 O` o =~ ~ _ ~ v = V I U I U U o: U n. I Key# Plant Name ~ l 29 Blue Atias Cedar 30.0 I 32 75 1 30 1 2 3 Cedrus at/anfica 'Glauca' X loc 75% = $ 11 588 9 076 168 X cond. 90°~ _ class 90% _ $17 X s . $ 15,451 , , s . in 707 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 1 , p. Total Value 30 Coast Live Oak 9.0 ~ 11 20 25 1 2 3 t 6 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 1,717 X sp. Gass 100°~ _ $1,717 X cond. 90% _ $ 1,545 X loc. 60°h = $ 927 in 63 s . . Total Value 31 Coast Live Oak 18.0 20 40 35 1 1 ~ 2 ~ I 867 X sp. Gass 100°~ _ $6,867 X cond. 100°k = $ 6,867 X loc. 65% _ $ 4,464 _ $ 6 In 254 X $27/sq i , . . s . n Total Value 32 DeodarCedar 12.0 13 30 15 1 2 3 Cedrus deodara 052 X sp. lass 70°~ _ $2,136 X cond. 90°~ _ $ 1,923 X loc. 60°~ _ $ 1,154 in _ $ 3 113 X $27/sq i , . . s , n Total Value 33 DeodarCedar 12.0 13 35 15 1 2 3 s . In 113 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 3,052 X sp. class 70°~ _ $2,136 X cond. 9036 = $ 1,923 X loc. 60% _ $ 1,154 Total Value 34 DeodarCedar 12.0 13 35 15 1 2 3 s . In 113 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 3,052 X sp. Gass 70°k = $2,136 X cond. 90% _ $ 1,923 X loc. 50°~ _ $ 961 Total Value 35 Tasmanian Blue Gum 43.0 45 100 40 1 3 4 x Eucal tus tobulus s . In 1451 X $27/sq. In. _ $ 39,190 X sp. Gass 10°h = $3,919 X cond. 75°k = $ 2,939 _ X loc. 60°~ _ $ 1 764 REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES 5-gal m $36 15-gal ~ $120 24"box . $420 36"box ~ $1,320 48"box ~ $5,000 52"box ~ $7,000 72"box s $15,000 1 ~ BEST, 5 ~ WORST Page 5 of 14 Job #09-00-24 7-01 Andrews School St b Titl ob J Address: 13601 S aratoga Ave. 10/2 /01 2 jo . e: , PruninalCablina Needs PesUDisease Problems Recommend. Measurements Condition ;~ N COATS BARRIE D N p w J= . ~ N ~ ~ ~ `~ w > y N ~' r F and ASSOCIATES °' W Z ~ Z ~~ w o ~ N ~ N ~ o 2 v N (408)353.1Q52 o W LL ~ ~ ~ C7 z Z Z Z OP. c~ ? 3 w p p ~ O o ~ z _ ,. p a a ~ ~ ~ o w H o ~. 23535 SuntndRoad ~ ~ w N F- ~ ... ~ ~ ~ Z ~ W Z N m_ QQ Z w w Z ~ 3 .. O O U p j g O O a m w a ~ LL ~- Q a 9~ tAf G~a - }~ W F ~ p U F- _ D: Z K Z j W (~ ~ Z N ~ F U ~ Y ~ O O i v c? w p x w = ~ j p ~ Z ~ Z 3 ~ y~ o ~ z ~ w F- 1- O O Q 2 w w U ~ m ¢ a W ~ p j ¢ ~ I~ I~ ~ ~ w ¢ ~ N' o: Z' F., l W I p ~ ~ F- l O p , 2 tY w w l w w Z i Z, K K N ~~ m p ~ ~ l m ; p ~ p ; O W = 1 ~ = I ~ ; U 2 U ; U ; U U ~ U j o. Key # ame Piant 38 Tasmanian Blue Gum 41.0 43 100 40 1 3 4 ~ , x 1 I in 1320 s X $27Isq. in. _ $ 35,629 X sp. Gass o 10 k _ - $3,563 X cond. 75°h = $ 2,672 X loc. 60°k = $ 1,603 7otai Value . 37 Tasmanian Blue Gum 35.0 37 100 30 1 3 4 x 962 i X $27Isq. in. _ $ 25,964 X sp Gass 10°h = $2,596 X Cond. 75°h = $ 1,947 X loc. 60% _ $ 1,168 Total Value n s . 38 Tasmanian Blue Gum 38.0 38 100 ~ 30 I 1 3 ~ 4 i x 4 I 1 s . in 1017 X $27Isq. in. _ $ 27,469 X sp. Gass 10°~ _ $2,747 X cond. 759'0 - $ - 2,060 X loc. 60°k = $ 1,236 Total Value 39 Coast Live Oak 13.0 x. 12.0 14\1 30 30 1 3 4 x 190 i X $27Isq. in. _ $ 5,130 X sp. Gass 100% _ $5,130 X cond. 75% _ $ 3,848 X loc. 60°.6 = $ 2,309 Total Value n s . 40 Coast Live Oak 9.0 x 7.0 12 20 15 1 2 3 83 in _ X $27/sq 241 $ 2 X sp. Gass 100°~ _ $2,241 X cond. 90°h = $ 2,017 X loc. 50°~ - T l Va ue t s . in . . , o a 41 Coast Live Oak 15.0 18 20 15 1 2 3 , s . in 177 X $27Isq. in. _ $ 4,769 X sp. Gass 100°.6 = $4,769 X cond 90°~ _ $ 4,292 X loc. 60°~ _ $ 2,575 Total Value 42 Coest Redwood 12.0 14 35 15 1 1 2 . in 113 X $27Isq. in. _ $ 3,052 X sp. Gass 90°k = $2,747 X cond. 100°~ _ $ 2,747 X loc. 65% _ $ 1,785 Total Value ~~ 0 REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES 5-gal = $36 15-gala $120 Q~ 24"box 36"box a $1,320- 48"box 00 52"box a $7,000 72"box ~ $15,000 1 ~ BEST, 5 ~ WORST ~iof14 ob Address:136~atoga Ave. Job #09-00, 01 Job Title. t. Andrews School J 10 01 COATS BARRIE D i O ~ N. N I W W N ~ v Q J ' . . V N ~ 0 = r W j ~ N R' ~ and ASSOCIATES ~. ~ v ° ~ ~ o ~ N ~ ~ _ O ~ s ~ W ~ N (408) 3531052 ~ LL ~ ~Qa z z z o z_ o a o ' N Z o a a a w ~ ° rc 0 Y35353umaiLRoad tp iv ~ IW- N ~ '~' `~ K ~ z F ~ W Z N F ~ N ~ Z W W z Q }i ~ O U O p J J O O Q 3 ~ W ~ ~ . a LmG~La,U 95000 ~ } w ° _ ~ o 0o ~ z z z ' z j w O z N ~ ~ ~ Y F F o I o ~ W W J 7! Z ! 1 ` ~ m 7 W W ~ I~ O i O W W I W - W _ F ~ `2 _ = I U' ~ ~ ~ ¢ ~ O I N ¢ O ~ 0 { 0 o! ~ ~ 1 0 I ~ ~ v l a Z I ~ i - ~ W ~ ~ o r- ~ I ~ I z ~ z j a: n: o ~ ~ ~ Q o ~ o = ~ ~ _ ~ v = U j U V I V . Key i! Plant Name o ' 43 Coast Redwood 9.0 10 25 10 i 1 2 I 3~ i 1 ~ i ~ I I i _ I 717 $ 1 X sp. Gass 90% = $1,545 X cond 90% - $ 1 3,_9_1 X loc. 65°~ _ $ 904 l s . in 63.6 n. sq. X $27 , ue Total Va 44 Coast Redwood 15.0 17 45 20 , , , 2 ; I , I I ' in 177 X $27Isq. in. _ , $ 4,769 X sp. class 90% _ $4,292 X cond. 100°~ _ $ 4,292 X loc. 70% _ $ 3,004 i Value T t s . o a 45 Coast Redwood 16.0 ~ 18 50 ~ 20 ~ 1 ~ 1 ~ 2 I ~ ~ ~ ~. ' i 201 I in _ X $27/sq $ 5,426 X sp. Gass 90°h = $4,883 X cond. 100°k = $ ~ 4,883 X loc. 70% n s . . . Total Value 48 Coast Live Oak 11.0 12 15 15 1 1 2 i 95 in _ X $27Isq $ 2,565 X sp. Gass 100°h = $2,565 X cond. 100°k = $ 2,565 X Ix. 60°k = $ 1,539 n s . . . Total Value 47 Coast Live Oak 11.0 x 9.0 6.0 13\12 20 30 1 3 4 x2 x2 1017 s In 187 X $27Isq. in. _ $ 5,049 X sp. Gass 100% _ $5,049 X cond. 75°~ _ $ 3,787_ X loc. 65°~ _ $ 2,461 . Total Value 48 California Bucke a 7.0 x 5.0 4.0 15\13 15 i 30 1 2 3 , it Aesculus califomlca 83 x2 1x4 in _ X $27/s 241 $ 2 X sp. Gass 70% _ $1,569 X cond. ~ 90% _ $ 1,412_ X loc. 65% - - $ 918 s . in . q. , Total Value 49 Coast Liva Oak 13.0 x B.0 14\7 25 30 1 2 3 I s . in 147 X $27Isq. in. _ $ 3,969 X sp. Gass 100°A = $3,969 X cond. 90% _ $ 3,572 X loc. 65°~ _ $ 2,322 Total Value ~~ REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES 5-gal = $36 15-gal ~ $120 1 ~ BFST, 5 ~ WORST 24"box s $420 36"box ~ $1,320 48"box ~ $5,000 52"box ~ $7,000 Page 7 of 14 7Z"box s $15,000 ~~ r~ job Title: St. Andrews School Job Address: 13601 Saratoga Ave. Job #09-00-247-O1 10/22,/01 Meas urements Cond ition Prunin /Cablln a Needs Pest/D isease Prob lems Recom mend. COATS BARRIE D ~. ~ N W v W ~ W a 7 . ~ `~ v °' o = ~ cn W a ~ ' ~ and ASSOCIATES Z ~ ~ ~ ~' ~ ~ ~ ~ o W W w ~ ~ c1 Z ? o z 3 W o _ ° = ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o (408)3531051 o a f u . N " ¢¢ z Q z F' to ° W K '^ z ° Q ~ o_ ~ ~ K Z d 135355unailRoad ~, F ~ '? ~ K z ~ ~ x W w z a O o W O O 3 W ~ ~ lcrCa<Et U 9SODD - ~ N } ~ W o ~ x O ~ O f= ° O z ~' z ~ z K z W O N w z ~ v ~ ° z c~ ~ ~ H m . u cn o ~ > O N w i w ~ ~ ° t r ~ ~ ~ 3 z c~ w ° ° ~ ~ x x{ ~ o ~ Q ~ Z Q N O ~ O ~ O o: l O o: ~ w{ m a 1 ~ ~ N l W o! I w ~ O O W I W I z W w o: ~ ~ O o~ W o_ w l = F- m O v ¢ x 1 U v j U U ~ I v a z { F- ° F o: 1 ~ z l Key # Plant Name o ' ~ o = N 50 Coast live Oak 14.0 ~ I 15 35 20 1 2 i 3 ~ I ° X loc 60°~ _ $ 2 243 i 154 $ 4 X sp class 100% _ $4 154 k = $ 3 X cond.. 90 ,739 . , s . in 154 X $27 , n. _ /sq. . , l T t V l e o a a u 51 Coast Live Oak 19.0 20 35 30 1 2 3 I I ~ i in 283 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 7,651 X sp. Gass 100°k = $7,651 X cond. 90°h = $ 6,886 X loc. 60°k = $ 4,132 s . Total Value 52 Jacaranda 10.0 x 8.0 14\7 40 30 1' 2 3 Jacaranda mimosi/olia _ 511 X sp. Gass 30°~ _ $753 X cond. 90% _ $ 678 X loc. 60°k - $ 407 in _ $ 2 93 X $27/sq i , . . n s . Total Value 53 Coast L'nne Oak 24.0 26 50 40 1 2 3 3 s . in 452 X $27Isq. in. _. $ 12,208 X sp. Gass 100°.6 = $12,208 X cond. 90°~ _ $ 10,987 X loc. 65°~ _ $ 7,142 54 Coest Live Oak 15.0 x 13.0 22 35 40 1 2 3 3 in 244 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 6,588 X sp. Gass 100°A° _ $6,588 X cond. 90% _ $ 5,929 X loc. 65°~ _ $ 3,854 s . Tolal Value 55 Coast Live Oak 35.0 37 50 75 1 1 2 at3' in 962 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 25,964 X sp. Gass 100°~ . _ $25,964 X cond. 100°.6 = $ 25,964_ _ X loc. 75°~ _ $ 19,473 s . Total Value 58 Monter Pine 25.0 29 ti0 30 2 2 4 in 491 X $27lsq. in. _ $ 13,247. X sp. Gass 30°.6 = $3,974 X cond. 75°~ _ $ 2,981 _ X loa 50°.6 = $ 1,490 s . Total Value REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES 5-gal = $36 15-gal = $120 24"box s- 36"box ~ $1,320 48"box 0 52"box ~ $7,000 71"box ~ r000 ?• 1 ~ BEST, 5 ~ WORST r ~of 14 4,..,j ~~ Job Tit1P!~E. Andrews School Job Address:136~ratoga Ave. Job #09-00 1 10 01 d iti Pru ninalCablin a Nee ds P est/D isease Prob lems R ecom mend . Meas urem ents Con on i COATE BARRIE D ~ ~ I I ~ ~I ~ I o ~ v ~ J `? . ~ Z ~ ~ o and ASSOCIATES ~ ~ ~ ~ ~, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ W W (4G0) 3531052 ~ uw. v r= z z l Z o ? 3 0 . o Z N a ~ Q , w F ° 13535SanaitRoad iv F ~ '4 ~ z ~ J l x w ~ W a O O w O O ~ f J In fda U 95030 ~ ~ ~ U m w ° ~ x ° ~ o r_- ~ U z i ~ z ~ z z w > Z W c~ Z m ~ ~ U o ° z U r v r- 0 ri 0 ~ > p 0 a ~- c i ! c ~ - i W U ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ w ¢ ~ Z ~ W ~ I I Z I z W ~ x o~ x o~ Q ~ l a w I F I p I U x ~ I U o: U ~ U U K i ~ U o. I ~- ; ° ~' I ~ . ~ I I O' Key # Plant Name o I , o = N = N 57 Montere Pine 24.0 I 1 28 60 20 2 1 2 I 4 ~ j I I I I I X l 50% _ $ 1 373 i $ 12 208 662 Gass 30°h = $3 X sp X cond. 75°k = $ 2 ,747 oc. , s . in 452 X $27 n. _ /sq. , . , Total Value 58 Montere Pine 17.0 19 50 ~ 15 2 2 4 I I I i 125 X sp. Gass 30°k = $1,838 X cond. 75°~ _ $ 1,378 X loc. 50% _ $ 689 _ $ 6 in 227 X $27/sq i , . . n s , Total Value 59 ~ 35 60 135 1 2 1 3 ~ ( I ~ ~ I Montere Pine 33.0 I I I I in. _ $ 23,081 X sp. Gass 30°~ _ $6,924 X cond. 90°~ _ $ 6,232 X loc. 60% _ $ 3,739 in 655 X $27lsq s . . Total Value 80 Montere Pine 15.0 17 50 15 1 2 3 in 177 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 4,769 X sp. Gass 30°~ _ $1,431 X cond. 9096 = $ 1,288 X loc. 50% _ $ 644 s . Total Value 61 Montere Pine 33.0 35 80 40 3 3 6 4 s . in 855 X $27lsq. in. _ $ 23,081 X sp. Gass 30°~ _ $6,924 X cond. 45°k = $ 3,116 X loc. 50°~ _ $ 1,558 Tolal Value 82 Italian Stone Pine 17.0 19 40 30 2 4 8 x ' Pinus inea s . in 227 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 6,125 X sp. Gass 70°k = $4,288 X cond. 45°~ _ $ 1,929 X loc. 60°k = $ 1,158 Tolal Value 83 Montere Pine . 28.0 30 50 35 1. 3 4 s . in 615 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 16,617 X sp. Gass 30°k = $4,985 X cond. 75°h = $ 3,739 X loc. 60°h = $ 2,243 Total Value REPLACEMFI~IT TREE VALUES 5-gal = $36 15-gal ~ $120 24"box ~ $420 36"box ~ $1,320 48"box ~ $5,000 52"box ~ $7,000 72"box ~ $15,000 1=BEST, 5 ~ WORST Page 9 of 14 rs ~~ N Job Title: St. Andrews School Job Address: 13601 Saratoga Ave. Job #09-00-247-01 10/22/01 Meas ureme nts Cond ition Pru ning/Cablin g Nee ds P esUD isease Prob lems R ecom mend. N COATS BARRIE D ~ ~ ~ w W w a . d ASSOCIATES v _ ° 2 ~ ¢ w `~ W ° an ~ Z O ~ c~ w O ~ o ~ ~ U o ~ -- N ~ ~ (408) 3531052 0 : w ,~ N ~ ? Z Z O Z O _ Z ~ ~ Y K 0! o: W •~ _ ° _ ~ 235355unmilRoad .o m i v ~ w F- N ~ u? v w ~ Z ~ ~ ¢ w ~ ? S w y ~ O Z w W w a-. a of . ~ o O O ¢ w Q ~ Q ~ F - ¢ I F- W . w ~ LAtl;4ar U 9!1X10 ~ ~ rn K ~ ~ 7 O U V- ~ Z N Z ~ F U O ~ Y O U O U 3 u_ a: ~ ~ er N ~ W 2 O = J F F.. O O Q~ Z ~ II Z ~ Z ~i Z 'S j O~ W Z U W O Z ~' I ~- ~ ~ O O U O 2 ~ 2 2 ~ ¢ ~ W 0: ¢ O K F 1 z 0 N ¢ 0 1 ~ 0 1 o! ~ 0 n: I O U ~ ~ m U i O a N ? w F w ' D: I O I ~ O ~ w I Z I w l Z w w 0: K m I ~ I m I m I ' 0 w 2; a N w 2 - f!I ' U 2 ' U, U, U~ j j ~ ; O ~- Key # Planl Name O ~ ~ 1 0 1 0 84 Montere Pine 14.0 18 55 20 1 2 3 I I , in 154 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 4,154 X sp. Gass 30°R, _ $1,246 X cond. 90°h = $ 1,122 X Ioc. 60°~ _ $ 673 s . • Total Value 85 Montere Pine 24.0 28 50 30 1 2. 3 ~ I I I I 208 X sp. Gass 30°~ _ $3,662 X cond. 90°h = $ 3,296 X loc. 60% _ $ 1,978 _ $ 12 in 452 X $27/sq i , . . n s . Total Value 88 Montere Pine 21.0 ~ 123 50 , 30 2 2 ~ 4 ~ f f I I j ~ I 347 X sp. Gass 30°k = $2,804 X cond. 75% _ $ 2,103 X loc. 60°~ _ $ 1,262 in _ $ 9 in 346 X $27/sq s , . . . Total Value 87 Montere Pine 18.0 18 50 25 1 2 3 in 201 X $271sq. in. _ $ 5,426 X sp. Gass 30°~ _ $1,628 X cond. 90°~ _ $ 1,465 X loc. 60°h = $ 879 s . Total Value 88 Montere Pine 11.0 13 40 15 1 2 3 I s . in 95 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 2,565 X sp. Gass. 30°~ _ $769 X cond. 90% _ $ 692 X loc. 60% _ $ 415 Total Value 88 Bailey Acacia 13.0 14 30 20 1 3 4 Acacia belle ena in 133 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 3,582 X sp. Gass 50°~ _ $1,791 X cond. 75% _ $ 1,343_ X loc. 50% _ $ 672 s . Total Value 70 DeodarCedar 18.0 x 7.0 22 80 40 1 2 3 in 273 X $27Isq. in. _ $ 7,371 X sp. Gass 70°r6 = $5,160 X cond. 90% _ $ 4,644 X loc. 70°~ _ $ 3,251 s , Total Value REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES 5-gal = $36 15-gal = $120 24"box - 0 36"box ~ $1,320 48"box 0 52"box ~ $7,000 72"box ~ ,000 1 ~ BEST, 5 ~ WORST )~ of 14 <• Job Tit. Andrews School Job Address:l3~aratoga Ave. Job #09-0 -Ol~ ~~?~01 Meas urem ents Cond ition Pru ning/Cablin g Nee ds PesUD iseas e Prob lems R ecom mend . ! ~ ~. BARRIE D. COATS d ASSOCIATES ~, ~ F ~ N M Z ~ ~ ~ x C7 ~ ~ y~y "' N ~ O a ~ ~ w O an rn U O ~ ° F V) "' ~ ~ c~ o ~ W ~ ~ o LL ~ ~ c9 ? Z ~ ~ w ~ o ~ ~ ~ o (4081 3 5 3 1052 ~ ~ N _ ".' ~ Z Z Q z o N z V ) O o o 7 Z ~ O > Q o: J W 1-- F o i"e Z D 735355mmARoad iv F.W.. ~ 'Q ~ Z ~ J Z x W~ Q w W 0: 0. v . O W J ~ K . . ~ J la Gaga U 95008 ' r ~ v N j ~ W O ~ S ~ F' o F- O c~ 2 F- Z ~ Z I K Z w > 2 W t~ Z rn U o: O O 3 o Y O v O v O w O f i O ' r F .. F 2 Q F- O ~ ~ ~ ~i ~ O J 2 ~ W ~ O Z F- H ~ W ~ O W J 7 O Z Q Q N i O~ O 1 0 1 0 ~ m O rn W W O 1 0 W W I w W x m J o x m x m{ ¢ w I ~ a ¢ w~ ~ o: ~ I m O t U a = ~ I c~ { ~ I U I ~{ c.~ ~ U ~ w l ~ I a I U { ~ a I ?{ C I ~- { o~ K F- ~{ ~ z z rc ~ Key # Plant Name o I ~ o o o x m x 71 DeodarCedar 17.0 { 1 19 50 40 1 1 I 2 i ~ I . { X l 70°h = $ 3 001 $ 6 125 288 Gass 70°h = $4 X sp X cond. 100°k = oc. $ 4,288 , s . in 227 X $27 /sq. in. _ , , . 72 DeodarCedar 14.0 15 30 25 2 2 4 , I I I ~ I in 154 X $27lsq. in. _ $ 4,154 X sp. Gass 70% _ $2,908 X cond. 75°k = $ 2,181 _ X loc. 70% _ $ 1,527 s . Total Value 73 Deodar Cedar 21.0 ~ 22 50 , 40 1 3 ~ 4 1 a13' { { ; in 346 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 9,347 X sp. Gass 70°k = $6,543 X cond. 75°~ _ $ 4,907 X loc. 70°h = $ 3,435 s . Total Value 74 Sargent Cher 12.0 x 8.0 14 15 15 1 2 3 Prunus sa enti! s . in 127 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 3,429 X sp. Gass 70°h = $2,400 X cond. 90°~ _ $ 2,160 X loc. 70°~ _ $ 1,512 Total Value 75 Holl Oak. 72.0 13 20. 20 2 1 3 3 s . in 113 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 3,052 X sp. Gass 90°,6 = $2,747 X cond. 90°~ _ $ 2,472 X loc. 75°~ _ $ 1,854 Total Value 78 Holl Oak 9.0 x 8.0 5.0 13 20 20 2 1 3 3 xZ s .in 98 X $27/sq.in.= $ 2,646 X sp. Gass 90°~ _ $2,381 X cond. 90°k = $ 2,143 X loc. 75°~ _ $ 1,607 Total Value 77 Holl Oek 13.0 14 20 25 2 1 3 3 s . in 133 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 3,582 X sp. Gass 90°r6 = $3,224 X cond. 9096 = $ 2,901 X loc. 75% _ $ 2,176 Total Value ~:.;~ 0 REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES (~ 5-gal = $36 15-gal ~ $120 W 24"box ~ $420 36"box ~ $1,320 48"box ~ $5,000 52"box ~ $7,000 72"box ~ $15,000 1 ~ BEST, 5 ~ WORST Page 11 of 14 ~, ~~ i~ Job Title: St. Andrews School job Address: 13601 Saratoga Ave. Job #09-00-247-01 10/2/01 Meas urem ents Cond ition Pruning/C abling Needs Pest/Disease Problems R ecom mend. N COATS BARRIE D ~ ~ ~ N W W W n . ~ Z ~ ~ ~ ~, ~ o ~, ~ and ASSOCIATES w Z M ~ W ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ W W (408)353.1Q52 ~ ~ "' F z z ~, z o z ~ w mo Z ,~ z. } ~ ~ w ~ o O 1 ' ~3J35 SIa11111R02e 1 m N W ~ ~n ''' W rQ~ Z ~ ~ J Z 2 F- W H_ ~ p W p W W ~ d v. ~ p O Q W ~ Q J F a F- W Z K. W J • U 95030 LaG4a N K ~ K ~ U ~ K Z m z ~ v O 3 Y O v O v 3 u_ f f , -~ ~ ~ > N w p = F _ p ~ z ~ z ~ z ~ z ~ ~ O J Z U W p Z F- H m O m O O ® W S c7 W m J Q 7 K p Q ¢ N O O O O ~ m 7 W w I ~ I Q W I O K i O O O O W w I W w i U w w o J ~ x o ~ x o ¢ o i 1 uai = 1 a-i 1 ~ U I ¢ S ~ I U I m I U I ~ I O~ K U W 1 ~ I 2 I U m o. z I F- I p~ ~ I i m m z z m K Key # Plant Name ~ I ~ 78 Holl Oak 13.0 14 20 1 30 2 1 I 3 I 1 3 X l 75% _ $ 2 176 i 582 X sp $ 3 Gass 224 90% _ $3 X cond. oc. 90°~ _ $ 2,901 , s . in 133 X $27 n /sq. . , . _ , l t T l e V o a u a 79 5 ~ x California 5 camore 18.0 x 16.0 262 50 45 1 5 6 I I Plafanus recemosa _ Gass 70°h = $6,710 X cond. 45% _ $ 3,01.9_ X loc. 60% - $ 1,812 585 X sp _ $ 9 in 27/ X . , . sq. $ s . in 355 Total Value 3 ~ 80 Holl Oak 9.0 10 15 15 2 1 3 I I 6 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 1,717 X sp. Gass 90°r6 = $1,545 X cond. 90% _ $ 1,391 X loc. 75% _ $ 1,043 s in 63 . . Total Value 81 Holl Oak 9.0 10 15 15 2 1 3 3 ' in 63.6 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 1,717 X sp. Gass 90°~ _ $1,545 X cond. 90°~ _ $ 1,391 X loc. 75°~ _ $ 1,043 s . Total Value 82 Montere Pine 16.0 17 25 15 2 4 6 in 177 X $271sq. in. _ $ 4,769 X~. Gass 30°~ _ $1,431 X cond. 45°~ _ $ 644 X loc. 50% _ $ 322 s . Total Value 83 Montere Pine 13.0 15 20 10 3 4 7 in 133 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 3,582 X s_p. Gass 30°h = $1,075 X cond. 30°~ _ $ 322 X loc. 50°h = $ 161 s . Total Value 84 Montere Pine 14.0 18 35. 20 2 4 8 In 154 X $27Isq. in. _ $ 4,154 X sp. Gass 30°~ _ $1,246 X cond. 45% _ $ 561 X loc. 50°r6 = $ 280 s . Total Value ~~ REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES 5-gal = $36 15-gal m $120 1' BEST, 5~~ VICORST 24"box 0 36"box = $1,320 48"bo 00 52"box ~ $7,000 ~.. 72"box ~ 5,000 of 14 ob Address:l3~arato a Ave. Job #09-0 -01 Job Ti t. Andrews School J g 1 .2,/01 ~ ~ I i COATS BARRIE D ° ! ~, N I ~ N I ° W ~ J a ` . ~ i v Z ~ ~ w ~ `~ ~ ~ ~ and ASSOCIATES rn W U ~ °' ~ ~ ~ ~ N I ~ w ~ w ~ ~ ~ z (~ ? o z W 3 w o ° ~ ~ = r U ° ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ o (408) 353.1052 o u . z z ° z a a a w ~ ° a 235355u1nlnd8oad N W ~ '~' ~ z ~ J x W ~ w z °- '- O O w O O 3 LL f a laGaialU 9500 ~ v } w O x ~ o f" H ° Z Z Z Z j W c~ Z In F- x U ~ Y F V- I ~ O O 4 - _ .. ~ N w = a H U ° ~¢¢ ~ I ~ ~~ I ~ O J _ Z 7 W I W ° i Z . O I O LIl i w W 'w ~ C7 ~ a ~ z l N O O O O ~ ~ m Z I ~ I o I~ l ~ l~ Z z l ~ K m ~ m m I a w{ a w t- o I ¢ x x l U ~ l~ l U { U l U ~ I v I a Key # Plant Name ° ; ~ ; ° I O D x { rn x ~ vl ' U ' ' , 85 Montere Pine 18.0 20 30 20 2 4 I 8 I I I 1 I s . in 254 I { X $27/sq. in. _ $ 6,867 X sp. Gass 30°~ _ $2,060 X cond. 45°h = $ 927 X loc. 50% _ $ 464 Total Value 88 Montere Pine 18.0 I 20 30 25 I 2 4 6 I I I I in 254 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 6,867 X sp. Gass 30°h = $2,060 X cond. 45°k = $ 927 X loc. 50% _ $ 464 s . Total Value 87 Montere Pine 20.0 22 25 i 20 I 2 4 i 8 ~ in 314 in _ X $27/sq $ 8,478 X sp. Gass 30% _ $2,543 X cond. 45% _ $ 1,145 X loc. 50°h = $ 572 s . . . Total Value 88 Montere Pine 30.0 32 35 25 2 4 8 I s in 707 X 527/sq. In. _ $ 19,076 X sp. Gass 30°~ _ $5,723 X cond. 45°k = $ 2,575_ X loc. 50°h = $ 1,288 . Total Value 89 Montere Pine 28.0 28 50 20 2 4 8 I s . in 531 X $27/sq. in. _ $ .14,328 X sp. Gass 30°~ _ $4,298 X wnd. 45% _ $ 1,934 X loc. 50°k = $ 967 90 Monter Pine 24.0 28 50 40 2 4 8 X I s . in 452 X $271sq. in. _ $ 12,208 X sp. Gass 30°k = $3,662 X cond. 45°~ _ $ 1,648 X loc. 50°h = $ 824 Total Value 91 Montere Pine 32.0 34 80 40 2: 4 8 x sq. in 804 X $271aq. in. _ $' 21,704 X sp. Gass 30°k = $8,511 X cond. ' 45% _ $ 2,930 X loc. 50% _ $ 1,465 Tw.wl \/wl..w C+~ ~"~> REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES ` 5-gal = $36 15-gal = $120 1=BEST, 5 =WORST 24"box = $420 36"box = $1,320 48"box = $5,000 52"box = $7,000 72"box = $15,000 Page 13 of 14 ~~ 9b~l0~ V IP N Cn ~ N C~ YP ~ f17 k X X b C'" N W (~ o o° ~' ~ OG K1 p ~!, rr! g '~ ~. C ~~ V N N C" N ~~'°~ O • r+ r CO N .~ N ' ~ ~ ~^ DO ~ a ~ ~~--y~ ~ ~ ~ u . ~ to T z ¢a w ~ ~ ~~ ~o 7 m ~ ~ DBH ~ 4-tf2' above grade V ~ MULTI-SYSTEM ~ N DBH ~ 3 W N V `" - N oBH _ 3 -- ~ DIAMETER (dj2 FEET ~ d' ~' HEIGHT N V N -- SPREAD N HEALTH (7-5) m o STRUCTURE (1-5) o o ~' ~'„ m o~ __ c CONDITION RATING (2-70) c ~ o . _ HAZARD RATING (3-9) a~ u CROWN CLEANING w CROWN THINNING 9 A C CROWN RESTORATION 3 a c~ CROWN RAISING c 3 X ~ a x REMOVE END-WEIGHT 1 ~ ~ D CABLES NEEDED # ~ A ~' as PRUNING PRIORITY (1-5) u INSECTS (1-5) 6N TREE CROWN DISEASE (1-5) w o DEAD WOOD (1-5) m a A TRUNK DECAY(1-5) ~ x --- 'o c ,gi ROOT COLLAR COVERED (1-5) 3 a o _ R00T COLLAR DISEASE (t-5) T n NEEDS WATER (1-5) -- A g d' NEEDS FERTILIZER ~ o ~ . 3 ~ °-' c o RECOMMEND REMOVAL ~ a REMOVAL PRIORITY (1J) O h~ O Ci' a fD ~A F, N y~ ~! ~' rt O QQ ty C f9 O C' ~, \Q F--~ V 1~-- I~~- - ~ ~ (408) 353 X052 23535 SummA Road Prepared for: LosCalos,tA 95030 City of Saratoga, Community Development Department ~~ HORTICULTURAL CONSULTANT Date: October 22,2001 CONSULTING ARBORIST Scale: Ma Reduced Job # 09-00-247-01 Tree numbers correspond to evaluation charts. All dimensions and tree ]ocations are approximate. U ~' pl z ` '' ~ i~ 3 .. ~~ ~ z I ' ' . '~. ' ~ ,! ~ '~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ .. ~; _ ~ ~ ~ ~. .. . .;. r ~.. r ~ ~ a. - "~~' 7 ~ ~ ^ ~~- r ~ '~ ~ ~ . -~!.`: goon ~ . .. ~ far.. _. ._ ___ __ ~._._. i _ -~~ ~~ ~ i N ~, ~} ~: ^.' kr r r 0 • ~. a ~. ~ r v~,. r l f't ~, j. N~ e A ~~~.. ~ V~ ~ %~'~ 1~ ~c~ ~ .,~ ~. N. .~. .~m ~, •_ ~ it ~ 4:: 1 ,.~..~,y: S. ° ~, ! ~ a vi L° f .. N A y~ , Sii®I ~'~ - ,n :, - r ~ ~ ~ . rn . • ~ .N ~ F,, Jam" ~ ~,:I v ii .~d-- ~. y -. "` ~;, `r~ ~"~ .~~ ~ , .,~ - - - -NOV 2 1 2001 ~ ~ '°~i i~-. _ ,~ ,~ ,~ • Attachment M ,~ i ~~O~q8 ITEM 3. • ~~ ~J REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No./Location: 02-259;14165 Victor Place Applicant/Owner: Lotus &~ Minho Shin, Property Owners Staff Planner: Christine Oosterhous AICP, Associate Planne~ Date: March 12, 2003 APN: 397-27-010 Department Head: ~2 Y/ ~ ~~~• ~ ~ ~ ~~ 1 ~_ s ~;'! I ~•~~ j ~ j~ f ~'~' t €~~~~~I~,~s,~ ~ ~ , /" ~ ~ i,,..- ~ j ~ ~, ; ~ ~1' "'~~ '' 1. - ~'r~ .~ , ~~-~ StreM fines ~. ^ ~ N ~ E ~ /!~\._. _ ~~ .~Q" ,{ ~ Parcels wNhin 50D ft -------;~:, ~.,' ~ ParCelt 500 Y"/ ppQ~ 1500 O n 9 14165 Victor Place • G~0001 STAFF ANALYSIS CASE HISTORY: Application filed: 11/18/02 Application complete: 01/29/03 Planning commission hearing: 03/12/03 ZONING: R-1 10,000 GENERAL PLAN: Residential Medium Density (M-10) Maximum Dwelling Unit Per Acre 4.35 MEASURE G: Not Applicable PARCEL SIZE: 10,197 square feet AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: None GRADING REQUIRED: None ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposed .project which includes construction of additions to asingle-family residence is categorically exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to section 15302 of the Guidelines. for the Implementation of CEQA. .This Class 2 exemption applies to the replacement or reconstruction of existing structures and facilities where the new structure will be located on the same site as the original one and will have substantially the same purpose and capacity as the original. MATERIALS AND COLORS PROPOSED: Proposed materials include abrown-gray horizontal wood siding, a concrete the roof, white trim, and a stone veneer are proposed. • ~~'O~Oti Lot Coverage: Proposed Code. Requirements Maximum Allowable 27 % 60% 1,974 sq. ft. 737 sq. ft. 2,711 sq. ft. Building Paving TOTAL (Impervious Surface) Floor Area: First Floor Second Floor TOTAL Setbacks: Front Rear First Floor Second Floor Interior Side First Floor Second Floor Exterior Side First Floor Second Floor Height: Maximum Allowable 1,974 sq. ft. 838 sq. ft. Residence 3,023 sq. ft. 2S ft. 30 ft. 30 ft. 6 ft.(existing to remain) 29 ft. 25 ft. 30 ft. R 24 ft. 3,067 sq. ft. Minimum Requirement 25 ft. 10 ft. 10 ft. 10 ft. 15 ft. 25 ft. 30 ft. Maximum Allowable 26 ft. G00003 PROJECT DISCUSSION The applicant requests design review approval to construct first and second story additions to an existing one-story single-family residence. The total floor area of the proposed two-story residence and attached garage is 3,023 square feet. The floor area of the first floor is 1,974 square feet and the second floor is 838 square feet. The maximum height of the proposed residence is 24 feet. The lot size is approximately 10,197 square feet and the site is zoned R- 1-10,000. Architectural styles in the neighborhood vary; however, a prominent architectural style is American Traditional including craftsman bungalow. Residences in the surrounding neighborhood are a mixture of one and two story homes. A majority of the residences in the neighborhood have wood siding and shingles. The proposed two-story residence reflects a craftsman style. Identifying features of the proposed residence include low-pitched gabled and hipped rooflines with eave overhang and triangular knee braces under the gables. The entry porch is supported by square columns. The entry porch is not proportionately scaled to the residence. The architectural style of the residence was substantially ,revised at staffs request. .The original submittal is attached for your information (attachment 7). The architect also studied the public hearing tapes from the recently approved project located at 14140 Victor Place: While the proposed project is not an authentic craftsman the applicant has substantially revised the project to achieve more architectural compatibility with the existing neighborhood. The building line of the second story is recessed from the building line of the first story. The front and rear elevations include a balcony. Overall the elevations include a great deal of modulation and articulation between receding building lines, and balconies. Proposed materials include abrown-gray horizontal wood siding, a concrete the roof, white trim, and a stone veneer are proposed. The existing building line along the interior side of the residence (garage) is nonconforming in that the existing right side yard setback as viewed from Victor Place is 6 feet which does not meet the minimum interior side yard setback requirement of 10 feet. Staff considered this nonconformity and determined that if the existing wall is to remain the nonconforming aspect may remain.. Staff has made it clear to the applicant that if the wall is removed it may not be rebuilt in the existing location; instead, it must be moved further from the property line to achieve the minimum side yard setback requirement of 10 feet. No trees are proposed for removal. The arborist report. dated February 3, 2003 requires tree protective fencing and a tree preservation bond.. . '~~~~~~ DESIGN REVIEW FINDINGS: The proposed project implements the following Residential Design Policies: The second- story building line is recessed at every elevation. Elements which reduce bulk and break up. mass of the proposed residence include multiple low-pitched gabled and hipped rooflines,. receding building lines, and balconies. The proposed second-story does not extend over the entire footprint of the first floor. A mixture of materials including horizontal wood siding, and stone veneer reduce mass and bulk of the proposed residence. Natural materials are proposed including horizontal wood siding, and stone veneer. The proposed materials will. blend with the natural environment and existing residences. Existing vegetation is preserved and integrated into the proposed project. No trees are proposed for removal. The applicant has submitted several letters which indicate the plans were circulated to homes in the project. vicinity for review (attachment 4). Neighbor Concerns A letter was received in opposition to the project from the property owners of 14185 Victor Place, Rajiv and Mina Mather (attachment 5). The concerned parties live in a two-story residence located behind the proposed project. In an attempt to preserve their privacy staff recommends the windows located in the landing, master bed, and master bath be obscure or clerestory windows (narrow windows installed above eye-level). Additionally, staff recommends the balcony located on the rear of the proposed residence be removed from the proposed project. Conclusion As conditioned, 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 staffreport. STAFF RECONIIVIENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission conditionally approve design review application 02-259 by adopting the attached Resolution. ATTACHl\'IENT5: 1. Resolution for application number 02-259. 2. Fire department comments, dated December 19, 2002. 3. Arborist report, dated February 3, 2003. 4. Three letters signed by neighbors indicating they have received a copy of the plans for review. 5. Letter in opposition to the project from Mino and Rajiv Mather, date stamped February 27, 2003. 6. Letter from the project architect dated March 4, 2003. 7. Original submittal prior to revisions requested by staff. 8. Windshield survey oftwo-story residences in the project vicinity.. 9. Affidavit of mailing notices and mailing labels for project notification. Q~0~05 Attachment 1 • • ~~~~~s APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. CITY OF SAR.ATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Lotus &z Minho Shin, Property Owners; 14165 Victor Place WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for design review for the construction of 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 WHEREAS, the project is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental. Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to section 15302 of the Guidelines for the Implementation of CEQA. This Class 2 exemption applies to the construction and location of limited numbers of new small facilities or structures. WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application for design review approval, and the following findings have been determined: The proposed project implements the following Residential Design Policies: • The second-story building line is recessed at every elevation. • Elements which reduce bulk and break up mass of the proposed residence include multiple low-pitched gabled and hipped rooflines, receding building lines, and balconies. • The proposed second-story does not extend over the entire footprint of the first floor. • A mixture of materials including horizontal wood siding, and stone veneer reduce mass and bulk of the proposed residence. • Natural materials are proposed including horizontal wood siding, and stone veneer. ~ The proposed materials will blend with the natural environment and existing residences. Existing vegetation is preserved and integrated into the proposed project. • No trees are proposed for removal. • The applicant has submitted several letters which indicate .the plans were circulated to homes in the project vicinity for review. • The windows located in the landing, master bed, and master bath be obscure or clerestory windows ,(narrow windows installed above eye-level). • The- balcony located on the rear of the proposed residence shall be removed from the proposed project. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other, exhibits. submitted in connection with this matter, application #02-259 for design review approval is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: ~~0~~~ Application No. 02-259; .14165 Victor Place COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1. The windows located in the landing, master bed, and master bath be obscure or clerestory windows (narrow windows installed above eye-level). 2. The balcony located on the rear of the proposed residence be removed from the proposed project. 3. Four sets of complete construction plans incorporating this Resolution and the City Arborist Report as a separate plan page shall be submitted to the Building Division prior to submittal for building permits. 4. The. site survey shall be stamped and signed by a Registered Civil Engineer or Licensed Land Surveyor. 5. The site plan shall contain a note with the following language: "Prior to foundation inspection by the City, the LLS of record shall provide a written certification that all building. setbacks are per the approved plans." 6. Submit grading and drainage plans to the public works department for review. 7. 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 storm water cannot be retained on-site due to topographic, soils or other constraints, an explanatory note shall be provided on the plan. 8. Landscaping shall be installed prior to granting final occupancy inspection. CITY ARBORIST 9. All recommendations in the City Arborist's Report shall be followed and incorporated into the plans. FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 10. All development review conditions from the Saratoga Fire Department shall be followed and incorporated into the plans. CITY ATTORNEY 11. Applicant agrees to hold City harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the City of held to be liability of City in connection with City's defense of its actions in any proceeding brought in any State Federal Court, challenging the City's action with respect to the applicant's project. Section 2. Construction must be commenced within 24 months or approval will expire. • • • ~00~®8 Application No. 02-259; 14165 Victor Place 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 days from the date of adoption PASSES AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission. State of California, the 12th day of March 2003 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission This permit is hereby accepted upon the express terms and conditions hereof, and shall have no force or effect unless and until agreed to, in writing, by the Applicant, and Property Owner or Authorized Agent. The undersigned hereby acknowledges the approved terms and conditions and agrees to fully conform to and comply with said terms and conditions within the recommended time frames approved by the City Planning Commission. Property Owner or Authorized Agent • Date ~~®C~09 • Attachment 2 • ~~~~Q SARATOGA FIRE 408 867 2780 12!19/02 03:40pm P. 002 i~ SARATOGA FIRE DISTRICT REVIEW AND COA~II1'IENTS FOR PLANNING DEPARTMENT 'A means NOT APPLICABLE #: 02-259 DATE: December 19, 2002 # OF LOTS: ONE CANT: SHIN LOCATION: 14165 VICTOR PLACE. 1: Water supply al~.d access for fire protection are acceptable. 2: Property is located in a designated hazardous fire area. 3: Plans checked for weed/brush abatement accessibility. 4: Roof covering shall be fire retardant, Uniform Building Code Class A prepared or built-up roofing. Re-roofing less than 10% shall be exempt. (Ref. Uniform Fire Code Appendix 3, City of Saratoga Code 16-20:210.) 5: Early Warning Fire Alarm System Shall be installed and maintained in accordance with the . provisions, city of Saratoga Code Article 16-60. (Alternative requirements, sprinkler systems, 16-60-E.) U 6: Early Warning Fire Alarm System shall have documentation relative to the proposed installation and shall be submitted to the fue district for approval. 7: Automatic sprinklers shall be installed in newly constructed attached/detached garages (2 heads per stall), workshops, or storage areas which are not constructed as habitable space. To ensure proper sprinkler operation, the garage shall have a smooth, flat, horizontal ceiling. The designer/architect is to contact San Jose Water company to determine the size of service and meter needed to meet fire suppression and domestic requirements. (City of Saratoga Code 16-15.090 [I]) NOTE: ADDITION TO BUILDING GREATER THAN 50% OF ORIGINAL SIZE. 8: All fire hydrants shall be located within 500' from the residence and deliver no less than 1000 gallons/minute of water for a sustained period of 2 hours. (City of Saratoga Code 14-30:040 [C]) 9: Automatic sprinklers are required for the new sq. ft. residential dwelling. A 4-head calculated 13R sprinker system is required. Documentation of the proposed installation and all calculations shall be submitted. to the fire district for approval. The sprinkler system must be installed by a licensed contractor. • shin-14165 victor pl.wpd ~~~C~~1 SARATOGA FIRE 408 867 2780 12/19/02 03:40pm P. 008 2 -Building Site Approval Check List #: 02-259 10: Fire hydrants: developer shall install fire hydrant(s) that meet the fire district's specifications. Hydrant(s) shall be installed and accepted pxior to construction of any building. 11: Driveways: All driveways shall. have a 14' minimum with plus 1' shoulders. Secondary Access not required A: Slopes from 0% to 11 % shall use a double seal coat of 0 & S or better on a 6" aggregate base from a public street to the proposed dwelling. a B: Slopes from 11% to 15% shall be surfaced using 2.5" of A.C. or better on a b:' aggregate base from a public street to the proposed dwelling. C: Slopes from 15% to 17% shall be surfaced using a 4" PCC concrete rough surfaced on a 4" aggregate base from a public street to the proposed dwelling D: Curves: Driveway shall have a minimum inside radius of 21'. E: Turnouts: Construct a passing turnout 10' wide and 40' long as required by the fire district. Details shall be shown on building plans. 12: Turn-arounds: construct aturn-around at the proposed dwelling site having a 33' outside radius. Other approved types must meet the requirements of the fire district. Details shall be shown on the building plans and approved by the fire district. 13: Parking: Provide a parking area for two emergency vehicles at the proposed dwelling site or as required by the fire district. Details shall be shov~m on building plans. 14: Security Gate: Gate width shall not be less than 14'. Gate access shall be through a Medeco lock box purchased from the fire department Details shall be shown on building plans. 15: Bridges: All bridges and roadways shall be designed to sustain 35,000 pounds dynamic loading. VED: ~. fi'x'"- - sh in-14165 victor pl.wpd '~;. • ~C~~~`: • Attachment 3 r~ ~QC~~;~3 BARRI E D. COATS TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS AT THE SHIN PROPERTY 14165 VICTOR PLACE SARATOGA -and ASSOCIATES Horticutu.ral Consultants 23535 Summit Road Los Gatos, CA 95033 408!35 3-1052 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 February 3, 2003 Job #01-03-012 Plan Received: 1.28.03 Plan Due: 2.20.03 • ~~®~24 TREESURVEYAND PRESERI~ATIONRECOA4iLfENDATIONSAT THESHINPROPERTY 2 14165 VICTOR PLACE SARATOGA Assignment At the request of the Community Development Department Planning Division, City of Saratoga, this report evaluates the trees at the Shin property located at 141b5 Victor Place, Saratoga, in the context of potential damage during proposed construction: 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 survey are the Construction Plans prepared by HL Design, Inc., Saratoga, Sheets Al .l, A 2.1, A 2.2, A 2.3, A 3.1, A 3.2, D1.1, D2.1, dated 11-13- . 02, and the Topographic Map prepared by SMP Engineering, Sheet T-1, dated August 17, 2002. Summary The proposed construction may expose 5 trees to some level of risk. No trees are to be removed by implementation of this design. ff any trees are removed or significantly damaged during construction, they should be replaced at their calculated values with specimens native to this area. Procedures are suggested to mitigate the damage that would be expected to the retained trees. A bond equal to 50% of the value of Tree #1 combined with a bond of 30% of the total values of Trees #2-5 is recommended to assure their protection. Observations There are 4 trees on this site and l tree located on the adjacent property toward the north that may be damaged by proposed construction. The attached map shows the location of these trees and their approximate canopy dimensions. The 5 trees are classified as follows: Tree #1 - Deodar cedar (Cedrus deodara) Trees #2, 3, 4 -Holly leaf cherry (Prunus ilicifolia) Tree #5 -Pacific madrone (Arb~ltus menziesi~~ 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 1 to 5 (Excellent - Extremely Poor) on the data sheets that follow this text. The combination of health and structure ratings for the 7 trees. are converted to descriptive ratings as follows: r~ ~~ PREPiLRED BF: A/ICHAI:L L. BEA7CH, COATSULTING .1RBORlSI FEBRUARY 3, 2003 ~;~®~~.5 TREE SURYE}'AND PRESERVATIONRECOMMENDATIONSAT THE SHINPROPERTY 19I651.7CTOR PLACE SARATOGA ' Exceptional 1, 5 Fine Specimens 3, 4 Fair Specimens 2 3 Marginal. ~ Poor Specimens Exceptionat specimens must be retained at any cost and whatever procedures are needed to retain them in their current condition must be used. 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: Fair specimens are worth retaining but again without major design revisions. Mitigation must prevent further decline. Tree #I is indeed an exceptional Deodar cedar (C. deodara). This tree has a trunk diameter of 37 inches at 54 inches above grade and 39 inches at 2 feet. Its height is approximately 95 feet, and its spread is approximately 50-65 feet. The overall form is pyramidal. its branching is uniformly distributed on all sides. The color is rich, blue green. The annual branch tip growth for several years has been approximately 6 inches, which is good for a tree of this maturity. In short, this tree is outstanding. It is one of the best large Deodar cedar specimens that I have seen in this area. Risks to Trees by Proposed Construction None of the 5 trees should not be significantly damaged by construction, if they are protected by fencing during the entire construction period. It would be essential not only that protective fencing be provided, but this fencing must be rigorously maintained during construction. However, Tree #1, the exceptional Deodar cedar (C. deodara), would be exposed to significant root loss if the existing features are upgraded, replaced, or altered, such as: 1. The existing retaining wall between the lawn and the street along Victor. Place. 2. The existing pathway to the front door and/or the steps near the street at Victor Place. 3. The existing pathway, which extends from the front pathway around the southeast corner of the residence. 4. The existing embankment on the east side of the trunk of Tree #1 between the .trunk and the paving of Victor Place. The plans do not show that the hardscape features at these locations would be removed, replaced, or altered, but it would appear likely that upgrades of these features would be considered desirable. Due to the significant risk to the roots of Tree #1, I believe that this cannot be left ambiguous, and that the plans must state the intent,- including any landscaping, regarding the entire area inside the dripline of Tree #1: • • PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH. CONSULTING ARBORIST FEBRUARY 3. 2003 ~~©l1'~V 7RFE SUR I~CYAND PRESERYATIOA'RFC.OMI~I!]VDATIONSAT THE SHINPROPERTY 4 " 191651.7CTOR PL9CE S•?R.9TOG.4 There are, existing shrubs inside the dripline of Tree #1. They are creeping juniper shrubs (,I»niperus horizontalis) and a Firethorne (Pyraca~uha species). If it is desirable to remove or to replace these shrubs, it would be essential that they not be torn out by the roots with large equipment. The shrubs to be removed must be cut off at the soil grade leaving the root system undisturbed in the soil. The cut surface of the stump of each shrub could be painted with an herbicide to assure that it does not re-sprout from the stump. It appears that all of the 5 trees may 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 -may include constant construction traffic, including foot traffic, across the root systems resulting in soil compaction. If any underground utilities must be replaced or upgraded, it will be essential that. the location of trenches must be planned prior to construction and that the trenches are located exactly as planned. This must not be left up to contractors or to the utii'~ty providers. Due to the site conditions, which provides for a somewhat limited growing space of the root system of Tree #l, I believe it will be essential that Tree #I receive supplemental imgation during construction, assuming construction would occur during the dry season. Supplemental irrigation means in addition to the annual rainfall. Recommendations 1. I suggest that construction period fencing be provided and located as noted on the attached map. Fencing must be of chainlink, a minimum height of 5 feet, mounted on steel posts driven 2 feet (minimum) into the ground. The fence must be in place prior to the amval 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 av-~are that refund of tree protection bonds are based on the correct location and dedicated maintenance of these fences. 2. Supplemental irrigation must be provided to Trees #1 during the dry months (any month receiving less than 1 inch of rainfall). Imgate with 10 gallons for each inch of trunk diameter every 2 weeks throughout the construction period. One alternative may be the use of a simple soaker hose, which must be located near the dripline for the entire canopy circumference. 3. A fu114-inch layer of coarse wood chips-must be spread over the entire root zone of Tree #1. Spreading of the chips must be done by hand. Chips must be 1/2 to 314 inch in diameter. One supplier is Reuser Inc., 370 Santana Dr., Cloverdale, CA 95425, (707) 894-4224. PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST FEBRUARY 3, 20D3 h/~ ry t;.~`~riJ~~ TREE SURVEYAND PRESERYATIONRECOMMENDATIONSAT THE SHINPROPERTY 14165 VICTOR PLACE SARATOGA 5 4. If the steps, the pathways, or the retaining wall inside the dripline of Tree #1 must be removed, they must be removed by hand. The soil beneath these features or adjacent to these features must not be disturbed., 5. 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 landscape irrigation requirements, the city arborist must be consulted. 6. Trenches for any utilities {gas, electricity, water, phone, TV cable,. etc.) must be located outside the driplines of retained trees. For any tree where this cannot be achieved, I suggest that the city arborist be consulted. 7. Any old imgation lines, sewer lines, drain lines, etc., under the canopies of the existing trees, if unused, must be cut offat grade and left in the ground. ~. 8. Excavated soil must not be piled or dumped (even temporarily) under the canopies of trees. 9. Trenches for a drainage system must be located outside the driplines of Trees #1-5. For any tree where this cannot be achieved, the city arborist must be consulted prior to trenching.. 10. 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. 11. Any pruning must be done by an International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) certified arborist and according to ISA, Western Chapter Standards, 1998. 12. I recommend that the landscape plans or any renovations to the landscape, whether formally proposed on a plan or not, contain the following limitations: a. Landscape pathways and other hardscape constructed under the canopies of trees must be done completely on grade without excavation and without the severing of roots. b. Landscape irrigation trenches (or any other excavations), inside the canopy driplines of trees, must be no closer than 15 times the trunk diameter, if the trenching direction is across the root zone. However, radial trenches (i.e., like the spokes of a wheel) maybe done closer if the trenches reach no closer than 5 times the trunk diameter to the tree's trunk, and if the spokes are at least 10 feet apart at the perimeter. c. Sprinkler irrigation must be designed not to strike the trunks of trees. PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST FEBRUARY 3. 20103 ~'~~~~~ • • TREE SUR FEYAND PRESERVATION RECOMMF.NDATIONSAT THE SHIN PROPERTY 141 GS Y7CTOR PLACE SARATOGA d. Lawn or other ]ants that require frequent watering must be limited to a maximum p of 20% of the entire root zone and a minimum distance of 7 times the trunk diameter away from the trunk (or 22 feet) of Tree #1. Any imgation inside this area must be of a drip type, and any driplines must be installed on top of the soil surface, and covered by chips. ' e. Bender board or similar edging material must not be used inside the driplines of existing trees, because its installation requires trenching of 4-6 inches, which may result in significant root damage. f. I suggest that the species of plants used in the root zone of Tree #1 must be compatible with the environmental and cultural requirements of this drought tolerant species. g. 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 Value Assessment The values of the trees are addressed according to ISA standards, Seventh Edition. No trees are planned to be removed. However, if any trees are removed or significantly damaged during construction, I recommend that their. full value be replaced. I recommend that a bond equal to 50% of the value of Tree #1 ($18,570=$9,285) be retained combined with a bond equal to 30% of the values of Trees #2-5 ($3,582=$1,075) for a total bond of $10,360 to assure their protection. Respectfully sub d, • e,e~.~ Michael L. Bench, Associ^ate ~~ Barrie D. Coate, Principal MLBIsl... Enclosures: Glossary of Terms . Tree Data Accumulation Charts Tree Protection Before, During and After Construction Protective Fencing Radial Trenching Beneath Tree Canopies Map PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTING ARBOR/ST FEBRUARY 3, 2003 ~~ ~~19 job Title: Shin Job Address: 14165 Victor Place Job #01-03-012 Feb. 3, 2003 Measurements Cond ition Pruning/Gablin p Nee ds Pest/Disease Problema Recommend . I I ~ { I ~ I I ~ I I I I ! I : I ~ I ~ ! I I I I I~~ I I ~ ~ 1 I i= i 1 1 S BARRIE D. COATS I ~ m 1 ~ , ~ i f j ° ~ ` ~ ~ I : I Z I ~ ~ ( I ~ ~ ~ w i W l W ' ° ` v ~ a' rn I Q ', ~ ~ "~ and ASSOCIATES ~ ' ' ~, ~ i i m ~. u, 11 ' f/ I ~ ~ ° ~~ _ ~ LL1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ > ~ I 8 ' I ° ~ W ~~ a ~ (408) 3531054 $ ~ i ~ A~ W LL ~ ~ ! r? V w Fi ~ i 'I ~ _ Z ~ Z Z ~ ~ o Z y ~ d W ° ~ ~ ~ iS i s ~ •- ~ a ~ g ~ N ~ tY ji ~ I ~ a 73535 SuasR A oad LmGalos U 95030 ~ i ~ ~ y 1 ~ ~ ~ z O 1 ~ U w ~ ~ ~ w w Z C~ ~ i " ' ~ w ~~ ~ p i O ~ ~ a i W I W 3 LL ~ , ~ ~ ~ I z ~ ~ ° ° = x x F ' a o ~ ~ I ~ ~ o E o o ~ ~ ~ a W I ~ ~ W ~ I $ ! $ t W ~ z ~ ~ w ? w i ~ Z I Z ' ~ O ~ ~ i o = ~ N $ ~ ~~ v ~ v ~ ? ~ ~ ~ ~ I Key # Plant Name ~ o = 1 Deodar Cedar 37.0 ` I 39 ~ 95 80 1 i 1 1 ~ 2 I : { ~ I ' Cedrus deodara I ~ In 5 X E27/s _ ~ $ 29 018 X ap. class 80% _ $23,213 X con d. 100% _ $ 23,213 X loc. 80% _ $ 18,570 , . q. . in 107 Total Value 2 Holl Leaf Cher ' 9.0. ~ x ~ 8.0 ~ ~ 10 ~ 20 ~ 15 2 2 4 ' i ! ~ _ ; I i Prunus ilicifolia i = 1 ~ I . in 78 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 2,106 X sp. class 50% _ $1,053 X cond. 75% _ $ 790 X loc. 70% _ $ 553 Total Value 3 Holl Leat Cher 9.0 ; x { 7.0 ; 4.0 1 9~8 ~ 20 ~ 15 1 2 3 ~ ~ i I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. t I s . in 90 X $27Jsq. in. _ $ 2,430 X sp. class 50% _ $1,215 X cond. 90% _ $ 1,094 X loc. 70% _ $ 765 Total Value 4 Hol Leaf Che 9.0 x t 4.0 i 110 ~ 20 ~ 15 1 f 2 i 3. ~ ~ ~ j I I I I I I . in 70 X i27/sq. In. _ $ 1,890 X sp. class 50% _ $945 X cond. 90% _ $ 851 X loc. 70% _ $ 595 Total Value 5 Pacific Madrone 15.01 ~ 18 ~ 25 25 1 1 2 ` ~ ~ I Arbutus menziesli . In 177 X $27/sq, in. _ $ 4,769 X sp. class 50% _ $2,384 X cond. 100% _ $ 2,384 X loc. 70% _ $ 1,669 Total Value r ~~ ® REPLACEMENT TREE V ALLIES ~"'~ 5-gal = $36 15-gal ~ $120 ~~ 24"box - $420 36"box - $1,320 ~ 48"box00 52"box ~ $7,000 72"box ,000 • 1 ~ BEST, 5 ~ WORST ~1 of 1; • Tree Survey and Preservation Recommendations ~t the ' BARRIE D. COATE dnd ASSOCIATES Shin Property, 14165 victor Place caos135a~os2 23535 Sunmil Rwd ~ Prepared for: las Gatos,U 95000 City of Saratoga, Planning Department HORTICULTURAL CONSULTANT Date: Feb 3, 2003 CONSULTING ARBORIST Job # 01-03-012 Tree numbers correspond to evaluation charts. All dimensions and tree locations are approximate. o~ - °~~ / ~ o' ` ~1 '+ 4~. ~ `~ ~ ~ ~ ° ~ ~ ~ r p M FAGS 01 ~. ~~. ~, / r- ~, ~~! ----- - - ~ i -~ ~~ 1 V ~ 1 r ~ u ' ~ ' ~ ~ ' ~ 1~ ~ o r ~ ~~ 1 ,~ ~ I I ~~\ C • ~ I ~ ~ . ~ '. W \~ '~° ~ ~ o .~ ~ B `~ ,;; ~ . ~ g ~` `~Q 1 1 1 1 ,~ O ~ ; ~ 1 ~ , 1 .~.; -- ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ , ~~ ~ ~~ 11 N ~ ~ ~, __ v ~ ~1 w~~ Oc bY' `` ~ ~ ? ~ 1 1 r ~ .u re i .~ •j 1 ~ -I 1 3.00.1+.9QS1 ~`~~~'~~~~-+- _ 1 1 C6'f6 1, L~ I ~ ~ 3DryrD I 1 N3wPOv ' ~C~~~1, • Attachment 4 • ~GOG22 »~ _~: ~ • ,~~ ~ HL Design, Inc. ~~~~"' ~' Architecture • Planning • Site Development To: City of Saratoga Community Development Department Planning Division Project: 14165 Victor fie, Saratoga, CA /ace I have provided the property owners an opportunity to review the plans dated September 19, 2002 for 1,183 sq. ft of second story addition construction project at 14165 Victor Lane. Name Address Date ~il~~a~•d S~~~M~2 I ~l ~~ v1 cT~~ r` • f/Z y/ Z • I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated: ~~2 J~~z Signature: r~l' Name: ~J G ~4 ~ .~ S ~f ! ~i~2 ~ y~- • 6601 Owens Drive, Suite 105, Pleasanton, California 94588 Tel: (925) 460-0881 Fax: (925) 460-0991, ~ C~Q~23 Hl. design, Inc. Architecture • Planning • Site Development • To: City of Saratoga Cotruntmity Development Department Planning Division Project: 14165 Victor , Saratoga, CA ~i~e I have provided the property owners an opportunity to review the plans dated September 19, 2002 for 1,183 sq. ft of second story addition construction project at 14165 Victor Lane. Name Address Date ~ g T M v~ I~ ~ ~s' ti c }'oa' ~ I~c~¢. Q I~' ~ I oZ Sar~~ : Cif ° ~ I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated: ~`24~~Z.. Signature: ~__-~~ Name: !`{3~9 ~~S µt rt1~`i i.c. v1z C~ • • 6601 Owens Drive, Suite 105, Pleasanton, California 94588 Tel: (925) 460-0881 Fax: (925) 460-0991 ©~~~. . ~_ Ids DL'S[C~A~ ~At• Archifecture • Planning • Site Development ~~ To: City of Saratoga Coma;unity Dev~lapment Department Plan7ing Division Project: 14155 ~'ictore, Saratoga, CA ~~ia<< ] have provided the property owners at: eppurturity ro rc:~ iew th;, plans dated September 19, 2002 for 1,1 ~3 sq. ~t ~f second story addition ccnstrttction pro}+c± at l ~+ l !i~ ~Jictor Lane. Name A,' dress Date /~~' ~, ~~~C7v V C~~IJIr l ~( ll I hereby certify tt:at the fore.gt~int is true rind correct. Dated: ~ ~ ~~ Sigrtature: A'ame: ~' T 6bOl Owen: Drive. Sui:~ i(?5, F~asanton, California 94588 Tel: 1925) dGO-t-Ksi Ian: (9^_~) ~~~s25 Attachment 5 FEB 2 7 2003 CITY OF SARATOGA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT • A ~~ ~':~, ` . ~~ ~.. ~ R :. r ~~~~2'7 II Attachment 6 • •I ~~~0~28 Mar 04 03 01:13p HL Design, Inc 925-460-0991 p. i ~_-- ~ ~ HL Design, Inc. Architecture • Planning • Site Development -March 4, 2003 Ms Christine Oosterhous Associate Planner City of Saratoga 18777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 Re: Second story addition for 14165 Victor Place, Saratoga Ms Oosterhous, • • I contacted "Mr. Rajiv Mathur" who is owner of 14185 Victor Place which is rear property of proposed project regarding their concern to the design of project. Per their memo to you was a concern regarding the window size of rear side which will face to their pxoperty. But he had changed his opinion and he is against to the second ' : • . story itself. If his concern is only the design or privacy matter, I tried to resolve prior to • ~ ~ • • ~ . . the public hearing but in this case we can not have any solution for his objection. . ~ ~ ..... •~. , ~ '.~ . . In any case, I like to inform you that I tried to solve any problem with the neighbors.' -: .. .: .... If you need more concern toward to this project, please ]et me lmow. Sincerely, Hayoung Lee Project Architect HL Design, Inc 6601 Owens Drive, Suite 105 Pleasanton, CA 94588 925-460-0881 925-460-0991 fax 6601 Owens Drive, Suite 105, Pleasanton, California 94588 Tel: (925) 460-0881 Fax: (925) 460-0991 ~~Q~~9 Attachment 7 • 'i v~OG30 I.I i• • mrwlm BUILD]NG EXTERIOR KELLI'-MOORE: KEYSTONE nuwnAlMYin•,J ..m [nur. wiroWn w~ry® Ym ~wit~~,nm`.m TRIM /COLUMN KELLI'-MOORG: SIERRA ' .. i ROOF. EAGLE-CHARCOAL RANGE (5699) ~. i GYV i.~:inN I n L_ nucm .. L. ~ L_ nworrt wwuem SUPERSEDED ~~.p.,~~. SHIN RESIDENCE Hl Dwlgn, Inc ~~~.,~~ P Second Story Addition 14]65 Vi Pl e 66UIWemRie.s 10! - ~ %e ~ ~ ~ ctor ac i~m.m•n.O~flnmu9.SR! 92 • o axsl : . r...~~••- ~~~~~ Saratoga ,California 95070 r, . Tel: 1 s> ~~0~~1 i ~~ ~~0~~2 '~ -i AVE. W a ,~ Windshield Survey of Two Story Residences in the Project Vicinity ~ V ~ w@ N ~~ Dg. a w WILLIAn~.c _ • WALNUT AVE. a~ ~ ~ ~' ,~Y ~ Project Site 14165 Victor Place ~ ~ I ~ ~ / Legend ~ Two story application approved ~ Existing Two-Story Residence ~,~~~ \bo /ire Attachment 8 • ,~ 40~~4 • AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICES STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) SS. COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA ) I~ C i'1 Y ~ ~,}1 r 2 ~~~~ ~`~-~~, being duly sworn, deposes and says: that I am a citizen of the United States, over the age of 18 years; that acting for the City of Saratoga Planning Commission on the 1~ day of r~G~'J1'U ~ 2003, that I deposited in the United States Post Office within Santa Clara County, a NOTICE OF HEARING, a copy of which is attached hereto, with postage thereon prepaid, addressed to the following persons at the addresses shown, to-wit: (See list attached hereto and made part hereof) that said ersons are the owners of said property who are entitled. to a Notice of Hearing P pursuant to Section 15-45.060(b) of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Saratoga in that said persons and their addresses are those shown on the most recent equalized roll of the Assessor of the County of Santa Clara as being owners of property within 500 feet of the property to be affected by the application; that on said day there was ,regular communication by United States Mail to the addresses shown above. ~ ~ -- - Signed • ~~0~ ~S City of Saratoga Community Development Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 NOTICE OF HEARING The City of Saratoga's Planning Commission announces the following public hearing on Wednesday, the 12`h day of March 2003, at 7:00 p.m. • in the City Council Chambers located at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070. Details are available at the Saratoga Community Development Department, Monday through Friday 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. APPLICATION #02-259 (397-27-010) -SHIN; 14165 Victor Place; -Request for Design Review approval to construct first and second story additions to an existing one-story single- family residence. The total floor area of the proposed two-story residence and attached garage is 3,023 square feet. The floor area of the first floor is 1,974 square feet and the second floor is 838 square feet. The maximum height of the proposed residence is 24 feet. The lot size is approximately 10,197 square feet and the site is zoned R-1-10,000. 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. In order to be included in the Planning Commission's information packets, written communications should be filed on or before the Tuesday, a week before the meeting. . This notice has been sent to all owners of property within 500 feet of the project that is the subject of this notice. The City uses the official roll produced by the County Assessor's office annually, in preparing its notice mailing lists. In some cases, out-of -date information or difficulties with the U.S. Postal Service may result in notices not being delivered to all residents potentially affected by a project. If you believe that your neighbors would be interested in the project described in this notice, we encourage you to provide them with a copy of this notice. This will ensure that everyone in your Community has as much information as possible concerning this project. Christine Oosterhous, AICP Associate Planner 408-868-1286 • ~~~~~s ` Smooth Feed SheetsT"" use tem gate for ti1~u~ P SARATOGA CITY OF JAWED UMERANI JOHN B & DEVERSE MARSHALL SARATOGA-SLJNNYVALE RD 509 SAN FELICIA WAY 14141 VICTOR PL ~'" TOGA CA 95070 LOS ALTOS CA 94022 SARATOGA CA 95070 LOTUS F & MIN SHIN __.. RAJTV & MINAKSHI MATHUR TR KAYPAGHIAN 14200 VICTOR PL 14105 VICTOR PL 14185 VICTOR PL SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 SAR-ATOGA CA 95070 MICHAEL M SHADMAN _-_ MICHAEL M SHADMAN ~ M L BRE 14170 VICTOR PL 403 DAYTON AVE 14180 VICTOR PL SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 SANTA CLARA CA 95051 YNTHIA A KERR _. _. _ _-__. .. _ PHILIP S CAI .... ._. LISA READ PARR 20434 WALNUT AVE 14160 VICTOR PL 12204 PLUMAS DR LOS ALTOS CA 94022 SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 SCVWD ARBELECHE LN SARATOGA CA 95070 GHOLAMREZA & EZAT JAVANMARD 20440 ARBELECHE LN SARATOGA CA 95070 __-:.. ~GROVER B & MARYANN STEELS 20410 WALNUT AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 .... _ SCVWD LAND ONLY SARATOGA CA 95070 .. . DAVID J & TERRI MORRISON NAVID 4100 MOORPARK AVE 201 14554 CARNELIAN GLEN CT SAN JOSE CA 95117 SARATOGA CA 95070 CLARENCE W & LAURA NEALE HIRSCH-CHAMPION 230 MR HERMON RD 204 20411 WALNUT AVE SCOTTS VALLEY CA 95066 SARATOGA CA 95070 MEHDI & DEBRA SHAHIv1IRZA 20431 WALNUT AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 MIKE J & ERIN AN ROBERT D & KAREN FITT __ ... J P & MARCIA MANZ 20451. WALNUT AVE 20461 WALNUT AVE 20471. WALNUT AVE - SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 AURA C & GEORGE ELLIOTT _ _ . .._ _ .---_ _~.-. PICO RANCH INC __.. JOHN W & CHRISTINE PA 20462 WILLIAMS AVE 20460 WILLIAMS AVE SARA OGA CA 950 0 SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 ELCYN 20440 WILLIAMS AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -~-- _....._ _. __ ..- ----- BENJAMIN & LEIL,IA PEAKS JAY S HIDY _I 20430 WILLIAMS AVE 20400 WILLIAMS AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 v~0~~~ Laser 5160® 0.~ ae erwvn A.l.ar.ee~~ 1 aFto~'G Smooth Feed SheetsT"" SUBRAMANIAN & CHARUMAT GANESAN 20470 WILLIAMS AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 ESHLEMAN 14130 ALTA VISTA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 . _.. :.. JOHN P & KAY NORA PO BOX 73 SARATOGA CA 95071 JUDITH L TEEPEE 20480 WILLIAMS AVE SAItATOGA CA 95070 VJALDEMAR M & LUCYNA PASTUSZKA 14120 ALTA VISTA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 ~SAR.ATOGA PARENT NUBS ERY SCHOOL 20490 WIL,LIAMS AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 TAT H TAW. 14100 SARATOGA SUNNYVALE RD SARATOGA CA 95070 ---- ,_. . TAIN G & KAI CHU 20435 WALNUT AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 LUCY H & ERNEST ATONDO 14060 ELVIRA ST SARATOGA CA 95070 ;. DAVY W & SANDRA PANG 20501 MARION RD SARATOGA CA 95070 RAYIvIOND E & DEBBIE GONI 14080 SARATOGA SLINNYVALE RD SARATOGA CA 95070 PAXTON 20426 WILLIAMS AVE SARA.TOGA CA 95070 _.. LAW SON 14090 ELV]RA ST SARATOGA CA 95070 GEORGE M & LENA VIERRA 14071 SARATOGA SUNNXVAI-E RD SARATOGA CA 95070 Use template for 5160' FRANCES C MII,LER 14600 WILD OAK WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 _ _._ .. . LAWRENCE C HARTGE 15808 GLEN UNA DR LOS GATOS CA 95030 BABAK R.AISSI 20481 WALNUT AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 ELIO PONCHIONE ' 20433 WALNUT AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 PAUL A BONNET 20900 BIG BASIN WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 _ .. _ _. .~ WILLIAM^D FOLEY 14080 ELVIRA ST SARATOGA CA 95070 . .. ._ __ . KUOJIM & HUI-WEN HUANG 93 JACKLIN CT MILPITAS CA 95035 ESTHER R CALVANICO 14063 SARATOGA SLJNNYVAI-E RD SARATOGA CA 95070 . MADIHALLY J & R.AMA ~ JAMES J & TREACY ELLER NARASIMHA 14098 ELV]RA ST 14099 ELVIRA ST SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 VERNON D & ELIZABETH SWART 15413 LONE HILL RD LOS GATOS CA 95032 _ _ ._.__ TAI S & SHEN WONG 14111 SARATOGA Si;JNNYVALE RD SARATOGA CA 95070 DENNIS K & GRACE YEE 14095 ELVIRA ST SARATOGA CA 95070 JAMES D & DOREEN MOLZON 14094 ELVIRA ST SARATOGA CA 95070 ~ HOLLAND W & HELEN 14121 SARATOGA S ~ RD SARATOGA CA 95070 ~G©~8 Laser 51E~0® Smooth Feed SheetsT'" SUBRAMANIAN & CHARUMAT JUDITH L TEEPEE GANESAN 20480 WII.,LIAMS AVE '' - 0 WILLIAMS AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 ATOGA CA 95070 ...____~_. _._ .------ .._._. _ ___ ...__. - ... VJALDEMAR M & LUCYNA ESHLEMAN 14130 ALTA VISTA AVE PASTUSZKA SARATOGA CA 95070 14120 ALTA VISTA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 Use template for 51G0`~ FRANCES C MILLER 14600 WILD OAK WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 .. . LAWRENCE C HARTGE 15808 GLEN UNA DR LOS GATOS CA 95030. ._... - - JOHN P & KAY NORA SARATOGA PARENT NUBS ERY BABAK RAI PO BOX 73 SCHOOL 20481 WALNUT AVE SARATOGA CA 95071 20490 WILLIAMS AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 ---- - -- .. _ .----_.....-------------------_ _ - -- RAYMOND E & DEBBIE GONI ELIO PONCHIO TAT H TAW 14100 SARATOGA SLII~TNYVAI-E 14080 SARATOGA SLTIINYVAI-E 20433 WALNUT AVE ~ ~ SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 . TA1N G & KAI CHU 20435 WALNUT AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 --- _.. PAXTON 20426 WTLLIAMS AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 LAWSON 14090 ELVIRA ST SARATOGA CA 95070 ---~ ---. PAUL A BONNET 20900 BIG BASIN WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 ` WILLIAM D FOLEY 14080 ELVIRA ST SARATOGA CA 95070 . _.__. ....____-..._...._ _ GEORGE M & LENA VTERRA KUOJIIVI & HUI-WEN HUANG LUCY H & ERNEST ATONDO 14060 ELVIRA ST 14071 SARATOGA SLIIJNYVALE 93 JACKLIN CT SARATOGA CA 95070 ~ MILPITAS CA 95035 SARATOGA CA 95070 DAVY W & SANDRA PANG 20501 MARION RD SARATOGA CA 95070 MADIHALLY J & RAMA NARASMiA 14099 ELVIRA ST SARATOGA CA 95070 :_ .. ESTHER R CALVANICO DENNIS K & GRACE YEE 14063 SARATOGA SLIIJNYVALE 14095 ELVIRA ST ~ SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070. JAMES J & TREACY ELLER JAMES D & DOREEN MOLZON 14098 ELVIRA ST 14094 ELVIRA ST SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 ERNON D & ELIZABETH TAI S & SHEN WONG SWART 14111 SARATOGA SLTNNYVALE 15413 LONE HILL RD RD LOS GATOS CA 95032 SARATOGA CA 95070 HOLLAND W & HELEN HAM 14121 SARATOGA SUNNYVAL: RD SARATOGA CA 95070 ~~4(~~9 ~,.~,~„~ „aa.~,,,,,~,,o~~ Laser 51E-0® Smooth Feed SheetsT"" Use template for 51b0~' i DONALD K & MAYA ALLEN ALLEN BERNARDO 20530 MARION R.D. 20520 MARION RD 20544 MARION RD SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 _.._..__ OLIVERI H ` ~ JOHN R & PHYLLIS FEEMSTER THOMAS R LINDSAY EIDI ALDO & 14225 SARATOGA SUNNYVALE 18800 TEN ACRES RD 230 MOUNT HERMON RD 204 SARATOGA CA 95070 SCOTTS VALLEY CA 95066 RD SARATOGA CA 95070 RLJ LLC MARGARET T SEAGRAVES 19510 GLEN UNA DR 13371 SARATOGA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 . ~~. ---- - .. _....---- ...~_... ... ___. .._ _..- .. .. _..__ .. i ~f\~ n~iersvn Ar~rlrncc InF,clc ~~©~.v~~ laser 5ab0® ~u U • • r FOR I~LIVHO SHIN 14165 VICTOR PLACE SARATOGA 95070 9 ~ ~ ~ ~~ j v/Ni w LA ~ ~ ~ ~~ ) \.` ~5~~ ( ~~ ~ AP.N : 09741-010 SDE AREA • GR089 :10,191 80. FT. E , WIDE) . ` ~ AC (~~ ~ ` a~ .I~M> ~~ ' ~ i F q u ~ A~ ate- q YY ~ ~~ a ; ~r • ~ BaIDWGrxEA Eg8TW0 FBiST FL0011 IAI/ SO FT. DARAGE 680 BO. FT. ON ~ IS1 S0 P _ . TAR L ~ VIC 1 - ~ \ • L v h ~, ~ ti \ Pn~. ~ ~ ~~ ~ ' ' ' PROPOSED FtlLST FL00R tAE BO. FT. _ ~ U.169. Qp~yQ,~ - - ` \ ~ ~ ~~ '~ ~,. , , z ~ ~~ ~t(• ~y •f, ° ~ ~ ~ s6coNDFLOOR aBe sD.FT. 7aiALLMNG PA92 80. FT. _ ~ \ ~ ` ".~._ I' ,° ~- GARAGE 580 W.Fi. ~~ - ~ \ \ ~ ~ P\n ~/ fl f ~ I :\I61pP'y~ fH. ~~ Iry ~~~lll...t~j4'•' 8 ;,Ah ~ ) fr ~ °I ~L+3~a64 F TGTAL aALT BO.fT. MAXIMUM FLOgi AREA : 2,710 SQ Ff. HEIGNT RE WCTgN~B07.171'.IQI%IS% : 9W BO.Fi. ~ t\ ~ 4 ~ ry [ ~.PI~ }' .~ ~ fwu ~i ~ K ALLOWABLE Fl0011A11EA :0.087 60.FT, ~~ ` Y, ,p f ~e~.`~1, d ~ O,~dY~~~ m'G I l E.~ ~p ~ r IMPERVIOUS SRE COVEIVGE 00% FAA 99.aw ' P \ ~~ ~a r ~{ 'r ~ r ~ ~ r" ~ .~ ~ 1 N~ ~ zoNWD RI~lD,o9D . ~ ,~ I sR.,+_~Ti .'L~iP , ~. _ USE: ~ESIOENCNL a°°~+-, ~ VICINITY MAP 5 TABULATIONS 1 _ ,0 ,_ • a°~,~ ~ \ `i 4 °,4 e' ~ . -0.00 awtKw L ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ TwsmalECrISA6ECDHD6TORVAnomaxroExlsTOxB 9WGlESTp1YRE6WENCE. 6CCPE 0FADDRK7N INCIUDE: - "" APPUCAaLECODEs 2001 CAIi0RNM BULDNG CODE 11997I1eq _ ®,io.: i WATER NFIER ~ ~ ~ ~ '~ 1. GROIAID FLOOR RENOVAP.ON INCLUDE 92/SFOF AODITIX)N FON PRICEY ROOM,ANO XROIiE79, RESTR00M5, - . I) NEC LEdWUEIFCRW A CODE AND BEOROOAI RENOYATY710. 9001 CA ; L 99B ) I C I I 1 , ~ 9001 CALRORNM PIUArWG CODE 1199TUPC) 1997UMC 1 CAUFORNMMECHAMCALCODE 1 I I } jE)LANPSCAPEj ~ _ ~ (E)•LAM~SCAPEj~ 0 / ~ ~ B986F OFSECOND FLOORADORI017 FOR 1,2HBED R00M, RIWEWBATH ROOMS. ) 900 1 ~ 9WI CAC, i41 HANOCAPPEDACCE95 ,~. ~ (E)WNK . ~ 9001 CAC,T4/FBIERGYCCNSERYAT!ON ~ _ .~ SCOPE ®F 1NQRK ' 6 REFERENCE CODES 2 • i ' \ ~ ~ ~ $ t4PC •~ -. ~ I ~ ~ ARGHRECTURAL . ~' .j . - --- I .. O \ s '~ , -- - --_e- N 0 `~~, I \ _ A•I.1 SITE PLAN, TREE 6HEET •T•I TOPOGRAPWC VAP _. .~- _ - ~ \ 1 • _ -~.-. .. - - ~ v ~ ' ° .. \ - ~ f . .. .,, D•9.1 DEXISTINOREYATgN9µ A4.1 -~~..~~. - \ - - ~\ ~• -,at ~~ •' \ ~ SECOND FLOOR PLAN ' A31 ROOF PLM!/BECTKIN ~~r+ \ ~ . 1 FIRST FLOOR _ eE~o FF101.50 - \ as ~ Aal BuLnWOELEYATI0N9 _ (,,8255F) 1 9d ~ ~ 7 SHEET INDEX 3 .~, OARAQE _ _ sl l N FF 99.70 ~.....~ I I ~ I~ ~~ALL dMENSONSA NTC~011CDRgN WD~ICAµTEO0N T~10?~ MW~iNGSaIOMMQ~ _ (~ ~ I = - - -SECOND FLOOR j j • 1 ~ FF110 5D _ KNOWN ANV OpCAEPANCEB PRIOR TO COAW ENONO THEIR YAPoL EGDru coN9TRIwTgNCanmacT seD z. ~ ~ ,O I I I . I (8388F) ~ ' H ~ ~ ~~~L NOraP~cl~u ~~a ur ~ ~ ~ _ __ 1 j 1" ° / aE01mEDroasslsroxLF xO Rx~AGENTIN MANWO M\FAN L6E~CigL19. FOR THE _ _ ~ _- ( (E)~A6IDSCAPEI ~ ~ ~ / g e ~ ' ~ PUIPOSE OF ESnANTINO, rHE COMMCroRS SHALLUSE THE IMTEAWSSEIfCTEDBY II~OWNEP,ORWABSENCE aF SANE, HE SHALL PIIOWIE AN ALLOHANCEAMOIWTNiDlA CONDRIONANYCOSTESTIMATE. ALL MATERMLR SPECIFlEDW THE6EDMWWOSSHALLBE J ~ / •~ I I ~ I ( 1 INCLUDEOW6IICH ESTWATE 7. NO OUMLWTEEOF DUALMOF CON67FMICTNWIS IMPLIED OR INTENDED BYTHE ~ OD 1 1 / RE~SPOIISI&~IITY'uFOR ANYOR ALLCONSTRCONiNACTORASSUME FULL I I , O'er 1 1 t \ ' ~ I - - -- O VVi e/~ I I - ~ G d I I - -~•• ~ ~ 1. THE OFNERPLCONiNACT011 SHAllHOLONMMLE38,IN0EMNIFYANO DEFENDTHE DESKiNER FROIAANY ACTgN WIMTED BY THE INITILL OWNER OIIANYSUBSEOUENT DRICATKIN9011SUCNCONORgN5 WHI01 E O DOFT1Ef~SS q S I ~ , / ~ ~ . -- - \\ 1 b I \ ~ E R NAY BE BEYONO THE CONTP , 5. ALLY90RK SHALLCOMPLYWITH APPLICABLE CODES ANDTRADE STANDAAD.SWHICH GOYERHEACH PWlSE OFYgNL WCUIDWG BUTNOT UIOTED ro:UNIFOHM&%IDNO 000E - 10+ -~~ \ ~. PLUM)BWG~ EMjNPC), ANDALlAPE 1PLICABLE LOCALCOOES AND LEGLSIATMON.) NATgNAL SIDE SETBApI I (EI LANDSCAPE) --' ~ - ~ 15w' ~ e. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL AEMEWAND RECORDTHE CONORM)NS OF PLLEKI6TINO SRE ILNiOVEMENTS WCLIIDWGPAVEDMEAS HE SHALL MAKE IWOWN ALLE%ISTDIO DNAAGEO I ~~ I - \ ~ \ OR DISPEPAPED REM6 AND CONDRgNS THATLMY WURSENDUE TOTHECONSmUCTgN. ALL fIEMS INGOOD CONDRKIN SHALLBE MAMAW INTHEIR PRESENTCONORgNM° /viY I ~ \ - • ~ REPNA 011 DAMAGEWHICH OCCURS DURING CONSTTIIICRONSHALL eE THE I - ~~ \ ~ I - /~ \ ` _- -~~ - /.~ \\ . ~~___ ~ ~ RESPONSIBLRVOFTHECONTRACTgt i. CONTRACTORSHAILTHIXLWGHLY EYAMINETHE SRE PWD SATISFY HOASELF,IR aF THE CONDRIONS UNDER YMK:M THE WORN IS TO BE PERFORMED THE CONTRACTORSHML VERIFY AT THE SGE ALL MEASUREMENTS AFFECRNO ML9W011K AND 6HALLBE I ~ ~ I •~ ryM ,~~/N\~'Q~,9 ~ RESPONSIBLE FgITHECdIRECTNE550F SAME. NO E%TNACOMPENSATIONVALLBE ALLOWED TO THE CONTRACTOR FOR THE EXPENSES OUETO HLS NEGLECTTO E%AMINE 011 FNLURE TO WSCOYER CONOmON6 WHICH MAY AFFECT H6WORN. ' I ~~ ~• III B BY NONTE ATTNE TPAEVMENRIS NECESSARYFOIL THEC011PLETN)N OFTlE BER~fiEO ALL PUBUCIMPROVEMENTSSHALLBEMADEINPGCORDANCEWRHTHEUTESTAOOPIED 9 I ~ !~ . CRY STANOAPDS. THE STORNG OFOOODS ANO MATERMISON SIDEWALK ANOOR STREET 1 ~ ' W,LLL NOT BE ALLOWEDUIhFSST1ECONTMCT011 HAS APPUEO AND SECURED ASPECIAI PERMR VMICHALLOW SUCH STORAGE TO BE %ACED. SITE PLAN lre•=r-o° 8 GENERAL NOTES 4 r~~ nL .~..r~ ~ is ~~'~.= F r 1 `'~ ^ ^ ^ 6 r ^ n W r ^ i4, .. ^ ~r Y ~~ 66010wen9 Drivc, Suitc 105 pRasMlmD , C9Efomia 94588 Tel : (925) Fac: (925) 460-0861 460-0991 OWNER: MRJHO SHIN 14165 VICTOR PLACE SARATOGA,CA95010 408.441.7807 0 o 0 °' 2 A~ w VZ ~~ o. M~0. Li. otS ~ U ~~ > . ` M~M c~o QU' 0 L,L ~ Wo TQ ® ~ LL ' ^^ V! W REWSpN9 PIANNNG SUrA1RAl 11.119aM PWI'WMGSUBAOTTK 01~9aA0f GATE: I1~1320D9 PRDJECTNp 09415 ACNE: A65HOWN DMWN: HL SMFETNO A-~L1 OF 6NEE79 • • r n a~ ~? na Ow W~pE) W E ~g0 TAR PEA , VIG N aD ~ PW b 0W a ~Z m~ m 0 ~' of a m m W °' W SCALE 1 " = 8' ~ m ¢i h 0 Omi W -- ~ a m~ 0 W yI n oiU N m m N ~ QO ~3 ~Y lUK b0 00 00) ~U ~ a0 AW J 07; 00] 0070 N ~Q pmj0 O, ~ b G'iG O o~ Oia v m m V ~ m ada n; mw °iW < ~ am n ~ ~~ rnu °'W r; a° ¢ rn; ~ m 0 ~ ~ \ mw n3Y„ rnm n rn ~ ~i m m n gkg u mu vni mdp ai ~ a ~am.m. tmw. 3 ° o. ma d~ . W ,~ ') me ~n1~, mm a w Y m -gym m~\ ~ a.. ~ ~ SS W m a ~~ . \ N\ ~ °o~ OS RY 100.00 J 0 i 0~f'D (A4~liED) Z - N ~ ,7I 0 V 04 w ` LOT 6 n mm ~~. s ~ ~ ~ LOT 10 m~~~ 0 I •Z 4 n~ m0(~ m3 n d 0 .o ~N ao ~ <s a mu 6~ O N00 ,F 'O< .~ ~O 'F^~ Sa a vI 80 O O OV, C nJ N\ OW ~ ^~~ B 04 n °ow ~'W .-LL N,4,dp49 g~ °o• M ~ d O 0 ~ °oa n n OY N 00 000 g ~Z ~J 04 O Om 1 NOTES 1. CONTRACTOR SH4LL VERIFY THE LOCATION OF ALL UTILmES PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION 2. BASIS OF ELEVATION: THE RIY OF THE MIWHOLE LOCATED ON VICTOR PLACE (SHOWN) WAS ASSUNED AT ELEVATION 100.00. J. BASIS OF BEARINGS ,THE BEARING OF THE SOUTN IJNE OF WALNUT AVENUE WAS TAKEN AS N BG41'DO'W, PER TRACT N0. 270, VICTOR TRACT, AS FlLED ON FRBRUARY OF 1946, BOOK 8, PAGE 56. 4. THIS SURVEY WAS BASED UPON A TITLE REPORT BY NORTH ANERICAN TITLE CONPMIY OR No: 56016-51160945-BAW, GATED 11/30/02. M • ~®1 SMl~ C O M P A N Y CIVIL ENGINEERING IZf1 PACK A1EI/1E SW1E 208 SIN NK[ OA, WINI lEl: ~/OA) ]IF-1801 1R A01 ~7t-SOIt fA1h 101 t1T-11b E-MAA: 90'FNGNEEItH00 ~~ ~~ COP1R71T n Ilil SIP ANY ONL FNOIEf1810 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 °~ a , a ' ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~~ ~ W ~ a a" 0 Z ~ ~ ~ IA I~1 A1~ns O O N a M a Iwcusl n, 2aoz s~ ~.aB. ~~ IKE AN R 2005 ~~~ snwl T-1 • • • LEGEND EXISTING WALL TO REMAIN r~\ I =_~ ~_=EXISTING WALL AND DOORTOBEREMOVED SEE PROPOSED LAYOIR ONSHEET A-2.5. °=~== o ; , ------- \i\ i~ `~ / ~` m m m M EEO Roots lu III - W BED ROOM -------Ef --------~- =~==_ - I I ~J 11011411 L~ I II 111 II I Ij ~I I I I I I II BEDROOM PORCH ~ i~® Ll R- I I j /~' i I~ba KRCHEN II _ I II~~\ , I -, ~_ ---~--~.----~----~' I F~ ! i I I L-- __ __ 1 ~_----' l r ~ 11 ~--- I ~ ~-- _--- I -------- ~ E--3 n ---- ~___ __ ~-- ---- --- --- ---- , -- I L__ I li ---CLOSET (I I L------J I 1 I 1 I I I ~ I ~ I ,,. 11 r I ~~ ~' ,i . 1; I I ~ / I // )I I' - i 1 LIVING 'DINING ~ ~. I~ : <II 4'~.. I l~~/ I~ ~~ I ~ ''ll ~ ~.__._ ' I I \~ I' ' 11 ~_~~___~- I BATH. .f` 1111 1: \~ 1! _-- Ih- --°-•~ I 'ENTRY I _-'3~ ~I L~,~------- RB.IP~EWINppwa f 00011 ronESUCEwruEwoESCw IIH--~ (E)2-CAR GARAGE LJ ~ ~ li ~_~ BATH ~,~ ~ L 1 J / III ! III 1I WM~-- LJ m E m m m N -~---E EXISTING FIRST FLOOR: 1,414 SO. FT. EXISTING GARAGE: 560 SO. FT. ~~ EXISTING GROUND FLOOR DEMOLITION PLAN Iva'.r-o°I 1 I 1 F-~ ~~ I L-, 1 Ll 1.~ ^r: ~^E^! k :.:._il:~ : lii._..:. Iu~w~u~Pl.. ' iu' ` ~~~~', , ~R- t IR lu_..In 1 u'i :~~ ~ ~!>wT~~~gl~~~~, ~ Y Y b ~a~1en • e++~ • ~.ry.E~ 66010wena llrive, Suite 105 Plea+mmn, Califamia 94588 TEL•(925)460-0881 w Fax: (925) 460-0991 OWNER: n MR4HOSHIN 14165 VICfOR PLACE BARATOGA,CA95070 ~ 408-041.7807 4 a 5 3 Z O S O ~ ~_ ~ Z ~ ~ ~= V~ '~~ (A ~ ~ Q~ ~o ~~ OJ a ~U V~~ Z~~~- Q r ®~ Q i s ~ W L s ~w5~: ~ Ptuauuosuewna naas5ca 6 6 3pE 5 C C' GATE: ~ II.17QW2 6 %gIEtTNO; a 02515 4 SCAtE: g ASSNOWN FC onnwu: E ~L a e SNEETNp, yb 5 D-11 t~ OF SHEETS 6 • 1~ u FRONT ELEVATION (EAST) RIGHT -SIDE ELEVATION (WEST) REAR ELEVATION (WEST) ' SHOWN FOR REFERENCE ONLY. EXISTING BUILDING ELEVATIONS '!8"=''~0" 1 i N'~1'*-'~-i-E-I-' a "' ~'~.~`~I' iir! E _r r~::~~:C,~,., M F .~~ ,M~~. i^I:i r 6601 Owens Drive, Saite 105 y PleesenWn,CaEfomia945B8 Tcl : (925)460-0881 Fu: (925) 460.0991 OWNER: MINIIO SHM a 14165VICfORPLACE SARATOCA , CA 95070 e 408141.7807 a Z ' O € ^~ ~ ~ ^~ ~ o °N' 2 ®~ w UQ ~~ ~ g~ a0 ' ~ W ~~ a i ~~ UV a 1 ~ ~ 4 ~~ j..0 ~ W~ iL ® ~F- Q Q , ~ ' /~^ Y~ ~ ; W L~ 04152002 Mb1ECTN0 02275 OGIE; ASSHOWN Oaly,N: w aNEEiNO. ~~ REAR ELEVATION (WEST) • ,. • ~~ ~~ X ~AG\ ~ / 560 SD. FT. \ 1 310 SO FT. ~ 1 I 1597 SO. FTI 1 I 1l 191 O. i ~ SO. FT. ~ ~ 1379 SO. FT. .~... ,. ~cEr+o ewsmx~xwxvaosnrosweusronFSaw PROPOSED FIRST FLOOR: 1,625 SO. FT. "~'4X~°00~W"LL~""OPQDNi'~N°0D~N0~"@~PgA GARAGE: 560 SO. FT. f,35 SO. FT. 50 SO. FT. 223 SO. ~~ I 20 S0. FT. 55 SO. FT. 34 SO. FT. , ~\ /, 289 9Q~FT. /^~ 32 SO. Fi. PROPOSED SECON FLOOR: B36 SO. FT. =~ ~::r,~:C~~'.:. ~ ~-r .~- ~' F` ~ ^ 4 ~~ 6601 Oweus Drive, Suite 105 Plccautou , CaBfomin 94588 Tel : (925) 460-0881 Pu: (925) 460-0991 OWNER: MINEO SHM 14165 V]CTOR PLACE SARATOGA,CA95DT0 40841.7801 O H ~Z ~ O ~ = ® (A W U g Q~ ~~ ~~ ~Q ~~ ~ ~O ~ Wo Q Q~ ~ Q ~ ~ W nsvreurs vua+u"uwmarrk masaom vuxuixcsussma ol~aaon oae n-lssooz PR0.1ECr N0: 72@15 Bd1F: A9 SlgWN ewYM: 9XEEf W. A-21 a sHrris ' GROUND FLOOR PLAN • • XCWCYYITLL YIOOP 91ePtl M"`u ffiW. uiCt"MIN~tYTGllviP rPpu coxu auaara xioF nE vm FINISH SCHEDULE ROOF :FLAT CONCRETE ROOF TILE • "EAGLE :CHARCOAL RANGE X5699)" WALL (TYPICAL) :PAINT - "KELLY-MOORE :KEYSTONE" TRIM! COLUMN :PAINT - "KELLY•MOORE :SIERRA" WINDOW :WHITE VINYL FRAME pflaA l--r ~,, t- was..wry.~rayrr u " ii~in rr" r~ "rr u..E urr~r ~ irk 7:rr" `~r r 6601 Owena Drivc, Sure I OS - it~~ir" ~ ,S , ~~i1~ L„ Pkasanton,Califomu94S86 *`~' ~ ~ ''"' ~ "` Phone : (925) 460-0881 ©HL DESIGN, 2001 Fu: (925)460-0991 ALL RIGHTS AESERVE~ YIOp9 iPOHI n00n i FRONT ELEVATION (EAST) ~, ~i LEFT-SIDE ELEVATION (SOUTH) PIJNf FN511 PAMFHIrI REAR ELEVATION (WEST) RIGHT-SIDE ELEVATION (NORTH) • ldlFOn . IYia. i ~~i/W 66D] bwens Drive, Sutla 105 Pleasanton , Cafifomis 94588 Tel : (923) 460-0881 I Fa: (925) 460-0991 ' OWNER: MR4II0 SIDN 14165 VICTOR PLACE SARATDGA , CA 95070 ~ 406-041.7807 ~ O _ Z O ~ N ~ = ~~ W ~ Q~ Z a0 ~ °~ ~~ i o Q ~~ >U OC T ~ I Wo I 0 ~Q ~ '~ O Q P ~ i W ) oi.ssaaw s ~, ,.:~,~ ~~:~1:=~:.:f ._ (~ur°7.r._''u ''' ~~,^ o~~~ I -.~~~' ^a?.u ;~ ~ ~ . ~~, ,_ g a~r~ ~ ,t.,~ ~ vaokcrNo azsu ~ ~~ ~s sNOwn oarvat ML g sNEnxa 4 A-22 OF 9NEEr9 MINUTES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 19, 2003 The City Council of the City of Saratoga met in Closed Session, Administrative Conference Room 13777 Fruitvale Avenue at 6:00 p.m. Initiation of litigation (Gov't Code Section 54956.9(c): (2 potential cases) Conference With Labor Negotiators (Gov't Code 54957.6): Agency designated representatives: Dave Anderson, City Manager Employee organization: SEA MAYOR'S REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION - 7:00 p.m. Vice Mayor Waltonsmith reported there was Council discussion but no action was taken. Vice Mayor Waltonsmith called the Regular City Council meeting to order at 7:OS p.m.. and requested Councilmember Kathleen King, lead the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Councilmembers Kathleen King, Norman Kline, Vice Mayor Ann Waltonsmith ABSENT: Councilmember Stan Bogosian, Mayor Nick Streit 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, Public Works Director Joan Pisani, Recreation Director REPORT OF CITY CLERK ON POSTING OF AGENDA FOR FEBRUARY 19, 2003 Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk, reported that pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2, the agenda for the meeting of February 19, 2003 was properly posted on February 14, 2003. COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS & PUBLIC ORAL COMMUNICATIONS The following person requested to speak at tonight's meeting: April Halberstadt, Curator/Saratoga Historical Museum, requested that the City of Saratoga write a letter of support for a grant that the Historical Society of Saratoga has applied for through the Silicon Valley Community Foundation to hire a consultant to draft a Master Plan for the Historical Park in Saratoga. Councilmember King asked Ms. Halberstadt if she was requesting just a letter or funding. Ms. Halberstadt noted that right now she was just asking for a letter of support, eventually the City should make a contribution, but until she has a budget and knows more specifics it would not be appropriate to ask. COMMUNICATIONS FROM BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS • Norman Koepernik, Chair/Heritage Preservation Commission, stated that he was present tonight on behalf of the Heritage Preservation Commission to thank Betsy and Ike for participating iri the "Mustard Walk". Chair Koepernick presented a thank you poster to Vice Mayor Waltonsmith and noted that there were two bags of alfalfa cubes in the lobby for the donkeys. COUNCIL DIRECTION TO STAFF In regards to Ms. Halberstadt request, Councilmember King requested that it be agendized for a future meeting. Consensus of the City Council to agendize Councilmember King's request. ANNOUNCEMENTS None CEREMONIAL ITEMS None SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS None • 2 CONSENT CALENDAR lA. REVIEW OF CHECK REGISTER STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve check register. KLINE/KING MOVED TO APPROVE THE CHECK REGISTER. MOTION PASSED 3-0-0-2 WITH BOGOSIAN AND STREIT ABSENT. 1B. PLANNING ACTION MINUTES -FEBRUARY 12, 2003 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Note and file. KLINE/KING MOVED TO APPROVE THE CHECK REGISTER. MOTION PASSED 3-0-0-2 WITH BOGOSIAN AND STREIT ABSENT. 1C. FINAL MAP APPROVAL FOR THREE-LOTS LOCATED AT 15202_ QUITO ROAD OWNER: LEXOR INVESTMENTS, INC. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution and authorize Mayor to execute agreement. TITLE OF RESOLUTION: SD-00-006 RESOLUTION FO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVING THE FINAL MAP OF SD-00-00615202 QUITO ROAD Vice Mayor Waltonsmith requested that item 2C be pulled from the Consent Calendar. Vice Mayor Waltonsmith noted that she does not feel comfortable approving a final map without ever seeing the property. Richard Taylor, City Attorney, explained that state law requires that once a developer has complied with the conditions of the tentative map the City has a ministerial duty to approve the final map. KLINE/KING MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL MAP OF SD-00-006 AND AUTHORIZE THE CITY MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT. MOTION PASSED 3-0-0-2 WITH BOGOSIAN AND STREIT ABSENT. 1D. LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT LLA-1; RESOLUTIONS INITIATING RENEWAL OF THE DISTRICT FOR FY 2003-2004 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolutions. 3 TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 03-012 RESOLUTION DESCRIBING IMPROVEMENTS AND DIRECTING PREPARATION OF ENGINEER'S REPORT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2.003- 2004 CITY OF SARATOGA LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT LLA-1 KLTNE/KING MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION DIRECTING PREPARATION OF ENGINEER'S REPORT FOR LLA-1 FOR FY 2003- 2004. MOTION PASSED 3-0-0-2 WITH BOGOSIAN AND STREIT ABSENT. TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 03-013 RESOLUTION APPOINTING ATTORNEY'S FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003- 2004 CITY OF SARATOGA LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT LLA-1 MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION APPOINTING ATTORNEY'S FOR LLA-1 FOR FY 2003-2004. MOTION PASSED 3-0-0-2 WITH BOGOSIAN AND STREIT ABSENT. PUBLIC HEARINGS None OLD BUSINESS 2. SARATOGA LIBRARY PROJECT UPDATE STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept report. Lorie Tinfow, Assistant City Manager, presented staff report. Assistant City Manager Tinfow reported that the budget remains under the $14,650,000 and staff expects to grant delays as part of a change order under development now. The most realistic substantial completion date is now at the end of March. Assistant City Manager Tinfow reported that the on February 14, 2003 PG&E crews arrived at the site to begin work on the transformer and associated electrical work. In regards to PG&E, Councilmember King stated that the City contacted our Assemblywoman, which helped get PG&E to move faster. Councilmember King suggested a letter of thanks be sent to her.- • In regards to Gen-Con Inc. bankruptcy, Assistant City Manager Tinfow stated that no new information is available. 4 Assistant City Manager Tinfow explained that the Library Grand Opening ` Planning Committee is making significant progress. In seeking to maximize our budget, the Committee has requested direction on acknowledging contributors or sponsors. Specifically, the Committee would like to note sponsors on the program in some fashion such as "Special thanks to..." or some other tasteful way to acknowledge their participation. Councilmember King noted that she supports mentioning contributors to the Library's Grand Opening Celebration on the program or even on banners. Consensus of the City Council to direct Staff to list sponsors in the program and/or on a banner. 3. MCWILLIAMS HOUSE STATUS REPORT STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept report; direct staff accordingly; adopt resolution. TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 03-011 RESOLUTION FO THE CITY COUNCIL AUTHORIZING FUNDS TO MAKE EXTERIOR IMPROVEMENTS TO THE MCWILLIAMS HOUSE AND GROUNDS Director Pisani explained that after 25 year the Chamber of Commerce finally moved out of the McWilliams House. Director Pisani noted that the building is empty and needs some attention. City staff has and will be able to complete some of the needed improvements, and others will need to be contracted out. Staff is currently recommending only exterior building and grounds improvements. Director Pisani explained that staff has completed the following improvements already: • Removed the dilapidated fence in front of the building • Removed the rotten gazebo • Removed the termite infested storage shed In regards to worked that requires a contractor, Director Pisani explained as follows: • Construct new front and back porches and steps • Paint entire exterior of the building • Replacement of siding on the house where the shed was removed • Install a drainage system around the house Director Pisani explained that staff is requesting $10,000 for needed repairs on the McWilliams house. Vice Mayor Waltonsmith stated that she thinks the replacement siding would have to be milled because the siding is not standard size. Director Pisani noted that she received a bid of $3,300 to replace the siding. Councilmember King asked why the termite problem was not being addressed. Director Pisani responded that Councilmember Kline stated that the contract that repairs the house should specialize in historic houses. Councilmember Kline asked where the funding was coming from City Manager Anderson stated that the $10,000 would come from the Council's contingency budget. City Manager Anderson asked if Council would like staff to do all the repairs right the first time and bring back adjusted estimates. Councilmember Kline stated that he would rather just weather proof the house now and have staff bring it back as a CIP project. In regards to the porch, Councilmember Kline suggested that it be tapped off in order for the City to avoid possible liability. MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING $1,500 FOR MATERIAL AND EQUIPMENT RENTAL FOR INSTALLATION OF DRAIN. MOTION PASSED 3-0-0-2 WITH BOGOSIAN AND STREIT ABSENT. • 4. CONTRACT AMENDMENT G. BORTOLOTTO - EL QUITO NTMP IMPROVEMENTS STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Authorize City Manager to execute contract. John Cherbone, Public Works Director, presented staff report. Director Cherbone explained that on December 4, 2002, the City Council approved traffic-calming plan for an identified -area within the El Quito neighborhood. This plan was the first traffic-calming plan approved under the newly created Neighborhood Traffic Management Program (NTMP). Director Cherbone noted that the currenYEl Quito NTMP plan includes 13 speed humps, 6 raised medians, and 10 traffic control signs at various locations. Director Cherbone noted that McFarland was added to the El Quito traffic-calming plan via the NTMP process at the December 4 City Council meeting. This addition increased the number of traffic calming devices and raised the cost of the traffic calming improvements above the $50,000 maximum amount authorized by the City Council for this project. • 6, Director Cherbone explained that tonight Council has four options of implementation of the El Quito NTMP: • Option 1 • 0 13 speed humps 0 3 Medians with cobbles 0 3 Chatter bars medians o lOsi~s $58,650 • Option 2 0 13 speed humps 0 6 medians with cobbles 0 10 si ng_s $66,000 • Option 3 0 13 speed humps 0 6 median with no cobbles 0 10 signs $60,000 • Option 4 0 13 speed humps 0 6 Chatter bar medians o lOsi s $51,300 Director Cherbone noted that the first plan requested by McFarland residents included medians in the locations now shown as having chatter bar. To reduce the total cost, residents agreed to replace the medians with chatter bars. Director Cherbone noted that the Public Safety Commission recommends installation of medians with cobbles, reducing the number of speed humps on McFarland from 4 to 3, and removing the chatter bars. Staff recommends installation of the plan shown in Option 1, and leaves aesthetics choices to be made by the Council. Michael Bustamonte, McFarland Avenue, stated that he supports the 4 speed humps with chatter bars on his street. Mr. Bustamonte stated that he went door to door to obtain 42 out of 50 residents approval of this plan. Mr. Bustamonte stated that McFarland is the longest street in El Quito. Director Cherbone noted that staff does not recommend the use of chatter bars due to maintenance needs and other issues over time. Elizabeth Lora, 18872 Lora Avenue, stated that she supported Option 1. Ms. Lora stated that she has been involved with this NTMP since June and stated that she feels McFarland Avenue should not have been added to the plan so late in the process. Ms. Lora stated that Council should not go over the approved amount of $50,000 for this NTMP. 7 Mr. Bustamonte stated that his neighbors agreed to go with chatter bars in order to cut costs. Councilmember Kline stated that he supported Option 2, noting that all of the medians should have cobbles. Vice mayor Waltonsmith and Councilmember King concurred with Councilmember Kline. KLINE/KING MOVED TO SUPPORT OPTION 2 AND AUTHORIZE THE FUNDING OF $66,000. MOTION PASSED 3-0-0-2 WITH BOGOSIAN AND STREIT ABSENT. Councilmember King publicly thanked Assistant City, Manager Tinfow for all of her work on the El Quito NTMP. NEW BUSINESS 5. BOOK GO ROUND BUILDING MOLD REMEDIATION. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept report; adopt resolution; authorize staff to award contracts. TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 03-010 RESOLUTION FO THE CITY COUNCIL AUTHORIZING A BUDGET AMENDMENT OF $10,000 FOR MOLD REMEDIATION AT THE BOOK- GO-ROUND BUILDING Joan Pisani, Recreation Director, presented. staff report. Director Pisani explained that a few weeks again staff received a call from Mary Jean Fenn, Manager of the Book-Go-Round, informing us of a mold problem in their storage area. Director Pisani noted that Ms. Fenn stated that they have cleaned the wall a few times but the mold kept returning. By the time staff inspected the wall the mold covered the entire wall and part of the ceiling. Staff called out a professional service that sealed off the area, brought in the proper drying equipment and installed a vent to the outside. Director Pisani stated that the affected area was sealed off and a baseline mold investigation and sampling took place. Recently the mold sampling results were given to the City and the findings were that the spore levels were not elevated on the interior as compared to the exterior. Other findings indicated that professional remediation was required to properly and fully take care of the pathogenic threat. Director Pisani noted that to date the City has spent $3,000 to dry and close off the affected area and to have the mold samplings analyzed. The bid to complete the removal of the wall and part of the ceiling by a certified company is $6,900. Director Pisani noted that until the wall is removed the extent of the damage would not be known. 8 Councilmember King asked if the Book-Go-Round pays rent. Director Pisani noted that the rent is $1 per year. Director Pisani noted that they have always been good tenants. Councilmember Kline asked what t e of relationshi does the Book-Go-Round yp p have with the County Library and where does the money they raise go. Director Pisani noted that the Book-Go-Round is part of the Friends of the Saratoga Library and the money goes back into the Saratoga Library. Councilmember Kline requested a report in regards to the relationship between the Book-Go-Round and the County Library. KL1NE/KING MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A BUDGET AMENDMENT OF $10,000 FOR MOLD REMEDIATION AT THE BOOK-GO-ROUND BUILDING. MOTION PASSED 3-0-0-2 WITH BOGOSIAN AND STREIT ABSENT. 6. BUDGET MONITORING REPORT FOR THE 2ND QUARTER ENDING DECEMBER 2002 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept report and adopt resolutions. TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 03-006 RESOLUTION FO THE CITY COUNCIL AMENDING THE CITY'S OPERATIONS TO INCLUDE A HOLIDAY FURLOUGH TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 03-007 RESOLUTION FO THE CITY COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING AN ANNUAL HIRING FREEZE ON VACATED CITY POSITIONS TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 03-008 RESOLUTION FO THE CITY COUNCIL AMENDING THE CITY'S CLASSIFICATION PLAN TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 03-009 RESOLUTION FO THE CITY COUNCIL MAKING APPROPRIATION ADJUSTMENTS TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2002-03 BUDGET Jesse Baloca, Administrative Services Director, presented staff report. Director Baloca explained the mid-year 2002-2003 budget adjustments as follows: Operating Revenues Director Baloca noted that the City has received one-time revenues from the 9 Vessing Road assessments and anticipates January receipts fro the Oddfellow's projects. As staff continues to monitor current revenue streams it appears that the City's three major revenue sources (property tax, sales tax, and motor vehicle fees), which comprise 66.2% of the General Funds budget, are inline with state budget projections. Operating Expenditures Director Baloca stated that expenditures remain as budgeted, with the expectation of the General Fund where proposal to increase operation transfers is recommended to support: 1) the segregation of Street Fund CIP projects from operations 2) to compete the change over in administration of the low-income housing loan program back to the County, and 3) to segregate KSAR's advertising fund into a separate trust account. An additional payroll amendment is also requested to assist with unanticipated issues such as workers compensation insurance, increase in medical insurance, Public Works overtime due to winter storm work and the payout of excess accrued annual leave. Budget Impact Adiustments Director Baloca stated that in early January 2003, the Governor proposed immediate reduction to the City's General Fund Revenues in the amount of $590,000 affecting the current: fiscal year. As this action reduces expected revenues budgeted for operation, staff has developed the following methods for reducing this negative impact: • Expenditure Reductions - $169,000 o Hiring freeze o Consolidation of positions in Manger's office o Work furlough • Utilizing the Undesignated Fund Balance - $109,000 • Savings from CIP - $325,000 KL1NE/KING MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION MAHING APPROPRIATION ADJUSTMENTS TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2002-03 BUDGET. MOTION PASSED 3-0-0-2 WITH BOGOSIAN AND STREIT ABSENT. . KLINE/KING MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION IMPLEMENTING AN ANNUAL HIRING FREEZE ON VACATED CITY POSITIONS. MOTION PASSED 3-0-0-2 WITH BOGOSIAN AND STREIT ABSENT. KLINE/KING MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION AMENDING THE CITY'S CLASSIFICATION PLAN. MOTION PASSED 3-0-0-2 WITH BOGOSIAN AND STREIT ABSENT. KLINE/KING MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION AMENDING THE CITY'S OPERATIONS TO INCLUDE A HOLIDAY FURLOUGH. MOTION PASSED 3-0-0-2 WITH BOGOSIAN AND STREIT ABSENT. 10 • COMMISSION ASSIGNMENT REPORTS Councilmember Kline stated that currently the Gateway Task force being is reformed. The Task Force will meet for the first within the next couple of weeks to start looking into design guidelines for the Gateway area of the City. Council King noted that next week Muko, Japan will be visiting the City of Saratoga. They dignitaries will be given a tour of City hall and various other events have been planned. In regards to the Public Safety Commission has been working on the Blue Hills traffic plan. Vice Mayor Waltonsmith noted that the Parks and Recreation Commission were pleased to have finished the City's fee review and recently submitted it to Council. In regards to the Library Grand Opening Celebration, the Committee is meeting every two weeks. CITY COUNCIL ITEMS None OTHER None CITY MANAGER'S REPORT City Manager Anderson stated that he recently finalized the Town Hall meeting with Assembly member Rebecca Cohn. It will be held on March 13, 2003 at 6:00 p.m. in the Adult Day Care Center. ADJOURNMENT Vice Mayor Waltonsmith stated that the City Council would reconvene to Closed Session in the Administration Conference Room.. There be no further business Vice Mayor Waltonsmith adjourned the meeting at 9:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Cathleen Boyer, CMC City Clerk 11 •i • ~I~ . MINUTES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL RETREAT FEBRUARY 1, 2003. . Mayor Streit called the Council retreat order at 8:15 a.m. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Councilmembers Stan Bogosian, Kathleen King, Norman Kline, Vice Mayor Ann Waltonsmith, Mayor Nick Streit ABSENT: None ALSO PRESENT: Dave Anderson, City Manager Lorie Tinfow, Assistant City Manager Richard Taylor, City Attorney Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk Tom Sullivan, Community Development Director Jesse Baloca, Administrative Services Director John Cherbone, Director of Public Works Cary Bloomquist, Administrative Analyst Danielle Surdin, Economic Development Coordinator REPORT OF CITY CLERK ON POSTING OF AGENDA FOR NOVEMBER 6, 2002 Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk, reported that pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2, the agenda for the meeting of February 1, 2003 was properly posted on January 27, 2003. 1. COMMISSION LIAISON DISCUSSION • Council liaison tend to support special interests • Process should be cleaner • Forms of communication available for use by the Chair of the Commission: o Mayor o Department heads o City Manger o Regular reports at City Council meetings o Section on Council agenda for Commission communications • Commissioners like having Councilmembers as liaisons • No written policy/liaison duties need to be clearly defined • Develop staff skills to keep chairs/commissioners on track • Send Chairs to workshop • Any problems work way through chain of command • Council liaison should keep Council informed 2 3 COUNCIL DIRECTION • Richard Taylor and Cathleen Boyer research what other cities do in regards to Council liaisons to commissions and obtain policies. • Staff to prepare draft guidelines for Council review. • These guidelines should be part of the City Council Polices and Procedures. COUNCIL INVOLVEMENT IN HIRING PROCESS • Direct input from Council in hiring City Manger and City. Attorney • Take Councilmembers and Commissioners out of process for all other .positions in the City • Council involvement in hiring Directors not any positions below director level • Use other cities and City staff • Hiring should be left to the Directors and City Manger COUNCIL DIRECTION • Council will not participate in the hiring process for any positions except City Manager and City Attorney and for Directors when invited to participate by the City Manager • Commissioners will only be involved if the City is hiring a Commission liaison or when invited by the Director responsible for filling the position. • This decision should be reflected in Council Guidelines. SARATOGA COMMUNITY FOUNDATION • Los Gatos Community Foundation completely separate from the Town • LG Community Foundation is used as an umbrella for many nonprofit groups to filter money and to establish their own 501 c status • Example of projects and fundraising efforts: o Garden Party/Silent Auction o Sale of bricks for bandstand at Oak Meadow Park o Gato Award $1,000 • Board made up doers and people with influence • Board members not necessarily have to be wealthy • Donations can be designated for certain projects • Current Structure of Saratoga Foundation o Membership foundation o -Two Councilmembers on Board o Initial City funding o City relinquish ties after two years o Comply with Brown Act & Conflict of Interest COUNCIL DIRECTION • City should strongly support a Foundation that is independent from the City of Saratoga. City should provide staff support to help establish the Foundation. Clearly separate fundraising from the City of Saratoga 2 • Staff should develop a proposed outreach program for City Council review to invite broad participation in creating a Saratoga Community Foundation and to establish how much staff time should be involved in that process. 4. SARATOGA SCHOOLS COMMISSION • 7 public school district, 13 private schools • 50% of Saratoga students attend school within Saratoga Union School District & Los Gatos-Saratoga Joint Union High School District • Other 50% spread throughout other 5 districts • Hard to communicate with other 50% in the 5 remaining districts • Establish form of communication in order to share lessons learned and discuss safety issues • Dislike creating another commission • If schools are interested they could come forward and ask the City to participate in discussions • Create an Adhoc committee • Could become political • Get schools to work together/not against one another COUNCIL DIRECTION • Bring back report on issues and feasibility. 5. CITY COUNCIL -EFFICIENCY • Section 2.10 of the Saratoga Municipal Code poorly written o Use of speaker cards questioned o Reading of full consent calendar not necessary o Stating time of opening and closing public hearings not necessary • If something is not in the Code the Council should not be doing it • Commission/Liaison assignments -delay assignments until proper research has been done • Why does it take two people to place an item on the agenda? • City Code Section 2.10 needs to be reviewed and clarified • Suggested committee to form council guidelines and procedures • Adhoc committees should' be done in open session/Should they be formalized? ' • Closed Sessions are too long COUNCIL DIRECTION • Form an ad hoc committee to write Council guidelines and procedures and revise section 2.10 of the Municipal Code • Staff to obtain sample policeslprocedures and ordinances for Council procedures from other cities. • City Attorney to use judgment in preparing background memos and other written materials for closed session items • • Consolidation of Joint Meetings • Speaker timer lights 3 6. LAFCO SERVICES REVIEW • RFP due on 2/19/03 • Review of Fire Protection Services in Santa Clara County • Special interest in Saratoga Fire Protection District (SFPD) • Final report completed by the end of 2003 • Also looking at sphere of influence • .Does the City have an opportunity to provide input before the consultant starts? o Request copies of RFP o Review RFP o Inform LAFCO Board members who the City recommends o Lobby the people who are doing the interviews • What if SFPD dissolves? o County Fire would have to be expanded and remove SFPD completely o SFPD takes over the entire City and remove County Fire completely • No matter what the outcome of LAFCO's review the City could/should have an advisory vote of the people COUNCIL DIRECTION • Staff to report to Council on responses to RFP due 2/19/03 • Staff to monitor service area review process 7. LEGISLATIVE UPDATE/BUDGET IMPACT ~ $6.9 million Fund Balance at the start of the year • $1 million in net operations • $3.5 million purchase of North Campus • After mid-year adjustments $4.2 million Fund Balance • Recent Governor's proposed cuts o Vehicle License Fees (VL'F) o Gas tax o Booking fees • Methods for resolving budget impacts: o Expenditure Reductions $149,000 ^ Human resource Tech freeze position ^ Consolidation of City Managers Office/Combine Analyst and. Economic Development Coordinator's Position ^ Additional cuts such as training, recruitments, contact services, equipment, energy conservation o Utilizing the Undesignated Fund balance $129,000 o Other Sources $312,000 or 4 ^ $312,000 from CIl' or ^ $312,000 Economic Uncertainty Reserve or ^ $126,000 reduced Pavement Management Program (PMP) or ^ $312,000 additional reduction (unspecified) • $710,000 set aside last year for animal shelter, which may not be built • Possible personnel cuts next year COUNCIL DIRECTION • Reduce scope of work for 4th Street bridge & de-fund Warner Hutton House from CIP - to free up $325,000 • Consolidate position in City Manger's office • Bring back on 2/19 City Council meeting. • Implement hiring freeze 8. RELATIONSHIP BUILDING WITH STATE AND COUNTY ELECTED. OFFICIALS • Rebecca Cohn wants to get involved with the City~lceep her informed of City events, meetings, problems, issues • SBC/Chamber of Commerce Town hall meeting • Breakfast meeting with Liz Kniss COUNCIL DIRECTION • Keep elected officials informed of upcoming City events • Schedule regular breakfast meetings with Supervisor Kniss and with other elected officials • Support the Town Hall meeting proposed by SBC and the Chamber of Commerce 9. GENERAL PLAN UPDATES-TIMETABLE/RESOURCES • Change in some requirements • Community Development Department working on update (General Fund charged) • Housing Element Implementation o To date the City has accommodated the mandated regional fair share with the exception of 45 new Second Dwelling Units and the 42 units to be gained for Mixed Use Projects o Proposed Second Unit Ordinance is on the February 5th City Council agenda (Once adopted advertise program) o Staff has drafted the Mixed Use Ordinance and bring it to Planning Commission and Council after the Gateway Design Guidelines are complete • In house (technical data collection) update ex noise/safety • Conservation, Open Space, Park and Trail Master Plan -.Updated by Fall 2003 • Open Space - Staff:and Planning Commission subcommittee 5 • Trails part of Parks Element 10. 11.. • Measure A to be incorporated into. Land use Element COUNCIL DIRECTION • Staff to proceed with General Plan updates in the manner proposed in the staff report. • Article in Saratogan regarding City's new 2nd Unit Amnesty Program CITY CODE UPDATES - TIMETABLE/RESOURCES • Ordinances that needed to be addressed are brought forward first • Look at height limitations, fencing requirements at construction sites (front yard landscaping -consensus/not interested) • Remove Building Site Approval out of the Subdivision Ordinance. • Subdivision Ordinance -amend noticing requirements • Use GIS system to include maps in legal ad in newspaper for Planning Commission hearings • Code continually updated • 3 year cycle/4 chapters per year • An Article by article review is recommended over a comprehensive review • City Attorney work with departments • Develop Council polices and procedures -rescind all existing policies COUNCIL DIRECTION • ceed with zonin ordinance u dates in the manner ro osed in Staff to pro g p p p the staff report. CITY ANNEXATION POLICY ~ City's General Plan Land Use Policies concerning annexations o Lands shall not be annexed to Saratoga unless they are contiguous to the existing City limits and it is determined by the City that public services can be provided without unrecoverable cost to the City and dilution of services to existing residents o Annexation proposals shall be carefully studied to determine their economic. and urban service impacts on the City • All Santa Clara County discretionary applications require a review of annexation if the property is either directly adjacent to City of Saratoga boundaries or within 300 feet from the boundary along a public road. • The City generally does not recommend annexing- small single-family residential projects into the City • Questionable area of the City o Mr. Eden Road o Prospect Road • According to LAFCO if a City annexes a property it should also annex the . roadway accessing the property. 6 • Advantage of annexing a property into the City o City can control the design and the proposed project o City receives a portion of property tax from the annexed properties COUNCIL DIRECTION • Staff to analyze costs and benefits of annexation in different areas of the City and present recommended annexation policy to City Council.. • General Plan Policy • Develop Map of properties that would not be a service drain on City • Be aggressive 12. UP RAILROAD TRAIL • City of Saratoga only city actively pursing trail • Town of Los Gatos included trail in their Trails Master Plan • July 2002 -Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) authorized Tier 1 Bicycle Expenditure Program Funding for the proposed Union Pacific Railroad Trail segment identified as reach 3 in October 2001 by Alta Transportation Consulting • Fall -VTA board approved Saratoga's Tier 1 project • VTA's budget is presently "In Flux" for all of the proposed projects on the Tier 1 funding list • Each projects implementation timeline will dictate where on the funding queue the project will land (those projects scheduled for completion at earlier dated will get priority funding) • If implementation is put off to long, Saratoga could loose this funding • Cupertino has stated that this project is not an active project and will remain inactive indefinitely • City of Saratoga has an advantage in trail development due to the possible utilization of the PG&E easement for placement of the trail, thereby bypassing the need to interact with the railroad • Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC) is waiting for Council direction on how to proceed • Several residents want the trail to proceed/several oppose trail • Anonymous donor of $400,000 to the City for the development of the trail COUNCIL DIRECTION • Staff to prepare proposal for retaining a neutral facilitator to manage an impartial public information and outreach program including meetings among all groups having expressed interest or concern with the proposed trail. 13. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT POLICIES. • Council directed focus on relationship building with the merchant community, facilitation downtown revitalization; building consensus for the gateway improvement project and coordinating special events • Economic development efforts are now focused on new business attraction 7 • Three types of economic development o Attraction o Promotion o Retention • Saratoga business attraction constraints are limited development opportunity (almost built out 1 % commercially zoned) • Limited funds - no specific incentive packages • Saratoga Business Attraction accomplishments o Development of a n available lease space brochure o Facilitated City "Meet & Greets" o. Networked quarterly with local commercial brokers. Local property owners and landlords o Targeted Business Attraction • Saratoga Business Promotion limited funds to accomplish varu=ious programs • Saratoga Business Promotion accomplishments o Provide Co-op ad opportunities o Special events • Saratoga Business Retention can be fairly inexpensive when focus is on relationship building and disseminating information • Saratoga Business Retention accomplishments o Business outreach program o Commercial beautification project o Business resource directory • COUNCIL DIRECTION • Finish updating the City's website • Work to improve the Village-seek control of sidewalks from Caltrans and develop beautification plan • Economic development work should concentrate on business promotion and retention Downtown/Historic handout (possible paid advertising around border) Need more family style restaurants 14. RESOLUTION OF NEIGHBOR VERSUS NEIGHBOR ISSUES • Breck/Cutler to date $49,400 in legal fees • 25 times Sheriff responded to site • 325 hours of Code Compliance -1/3 of entire case load • Director Sullivan to date has received 350 emails and has spent about 1000 hours • Brad Lind; Building Official - 250 hours Barrie Coated/Arborist services - $2,600,from City funds COUNCIL DIRECTION • Staff will develop Code Enforcement Mission Statement • Council policies and procedures will include policy that Council is not to intervene in Code Enforcement process • ,Staff should identify potential neighbor to neighbor disputes that threaten to consume misappropriated city resources and bring to Council's attention 8 ~~ 15. NORTH CAMPUS • Background o July 2002 -City purchased the Grace United Methodist Church located on Prospect Road with the intention of relocating Senior Center programs to this new location o August 2002 -after it was decided not to relocate the Seniors, staff was directed to complete minor improvements to the Administration Building to allow for public use of the facility o September 2002 -Completed ADA and building code compliant improvements in the Administration Building and begun renting space fo groups o Sheriff's Department moved in on of the offices o Expenses appropriated for building and grounds improvements and maintenance to date is $95,781 • Next Phase of improvements would cost approximately $68,100 not including the restrooms and ADA improvements • Rentals to date have totaled $5,900 • Preschool approached the City to lease the classrooms for ten years. Does the City want to parcel out the property? • Sell it? Keep it? • Warren Hyde estimates for ADA improvements to the bathrooms would be $80,000 • Keep property maintained • Do not want to keep property too long without function/plan COUNCIL DIRECTION • Do not sell property at this time • Invest in the property to the extent needed to allow basic uses of existing buildings • Continually reevaluate property and it's potential uses in light of City needs • Possibly consider year to year leases • Review at end of one year ADJOURNMENT There being no further business Mayor Streit adjourned the meeting at 5:00 p.m. and thanked everyone for attending the retreat. Respectfully submitted, Cathleen Boyer, CMC City Clerk 9 Y ~~ "*~1~ • • 10 ~: TECHNICAL GUIDELINES P1.2 Class II 0 Discussion Stanford Shopping Center has successfully used chain-link individual lockers. These may be of benefit in other situations and their use should be discussed. with the local Bicycle Advisory Committee. A bicycle rack to which the frame .and at least one wheel can be P1.3 Class III A bicycle rack designed such that only one.. wheel and not the frame can be locked to the rack. While still. used in some situations like school yards, they are not secure. They are never recommended except in guarded areas or locked rooms where they are used in Class I situations. P2.0 LOCATION To be effective, bicycle racks and lockers must be placed such CRITERIA AND that: (1) security is maximized, (2) pedestrian circulation is not... DIMENSIONS adversely impacted and (3) they can be used to their maximum design capacity. Guidelines for selecting and designing the optimum site for bicycle racks and lockers, are presented below. Placement dimensions and guidelines for bicycle racks in specific locations are presented in Figures P-2 through P-5. Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority VTA Countywide Bicycle Plan September 1999 ~~~~q9 Page 44 T ical Bike Rack Details P-~: ,~ Yh Technical Gxidel~nu for the Bicycle Ekmcst Santa Clara Vallry Tsanrportation.4rcthonty WAVE RACK 4 + • PROFILE VIEW SIDE VIEW WAVE VARIATION RACK I t10R5E-RAIL RACK SIDE VIEW SIDE VIEW INVERTED-U RACK 2~ 0" Brick Pavers PROFILE VIEW • ~°~`__~ ~~ . SIDE VIEW Not To scale Related Po6aes: P I.2 • Racks shall be made of 2` diameter Schedule 40 pipe, stamiess steel or brass. Suitable f~rnshes include polyester, powder-coat pant, PVC packet, and thermoplastic. e Square tubing i5 also permitted • "Opttimum": The best or most favorable condition from the perspective responsible management. • Reference Also: ti~ghway Design Manual, Chapter 1000 Bikeway Planning and Design and the Traffic Manual. Discua~on Draft (subJect to cha~~l~,~ PROFILE VIEW ~ ,a ~" J PROFILE VIEW • i• i~ Attachment N ~~©:~D1 INITIAL STUDY CITY OF SARATOGA 1. Project Title: Application No. DR-O1-035 (Design Review), ED-O1-002 (Environmental Determination), & UP-O1-013 (Use Permit) 2. Project Location: 13601 Saratoga Avenue, Saratoga, California 3. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Saratoga, Planning Department, 137.77 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070 4. Contact Person & Phone Number: Christine Oosterhous AICP, Associate Planner (408) 868-1286 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: St. Andrew's Parish and School 13601 Saratoga Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 6. General Plan Designation: Quasi Public Facility (QPF) 7. Zoning: Residential (R-1 20,000) 8. Description of Project: Proposed improvements to the site are as follows: demolish the existing school buildings, re-grade and reconfigure the front parking lot, enhance drop-off and pick-up queuing capability, construct a total of six new structures including classrooms, clergy offices, bell tower, administration offices, performing arts/gymnasium and a parish center 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Surrounding land uses include single-family residences. The Saratoga City Library is located across the street from the project site. The City of Saratoga Heritage Lane commences at the project site: A residence listed on the City's Historic Resources Inventory is located to the South of the project site. 10. Other agencies whose approval is required: Santa Clara Valley Water District • 1 Initial Study 13601 Saratoga Avenue City of Saratoga, CA O©:,L02 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 EIIZ 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. • c _ ~ ~-~--~~f Christine Oosterhous AICP, Associate Planner Date 2 Initial Study 13601 Saratoga Avenue City of Saratoga, CA ®0.~~-3 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 classroom and clergy buildings which are three-story structures with heights ranging up to 44 feet may interfere with views in the vicinity of the project. Mitigation: The administration/classroom and clergy buildings shall not exceed 30 feet in height at any point as viewed from Saratoga Avenue. To reduce the overall mass, bulk and height of the buildings all classroom ceiling heights shall be reduced to 8 ft in height.' 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 has reviewed the proposed project. The Arborist report dated October 22, 2002 states "...most of the features presented by the proposed plans, including the locations of the buildings appear, to present no major conflict with the trees that are recommended to be preserved... ". The Arborist suggests minor modifications to the project. An addendum to that report dated October 24, 2002 discusses further the project impacts, conditions, and recommendations. Mitigation: All conditions, modifications, and recommendations of the arborist reports 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 proposed project requires design review approval. The findings for approval include mass, bulk, view and privacy. (1) The 54 ft bell tower located off Saratoga_Avenue will be imposing and massive as viewed from the public right of way. (2) The orientation, proximity to the property line, height, and number of stories of the . north classroom building, will unreasonably interfere with the privacy of the property owner at 19541 Tweed Court.. (3) The admin/classroom and clergy buildings may interfere with views in the vicinity of the .project. Mitigation: The following revisions are required in order to support the design review findings: (1) The bell tower shall be reduced in height, revisions shall be reviewed and approved by the planning commission; (2) Clerestory windows shall be installed in the second story of the north classroom building; -and (3) The administration/classroom and 3 Initial Study 13601 Saratoga Avenue City of Saratoga, CA '~~©~©~ . clergy buildings shall not exceed 30 feet in height at any point as viewed from Saratoga Avenue (front of buildings). (4) To reduce the overall mass, bulk and height of the buildings all classroom ceiling heights shall be reduced to 8 ft in height. 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: All lighting shall be down cast "cutt-off' type which will not cast glare on adjoining properties. 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, S 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? X No impact. 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 imp act. 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 4 Initial Study 13601 Saratoga Avenue City of Saratoga, CA ~~~~5 the proposed project, Traffic Study, Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc., Bay Area Air Quality Management District). 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). entrations? X D) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant conc 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 5 Initial Study 13601 Saratoga Avenue City of Saratoga, CA,~ ~~4.~®~ No Imp act. 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 has reviewed 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? No impact.. Discussion: Refer to 3 a & c. X • Initial Study 13601 Saratoga Avenue City of Saratoga,, C~ ry ~y ~ 0.3 ®_ 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 Initial Study 13601 Saratoga Avenue City of Saratoga, CA ~0~3®8 • Potentially Less than Less than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Impact With Impact Mitigation 5. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: A) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: (i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? X Less than significant with mitigation incorporated:. Discussion: Discussion:-The project site is located approximately 300 feet from the Shannon Fault. The Shannon fault is one of two "potentially" active faults within the city limits. A potentially active fault is one that has moved within the last 2 ,million to 11,000 years and is judged to be capable of.ground rupture or shaking, posing an unacceptable risk to a proposed structure. The Shannon Fault is considered "potentially" active because there is no reliable evidence of recent displacement along the Fault. In compliance with State legislation (Alquist-Priolo Geologic Hazards Zones Act) the California Division of Mines and Geology has, established Special Studies Zones along faults considered to be active or potentially active. When development for human. occupancy is proposed within these zones, special studies relating to seismic hazards are required and must be submitted to the. City Geologist for review: At the present time, the San Andreas Fault is the only area within the City and its Sphere of Influence that the State has designated as a Special Studies Zone. The project site is not located in the San San Andres Fault Zone (I). The project site is located in the Valley Floor Zone (V). Zone V can support urban residential development. Geological investigation is not necessary, but soils analysis should be required. Mitigation measure required: A soils investigation shall be performed (Source: City of Saratoga General Plan Seismic Hazards, Key for Map 1). (ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? X Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Discussion: Ground shaking intensity in the Valley Floor Zone, (V) ranges from six-eight on the Mercalli Scale. Range six on the Mercalli Scale is defined as being felt by all, some heavy furniture moved; a few instances of fallen plaster and damaged chimneys. Damage slight. Range eight on the Mercalli Scale is defined as damage slight in specially designed structures; fall of chimneys, factory stacks, columns, monuments; heavy furniture overturn. Refer to 6a(i). Mitigation measure required: A soils investigation shall be performed (Source: City of Saratoga General Plan Seismic Hazards, Key for Map 1; Mercalli Scale). $ Initial study 13601 Saratoga Avenue City ofSaratoga, ~~0~®J 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). () Initial Study 13601 Saratoga Avenue City ojSaratoga, CA ~~0~~~ Potentially Less than Less than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Impact With Impact Mitigation 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 the same and can be assisted by existing City-wide emergency response and evacuation plans (Source: City of Saratoga General Plan, Safety Element). F) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? X No impact. Discussion: The proposed project is located in a developed portion of the City's valley floor. There are no wild lands located within or adjacent to the project site (Source: Review of the proposed project). 10 Initial Study 13601 Saratoga Avenue City ojSaratoga, CA ~~®n~l 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: All storm water runoff shall be retained on site. A grading and drainage permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer. Mitigation: All conditions of the grading and drainage permit shall be met. A storm water retention plan indicating how all storm water will be retained on site shall be submitted and reviewed by staff. All conditions of the Santa Clara Valley Water District 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 pl X ed uses for which permits have been granted)? No impact. Discussion: The land use at the site remains the same. The proposed project can be accommodated within existing levels of service (Source: San Jose Water Company). C) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? X Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Discussion: Refer to section 7a. D) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? X Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Refer to section 7a. E) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? X Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Refer. to section 7a: I 1 Initial study 13601 Saratoga Avenue cityojsaratoga, C~~®~~2 F) Otherwise substantially degrade water? X Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Refer to section 7a. Potentially Less than Less than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated G) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary. or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? X No imp act. 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). 17 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: See Initial Study sections 1c.Aethetics and 9a Noise. i 12 Initial Study 13601 Saratoga Avenue City of Saratoga, CA ~~~~~ ~] Potentially Less than. Less than No Impact Significant Significant Significant . Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated C) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? X Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. The project site is not within an area that is subject to a habitat or natural community conservation plan. Refer to the discussions of biological resources contained in Section 3 of this Initial Study (Source: City of Saratoga General Plan, Conservation Element). 8. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: A) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? X No impact. Discussion: Mineral resources within Saratoga and surrounding areas include sandstone and shale. There are no mines or quarries known to be operating in Saratoga or its sphere of influence (Source: General Plan, Conservation Element). • B) Result in the loss of availability 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: A noise study has been prepared for the project site. Mitigation: The noise assessment study prescribes several mitigations to keep the noise on the site . from exceeding the noise standards for residential uses (Source: Noise Assessment Study dated October 21, 2002). 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 rnitiat study 1360! Saratoga Avenue City ojSaratoga, CAS ~~4~.~4 • 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 similaz 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 similaz 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 Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. 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)? Discussion: The proposed project maybe growth inducing. An increase in capacity on site may result in negative impacts to the community. Existing student enrollment is approximately 439. A one percent increase in student enrollment is permitted without planning commission approval or additional studies. Mitigation: Planning Commission approval shall be required to increase student ' enrollment beyond one-percent of the existing enrollment of 439 students. Additional plans, studies and materials maybe required to evaluate the impacts of an increase in enrollment. Enrollment figures shall be submitted to the planning department each fall. 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). i 14 Initial study 13601 Saratoga Avenue City of Saratoga, CA v~O~.~S. D) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? X No impact. Discussion: Refer to section l0a (Source: Review of the proposed project). 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 Schools Parks Other public facilities • X X X 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? X No impact. 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. • I5 Initial Study 1360! Saratoga Avenue City of Saratoga, CA ~~0~~6 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). Potentially Less than Less than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Impact With Impact Mitigation 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? X Not applicable to this project. 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: The applicant shall install the following off-site improvements as recommended by the Public Works Department, city traffic engineer, and project traffic consultant: 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) 1f Initial Study 136D1 Saratoga Avenue . City of Saratoga, CA E) Result in inadequate emergency access? X No impact. Discussion: Refer to section 6e. 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 A1~TD SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: A) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board? X No impact. 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). • • • 17 rnlrtat study 13601 Saratoga Avenue City of Saratoga, CA C) Require or result in the construction of riew storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? X Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Discussion: 'The proposed project will require a grading and drainage permit issued by the Public Works Department. Review of the proposed project by engineering staff will mitigate soil erosion and the loss of topsoil. Mitigation: All conditions of the grading and drainage permit shall be implemented (Source: Public Works). Potentially Less than Less than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated D) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? X No impact. Discussion: The proposed project can be accommodated within the existing level of service. Refer to 14a (Source: Review of the proposed project). E) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? X No impact. Discussion: The proposed project can be accommodated within the existing level of service. Refer to 14a (Source: Review of the proposed project). F) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? X No impact. Discussion: The proposed project can be accommodated within the existing level of service. Refer to 14a (Source: Review of the proposed project). G) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? X No imp act. 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 1$ Initial Study 13601 Saratoga Avenue City of Saratoga, CA ~.~.~'-~~~i.2'- 9 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 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 S of this initial study, no significant disruption of important examples of California history or prehistory shall occur. (Source: City of Saratoga General Plan Conservation Element; Northwest . Information Center.) Potentially Less than Less than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Impact With Impact- Mitigation Incorporated B) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) X Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Discussion: Subject to compliance with the prescribed mitigation measures contained herein to aid in the protection of potentially significant resources and to reduce potentially significant impacts, the effects of the proposed project are not cumulatively considerable. C) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? X Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Discussion: Refer to 17b (Source: Initial Study). 19 Initial study 13601 Saratoga Avenue City of Saratoga, CA ~~©aL~~ C7 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. Noise Assessment Study by Edward Pack, Associates dated October 21, 2.002 7. Traffic Study by Fehr & Peers, dated June 21, 2002 8. Public Works Conditions 9. Mitigation Monitoring Program • 20 Initial Study 13601 Saratoga Avenue City of Saratoga, CA 04~.~1. .BAAQI~ cEQA ~umELINES is Attachmell`t 1 TABLE 2 r FEASIBLE CONTROL MEASURES FOR CONSTRUCTION ENIISSIONS OF PM,o• ~:. ~. _. Bas~c~~an'~trfl~~fie~b~ :~~„~~ ~ls,; o ~ '~'~ .. `C1fDSfr_11~~10'i]''.~ X5'°"4 . s , ~.~~~,i}u,~-'~`:~~:._..>.,...t .~:~'~7~'t.<,~. ~,,- . ~~+. _ • 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 freeboard. • Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites. • Sweep daily (with water sweepers) all paved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites. • Sweep streets daily (with water sv~7eepers) if visible soil material is carved onto adjacent public streets. +,! n, ~+•~"LL~erir6?~-.> ta:u- ~ •'N'.ZT "~J+::d~~:»i _ - ~; .~%3~... `r'1:K.r.:H ~,r. , ~nltian~ced~3atro~~as~ ,~~;,,' ~ ~, . ., :~. ~'~ r sir 5 k a rK C4Yz~ ~ kT4 0,~7J°~Trt -,~.` ...tc_.•~*?H S ~/ ~ci~nstruc#~©n~s3#esegr~eate~r, ~ ,':~,p~~~rxes~,..'m•~r ~.:. - _ ~ . u. .:.-F.rt+^..,. .~. :-......u. r.. <:-. 5..7f r-.V.?^,.?+-..Sn-.,r'- .ro-:t .zr_ r s}e:r.~.+e-i r..nx~.. _ x ..-. .. .. .:. .. • All "Basic'.' control measures listed above. • Hydroseed or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers to ~ inactive construction areas (previously graded areas inactive for ten days or more). • Enclose, cover, water twice daily or apply (non-toxic) soil binders to exposed stockpi]es (dirt, sand, etc.) • Limit traf5c speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph. • Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways. • Replant vegetation in distwbed areas as quickly as possible. Opt~ona`l •C~ti~i~•ot ~~a~air~es~T~~~~~e,J~fl~3n~x~on'°'~ol~~ m~easu~"~•~ ~,b}~~~s ,~~, 1-.'. a. '~:~~ c~ ~~L _'~' "'~. - r~rcp1 i~'~i~^1,~~,i' "h~w5~ 1f ~ 4 :I(~ ~~`~'L~ .+w~ i Qncoiiraged a~r~cons~-uction saxes ~h•af`;are~~ar~~eT~a~-a~rea,"~n~cat~~n±,e+~a3'~-~ens .Y .. - r £~~" c +-t.rr rS'r ^'a.g y~._k' .'`-~,'`~_. J:1S raX: ~. , I~~~.f,{o Alq f N~•,~ ~-~ceptors or;' w~~ch`°~'~at-~.~n~{ -~o~e~~~e~sob~ ann~~y, ~~ar~a~.~~a~c~~tac~nal~ ssinns r 7 r: r-r* ar s- re a q'r?;Y~ ~ L "'T~p ~`K4x {n.., ~ t J"~y9"rXy..~i ~r oh ~'~" -,..,~' fc•s ,7 lit i .c ...•._ .~ ~' +,. r -t,Y= i s 1 `'°`~ ~ ~~~# ~~7 ~`.`at'.+tl~i ~' r cr ~} 3S~" n ~"rx ~ . `T;eC~l]CfIOIIS: 1..'~ Y+ `t r~ ~.57[~,~ :rJr~r .r-~ .1~~~ e~~ 7ti1c^R ~ ~~:-v~l'°\ ~{"S~t~r 1,,~}'.,~i~~7 ,~?« , .. ;... .H: ~ ~,. > r ~ f nf.....,C....., ~ mfr. ~ 1 -are: ~. ~ _ r.,.~ ~..1~+~ • 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 tune. ~ • • • • ~©~.~z • ~•,r' • KEY:. FOR MAP 1 CEOTECIINICAL IIAZARD EVALUATION ANb Rf.COt~1MCNDA'P10NS FOR SARATOGA TERRAIN UNITS ~ . • ~~ ' TERRAIN UNIT • San Andreas Fault Zone Foothills eol loran SI-y line ~ Valley/ ~ >• lOOr I I I l I I IV• i V,~ NA?URAL S>~ISMIC HAZARDS :Possibility of Sustace Rupture ~ Definite Limited. Limited Limited Unlike Ground Shaking Intensitye ~ - ' M P-rCa~~ Magnitude 6 . - San Andtyeas. VI VI vI V IX VI Viil - r1~hSi~ Magnitude 8.l =San Andreae X Viii - IX IX Ground Failure Probabilityt • Landslides Nigh High High Helium Low Subsidence Low Low N/A N/A Hedius . Liquefaction N/J1 ~ N/A N/A N/A Medium Ground Lurching Low Low N/A N/A Low Flooding' Possible N/A N/A N/A . . Locale Structurpl Hazards Very High High High to Moderate Nigh • Moderate RECOMMENDATIONS Ceotechnical Terrain Unites Ability to Controlled No No Yes Support Urban Residential Development No Ceotechnical Terrain Unites Ability to Yes Yes. Yes N/i- Support Rural Residential Development No i Geological Investigation Required Ye. N/A N/A Yes Yes -Bolls Investigation Required H/A Yes Yea. Yes Yes Source: Fugro. lnc. for W1111ams 6 Moctne Ceotechnical Report (1914) 1r"+ M Modified Mercalli Intensity Page 1 of 2 ATTAC H M E N T_ Earthquake .Intensity w to measure earth cake size, magnitude based .on instrumental readings and intensity Of the.two ays q based on qualitative effects of earthquakes, only intensity can be applied to pre-uistrumental earthquakes. The 1931 Modified Mercalli scale used in the United States assigns a Roman numeral in the range I - XII to each earthquake effect. The methodology is simple. , . At each location assign a numeral to describe the earthquake effect . Contour the zones of similar effect ~ ' .The earthquake is assumed to have occurred near the region of maximum intensity . The earthquake maybe characterized by the largest Roman numeral assigned to it The problems with intensity are multifold. First, it is a qualitative assessment that measures different phenomena. The lower values address human response to ground motions, the intermediate values characterize the response of simple structures, and the upper. values describe ground failure processes. Another problem is that incomplete spatial coverage may lead to a mis]ocation 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 Aver-age-peak- velocity Intensity value and description acceleration (g is (centimeters per gravity=9.80 meters per second squared) • second) I. Not felt except by a very.few under especially favorable . circumstances.. ' (I Rossi-Fore] scale) II. Felt only by a few persons at rest, especially on upper floors of buildings. Delicately suspended objects may swing. (I to II Rossi-Fore] 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: (IIl Rossi-Fore] scale) 1-2 N. During the day felt indoors by many, outdoors by few. At 0.01 Sg-0.02g night some awakened. Dishes, windows, doors disturbed; walls make creaking sound. Sensation like heavy truck striking building. Standing automobiles rocked noticeably. (N to V Rossi-Fore] scale) 2-5 V. Felt by nearly everyone, many awakened. Some dishes, 0.038-0.04g windows, and so on broken; cracked plaster in a few places; unstable objects overturned. Distwbances of trees, poles, and ~~0~~~ Modified Mercalli Intensity Page 2 of 2 ~' other tall objects sometimes noticed. Pendulum clocks may stop. l ] e) sca (V to VI Rossi-Fore 5-8 YI. Felt by all, many frightened .and run outdoors. Some 0.06g-0.0.78 heavy furniture moved; a few instances of fallen~plasfer and damaged chimneys. Damage slight. . (VI to VII Rossi-Forel scale) . 8-12 VII. Everybody runs outdoors..Damagenegligible. in 0.] 0~ 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; 0.25b 0.308 considerable in ordinary substantial buildings with partial collapse; great in poorly built structures. Panel walls thrown out of frame structures. Fall of chimneys, factory stack, columns, monuments, walls. Heavy furniture overturned. Sand and mud ejected in small amounts. Changes in well water..: Persons driving c:.rs disturbed. (VIII + to IX R ossi-Fore] scale) 45-55 IX. Damage considerable in specially designed structures; O.SOg-O.SSg well-designed frame structwes thrown out of plumb;, great in substantial buildings, with partial. collapse. Buildings shifted d d U ergroun n off foundations. Ground cracked conspicuously. 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-Forel scale) XI. Few, if any, (masonry) structures remain standing. Bridges destroyed. Broad fissures'in ground. Underground pipelines completely out of service. Earth slumps and land slips in soft . .' ground. Rails bent greatly. XII. Damage total. Waves seen on ground surface. Lines of sight and level 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. ~ ~ A~ -~V~iviciv~ ~ 16-66aoo • 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 f7oodplain (development) permit is issued by the Planning Commission. as provided in Sectoon 76-66.060, the Commission shall make the deter- minations prescribed in Section. ] 6-66.080(x) with respeot to such permit. (Ord. 71-167 § 2 (per). 1996) 16.66.090 Standards of construction. In all areas of special flood hazards the following stan- dards are required: (a) Anchoring. (1) All new coresuuction and substantial improvements shall be adequately anchored w prevent flotation, collapse or lateral movement of the structure resulting from hydro- dynamic and hydrostavc 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) R'ith electrical, heating. ventilation, pltunbing and air conditioning equipment and other service facilities that are designed andlor located so as to prevent water from entering or accumulating within the components during conditions of flooding; and if _ (4) Within Zones AIi or AO, so that there are adequate drainage paths around structures on slopes to guide flood waters around and ap•ay from proposed structures. (c) Ele~•ation and f]oodproofing. (See Section 16- 66.0~0 definitions for "basement," "lowest floor," "new construcrion; "'substantia) damage" and "substantial im- provement"") (1) Residential construction, new or substantial im- provement; -shall have the 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 F1RM 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, ele.~ated to at ]east one foot above the base flood elevation, as determined by the Ciry. (iii) ]n 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 registened professional engineer o!r surveyor, and veri5ed by the City's building inspector to be properly elevated. Such certification and verification shall be provided to the 1:7oodplain Adminisv-ator. (2) Nottresidentia] constnrction, new or substantial. improvement, shall either be elevated to conform with Section 16-66.090(c)(1) or together wit}i anendant utiliry 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 structure] components capable of resisting hydrostatic and hydrod}~rtarrtic 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 art:as below the lowest floor (excluding basements) that are usable solely for parking of vehicles, building access or storage, and which are subject t0 flooding,.shall be designed to automatically equalize hydrostatic flood forces on exterior walls by allowin~ for the entry and exit of floodwater. Designs for meetin 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 floodp~ater. (4) Manufactured homes shall also meet the standards in Section 16-66.120. (Ord. 71-]67 § 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 elirrii- 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 ' dur-ing t7ooding. (Ord. 71-167 § 2 (part), 1996) • 431 ~ (Santega 69~ ~~~~~s - H I I Hl:l-1 I~VI ~ N -1 ~ ~-30.010 r ~J mill;, butertnilk or other diary products sold, desi~rted or advertised as cenified shall be conspicuously marked with the name of the commission cenifying it and certify- in~ the milk from which such ere.am, skimmed mill: and other dairy product is obtained. (c) Guaranteed raw milk. Guaranteed raw milk is market milk wbicb conforms to the following minimum requirements: (1) The health of the cows and goats shall be dettr- mined at least once each month by an official represen- tative of a mill inspection service approved or established by the D'uector of the Stan Department of Agriculture. (2) It shall be produced on dairy farms wbicb score not less than ninety percent on the dairy farm scorecard. (3) It shall be bonled on the premises where produced and delivered in containers having the pouring lip com- pletely proteced from contamination. (4) It shall be cooled immediaely :tfer being drawn from the cow or goat to fifty degrees Fahrenheit or less, and so maintained until delivered to the consumer, a< wbicb time it shall contain no more than 10.000 bacuris per milliliter. (5) It must be sold to the customer within thirty bolus after production and labeled to indicae the date of sale to the consumer. All persons who come in contact with the guaranteed raw milk must exercise srnrpulous cleanli• Hess and not be afflicted with any communicable disease or in a condition w disseminau the germs of any commu- nicable disease liable to be conveyed by milk. The absence of such germs in all such persons .shall be detr.rtnined by bacteriological and physical exauL~on by the County Health Deparmient or other person or laboratory ,approved in w7iting by the Health Department, conduced at the time of employment and every six months tberrafter in a manner approved by the Health Officer. 7-25.070 Rules and regulations of Health Officer. The Health Officer is hereby authorized to make such rules and regulations, in addition to those contained in this Article, as in his opinion will best serve the public interest 7-:5.080 Seizure of unwholesome food. The Health Officer is hereby authorized and direcud to seize and desvoy or denaturize any tainted, decayed, or panially decayed or unwholesome meat fuh, shellfish, fowl, fruits, vegetables or other tmwbolesome food found within the City. 7-25.090 Meat products; compliance with . State law; inspection stamps. (a) No person. or agent or employee of any pcrsoa. shall sell. offer for sale, distribuu or have in his posses- sion for sale or distribution in the City, any sausage or other meat food product unless the same bas been manes factored or prepared in accordance with the laws of the Start. (b) No person. or agent or employee of any person. shall sell, offer for sale, distribuu or have in his posses= Sion for sale or distribution in the City, the flesh of aay caale, borx. sheep, lamb, swine or goat unless the same bears on cacti primal part thereof. the "Inspeced and Passed" stamp of an establishment operating under federal inupection, stau inspextion or approved municipal inspec- tion. 7-25.700 Violations of Article; penalties. The violation of any provision contained in this Article shall constiwu a misdemeanor and a public nuisance. subject to the penalties as set forth in Chapter 3 of this Code. Article 7-30 NO1SE 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. 7-30.700 Violations of Article; enforcement; penalties. 7.30.0]0 Purposes of Article. This Article is adoped for the following purposes: (a) To protect the citizens of the City from excessive, unnecessary, and unreasonable noises from any and all sottrres in the coutmuniry subject to regulation and control by the City; (b) To maintain and preserve the quiet residcntisl atmosphere of the City, (c) To implement the goals and policies contained in the Noise Elcmcni of the City's General Plan; 137 l.~~s~.ii..i~~ 7-30.010 (d) To establish noise standards fcr various land uses and activities within the City; (e) To prohibit noise wbicb disturbs the peace and quiet of a nei~borhood or causes discomfort or annoyance topersons ofnormal seasitivities. {Ord. 71.92 § l (part). 1991) 7.30.020 Definitions. For the purposes of this Ankle, the following words and phrases shall have the me2nings respectively ascribed to them in.this Section, unless the context~or the provision clearly requires otherwise: (a) Ambient noise level means the composite~ofnoise from all sources, near and far,, constituting the normal or existing level of environmental noise at a given loca- [ion, excluding the noise source in question. (b) Approving authority means the commission, officer or official of the Ciry baying the authority to. initially approve or deny a particular type of application. (c) Daytime means the twelve bourperiod 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 usins the "A" scale or `A" weighted network of the sou;td level meter. (f) Evening means the three boor period from 7:U0 P.M. to ] 0:00 P.M. (g) Nighttime means the nine boor period from 10:00 P.M. to i:00 A.M. of the following day. (b) :'poise level means the maximum continuous sound level or repetitive peak level produced by a Hoist source or group of sources, as mea5ure~d with a sound level meter. (i) Property plane means a vertical plane located at and perpendicular to the propem line wbicb determines the propem boundaries in space of the parcel over or from wbicb the sound in questions is audibly transmitted. (j) Single event noise means noise gcnented from a single source wbicb is distinguishable from the au~bient. noise level. (k) Sound level meter means an instnmoc~t comprised of a microphone, an amplifier. an ou~ut meter and fre= quency weighing networks, used fot measuring sound revels 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 Anicle: (a) Emeraeneies. Persons and equipment engaged in essential activities necessary to preserve, protect or save >ives or propetry from ititmmcnt danger, loss or harm. (b) Alarm systeta>LS. Any outside audible siarm system for wbicb a permit bas been issued pursuant to Article 6-10 of this Code, and wbicb complies with the require. meats set forth in Section 6-10.060 of said Article. (Or+d. 7,1.92 § 1 (pan), 1991) 7.30.040 Ambient noise standards. (a) Except as otherwise provided in Parazrapb (b) of this Section. all proposed uses and developments shall comply with the following ambient Hoist standards for the various coning distJicts and times of day as indicated below. The indoor standards apply to noise produced by exterior noise sources. Land Use Daytime. Evening Nighttime Residentis! . Outdoor ~ 60 dBA 50 dBA 45 dBA Indoor 45 dBA 35 dBA 30 dBA Public park Outdoor 60 dBA 50 dBA 4S dBA Indoor 50 dBA 40 dBA 35 dBA OffictJCotnmercial Outdoor 65 dBA SS dBA SO 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 boors of operation. . The ambient noise standards for uses and developments to be located in and of the noise sensitive areas listed above shall be as follows: Daytime Evening- ' 1`'ighttimt -: ' . . C Outdoor SO dBA 45 dBA - 45 dBA . Indoor 35 dBA 30 dBA 30 dBA (Ord 71.92 § 1 (pan), 1991) 7.30.050 General noise restriction. (a) No person shall cause, produce, or allow to be produced, in any residential coning district, any single tutor noise more than siz dBA above the ambient noise level at the location where the single event noise source is measured. 138 ~~~®~.~8 7-30.060 LJ (b) No person shall cause, produce of 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 Hoist sotu,ce 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 ouuide of the property plane for that size. (2) With respect to noise originating from a dwelling unit constituting pan of amulti-family development, the measurement can be taken at any point beyond the exterior w~a]]s of such unit or at any point within the habitable interior of another dwelling unit located on the same size. (3) With respect to any situation not described in subsection (c)(]) or (c)(2) of this Section, the mcastucatent shall be taken at the point where the noise source is located. (Ord. 71.92 ~ l (part), 1991) 7-30.060 Exceptions for spec activities. Exceptions for specific activities, so long as the noise level at any point twenty-five feet from the source of noise does not exceed 83 dBA, shall be permitted to exceed the standards set forth in Section 7-30A50 under the following conditions: (a) Residential construction- Residential consvucvon, alteration or repair activities which are authorized by a ~~alid City permit, or do not rcquirt the issuance of a City permit, may be conduced 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 Sanzrday. Residential construction shall be prohibited on Sunday and weekday holidays, with the ezcepdon of the following: (l) Construction, aluration 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 ale authorized by a valid City permit and which do not exceed fifty percent of the ezisvng main of accessory structure may be conducted between the hours of 9:00 A.M: and 5:00 P.M. on Sunday and weekday holidays. (3) 7'cmporary construction activities authorized by the Community Development Director ~ upon his/hu dcurmination of an emergency. A notice of applicable construction hour restrictions shall be posted conspicuously on size at all times for all ezurior residential construction activity requiring a City permit (b) Cbtnmeraal Corutnrct;on, alteration or repair activities in Commercial and Profasiona] and Adaunisnative Office, zoning districts which art authorized by a valid City permit, or do not require the issuance of` a Ciry permit, may be conducted between the boars of 7:30 A.M. and 6:00 P.M. Monday through Friday. Com- mcrciaJ construction shall be prohibited on Saturday. Sunday and other holidays. Tne Community Development Director may grant umporary cxcatptions upon his/her deurmination of an emuzcncy. (c) Sttbdi~ilsioo coastrvdion. Subdi~~sion construction ' activities which arc authorized by a >~alid City permit, or do not require the issuance of a Ciry permit, may be conduced 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 hislher deermination of an cmcrgcnt:y. (d) Garden tools. Powered garden tools except gaso- . lint powcrod leas blowers may be utilized between the . hours of 8:00 A.M. and 9:00 P.M. on Sundays through Saturdays. Crasoline powered Icaf blowers may be utilized between 8:00 AJVI. and 5:00 P.M. Monday through Saturday only. No gasoline powered leaf blowers shall be allowed on Sundays. The noise level of a]] garden tools including gasoline powered leaf blowers shall not exceed seventy-tight dBA at any point twenty-five Poet 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 ] 0:00 P.M. Noise from such equipment shall not exceed fifty dBA twenty-five feet from the source of noise. (f) Set-up and cleaning of commercial establish- meats. Set-up and cleaning activities conducted at it:stau- rants and other corrtutcrcia] establishmenu locatrd immedi- ately adjacent to a residential area, which gencrau any Hoist audible to the occupanu of the adjacent residences. . including noise generated by the operation of delivery or service vehicles, shall not begin prior to one hour before the normal opening time of the establishment or exund later than one hour afar the normal closing time of the establishment, or such other times as may be specified in a use permit, license, or other cntitlcmcnt granted by the Ciry for such establishment. (g) Live or recorded music Commercial establisb- menu shall keep a]1 doors and windows closed .during nighttime hours when live or recorded music is being PIaY~- (h) Animals. Noise caused by animals shall be goy. crncd by the provisions of Section 7-20.190 concerning barking dogs and Section l5-] 1.020(h) concerning the keeping of animals as pcu. (Ord. 7].92 § ](part), 1991; Ord. 200 § 2, 2000) 139 ts~ s-0u ~®.~i.~9 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 D'irector's review and aparoti•aI. Exhaust fans lawfully constructed prior to August 2, 1991, shall be screened to the satisfaction of the Planning Director no later than tyvo years from the date of notice from the Ciry to the owner.. (Ord. 71.92 § 1 (part), 1991) 7-30.080 Authority to require noise study. As a condition for the granting of any license, permit or development approval the approving authority tray require the preparavon of a noise study to determine whether the proposed activity will comply with the noise standards contained in this Arvc]e. The cost of such study shall be paid, in advance, by the applicant If the study predicts that any of the noise standards will be violated the approving authority may require imp)ctncntation 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. ]:f the violation caru.at be prevent- ed or corrected thraugh mitigation meastrra, the approving authority may deny or revoke the license, permit or development approval. (Ord. 71.92 § ](pan), 1991) 7-30.090 Exception permits. • (a) If the applicant demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Planning Director that immediate compliance with the requiremenu of this Ankle would be impractical or unreasonable, the Planning Duector may issue a permit to allow exception from any or all of the provisions contained in this Arucle, with appropriate conditions to minimize the public detriment caused by su.eb exceptions... Any such permit shall be for an initial term as specified by the Planning Director, not to exceed thirty days. Longer terms up to one hundred twenty days may be granted by the Planning Commission. (b) ]n determining whether an exception permit should be issued and the nantre and scope of any conditions to be imposed, the Planning Director shall consider the following factors: (1) The level and intensity of the noise; (2) The level and intensity of the background noise, if any; (3) The proximity of the noise to residcntia] areas; (4) The time of day when the noise occurs; (5) The duration of the noise, and whether it is recta- rcnt, interminent or constant; (6) The nature and zoning of the area within which the noise emanates or to which it is transmitted. (Ord.. 7l .92 § l (past), 1991) rs~,~a s.ott 7-30.100 Violations of Article; enforcement; penalties. . (a) The violation of any provision contained. in this Ardclc shall constitute an infi-drtion and a public nuisanoe. , (b) 1t shall be the duty of all policemen, all dcpuves of the County Sheriff performing police services in the City, all Community ~Scrvice Officers and the Planning . Director to cnfom the provisions of this Ankle. (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 iu source. . in violation of any of the provisions of this Aniclc may • • be summan'ly abated, which may include, but is not limited to, removal, dismantlement and taking into custody the source of such noise, and in this regard, the confiscation of any machine or device used to violate any of the provisions of this Article is hereby authorised to be held for use as evidence in any proceeding that may be brought for such violation. (Ord. 71.92 § l (pan), 1991) Article 7-35 REGULATION OF SMOKING IN CERTAIN • PLACES Sections: 7-35.010 Findiags~and purposes o! ArtirJe. 7-35.020 Dei-mittens. 7-35.030 Smoking prohibited. 7-35.040 ~ Regulation o! smoking in the workplace. 7-33.050 Smoking permitted. 7-35.060 Tobacco samp)es and vending machines prohibited. 7-35.070 Posting of signs. 7-35.080 Unlawful acts. 7-35.090 Enforcement 7-35.700 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 cffccu of tobacco smoke on the health and physical comfort of people. The proposes of this Article are to protect the public health and wclfare.by prohibiting or rtgularing smoking in certain places and to strikt a rrason- ablc balance between the needs of persons who smoke and the needs of nonsmokers to breathe smoke-free aii, and to recogniu that where these needs conflict, the aced to breathe smoke-fra air shall have priority. 140 ~JJ ~~®~.3Q .~ t• EDWARD L. PACK ASSOC Attachment 6 2177 NORTHAMPTON DR. Acoustical Consuha-.. SAN JOSE, CA 95124 FAX: 408-723-8099 ~;: • .... t' i• • ~, ;, !,S, ::, . •i:• ro•- :; nom,:.-, - . i, ~ .~-_~,.,F,.-~.....,,, NOISE ASSESSMENT STUDY ~~ ~ ~~~~~ - FOR THE ST. ANDREW'S PARISH AND SCHOOL REMODEL SARATOGA AVENUE, SARATOGA ~ C~(~f~D~[~ OCT 2 3 2002 . _ CITY OF SARATOGA ''~Ml INITy nF.VFI.l1DMF~" Prepared for St. Andrew's Parish and School Sarato ag , CA Prepared by Jeffrey K. Pack October 21, 2002 Proiecf No. 33-009-3 MEM6ER: ACOUSTICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA AUDIO ENGINEERIN~,f~yti7~~~ .I TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Background Information on Acoustics .............................. .....................:........:.... l 'I II. Acoustical Setting ................ d .:.......:..................:.......5 s ................................... A. Noise Standar ................ :: i i 6 .:........................:........ .. on ......................... pt B. Project Descr C. Ex~stingNoise:Exposures ..................... ............ . ................................... III. Project-Generated Impacts A. Post Project Noise Exposwes ....:........................ ... .............................8 IV. Mitigation Measures A. Play Area Noise :.................................. ........... ................:..... ......... B. Mechanical Equipment Noise ......................:...... C. Gymnasium Noise .............................................. ..:......... . i 13 .................................. 13. ............:...................... ..........................:.:.....14 . ............. se ...................:. D. Bell Tower No ..................... E. Parking Lot Nose .......................... ...............:....:..............14 ............:....:........... V C l i . ...................................15 ..................................... onc us . ons . APPENDIX A References ...................... ....................... ........................:....... A-1 APPENDIX B 1. Noise Standards .................................................: .... 2. Terminolo .........: .....:........................... B-1 ......::......................... B-2 4 . B ................ ati . - ............................... ............ on ................... 3. Instrumen APPENDIX C Noise Measurement Data and Calculation Tables . .............................:... C-1 • I. Back round 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. . ~,~~©~~3 TABLE I The A VVei~hted Decibel Scale, Human Response, and Common r'oise 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. (1 l0 dBA) Power Mower (100 dBA) 70-100 Annoying Diesel Pump at l00 ft. (95 dBA) Freight Train at 50 ft. (90 dBA) Food Blender (90 dBA) Jet Plane at 1000 ft. (85 dBA) Freeway at 50 ft. (80 dBA) Alarm Clock (80 dBA) 50-70 Intrusive Average Traffic at 100 ft. (70 dBA) Vacuum Cleaner (70 dBA) Typewriter (65 dBA) 0-50 Quiet Normal Conversation (50 dBA) -Light Traffic at 100 ft. (45 dBA) Refrigerator (45 dBA) . Whispering (35 dBA) Leaves Rustling (] 0 dBA). 7'}u-eshold 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, Lt, Lto, L50 and L90 are commonly used. They are. the A-weighted noise levels exceeded during l%, l0%, 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-I~Tight Level (DNL) noise, descriptor was developed. The DNL is also called the Lai. 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. The 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, ]earning, relaxing; - physiological effects such as startling, hearing loss. ~~~.~~5 -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 behelpful 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 ]eve] of at ]east. 5 dB is required before any noticeable change in community response would be expected. • A ]0 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 l0 to convert Bels to decibels. The formula for adding decibels is as follows: Sum= l Olog(10 svto + 10 sv~o~ where, SL is the Sound Level in decibels. • ~~Q~~6 _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 6 dB above the ambient level as St. Andrew's Parish and School are zoned residential. The Noise Ordinance defines the ambient levels for residential receptor land uses as: 60 dBA during the daytime, 50 dBA during the evening, and 45 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 ]0:00 p.m. and the nighttime period is from 1.0:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. Thus, the most restrictive noise ]imiis for church and school related noise sources are 66 dBA daytime, 56 dBA evening and Sl dBA night. The church bells will be used between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., thus, . the 66 dBA noise limit, is applied. Gymnasium activities .and parking lot noise may be produced between the bows of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Thus, the more stringent evening limit of 56 dBA is applicable. • ®4~~~ -6- Although there will be no significant noise impacts to the projects from off-site sources, the City of Saratoga Planning Department staff has requested an analysis of playground noise impacts to the school classrooms. and library. The school is a noise sensitive use, thus, the ambient noise levels to used as the basis for noise limits are: 35 dBA daytime, 30 dBA evening and 30 dBA nighttime. The noise limits applied to the classrooms and library while these spaces are is session are 4] dBA daytime and 36 dBA evening and nighttime. B. Proiect Description The planned project, as shown on the Site Plan, Ref. (c), includes the addition of a gymnasium, classrooms, kitchen, bell tower, a re-configuration of the parking lot and the remodeling of the parish, church, playgrounds and existing classrooms. The enrollment of the school is planned to remain at approximately 430 students ranging in age from 4 - l3 years old (Junior Kindergarten through 8th grade), as reported by St. Andrew's School, Ref. (d). There is a possibility of a 9% increase in enrollment over time. Thus, a total enrollment capacity of 470 students is possible. This study analyzes the maximum capacity of 470 students. I~'ote that the. difference between 470 students and 430 students is acoustically insignificant. C. Existing Noise Exposures • The existing noise exposwe 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 excess of the standards of the City of Saratoga Noise Element. • The existing noise exposure at the most 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. Q~~~.38 • ~ 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 Element- standards.. As 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 9 dB in excess of the daytime limit of the Noise. Ordinance and up.to .;.... . ] 9 dB in excess of the evening limit of the Noise Ordinance. Sunday church parking generates higher levels of noise than school day parking. • 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 up to 2 dB in excess of the nighttime noise limit the Cit of Saratoga Noise Ordinance but within the evening and of y daytime limits. 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 l8, 2001 from 10:00 - 1 l :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. • ~Q~01~9 ~~.--- _ _ v.-....1... ~ ..-..- - - - - ~ - . __ i ~~~ ~~ „~•~j `~ ~ / Loc. 1 nil-~,l r>~ I~r ns. ~~•r . 1~, - ~/ ` ~ - ~' /~ /.'V~wes °` r~•P'~ h1~IW1.: IoI,R / •~/ 7111 :~: !ee ~ ` - - - ~ ~. ~ ~ tir , ~ !:~! \ "s L'a'P+rGY~ I~f A,IC• d,dl*a, +~ ..~;_ _'_ LOG. 2 1 ~ Si - . .. _ -- ~ ~ _ r~ . .' Loc. 3 - ~ ~ 19-•t4alt ~rplus ~~;..•- .. _''~ 3p ~:~ s ~ .. ~^ ''' ~ ~ ,/ '1 ' .. i ~ Jv.....1^l• • ~,• COICX' 1'1~ IN.e'fitaslr ~. ~ ~ I ~ 1 ~ y . • 1 . ,.• 1 .. _ / 1 ~ ~ ~ / . - • • •--- -- __: ~ ~ tit~'1-~- 1 Loc. 4 ~ •. r 1 1 - , ~.u./ . - ,' ~ ~~ ' ~• s '1. - ~ - . ~ ~: r I FIGURE 1 t, •."~ ~++'r ~ - _ ,~,~; ~ V , i i \ i V ~ • ~`~` ~ Existing Site Plan showing the noise ~ ? i - +~~c ~; ~ ' ,•,~~,,,~• . - ••~, measurement locations.. ""~"* ' - ! •~f:.;,.,,~ ,~.: ~ ~ ~ Source: Edward L. Pack Asso Mar. 20.2001. ~ • /v/ i i~A~YATOtiA AYEMVP, ~ . -.---•---~- • -8- The meters ,yield, by direct readout, a series of the sound levels versus time, which include the L L L and L i.e. those levels, of noise exceeded 1%, l0%, 50% and 1~ 10~ 50 90> > 90% of the time. Also. measured were the minimum and maximum levels, and the. continuous equivalent-energy levels (Ley), 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 Ley's and DNL calculations are shown in the data tables in Appendix C. ~~ --• The playground Ley's at the most impacted residential property line (Location 1) ranged from 47.1 to 79.2 dBA during the daytime hours of 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.. During the entire daytime period, the Ley's ranged from 40.3 to 79.2_ dBA. The Ley's ranged from 34.0 to 52.0 dBA at night. At the most impacted property line adjacent to the lunch area (Location 2), the school hour Ley's ranged from 46.0 to 66.5 dBA. During the entire daytime period the Ley's ranged from 42.5 to 62.5 dBA. Af night the Ley's .ranged from 34.5 to 51.1 dBA. . .The short-term measurements (10-minute Ley's), at the north residential property line made during church services ranged from 48.4 during church service to 52.4 when church ]et out. The noise measurements made at the south property line (also 10-minute Ley's) during church service were 47.5 during church service to 56.4 at the beginning of service. III. Project-Generated T'oise Impacts A. Post Protect Noise Exposures • The post project noise exposure at the most impacted residential property line adjacent to the "nursery play area" will be 49 dB DNL. Thus, the noise exposure is expected to be lower than the existing noise exposure in this area, and will be within the limits of the City of Saratoga NNoise Element standards. `6~~41~1 -9- • • The post project noise exposure, at the most impacted residential property line adjacent to the "Kindergarten play area" will be 68 dB DNL. Thus, the noise exposure is expected to remain the same . as existing for this area and will be 8 dB in excess of the City of Saratoga Noise Element standards.. • The post project noise levels in the classrooms closest to the "nursery play area" will be up to 39 dBA and-will be within the 41 dBA limit of the Noise Ordinance. • The post project noise levels in the classrooms closest to the Kindergarten play area will be up to 50 dBA and will be up to 9 dB in excess of the 4l dBA limit of the Noise Ordinance. • Play area noise levels in-the library will be inaudible as the library will be adequately shielded by the North Wing building. • 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 ?~~oise Element standards but up to 9 dB in excess of the daytime limit of the Noise Ordinance and up to l 9 dB in excess of the evening limit of the Noise Ordinance. Q~4~4.2 - 10- • 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 up to 1 dB in excess of the 56 dBA evenin 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 daytime and evening limits of the Noise Ordinance standards but up to 2 dB in excess of the nighttime limit. 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. • The mechanical equipment for the gymnasium has not been specified, thus, an acoustical analysis of the equipment has not .been performed. Bell Tower l~'oise~ 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 SO ft. lateral distance. It is our understanding that the top elevation of the planned bell tower bell openings will be approximately 46 ft. • ~~~143. -11- • At the nearest residential property line to the northeast (l 80 R. from the tower), the un-shielded sound level will be 68 dBA. However, the church structwe 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 5 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 5 dB in excess of the evening standard. • Any receptor location within a 225 ft. line-of--sight to the bells will receive a maximum sound ]eve] in excess of 66 dBA. Intervening structures that block the line-of--sight will typically provide a minimum of 5 dB of sound reduction. 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 r'oise Ordinance during daytime and evening activities, however, there is potential for noise excesses if the gymnasium windows and doors are kept open during events. Mitigation measures will be required for sources that will produce noise excesses. Measures to ensure compliance with the Noise Element and Noise Ordinance are recommended, as described below. • ~~~~.~~ i - - 12- IV. 1\'litiration Measures A P1aY Area )\'oise 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. • Install windows rated minimum Sound Transmission Class (STC) 35 at all classrooms and other noise sensitive spaces within 84 ft. of the "Kindergarten play area" or basketball courts and with a view of either area. The. window glazing shall contain at least one pane of minimum 7/32" laminated glass. To achieve an acoustically-effective barrier, it must be made air-tight; i.e., without cracks, gaps, or other openings and must provide for long-term durability. The barrier can be constructed of ~~rood, 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 co o ents and the round. mp n g ~~©~~S ,'~- ~ - • (~ ~ e - . ~_ ~~ +• •• ' I' '~ r'~ ~ ~. • ~• , ~f $ K e ~ 1 ~ • . ~ ~,1. ~ `1 4!ra . ~.K K~ d - y.:a ,~~ V„t. ~- ~^ a~ r y,}~ e+•+~. / ~ td _ `tip .~•b.rtih y-~at4~•- ~ ~ r~1 ~'1JVA ~ ';; ~ - ~ • ~ r t~re.+o1 r~r~ yI~~ ~ `• ~ • eehcr~ ~• ~/ _R~ ,. ~ - '°~'`' ' 11 e' z ~ rprtw. '.t ~~~ •p FIGURE 2 ~ ~ .. nnm Locations and heights of the recommended _ ~~ ~ "cd ~~/r~c=~ ~, -noise control barriers. The barrier heights are in - ;, ~ ~ . ~ • .~ _ reference to the nearest playground or parking lot .~ ~ _ • .~`~ _ elevation. • ~ ~ ~ ~ v ~ Pt ~ v EDWARD L PACK ASSOC.. INC. +•~• Acmr~Nrvd ('mcrnlrnnCr 2177 Northampton Drive Tel; (408) T23-8900 t.._r. ~ San Jose. CA 93124 Fac: (408) 72.E-8099 r~ Jnne 12.2002 •~ ~f1 f Anil InI I f~C1f~5('~111P ~f'I"1P~'(1P. ~t AnrlrPw~ Pnrt~ ,~~h~~ The implementation of the above recommended measures will reduce play area noise exposures to 60 dB DNL or less at the residential areas and 41 dBA maximum or less within the school classrooms. B. Mechanical Equipment Noise • Should noise reduction of the church's HVAC equipment be required due to nighttime operations, 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. C. G~mnasium)\'oise • 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_guired only after ] 0:00 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. ~'©~~.~~ -~4- • D. Bell To~~~er l~TOise 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 66 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 :nay change the tonality of the bells. Achieving compliance with the standards_~f 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. E. Parking Lot 1\'oise • 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 66 dBA or less at the residential areas. • ~~Q'~~8 • -l5- 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 exceeds 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 (Kindergarten) play area, the HVAC equipment, gymnasium, bell tower and parking lot are provided in Section IV of this report. estimates. 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 aciivity levels, noise regulations or other future changes beyond our control may produce long-range noise results different from. our Report Prepared By: J rey K. Pack President • ~~~®~i49 References (a) I~'oise Element of the Genera] Plan, City of Saratoga, Adopted by City Council, August 17, 1988 (b) City of Saratoga Municipal Code, Article 7-30, Section 7-30A50 (c) Site Plan, Saint Andrew's Parish & School, by CSDA Architects, July 5, 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 • • ~~0~.50 • i• • APPE]~'DIX B Noise Standards Terminolo Instrumentation 1. ]~'oise Standards A. Citv of Sarato a 1~'oise Element Standards •~ x•~• The City of Saratog a I~TOise 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 I~'oise Ordinance, Article 7-30, of the Municipal Code. B-l ~ ~®:~~1 • 2. Terminolo~Y A. Statistical 1\'oise 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: 1,~ _ A noise level exceeded for 1 % of the time. Liu A noise level exceeded for 10% of the time, considered to be an "intrusive" level. Lso _ The noise level exceeded 50% of the time representing an "average" sound level. ~L90 _ The noise level exceeded 90 % of the time, designated as a "background" noise level. L~q _ 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 Leg 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 .i •' ~~4~.~2 B. Day-]~'iaht Level ~DNLI ]~~oise 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 ] 0 dB weighting factor is applied (added) to the noise levels occurring during the nighttime period to account for the greater sensitivity of people to noise during these hours. The DNL is calculated from the. measured Leq in accordance with the following mathematical formula: DNL = ~~-a+] Olog~ol 5) & ~-n+10+1 Olog~o9)] - l Ologio24 Where: Ld = Leq for the daytime (7:00 a.m. to l 0:00 p.m.) L„ = Leq for the nighttime (10:00: p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) • 24 - indicates the 24-hour period & - denotes decibel addition. C. A-~~1'e~~hted 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 eaz. i~ $-3 ~~~.53 • 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 51 ft; above the ground. The meter conforms to ANSI 51.4 for Type 1 instruments. The A weighting network and the "Fast" response setting of the meter were used in conformance with the applicable .ISO and IEC standards. All instrumentation was acoustically calibrated before and after field tests to assure accuracy. Bruel & Kjaer 2231 Precision Integrating Sound Level Meter Larson Davis LDL 812 Precision Integrating Sound Level Meter Larson Davis 2900 Real Time Analyzer • • B-4 Lai©~.~4 .. s i• i~ APPENDIX C Noise Measurement Data and Calculation Tables ~;, ~, .~ DNL CALCULATIONS CLIENT: ST. ANDREW S CHURCH FILE: 33-009 PROJECT: SCHOOL AND CHURCH REMODEL DATE: ' SOURCE: LOCATION 1 3/1101- CHILDREN PLAY AREA NOISE PLAYGROUND LOCATION 2 to Source Dist LUNCH AREA 60 ft. Dist. to Source 20 ft. . /10 10"Le TIME Le q TIME -Leq 10"Leq/10 7 165958 m 7:OOa 52.2 . 7:OOa.m. 8:00 a.m. 54'.2 62.4 263026.8 1737800:8 . . 8:00 a.m. m OOa 9 54.1 46 0 257039.6 39810.7 9:OOa.m. 10:OOa.m. 47.1 ' 72.0 51286.1 15848931.9 . . : 10:OOa.m. m 11 00 . 62.7 54 3 1862087.1 269153.5 11:00 a.m. 64.9 3090295.4 4 211 38 . : a. 12:OOnoon . 66.5. 4466835.9 12:OOnoon 73.5. . 7 22 6 59 - 912010.8 7 69 0 9332543 1:OOp.m. . 1:00 .m. . . 7 52 186208.7 4 2 8 263026 2:00 p.m. . 2:00 p.m. . 5 . 00 3 57 3 537031.8 3:00 p.m. 4:00 p.m. 79.2 66.2 83176377.1 416_8693.8 p.m. : 4:00 p.m. 00 5 . 53.1 7 46 204173.8 46773.5 5:00 .rr1. 6:00 p.m, 7:00 .m. 8:00 p.m. 9:00 p.m. 10:00 .m. 60.0 46.9 44.0 45.5 40.3 40.7 1000000.0 48977.9 25118.9 35481.3 10715.2 .11749.0 UM= Ld= 41439486.5 69.7 p.m. : 6:00 .m. 7:00 .m. 8:00 p.m. 9:00 p.m. 10:00 .m, . 45.8 45.2 47:1 42.5 42.7 38018.9 :33113.1 51286.1 17782.8 18620.9 SUM= Ld= 087285.2 57.8 11:00 .m. 12:OOmdnt 1:00 a.m. 2:00 a.m. 3:00 a.m: 4:00 a.i'n. 5:00 a.m. 6:00 a.m. 37.9 40.0 34.6 34.0 34.0. 36.5 43.2 52.0 6166.0 10000.0 2884.0 2511.9 2511.9 4466.8 20893.0 158489.3 . UM= Ln= 9671.8 43.9 11:00 .m. 12:OOmdnt 1:00 a.m. 2:00 a.m. 3:00 a.m. 4:00 a.m. 5:00 a.m... 6:00 a.m. 38.9 39.4 35.2 - 34.5 34.9 38.0 45.8 51.a 7762.5 8709.6 3311.3 2818.4 3090.3 6309.6 38018.9 128825.0 M= Ln= . .217466.4 43.8 Daytime Level= Ni httime Level= 81.5 63.4 Daytime Level= Ni httime Level= 69.6 63.3 DNL= 67.8 DNL= 56.7 24-Hour Le = 67.7 24-Hour Le = 55.9 L~ • • .. •. •. • w ~ Y - Attachment 7 . ~ FEHR Si. PEERS •,~_._:; „ TgAN5PON7AT10N CONSUl1ANTS ~`-' ,. ~ •• ' D ~C~~~~~ MEMORANDUM JUN 2 6 2002 ' CITY OF SARATOGA r'OMMUNITY DEVELOPMF.M' To: Scott Sheldon, Premier Commercial From: Sohrab Rashid/Jason Pack • Date: June 21, 2002 Subject: Tra~c Study for Proposed S~ Andrew's Parish and School Master Plan in Saratoga, California 10IS-3S1A Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. has completed a traffic study for the proposed master plan for St. Andrew's Parish and School located on the. north side of Saratoga Avenue just west of Fruitvale Avenue in the City of Saratoga. The traffic study was conducted to evaluate existing conditions and near-term conditions with the proposed circulation plan to determine if on-site or. off-site improvements will be necessary to provide acceptable operations. This memorandum presents o-nr key findings and recommendations followed by a detailed description of our approach and evaluation. KEY FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the results of our observations and technical analysis: • The proposed master plan does not identify a substantial change in the number of students at the campus at one time. The number of seats within the parish is not changing, although an increase in the number of church members is desired. • The proposed circulation plan includes reconfiguration of the existing parking lot, but the total number of on=site parking spaces provided will not change • substantially. .The amount of on-site storage for vehicle queues is also not proposed to change with the proposed project. • To better accommodate vehicle demand during peak drop-off/pick up periods, the length of the campus frontage ,for passenger loading/unloading activities should be maximized. Changes to the proposed site plan are included. • A separate drop-off/pick-up area should be provided in the parking area at the rear of the gymnasium for pre-kindergarten /kindergarten student loading to reduce queues at the front of the school. ~~~®~~~ ~~5 N. Mzrlet Street. Suite 200 San Jose, CA 95110 (<08) 278-1700 fax (<08) 278-1717 FEHR ~ PEE TFANSPORTA710N CONSUIT~~ • The project is not expected to have a significant impact on the overall capacity of the Saratoga Avenue/Fruitvale Avenue intersection. Thus, no modifications to this intersection are recommended. • No modifications to Saratoga Avenue are recommended at this time. The increased vehicle storage in front and back of the school is expected to reduce or .potentially eliminate on-street queuing. • The main on-site drive aisle leading from the entrance driveway and curving past the gymnasium should be 24 feet wide to provide adequate circulation: • The drive aisle located behind the gymnasium should be a minimum of 22 feet (and ideally 24') wide to adequately serve two-way traffic with no parking. • The existing on-site speed bumps should be replaced with speed humps. (as shown on the site plan) or raised. crosswalks at two locations to help maintain appropriate travel speeds in the main drive aisle and to provide a designated crossing location for pedestrians. The detailed evaluation to support these findings and recommendations is presented below. EXISTING CONDITIONS Existing Church and School Functions St. Andrew's Parish and School are located on the north side of Saratoga Avenue just west of the Saratoga Avenue/Fruitvale Avenue intersection. The campus is bordered by Saratoga Avenue to the south, Saratoga Creek to the north, and private residential uses to the east and west. The school includes children from junior kindergarten age through eighth grade. St. Andrew's School has an existing student enrollment of approximately 439 students from 329 different families. The school staff includes 45 full-time and 5 part-time employees. The church is used for worship on Sundays with services at 8:00 am and 10:00 am. A Wednesday service is also provided at 11:45 am, but the attendance at this weekday service is substantially lower.. The church employees l2 to 15 people: one is a full-time. administrator, five are clergyman, and the rest perform administrative duties for the church. Vehicular Access and Circulation Access to St. Andrew's Parish and School is provided via one entrance only driveway and one. exit only driveway on the north side of Saratoga Avenue. The easternmost driveway is for inbound traffic and, although not designed for this purpose, is wide enough to accommodate two vehicles entering at the same time. This allows a "dual right-turn" condition when vehicles turn from the outside travel lane around vehicles that are queued back from the existing diop-off/pick-up area. The egress driveway has two lanes and allows left-turning and right-turning vehicles to exit simultaneously. ~~~~~8 ~J FFHR & PEERS TpANSPOpTAT10N CONSULTANTS Saratoga Avenue is striped to provide a northbound left-turn lane into the site at the entrance . driveway. Saratoga Avenue is also striped to provide amerge-lane for vehicles exiting the site and turning left onto northbound Saratoga Avenue. On-street parking is permitted on Saratoga Avenue from the Saratoga Avenue/Fruitvale Avenue intersection to the egress driveway and includes space for approximately 16 vehicles. Parking is also permitted on the unpaved shoulder south of the exit only driveway where approximately seven vehicles can park parallel. A one-way loop road provides access to the drop-offlpick-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-offlpick-up lane immediately adjacent to the school buildings. Along the wrought iron fence separating the sidewalk from the parking lot, this one-way, two-lane drive aisle is 24 feet wide. A striped crosswalk is provided to guide pedestrians from the parking lot to the raised sidewalk serving the campus. During drop-off and pick-up periods, a staff person serves as a crossing-guard and stops vehicles in the drop-off lane to allow pedestrians to cross. The total length of on-site queuing space is approximately 380. feet, which includes a 130-foot drop-off/pick-up area. There are ] 87 striped, on-site parking spaces available during school pick-up/drop-off hours. An additional 13 spaces between the bollards in .the drop-off/pick up area are available on weekends and outside school hours for chwch parking. Additional off-site parking is available on weekends at the Saratoga Library- across Saratoga Avenue. No designated pedestrian, crossing area is provided except at the signalized Fruitvale Avenue intersection to the east. Pedestrian, Bicycle and Transit Access Pedestrian access to St. Andrew's is relatively limited directly in front of the site. A sidewalk is provided east of the western crosswalk on the north side of Saratoga Avenue, while a sidewalk, is provided on the south side of Saratoga Avenue along the entire length of. the project frontage. Sidewalks are provided on both .sides of Fruitvale Avenue and the:: signalized intersection includes crosswalks on the west acid south approaches. A crossing guard is provided at the Saratoga Avenue/Frurtvale 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 bicyclelparkingiane 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 C~~~~~9 FEHR ~ PEE 1RANSPORTAiION (ONSUIT~ project's exit only driveway and the complementary stop is located across the street. At stops near Fruitvale Avenue, service from Route 58 'is also provided. School Schedules Classroom instruction begins at 8:15 AM and concludes at 3:00 PM, Monday thru Friday, for Grades K through 8. A morning junior kindergarten class begins at 8:15 am and concludes at 11:15 am Monday through, Friday. An afternoon junior kindergarten begins at noon and concludes at 3:00 PM, Monday thru Friday. Observation of Existing Circulation Morning Observations ' Morning observations were made at St. Andrew's from 8:00 AM until 8:30 AM. during. February 2001. Queuing from the drop-off lane was contained on-site until 8:10 AM, after which time the queue extended back onto Saratoga Avenue. The on-street queue extended back to the Saratoga Avenue/Fruitvale Avenue intersection by 8:12 AM and was contained ~in the striped shoulder area next to the curb. This queue dissipated and was completely contained on-site at 8:18 AM, when bell rang signaling the beginning of instruction. Queuing out of the ingress driveway created a situation where dual 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 corner. between a vehicle in the drop-off lane and 'the adjacent parked car. Several times, a vehicle trying to bypass the drop-off aisle was temporarily delayed until given the right-of--way to proceed. This activity had a negligible effect on overall circulation: At 8:00 AM, there were approximately 40 vehicles parked. in the parking area. At 8:30, the parking lot was approximately 60 percent occupied. During the morning period, the lot was never more than 80 percent occupied and drivers did not appear to have a difficult time finding an available space. `~t~~~~Q FEHR fit, PEERS TflANSPOR1AT10N CONSUlTAN75 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 Saratoga Avenue because of delays resulting from downstream traffic signal at Fruitva]e 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 Saratoga Avenue would be higher than earlier in the morning. ~a FEHR ~ PEE 1RANSFORiAiION (ONSUIiA At 9:25- am, few vehicles v~~ere 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 tune. During the next several minuses, 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 operations at the Saratoga Avenue/Fruitvale Avenue intersection were analyzed to identify existing deficiencies or the potential need for traffic control modifications.. Operations were analyzed during the rooming (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 i 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. ~~®:i~2 r FEHR & PEERS TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS The results of the LOS analysis show that the Saratoga Averiue/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 Levei of Service Definitions Using Average Stopped Vehicular Delay Average Stopped Delay Level of ~ Per Vehicle Service Descri lion Seconds ~ Operations with very low delay occurring with favorable • <_ 5.0 A J,rogession and/or short cycle lengths. _._.r_ '-' - - _._ _ .._ _. _ ~ _ _ ~ - - 5.1 to 7.0 B+ .Operations with ]ow delay occurring with good progression ~ j,l to ]3.0 B :and/or short cycle lengths. 13.1 to 15.0 • B- C+ Operations with average delays resulting from lair 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.] to 37.0 D- ~ Many vehicles stop and individual cycle failures are noticeabk. 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 l"s- ~ are frequent occurrences..• _ _ 56.1 to 60.0 • Operations with delays unacceptable to most drivers occumng F due to over-saturation, poor progression, or very long cycle ; > 60.0 lengths. Source: VTA's CMP Tiaruponation Impact Analysis Guidelines, May ~, 1998, and Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manua! Special Report 209,1985. a Observations showed that vehicles traveling eastbound on Saratoga Avenue formed lengthy queues during several cycles between 3:00 pm and 4:00 pm. At their longest, the .queues extended from Fruitvale Avenue west past the driveway serving the library. The effect of these queues was to temporarily block access to the library entrance and to temporarily delay. some vehicles turning left out of the St. Andrew's' exit driveway. However, both of these problems were temporary and did not result in any significant problems. PROPOSED PROJECT According to the project sponsor, the student enrollment is not projected to increase significantly over the next five years. The proposed expansion of building space including 7 ~~~®~~3 F~HR & PEF TNANSPOBIATION CONSUl1R 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 1SSUES The impacts of a project on circulation are usually identified by criteria that address vehicular, transit, bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Typically, a significant transporiation/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 berier) 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 coni]icts 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 FEl--1R ~ PEf~$ TRANSPORTA710N 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 pariern of traffic on-site is somewhat driven by the provision of the perpendicular parking aisles in the main lot. This configuration provides the maximum number of stalls but also requires. two-way travel on at least one segment of the drive aisles surrounding the main lot. Two options have been developed for on-site circulation. One maintains the existing counter-clockwise, one-way vehicle flow along the building frontage only as shown on Exhibit B. A second provides for two-way travel around.the entire lot (see Exhibit C). One-Way Configuration Under the one-way configuration, a 14-foot minimum width drive aisle should be provided from the entrance driveway to the two-way drive aisle serving the exit driveway and rear of the gymnasium. The section of the aisle leading up to the exit driveway would ideally be l 8 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-ofUpick-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-ofUpick-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 bollards would ,provide protection for students and other. pedestrians, are required in the City of Saratoga for public schools with similar designs, and .. are recommended from a safety standpoint. Under this scenario, parking in the parallel stalls located in front of the gymnasium should be prohibited during peak periods. These spaces should be blocked with removable bollards, which are recommended, or cones. Two speed humps or raised crosswalks should be provided to slow vehicle speeds in the main drive aisle. Speed humps are typically 12 to ]4 feet in length and extend the width of the traveled way. Raised crosswalks are speed humps that are typically 22 feet in length and ~~~®.~~5 9 ~v FEHR & PEE TRANSiO.RTATION tONSUIT~ include a flat 10-foot section in the center that is striped diagonally. These help. to direct pedestrians from the lot to the campus area. ~ The current site plan from CSDA shows two humps, one of which maybe relocated to the south to minimize travel speeds in front of the gymnasium. The drive aisle to the rear of the campus should be constructed at a minimum of 22 feet. wide (ideally 24 feet) without parking to adequately accommodate two-way travel. Use of the rear area for student drop-off/pick-up is discussed below as part of on-site vehicle queuing. Two-Way Circulation Two-way circulation could be provided by striping two travel lanes from the entrance driveway to the exit driveway around the entire length of the main parking .lot. The. driveways would still be maintained as one-way in at the entrance and one-way out at the' exit. The lane providing counter-clockwise flow from the entrance should be 12 feet wide, and the opposing lane should be 14 feet wide. This additional width for the opposing lane would be required to because of the sharp angle required to turn down each parking aisle.. The parallel parking area shown on the site plan. would have to be extended in both directions as shown on Exhibit C and would serve as the drop-offJpick-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 areas for student drop-off/pick-up activities. This can be accomplished through: 1) providing a single continuous drop- off/pick-up lane along the front of the school, and 2) providing a separate drop-off/pick-up area at the rear of the site near the pre-kindergarten and kindergarten classrooms. As noted above, use of the entire length of the campus building frontage is recommended if ~I 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 genera] spaces located next to the church sanctuary. The total drop-offlpick cwb length; provided will be approximately 300 feet (without using the handicapped/general spaces), which is approximately l70 feet more than is currently used. Llse .of the parking spaces would increase the drop-ofUpick-up length by approximately 80 additional feet. Adequate d to assist students Burin eak eriods to direct parents to pull staff should be provide g P P vehicles forward in the drop-offlpick-up lane. A second drop-offlpickup area at the rear of the site will increase on-site capacity and reduce demand at the. front of the .school. Parents would be able to drop-off and pick up younger students in close proximity to their classrooms. As shown on Exhibits B and C, the FEHR ~ PEf RS. • TRANSPORTATTON CONSULTANTS rear lot would have to be modified to permit vehicles to turn around after stopping at the curb. Vehicles would be able to .queue on the roadway behind the gymnasium.. Given that the children are very .young, staff would have to assist students entering and exiting vehicles. In some cases, parents will choose to park their vehicle and walk their child to class. Those vehicles should be parked in the main lot at the front of the school and. the six spaces ai the back of the gymnasium should be designated for staff parking only during school hours. The additional on-site loading areas and the use of the roadway behind the gym for queuing will help to reduce the potential for vehicles to queue back to and onto Saratoga Avenue. Saratoga Avenue Operations The additional on-site vehicle storage for queuing and additional total drop-off/pick-up curb length will reduce and will likely eliminate queuing on Saratoga Avenue.. Adequate on-site staffing to increase passenger loading/unloading ,efficiency will help with this process. Accordingly no changes to Saratoga Avenue are recommended as part of the project. Parking The proposed parking supply with the master plan will include a total of 202 spaces. Thee five parallel parking spaces and the eight spaces in front of the sanctuary will be temporarily unavailable. during the peak drop-off/pick-up periods, but only for a short time. This is slightly more than the existing supply of 200 spaces (i.e., 187 full-time spaces and 13 pari-. time spaces located in the current drop-off area). Since no substantial change in student enrollment is expected, no increase in parking supply is required. However, 24 vehicles were observed parking on Saratoga Avenue or in the library lot across the street as noted under existing conditions. Without a more substantial increase in the parking supply, drivers will continue to park on the street and in the library lot. Parking in the library lot is not an ideal condition because some church patrons will likely cross Saratoga Avenue midblock between Fruitvale Avenue Crestbrook Drive (to the southwest). This is not a legal crossing and is not considered a safe activity even with lower traffic volumes on Saratoga Avenue on Sundays. ~: / ~ ~ .. . . ; . ~, , i~. ~ ~ ,: ~ ,,s•' t J/ t ` ~ -• r.; r:~ J _ ~ _ ,.`' .. ~,I, ~ ~'y~~ j`T .. . ~~ ~ • f .~ ' .~;~ ..!• ~.,, , ~ ' ~ ~l ~ nett ~ 3y,,_~'o ,' 362 •.,~ •~ . ~. • d r' . 3 .. .{~' • .. ~~y,. aa; - h~ :i ~: .. .. ~ °1 •. ~. 1 L `' 0 ~~.; fP . c~igt t'.-.) .. . y _._...__t~ . s ~ ~ .. .. .. ~.. ~s ~ : , r ., ., ~~~ Grt~~~ O~~\ `~s. ~` ~ «!% ~ .. r: . !n .~;~~; ~V 'tT, t~r^~~ . a ,z '' ,. . e , 1 ~~ ~.\ -~, .. d ~~~ ~ '.. 1 . .~.. s},,;e~k...... .. ',R. ~x ~~op . , 1 ~ ® •_ - • m ~ - - 1 ~ ® ' ~' .- .. C° .....___...___ ~k H-I B 1 T 6 .. ~ . 1 0 ~+ , s ~~'y .~ ® o~.~ ara _a -~.. ~,~a>,,C ;~. T ~ `'S •, < ..Yy4+ ~ ~`h U S. 1 r f~/ ~~~~ f35 `f.Or7~, ;,, 7 `~ .~ ~~ `.~~ r,.` / .~F,t, . ~' as . o ~cy~!„rt o ''' ' ~' ~ ~ ~ ~' '_ _ .~.C.~ .` ` ~ ~ ~ .~ ~ i ~ .i ~ ~ .. - _r ~ ~ ; - 0 L ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~~ r . G /~ H~ I ~ G ;.. 0 f-- m X W f ~ ~ I ~~ ~~ ® ~. r o 16' .. ~~ ~~ Ty-pica) for Path ~ ~h ~«~+t 8 August 6, 2002 and January 23; 2003, February 25, 2003 Re: 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. This pathway shall be located away from the curb edge. 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). 5. Applicant/developer shall file a Notice of Intent (NOI) with the Regional, Water Quality Control Board to obtain coverage under the Construction Activities Storm Water General Permit. Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be developed in accordance with Section A of the General Permit. Satisfactory evidence of the filing of NOI and a copy of SWPPP shall be submitted to the Public Works Department prior to issuance of a Grading Permit. 6. Applicant/developer shall include in the site design stormwater treatment measures in order to reduce pollutant discharges to storm drain system. These measures might include, but not necessarily be limited to: vegetative swales or strips, porous pavement, inlet filters;: infiltration trenches, underground filtering/retention devices. In addition, applicant shall ensure for the proper maintenance of these treatment measures and submit a copy of maintenance agreement. • • • aQ®~.'~2 i venue St. Andrew's Parish and School. ., for 13x01 Sarato a A , Mltlgatlon Measures for the Mltlgated Negafive Declaration g W MITIGATION: TO BE IMPLEMENTED BY: IMPLEMENTION DATE: MONITORED BY: COMPLETION VERIFIED BY WHOM: DATE: 1) Revised elevations shall be submitted to planning Applicant or Prior to Building Dept. Comm. Dev. indicating the front building elevations do not Applicant's Rep submittal Dept. exceed 30 ft in height as viewed from Saratoga Avenue. 2) Revised cross sections shall be submitted to planning Applicant or Prior to Building Dept. Comm. Dev. which indicate the classroom heights Applicant's Rep submittal Dept. are no greater than 8 feet reducing the overall height of the buidlings with classrooms.- 3) The bell tower shall be reduced in height. The revision shall Applicant or Prior to Building Dept. Comm. Dev. be reviewed and approved by the planning commission. Applicant's Rep permit issuance Dept. 4) Revised elevations shall be submitted to planning Applicant or Prior to Building Dept. Comm. Dev. indicating clerestory windows are to be Applicant's Rep submittal Dept. _ installed on the 2nd floor of the north classroom building along the shared property line with 19541 Tweed Ct. 5) A lighting plan shall be submitted to planning. All Applicant or Prior to Building Dept. Comm. Dev. proposed fixtures shall be cuff-off types which will not cast glare Applicant's Rep permit issuance Dept. on adjoining properties. 6) Outdoor tables and chairs located along the shared property Applicant or Prior to final occupancy Comm. Dev. lines of Tweed Ct. shall be removed. Applicant's Rep inspection Dept. 7) 8 ft wood acoustic sound wall shall be constructed along the Applicant or Prior to commencement Comm. Dev. shared property line of 19541 Tweed Ct. Applicant's Rep demolition and Dept. construction 8) Landscape screening installed per conditions of approval. Applicant or Prior to final inspection Comm. Dev. Applicant's Rep Dept. 9) Enrollment figures are to be submitted to the Planning Applicant or On-going Comm. Dev. Department each fall. Applicant's Rep Dept. 101 The existing HVAC shall be futher insulated to reduce Applicant or Prior to final inspection Comm. Dev. Mitigation Measures for the Mitigated Negative Declaration for 13601 Saratoga Avenue, St. Andrew's Parish and School: 8 '~ Fp disturbance to adjoining, residences. 11) Public right of way improvements per conditions of approval. 12) The applicant shall provide proof they have squired all applicable permits from the Santa Clara Valley Water District. 13) Any proposed increase in enrollment beyond aone-percent increase in the existing 439 students shall be reviewed by the planning commission. Additional studies may be required to evaluate the impacts. The applicant shall submit enrollment figures each fall to the plannining dept. 15) All aborist conditions shall be met. reports dated March 27, 2002 22-Oct-02 22-Oct-01 16) Control measures for construction emissions. i) cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or maintain at least two feet of freeboard. ii) sweep streets daily with water sweepers if visible soil materials is carried onto adjacent public streets. iii) install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways. iv) Install wheel washers for all existing trucks. 17) 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. 18) Grading and drainage permit shall be obtained from the public works department. 19) A storm water runoff and retention plan shall be sumitted to planning for review. • Applicant's Rep Applicant or Applicant's Rep Applicant or Applicant's Rep Dept. Prior to final inspection Public Works Dept. Prior to building permit Comm. Dev. issuance Dept. Applicant or On-going Comm. Dev. Applicant's Rep Dept. Applicant or prior to construction, Comm. Dev. Applicant's Rep throughout construction, Dept. until final occupancy is granted. Applicant or During construction Comm. Dev. Applicant's Rep Dept: Applicant or During on-stie Comm. Dev. Applicant's Rep excavation of Dept. grading Applicant or Prior to Bldg permit Comm. Dev. Applicant's Rep issuance Dept. Applicant or Prior to Bldg permit Comm. Dev. Applicant's Rep issuance Dept. • • ~ ! ~~~ r Mitigation Measures for the Mitigated Negative Declaration for 13601 Saratoga Avenue, St. Andrew's Parish and School. •~ ., ".~ ~- 20) All mitigations of the noise study shall be followed. 21) The applicant shall sign the mitigation monitoring program agreement form. icant or Prior to final inspection icant's Rep icant or Prior to Bldg permit icant's Rep issuance Comm. Dev. Comm. Dev. Dept. ~ e ° n Q ~ ~~~ o~ ~ `~OC~~ 137!7 FRtiITVALE AVENliE SAP.ATOGA, CALIFORNIA 950.70 • (408) 8G8-1200 Incorporal:ed OctoUer 22, 1956 COliNCIL ME~IBLRS: Stan Bogo§ian Kathleen King Norman Kline Nick Streit Ann Waltonsmith MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM AGREEMENT The undersigned are the property owners or agent of record for property located at 13601 Saratoga Avenue, Saratoga, California. The undersigned acknowledge receipt of a copy of the Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration, Initial Study and Mitigation Monitoring Report that has been prepared by the City of Saratoga Community Development Department for the proposed project. The undersigned have read and understand the referenced documents and agree to: (1) incorporate the proposed mitigation measures into the project and (2) comply with the mitigation measure contained in the Mitigation Monitoring Program. Failure to do so may result in the following: a monetary fine, a lien on the property prohibiting transfer of sale, and/or a criminal citation. • Applicant/Applicant Representative Date • ~~~~,~s ~~ Attachment O • ~~~~.~~ I ALMADEN EXPWY )OSE, CA 95118-36L'4 BONE (408J 265-2600 IMIIE (408) 266A271 i.valleywater.or UAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYE File: 00114 Saratoga Creek . February 25, 2003 Ms. Christine Oosterhous Planning Department City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Subject: Saint Andrew's School and Parish Mitigated Negative Declaration 13601 Saratoga Avenue Dear Ms. Oosterhous: The Santa Clara Valley Water District (District) has reviewed the subject proposal received on January 24, 2003. Current Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) maps show that a majority of the project site is within Zone X and would be subject to less.than 1 foot of flooding in the event of a 1 percent flood. Saratoga Creek, located within Zone AE, may be subject to flooding to approximately 340 feet based on Federal Insurance Administration datum. According to District records, the development should be designed so that there is no overbank drainage into the creek. Storm water should be directed into the City storm system. Previous submittals indicate an existing outfall into Saratoga Creek. If the site runoff is to be conveyed to the outfall, hydraulic calculations must be submitted to verify the conduit is sized adequately. To prevent pollutants from construction activity, including sediments, from reaching Saratoga Creek, please follow the Santa Clara Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program's recommended Best Management Practices for construction activities, as contained in "Blueprint for a Clean Bay," and the "California Storm Water Best Management Practice Handbook for Construction." Postconstruction water quality mitigation needs. to be implemented. The design of the project area should incorporate water quality mitigation measures such as those found in the "Start at the Source-Design Guidance Manual for Stormwater Quality Protection," prepared for the Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association. • ~`~~~. ~8 The mission of the Sonta Cloro Valley Woter District is o healthy, safe and enhanced qualify of living in Santa Clara Count' ~y through the comprehensive monooemenf of water resources in o practical, cosieffective and environmentally sensitive monner. Z~ Ms. Christine Oosterhous February 25, 2003 Page 2 District records do not show any registered wells on the project site; however, efforts should be made to locate any existing wells. In accordance with District Ordinance 90-1, the owner should show any existing well(s) on the plans. The well(s) should be properly registered with the District and either maintained or abandoned in accordance with the Districts standards. When detailed plans become available, please submit a full size and a reduced set of plans for our review and comment. In accordance with District Ordinance 83-2, a District permit is required if the property improvements are proposed within 50 feet of Saratoga Creek. The submittal shall include construction, grading and drainage, fencing, topography, landscape, and irrigation plans for engineering review. For clarity, the dimensioned cross sections should indicate the top of the Saratoga Creek bark, property line, and fence. Please reference District File No. 00114 on future correspondence regarding this project. If you have any questions or comments, you can contact meat (408) 265-2607, extension 3174, or at syung(awalleywater.org. Si/ncerely,~p~ , Samuel Yung -- Associate Engineer Community Projects Review Unit cc: S. Tippets, S. Yung, Jennie Micko, R. Bramer, U. Chatwani, File. (2) sy: mf 0225c-pl • ~ ~: ~~.li. ~ . • Attachment P C v ~::.~.~~'l.~ F t',. .~~ -. • AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICES STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) SS. COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA ) I, Chr~ ~~r,-e ~LS~-t ~-~'~ ,being duly sworn, deposes and says: that I am a citizen of the United States, over the age of 18 years; that acting for the City of Saratoga Planning Commission on the a ~ 5+day of ~~ ~ ~ 2003, that I deposited in the United States Post Office within Santa ara County, a NOTICE OF HEARING, a copy of which is attached hereto, with postage thereon prepaid, addressed to the following persons at the addresses shown, to-wit: (See list attached hereto and made part hereof) that said ersons are the owners of said property who are entitled to a Notice of Hearing P pursuant to Section 15-45.060(b) of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Saratoga in that said persons and their addresses are those shown on the most recent equalized roll of the Assessor of the County of Santa Clara as being owners of property within 500 feet of the property to be affected by the application; that on said day there was ,regular communication by United States Mail to the addresses shown above. .~ Signed • ©~®~$1 City of Saratoga Comnunity Development Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 NOTICE OF HEARING The City of Saratoga's Planning Commission announces the following public hearing on Wednesday, the 12`h day of March 2003, at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers located at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070. Details are available at the Saratoga Community Development Department, Monday through Friday 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. ~~ '7 y `, c r ~ 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 Parish and School. 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. 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. In order to be included in the Planning Commission's information packets, written communications should be filed on or before the Tuesday, a week before the meeting. This notice has been sent to all owners of property within 500 feet of the project that is the subject of this notice. The City uses the official roll produced by the County Assessor's office annually, in preparing its notice mailing lists. In some cases, out-of -date information or difficulties with the U.S. Postal Service may result in notices not being delivered to all residents potentially affected by a project. If you believe that your neighbors would be interested in the project described in this notice, we encourage you to provide them with a copy of this notice. This will ensure that everyone in your Community has as much information as possible concerning this project. Christine Oosterhous, AICP Associate Planner 408-868-1286 • Q~®~82